JOURNAL - OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL THURSDAY - 18 JUNE 1970

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 72
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 7, 2001
• Sequence Number: 17
• Publication Date: June 18, 1970
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
Q _T
E
JOURNAL
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Thursday - 18 June 1970
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
1. (Internal Use Only - JGO) Met with Mrs. Oneta Stockstill,
Executive Secretary, House Armed Services Committee, and gave
her a list of the Agency personnel who will be appearing before the
CIA Subcommittee this morning. Administrative arrangements for
the meeting were finalized with her.
2. (Internal Use Only - JMC) Received a call from Mrs. Hurme,
in the office of Representative Joe Skubitz (R. , Kansas), who requested
an employment interview for After checking
with ice o FerMsonne W ,advised Mrs. Hurme
that an appointment had been scheduled for 2:30 this afternoon.
3. (Secret - JMM) Accompanied the Director and Messrs. Bruce
Clarke, who appeared before the CIA
Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee. The Director
briefed on the Soviet military developments, the Sino/Soviet border,
the Middle East military situation, and Cambodia. As a follow up the
Subcommittee wants within about a week a paper on Soviet naval develop-
ments and the Soviet Swingwing bomber which the Chairman can make
public. (See Memo for Record for details. )
4. (Confidential - LLM) Met with Representative James Byrne
(D., Pa.) in connection with the employment interest of
Representative Byrne deferred completely to our judgment when I
explained that we would inform the field and if there was interest
would be contacted, otherwise not. The Representative's persona comments
and other information on
5. (Confidential - LLM) Obtained from Robert Horner, Chief
Investigator, House Internal Security Committee, a subpeona and other
related documents for to show his present employer in
connection with his scheduled appearance before the Committee in open
session on 24 June.
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
25X1A
25X1A
25X1A
Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 4
Wednesday - 17 June 1970
14. (Confidential - JMM) Briefed Representative Donald Lukens
on our S. 782 problems. Lukens was cordial and responsive and
assured me he would push for a complete exemption in the Subcommittee.
15. (Confidential - JMM) Met with Frank Slatinshek, Assistant
Chief Counsel, House Armed Services Committee, in connection with
the Director's appearance tomorrow before the CIA Subcommittee of
House Armed Services. Slatinshek said the Subcommittee had a number
of items to take up tomorrow and would probably like our briefing to run
not more than about an hour. He indicated that several Subcommittee
members were seriously disturbed by the trend of events in Cambodia
and would probably ask a number of questions about American involvement
there.
16. (Unclassified - JMM) Representative Lee Hamilton's secretary
called to say the Congressman would have to cancel our 3:30 appointment
this afternoon. She said he would not be able to see me prior to his
departure for Vietnam.
cc:
ER
O/DDCI
Mr. Houston
Mr. Goodwin
DDI DDS DDS&T
EA/DDP OPPB
Item 9-SB
Item 10 -
JOHN M. MAURY
Legislative Counsel
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
E
JOURNAL
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL-
Tuesday - 16 June 1970
1. (Confidential - JMM) Talked to William Timmons, Assistant
to the President for Congressional Relations, regarding S. 782 (Ervin
bill) and explained our concern. I said I would send over background
material providing additional details. Timmons said he would be glad
to have his staff review the matter and would let us know the results.
2. (Confidential - 3MM) Discussed the S. 782 problem with
Roger Jones, Assistant Director, Bureau of the Budget, who said
he would pass the word to the Legislative Reference staff of the Bureau
not to raise any objections to our proposed letter to Chairman Henderson
without clearing it with Jones. Jones was not aware that the bill had
passed the Senate.
3. (Confidential - JMM) Discussed S. 782 with Ken BeLieu,
Deputy Assistant to the President for Senate Relations, who was not
aware that the bill had passed the Senate but recalled our earlier
conversations on the matter and said he would discuss it with William
Timmons.
4. (Confidential - JMM) Called Wilfred Rommel, Legislative
Reference, Bureau of the Budget, re S. 782 and explained that we were
sending over today a proposed letter to Chairman Henderson with supporting
material which we hoped would receive prompt attention. Rommel, who
was not aware that the bill had passed the Senate, said he would follow up
as soon as the material arrived.
5. (Confidential. - JMM) Made appointments with Representatives
H. R. Gross, Lee Hamilton, Edward Derwinski and Richard White, of
the House Manpower and Civil Service Subcommittee of House Post Office
and Civil Service Committee, to explain our problems with S. 782.
6. (Secret - GLC) John Clarke, D/OPPB, and I had a follow-up
meeting with Ed Braswell, Senate Armed Services Committee staff, to
provide him with further detail on proposed activities in Cambodia,and
Laos (see Mr. Clarke's Memorandum for the Record for details).
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
115490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE June 15, 1970
citizen. The law enforces certain rules
that protect the basic rights of individuals
to life, liberty, and property. It sees that
the will of the majority is carried out
when that will does not violate the rights
of any citizen. For this reason, liberty
under law does not mean that everyone
is free to do as he or she pleases, it
means that freedom is qualified by re-
sponsibility, and that rights have recip-
rocal obligations.
And justice for all-Our system of gov-
ernment rests on two mighty pillars, the
Declaration of Independence and the
Constitution of the United States of
America. This Nation was conceived with
the bold words of the Declaration of -In-
dependence, the spirit of which is found
that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed "by their Creator tk+ith certain in-
alienable rights; that among these are life,
Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
The union from which our country was
formed was created by the Constitution
of the United States, whose opening
words are among the most important in
the entire document:. `
We the people of the United States, in
order to form a more perfect union, estab-
lish justice, insure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do
ordain and establish the Constitution of the
United States of America.
These- two passages are brief, and
their words are simple. Yet they are of
deep and lasting significance. In them is
to be found the fundamental expression
of the American heritage, a deep and
abiding faith in individualism, in free-
dom, and in equality.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that whenever
Americans repeat this sacred pledge,
they will think about the meaning of the
words they are saying. If they do, I am
Sure they will be, as I am, eternally
thankful for being an American.
Since the dawn of our independence,
our national flag has been a, vivid wit-
ness to great moments in America's his-
tory. It has also grown up, in a sense, as
has the Nation. initially, the flag with
the original number ' of stars and stripes
symbolized the formation of the Union,
and its expansion from 13 uncertain,
divided colonies; to' a nation of global
power and significance. With the addi-
tion of each new star, the flag has re-
igected the growing strength and dyna-
mism of our great Nation.
Today, while the seeds of discord and
dissent are being so visibly sowed across
the land, I believe Americans should take
time out from their daily activities, and
reflect on'the greatness of our country.
Today, while revering our national flag,
let us also revere the Union for which it
stands, and dedicate ourselves anew to
i rinciples on which our Nation rests.
Special Committee on Flag Day who ar-
ranged, conducted, and carried on the
impassioned and most beautiful and in-
spiring Flag Day services presented in
the House today.
The Chair also desires to express the
sincere thanks of the Members of the
House to those branches of the military
services who today participated in the
Flag Day ceremonies.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that all Members may have
5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks in the RECORD on
Flag Day in general and the ceremonies
in this House in particular.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mis-
souri?
There was no objection._ _
APPOINTMENT AS 'MEMBERS OF
SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY
FIRSTHAND THE RECENT DEVEL-
OPMENTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the pro-
visions of House Resolution 796, 91st
Congress, the Chair appoints as mem-
bers of the Select Committee To Study
Firsthand the Recent Developments in
Southeast Asia the following Members
of the House.
.Mr. MONTGOMERY, from Mississippi,
chairman, Mr. SMITH from Iowa; Mr.
HAWKINS, from California; Mr. ANDER-
SON from Tennessee; Mr. HAMILTON
from Indiana; Mr. MOLLOHAN, from West
Virginia; Mr. ADAIR, from Indiana; Mr.
Roslsoie, from New York; Mr. KEITH,
from Massachusetts; Mr. CLANCY, from
Ohio; Mr. WATSON, from South Carolina;
and Mr. HANSEN from Idaho.
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 16516,
NASA AUTHORIZATION, 1971
Mr. MILLER of California submitted
the following conference report and
statement on the bill (H.R. 16516) to au-
thorize appropriations to the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
for research and development, construc-
tion of facilities and research and pro-
gram management, and for other
purposes:
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. KEPT. NO. 91-1189)
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
16516) to authorize appropriations to the
National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion for research and development, construc-
tion of facilities and research and program
management, and for other purposes, having
met, after full and free conference, have
agreed to recommend and do recommend to
their respective Houses as follows:
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate and
agree to the same with an amendment as
follows :
In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted by the Senate amendment insert the
following:
That there is hereby authorized to be ap-
propriated to the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration:
(a) For "Research and development," for
the following programs:
FLAG DAY
The SPEAKER. The Chair, speaking
-sot telly kor himself but all Members of
-the souse, desires to express our sincere
thanks ,j o the distinguished gentleman
froI.4 'Texas (Mr. BROOKS), the chalr-
man, and to the'other members of the
(1) Apollo, $3$4,500,600;
(2) Space flight operations, $565,200,000;
(3) Advance missions, $1,500,000;
(4) Physics and astronomy, $116,000,000;
(5) Lunar and planetary exploration, $144,-
900,000;
(6) Bioscience, $12,900,000;
(7) Space applications, $167,000,000;
(8) Launch vehicle procurement, $124,-
900,000;
(9) Space vehicle systems, $30,000,000;
(10) Electronics systems, $23,900,000;
(11) Human factor systems, $18,300,000;
(12) Basic research, $18,000,000;
(13) Space power and electric propulsion
systems, $30,900,000;
(14)
Nuclear rockets, $38,000,000;
(15)
Chemical propulsion, $20,300,000;
(16)
Aeronautical vehicles, $87,100,000;
(17)
Tracking and data acquisition, $295,-
200,000;
(18) Technology utilization, $4,500,000;
(b) For "Construction of facilities," in-
cluding land acquisitions, as follows:
(1) Ames Research Center, Moffett Field,
California, $1,525,000;
(2) Goddard Space Flight Center, Green-
belt, Maryland, $1,928,000;
(3) Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena,
California, $1,950,000;
(4) John F. Kennedy Space Center, NASA,
Kennedy Space Center, Florida, $575,000;
(5) Manned Spacecraft Center, Houston,
Texas, .$900,000;
(6) Marshall Space Flight Center, Hunts-
ville, Alabama, $525,000;
(7) Nuclear Rocket Development Station,
Nevada. $3,500,000;
(8) Various locations, $18,575,000;
(9) Facility planning and design not oth-
erwise provided for, $5,000,000.
(c) For "Research and program manage-
ment," $683,300,000, of which not to exceed
$506,108,000 shall be available for personnel
and related costs.
(d) Appropriations for "Research and de-
velopment" may be used (1) for any items of
a capital nature (other than acquisition of
land) which may be required for the per-
formance of research and development con-
tracts,and (2) for grants to nonprofit insti-
tutions of higher education, or to nonprofit
organizations whose primary purpose is the
conduct of scientific research, for purchase
or construction of additional research facil-
ities; and title to such facilities shall be
vested in the United States unless the Ad-
ministrator determines that the national
program of aeronautical and space activities
will best be served by vesting title in any
such grantee institution or organization.
Each such grant shall be made under such
conditions as the Administrator shall deter-
mine to be required to insure that the United
States will receive therefrom benefit adequate
to justify the making of that grant. None of
the funds appropriated for "Research and
development" pursuant to this Act may be
used for construction of any major facility,
the estimated cost of which, including col-
lateral equipment, exceeds $250,000, unless
the Administrator or his designee has noti-
fied the Speaker of the House of Represen-
tatives and the President of the Senate and
the Committee on Science and Astronautics
of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Aeronautical and Space Sci-
ences of the Senate of the nature, location,
and estimated cost of such facility.
(e) When so specified in an appropriation
Act, (1) any amount appropriated for "Re-
search and development" or for "Construc-
tion of facilities" may remain available
without fiscal year limitation, and (2)
maintenance and operation of facilities, and
support services contracts may be entered
into under the "Research and program man-
agement" appropriation for periods not in
excess of twelve months beginning at any
time during the fiscal year.
(f) Appropriations made pursuant to sub-
section 1(c) may be used, but not to exceed
Approved For Release. 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R0002002400,17-3_
 ' Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 15, 1970' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 5489
of ranting pacifists and goon hippies de-
mending peace at a price we dare pay
only at our peril. The price is a country
without a past, without any pride. The
price is an America which is so longer
the land of the free and the home of the
brave. That is the price.
Match it with the cost, Are we to pull
down the glory of Old Glory out of
cowardice and give in to our enemies,
abroad and at home.
No. Let Old Glory-that vibrant na-
tional symbol-let it forever fly, free and
brave, as our people have always been,
and, with God's mercy and guidance, will
always be.
Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Speaker, as I rise
to commemorate Flag Day and with my
colleagues to honor the emblem of our
Nation, I do so mindful of the times in
Which we live. The recent vision of the
American flag being desecrated by con-
temptuous vandals has, I am sure, dis-
tressed and disgusted a . majority of
Americans.
I thank God that precedent to. these
episodes is a history and tradition of
honor and glory which belies such acts
and sustains the faith of those living and
dead who defended the principles for
which our flag stands.
On this occasion, I would like to offer
thanks to those Americans serving in
Vietnam and around the world, as well
as those at home who have endured the
hostilities, the criticism, and the doubt
of these times. By their steadfastness and
devotion they honor their country and
their flag.
The times ahead will be troublesome
as we search for the road to peace and
stability at home and abroad. We must
do so mindful, not only of our obligations,
but also of our destiny as a nation and
as a people.
Daniel Webster speaking in 1824 called
our Nation the greatest republic of the
earth, and he said, "we cannot obscure
ourselves, if we would;, a part we must
take, honorable or dishonorable, in all
that is done in the civilized world," and
Jolla F. Kennedy in his inaugural -ad-
dress said;
Let every nation know that we shall pay
any price, bear any burden, meet any hard-
ship ... to assure the survival and the suc-
cess of liberty.
The flag we honor today is the, symbol
to all of mankind of a nation which has
dedicated itself to seeking for its people
liberty, equality, and justice. We may
not have obtained them to the degree
that all would hope, but so long as we
try, we may still hope to succeed.
It would be wrong of me to hold forth
an image of America free from, folly,
grief, and trouble. Mixed with the bless-
ings and the abundance of our land, with
the progress and prosperity of our
people, are also the tragedy and despair
of war, poverty, and the well-being of
all of, ,our. citizens, young and old.
Stephen Vincent, Benet seep- ed to strike.
to the heart of ovr. destiny as, a nation
*iththese wgro frgm his poem "Night-
;hare, at Noon ' ;,
"Oh yes, I know the faults on. the other side,
The lyncher's rope,,the bought justice, the
waatgd ,
The scale on the leaf, the bores in the
aax4.
The finks with their clubs, the grap sky
of relief,
All the long shame of our hearts and the
long disunion"
He concluded :
"I am merely remarking-as a country, we
try.
As a country, I think we try."
We no longer live in a time when it is
fashionable among some to demonstrate
our patriotism. I suspect, nevertheless,
that millions of Americans still feel a
thrill go through them with the playing
of the national anthem and the presen-
tation of the flag. I do. It is perhaps a
tribute to the confidence that each of
us has in our country and in ourselves
that we need no outward expression of
the emotion we feel. Perhaps. But I, for
one, often long for a more innocent time
when a man like Henry Holcomb Ben-
nett could without embarrassment write:
"Hats off !
Along the street there comes
A blare of bugles, a ruffle of drums;
And loyal hearts are beating high.
Hats off!
The flag is passing by!"
Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.
Speaker, in the course of our lifetime,
we detect many signs and symbols. The
Star of David represents the history and
faith of the Jewish people. To a Chris-
tian, the Holy Cross is a symbol of his
faith. We realize the ideal of justice in
the balanced scales. We light a candle to
symbolize hope, and shake a hand to
greet a friend. We experience, in the
course of a lifetime, literally thousands
of outward, visible signs which signify
something invisible. Most signs have a
cultural significance that excite a heart-
felt response and objectify an inner
feeling.
Patriotism is such a feeling. Since it
is a personal emotion we are somewhat
embarrassed to discuss it as we are other
private thoughts. We, therefore, have
the symbol of the flag through which we
express our degree of love for country.
Soldiers salute "Old Glory"; citizens
proudly display it; the Nation drapes its
star-spangled badge over the remains of
those who died for it. There are rules on
how to display it, and respectful chords
that accompany its hoisting and lower-
ing. How we revere the Stars and Stripes
reflects our attitude to our country.
To most Americans, no other man-
made object gives the patriotic thrill and
excitement as the flag of their country.
Today, we are witnessing the brilliant
pagentry of the posting of the colors and
hear speeches honoring our Nation's flag.
While we are mindful today of some who
malign and overtly disrespect the great
symbol of our Nation, we recall that the
same flag is the symbol of Flanders Field,
Bataan, Iwo Jima, and Normandy Beach.
Under the Stars and Stripes, a nation
has been born, suffered its adolescence,
and matured to become the "last best
hope" of humanity. While we continue
to seek an improvement of conditions
in many needy areas of public concern,
the flag reminds us of the successes of
the past and gives us the hope that our
problems can and will be overcome.
What makes us love our flag, our coun-
try? Surely, other men of other nations
love" and admire their own flag as much.
What is it about America and American-
ism that elicits patriotism?
It is the idea of it. The encompassing
idea of America is unique and superior
to any other idea of nationality.
Thomas Jefferson and our founding
fathers expressed it better than I:
We hold these truths to be self-evidence
that all men are created equal, that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain in-
alienable Rights, that among these are Life,
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Through the symbol of the flag, we
honor today the idea of America. As we
view "Old Glory," we are mindful of its
meaning for the past, and are hopeful for
the furtherance of this idea of America
for the future.
Mr. PRICE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, yes-,
terday, June 14, was Flag Day. It marked
the day in the year 1777 that the Stars
and Stripes was adopted as our national
banner. Today, special patriotic observ-
ances will be held throughout the coun-
try. Individuals of different races, creeds,
colors, and ages will join in paying tri-
bute to the United States as it is sym-
bolized by our national flag.
The love and regard that the Ameri-
can people have for our Nation is sym-
bolized by the pledge of allegiance to the
flag. All Americans should pause while
saying this sacred pledge today, and con-
sider what each of the phrases means.
In my mind, the pledge of allegiance
means many things:
I pledge allegiance-I promise loyalty
to my country; because, since we live in
a nation whose protection and privileges
we enjoy, it is basic that we recognize the
benefits we receive by being true to our
Government and its ideals, and respect-
ing and obeying its laws.
To the flag-our flag is our national
symbol. It bears our national colors. It
represents the proud spirit of America
whether it is being flown over the U.S.
Capitol, the sands of Iwo Jima, the
paddies of Vietnam, or the roofs of our
Nation's schools.
Of the United States of America-the
"American's Creed" sums up the spirit of
this country by stating:
I believe in the United States of America
as a government of the people, by the people,
for the people; whose just powers are derived
from the consent of the governed.
And to the Republic for which it
stands-We are a democracy within a
republican form of government. Each
American's voice can be heard through
the ballot box. Each American can par-
ticipate in the process of self-govern-
ment.
One nation-We are a union estab-
lished on the principles of freedom,
equality, and justice. To preserve these
ideals, American patriots have, for gen-
erations, sacrificed their lives and for-
tunes.
Under God indivisible-Having respect
for a supreme being is at the heart of
what America means. As Americans, we
are free to worship God in any way we
choose. This recognition of our universal
dependence upon God, combined with
our freedom of worship, is the wellspring
of our Nation's strength.
With liberty-Liberty exists for each
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 .Woo
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA
NEW YORK TIMES DATE
things" dealt wrth the `our
La ird aid to hten em heavy air strikes on supply
_~~
-1 dtll" g= air defenses, to- il tl1 / .J I P ."mini ie s od(,tats gamer with certain day-to-day
d.,4sions an attacks into Cam,
we
WASHINGTON, June 13 = cials, two procedures
After I66months of Giving mili- changed.
tart' leaders their head' of ` the First, the Joint Chiefs were
Pentagon, Secretary of Defense instructed that no military pro-
Melvin R. Laird has reportedly posals on matters such as the
decided to rein them in. ` incursion into Cambodia or the
The decision, according to a . ombings of North Vietnam
ranking Defense Department of- would be forwarded either to
ciao, came ' during the height of Mr.` Laird or to other Govern-
th~ decision-making on opera- ment departments without first
tions Into Cambodia and just getting an opinion from the
after heavy Ainerican air Pentagon's International Secu-
strikes in North Vietnam the rity Affairs office.
first week in May. s of ce provides foreign
Sources familiar wtt'h the po icy y dance to the Secre-
situation were reluctant' foy ry of Defeo- and his staff!
pis the formalize a-
0 e na]
r Lour cfi was tar e,
l direct contacts between
lili i to 13ouse officials aril mem-
h secretary Lard eeling at
tin fin?afaiv inTh iTii d'
Procedures Changed
-hne had to eca-y =l," I di this explanation of recent
ership or lose control, Saida
_ events:
Henry Kissinger and with give greater initiative to the
dent Nixons raga nauunai
as questions. "He knew they ;
adviser and is s regarded as , would take it as far as he
(principal architect of the Ad would let them, that they
The , - White House staff member
that Mr. . Laird held no no grudge: sometimes go outside channel
a good personal and working ments and agencies to ge
relationship with the Joint formation as quickly as
military and 'White HOlSe$ O' ' _e crunch came in Ca l=
ass sometimme was done.
to sa :', emember, Yam Secre-,
tary of Defense and I respond
Approved Ho M. acv a r i I1O
me on these kin s o t ings.
Department on matters of
common interest.
Second, the membership of
the -1ev W to _ S e-'
otl ytdnrozri the Pentagon
according to several
rce5:
en the air strikes, military
and diplomatic sources said
that the raids had been ap-
proved at the White House,
with Mr. Laird's knowledge.
But they said that some aspects
-both of the specific targets
and of the way the raids were
staged-had not been known
by Mr. Laird in advance, Al-.
though they were clearly with-
in The authority of ja0tar
commanders.
Some officials suggethe
;air raids were staged on
House initiative to caution
North Vietnam against doing
anything rash in respo#0eto
the Cambodian incursion 1
to convince Hanoi th.t t e
Administration was willing to
"get rough" if North Vietnam
should try to take advantage of
sizable American withdrawals
,from Vietnam by staging a
massive offensive.
To support this view, these
sources insist there was no
North Vietnamese antiaircraft
artillery or missile fire at
American reconnaissance planes
during the entire month of
April. The raids were on May
2 and 3.
Others insist there hos-
tdle fire during that'-peilod and
that the military asked for the
raids n rimy to suppress the
ek defenses but also to destroy
large stockpiles of gasoline,
weapons and ammunition beings
stacked at four passes for ship-I
ment to the war zone.
As for the Cambodian opera
s sources say - at oncd a
tion
devistQn was made to attapk
the first two sanctuaries, subsg-
quent. decisions on raids into
Diher areas were made by tie
Washbigton Special Action
U A exis Johnson, Under
try, of State for PoIitic~tl
fp6sIS. y-Adm Thomas , H.1
Doter, c'ha !man=design te.
Th addition to GeneraTWheel
er and Admirat '1C. oorer, the
Joint Chiefs consist 6f-Gen.
William C. Westmoreland, Aron
conne7l. Air
300200240017-3 ... ,
pluses say the whole
opera-s sot
secre try--avoid
leak to the press--that all-the
point l ielrs, "Mi lit fhe usua
erral to civilian specialists
lira the State Department, the
Pentagon and the Central In-,
t>elligence Agency,
One official said: "Without
independent staff work, the.
members of WASAG didn't;
14now the implications of cer-
tain proposed actions in Cam-
bodia. So the group became,
for a brief confused period, a
kind of rubber-stamp group."
Special Group Expanded
As a result of resentment on
the part of officials at both the
Defense and State Departments,
sources say, the .SneAgA Acct on
oMa a or-t sr 'F ian'
and-.Pacific Affairs; Dennis ~'i.
pptl, a Deputy Assistant Sec-
re of Defense specializing
in. ochina, and Lieut. den.
John , W. Vogt, director of
operations for the Joint Ciefs
of Staff.
.,Defense Department officials
say that in light of this experi-
ence, Mr. Laird may be recep-
tive to a proposal to reorganize
the Joint Chiefs, expected to
be recommended soon by a
special blue-ribbon panel that
has been looking into ways to
1,I
ens establishment and to'i
make its many arms more re-
sponsive to the wishes of they
Secretary of Defense.
By law, the five Joint Chiefs
are the military advisers both
to the Secretary of Defense and
the President. But by long prac-
tice, they normally have made
recommendations through the
Secretary of Defense.
The Joint Chiefs are restrict-
ed by law to a staff of 400 mili-
tary men. But in the belief that
this was inadequate to fulfill
their task of making recom-
mendations on military strat-
egy, tactics, levels of forces and
weapons and of drawing up
contingency plans for potential ;
:crises all over the world, the
jE ?-rR ed
i > ou; J t11zoN paluulpaoo0
e.rs
gsluedS Sano s ouaxaJllp'
;S UTAIOSa.z ul SSa3onS ou palzod
g1 aa2 upsdS g11M s luli*aso 1,
uilaTO
48 1 aalslul>ni saogg.2lau
ua01a1y 10H .1aq tj11M suol
-alaz poo02 Alieiaua2 s,f.z;unoa
- rinamM.111S MT T[mdQ 111011
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA- FjT 7 1 000200240017-3,AOE
NEW YORK TIMES DATE tt
It Rejects 1Byrds PropoSAl
to Modify effort to Curb
I ew MiTi ary `orays,
.+sriator Church explained
'headline Propos that the President could under-
Such restrictions are embod- take such operations as "hot
ied in the pending amend- pursuit" of Communist troops,,
rescue operations for prisoners
m"ree'K}+ Senators John or downed pilots, or "temporary
d Fank i that may be neces-
Sherman Cooper anrncursions Church to a bill on foreign sary to
immediat danger." But he
sales of weapons. The amend- contended, the President could
ment would prohibit the not send American forces into
President, in the absence of Cambodia for "a sustained pe-
or fires?iot al' approval, from riod of time" without obtaining
1 of Congress
a
l
h
e appro V
y t
spending any funds after Ju
1-the deadline set by Mr. Nix- Shift in Burden of Proof
on for withdrawal-for retain- The Senator conceded that
ited States forces in as 'a practical matter there was
U
n
ing
Cambodia, for providing mill- no way Congress could prevent
advisers or combat air the President from ordering
Cambodia in
k int
b
ac
o
support to the troops
sup Cambodian another operation against Com-
A CO~P~I~C~IU>#Cl G~-1i~ , 1forces and from financing the munist sanctuaries. But with
of forces from third coup- the amendment, he argued, the
a
p
yies tr going to the aid of the burden of
ld be on the
ssary wou
was ne Cambodia'n Governmetlt.
Amendment's Backers Add The effect of the While the Mansfield., provision
Clause penying Aim Is to : was to reinforce expectations was added as a statement of
Senate truing to re- , stitutional principle. the
_.__ __
the
assert Congress's war-making Byrd amendment, in the opinion
powers under the Constitution, of the Cooper-Church forces,
e
esca
p
would eventually approve the was advanced as an
The Byrd proposal
l
NEY
,
ause.
gY a W. pIIV
bipartisan Cooper-Church draft. c
sv &i 16+ fiewlork Times Mr. Cooper Is a Kentucky Re-
t the provision
June
d th
a
a zebuf to pr
Nixon, ublican and Mr. Church an specifie
trebuff? to `President ixon, Democrat. 1 against retaining forces in
thSenate refused today to Idaho
' Throughout the four-week Cambodia "shall not preclude
nodif,~Y pro06sed legislative re- debate, the discussion has fo- the President from taking such
stictloas!1`'future American cused on whether the amend- action as may be necessary to
rpilitary* t3peiations in Cam- merit would infringe upon the protect the lives of United
tdia. president's constitutional pow- States forces in South Vietnam,
,%y a irate 'of 82 to 47, the ers as Commander in Chief. or to facilitate the withdrawal
.4r~ate t`eJected a proposal to In an attempt to clarify the of United States forces from
declare that the President, issue-as well as to obtain South Vietnam."
wider his authority as Com- support in a close vote-the Mr. Byrd contended that his
madder in Chief, could retain Cooper-Church forces added a amendment was intended only
troops in Cambodia if he provision today specifying that 'to clarify the authority of the
thought such action necessary nothing in the amendment (president as Commander in
impugn , Chief. Mr. Chruch objected that
safety of Ameri-
d to
th
d
t
,
e
eeme
ll be
t4 protec
"
sha can forces in Vietnam. The the effect was to grant a
the constitutional powers of waiver that would eliminate the
,proposal had been offered by the President as Commander substance of the limitations in
I&enator Robert C. Byrd, Demo- in Chief." the Cooper-Church amend-
f West Virginia, and en- ovision` offered by ment.
t o
Vi
Lary, Konaiu L. Llegier, con-'
tended that while Mr. Nixon
had expressed his point of
view, "we 1iihvie not- enittors d
any amendments.
Senator Scott, according to
Senate sources, had insisted
that to wm the s p letter ort was for thea
qffect B necessary
wwa
-fdthh time to-
sowo d g' of a test
of confidence for the President
and his Cambodian policies.
In the vote, 39 Democrats and
13 Republicans opposed the
Byrd amendment and 29 Re-
publicans and 18 Democrats
supported it.
Until last night Senate Re-
publican and Administration of-
ficials believed that it would
prevail by one or two votes,
but this morning two Senators
whom they had been counting
upon-Henry M. Jackson, Dem-
ocrat of Washington, and B.
Everett Jordan, Democrat of
North Carolina-decided to vote
in the negative.
The intensive student lobby-
ing in recent weeks apparently
had some effect, particularly
on Senator Jordan, who had
told a group of North Carolina
college students that he be-
.ieved legislative steps shoule
be made to get the Unitec
States out of Vietnam.
He then ran into editoria
criticism from North Caroline
papers when he joined his col.
league, Senator Sam J. Ervin
Jr., in endorsing the Cambodian
operation.
In-s statement today explain-
ii- is vote, Mr. Jordan re-
to ills meeting with the
students and said that he had
depIded, the, war ,iii Southeastl
Asia "ogght to be broadened
only with the consent of Con-
gress."
cra
w _ __.
e_-r. __ ,
horsed by Mr. Nixon. Senator Mike lOIansfield, the The real issue is to pre-1 I
The vote provided* the clear- serve the dignity and integrity
majority leader, was adopted of the constitutional role of
eat test of the sentiment.iri the Congress," Mr. Church de
Senate for imposing legislative by a vote of 91 to 0. Glared. "We stand up now or
restrictions on` the President's he unanimous vote made it roll over and play dead."
authority to involve the nation apparent that there were dif- President Nixon, in a letter
in military action in Cambodia fendg interpretations about the last week to the Senate Re-
without the consent of Con legal effectT , publican leader, Hugh Scott,
~^ prc of the Ad-1 . qa;d the Byrd Amendment, by
the provision on the premise duties of the Commander in
fr
t like the Byrd amend- Chief, "goes a long way toward
t
o
restr c i
Church proposal The forces White House in Denial
backing the ameiidment
provision only,. In the wake of the vote the
made mined a that licit what they have' W'fi t House seemed to be at-
t the de-' tempting to back away from
i
a
meKit, would permit the Presi-'. eliminating my more serious
dent to bypass the legislative objections to the Cooper-
ns in the Cooper Church amendment."
s t
u
Aa througho
up 4
Approved e~s+ea1q: C1mvn~.~~;w~
not and could not a to r p o
tract from the President's the Presidential press secre-
powers as Commander in Chief.
240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
25X1A
25X1A
Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 2
Thursday - 11 June 1970
5. (Secret - JMM) Oneta Stockstill, on the staff of the House
Armed Services Committee, called to say that Chairman Rivers wanted
to schedule a meeting of the CIA Subcommittee for 0930 on Thursday,
18 June 1970, in room 2212 Rayburn House Office Building.
I called Russ Blandford, Chief Counsel, House Armed Services
Committee, for guidance on what the Subcommittee wished to be briefed
on. B.landford said a general roundup was desired to update information
provided at our previous briefing (28 April 1970). He said there would
be particular interest in Cambodia and the Middle East, and the session
would probably run about an hour or an hour and a half.
After checking with the Director I called Miss Stockstill to confirm
that the Director would appear as requested, and, in the absence of
6. (Confidential - GLC) Dorothy Fosdick, Staff Director, Senate
Subcommittee on National Security and International Operations, called to
check on their use of a piece of information contained in
briefing on the Middle East the other day. I arranged fo
to talk with Miss Fosdick directly and he gave her some suggestions as to
how this might be handled.
7. (Confidential - GLC) called to alert us
to the fact that the Department of Commerce had received a call from
the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee expressing concern over the
publication by the Joint Publications Research Service (under Commerce's
auspices) of a "mini-manual on the urban guerrillas'' which was originally
published in Havana, is not aware of the name of the person
on the Subcommittee staff making the inquiry, but is under the impression
that the Department of Commerce has the inquiry under control.
8. (Unclassified - GLC) Met with Bill Woodruff, Counsel, Senate
Appropriations Committee, and firmed up with him arrangements for his
visit to the Agency tomorrow to address the Mid-Career Course and
lunch with 'General Cushman.
25X1A
25X1A
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 11, 1970 Approved Fctrr(?R~gMgfgfp't/OIE fC22711OM7R000200240017-3 H5469
gressional Quarterly inferentially libels,
including myself, reported no holdings
simply because they have only nominal
net worth or have no holdings in any
company doing business with, or regu-
lated by, the Federal Government.
Others made negative reports after
electing to divest . themselves of their
holdings in a very depressed market rath-
er than endure continuing unfounded
abuse. Still others rearranged their port-
folios for the same reasons Any of these
reasons are totally legitimate toward the
objective of financial disclosure and
therefore do not exist as a result of loop-
holes.
It is difficult for me to believe that
such elementary analysis of either the
rationale of disclosure or the reasons for
160 negative reports could have eluded
Congressional Quarterly's editorial judg-
ment. If that Is reasonable, it is ever more
difficult to justify Congressional Quar-
terly's conclusions, with no declaration
to Congressional, Quarterly's assump-
tions, as a legitimate exercise of freedom
of the press.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. GONZALEZ) is rec-
ognized for 10 minutes.
[Mr. GONZALEZ addressed the House,
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.].
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. FARBSTEIN) is
recognized for 20 minutes.
[Mr. FARBSTEIN addressed the
House. His remarks will appear hereafter
in the Extensions of Remarks.]
REPORT ON ACTIONS OF THE
CONGRESS
The SPEAKER pro ternpore. Under
previous order of the House, the gentle-
man from New York (Mr. ADDABBO) is
recognized for 15 minutes,
Mr. ADDAI#BO. Mr. Speaker, every
year at my own cost and expense I have
sent. out to my district a report of the
actions of the Congress. Earlier this year
I sent out over 180,000 reports, together
with a questionnaire, which is presently
being tabulated. As we reach the half-
way mark of this second session I be-
lieve it would be well to, reflect on some
of the actions we have taken. Some of
the highlights of a national and inter-
national nature and the actions I have
taken thereto, I believe, can be categor-
ized as follows:
INDOCHINA
I have sponsored several resolutions
calling upon the President to accelerate
the withdrawal of our troops from Viet-
nam aria expressing r4 y position against
the sending of troops to Cambodia, Thai-
land, Laos or' North Vietnam without a
declaration of war. or a Joint Resolution
of Congress. Our Nation has already met
its original commitment to South Viet-
nam and now we must bring our forces
home safely aria speedily. Only in this
way can we concentrate on reuniting a
Nation badly divided at home.
MIDDLE EAST
I have made several statements on the
crisis in the Middle East in order to urge
a clarification of U.S. policy in that
troubled area. I have repeatedly called
upon the President to act favorably on
Israel's request to purchase Phantom
and Skyhawk jet aircraft. In addition to
my support for military assistance to Is-
rael, I have called for a more forceful
U.S, policy within the United Nations
against Arab terrorism, against the pres-
ence of Soviet personnel in Egypt and
in support of the sovereignty of the State
of Israel.
ENVIRONMENT
The threatened destruction of Jamaica
Bay continued and efforts to extend run-
ways at Kennedy Airport into the bay
have increased. For these reasons I have
taken a strong stand against any further
construction at Kennedy Airport. I re-
cently testified before a special commit-
tee of the National Academy of Sciences
urging that the bay area and its resi-
dents be protected'against increased air
and water pollution, aircraft noise, and
air traffic congestion which threatens to
make this area uninhabitable for future
generations.
SOCIAL SECURITY
I have sponsored broad legislation to
increase benefits and improve health In-
surance programs under social security.
Congress did pass a 15-percent social
security increase at the close of last year
and the House recently approved another
5-percent increase with an automatic ad-
justment for future increases in the cost
of living. These measures were part of
the bill I sponsored and I am hopeful
that other improvements in these pro-
grams will be made shortly.
THE ECONOMY
Runaway inflation and tight money
policies have disrupted the Nation's
economy. I am particularly concerned
about increasing unemployment statis-
tics and the impact of high interest rates
on the housing industry. I have sponsored
legislation designed to bring about lower
interest rates and provide incentives for
the construction of needed middle- and
low-income housing units in our city and
in the Nation.
CRIME AND NARCOTICS
The entire system of law enforcement,
the judiciary and citizen education have
gone without our attention for too long.
I have supported programs to educate our
young people about the dangers of nar-
cotics and drug abuse and to create ad-
ditional treatment centers and after care
programs for addicts. In addition I have
voted for or sponsored legislation to ap-
propriate additional funds for local law
enforcement agencies and research in
crime control.
TRANSPORTATION
Ihave sponsored bills to provide addi-
tional funds for public transportation in
order to improve our city's subway and
commuter system. I have also been In
the forefront of the battle to find a site
for a fourth jetport to serve the New
York area and relieve Kennedy of the
dangerous and disruptive air traffic con-
gestion and related problems.
COMMITTTEES
I continue to serve on the important
House Appropriations Committee and
Select Committee on Small Business.
These assignments afford me a unique
opportunity to participate in the major
decisions which affect the Nation's prior-
ities at home and abroad and to speak
for you in the debate about these prior-
ities.
This is a time of crisis in America-a
time when the rule of reason is being
tested by dissenters at opposite ends of
the political system. It is my hope that
our system will rise to the occasion by
meeting these challenges with imagina-
tive and just solutions to real problems. I
am always available to discuss these is-
sues with you and to hear your views and
suggestions.
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENTIAL
FACTFINDING COMMITTEE FOR
SOUTlEAST ASIA
(Mr. PRICE of Illinois asked and was
given permission to extend his remarks
at this point in the RECORD and to in-
clude extraneous matter.)
Mr. PRICE of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, at
the request of President Nixon, four
Members of the Senate, four Members of
the House of Representatives, and the
Governor? of three States last week com-
pleted a factfinding mission to South
Vietnam and Cambodia. Upon return the
group submitted a report to President
Nixon at a meeting in the White House
yesterday.
Members of the House delegation on
the panel were, besides myself, Mr.
FISHER, of Texas, Mr. BRAY, of Indiana,
and Mr. WITEHURST, of Virginia,
I submit herewith to my colleagues the
report which the committee made to the
President:
REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S FACTFINDING COM-
MISSION ON SOUTH VIETNAM, JUNE 10, 1970
At the request of the President, our group
undertook a whirlwind journey to Southeast
Asia, leaving Washington, D.C. on June 3,
1970.
From June 5 through June 8, we met in
South Vietnam and Cambodia with senior
U.S. and South Vietnamese civilian and mili-
tary leaders and with American and ARVN
soldiers in the field. We visited villages and
hamlets. We met with enemy defectors. We
ranged into active battle areas. We visited
with Cambodian soldiers. We were at liberty
to see and talk with anyone we wished in re-
gard to any aspect of the war.
Some of the group concentrated on the
pacification program while others went into
battle areas. Others visited Cambodia's capi-
tal. Some consulted veteran reporters in the
area. While the visit was much too brief to
be conclusive, most of us are agreed on the
following broad points.
1. The Cambodian operations are militarily
successful, certainly for the short term. Huge
quantities of enemy arms, equipment, am-
munition and foodstuffs have been captured.
More than 10,000 of the enemy forces in Cam-
bodia-an estimated one-fourth of the
total-have been destroyed. Enemy com-
mand and logistical systems have been dis-
rupted. Especially in the III and IV Corps
Tactical Zones, the enemy's capability to con-
duct large-scale operations within South
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 CIA-RD.P72-00337R000200240017-3
 H 5470
Approved For tFRM6 lA(L,2p,PLP W721QMg 0002002400'i7Ane 11, 1970
Vietnam has been, substantially reduced for
at least six to eight months. The confidence
and morale of, South Vietnamese forces have
been undergirded by their proven mettle in
battle and-as one top U.S. leader reported
to us-as they have demonstrated a, capabil-
ity for combined force operations not deemed
obtainable'for at least two more years. The
American servicemen. we encountered also
responded enthusiastically to this combat
initiative.
We are agreed that the attack on the sanc-
tuaries has produced important immediate
dividends for the U.S. and South Vietnam.
2. We are most favorably impressed with
the leadership of our own and ARVN mili-
tary forces, ana with the competence and
dedication of State Department personnel
in Saigon. Ambassador Bunker and General
Abrams are extraordinarily able and. effective
leaders for our country. 0- r troops in the
field are magnificent.
3. Military planning in Saigon, as in
Washington, is firmly set on the removal of
American forces from Cambodia by the
June 80 deadline set Vy the President. All
leaders we met with agreed tat, due at
least in some measure to the Cambodian
operation, the scheduled U.S. troop with-
drawals can safely and surely proceed. We
conceive and hope that in coming months
an acceleration of withdrawals may even
become possible. Some ARVN forces will
likely remain in Cambodia for an additional
time to complete the very arduous task of
locating enemy caches and removing or de-
stroying the captured materiel. South Viet-
namese leaders, both military and. civilian,
disavow any intention to position ARVN
troops permanently in Cambodia or to al
low any of their Cambodian activities to
impair the Vietnamization and pacification
programs within South Vietnam. They firm-
ly state, however, that an enemy attempt
to reconstitute the, sanctuaries will provoke
an ARVN re-entry.
4. U.S. embroilment in a wider war in
Cambodia is not contemplated or expected
by any of the top American or Vietnamese
leaders we consulted on this trip: To the
contrary, all of these leaders freely acknowl-
edged the fact that June 30 is the deadline
for the removal of all U.S. ground forces,
including advisers, from Cambodia. ARVN
forces will not be employed in Cambodia, ac-
cording to our authorities, without the con-
sent of the Lon Nol government. We are as-
sured that U.S, support for ARVN forces will
not be allowed to underwrite adventurist
efforts in Cambodia by the ARVN at the ex-
pense of our objectives for South Vietnam.
5. There is noteworthy progress in the
military and civilian aspects of Vietnamiza-
tion, auguring well for U.S. disengagement
and the long-term viability of South Viet-
nam.
On the military side, 115,000 Americans
have left, and 150,000 more are to come home
by next May. The Vietnamese are pridefully
taking their place. We were greatly pleased
by the confidence-indeed, eagerness-of
Vietnamese military leaders to assume their
expanding role, despite the consequent
marked reduction in U.S. casualties and the
sharp increase in theirs. The Delta area-
"the backbone of the nation," as a top Amer-
ican leader described it to ue--pis now wholly
under Vietnamese military direction, our 9th
Division having been withdrawn. Other im-
.portant military areas have been moved un-
der Vietnamese direction, including the de-
fense ofthe Saigon area. Vietnamese military
training has been increased by 3o percent
and their military trainees in the U.S. tripled,
including especially Air Force pilots-a skill
at which the Vietnamese excel, according to
reports volunteered by a number of our own
military leaders.
On the ciyi1,an side of Vietnamization-the
pacification program-progress is also en-
couraging. Our meetings with province and
hamlet chiefs and our visits to representa-
tive villages were particularly rewarding in
revealing the crucial role of local courage and
leadership in regaining control in this na-
tion so long undermined by subversion, ter-
rorism, and war. The Vietnamese Popular
Force units, roughly comparable to our civil-
ian components, are sharply on the increase.
Some 350,000 of the People's Self-Defense
Force are now armed, forcing the Viet Cong
to wage war on the people as well as on
regular military units. Territorial Security
Forces, now more than 500,000 men, are at-
taining a 3-1 weapons capture ratio today as
contrasted to a 1-3 ratio only two years ago.
The roads, the waterways, the railroads are
improved and are increasingly _. secure in
ever wider areas. Enemy recruitment in
South Vietnam is sharply down, so that al-
most three-fourths of enemy combat strength
in this region now consists of North Viet-
namese-a proportion almost exactly re-
versed from what it was in earlier phases of
the war. Enemy defections were almost 40,-
000 last year, and our leaders anticipate tens
of thousands more this year. Elections have
been held in over 90 percent of the villages
and hamlets and other important elections
are near at hand--a presidential election next
year, half of the Senate this fall, and 44
provincial councils this month. President
Thieu is pressing for more election improve-
ments, including a run-off requirement for
the presidential election in 1971, and is at-
tempting to develop coalition groups to
reduce the political party proliferation in
South Vietnam.
Noteworthy, indeed, we believe, is the
continuing enthusiasm of village and ham-
let chiefs to stand for election despite the
obvious perils of these leadership positions
targeted by the Viet Cong. In IV Corps we
learned that despite an assassination rate
of 8-12 a month, 82 percent of these 16,000
elective officials chose to run again, and 50
percent of them were reelected. Significant
also is the fact that the newer leaders are
younger and better trained.
In sum, we have both seen and felt an
increasing vitality and confidence in this
hard-pressed country. We share the convic-
tion of our leaders in Vietnam that the
present prospects are more promising than
at any previous time during our long in-
volvement in this war.
6. We were pleased especially by reports
given us by our own leaders and President
Thieu on the "Land to the Tiller" program,
which promises to have a revolutionary so-
cial and economic impact throughout this
country. This program, signed into law by
President Thieu on March 26, is devised to
end land tenancy and ultimately will dis-
tribute 2.5 million acres-80 percent of the
cultivated riceland in Vietnam-to more
than 800,000 rural families. Next month a
series of two-week training programs will
begin for 4,000 village officials who must ad-
minister this program. President Thieu ex-
pressed great enthusiasm for this far-reach-
ing effort both for its intrinsic merit and
for its countervailing influence against Com-
munist land-redistribution propaganda. Our
group commends his initiative and shares
his enthusiasm,
7. Despite the heartening advance of Viet-
namization, the improved operational ca-
pabilities of the RVNAF, the potential of
land reform, the severe logistical embarrass-
ments of enemy forces, the immediate tacti-
cal success of the Cambodian operations and
the gathering strength of the Vietnamese
political structure, we must not exclude
the possibility of significant setbacks in the
progress we have noted in Vietnam. Histori-
cally, there have been heartbreaks there,
and this young republic will doubtless suf-
fer more of them as an implacable enemy
persists for an indeterminate time. An im-
portant indicator in coining months will be
the manner in which the Republic of Viet-
nam measures up to these adversities. From
the indications available to us, we deduce
that the South Vietnamese have the tenac-
ity and courage, and now hopefully have
the time, to win their long struggle for
survival.
8. Particularly for those among us who
have been previously in Vietnam, the evi-
dence of progress, military, economic, and
political, is plainly evident. The clear im-
pression we carry away with us from this
brief but intensive survey is that at last
in South Vietnam one can discern a genuine
prospect for self-defense, a strengthening
promise of political viability, and a growing
spirit of confident nationhood. We prayer-
fully hope, and most of us believe, that all
of this will be enhanced by the bold move
into enemy havens in Cambodia.
9. On leaving this tormented region, we
conclude that the objective of our country
must continue to be neither military vic-
tory nor an indefinite continuance of our
participation, and assuredly not an enlarge-
ment or broadening of our military role in
Southeast Asia, but rather an orderly with-
drawal of American personnel in phase with
the mounting capability of the South Viet-
namese to assure their own security and
lead their own lives in their own way.
Approved by: Governor John Love, Gov-
ernor Raymond Shafer, Senator Howard Can-
non, Senator George Murphy, Representa-
tive William Bray, Representative O. C.
Fisher, Representative Melvin Price, Repre-
sentative William Whitehurst.
NATIONAL SOJOURNERS GOLDEN
ANNIVERSARY CONVENTION
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD.)
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Speaker, I take pleas-
ure in calling to the attention of the
House the fact that the National So-
journers will, during this month, cele-
brate that organization's golden anni-
versary convention. The occasion will be
observed on June 24-27 at Columbus,
Ohio.
The National Sojourners,- Inc., is an
outstanding organization whose mem-
bership is made up of commissioned offi-
cers and warrant officers, both active and
retired, of the Armed Forces who are
Master Masons. As would be anticipated,
their principal purposes are to cultivate
Masonic ideals, to support patrotic aims
and activities, to develop true patriotism
and Americanism, to bring together
members and former members of the
Armed Forces of the United States in
efforts to further national defense, and to
oppose influences calculated to weaken
the national security.
National Sojourners believe in God as
the Supreme Architect of the Universe.
They hold that political, economic, and
social problems are subsidiary to and ever
separate from that steadfast belief in
God.
They maintain that God must motivate
man if present-day problems are to be
solved, and urge active participation in
maintaining that Government for which
our forefathers fought.
National Sojourners remember that
George Washington once said:
When we assumed the soldier we did not
lay aside the citizen.
Gov. James A. Rhodes of the State of
Ohio has proclaimed June 24-27, 1970 as
National Sojourners Week in Ohio. He
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 11, 1970
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONGRESS!bNAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks E 5459
EX'T'ENSIONS OF REMARKS
MILITARY SALES ~CC,2UUT//y'~
SPEECH OFtr^""
HON. ROBERT C. BYRD
OF WEST VIEGIhSIA
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Wednesday, June 10, 1970
(Senate proceedings omitted front the
RECORD of June 10, 1970, on page 53793.)
I think the President has that au-
thority and is' exercising it now. I think
that this is already being done. It seems
to me that one of the cosponsors of the
Cooper-Church amendment-I believe
the Senator from Kentucky-indicated
that the President can do this now, that
we can send men across the border in
hot pursuit, that we can do this in Laos,
that we can do it in Cambodia. This can
be done and has been done without the
Byrd amendment.
Mr. SPONG. The second one is as
follows:
To destroy enemy supplies, staging area,
headquarters, and so forth, in a relatively
narrow zone along the Cambodian-South
Vietnamese border? This contemplates a
zone into Cambodia of apprcxlmately 20
miles in width.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. This con-
templates a set of circumstances similar
to those in which the President o ?dered
troops into Cambodia on April 30. He did
so in that instance, in my judgment,
through the proper exercise of his con-
stitutional powers, and I think the co-
sponsors of the Cooper-Church amend-
ment have agreed. So, the President, hav-
ing done it then, in the proper exercise
of his constitutional authority, he can
do it again. And he can do it entirely
without the language which is in my
amendment, and which gives him no new
authority. Insofar as his authority is con-
cerned, it would be derived from the
Constitution; and whether he would have
the money to exercise his authority de-
pends on what we do about paragraph
(1) of the Cooper-Church amendment.
Mr. SPONG. Would he have the au-
thprity to do it under the Cooper-Church
language without the Byrd amendment?
Mr, BYRD of West Virginia. The
Cooper-Church language does not add to
nor take away any of the constitutional
authority that the President possesses.
But indirectly-and I think quite effec-
tively-it could inhibit his exercise of
that authority if it cuts off the funds. To
that extent I think the Cooper-Church
amendment could in some hypothetical
situation prevent him from the proper
exercise of his constitutional authority.
Mr. SPONG. Does the Senator' from
West Virginia believe that his modifica-
tion would remove that inhibition from
the present language of the Cooper-
Church amendment?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Yes, I do.
Mr. SPONG. Would the Senator ad-
dress himself to the third question: "To
attempt to find and engage any enemy
troops within the zone just described, ir-
respective of whether they are on the
verge of entering South Vietnam or
whether they are just returning from it"?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I think
all of these questions were asked in the
context of the Byrd amendment: If the
Byrd language is adopted, can he do this
and can he do that, and can he do some-
thing else?
Mr. SPONG. Yes, that is true.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The an-
swer to the third question would be that
he can do only that which he determines
to be. necessary for the protection of
American troops in South Vietnam; and
he has the constitutional duty and au-
thority, it seems to me, to do this regard-
less of the Byrd language. So if he deter-
mines that this set of circumstances,
which the Senator has outlined, presents
a clear and present and immediate dan-
ger to the lives of American troops in
South Vietnam, it seems to me that, en-
tirely aside from the Byrd language, the
President has the constitutional author-
ity and the duty to take whatever action
is necessary to remove that danger to
our troops and to protect the lives of our
troops.
I simply think that the Cooper-Church
language, through this requirement for
enactment of a bill appropriating
moneys, would, to that extent, place a
limitation on the President's authority.
My amendment seeks to remove that
limitation.
Mr. SPONG. I take it, then, that the
Senator's answer to the third question
would also apply to questions 4 and 5.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. In an ex-
tremely exaggerated and unlikely hypo-
thetical situation, I suppose it could, but
not by virtue of the Byrd amendment-
by virtue only of the President's consti-
tutional authority, which was given to
him by the makers of the Constitution.
I cannot envision a situation in-which
the circumstances described in questions
4 and 5-particularly 5-would arise, if
we are to believe what the President
says, if we are to have faith in his ex-
pressed intentions. But if it were to arise,
he could only act in the proper exercise
of his constitutional authority to protect
the lives of American troops in South
Vietnam.
Mr. SPONG. I would say, first, to the
Senator from West Virginia that I do
not believe the President contemplates
any activity such as is described under
questions 4 and 5. But when we con-
sider either of the Senator's modifica-
tions, we must do so within the context
of the Cooper-Church amendment. I am
of the opinion that the addition of the
Senator's language to the Cooper-
Church enactment could be interpreted
as giving authority for any of the sit-
uations I have hypothetically described,
1 thorugh 5.
I am most appreciative of the time
the Senator from West Virginia has
taken in answering these questions. I
thought I should ask these questions be-
fore he made any further reply.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank
the Senator from Virginia. His questions
are incisive. But I use his words "giving
authority" in such a hypothetical situa-
tion. The Byrd language gives no new
authority. It simply attempts to prevent
the Cooper-Church language in para-
graph (1) from building a fence, as it
were, around the President's constitu-
tional authority and saying he may go
only thus far or that far and, then, only
if he can get the moneys with which to
do so.
My amendment tries to make an ex-
ception as to where that line shall be
drawn, that exception being where
American lives are in danger in South
Vietnam. The President already has con-
stitutional authority to act in such a
case. But he has. to have money.
Let us say the hypothetical situation
is brought into existence. If the Cooper-
Church language is adopted without the
Byrd amendment, it could very well mean
that, as a result of the lack of funds,
the President could not exercise his con-
stitutional authority as Commander in
Chief to protect the lives of American
boys in South Vietnam, because, again,
there would be those who would inter-
pret the language this way and those who
would interpret it another way. The
Cooper-Church language is subject to
definition.
So while Congress argues about inter-
pretation of the language and argues
about appropriating money, the hypo-
thetical situation gets out of hand, and
American boys in South Vietnam are at-
tacked and their lives imperiled. That is
what the Byrd amendment seeks to
avoid.
Mr. SPONG. I think the Senator from
West Virginia, the Senator from Ken-
tucky, and the Senator from Idaho are
striving in many ways toward the same
objective. I think what the proposed leg-
islation seeks to do is to spell out the
collective will of the Senate in redefining
the geographic area within which the
presidential power or authority might be
applied in the exercise of the President's
position, under the Constitution, as Com-
mander in Chief.
I am seeking, in these exchanges, to
focus on the clearest language we might
agree upon consistent with both legisla-
tive and presidential prerogatives. I
might say to the Senator from West Vir-
ginia that the situation he has described,
where we could become tied up in appro-
priations snarls while some decision is to
be made, is not envisioned by the spon-
sors of the Cooper-Church amendment,
if I understood them correctly this morn-
ing.
Certainly, not in the situation de-
scribed in question one, probably not in
No. 2, and all concede that No. 3 is a gray
area; but I seek--a specific recital-and
this is difficult to determine-of what
the presidential authority is.
In short, I believe that the Senate
does not wish to tell the President how
he should function as Commander in
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 E 5460
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks June 11, 1970
Chief, but to say, for the time being,
where he should function as Commander
in Chief until there is further consul-
tation with the Senate.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. If the
lives of American servicemen were not
involved, it might be an easier question
to dispose of. But I do not think that
we can say,,here and now, that the Pres-
ident may go 20 miles, but that he may
not go 21 miles. I do not think that we
can say he is properly exercising his
constitutional authority if he goes 20
miles, but that if he goes 2 kilometers
farther, he is not acting in the proper
exercise of his constitutional authority.
I do not think that we can delineate
this constitutional authority in such a
nice way. We must really look at what
is before us. The Cooper-Church lan-
guage says this, "unless specifically au-
thorized by law."
I do not know what the cosponsors
of the amendment said earlier today. I
was not here. I can read it overnight.
I am referring to the Senator's having
alluded to what they said.
Mr. SPONG. That is my interpreta-
tion. Of course the Senator from Idaho
is here.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, may I be
heard?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I do not
know what was said, but I look at the
language of their proposal and it reads
thusly, "unless specifically authorized by
law hereafter enacted." Those words are
clearly understood: "unless specifically
authorized by law hereafter enacted, no
funds"-that means not 50 cents, not
$1-"no funds authorized or appropri-
ated pursuant to this act or any other
law may be expended for the purpose of
retaining U.S. forces in Cambodia."
Taking the hypothetical situation dis-
cussed earlier, if it is necessary for the
President to act to protect the lives of
American servicemen in South Vietnam,
he has to have money. Tactical opera-
tions in Cambodia cost money even when
executed for the protection of American
servicemen in South Vietnam. But this
language pays, "No funds authorized or
appropriated pursuant to this act or any
other law may be expended for the pur-
pose of retaining U.S. forces in Cam-
bodia," period. And regardless of whether
forces are retained in Cambodia for the
protection of the lives of American serv-
icemen in South Vietnam. The Byrd lan-
guage simply attempts to hammer out
one exception to that prohibitive lan-
guage. It does so in an effort to deal with
that situation in which the lives of Amer-
ican servicemen might be endangered.
Mr. SPONG. I thank the Senator from
West Virginia. I think there should be
an exception, and I appreciate his efforts
in that direction. I happen to believe, as
I have expressed to the Senator, that the
exception should be more specific, if we
are to, have it.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I respect
the viewpoint of the able Senator from
Virginia. When we attempt to deal with
specifics, then we are in another quag-
mire. One 'Senator wants this specific
and another wants that item specificated.
I think the best we can do is not to au-
thorize any new authority nor attempt
to be so specific as to say it will be 20
miles but not 21 miles; we should simply
make the exception, so that the President
is clearly not precluded from exercising
his power under the Constitution for the
protection of our servicemen in South
Vietnam.
I am fearful that if the Cooper-
Church language is adopted as written,
the enemy will get the wrong message, or
perhaps, it will be the right mess5.ge-
to wit, he can come back into those sanc-
tuaries and before the President can or-
der a man across that border, the Pres-
ident will have to come back to Capitol
Hill and go through all of those circuitous
labyrinths of exercises that must be ex-
ecuted before moneys can be appropri-
ated. In the meantime, the enemy will
have ample opportunity to `attack or
withdraw.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator from West Virginia yield?
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from West Virginia yield?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield
now to the Senator from Idaho, and then
I shall be happy to yield to the Senator
from Kansas.
Mr. CHURCH, The fundamental diffi-
culty stems from the fact that we are
engaged today, and have been for many
years, in a limited war in Southeast Asia.
Our purpose has not been to invade or
conquer North Vietnam. Our purpose has
been to protect the Government of South
Vietnam against the attempt of the Viet-
cong and the North Vietnamese to over-
throw it. Thus, from the beginning, both
the President and Congress have been
faced with the dilemma of where to draw
the line.
Up until now, Congress has left that
determination entirely to the President,
and those who support the Cooper-
Church amendment believe that the time
has come for Congress to share with the
President the responsibility of drawing
outer limits to this limited war.
We want to leave Cambodia outside
those limits, doing this in a way that con-
forms to the President's own expressed
intention to withdraw American troops
from Cambodia by the end of June.
After June 30 has passed, we recognize
there might be occasions when the Pres-
ident, in the proper exercise of his Con-
stitutional authority as Commander in
Chief, might have to take an action that
would breach the Cambodian borders
temporarily to protect American forces
in the field.
We do not, however, want to fix a limit,
and then write into that limitation an
exception which would later be used as
constituting prior congressional consent
to a large or prolonged military return
on our part to Cambodia.
I am unable to see why the purposes
of the Senator from West Virginia-who
is concerned about American troops in
Vietnam, but no more so than the Sen-
ator from Idaho-could not be served by
simply writing a proviso at the end of
this Cooper-Church language to the
effect that nothing in it does what we
cannot do anyway, which is to impair
the constitutional authority of the Presi-
dent as Commander in Chief.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I think that is what my amendment
does. It is perhaps a question of seman-
tics. It does precisely that. It says that
nothing in the Cooper-Church language
impairs the constitutional authority of
the President as Commander in Chief to
act under certain circumstances-to
whit, when our men are endangered in
South Vietnam.
Mr. CHURCH. But the Senator goes
further. I want to question him about
some of his other language. For example,
he says in the modified version of his
proposed amendment:
And the President is requested to consult
with Congressional leaders prior to using any
United States forces in Cambodia if, as Com-
mander in Chief, he determines that the use
of - such forces is necessary tq protect the
lives of United States forces in South Viet-
nam or to facilitate the withdrawal of United
States forces from South Vietnam.
First of all, it strikes me as being de-
meaning to Congress to write into law a
request that the President come to con-
sult with Congress. Second, who are the
congressional leaders with whom the
President should consult? Third, when is
the consultation to take place?
Is it to take place at a time that would
be meaningful, so that the advice of these
leaders could be taken into consideration
by the President. Or will consultation oc-
cur at the very moment of decision, when
it would be nothing more than a method
for conveying to the congressional lead-
ers that new action is underway?
All of this is left unanswered by the
language of the Byrd amendment. And
for the record, I think answers should be
supplied.
Questions of this kind, however, sug-
gest that there is a cleaner way to achieve
the Senator's purpose, such as adding a
proviso at the end of the Cooper-Church
language to the effect that nothing in
the amendment impairs the constitu-
tional authority of the President as Com-
mander in Chief.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Then the
Senator would raise hobgoblins and
ghosts with respect to everything that
went before the proviso, which would not
only include paragraph (1), but also par-
agraphs (2), (3), and (4). And the same
question as to the hows, whys, and whens
would beapplied to the proviso.
Mr. CHURCH. The language I sug-
gested would relate to subparagraph 1,
and not to the other subparagraphs of
the amendment.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I thought the Senator said
the proviso should be at the end of the
Cooper-Church language.
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is right. I
meant, however, at the end of subpara-
graph 1.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, the Senator says that for the
President to be requested to consult with
congressional leaders would be demean-
ing to the President.
Mr. President, this is precisely what
much of the argument has been about
all along-the sponsors of the Cooper-
Church amendment want the President
to consult with Congress.
Of course, I want him to consult with
Congress. He made a mistake in not
consulting with Congress about his April
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 11, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks
30 action. That was a tactical legislative
blunder.
He should consult the Congress when
the circumstances permit him to do so.
There could be a hypothetical situa-
tion in which he could not consult with
Congress. Perhaps he would have time
only to press: a button. I do not envision
this with, respect to 'South Vietnam,
however. We were talking about having
the President consult with Congress. I
added this language in response to the
legitimate concern expressed by at least
two Senators who felt that there ought
to be something in this amendment
which would deal with consultation. So
it was included.
I do not consider it to be demeaning.
It does not require him to consult. It is
not mandatory. It is only permissive. I
think that he would do it without the
language, certainly in the face of his
experience following his April 30 action.
I see nothing demeaning about re-
questing that this be done. This is termi-
nology that is often used in Federal
statutes, that so and so is requested to
do so and so, to make such and such a
report.
I do not epnsider that to be demeaning.
As tp the identity of the congressional
leaders, that would be up to the Presi-
dent. If I were to attempt to define the
congressional leaders, I would certainly
include the majority and minority lead-
ers of both houses. Whether the Presi-
dent would want to go beyond that would
be up to his discretion. But this would
help to cure the situation.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Presidenat, would
the Senator include the chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, the President could include him.
When I start to include him in the
amendment, Why should I not include
the chairman of the Appropriations
Committee?
Mr. CHURCH. Or the, chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Or the
chairman of the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs, or the chairman of
the Committee on Commerce. Where do
we stop?
We should leave it to the discretion of
the President. Certainly when the Presi-
dent talks to Senators MAN$FIELD and
SCOTT and with the leaders of the House,
he has talked, with. the, congressional
leaders. If the, President wants to broad-
en this, and I think he would. want to
do that in many situations, he would do
it.
When should he do it? We cannot say
he should do it 1 week, 3 weeks, or 6
weeks before. When we say prior, he has
to use his discretion and good judgment
based, upon the circumstances which
confront him,.
I hope that helps at least to explain
my interpretation of the language.
I. DOLE. M. President, will the
Senator, yield?
Mr. t3 'Rf of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I yield to the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. AQBE,,Mr. President, I have lis-
tened.with great interest to the discus-
sion. I think it points up what many of us
hope can be, accomplished at this late
hour, and that is an accommodation be-
tween the sponsors of the Church-Cooper
amendment and other Senators who
would like to find some accommodation.
I have participated in much debate in
the past 2 or 3 weeks and I recall that
the basic question has been: What are
the rights and powers of the President
vis-a-vis the rights and powers of Con-
gress? I think we have all determined
that we can list all the rights and powers
of the President. We had one recitation
after another of the historical powers
from the days of George Washington to
the present time, and we had suggestions
on what the rights and powers of any
President might be and what the rights,
and powers of Congress might be, and
the specific powers delineated in the
Constitution.
It appears to me this discussion may
lead us one step further to some accom-
modation. I mentioned earlier in colloquy
with the distinguished Senator from Vir-
ginia (Mr. SeoNe) that perhaps we could
add a section referred to by the distin-
guished Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH) ; perhaps we could modify the
Byrd amendment by saying that "Noth-_
Ing contained in this section shall be
deemed or construed to impugn the
President's powers as Commander in
Chief."
Since we have been unable to delineate
the powers of the Commander in Chief
and since every Senator has stated the
Commander in Chief has the right to
protect American forces, it appears to
me that is what the argument is all
about. There has been recognition that
'he has that right and power, and it
seems to me the Senator from West Vir-
ginia perhaps between now and tomorrow
at 11 a.m. might work out some further
modification of the Byrd amendment and
have a recognition by Congress that we
do nothing in the Church-Cooper amend-
ment that impugns the President's con-
stitutional power as Commander in
Chief.
Everyone has indicated we seek to do
nothing to impinge his constitutional
power and with that accommodation I
would feel the Church-Cooper amend-
ment might be acceptable to many on
both sides of the aisle. It does in effect
what the Senator from West Virginia
suggested. It does recognize, as we all
recognize in any event, that we can do
nothing to add or detract from the con-
stitutional power of the Chief Executive
to be Commander in Chief. So I would
hope there is still a possibility of some
accommodation.
It does appear to me that if we re-
quire the President to consult with con-
gressional leaders, I recognize the Pres-
ident could and should probably do that,
but there is nothing binding. In any
event it really appears we are for the first
time reaching some area of accommoda-
tion. I hope it can be accomplished be-
tween now and 1 o'clock tomorrow.,
I commend the ' Senator from West
Virginia for discussing the possibilities
and his modification this evening.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I appreciate the remarks by the
able Senator from Kansas. I offered this
amendment in good faith in an effort
E'5461
to bridge some of the gap that seems to
exist between some of us and not only in
an effort to do that but also in an effort
to satisfy my own conscience.
If objection is to be made we will just
have to vote on the original modifica-
tion. I can withdraw the unanimous con-
sent request if anyone wishes to object.
Then, of course, we can just have a vote
up and down on amendment No. 667,
star print.
In a few moments I would like to
have the Chair again present my unani-
mous-consent request. At t;lais time, I will
proceed with the speech I have prepared
for delivery on the floor this afternoon.
Mr. President, the able and distin-
guished senior Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH) yesterday referred to my
amendment as a "blank check" and said:
It could readily become a second Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution, an open invitation to the
President to do what he wills in Cambodia,-
without the further approval of the Con-
gress-as long as he does it in the name of
protecting our forces in Vietnam.
Mr. President, my position regarding
any involvement of U.S. Armed Forces in
Cambodia is a matter of record. I am
opposed as much as is any other Senator
to the sending of any Americans to fight
additional land wars in Asia. Moreover,
I want to see our American military
forces withdrawn from Cambodia. I want
them withdrawn from South Vietnam as
soon as it is possible to do so in an or-
derly way which will not reward Com-
munist aggression. Time and again, I
have said that the Asians should carry
the manpower burden of keeping Asia
free.
In a Senate floor speech on April 4, I
stated:
The United States should not become in-
volved in the fighting in Cambodia. The new
rulers of Cambodia have been hinting that
they may seek American help in fighting
the communists. For too long now, American
troops and the American people have shoul-
dered a heavy burden in fighting in South-
east'Asia. To fight in Cambodia would only
add to that burden.
Again, on June 3, when I submitted my
perfecting amendment to the Cooper-
Church amendment, I said:
The United States should not become In-
volved in fighting in Cambodia for Cambodia,
or in support of any Cambodian Government.
As I emphasized in my June 3 Senate
floor speech, I have no objections to
paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 in the Cooper-
Church amendment, and if my amend-
ment to paragraph 1 is adopted, I expect
to vote for the Cooper-Church amend-
ment as it would then be amended. Of
course, paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 could un-
doubtedly be improved, but I do not per-
sonally intend to offer any amendment
to change the verbiage therein.
My amendment, No. 667, star print,
was introduced by me to make clear that
the President's authority-in the fulfill-
ment of his duty as Commander in
Chief-to protect the lives of American
troops stationed in South Vietnam, re-
mains clear and uncompromised. My
amendment reads as follows:
On page 5, line 7, before the semicolon
APsert a comma and the following: "except
that the foregoing provisions of this clause
"`Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
E 5462 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks June 11, 1970
shall not preclude the President from taking something that can be done overnight. No, the President does not need a man-
such action as may be necessary to protect our men are in South Vietnam. date. He needs funds, and here is where
the lives of United states forces in south They were sent there by our Govern- the cooper-Church amendment would
Vietnam or to facilitate the withdrawal Of ment-most of them through no choice do by indirection that which it cannot do
United states forces from south Vietnam." of their own-and our Government has by direction-namely, to restrict or nega-
Mr. President, I again want to state a duty to do whatever it can to protect tive the President's power to fulfill his in Chief
act for
, to
our forces in South
pose o reasonable amendment that the Pur- their lives whe what my amendme t Is there. is theyprot ct on oder
pose of my amendment is to recognize nize
the President's authority, power? and The question of the constitutional al- Vietnam.
duty to take such action as may be nec- location of powers between the executive Congress undoubtedly has the power
essary to protect the lives of U.S. forces and legislative branches, certainly, may and the authority to cut off funds for
In South Vietnam, and that it is defi- be an issue of such great dimensions as military operations of any kind-there is
nitely not to be misconstrued, misinter- to justify debate completely independent no question about this. But in so doing, it of c
the
negate
Power preted misunderstood open any from th wisdom Or the a name I say, however, withs allnthe the P esdent as Commanderain Chief to
can or loopholes for the use of n
can troops in n Cambodia to support any earnestness at my command that the implement certain necessary tactical de-rse Cambodian Government or to fight a President's
actions in mving ino
in fact, usurp the costi- cisionsauthoritywhich within the
war r for Cambodia.
The Senator from Idaho erred in say- tutional powers of Congress. I do, how- ambit of legislative authority. Why
ing that the Byrd amendment is a "blank ever, question the constitutional validity would Congress do this?
check.,' Is it a "blank check" to recognize of congressional action which, in-effect, We are not faced with a situation in
the President's authority and duty, as would seek to limit the President's con- which the President wishes to pursue a
Commander in Chief, under the Con- stitutional authority to take actions war indefinitely and Congress wishes to
stitution, to take such action as may be necessary to protect the lives of our terminate it. Rather, we are faced with
necessary to protect the lives of U.S. fighting men in South Vietnam. a situation in which both the President
forces in South Vietnam? Is it a "blank If, as seems clearly beyond doubt, Cam- and the Congress have expressed a policy
man-
check" to recognize his authority and bodia has been used as a sanctuary from determination American Asian
duty to take such action as may be nec- which military operations against U.S. power involvement Southeast tAsian
consid-
essary to facilitate the withdrawal of forces have been undertaken, surely the conflict as rapidly id allow. n y as in
Ergo , the question
our forces from South Vietnam? I am President's order to clean out those erations s will one of revte q essiti n
not a military man, but I have always sanctuaries was a tactical decision and before us is but rather that n Presi-
understood that the withdrawal of an within his exclusive power and authority dential limiting policy 's discretion sti
carrying President's a in policy,
army can constitute one of the most dif- as Commander in Chief. If it were neces- de flitiny flexibility in the
ficult of military maneuvers under cer- sary to repeat the same action 6 months and e of tcarryin agree.
tain conditions. from now, in the interest of protecting which a question of delineating or
A careful reading of the plain language our forces in South Vietnam, it would I h really the
at least recognizing the fine line of sepa-ision of my amendment, together with the +I aainprbe dent stinowers and and within
to ration between Presidential and congres-
OYa
port of it, should convince anyone that
mendment is no "blank check" and
th
e a
that authorization is not being given for
the use of American troops to prop up
any Cambodian Government:. The
he does President
that the
any give
ny power or not
already have under the Constitution and
under the Gulf of Tonkin joint resolution
which was enacted into law in 1964.
How, then, could the Byrd amendment
be a "blank check" to the President? He
sent American ground troops into Cam-
bodia on April 30. My amendment was
nonexistent then. Yet, most Senators do
not question the President's constitu-
tional authority in taking the action
which he took.
Congress can pass no law diminishing
the constitutional authority of the Presi-
dent. Why, then, does he need my
amendment as a "blank check" if, in the
future, he should deem it necessary to
again attack sanctuaries in Cambodia in
order to protect our military forces in
ive
t
g
Vietnam? My amendment would no
Congress to protect U.S. troops in Viet- 111 A+llv.v..,
him what he already additional power or authority nam,
Pit 30 without myaamendment he Tacticaltma maneuvers-even for the pro- been lspand ared esimply through thelfa tui-he does need money to do so. tection of American servicemen-can- taus process of congressional delay. Or,
coup do in the future without my not be executed without funds. Over and the enemy could, under the protecting
Amendment. the e I would not accuse my
friend, ri able senior Senator from over we have heard that the Cooper- cover of congressional indecision and e-Idaho
ohibit the lay
of a scar
use
o launch wa d, but heehas referred to my amend- u euof U.S.. Armed F'orcesoin prCambodia our forces iintSouth amttack upon o in
res
in-
the
American more as A "er givingehe Presidentna in SouthtViet am.oIn so many words, be given ir words, if t ntelliigen cehreportswhichod
more ccnid'e g
"blank check" than would the Senator. I perhaps it does not. But it does say that, dicated that the enemy was heavily
want, as much and to stay shall be by aulaw hereafter enacted, no funds thorized or appropriated for sanctuaries 6 months from today-91 an attack,from Idaho, to get out of Cambodia out of Cambodia. I, too, want to get out the retention of U.S. forces in Cam- time when our forces in South Vietnam
of South Vietnam, as I have said re- bodia after June 30. What could be plain- will Ohaavv -been reduced from 3would0,000 be
peatedly, but I'do not think that this is er than that?
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-~
--
1a11Y1~?...... ,, .,... --
What justification is there for congres- As a matter of fact, it
sional action now to cut off funds from twilight zone of competing powers so
U.S. Armed Forces which may have to be delicately balanced that they appear at
utilized in Cambodia 6 months from now times, and in some situations, to overlap.
in carrying out the same kind of tactical It is said by the worthy opponents of
action as was begun on April 30 by the my amendment that, if future emergen-
Commander in Chief for the purpose of cies should require a reintroduction of
protecting American lives in South Viet- ground forces into Cambodia for the
protection of American troops in South
nam?
I question any congressional action Vietnam, the President need,only come
which serves to restrict the constitution- up to the Congress and request the funds
al authority of any President to protect and Congress will appropriate the
American troops by cutting off funds. moneys.
The able Senator from Idaho said yes- We all know, however, that the en-
terday that the Cooper-Church amend- actment of a law appropriating funds
ment "does not deny the President's con- takes time. There first must be a budget
stitutional power as Commander in Chief estimate prepared. Congressional hear-
to protect the safety of American forces," tags are then required. Committee dis-
and that "the President has a respon- cussions are time consuming at the sub-
sibility to protect U.S. forces in Viet- sequent markup session. Any appropri-
nam." The Senator went on to say that ation bill reported to the Senate must
the President "does not need a mandate then run the gauntlet of the 3-day rule.
from the Congress for this purpose." Debate can go on ad infinitum.
have f its tents
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-0Q337R000200240017-3
June ' X 1, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks E 5463
unable to attack the enemy with Ameri-
can ground forces until such time as he
could go, before Congress and get a bill
passed providing funds for the imple-
mentation of such protective action. By
the time the money was appropriated,
it could be too late. What Senator would
want to take a chance on imperiling the
lives of American servicemen in South
Vietnam by fettering the President's
hands where such a tactical operation
might be clearly justified and required
and where time and speed may be of
the essence?
When the enemy masses in such Cam-
bodian sanctuaries, those sanctuaries are
not "neutral" territory, but; in reality,
they are part of the war zone, and no
attack upon them in any sense can be
construed as a "new war." It is the same
war and the same enemy. The Cooper=
Church amendment would, in effect,
however make the Qambodian-South
Vietnamese border a more formidable
Maginot line than was ever embraced in
the concrete fortifications outflanked
by the Germans 30 years ago. The enemy
would be free to attack at will from the
Cambodian side and would be immune
from ground attack by American ground
forces who would be allowed to pursue
only to the border where they would
have to stop.
No, the President does not need a
"mandate" from Congress to protect the
lives of American troops in South Viet-
nam against privileged enemy sanctu-
aries In Cambodia. The Constitution
gives him this mandate, and the Gulf of
Tonkin resolution expressed prior con-
gressional approval of such a mandate.
But he does have to have funds to carry
out this constitutional mandate, and the
first paragraph of the Cooper-Church
amendni.ent, as it is now written, would,
if it were ever enacted into law, ac-
complish indirectly what the Congress-
as I have said-cannot do directly,
namely, infringe upon the constitutional
powers of the Commander in Chief. The
cutting off of funds by Congress is just
as effective as would be the cutting off
of Presidential powers by constitutional
amendment-which is beyond the pur-
view of Congress in the final analjsis.
Both end in the same result.
I again refer to the able Senator from
Idaho, not through disrespect or with
any ill feeling-I respect, admire, and
love him as a friend-but .I again refer
to him only because he stated that-
The Byrd proposal could readily become
a second Gulf of Tonkin resolution, an open
invitation to the Predent to do what lie
wills in Cambodia without the further ap-
proval of Congress--es long as he does it
in the name of protecting our forces in
Vietnam.
Mr., President, I did not offer my
ameildlnent as an open Invitation to
President Nixon onto any other Presi-
dent "to do what he wills in Cambo-
dia." I do not believe that the Presi-
dent desires to. involve-deviously, cov-
ertly or overtly-American ground
our forces in South Vietnam by 115,000
men, and he has promised to bring 50,000
more men home by October and an ad-
ditional 100,000 by next spring. Surely
the Senator from Idaho-and I do not
intend to put words in his mouth, and
he would not let me if I tried to do
so-does not imply that the President
is attempting intentionally to delude the
American people. Surely the Senator
from Idaho does not mean to imply that
the President wants really to involve
America in a war in Cambodia for Cam-
bodia, a war which would require send-
ing more men to Southeast Asia rather
than returning more American service-
men home from Southeast Asia.
Surely the Senator from Idaho does
not mean to imply by the words, "an
open invitation to the President to do
his will in Cambodia," that the President
wants to prolong the bloodshed or that
the President nurses some secret and evil
scheme to enlarge Amirican manpower
involvement in Cambodia-a scheme
which he would not dare reveal to the
American people. Do we not trust the
President? Is this what the Senator from
Idaho is saying? Will not the American
people hold the President responsible if
he does not fulfill his promises to bring
Americans home from Southeast Asia?
The President surely knows this, and I
am confident that his is a burden which
none, of us bears.
The truth of the 'matter is, Mr. Presi-
dent, that my amendment limits the
President's use of any American troops
in Cambodia to a very well defined and
clearly stated purpose, namely, the pro-
tection of American troops in South Viet-
nam. In doing this, my amendment gives
the President no new authority. He al-
ready has this authority. My amendment
simply makes clear that the Cooper-
Church amendment, as now written,
would not interfere with his clear duty
and authority to act to protect our men
in South Vietnam.
The able Senator from Idaho says
that the Byrd amendment "could readily
become a second Gulf of Tonkin resolu-
tion." Mr. President, let none of us labor
under any illusions as to what we are
doing here. The Cooper-Church amend-
ment, as now written, will not likely be-
come law; although I believe that if my
amendment were to be adopted, the
chances of acceptance by the other body
would be enhanced. I feel that the
chances of getting the approval of the
President's signature to the Cooper-
Church amendment would be enhanced.
But, if the Cooper-Church amendment
is not perfected by my language-or by
somebody's language-I feel that pass-
age of the amendment by the Senate
would mean no more than a closely
divided expression of Senate sentiment.
I do not think that such would rep-
resent the sentiment of the majority of
Americans. But I do believe that Senate
acceptance of the Cooper-Church
amendment would be misconstrued by
the enemy, and I feel that it would en-
Senator's statement that my amendment
"could readily become a second Gulf of
Tonkin resolution." There is no need for a
second Gulf of Tonkin resolution even
if any of us wanted such. The Gulf of
Tonkin joint resolution was enacted into
law in 1964, and that law has never been
amended, repealed or ruled unconstitu-
tional. It is on the books today and has
been for 6 years. It clearly states con-
gressional approval and support of "the
determination of the President, as Com-
mander in Chief, to take all necessary
measures to repel any armed attack
against the forces of the United States
and to prevent further aggression." To
what enemy does the Gulf of Tonkin res-
olution refer when it alludes to "armed
attack against the forces of the United
States"? It refers to "the Communist
regime in North Vietnam," as set forth
in the preamble of the joint resolution,
wihch was enacted into Public Law 88-
408.
PRIVACY IS A FUNDAMENTAL
AMERICAN RIGHT
HON. JOHN WOLD
OF WYOMING
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, June 11, 1970
Mr. WOLD. Mr. Speaker, increasing-
ly, the Members of this body are express-
ing their concern of the many insidi-
ous ways in which the privacy of Amer-
icans is threatened. The concern is es-
pecially justified because of the changes
in our society. The operation of Govern-
ment and of business is said to require
ever increasing amounts of information
about the individual citizen.
Unfortunately, this information is not
always kept privileged.
I am delighted that the Casper Star-
Tribune, my hometown paper with the
broadest circulatipn of any daily in Wyo-
ming, has joined my deep concern over
this issue. I ask that an editorial in the
June 10, 1970, issue of the paper, be pub-
lished in the RECORD as an indication of
the growing awareness throughout the
Nation of the Government to intrude
into areas it ought not to.
Such editorials contribute to the grow-
ing public awareness which is so neces-
sary for the protection and preservation
of our rights:
[From the Casper Star-Tribune, June 10,
19701
NAMES FOR SALE: WHAT PRIVACY?
Congressman John Wold is so specifically
right in his opposition to the (former) prac-
tice of the Internal Revenue Service in sell-
ing lists of names that we cannot see how
anyone could reasonably disagree with his
position.
Selling names and addresses for advertis-
ing and other uses is a common practice
which helps a few to the annoyance of many.
It is a practice which should be outlawed.
While we tolerate it, we regard it as an in-
vasion of privacy. Those individuals and in-
stitutions which provide such listings can-
not be regarded as much less than scavengers
at a cent or five cents a name. A customer
or prospective customer writes to a company
regarding an item, and it is only a short time
hence, that he receives "pitches" from other
Government. the President has stated forth it could operate just across the
time au d ,time ;again that he intends to Cambodian border from Vietnam with
bring our men out of.Cambodia, and he immunity.
is doing this. He has already reduced I am constrained to take issue with the
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3.
 E 5464
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - Extensions of Remarks June 11, 1970,
companies which may meet some area of his
interest.
When the Internal Revenue Service makes
use of privileged information, available to
it under compulsion of law, the hackles of
every citizen should rise. After Mr. Wold
asked the IRS to stop selling rolls of mailing
labels containing names and addresses of
some 140,000 licensed gun dealers and col-
lectors for about a cent a name, the IRS
said it had done so, but contended it could
sell the lists under the Freedom of Infor-
mation Act.
The IRS viewpoint has been described as
a gross distortion of the act, and we are
inclined to agree. In an area where there
is reason to believe that private enterprise
is open to suspicion, the U.S. Government
should be simon pure?
Congressman Wold has raised the question
of whether the rights of individuals have
been violated. He also noted that indis-
criminate circulation of such lists as those
of gun dealers and collectors could provide
targets for access of weapons.
There. is continuing concern--as there
should be-that personal information pro-
vided to governmental agencies will be mis-
used. If there is any one thing that has
made this country great, it is the philo-
sophy that it is a nation of individuals
and -1hat they are not merely units of an
overriding state.
If we are willing to go that way-toward
Communism-we can do it by gradual proc-
essors which hardly will be noticed. The
erosion of individual freedom Is almost un-
perceived, and bureaucracy becomes such a
behemoth that even the President and his
twisting the arms of republican form of
government.
John Wold has pinpointed this question
to the field of guns-and he was right in
doing that. But it Is a much larger issue
dealing with the American citizen, the law-
abiding person, the non-criminal, who has
some privilege of privacy which should be
respected by private enterprise and by his
government.
THE COMPUTER AGE IS DAWNING
ON CAPITOL HILL
HON. LEE METCALF
OF MONTANA
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITEI) STATES
Thursday, June 11, 1970
Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, in 1965
and 1966, I was a member of the Joint
Committee on the Organization of the
Congress jointly chaired by former Sen-
ator A. S. Mike Monroney and Repre-
sentative RAY J. MADDEN.
Our deliberations led to the Legislative
Reorganization Act, approved by the
Senate in 1967.
During the course of several weeks of
hearings we learned again that knowl-
edge is power-that enacting legislation
requires an understanding of the alter-
natives. That understanding would be
aided immeasurably by the use of com-
puters, upon which business and execu-
tive departments are relying increasingly
to their advantage.
Mr. President, computers would better
equip us to make the decisions we must
make. They would give this Nation's law-
makers the capability we must have to
meet representatives of the executive
branch and the business community on
equal terms.
That the computer age is dawning on
Capitol Hill is the subject of an article
in the May 28, 1970, issue of the National
Journal, published by the Center for
Political Research. The article discusses
provisions of the Legislative Reorganiza-
tion Act which has been ordered reported
by the House Rules Committee. Title IV
would create a Joint Committee on Data
Processing charged with the responsibil-
ity for establishing a system of auto-
matic data processing and information
storage and retrieval to meet the "urgent,
critical, and continuing need" of the
Congress.
The author is Mr. Andrew J. Glass,
formerly of the New York Herald-Tri-
bune and now the Journal's congres-
sional staff correspondent. I ask unani-
mous consent that this report be printed
in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the report
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
CPR REPORT/CONGRESS MOVES INTO COMPUTER
AGE BUT DIVIDES ON CONTROL OF NEW
SYSTEMS
(By Andrew J. Glass)
The computer age Is dawning on Capitol
Hill.
Despite this awakening, there is resistance
within the legislative branch against creat-
ing a unified computer system. Sparring has
arisen between the House and Senate and
within each body over who will control the
computers, although no one is opposing their
introduction.
Behind these disputes lies the knowledge
that information is power: Any group that
designs and runs a computer system in Con-
gress also has the potential to shape the
legislative process.
Enacting legislation often reflects an un-
derstanding of the alternatives. With access
to computer tools, individual lawmakers
would become less dependent on committees
and better equipped to take the initiative.
Redressing the balance: Computers, which
thrive on the kind of recurring data Con-
gress deals in, may provide the lawmakers
with a new capability to challenge policy-
makers in the executive branch.
Among those pressing for action it is
widely felt that "third-generation" analytic
computers could be an effective tool in re-
storing to Congress powers yielded nearly
50 years ago with the passage of the Budget
and Accounting Act of 1921 (PL 67-13).
Until then, it was Congress and not the
executive branch that annually prepared the
federal budget draft.
, Withput the detailed information gener-
ated by the budgetary cycle, Congress lacks
a key framework for decision-making.
A 1969 House Government Operations
Committee report states that "the time is
already here when the Bureau of the Budget
could not prepare the budget without the
use of a computer."
There are 4,666 computers in the federal
government, 62.1 per cent of them in the
Defense Department. This does not count
computers tied into specific weapons sys-
tems.
Bridging the gap: Four years ago, the sole
computer facility on Capitol Hill was a small
unit used to calculate the Library of Con-
gress payroll. Even today, in making fresh
strides to bridge the information gap with
the executive branch, Congress finds itself
behind nearly two dozen state legislatures
which have computerized their data.
Sn 1965, Congress directed the National
Bureau of Standards to offer all-out techni-
cal support to federal agencies in the com-
puter sciences (PL 89-306).
Yet a good deal of this new data is not
being used by Congress, which currently
lacks the means to absorb it. For example:
Walter W. Hassie, director of management
information systems for the Budget Bureau,
has privately offered on Capitol Hill to make
available the data used to compile 200-odd
special analyses which, in turn, govern key
budget-making decisions. Hassle is also mov-
ing toward a year-round "rolling budget"
system. At present, Congress lacks the man-
power and tools to use this data-to evalu-
ate it independently or to maintain its own
"rolling budget," which requires computers
continuously to monitor all changes in
spending levels.
In Denver, the Air Force runs its compu-
terized Project LITE (Legal Information
Through Electronics). LITE has such data
as the entire text of the U.S. Code; all pub-
lished decisions of the U.S. Comptroller Gen-
eral and all unpublished decisions since 1955,
and all international law agreements. Con-
gress has no way of tapping into LITE.
This year, the Bureau of the Census is de-
veloping comprehensive magnetic tape files
on U.S. population trends, including key
statistics on race, education, income and
housing. Congress lacks independent means
to study this data.
Too much, too soon: Another major prob-
lem facing Congress is, in the words of the
systems analysts, "Information overload." As
a recent Library of Congress report puts it:
"The problem usually is not too little in-
formation, but too much.
HOUSE
Having successfully resisted for four years,
House Democratic leaders determined in
1969 that presure had mounted to the point
where they should produce a congressional
reorganization bill.
The result of these efforts is more modest
in scope than scores of previous efforts that
have failed in the House. Known as the Leg-
islative Reorganization Act of 1970 (HR
17654), the bill is scheduled to be taken
up on the House floor during the week of
June 22.
Computer provisions: Title IV of the bill
provides for the creation of a Joint Commit-
tee on Data Processing. This concept faces
strong opposition.
Joint approach-The proposed panel would
be composed of six Senators and six Repre-
sentatives, divided evenly between Democrats
and Republicans. The group would have wide
powers to set computer policies for Congress.
Specifically, the joint committee would be
charged with Implementing the bill's finding
that "... there Is an urgent, critical and
continuing need on the part of the Congress
and the legislative branch generally for a
modern, effective and coordinated automatic
data processing and information storage and
retrieval system."
The joint committee approach had been
advocated (as HR 7012) by Rep. William S.
Moorhead, D-Pa., who says that "Capitol Hill
computer systems must be compatible-they
must be able to 'talk to one another."'
Record salary-Under the plan, the joint
committee would hire a director of data proc-
essing and pay him $40,000 a year. This would
be the highest-paid staff position on Capitol
Hill.
It would be some $2,000 higher than the
salaries paid to the Architect of the Capitol,
the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of
the Senate. And it would be only $2,500 be-
low the political ceiling Imposed by the
Members' own salary level. (A deputy direc-
tor would earn $36,000 a year.)
Gordon E. Nelson, who recently resigned as
administrative assistant to Rep. B. F. Sisk,
D-Calif., a principal author of the reorgani-
zation measure, said the high salary levels
reflect the difficulty of luring away the best
people and keeping them. "The data process-
ing community," he added, "has a notorious
reputation fo pirating people."
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 10, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL R
S 8763
Perhaps most ominous of all, Mr. Nixon's You commented on the President's deci- I need to know since I have a wife and two
action has prompted an unusual show of sion to launch the recent Cambodian op- daughters who want to know. Don't tell me
Russian-Chinese co-operation; Russia has oration. I would also like to make a few withdrawal because we need protection to
proposed to Ch_ ilia a joint Indochina policy comments and say that I admire the Presi- avoid being killed while withdrawing.
to press for American withdrawal from dent for having the personal and political Very respectfully,
The action
make such a move
t
.
o
Southeast Asia. courage
So its is conceivable the Cambodian thrust was long overdue. Our news media, protest-
poses the risk of flat deeper entanglement ors, and indignant dissenters seem to pur-
than Mr. Nixon envisioned. That is why so posely ignore that the North Vietnamese are
many Senators want to make prompt with- trying to impose their will by force on the
drawal from Cambodia as certain as possible, South Vietnamese. Trying to, they have for
and why. they want to make sure money will years! They have forgotten that Laos belongs
not automatically be available for a re-entry to the Laotians and not to North Vieltnam.
If some new crisis arises. They have forgotten that Cambodia, too, is
The Senates duty is clear. In the interest an independent country with the right to
of withdrawal and peace in Indochina it conduct its own internal affairs and to be
should cut bff funds for Cambodia. free from interference and occupation by a
vicious foreign power. The North Vietnamese
are not. Cambodians. Why should they be
'HE POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT permitted to use Laos and Cambodia as they
ll
d
W. DOLE. Mr. President, as we con-
tinue to debate the President's power to
exercise his constitutional duty as Com-
mander in Chief, it is important that
we consider the feelings of our fighting
men in Southeast Asia. Often, the Presi-
dent's critics forget what the men who
are doing the fighting think about the
conduct of the war.
If we examine the broad cross-section
of America, at home and in the combat
zone, we discover strong and solid ma-
jority support for the President's con-
duct of Southeast Asia operations. There
is little doubt, in fact, that the vast ma-
jority of the soldiers in the war zone
support the President's decision to pro-
tect their lives by sending American
forces into Cambodia. It is vital that
none of us forget that these Americans
in Southeast Asia do have faith in their
Commander in Chief.
While some editors and others sit in
the safety of their homes in America and
condemn the President, I would remind
my colleagues again that it is President
Nixon who deesoalated the war in South-
east Asia, that it is President Nixon who
reduced our troop level by 115,500 men.
If we read the newspapers and listen
to the commentators, they refer to cer-
tain Members of this body as "antiwar
Senators." I assume that must mean
those who support the President are
"prowar Senators."
Of course, nothing could be further
from the truth.
e
as
sed fit? This has in the past been ca
gression and was not condoned by world
powers, such as the invasion of Poland in
WW Ii. Do we now condone this kind of
thing by the North Vietnamese because
Cambodia, Laos and South Vietnam are at
various degrees of helplessness? Some say
the government of South Vietnam is corrupt
and does not have the support of its Own
people. Should we then turn the country
over to the Communists who methodically
killed and terrorized South Vietnam into
virtual anarchy and forced us to start the
large military buildup in 1985? Look how
long it took the South to recover after the
Civil War. They were in much better shape
after the Civil War than the South Vietnam-
ese were in 1985, but less than five years
later it appears that South Vietnam is rap-
idly getting on its feet.
Don't we as Americans have a national
conscience? Don't we have enough smarts
to realize that the world communist struc-
ture is solidly behind North Vietnam and
absolutely delighted to see Americans do it
to themselves?
We have every moral right the moral re-
sponsibility to protect our soldiers in South
Vietnam. I feel that we have the very defi-
nite moral responsibility to protect innocent
people in nations less fortunate than us,
particularly when these countries are so
openly attacked or occupied as Cambodia,
Laos, and South Vietnam have been. I could
go on and on and discuss the absolute idiocy
of permitting the enemy, encouraging the
enemy, to have flourishing sanctuaries; but
I won't bore you. Yes, President Nixon did
the right thing; and I think you should
write him, your Congressman, and Senators
,to let them know that sensible Americans
are behind him.
Mr. President, let me say again that
perhaps, from time to time, we lose sight
of the men who are doing the fighting
in Southeast Asia, of the American men
in uniform who are asked to take the
risks, and- in some cases, to make the
supreme sacrifice.
But more important, let me underscore
again to those who so freely criticise the
present President, that this is not Pres-
ident Nixon's war. The war was well on
its way by January 20, 1969, when he
assumed the high office of the Presidency.
Let me underscore that he has not es-
calated the war since that time. He has
not sent more troops. He has withdrawn
115,500 men. He has not increased the
bombing. He has reduced the bombing.
There has been a reduction in casualties.
The President has announced that an-
other 50,000 men will be withdrawn by
October 15 of this year and that by next
spring, next May 1, an additional 100,-
000 men-which will mean, if I computed
the total correctly, about 80 percent of
all our combat troops in South Viet-
nam-will have been withdrawn because
of the Vietnamization program.
Thus, I say, Mr. President, as we con-
sider all the facts in the final hours be-
fore voting on the Byrd amendment, we
should keep in mind this letter from the
young lieutenant and the one from Lieu-
tenant Colonel Dickey. They are on the
firing line. They are not residing in a
place of safety and criticizing the Presi-
dent or finding fault with his policies.
I do not know the politics of these two
men and am not concerned about that.
They are concerned about their safety,
and the safety of their fellow men in
Southeast Asia.
I happen to believe, as indicated yes-
terday, that we strengthen the Cooper-
Church amendment by adoption of the
Byrd amendment.
It would serve notice that we have a
shared responsibility. I would hope that,
when the vote comes tomorrow, the Sen-
ate in its wisdom will adopt the Byrd
amendment by a wide margin.
Now, Mr. President, I wish to take a
brief moment to welcome back those
Senators, Governors, and Members of
the House who have taken time to go
to Southeast Asia, South Vietnam, and
Cambodia, to find out for themselves
just what is happening. Particularly I
refer to the Members of this body, the
distinguished Senator from Texas (Mr.
TOWER), the distinguished Senator from
California (Mr. MURPHY), and two in-
trepid Democrats, the distinguished Sen-
ator from New Hampshire (Mr. McIN-
TYRE), and the distinguished Senator
from Nevada (Mr. CANNON)-who is a
man familiar with those who are willing
to take a gamble.
There were others from the House and
from the executive branch, such as Bryce
Harlow and the President's director of
communications, Mr. Herbert Klein.
There were 13 gentlemen who had the
courage, the interest, and the opportu-
nity to take the long arduous flight to
I know of no Member of this body who Mr. President, yesterday. I also received
is not an antiwar Senator. a letter from a young lieutenant in Cal-
I know of no member of this body ifornia, who raises, a pertinent question.
who wants war as opposed to peace. I shall not mention his name in the
In fact, I know of no Member of this RECORD because I do not have his consent
body who does not want peace at the to do so, but let me read his letter:
earliest possible time in Southeast Asia, JUNE 4, 1970.
in the Middle East,. and in every other DEAR SENATOR: I am departing shortly for
trouble spot: in the world. my fifth tour of duty in Southeast Asia. I did
Accordingly I would say to those who not volunteer for any of these assignments,
coin the phrases, 'that the facts do not but I have not tried to snivel out or shirk
support their conclusions. my responsibilities to my country either, be-
Mr. President, recently I noted a letter cause I am certain that the President's poi-
published in the Ashland, Kans., news- icies on Southeast Asia are correct.
Casualties have always been higher than
paper, the Clark County Clipper, written they should have been since the enemy has
by Lt. Col. (toy Dickey, who is in the Air enjoyed privileged sanctuaries. The enemy
ZlorCe,.. was careful not to make his sanctuaries too
.:,
Let me read, that part of his letter attractive as he, was not sure we would not
that deals with Cambodia. He is not destroy them, therefore we had something of
writing from the safety of an office. He a psychological advantage. The Cooper-
Is not, an editor, he'is not a comrnenta- Church amendment would guarantee the
enemy safe sanctuaries from which to stage
tor, he is not a; Stember of this body, he troops and supplies.
is not ent, but, he is concerned The ..cooper-Church amendment would
about AmerI6a , guarantee protection for the enemy. What
Approved For Release 2002/01/02-: CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S 8764
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 10, 1970
South Vietnam, and to risk the pos- Eleven top officers and leaders of A.F.L.- -been drafted. They have obeyed the or-
sibility of death or capture, to see first- C.I.O., A.L.A., and independent unions, with ders of their Government.
hand the result of the President's suc- a total membership of 31/2 million, met in I believe that nearly every Senator has
cessful gamble in Cambodia. Washington Tuesday (June 9) to plan labor served in the military service and has
activities in support of the Amendment to served in wartime. I suppose that none
Mr. President, I do not speak lightly End the war.
when I talk of risking death or capture. We requested a meeting with the five orig- of us looked forward with the greatest
When you are fighting guerrilla warfare; inal sponsors of the Amendment, and Sena- pleasure at the prospect of entering the
when there are no front lines, when the tors Cranston, McGovern and Hatfield joined military service in wartime. Neverthe-
enemy has the capability of firing rock- us during our deliberations, along with a less, we did so. We went. And that is true
ets and mortars into our bases at any representative of Senator Hughes. The group of those who have gone to Vietnam. They
time he is willing to risk his own life, formed an ad hoc national labor committee have not burned their draft cards. They
then no American is completely safe. to end the war and scheduled a second ses- have not evaded the draft. They have
lion June 17, when a permanent ding
I -am certain, however, that the gentle- mittee and the names of the participating gone to Vietnam and they serve.
men who participated in this inspection union leaders will be announced. Many of these men-and I know it is
trip found life much safer than it was be- We want to demonstrate to the American true of a number from my State-have
fore May 1. You cannot kill 9,000 of the people and to our government that mil- volunteered for a second tour of duty in
enemy, you cannot capture 11 million lions of patriotic American workers want Vietnam.
rounds of small arms ammunition and the War brought to an early end according Our amendment will not in any way
15,000 weapons; you cannot destroy his who rules the Those of
compromise the safety of these men, who
who join in n supporting of the the Amendment and his caches and disrupt his sup- Clare that no group group p of workers ers in in any de-
bases any one serve in Cambodia, in Vietnam, and any
ply lines without making life a little safer city can or should speak for the entire Amer- place in Southeast Asia. Our view is that
for those on our side. ican labor movement. it will offer. them the opportunity of a
Mr. President, I recognize there are Many of our members are veterans. we larger safety through the confinement of
some divergent views on the value of this share the pride of all Americans in our flag. the, war to Vietnam, and hope for an
inspection trip, but one learns more in We shall carry and show it to demonstrate earlier end of the war.
the field than by reading the newspapers, that pride. The issue before the Senate is really
or by listening to cammentatorsor by We love our country. We feel that it has as- not a difficult one to understand, al-
sumed an unnecessary burden by becoming though it has been misinterpreted.
listening to debate in this Chamber. shackled by the War. Inflation has been one
Mr. President, it is easy to criticize of the results of that War. Our workers pay Cambodia was invaded by the North
from a place of safety. But it is a little the price of inflation every day and our Vietnamese and the Vietcong. Laos was
more difficult to take a look first hand. members who are on pension suffer. Un- invaded. South Vietnam was invaded.
One can learn more in the field than by employment, resulting from inflation, I agree with the Senator from Kansas
reading the papers or by listening to the threatens the entire labor movement. Only that many seem to forget that it was the
debate that goes on in this safest of all by ending the War can inflation be ended. North Vietnamese and the Vietcong who
sanctuaries-the Senate Chamber. Therefore we support the Amendment to. invaded these countries. The United
End the War. In addition, we support a sound States is not the aggressor. In Vietnam,
So, regardless of their individual views program of economic mic conversion designed to
upon their return, whatever they may be, provide jobs as our economy shifts from war whether or not it has been declared by
I commend my colleagues in the Senate to peace. We also support the Church-Coop- the Congress or recognized by a resolu-
who have taken the time to determine er Amendment and oppose any modifica- tion to be a state of war, it has been de-
firsthand whether the Cambodian incur- on of it. clared that our course is withdrawal
sion was successful, to determine whether The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. from the war.
the pacification program in South Viet- TALMADGE). What is the pleasure of the The United States owes no obligation
nam is successful, to determine whether Senate? to Cambodia. It owes no obligation by
the Vietnamization program is successful. The Senator from Kentucky is recog- treaty. It owes no obligation because of
I would guess there are divergent nized. any resolution of the Congress to au-
views and that some may reach different Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I have thorize the use of our forces in Cam-
conclusions. But whatever conclusion no prepared remarks. However, I do bodia for Cambodia.
they reach, we owe them a debt of grati- want to make a few comments on this And I certainly assume that there is
tude for their willingness and their cour- matter. no executive agreement which would
age to take this trip and to report to us. I would like to say that the Senator promise the use of our forces in Cam-
LABOR LEADERS SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT TO from Kansas has been very assiduous and bodia
END THE WAR faithful in his duty as a Member of this We have come to a point where our
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, yester- body, and in his participation in this de- forces are engaged in Cambodia. The
day a group of labor leaders represent- bate. I have enjoyed listening to him and President has said that they will be
ing unions with a total membership of I have paid attention to the issues that withdrawn by June 30. I believe that
3.5 million in the United States met in he has raised. statement to be correct. Our amendment,
Washington
Washington with the Senator from South I agree with his statement that Presi- if it is agreed to, would then become ef-
Forces regulate the amivitier
(Mr. MCGovERx), the Senator dent Nixon has reversed the policy of of our Armed It would
from Oregon (Mr. HATFIELD), and :me, to the preceding administrations. The that t date, eh Vietnam after
discuss'the efforts in Congress to find a President has said that he seeks to se- Whin the obligation ito to I shall d.
way to end our participation in the war cure an end to the war in Vietnam either We have no Cambodia.
in Southeast Asia. Following that gather- by negotiation or by the policy of Viet- The amendment provides that from
ing, an announcement was made of the namization, I support that purpose. July 1, we shall not become engaged in
formation of a National Labor Commit- The Secretary of State has said on nu- a war for Cambodia or in a war in Cam-
tee To End the War. merous occasions that the President's bodia, without the consent of Congress.
I ask unanimous consent to have policy is irreversible. I believe that it is I believe our amendment has sound
printed in the RECORD at this point the irreversible unless by some chance, or be- constitutional authority.
statement accompanying that announce- cause of unforeseen events, our country It has been argued that the constitu-
ment, which covers the position of these may be led into a widening of the war. tional authority of the President to pro-
leaders of labor regarding the war in This is the real issue and that is the tect our forces would override the consti-
Southeast Asia generally, regarding the reason we are advocating the adoption tutional authority of the Congress to
amendment to end the war, and regard- of the amendment offered on behalf of provide that we shall not become en-
ing the Cooper-church amendment. the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH), gaged in a war without the authority of
There being nb objection, the state- the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANS- Congress.
ment was ordered to be printed in the FIELD), the Senator from Vermont (Mr. There is an area in which it is difficult
RECORD, as follows: AIKEN), and myself. to delineate the line between the powers
STATEMENT BY THOMAS E. BOYLE I would agree also that the men who of the President and the Congress. But
(NoTE.-Mr. Boyle is president of the In- fight in Vietnam deserve the support of there is a line.
ternational Chemical, Workers Union and the Congress and of the people. Some of I have read the debate of the Found-
temporary chairman of the National Labor those who fight are regulars. Many of ing. Fathers and recent briefs prepared
Committee to End the War.) them are volunteers, and many have upon the authority and war powers of
`Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 10, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
the Commander in Chief, including his
authority to protect the troops from the
beginning, and most of the authorities
spoke of the President's authority as one
to repel sudden attack and to defend the
troops against attack.
Gradually throughout the years, Presi-
dents have extended this power beyond
that concept. Throughout the years
Presidents have sent troops into other
countries to protect American lives and
American property. But as the writers
have said, the fact that such action has
been taken beyond its proper scope does
not make such action of continuing pro-
priety either by law or by the Constitu-
tion. By legislative enactment, Congress
can assert its authority.
I have read the questions asked yester-
day by the distinguished Senator from
Virginia (Mr. Sroxa) who is present on
the floor, regarding the constitutional
power of the President.
It has been interpreted as the power
to repel sudden attack. I believe it would
include the authority of "hot pursuit." If
an emergency should arise near or upon
the border between Cambodia and
South Vietnam which should cause the
President, as Commander in Chief, to
think it necessary to take limited ac-
tion to protect troops, I would agree
that he could and should protect our
men.
Our amendment provides in subsec-
tion 4, in effect, that the Air Force of
the United States can be used to inter-
dict the enemy and supplies from North
Vietnam, or South Vietnam, or Cam-
bodia, attempting to attack our forces in
South Vietnam. Similarly, artillery and
rockets could be used to protect our men
and destroy sanctuaries.
Commonsense and judgment de-
termine those situations where the
Commander in Chief is using his au-
thority to protect his men. Common-
sense and judgment also lead us, I think,
to believe if that authority is used be-
yond the necessity for the immediate
protection of the Armed Forces, to en-
gage our, forces in situations in support
of Cambodia, or for the retention of our
forces in Cambodia on a more or less per-
manent basis I believe commonsense be-
tween Congress and the Executive, and
agreement between them, would indicate
that the Executive had moved beyond
the concept of protection of the troops,
and has entered the military-political
field which is within the authority of
the President and also of Congress.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I shall yield in just a
moment.
'VVkiat we are really saying--and I think
it should be simply stated-is that we are
not condemning the action in Cambodia.
We say nothing about it in the amend-
ment. "People have different judgments
abaut,it it, created uncertainty in this
eeippm " but in a military way it has been
We ,are not attempting to encroach
upon the President's constitutional
powers.
The amendment intends that, if it
'sl'louldbecome necessary to protect Cam-
bodia pr become permanently involved in
Cambodia 'as a part of the war in Viet-
nam, you are entering a field in which
Congress has a right to enter into that
judgment.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator
from Virginia.
Mr. SPONG. Earlier the Senator from
Kentucky made reference to the ques-
tions I propounded yesterday to the
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. BYRD),
the sponsor of the pending amendment.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. SPONG. I wonder if the Senator
from Kentucky would comment on these
questions in addition to what he has
already said with regard to his under-
standing of the independent powers al-
ready possessed by the President as Com-
mander in Chief. The questions appear
on pages 8687-88 of the RECORD of yester-
day, June 9, 1970.
Would the Senator care to comment
of give an opinion as to the independ-
ent powers presently held by the Presi-
dent as Commander in Chief with re-
gard to the situations outlined in the
questions?
Mr. COOPER. I will start with the
question the Senator asked first.
Mr. SPONG. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. Without trying to de-
fine an area in terms of 2 or 3 miles,
I would say the President has that au-
thority.
Second, concerning his question "To
destroy enemy supplies, staging areas,
headquarters, and so forth, in a rela-
tively narrow zone along the Cambodian-
South Vietnamese border," "approxi-
mately 20 miles in width," I have al-
ready pointed out -under subsection 4
of our amendment, the Air Force of the
United States could attack such areas
and artillery could be used and rockets
could be used. As to the question whether
there is continuing authority to enter
Cambodia in a zone 20 miles in width,
I would say our amendment does not
recognize such authority. That is my
judgment. But if an emergency situa-
tion should arise where our troops were
in danger, I think the President, in his
good judgment, would have the power to
defend our troops against attack.
I cannot set out a line in terms of
miles. I am trying to base the authority
on steps against a sudden attack, re-
pelling sudden attack, or in case of an
emergency, such action as is necessary to
protect the troops. I am trying to distin-
guish between such direct authority and
the authority the Byrd-Grif[ih amend-
ment would give to take any action that
may be determined it is unlimited.
(At this point the Acting President
pro tempore assumed the chair.)
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield to the Senator
from Idaho, who is cosponsor of the
amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I wish to
add an afterthought along the lines of
the Senator's comment.
The key word in the Cooper-Church
amendment is "retaining," Subsection 1
of the amendment prohibits the reten-
tion of American forces in Cambodia
after June 30. I agree with the Senator
from Kentucky that our amendment is
S 8765
intended to prohibit a permanent or
quasi-permanent occupation of a buffer
zone within Cambodia for an extended
period of time.
However, if it were to happen that the
enemy suddenly utilized a staging area,
and there was a concentration of enemy
troops and equipment obviously intended
to be used against South Vietnam be-
yond the border, we would agree that the
President, as Commander in Chief, has
the constitutional authority to order his
field officers to strike at and destroy such
a base to protect American troops in
South Vietnam. This would, however, be
in the nature of a sudden strike and
withdrawal operation.
I further agree with the Senator from
Kentucky when he says that the adop-
tion of the Byrd amendment would open
up an exception so large that it honestly
renders the Cooper-Church amendment
meaningless.
The President could invoke the Justi-
flcation of acting for the purpose of de-
fending American troops to cover almost
any future operation that he himself
might decide upon. That would be ex-
tremely unfortunate. That would permit
our amendment to become another Ton-
kin Gulf resolution-if not even broad-
er in conception-if the President were
to decide later to use it for that purpose.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Kentucky further yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. SPONG. I address this question
either to the Senator from Kentucky or
the Senator from Idaho. They are both
in the same boat.
Mr. COOPER. It is a good boat.
Mr. SPONG. I, of course, am interested
in what Senator BYRD's reply will be to
the questions I have propounded; but I
should like the opinion of either of the
sponsbrs of the Cooper-Church amend-
ment whether they believe that under
the language of the Byrd amendment the
President would be granted tacit author-
ity to order his military commanders in
the field to do all these things.
Mr. CHURCH. My answer would be
"Yes."
Mr. COOPER. The Senator from Vir-
ginia asked abaut the Byrd amendment.
Let me read it. I should like to place it
in the RECORD. It reads as follows:
On page 5, line 7, before the semicolon in-
sert a comma and the following: except that
the foregoing provision of this clause shall
not preclude the President from taking such
action as may be necessary to protect the
lives of United States forces in South Viet-
nam or to facilitate the withdrawal of United
States forces from South Vietnam".
The amendment has great appeal, be-
cause it speaks of protecting the lives of
U.S. forces. in South Vietnam. It will be
argued and has been argued that Sen-
ators who vote against the amendment
are not taking care to protect the U.S.
forces in South Vietnam.
The Byrd-Griffin amendment cannot
give the President any larger powers
than the constitutional authority that
he enjoys. What it would do, if it should
be adopted by Congress, would be to ap-
prove in advance any action the Presi-
dent may want to take: His determina-
tion alone would justify it.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3 ,
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
S 8766 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 10, 19701
I want to make it clear that I am not
talking in personal terms of the Execu-
tive who is President Nixon. He is my
President. I am a member of his party.
I have supported him in his program for
ending the war in Vietnam. But we have
been through this procedure before, the
procedure of- giving authority to the
President, who did not intend, I am
sure, to extend the authority which is
given him beyond "that as expressed at
the time, but which was extended.
This amendment is broader in its scope
than the Tonkin Gulf resolution, so far
as the protection of troops is concerned.
The Tonkin Gulf resolution has two
parts, one dealing with protection of the
troops, and the other dealing with pro-
tection of the freedom of the protocol
states. The Tonkin Gulf resolution gave
the President authority-I recall it be-
cause I read it just a short time ago-to
protect troops, to repel an attack upon
the troops, and to defend them. It was
defensive-to repel an attack on our
troops and defend them. This amend-
ment is like the old, familiar barn door
wide open.
If some situation should occur, if the
Thais go into Cambodia-and the South
Vietnamese evidently like Cambodia-
and we find ourselves under some obliga-
tion to go into Cambodia and protect
Cambodians or the Thais, I believe the
commonsense and judgment of the Mem-
bers of this body would be that the au-
thority to do so would be the joint au-
thority of the President and the
Congress.
We do not take away from the Presi-
dent the opportunity. to employ any
course of action he wants to employ, but
if the situation is beyond. the defense of
the Armed Forces let us say, "It is a joint
responsibility and let us reason together
and let us determine whether action
should be taken." I do not see anything
wrong with that.
Mr. SPONG. I thank the Senator from
Kentucky.
Does the Senator from Kentucky be-
lieve that the Cooper-Church amend-
ment would be harmed if in that amend-
ment the independent powers of the
President, as Commander in Chief, which
the Senator believes to be already held by
the President of the United States, were
spelled out?
Mr. COOPER. I doubt if we could spell
out precisely what they are. I have indi-
cated some, through reading the authori-
ties that I have found, that have been
characterized as being his powers.
Mr. SPONG. What we have before us,
as the Senator from Kentucky has ably
pointed out, is appealing language, in
which we are speaking in terms of the
protection of the troops and aiding our
dosen agement from South Vietnam.
Within that framework, which is the
common objective of all of us, it is my
judgment that if the Senate in some way
should work its will to express clearly
those independent powers which the
President possesses as Commander in
Chief, the amendment would be
stye gthened
r, OOPER. I am not foreclosing the
possibility that it may be done, but we
are now talking about the Byrd amend-
ment.
I would like to read from the Tonkin
Gulf resolution relating to the subject we
are now discussing:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America
in Congress assembled, That the Congress
approves and supports the determination of
the President, as Commander in Chief, to
take all necessary measures to repel any
armed attack against the forces of the United
States and to prevent further aggression.
It is more limited in its terms than the
Byrd amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, would
the Senator permit me to make an ob-
servation at this point? The Senator
from Virginia placed in the RECORD yes-
terday five very specific hypotheses. I
think the difficulty of trying legislatively
to define the President's constitutional
authority is in a way underscored by ref-
erence to the hypotheses that the Sena-
tor has offered. Let us take them one by
one.
The first reads as follows:
To prevent enemy forces from crossing the
border into South Vietnam and to pursue
and destroy such forces as they attempt to
leave South Vietnam for Cambodia? This
contemplates a distance into Cambodia of
no more than two or three miles.
Here is an example that falls within
the area where the President's constitu-
tional powers as Commander in Chief
are being exercised. This is frequently
referred to as a case of hot pursuit. I
think without doubt the President has
the power of hot pursuit in the protection
of American forces, even though the hot
pursuit carries our troops over the Cam-
bodian border.
The second hypothesis reads as fol-
lows:
To destroy enemy supplies, staging area,
headquarters, and so forth, in a relatively
narrow zone along the Cambodian-South
Vietnamese border? This contemplates a
zone into Cambodia of approximately 20
miles in width.
The answer to this question depends
upon the method used and upon the time
frame. Without doubt, the President
could invoke his powers as Commander
in Chief to order aerial or artillery strikes
against bases of this kind. In fact, the
precedents would carry still further:
That he could launch a ground strike of
limited duration for the purpose of de-
stroying an enemy staging area that con-
stituted an immediate threat to Ameri-
can troops.
Mr. SPONG. If I may interrupt, the
Senator from Idaho is, of course, speak-
ing of the powers the President has now?
Mr. CHURCH. Right.
Mr. SPONG. Exclusive of the Byrd
amendment?
Mr. CHURCH. This is exactly so; he
now has those powers under the Consti-
tution.
Now, moving on to the third hypoth-
esis:
To attempt to find and engage any enemy
troops within the zone just described,irre-
spective of whether they are on the verge of
entering South Vietnam or whether they are
just returning from it?
If the Senator means by that the power
to go into Cambodia and to seek out the
enemy, even though enemy activity there
is not posing an immediate threat to our
troops on the other side of the border,
then we have probably crossed that line.
Mr. SPONG. Would the Senator from
Idaho call this a gray area?
Mr. CHURCH. It is an exceedingly gray
area; the precedents are not clear. If
the Senate adopts the Byrd amendment,
however, there is no doubt in my mind
that the amendment can be construed
as giving advance congressional consent
to the President to undertake that kind
of activity, if it is done in the name of
protecting American forces in South
Vietnam.
Now, the fourth illustration:
To attempt to occupy and hold the zone in
question, thus denying it to the enemy?
Here the Senator from Virginia con-
templates a quasi-permanent occupation
of a buffer zone within Cambodia. That
goes beyond the precedents defining the
President's inherent constitutional au-
thority. But again I say to the Senator
that if the Byrd amendment is adopted,
it could readily be interpreted as con-
ferring advance consent to a permanent
occupation of a buffer zone by American
forces. The next hypothesis:
Fifth. To engage in any or all of the types
of activity described in questions 2, 3, and 4,
but to do so throughout all of Cambodia, or
at least in parts of it beyond the 20-mile zone
near the border?
This, of course, takes the wraps off
entirely. Although none of us expects
that the President would make such a
decision in the future, I remind the Sen-
ator that we have been surprised before;
presidential policy has been changed be-
fore. If President Nixon were to change
his policy, he could refer to the Byrd
language in much the same manner as
President Johnson came to refer to the
Gulf of Tonkin language, thus justifying
any military activity in Cambodia, no
matter how far it extends or how perma-
nent it becomes, as long as he undertakes
it in the name of protecting American
forces in South Vietnam.
These are the best answers I can give
to the distinguished Senator from Vir-
ginia.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I agree
with the interpretation of the Senator
from Idaho.
Mr. SPONG. I appreciate the answers
of both the Senator from Idaho and the
Senator from Kentucky. I agree with the
Senator from Kentucky that it would
be extremely difficult to define language
that spelled out the President's inde-
rendent powers as Commander in Chief.
Nevertheless, if such terms as "repel an
attack" could be employed, I suggest it
would be helpful-
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield at that point?
Mr. SPONG. After I finish my sen-
tence-helpful within the framework
that the Senate presently finds itself
working.
The Senator from Kentucky has the
floor.
Mr. COOPER. I would just say one
thing: The Senator is absolutely correct
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 10, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 8767
when he says it Is very difficult to define
these powers.
Let us see if we can find out why it
of an emergency nature, dependent upon
the circumstances. Who can say what
the circumstances will be in the case of a
sudden attack or an emergency situa-
tion? The situations would differ in every
case. This, it seems to me, is the reason
it is difficult to spell out the powers of
the President.
But it is not difficult to think of sit-
uations'where the Executive should not
act alone, without consent of the Con-
gress-those which are unrelated to the
immediate defense of the troops. There
must be situations in which Congress
also has joint constitutional authority.
Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator from Ken-
tucky yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. DOLE. I might suggest to the Sen-
ator from Virginia that a section might
be added as No, 5, to the Church-Cooper
amendment, which would say, in effect,
that "nothing herein contained shall im-
pair the President's constitutional powers
as Commander in Chief." That is a recog-
ition of the President's powers, but not
an effort to .spell out every power the
resident might have and every right he
might have. This is somewhat different
from the suggested Byrd amendment.
h Second, in reviewing the questions
raised by the distinguished Senator from
Virginia, it appears that the first, second,
third, and fifth questions could be
achieved with the Church-Cooper
amendment, without adoption of the
Byrd amendment, as long as the action
was not in support of Cambodian forces.
The only one I see that might be pre-
cluded by the adoption of the Church-
Cooper resolution would be No. 4, "'To at-
tempt to occupy and ' hold the zone in
question, thus denying it to the enemy."
That would violate clause 1, with re-
spect to retaining U.S. forces in Cam-
bodia. But the other three sections of the
Church-Cooper resolution are directed
at support of the Cambodian forces; so
I fail to see that the Church-Cooper
resolution is a prohibition against con-
sideration of points one, two, three, or
five raised by the Senator from Virginia,
whether or not the amendment offered
by the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
BYiw), is adopted.
Mr. $PONG. The Senator from Kansas
has demonstrated the varying interpre-
tations this language is subject to.
In a preface to posing the questions,
r- expressed the opinion that the Senate
has a responsibility to try to work Its
will with the most specific language pos-
siible; If it wishes to participate in the
formulation of policy with regard to
Cambodia in the future.
What I conceive the Cooper-Church
`6fineidnient to be attempting, in part, to
do is. to redcflne the military theater.
I do not believe as long as the Sena-
torss racknowledge what the Commander
in Chief "s, powers are, that the Senate
would - e trying to , tell the Commander
how, to p aerate the war, although I am
Plot certain that at the present time that
the amendment is not open to that inter-
pretation.
I believe what is sought to be ac eom- the senior senator from Ohio (Mr.
plashed is a redefining of the theater of Youxc). It seems to me that he could
war-saying, in part, that the Senate have consulted with the leadership of
does not want a new war beyond a cer- his own party and with the leadership
tain point without consultation with of the relevant committees. But, as the
Congress. record now shows, this did not happen.
Mr. COOPER. We say that in subset- Recent accounts of the decisionmak-
tions 2 and 3. I might say that the Sen- ing process that led the President to au-
ator has obviously given this matter a thorize the Cambodian adventure serve
great deal of thought, because the ques- only to confirm this view. It seems that
tions are searching, and go to nearly all President Nixon gambled that by sud-
the points that we have thought about. denly widening the war into Cambodia,
We consider that subsections 2 and 3 his toughness would impress the North
concern themselves with the issue of a Vietnamese and the rest of the Commu-
new war for Cambodia, in which we are nist world that the United States can act
under no obligation, and subsection 1 vigorously, swiftly, and unpredictably.
would be designed to prevent the exten- If this was the message the President
sion of the war into Cambodia beyond hoped to convey, it obviously was lost on
the actual powers of the Commander in the North Vietnamese, who indicated no
Chief. greater willingness to discuss a nego-
Mr. SPONG. I thank the Senator from tiated settlemnet in the absence of a
Kentucky. Presidential envoy at the Paris talks, and
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, as might on the Russians, who continue to expand
have been expected, the fall of the neu- their military dnd political influence in
tralist Sihanouk government in Cam- the strategic Middle East.
bodia in early March of this year im- In an aside, let me suggest that I hope
mediately raised the question of Ameri- the administration is giving increasing
can assistance to the anti-Communist attention to the need to find a prestigious
Lon Nol regime. Administration officials envoy to represent us at the peace talks.
stated publicly that a request for mili- The Senator from Indiana is not so
tary aid was being reviewed, but went naive as to believe that this is auto-
further in saying that no American matically going to bring a successful cul-
troops would be involved in Cambodia in mination of the negotiation session, that
accord with the President's Guam doc- peace will automatically descend with
trine, which, as we know, was designed the appointment of a prestigious Presi-
to try to shift security responsibility onto dential envoy. But it is fair to say that
the nations of a given region. at least our chances of success are
Testifying before a House Appropria- greater if, indeed, we do have someone
tions Subcommittee on April 23, Secre- of significant prestige representing the
tary of State Rogers was asked about the President there personally. In addition,
extent to which the United States might I think it is fair to say that from the
be drawn into Cambodia. I think it is standpoint of the World forum, the view
significant, in light of this discussion, to that others have of the United States
review his remarks. He said directly: will be significantly different if they see
We have no incentive to escalate. Our that we are making a maximum effort
whole incentive is to de-escalate. We recog- at the peace table to negotiate a settle-
nize that if we escalate and get involved in ment. Apparently, that is not the case
Cambodia with our ground troops, that our now.
whole program (Vietnemization) is defeated. It appears to me that by committing
The Secretary later restated the case the United States even further into this
against our involvement in Cambodia in Asian quagmire the President, contrary
much the same language before the Sen- to his own plan, has inadvertently re-
ate Foreign Relations Committee. stricted our options in other, more im-
At the very same time the Secretary portant areas of the world.
of State was cautioning against a wider President Nikon's claim that the Cam-
war in Asia, we know now that contin- bodian operation was necessary because
gency plans for U.S. military operations Vietnamization was threatened by a re-
in Cambodia were being studied by the cent buildup in the border area sanc-
Secretary of Defense, the National Secu- tuaries sounds plausible, but when one
rity Council, General Abrams, and the examines the facts and the history of
President himself. In fact, it appears the situation as it actually unfolded, the
that at the time President Nixon made President's explanation is not accepta-
his April 20 statement announcing the ble. Did these sanctuaries suddenly pre-
possible withdrawal of 150,000 troops sent an increased military threat to our
during jhe next year, he had reviewed men in Vietnam between April 20, when
the Cambodian plans but tentatively the President told the Nation that all was
deferred a decision. going well, and April 30, when the Cam-
The President's April 30 decision to bodian attack was announced?
invade Cambodia-taken after consulta- The reverse appears to be closer to the
tion within the executive but without so fact. Around mid-April, following the
much as a passing nod to any congres- consolidation of the Lon Nol regime, the
sional leaders-was a dangerous and ir- military situation in Cambodia forced
responsible course of action. I must say, the Communists to turn westward, away
at the risk of sounding as if I am per- from Saigon and toward Phnompenh in
sonally piqued at not being consulted, order to protect their vital supply lines.
that this is not what I mean by a passing In a little noticed statement `of May 14,
nod to anyone in the legislative branch. Secretary of Defense Laird seemed to
I would not expect the President of the substantiate this when he pointed out,
United States to consult on this matter for example, that nearly one-third of all
with the junior Senator from Indiana, Communist forces in Cambodia were now
nor-at the risk of being disrespectful- "facing the other direction and moving
with our distinguished Presiding Officer, away from the sanctuary areas."
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S 8768
ApprovedCONGRESSIONAL0RECORD -RQP~I AQ1Q 37R000200240dune310, 1970'
answer-and I pose it only because I
think it bears some significance on the
discussion of whether the adventure in
Cambodia was wise or unwise-the ques-
tion which was asked me repeatedly by
GI's was:
"Senator, tell me, did it make sense
to have my outfit take that hill, that
hamlet, or that village 3 months ago,
where I saw two of my buddies fall, only
to have to go back next week and retake
the same territory once again?"
That is the operational effect of search
and destroy missions-and that is we are
involved In Cambodia, and have been
involved in unsuccessfully in South Viet-
nam over A period of years. This type of
operation has not been successful earlier
and I personally see little reason to
expect any greater success in the future.
That the President's action has esca-
lated and widened the ill-fated Vietnam
war already is apparent. The stepped-up
Communist activity around Phom Penh,
the heavy fighting in Laos, and the wide-
spread and coordinated attacks within
Vietnam itself are early but clear signs
of an impending confrontation through-
out Indochina. The Vietnam war is fast
becoming an Indochina war.
I noticed yesterday, in one of the
Washington newspapers, a reevaluation
of earlier intelligence data relative to
North Vietnam and Vietcong forces, par-
ticularly North Vietnam forces. The first
estimates of enemy troop strdngth were
in the neighborhood of about 50,000 to
52,000 troops. Because of the increased
activity following Cambodia, however,
a recent reappraisal has been made
which leads one to believe that their
forces are now almost twice that num-
ber-that more than 90,000 North Viet-
namese forces are presently in South
Vietnam.
Thus, I think it would be a serious
error for us to underestimate the forces
of the enemy remaining in Vietnam, at
the same time the scope of battle seems
to be widening throughout all of Indo-
china.
And now a more disturbing note. Writ-
ing in the New York Times of May 26,
Harrison Salisbury reported that:
Information . from sources close to
Communist leaders in Asia suggests that the
United States move into Cambodia has
transformed the Indochina situation more
radically than originally estimated.
An all-for-one and one-for-all agree-
ment, apparently has been reached, ac-
cording to this report, between the North
Vietnamese, the Vietcong, Prince Siha-
nouk, and the Pathet Lao-with the full
backing of Communist China.
What this means, in effect, is that
there is almost no prospect for a political
settlement of Vietnam alone. A negoti-
ated settlement would now have to cover
Cambodia and Laos as well. On the basis
of the snail-like pace of the Paris talks,
such a settlement is not likely to emerge
in the near future, and seems less likely
now than prior to the Cambodian in-
vasion.
I am deeply concerned then that this
Cambodian adventure will prolong the
war and our unfortunate involvement in
it. That it undermines the President's
already fragile Vietnamization policy-
as Secretary 'of State Rogers suggested-
is clear. The withdrawal of American
combat troops from South Vietnam, even
under the most favorable military and
political conditions, will place a heavy
burden on the Saigon government and
its troops.
That the repressive Thieu-Ky regime
is not going to be blessed with a favor-
able political climate is predictable on
the basis of widespread antigovernment
sentiment, sentiment that is likely to in-
crease as Thieu continues to stifle legiti-
mate dissent. That the North Vietnam-
ese and the Vietcong will not slacken
their activity to accommodate U.S. with-
drawals is also predictable. The recent
attack on Dalat, for exampLe, was simply
a sign to Saigon that the enemy can-
and will-attack when it so chooses.
What can we reasonably expect, if as
Vice President Ky and Ambassador
Bunker have indicated, the South Viet-
namese continue to involve themselves
militarily in the Cambodian civil war
after the United States has pulled out?
The prospects for Vietnamization, with
40,000 South Vietnamese fighting in
Cambodia, are not encouraging. The crit-
ical need, if the President's withdrawal
schedule is to be met, will be in South
Vietnam-not in Cambodia. Indeed, if
South Vietnamese forces are to broaden
the scope of their involvement, it seems
to me likely to lessen their effectiveness
in pacifying the countryside in South
Vietnam.
The President has failed to recognize
the contradiction in a? policy that seeks
to Vietnamize the war in South Viet-
nam while it Americanizes the war in
Cambodia.
The implications of the President's
rash action for the whole of Southeast
Asia are, however, only a part of my
concern. The most important conse-
quences of this reckless gamble are being
felt here at home.
I think it is imperative that all of us
assess the Vietnam war or, the Indo-
chinese confrontation, on the basis of
the facts as they exist today. It would
be a tragedy, indeed, if today's decisions
or tomorrow's decisions were based on
yesterday's actions or yesterday's mis-
takes. The future of such policies would
not only be disastrous but would, indeed,
compound yesterday's errors.
Thus, I find myself looking differently
at the Vietnam situation today 'than. I
did 5 years ago or as I did 12 months
ago. During the early months of this ad-
ministration, the Senator from Indiana,
although not agreeing fully with ad-
ministration policy, nevertheless felt
obliged to give the President sufficient
time to implement the plan he had for
disengaging this country from the quag-
mire of South Vietnam.
I can no longer stand mute, Mr. Pres-
ident (Mr. Moss), not only because of
a change in direction in our policy in
South Vietnam but also because of the
dangerous consequences of this new
course on the domestic front.
The tragic deaths at Kent State-an
outgrowth of protest -against the Pres-
ident's sudden widening of the conflict-
are a grim reminder of what this war is
doing to America. Even before Cam-
By the end of April, the size of the
Communist force in the Cambodian
sanctuary areas was greatly reduced and
the risks involved in a search-and-de-
stroy move across the border were thus
greatly diminished. Our military urged
that we take advantage of the situation.
As Secretary Laird explained, "this was
the time to hit them."
That the military had made a similar
pleas during the Johnson administra-
tion for cleaning out the Cambodian
sanctuaries-and had been rebuffed--is
now clear. As Paul Warlike, former As-
sistant Secretary of Defense for Inter-
national Security Affairs, said, these pro-
posals were always rejected because "the
political price was too high for the rela-
tively minor military gain." That the
military gains from search-and-destroy
missions have been temporary at best-
and expensive-is a lesson we should
have learned by now.
Too often in the past we have asked
our troops to take a so-called strategic
emplacement, at great cost to us in lives,
and military materiel, only to abandon it
and to have to take the same place later.
Are the Cambodian sanctuaries to be-
come a new Hamburger Hill? I think it
is a fair question for us to ask and for
the people to ask.
Despite the success claimed for it, I
doubt that the Cambodian operation will
have any really lasting significance from
a long term military standpoint. "Any
military gains," as former Secretary of
Defense Clark Clifford has said, "will be
temporary and inconsequential." The
former Secretary of Defense went on to
say:
This is not an idle prognostication upon
my part but is an opinion derived from past
experience. Time and again in South Vietham
the recommendation was made that a sweep
be conducted through the Ashau Valley on
the grounds that a vital blow could be struck
against enemy forces. 'dime and again, thou-
sands of American troops would sweep
through the valley and find practically no
enemy soldiers. The same will ? happen in
Cambodia.
After the adventure is concluded and our
troops have been pulled back to South Viet-
nam, I predict the enemy will quickly re-
occupy the areas that we have cleared. Even
if the decision were made to remain in Cam-
bodia, then I predict the enemy will develop
new bases and staging areas just outside
the perimeter of the area we occupy In Cam-
bodia. In either event, the military effect is
negligible and not worth the effort.
Our temporary military advantage in
Cambodia notwithstanding, I believe
that the political price-both at home
and abroad-is still too high to justify
such a reckless adventure.
Mr. President early in 1968, I spent 3
weeks in that part of the world. In fact,
I landed back in the United States the
first day the Tet offensive exploded in
South Vietnam. We were in all corners
of Vietnam and tried to explore as
thoroughly as we could, on a non-VIP
basis, without the red carpet treatment,
what was going on. It gave me a better
understanding of some of the complex-
ities of Vietnam, although I hasten to
add that it certainly did not make me an
expert. I must admit, though, that of all
the questions asked me by American mili-
tary personnel, the most difficult one to
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA- DP72-003370 0 200240017-3
June 10, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SEN E
bodla, it was no exaggeration to say that
the war in Vietnam was tearing at the
very fabric of our society, a war that has
cost 43,000 American lives; 2175,080 Amer-
loan wounded; 100 billion American dol-
lars.
And for what-to prop up the Thieu-
Ky regime? All of this while American
cities decay, while unemployment and
inflation worsen, while social tensions'are
heightened and the unfinished business
of America remains unfinished.
The war, to addition to the tragic
human toil it takes, is the major source
of our present ecgnomic ills-an un-
healthy mixture of inflation and reces-
sion.
Just how we achieved this worst of
both worlds economy is certainly no
mystery. Around the middle of 1965, as
was pointed out in the 1968 annual re-
port of the Council of Economic Ad-
visers:
The growth of demand for industrial prod-
ucts suddenly accelerated as the direct and
indirect consequences of the enlarged com-
mitment of U.S. forces in Vietnam .`
Prices of consumer services began to ac-
celerate, as service firms found it more diffi-
cult to obtain workers. With rising food and
service prices and stronger demands for la-
bor, upward pressures on wages intensified
in both the organized and unorganized sec-
tors. In the Industrial area, the impact of
demand on prices was strongest in the de-
fense-related and capital goods sectors,
where shortages of both capacity and skilled
manpower were most pronounced. But prices
also advanced in many other areas.
The upward pressures on prices and wages
in this period reflected both the speed of
the advance and the high level of resource
utilization which the economy achieved.
These pressures tripped off a price-wage
spiral.
Largely as the result of our deepening
involvement in Vietnam,, in the 2-year
period from mid-1965 to mid-1967, the
value of resources devoted to national
defense rose 50 percent. In an economy
operating at near capacity, this buildup
generated tremendous inflationary pres-
sures. In January, 1969, when president
Nixon took office, these pressures were
still very much alive-as was our in-
volvement in Southeast Asia. A year and
a half later and little has changed, ex-
cept that the President is now set upon
a course that deliberately seeks to in-
crease unemployment in order to combat
this Vietnam-generated inflation. The
American people have already paid a
very dear price for our Vietnamese ad-
venture. To ask this Nation to bear an
intolerable rate of unemployment-now
at 5 percent and rising-to further pay
for this seemingly endless and senseless
war is to ask too much in my judgment.
And now Cambodia. A nation that had
been promised an early end to the war
by a presidential candidate with a fool-
proof plan, now, finds itself faced with a
great difference between what was said
and what was delivered, and is once
again treated to double-talk. The Presi-
dept has Old us that in order to shorten
the war in Vietnam we must widen it
into Cambodia. The logic of this Cam-
bodian adventure, I must admit escapes
me,
n at America needs-and needs des-
perately-is not a wider war or a shorter
war, but a conclusive end to the war.
Still the war goes on. It appears that
not only is there no effective means for
fulfilling the campaign promises of
peace, but that there is no way of. pre-
venting an even wider war. The war
seems to have taken on a life and logic
all of its own. It has captured President
Nixon in much the same way it impri-
soned President Johnson.
The history of our involvement in Viet-
nam reveals that too often Government
officials have become the victims of their
own rhetoric. Only now it is captured
arms and rice tonnage instead of body
counts that may lead us into self-delu-
sion.
The bizarre logic of recent events, as
one might reasonably have predicted, is
producing a growing sense of frustration
and impotence both publicly and within
the Congress itself. The President's reck-
less gamble has precipitated a crisis of
confidence. And well it might have, with
the Cambodian invasion coning only 10.
days after the President's report to the
Nation on Vietnam with its rosy predic-
tions for cutting back on American in-
volvement.
Mr. President, I think it is important
that we not delude ourselves into the
false hopes of some that these feelings
are confined to the young and the cam-
pus. They are not. This sense of frustra-
tion is shared by millions of Americans
of all ages. I think that most Members
of the Senate feel it. Certainly, I feel it.
For 16 months I have said little about
the war. To be sure, I was deeply con-
cerned about its continuation. I did not
agree totally with the Nixon policy for
ending the conflict. However, as long as
we were disengaging from the conflict I
was determined to cooperate with the
President. But now I must admit that
the President's action has led me to
despair about the prospects for liquidat-
ing our involvement in Vietnam. I am
not ready to concede, however, that our
system of government cannot respond.
It can-but only if the Senate of the
United States is prepared to exercise its
constitutional authority and accept re-
sponsibility for limiting American par-
ticipation in the Vietnamese quagmire.
This responsibility should not be taken
lightly. Certainly, I do not look on it as
a small responsibility. And I am sure
that no other Senator does either. But
today the Senate stands as the last hope
against any further escalation of the
war. Passage of the Cooper-Church
amendment would not only restore the
faith of millions of Americans in our
system of government, but it would also
restore the Congress to its rightful place
within our constitutional framework-
as the only body empowered to declare
war, to raise and support armies, and to
make rules for the governing and regula-
tions of these forces.
I have weighed these salutary effects
against the argument, advanced by op-
ponents of the amendment, that it
would be a "slap in the face" for the
President and undermine his credibility
abroad. The "slap in the face" theory, it
seems to me, is both specious and irrere-
vant. It is specious because there is little
the Senate could do to undermine the
President's credibility abroad any more
than he himself has done by expanding
S 8769
our misadventure or damage that could
be done if the President failed to live up
to his own timetable in Cambodia. It is
irrelevant because it avoids the issue of
whether American troops should become
involved in Cambodia without congres-
sional sanction and authorization.
This brings me to the two most basic
questions of all in this debate. First, does
Congress have the power to deny funds
for the use of future military operations
in Cambodia? Second, should Congress
exercise that power if they have it?
On the first point, the Constitution is
clear. Congress does have the power to
act. The framers of the Constitution
wisely anticipated the difficulty of main-
taining effective civilian control over
military policy, and thus they provided
the specific means for exercising such
control.
In order to avoid concentrating au-
thority in any one body, the war power
was divided between the President and
the Congress. The Congress-not the
President-was empowered to declare
war, to raise and support an army and a
navy, and to make rules for the Govern-
ment and regulation of these forces. The
President, who was also viewed as a sym-
bol of civilian authority-but one more
susceptible to the blandishments of the
military-was made Commander in
Chief.
The President, as Commander in Chief,
is responsible for the conduct of military
activities once war has been declared,
and clearly he also has the power to repel
any attacks on the United States. As
Commander in Chief, the President alone
is responsible for implementing military
policy. In much the same way, the Pres-
ident alone is responsible for seeing that
"the laws be faithfully executed."
But the President's power as Com-
mander in Chief no more warrants the
conclusion that he alone has the power to
formulate military policy than does his
obligation to enforce the law imply that
he alone can make laws. As Justice Black
pointed out in the steel seizure case:
The Constitution is neither silent nor
equivocal about who shall make laws which
the President is to execute ... The Consti-
tution does not subject this lawmaking
power of Congress to presidential or military
supervision or control . . . The Founders of
this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power
to the Congress alone in both good times
and bad. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v.
Sawyer, 343 US 587 (1952)
I believe the lawmaking powers of Con-
gress extend to the formulation of mili-
tary policy as well, as is so clearly spelled
out in article I, section 8. And it was
upon that grant of authority, I want to
remind my colleagues, that Congress
acted so wisely last year to prohibit the
use of funds for the introduction of
American forces into Laos.
The introduction of American forces
into a country where they have pre-
viously been restricted from venturing
for fear of widening the war, despite the
pleas of the military, is clearly a major
policy decision. At the very least, it
seems to me, the Constitution requires
that such a decision should have been
shared by the people's representatives in
Congress.
The concern of the framers of the
Constitution, moreover, was not simply
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000100240017-3
 'S 8770
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00020024001 -3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE une 10, 1970
limited to dividing the war power be- they shall be spent for military and naval
tween the Congress and the President. procurement.
They specifically provided that congres- And in further attempting to define
sional authority was to be insulated from the precarious constitutional balance be-
Presidential encroachment by a consti- tween the President as Commander in
tutional requirement that military ap- Chief and the Congress' lawmaking
propriations could not be for longer than power, Justice Jackson pointed out:
2 years. Alexander Hamilton, himself an Presidential powers are not fixed but flue-
ardent 'advocate of a strong executive, tuate, depending upon their disjunction or
explained the importance of the 2-year conjunction with those of Congress ...When
limitation in Federalist Paper No. 26: the President takes measures incompatible
The legislature of the United States will with the expressed or implied will of Con-
be obliged by this provision, once at least gress, his power is at its lowest ebb ... Courts
in every two years, to deliberate upon the can sustain exclusive presidential control in
propriety of keeping a military force on such a case only by disabling the Congress
foot; to come to a new resolution on the from acting on the subject. Presidential
point; and to declare their sense of the mat- claim to a power at once so conclusive and
ter by a formal vote in the face of their con- preclusive must be scrutinized with caution,
stituents. They are not at liberty to vest in for, what is at stake, is the equilibrium es-
the executive department permanent funds tablished by our constitutional system.
for the support of an army, if they were precisely, what is at stake is the integ-
repo
rpose in it so incautious improper a confidence. tbwilling to rity of our constitutional process. And The specific purpose of the 2-year lim- because the stakes are so high, it is nec-
essary for Congress to act. As the New
station was to act as a brake on the Yorker magazine has said, in explaining
growth of a standing army, which at that the larger implications of this breakdown
time was considered the major threat in our governmental system:
to constitutional processes. The larger If the United States government fails to
import of the appropriations limitation, honor the freedom of its own people, who are
however, is that Congress is required to protected by the American Constitution, it
fully review and pass on our military will not honor the freedom of any people.
posture before the expenditure of addi- This is the true relationship between the in-
tional_money. The congressional appro- vasion of Cambodia and the survival of the
priations power as it relates to military free institutions that President Nixon men-
policy, therefore, was clearly intended tioned in s speech and for this reason the
invasion .7 Cambodia and its consequences
as i constitutional the Armed Forces. on within America are the urgent concern not
both h the Prese President and the of Americans but of all mankind.
That Congress, after many years of
simply acquiescing to executive leader- Mr. President, passage of the Cooper-
ship in military and foreign affairs, has Church amendment would mark the be-
recently chosen to exercise its constitu- ginning step in Congress' long journey
tional powers, seems to have startled back to a position of responsibility and
some people. That Congresshas not acted leadership. I am confident Congress will
so forcefully for so long, of course, in no take this step because it is both necessary
way affected its authority to act last and right that it do so.
year in regard to Laos and similarly does Mr. President, I must confess that I
not affect its authority for acting now had begun work on this statement long
to prohibit American combat troops from before President Nixon's June 3 interim
fighting in Cambodia after July 1, 1970. report. After carefully studying the
As Justice Black said in the Youngstown President's statement I saw no need,
case, "The Founders of this Nation en- however, to alter the text of my remarks
trusted the lawmaking power to the Con- in support of the Cooper-Church amend-
gress alone in both good times and bad." ment. After hearing the President recite
That Congress retains this power today those statistics on captured arms and
is obvious, rice and announce a troop withdrawal of
That Congress should exercise this 50,000 men within the next 6 months, I
power to limit future American military am even more certain today that ex-
operations in Cambodia, of course, is a panding the war into Cambodia was ill-
clifferent and more delicate question. And advised and shortsighted than I was on
I want to re-emphasize the term "to limit April 30 when the decision was an-
future American military operations in nounced.
Cambodia." I did not say "to limit the Before Cambodia, Mr. President, the
President." For, contrary to the message Nixon policy of Vietnamization was pull-
opponents of the amendment are intent ing Americans out of Vietnam at the rate
upon conveying, it is not designed to- of about 11,000 per month. Now, after
nor could it-limit the President's powers an operation in which the President has
as Commander in Chief. These powers told us that "all of our major military
are constitutional and Congress cannot objectives have been achieved," and an
legislate away or infringe upon the Presi- operation he has described as the great-
dent's constitutional authority. est victory in the long history of the
But Congress can-and should-exer- war-the withdrawal rate for the next 6
cise its own constitutional authority to months is down about 2,000 per month.
.legislate the limits of American military To be sure, it is conceivable that we
policy in Southeast Asia. Rejecting the could double this amount in the follow-
view that the Commander in Chief clause ing 6 months. It seems rather strange to
supports "any Presidential action, inter- the Senator from Indiana, however, that
nal or external, involving the use of if this mission had been such an overall
force," Justice Robert 'Jackson wrote: success why his withdrawal rate for the
Congress alone controls the raising of rev- next 6 months is significantly less than
enues and their appropriations and, may de-
termine in what manner and by what means the last 6 months.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I shall be no
more than another minute and then I
will be happy to yield to the Senator from
Florida for questions or yield the floor.
I appreciate his tolerance, and I will be
glad to discuss this matter with him.
As for the seemingly vast inventory of
captured weapons and food, its signifi-
cance can only be measured in terms of
North Vietnam's total resources and its
ability to replenish the losses. While the
Cambodian booty may be greater than
caches uncovered as the result of ?opera-
tiops Junction City and Cedar Falls, for
example, it appears that in the past these
missions have had little long-term
significance.
No one knows for sure what the true,
long-range impact of the capturing of
these supplies will be. Certainly I would
rather have them in our hands than in
the hands of the enemy. But if anyone
is looking at this adventure as a panacea
for ending the war, history, I believe, will
show he is relying on a false hope. In the
past the enemy has shown an amazing
ability to replenish his lines of com-
munication and supplies, and, unfor-
tunately, to continue the war at a steady
pace.
It struck me, Mr. President, that what
was noticeably absent from President
Nixon's June 3 report was any reference
to COSVN, the Communist control cen-
ter located in Cambodia. In his April
30 statement announcing his decision to
expand the war into Cambodia, President
Nixon seemed to indicate that we would
be striking a telling, perhaps even fatal,
blow to the command center for all
Communist operations in South Viet-
nam. The President's failure to even men-
tion this aspect of the operation could
only mean there is no COSVN-or we
failed to uncover it. One wonders.
In the past, we have found that even
though we had been able to capture
Communist control centers, it was only
a short time until new control centers
sprung up. The amazing absence of ene-
my troops and casualties in that area
leads us to believe that the major Com-
munist forces had escaped.
Mr. President, one final thought on
the amendment offered by the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. BYan). The
Byrd exception to the Cooper-Church
amendment provides that the amend-
ment shall not preclude the President
from taking such action as may be nec-
essary to protect the lives of United
States forces in South Vietnam or to
facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. forces
from South Vietnam.
If this is simply a restatement of the
President's constitutional powers as
Commander in Chief, then it is unnec-
essary. As - I pointed out earlier in my
statement, just as Congress cannot leg-
islate restrictions on the President's
constitutional authority as Commander
in Chief, it cannot expand those pow-
ers by statute. I recognize the President's
responsibility to protect our forces in
the field, but I do not believe he needs
Congressional approval for this.
I believe he has the constitutional au-
thority, in the first place. It is interest-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 A Moved For Rele a 002/01/U2 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 10, I ~7U ~~NGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
ing to note, Mr. President, that the
amendment adopted last year restrict-
ing our operations in Laos and Thai-
land carried no such exception. And yet
for years, we have known that the Ho
Chi Minh Trail, running down through
one corner of Laos, has been a major
supply route and sanctuary.
On the other hand, if the Byrd excep-
tion is another Gulf of Tonkin resolu-
tion-a blank check from Congress ap-
proving in advance any actions the Pres-
ident may take-then it is dangerous.
Such a gesture by the Congress can
only serve to widen the war and con-
tinue our unfortunate involvement.
- All of us are concerned about pro-
tecting American fighting men. It just
seems to the Senator from Indiana, after
a long period of patience, that the best
way to protect our American fighting
men is to end. the war.
I yield to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. GURNEY, There were some as-
pects of the Senator's presentation that
I wanted to question him on. Going back
to the first question, about troop with-
drawal, it was my impression that the
President announced, about a year ago,
his Vietnamizationprocess, his planned
troop withdrawal, and the approximate
figures during the first year were about
100,000. It is now about 115,000, but dur-
ing the first year the goal was about
100,000.
Then, of course, in April--I think April
20, to be exact-the President announced
a further planned withdrawal of 150,-
000. The Senator.from Indiana made the
point that troop withdrawal was slowing
up. I did not understand that. Would he
further explain?
Mr. BAYH. If the Senator from Florida
would reexamine the figures on the rate
of withdrawal and compare those, not
with the 150,000 figure over the next year
as announced on April 20, but with the
50,000 figure that is to take place between
October 15 and the present date, I think
his arithmetic would lead the Senator
from Florida to the same conclusion
reached by the Senator from Indiana.
Mr. GURNEY. Well, how many troops
have been withdrawn to date?
Mr. BAYH. About 110,000. I am sure
the Senator fom Florida has ready ac-
cess to those figures.
Mr. GURNEY. That was about the
salne figure I had, or about 100,000, as
the President planned during the first
year. But is it not also a fact that he
has scheduled 150,000 to be withdrawn
during the next year, and is not that a
greater figure than 100 000?
made, on the war in Vietnam which he
has not fulfilled so far.
Mr. BAYH. Yes. I can remember hear-
ing certain of our colleagues on the floor
of the Senate bring to the attention of
the Senate the fact that after the initial
announcement of withdrawals, in fact,
there was a significant period of time
when, instead of fewer troops in Viet-
nam, there were more troops in Vietnam.
I am pleased to answer the questions of
the Senator from Florida, but can he, in
turn, explain the inconsistency pointed
out by the Senator from Indiana?
Mr. GURNEY. Why does not the Sen-
ator answer my question?
Mr. BAYH. I did.
Mr. GURNEY. The question was, on
any pronouncement or announcement by
the President of what he intends to do
in Vietnam, where has he failed the peo-
ple of the United States? I think the
Senator has not answered it.
Mr. BAYH. I thilik the Senator from
Indiana looks at the problem from a
little different perspective than the Sen-
ator from Florida, because we believe
the course of action in Cambodia will
accomplish different things. Frankly, I
say, not as a Democrat or as a Senator,
but as a citizen of this country, I hope
the judgment of the Senator from Flor-
ida is right. But I think history will
show, if we can judge the future by the
past, that it is not going to prove conse-
quential in the long history of the war,
and that it has increased tensions with-
in this country.
Mr. GURNEY. Since the Senn tor from
Indiana has not answered the ques-
tion-
Mr. BAYH. I have answered the ques-
tion. The RECORD will show that I have
answered the question.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, who has
the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Indiana has the floor.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, if the Sen-
ator from Florida wants me to mouth
and repeat his assessments, he is not
going to get me to do that. If he wants
me to give good faith replies to his ques-
tions, I will stand here until the sun
falls.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further?
Mr. BAYH. I yield.
Mr. GURNEY. During his presenta-
tion, the Senator from Indiana made the
statement that the incursion into Cam-
bodia would prolong the war. Would he
explain that further? In what way is it
going to prolong the war?
Mr. BAYH. I am well aware of the an- Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I know
nouncement, I am also well aware of the there are other Senators who want to
fact that I watched on television the speak. I would be glad to give the Sena-
Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed tor a copy of my speech. Perhaps if he
Forcers characterize the Cambodian op- had read it or listened to it in total, he
eratton as the greatest military victory would know that I had answered that
In the Vietnam war. Then he suggested in a significant way.
that tor ,6 months, following that great Mr. GURNEY. I listened to it at
victory our troop withdrawal is going to length, but I did not hear anything be-
be less than the previous 6 months. That yond the statement itself.
does not make sense to me. Perhaps the Mr. BAYH. Well, here again I respect
Senator from Florida can explain its in- the good faith and the sincerity of my
friend from Florida; but I fear that after
A~Cx. 14. Let me ask: the Senator I have answered the question, it is not
if he _ can,.recall any announcement or going to be answered the way he wants
prOnouh&m6nt the Commander in Chief, it to be answered, and so he may feel
the President of the United States, has that I have not answered it. But, having
S 8771
given this advance warning, I shall try.
It is difficult for the Senator from In-
diana to see how we can be consistent
in a policy that Vietnamizes the war in
Vietnam and Americanizes it in Cam-
bodia, without suggesting we are broad-
ening the scope of the war. If we are
taking South Vietnamese troops from
the main scene of battle in South Viet-
nam, and dissipating their impact by
spreading them into Cambodia, the Sen-
ator from Indiana cannot see how Viet-
namization' will proceed apace. In fact,
it is rather interesting to me to note-
and I am-sure the Senator from Florida
heard the remarks that I read of the
Secretary of State relative to Vietnam-
ization-seems that we have a consider-
able amount of inconsistency. The Sena-
tor from Indiana does not believe that
the Cambodian adventure is not going to
do anything to shorten the war. I hope I
am wrong. But if we look at what hap-
pened in the Ashau Valley and what hap-
pened in the Iron Triangle, and we were
shown pictures in our newspapers and on
our television screens of captured supplies
and weapons, we know that these mis-
sions accomplished little. I would much
rather we had these weapons than they
did; but the cold, cruel facts have shown
that despite such captures in the past
the enemy has been resupplied and the
war has not stopped.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. BAYH. I yield to the Senator from
Idaho.. If the Senator will permit me, I
do not want to cut off this colloquy. I
will be happy to continue it, but I
thought it appropriate to yield to the
floor manager of the bill.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I com-
mend the Senator on his very able ad-
dress.
In regard to the war's extension, is it
not true that since the borders of Cam-
bodia were breached, a number of events
have occurred, suggesting that the war
is being broadened, and, indeed, could
be lengthened?
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I think this
would be a good time to place in the
RECORD a statement from the Washing-
ton Post on June 7, 1970, entitled "Broad
Red Offensive," written by Robert G.
Kaiser. I am sure the Senator from Flor-
ida, as well as other Senators, will be in-
terested in it. I ask unanimous consent
that it be printed in the RECORD at this
point.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
(By Robert G. Kaiser)
PHNOM PENH, June 6.-This morning's
Vietcong attack on Siem Reap, near the his-
toric temples of Angkor, is the most striking
symbol of a worsening military situation in
Cambodia.
Slem Reap in northwestern Cambodia is
more than 200 miles from the Vietcong's old
sanctuaries along the Vietnamese border. It
is a strange target for the Communists un-
less they have serious plans to open a broad
Cambodian offensive.
According to a number of observers here,
such an offensive may be just what the Com-
munists are planning. Several of Phnom
Penh's most experienced diplomats and mili-
tary attaches now share the opinion that
Hanoi may have shifted its strategy in the
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240J)17-3
S 8772 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 10, 1970
last three months, making Cambodia its pri- evidence
has lessenhere ed since Sihanouk's
coup, uat~least in munists will have certain advag se in the
Even Com-
mary the target in Indochina.
Americans, who speak more opti- Phnom Penh. future, including popular hostility for South
mistically about the military situation and In fact, those who seem most pessimistic Vietnamese troops-who have apparently
the strength of the Lon Nol government than about this current government are often the misbehaved in Cambodia-and anger toward
any other Western' diplomats here, are con- most insistent that Sihanouk has lost what- the government that brought the country
cerned by the possibility of a new Commu- ever claim he ever had on Cambodian alle- war, uncertainty, and what is likely soon to
nist strategy. giance and affection. be a bad economic situation.
[Gunfire broke out here for nearly an But the_ government's strength is appar- Meanwhile, if they can get the supplies
hour tonight, UPI reported. Flares illumi- ently not an indicator of wide popularity. they need, the Communists can maintain a
nated the sky as bursts of shots were heard Lon Nol is not a charismatic figure-that large, dispersed military force in Cambodia.
in the vicinity of the rail yards. No explana- comment is made so often here it is now a "They can take any city in the country any
time they like." one Old resident of Phnom
tion was given.] buvun J"
"The big mystery," an American diplomat The consequences of the government's pol-
soid, "is why they (the Vietcong) are going icies-a war on Cambodian soil, the presence
of thousands of unpopular SouthVietnam-
so tar west."
These diplomats and observers here do not ese, etc.-are certainly unpopular.
expect Cambodia to disappear suddenly down While the Cambodian government moves
the Indochinese drain. The consensus is that gingerly, if at all, the Vietcong are moving
whatever happens will happen at a delib- boldly (or desparately) virtually all over the
erate, Southeast Asian pace. country.
There is also general agreement that the They have attacked 10 of Cambodia's 19
o and
T
th
Communists have big problems to solve be-
fore they can effectively conduct a political
and military offensive in Cambodia.
But almost the only optimists in Phnom
Penh are the Cambodians themselves, who
seem to live in a very private world. "They're
a self-confident people, alas," sighed one
Westerner who makes his living trying to
follow their affairs.
A popular theory here is that the Viet-
cong may launch some military action just
before or just after June 30, to try to force
President Nixon either to keep American
forces in this country beyond his deadline,
or to bring them back in right after it
passes.
Prom Phnom Penh, Mr. Nixon's current
position iooks very difficut. "Why was
President Nixon's speech (on June 3) so
optimistic?" one diplomat asked. This ex-
perienced official doubted whether Hanoi
would let the United States walk out of
Indochina.
The "salvation government" of Lon Nol
reveals only self-confidence to the outside
world. It claims to be following a foreign
policy of neutrality. This must be the only
neutral country in the world whose govern-
ment-run newspaper can print a front-page
cartoon in which Richard Nixon is de-
picted as an angel; as he was in Friday's
"Courrier Phnompenhofs."
In fact, the Cambodians find themselves
utterly dependent on the United Stats,
South Vietnam and probably Thailand. They
Penh said. Military men here generally ac-
cept that judgement.
In recent weeks, the Lon Nol government's
biggest short-term asset has been the South
Vietnamese army-which many here believe
will turn out to be a long-term liability.
There is no question that South Vietnam
forces in Cambodia have seriously disrupted
the Communists, thus relieving much of the
pressure on Cambodian forces.
But in the process, the South Vietnam
soldiers have apparently ravaged parts of the
countryside, looting, shooting indiscrimi-
nately and sometimes raping women. Their
wayward ways are common gossip in Plinom
Penh-as they are in Saigon. Public feeling
against the South Vietnamese is strong here
and, it is presumed, in the countryside too.
The South Vietnamese and Cambodian
leaders seem to be natural allies-they need
each other. The question asked often here
is whether ordinary people of both countries
can overcome natural hostility for the sake
of a cause many of them know nothing
about.
In the meantime, the Americans in Phnom
Penh are the most up-beat Westerners in
town. In three days of hearing people de-
scribe the Lon Nol government as utterly de-
pendent on foreign help, one U.S. Army man
said, "These people have the capability of
pulling themselves out of this danger with-
out any help from anybody else."
He described one of the leading Cambodian
generals as an "exceptionally well-educated
officer," and a good fighter. Another source
who has lived here for more than a dozen
years described the same general differently:
"He's a clown. He dances well."
Mr. CHURCH: There is a stubborn in-
clination by certain observers to look at
the Cambodian operation in the most
limited possible frame-we have struck
and have sent a delegation to Seoul. They already had some success capturing Cam- we will withdraw from Cambodia within
are oonnting heavily on President Nixon, bodian supplies from provincial depots and the time limitation set by the President.
whose political problems they apparently warehouses.
don't understand. - The second great mystery is how the Com- I assume 'this to be the case. However,
"They think Nixon is another Sihanouk," munist will proceed through this next stage that is not the full picture of the Cam-
one diplomat said. "If he says yes, then of the Indochina war. If they have not made bodian situation. Since the operation
everything is yes." Cambodia their number one target, what are commenced, the situation in that part
A Frenchman long in Phnom Penh. said they up to in Cambodia now? Vice President of Southeast Asia has become very coln-
Sihanouk himself encouraged people here Ky said today he thought they were merely plex.
to count on large American aid. This source beating a disorderly retreat.
said the Cambodians looked to Laos-- If the Communists have more deliberate The President, at a press conference on
country of only two million that has re- intentions here, how will they pursue them? May 8, in response to a question, said he
calved millions of American dollars-as a It is widely assumed in Phnom Penh that the anticipated that the South Vietnamese
model for what they would expect from Vietcong missed their best opportunity to would Come out of Cambodia when we
Washington. seize this capital in April. came out. He based this assumption on
By almost all accounts, the government But perhaps, one diplomat suggested, they the fact that we furnished them with
is woefully weak and not getting any will ignore Phnom Penh, and try for domi- their logistics and their supplies.
stronger. nation of the entire countryside, following Several days later, Vice President Ky,
An American diplomat said of Lon Nol and the dicta of guerrilla doctrine.
his colleagues, "I think they're doing pretty There is very little evidence to help solve responding to a question relating to com-
Well," But others who have been in Phnom this mystery. One source who knows Cam_ ing out of Cambodia, replied that that
Penh much longer take a different view. bodia well says that in almost all areas of the was a silly argument of silly people, ap-
"They will exist as long as someone from country, the Vietcong have stopped pretend- parently his reference being the Presi-
outside will support them," said one. The ing to be agents of Sihanouk, whom they dent and the Vice President of the United
government has developed no civil or mili- have found to be unpopular. States.
Lary plans since taking office, another old The Vietcong have written off the local Since then, we have learned that South
hand said. Cambodian Communists, the Khmer Rouge, Vietnam is not coming out when we come
And yet there has been no challenge to who are trying to build their organization
Lon Not that observers here think is sig- around little-known local leaders. There is out. Since then, the administration's
nificant, "There is no other group capable no reason to think it will be easy to build an policy has shifted. The administration
of mounting a government," said one diplo- indigenous revolutionary movement among now says that while we are coming out,
mat-except Sihanouk. And there is no the apolotical, easy-going Cambodians. we will continue to support the South
e coup.
w
province capitals since
perhaps three of them were reportedly the
scenes of active fighting today. Most of these
10 were in eastern Cambodia, but the Com-
munists have fought major engagements on
all four sides of Phnom Penh.
They control most of northeastern Cam-
bodia, and "appear now to be seeking control
of a kind over the whole northern half of the
country. They have also been active in the
south, along the Gulf of Siam, but apparent
decision to disperse South Vietnamese troops
in that area have either forced them out or
compelled them to lie low.
As one diplomat here noted, the Commu-
nists' apparent decision to disperse all over
the country can be interpreted either as a
defensive or an offensive -maneuver. Either
way it can be effective, if the Vietcong and
North Vietnamese troops can get the supplies
and food they need.
Whether they can is one of the two most
puzzling questions In Cambodia at the mo-
ment. There are credible reports here that
the Communists began moving supplies out
of their old sanctuaries in March or April at
the latest, long before U.S. and South Viet-
namese forces attacked the sanctuaries.
There are also unconfirmed reports that
the new Communist supply line down the
Sekong and Mekong Rivers is already in use.
Whether these means or some other will pro-
vide what the Communist need is, simply, a
mystery.
The fact that pessimism is the dominant
mood here reveals the common assumption
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 10, J.970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Vietnamese in the decisions that they
make with reference to staying.
This is a significant development. It
extends beyond the narrow framework
imposed upon the American operations
in Cambodia.
Furthermore, we are now told that
Thai troops-who were not in Cambodia
prior to this operation-are going to
Cambodia. We do not know as yet, how
many. Their purpose is to join in the new
front in Cambodia, presumably to sup-
port the Lon Nol regime. I consider this
especially when we remember that we
have treaty obligations to Thailand, is a
very significant development. It relates
directly to the broadening of the war.
- These, plus the Nixon doctrine, could
involve the United States, in many ways,
in the defense of Cambodia, unless the
Church-Cooper amendment becomes a
part of the law.
The Senator from Indiana has plenty
of evidence already presented in the
course of the few short weeks that have
elapsed since the Cambodia borders were
breached to suggest that indeed the war
has been complicated, widened, and per-
haps lengthened.
I commend the Senator for having
made so forceful an argument on this
floor today.
Mr. BAYH. I thank the Senator from
Idaho for his observations. I might pose
just one question, inasmuch as the Sena-
tor has been a distinguished member of
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
The Senator pointed out that Thai
troops were being sent in and Cambodian
forces were being armed. From what
source do these troops get their susten-
ance?
Mr. CHURCH. The Thai armed forces
are being financed by the United States.
Our generosity is hardly a secret.
Under simjlar attitudes and circum-
stances, Cambodian forces could also re-
ceive generous financing, as well.as weap-
ons, ammunition, equipment and sup-
plies that they need to conduct their bat-
tle operations.
Alas, the government holding the
moneybags, the financier of military op-
erations in Cambodia by all friendly par-
ties will, undoubtedly, be the United
States.
Ntr. BAYH. I thank the Senator from
Idaho.
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD at this point an
article, published in the Washington Post
on June 8, 1970, written by the die-
tinguished columnist Chalmers Roberts.
Significantly enough, the title of this
article is "Thai Troops Cost the United
States $200 millon."
There ' being no objection, the article
wets ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows
THAI TROOPS. COST THE UNrrED STATES $200
MnLLION
(By Chalmers M. Roberts)
The United States has paid more than $200
million to Thailand for the support of its
forces now in ' South Vietnam, according to
Senate ,bear released on American In-
and,
'he a tens veiy_ censored transcript of
cio ecl-door Senate Foreign Relations Oom-
hiI tee hearings held last 9,5v. 11-17 was
made public by Sen. Stuart Symington (D-
Mo.), the subcommittee chairman. He also
released a letter asking Secretary of State
William P. Rogers for details of the Ameri-
can role in last week's announcement by
Thailand that It will send "volunteers" to
Camisxlia.
Symington asked Rogers for details on
when negotiations on the "volunteers" be-
gan, what the United States is to provide,
what it will cost, the That role in support-
ing the Cambodian regime of Lon Nol and
which country can bring about withdrawal
of, Thai units from Cambodia.
Both the hearing and the letter are part
of the effort by senators opposed to the
Indochina war to force full disclosure of
what the United States has been and is do-
ing. The senators hope to increase pressure
on President Nixon to end the conflict.
Despite more than 3,000 pages of tran-
script, the hearings, as censored, produced
only a few nuggets of new Information. Much
of the hearings consisted of repetitious rival
contentions between the senators, especially
Symington and Sen. J. William FuLbright
(D-Ark.), on the one hand, and the admin-
istration on the other about the nature of
the American commitment to Thailand.
Symington repeatedly castigated adminis-
tration witnesses for excessive executive
branch secrecy on matters he contended the
Congress and the public had a right to
know.
The $200 million figure was supplied by the
administration. A submitted statement said
American "support to That forces" had aver-
aged about $50 million a year, or $200 million
since their arrival in South Vietnam in 1966.
Fulbrlght put into the record a table show-
ing that a Thai lieutenant general received
$370 a month base pay, paid by Thailand,
plus $450 a month in overseas allowance,
paid by the United States. The scale ran
down to a private whose base pay was $26
a month from his own country plus $39 a
month from the United States.
In addition, the United States pays $2,500
for, death and disability benefits for Thai
enlisted men, $3,600 for noncommissioned
officers and $5,500 for officers. A mustering
out bonus, also paid by the United States, is
$400 per volunteer. While Is South Vietnam,
the United States also pays for quarters,
rations, transport and ammunition for the
Thais. About 11,000 Thai troops are now
there.
American Ambassador to Thailand Leonard
Unger provided figures showing that In the
period 1949-69 the United States had given
Thailand $2,190,900,000 in all forms of eco-
nomic and military assistance and for mili-
tary expenditures. He also estimated. that
the American contribution of all sorts to
the That economy was about $200 million
a year in 1967 and 1968 and about $170 mil-
lion in 1969.
Graham Martin, now Ambassador to Italy
and former Ambassador to Thailand, said
at one point that he thought the Thais had
sent the troops to Vietnam "because they
were requested to by the government of
Vietnam and by the United States. I think
they made that decision in the full reaiipa-
tion that it was increasingly uncomfortable
for the United States to have the massive
deployment of U.S. troops with far less con-
tingents from the other partners in the
SEATO alliance."
The nature of the Southeast Asia Treaty
Organization (SEATO) commitment by the
United States, and how it was affected by the
Rusk-Thanat Statement, was much argued
over during the hearings by the new agree-
ment between senators and administration
witnesses.
The Rusk-Thanat statement of March 6,
1962, signed by then Secretary of State Dean
Rusk and Thai Foreign Minister Thanat
Khoman, was defended by Unger as not "in
any sense altering or extending our com-
mitment under SEATO." The statement, in
S 8773
State's view, Simply made clear that the
United States could come to Thailand's aid
on its own initiative without the agreement
of all the SEATO nations.
Fulbright, however, contended that the
statement had created "a bilateral agree-
ment" and had done so "without reference
to Congress." But the most the administra-
tion witnesses would concede was that the
statement had been an added assurance to
Thailand at a moment of peril.
The peak of American military manpower,
chiefly Air Force, in Thailand was 48,000,
with 42,000 the ceiling for June of this year,
a Pentagon statement said. Included are 290
men in the Special Forces.
Despite suspicions raised by senators and
by subcommittee counsel Roland A. Paul
that the Special Forces might have some role
other than training, administration military
and diplomatic officials denied it.
The issue of the Thai-American contin-
gency plan, as the administration calls it,
also figured in the transcript. Fulbright
brought out that it was updated last August
but he never got what he considered a satis-
factory explanation as to how the two gov-
ernments "agreed" to do so.
Symington indicated he considers the con-
tingency plan issue, first made public last
year, as moot after Secretary of Defense
Melvin R. Laird publicly repudiated its
applicability.
When Fulbright demanded of Unger his
"authority" for the Nov. 19, 1967, agreement
"in which you apparently committed our
country to equip and supply the Thai forces
in South Vietnam," the ambassador cited
"instructions from the Department of State"
based on the SEATO treaty.
An administration supplied "summary" of
that secret agreement said that because the
Thais "were concerned that the dispatch of
this force could weaken their security posi-
tion at home," the United States had agreed
to provide an additional $30 million in aid
to modernize the Thai forces, including pro-
vision of a battery of Hawk anti-aircraft
missiles. The rest of the administration docu-
ment was deleted from the transcript.
Much of ; the hearing related to Laos, the
subject of another subcommittee hearings
the transcript of which already has been
released.
At one point it was disclosed that Ameri-
can planes in 1968 flew 67,000 sorties over
Laos but the 1989 figure was censored. This
sortie figure covered raids both on Northern
Laos, in support of the Royal Government
of Souvanna Phouma, and against the North
Vietnamese on the Ho Chi Minh trail.
Walter Pincus, the subcommittee's chief
consultant, read newsmen sortie figures for
raids in North`Laos alone, increasing for 20
in the year 1964 to 32 per day by September,
1968, to "over 100" per day in 1969.
Maj. Gen. Robert L. Petit, deputy com-
mander of an Air Force unit at Udorn, one
of the American bases in Thailand, testified
that American Ambassador to Laos G. Mc-
Murtrie Godley "maintains a very tight con-
trol" over the sorties "going into North
Laos."
All references to reports that Thai troops
have been serving in Laos were deleted ex-
cept for a newspaper report that 5,000 had
been sent "disguised in the uniform of the
Royal Laotian Army."
The hearings produced much wrangling
about the American "interest" in Thailand
and the nature of the Chinese and North
Vietnamese threat but no agreement be-
tween the senators and the administration
witnesses. About the only favorable sena-
torial comment came from Sen. Jacob K.
Jayits (R-N.Y.). He called Thailand "a bas-
tion of, the kind of -order and stability and
justice that we are trying so hard to attain."
Early in the hearings witnesses refused to
discuss American post-Vietnam planning for
Thailand but later on it was described as
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200246017-3
 Approved CONGRESSIONAL 1RECORDRDgJh-R37R000200240 9 ~ 10, 1970
S 8774
"merely proposals" without any decisions I realize that we have differences of iterate what I said, hoping that the
having been made. Witnesses refused to dis- viewpoint on that. Senator from Indiana is wrong and the
close any of the proposals although the com- Mr. BAYH. We can describe "escala- Senator from Florida is right and that
mittee implied the United States really in- tion" and "deescalation" in different the President of the United States is
tends to keep bases and forces in Thailand terms, but it seems to me that we have to right. The one thing which we have i!
indefinitely interpret it the way the Secretary of common is that we want to end that
The committee also made much of Amer-
ican payments to the Thai-run Express State described it. Although we might war.
Transport organization, with documentation differ as to what "escalation" and "de- Mr. GURNEY. I agree.
this puis how we
he canlr best BAYHThe . question
show that handling of American cargo had there escalation" n much dispute about really wsay hat that
rpose. It
produced what the committee concluded was
a profit of 35 to 40 per cent based on expend- meant when he said that if we escalate seems to me that we have to recognize
itures. and get involved in Cambodia with some very hard facts. Analyzing the easy Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I should like ground troops, our whole program is de- South fac~of confllict is notare as I see
to repeat, since the Senator from Idaho feated?
is here now and had been called off the Mr. GURNEY. I think that what the them-and if the Senator from Florida
floor for other duties as I began my re- Secretary was talking about is that if we has other facts, I shall be more than y to hear
prior the
that
House p- went
marks, the reference to Secretary
Campbodian nv sion there were no South
Mr. BAYH. He did not say that.
State Rogers' state Committee to abthe out not Haute get-- Mr. GURNEY (continuing), Supported Vietnamese troops in Cambodia; prior
tang about
involved in Cambodia. the present Government of Cambodia, to the Cambodian invasion, there were
It is my understanding that he short- and shored it up and kept troops in there no Thai troops in Cambodia; prior to
ly thereafter testified before the com- permanently, that, indeed, would be an the Cambodian invasion, there were no
mittee of the Senator from Idaho, the escalation and a broadening of the war. U.S. troops in Cambodia. Now there are
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Obviously, a matter nf ot meathe n that. Secretary of troops Thai, South Viet iaamese, and American
a int
to the same effect. But I think it is n-hand
, we
Stateisa to note what the mutter the tate ion programs--I believe it was st tement of other all for one and oneofor
State said to the House fished c and d
I suggest to my distinguished colleague "Face the Nation," on CBS last Sun- all" from the Pathet Lao, from Sihanouk,
from Florida that I would think that day-and answered a great many of the from the Vietcong-everybody involved,
the Secretary would speak for the Presi- questions posed by the Senator from In- backed ya es not mean an escalation, if
said States on matters diana. to get back to prolonging the it does not mean we are going to have to
dent of uch as the United
s
no He aid: incentive to escalate- war-- get a broader settlement, involving more
we have uch s vthis.
Mr. BAYH. Before the Senator pro- territory and more nations, then the Sen-
This was 7 days before the Cambodian ceeds, let me suggest that I was not for- ator from Indiana is misinterpreting
invasion- tunate enough to hear what the Secre- these events. But I do not think so.
our whole incentive is to deescalate. We tary of State had to say after the inva- Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
recognize that if we escalate and get involved Sion. But I am insistent that we recognize Senator yield?
In Oambodia with ground troops, that our what he said before the invasion. I think Mr. BAYH. I yield.
whole Vietnamization program is defes,ted. it is interesting to compare what he said Mr. GURNEY. It seems to me that the
It seems to me that perhaps by this then with what happened just 1 week confusion arises from the terms "broad-
statement the Secretary of State has later. It seems to me that there is a bit ening" and "prolonging."
answered the very pertinent question of inconsistency there. But the Senator I might say to the Senator from Indi-
raised earlier by the Senator from Flor- from Florida and I can disagree and still ana that I suppose the invasion of Sicily
ida. pursue this colloquy. and Italy during World War II and the
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President,' will the Mr. GURNEY. We can. But,. to get invasion of France on the beaches of
Senator yield? back to the prolonging of the war-be- Normandy was a broadening of the war.
Mr. BAYH. I am happy to yield. cause I think it is a most important I suppose it was. It also was the shorten-
Mr. GURNEY. Commenting on that point-I think there is a great deal of evi- ing of the war, in that these attacks led
specific point-and I hope we can get dence on that subject, that the Cambo- to the final defeat of Germany. The terms
back to expanding on the other point, dian incursion, with the destruction of are quite confusing,
because that is what we had been dis- the supplies that has resulted from this Mr. BAYH. Does the Senator suggest
cussing, but this point was raised earlier, military operation, has indeed not pro- that those areas, from the standpoint of
and it is certainly fair to talk about it- longed the war in any sense, but, if any- involvement and occupation by an enemy
of course, the word "escalation" means thing, has shortened the war. force, are analogous?
one thing to one Senator, and another I cite, for 'example, an authority on Mr. GURNEY. Was not Cambodia oc-
thing to another Senator. To me, the Southeast Asia-perhaps an authority cupied by the North Vietnamese and the
word "escalation" means broadening the who is second to none-on how these Vietcong?
war, stepping up the war, further involv- people fight over there, their method Mr. BAYH. I am not arguing the com-
ing the United States of America, pro- of military operations, and that is Sir plexity of the Southeast Asia situation;
longing the war, sending more troops in, Robert Thompson, a Britisher, who mas- but for the Senator from Florida to sug-
doing more of a whole lot of things. terminded the defense of Malaysia gest that there is a comparison between
The word "deescalation" means taking against communism and was successful the two, is difficult for the Senator from
those steps, particularly those tactical in defeating communism there and res- Indiana to comprehend.
steps, in Southeast Asia, which may very cuing Malaysia from falling into the Mr. GURNEY. Does the Senator from
well lead to a shortening of the war, if hands of the Communists. He has said, Indiana suggest that the Communist
it hurts the enemy and seriously sets for example, that the Communists have sanctuaries in Cambodia were not occu-
him back, and of course that is what this been set back anywhere from nine pied by North Vietnamese and Vietcong
debate during the last several weeks has months to a year by this operation into troops-the enemy?
been all about. I am well aware that some Cambodia. The enemy has been hurt Mr. BAYH. They were occupied-there
Senators have one viewpoint, and other previously, and because he has, our pro- is no question about that. They were
Senators have another. gram of Vietnamization and our ability occupied on the date that the Secretary
Speaking to the words of the Secretary to withdraw our troops has been en- inof State said to Cambodia that to to
would ruin the Viet go
of State, in the sense of this Senator, hanced.
deescalation, in the light of the Cam- To me, that represents not only a very zation program.
bodian incidents, means that when the authoritative opinion but also an opinion Mr. GURNEY. The parallel is exact be-
President, the Commander in Chief, has of a great many people who follow the tween that and Italy and France.
taken a tactical step that has wiped out war in Southeast Asia. Let us. turn to another question.
Communist sanctuaries, that, has de- This is why I was interested in pur- Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
stroyed supplies, that has weakened the suing the talk about prolonging the war. Senator yield?
enemy's ability to wage war, this is in- Mr. BAYH. I explained that in my Mr. BAYH. I yield to the Senator from
deed an escalation. remarks earlier. I would be glad to re- Idaho.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 10, 1970' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
Mr. CHURCH. The comparison of the
Vietnamese war with the Second World
War goes so far beyond the facts of the
current situation that it should not go
unchallenged.
The Second World War was an un-
limited, war; our stated objective was the
the unconditional surrender of the
enemy. It was a war declared by Con-
gress. It differed in character and in all
its particulars from the present war, in-
eluding the fact that the continuing
conflict in Indochina is an undeclared
war.
President Nixon has said repeatedly, as
have his predecessors, President Johnson
and President Kennedy, that this was a
limited war for limited objectives. If it
were not so, I am certain that long ago
we would have Invaded, occupied, and
conquered all of Southeast Asia. That
has not been our purpose. That was not
the reason why we went there. All these
Presidents have reiterated that this is
a limited engagement.
To make these rash analogies between
our situation in Southeast Asia today
and our situation in the Second World
War, such as when we went into Italy,
seems to me to fly in the face of every-
thing we know about our involvement in
Southeast Asia and the declared, un-
limited war for unconditional surrender
that we fought in the days of the Second
World War.
The essential purpose of the Church-
Cooper amendment is to assume legis-
lative responsibility in defining the
theater of this limited war. That is its
whole purpose. It seems to us that after
so many years of Inconclusive fighting,
the time has Come forCongress to assume
responsibility in joining with the Presi-
dent in setting the outer limits of Amer-
ican Involvement in Southeast Asia. In
the Cooper-Church amendment, we are
setting those limits precisely where the
President has set them.
Mr. BAYH. In essence.
Mr. CHURCH. Yes; we have said, "If
you are going to go beyond those limits
in,this limited war, then come back to
Congress and let Congress share, as the
Constitution intended, in any decision
which opens up or expands the theater of
American involvement." I reject the
analogies based upon our experience in
the Second World War.
Mr. BAYH. The Senator from Idaho
knows well, and the whole country knows
well, the nature of the guerrilla war in
Southeast Asia. This was not involved
in Western Europe in World War II. So
that I think the comparison falls on its
face.
Before returning'to the discussion with
the distinguished Senator from. Florida.
I want to emphasize that. what this
amendment does is not slap the Pres-
ident in the face but indicates a willing-
#Aess. #hd desire oil, the part of Congress
to accept` some of the responsibility. It
gives the President an easier but," to
keep it from being just his war, and
thus, hopefully to join him in ending
the. war.
Mr, C',A' .CCI . `he Senator is emi-
nently correct. It seems to me that,if we
are going to come out of this morass in
Southeast Asia, we must find a way to
come out of it together. Otherwise, the
frightful political recriminations, about
which the President worries, will become
reality. All of us will face them because
,there will not be a pleasant, popular end-
ing to this war. Everyone knows that.
We are presently withdrawing, which is
the President's policy. This ending will.
not be the kind the American people have
been accustomed to. There' is, already,
danger that serious political recrimina-
tions could devastate and divide bur own
country.
Looking ahead, I think that the best
course for the country is for Congress to
begin-now-to share a joint responsi-
bility with the President for extricat-
ing the United States from this interm-
inable and inconclusive war in Southeast
Asia.
The Cooper-Church amendment is a
first step in that direction. It assumes a
legislative responsibility to define the
outer limits of the Ameriacn penetra-
tion into Cambodia, the exact place
where the President himself has stated
it. Thus, it is an offer to the President
to join him in an orderly extrication of
this country from the quicksands on the
Southeast Asian mainland.
The persistence by some in attempt-
ing to construe the amendment as some-
thing else baffles me. The attempt to
characterize our amendments as some
kind of slap at the President of the
United States is patently absurd.
The distinguished Republicans who
have joined in supporting the amend-
ment, such outstanding,, acknowledged
statesmen as JOHN SHERMAN COOPER,
of Kentucky; GEORGE AIKEN, of Ver-
mont: JACOB JAVITS, of New York; and
many others, would have no part of any
legislative attempt if its purpose was to
embarrass or discredit the President. To
insist upon interpreting the amendment
in this fashion, is not only unfortunate,
but utterly usupportable.
Mr. BAYH. I.appreciate the Senator's
clarification, and salute him for his
initiative in this area.
Now I am happy to yield to the Sen-
ator from Florida.
Mr. GURNEY. I thank the Senator.
I should like to go back and discuss a
little bit the remarks just made by the
distinguished Senator from Idaho. He
feels deeply about this matter, as do all
of us. So, to pooh-pooh the idea that
there is any analogy between one war
and another, I think, if he went over to
South Vietnam or even to Cambodia right
now and talked to the GI's over there
and tried to reassure them that they were
fighting a small war, not a big conflict
like the Second World War was, that our
objectives and aims are different now,
and all the other arguments we have
just heard, I think the reaction of the
GI's might be, "The shot and shell are
flying thick at me, just as they did in
World War II. All the other things that
are happening here happened in World
War II."
One war is like another so far as the
young men are concerned whose lives are
being laid out on the line. So that I be-
lieve we should do the things that will
not prolong the war but will shorten
it.
S 8775
An interesting thing on that score, I
am sure that other Senators have had
the same experience I have had, con=
cerning letters written to me personally
from Vietnam in recent days and also
sent to me by parents who have received
letters from their boys in Vietnam and
Cambodia in recent days. The letters
say, "Dear Senator" or to the parent,
as the case may be, "Thank heaven, we
have finally done something which will
hit the enemy and hurt the enemy and
shorten the war."
That is what they say, the soldiers in
the field.
Now let'us turn to another point the
Senator from Indiana mentioned in his
remarks, that I think is important, too.
He spoke about the political price that
was being paid here at home. I guess
part of the point was that there is so
much uproar here at home that the
President and the administration is los-
ing the backing it had, or may have had,
as far as Vietnam policy is concerned.
I think it is interesting to note the
polls which have been made since Presi-
dent Nixon moved troops into Cambodia.
One is from Newsweek and supports the
President in the Cambodian action by a
rather substantial majority. The most
recent poll is even more interesting, and
that is the Gallup Poll which was made
just a few days ago, and shows actually
that during the time the President sent
troops into Cambodia, his popularity as
President has risen.
I do not know what political price the
Senator from Indiana is talking about
but if he is talking about the adminis-
tration's political price apparently the
country backs up the President and
backs up his Vietnam policy, and not
only approves of what he is doing but
also the popularity of the President has
increased.
Perhaps the Senator could go into the
political price he is talking about a little
more.
Mr. BAYH. I must say, with all respect
to my friend from Florida, that is a very
poor reason, indeed, to invade Cam-
bodia-in order to improve the Presi-
dent's standing in a Gallup poll.
Mr. GURNEY. Of course, the Senator
from Indiana knows that is not why I
made that argument at all-
Mr. BAYH. What the Senator from
Indiana said-I will answer the ques-
tion-what the Senator from Indiana
said had nothing to do *ith popularity
on the political scale. If anyone here is
the least observant, and certainly my
friend from Florida is most observant,
any of us would have to come to the
assessment that there is considerably
more turmoil, agitation, confusion, and
frustration in the country today, at al-
most any level, than there was before
the Cambodian invasion. Just take a
good look at the stock market. Read
what the experts say this did to the con-
fidence of the business community.
Mr. GURNEY. I thought the stock
market was going up. Has not the Sena-
tor from Indiana read the stock market
reports lately?
Mr. BAYH. I have no money, so I can-
not be investing in the stock market.
Mr. GURNEY. The. stock market is
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00020024 17-3
S 8776 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE une 10, 1970'
going up, in case the senator did not The trouble that was caused on the people all over the countrj are concerned
. campuses by Cambodia is only one part over the disturbances going on on the
know.
Mr. BAYH. Well, if the Senator would of the whole campus picture. college campuses, if that is the point the
read some of the statements coming from The point that the Senator from In- Senator was making.
eminent, qualified members of the busi- diana was trying to make, it appeared Mr. BAYH. That was not the point I
ness community, they would give him to me, was that the trouble at Kent State was making.
an idea of the tremendous shock and jolt University and all other campuses is the Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, all I am
the invasion of Cambodia gave to the fault of the President of the United saying is that there are many other
business community. States because of the Cambodian incur- fundamental factors involved in the cam-
Mr. GURNEY. The business comnlu- sion. And I do not think that is true. pus dissent than C'ambodla.
nity is backing up the President. The poll Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I will send I pointed out two of the most notable
made shows the Research percent of Anver to day's periodical Post, whichf coYes- exples of n- the campus capus dissent. One
I
Columbia University.
is that behind 80hind per the President. o business tams an article describing how the Presi- feel that the disturbances really began
community ea muni
r
Mr. BAYH. It seems to me that the dent had sent five of his young assist- in the East. This was about 2 years ago.
best poll; as far as support from the busi- ants to the various college and univer- One involved a piece of property which
ness community is concerned, if the Sen- sity campuses throughout the country. Columbia University was contemplating
ator from Florida has to have some sort I do not know whether the President building on in the ghetto area. That was
of poll- sent anyone to the campus of Kent State what that was all about.
Mr. GURNEY. I do not need a poll. University. We have had these investiga- I recall the disturbance at Cornell Uni-
You do. tions up one side and down the other. versity when certain students came out
Mr. BAYH. The Senator is the one who These young men, members of the of the administration building with guns
brought it up. If the Senator has to have President's party, went all over the coun- and rifles in their hands.
some poll, I have had more businessmen try. They came back with dramatic ex- I do not feel that those incidents had to do suggest that the best barometer of the pressions of concern, saying that they themselves, as young men, were surprised anything
I agree that weave ha a miuch turmoil
attitude of the businessk market Is community is to themselves, to find the tremendous alarm that ex- on college campuses. But I feel that this
see which way the stock it today going. and isted all over this country. trouble and turmoil started long before
.
If ere is was compare a where
ore he Cambodia-I think I do not for a moment want the REc- the Cambodian incursion.
where before to show, or my friend, the Senator Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, before the
that answers the- from Florida, to get the idea, or anyone Senator leaves this subject, I will just
Mr. GURNEY. The stock market has else that might read the RECORD, to get read into the RECORD part of this article
been going down for month after month the idea that the Senator from Indiana to which I have referred.
because it was too high. But let us turn believes that violent dissent because of Mr. GURNEY. I remember reading the
-thisome to The ng Senator else, mentioned question of tur- the Vietnam war has any place on the article.
as s an example moil. The reaat t e turmoil Kent State campus or any place else. . Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, since the
going on in the country. e hu g grSnow I think when they get to the place of Senator from Florida has read the ar-
from Indiana adiana should read The the report ort Ofe burning down banks, destroying institu- ticle, I will not bother to take up the
from Internal Security of higher learning, and doing time to read the article now.
the Senate Inthrity committee
con-
that warned the Senate 2 Yeas ago thissmatter has gone beyondlthespothat int President, I
the article entitledo Young
State, inds of trouble brewing at Kent nt of legitimate dissent. Aides Tell Nixon of Youth Unrest," writ-
Stand.that was long before Cam- It has gone to the point addressed by ten by Carroll Kilpatrick, and published
bodia? former Justice Holmes long ago when he in the Washington Post of June 9, 1970,
Mi a-I w. Now, does the Senator whave
all feom said, "The first amendment does not give be printed in the RECORD.
the want to make sure anybody the right to cry 'Fire' in a There being no objection, the article
the facts li the record here-does the - e crowded theater." was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
Senator bthat State athe unfortunate
the re- It has been my belief over the past as follows:
cadent the aderrs contained tained in bed Int the the report t few weeks that most of the disent and YOUNG AIDES TELL NIXON OF YOUTH
tilt of ththe deep concern that has ben expressed UNREST
to which he factors
referred? has been in a nonviolent way. It has been (By Carroll Kilpatrick)
Mr. GURNEY. _roS was President, brewing what I expressed not just by students, but also Eight youthful White House staff mem-
am saying ss of that Kent t State University for r by mothers and fathers, by automobile bers reported to President Nixon yesterday
the campus workers and by steel workers. that the Cambodian operation seriously
2 long years. My mail has increased astronomically. damaged his support on the campuses and
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, is the an- And all of this mail is not from students. drove many moderate students into the arms
saver to the question I posed to the Sena- GURNEY. Mr. President, is the of radicals.
tor from Florida "Yes"? I want to snake e Mr. Senator speaking of the hard-hat demon- The President met for more than an hour
sure we get that into the RECORD. with eight White House staff members he
Mr. GURNEY. Wiiat was the question? strations In New York a couple of weeks dispatched last month to sample opinion on
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I would like ago? Is that one of the examples the Sen- some so university campuses.
to know if the Senator from Florida be- ator Is referring to? Chancellor Alexander Heard of Vanderbilt
Mr. BAYH. I must say that when a University, the President's temporary adviser
Neves that the confrontation which o fellow, whether he is wearing a hard on campus activities anti thinking, was pres-
curred at Kent State University-a most t hat or not, tells me he is against ob- ent for the meeting in the cabinet room.
unfortunate thincident-was directly re- words, desecrating described as shocked be members,
y what they
reportedlhe ay discover-
in told the
fated solely to contrns described y scenity, four-letter the report the the Internal Security ier the r ings, I flag, say: " and me too." burning And I down do bank not build- think ed on the President that the campuses. They opposition to the
Committee which was mentioned earlier has anything to do with the war in Cambodian operation and the Vietnam war
by the Senator from Florida. with the stock market. was not a fringe phenomenon but a wide-
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, it cer-, Vietnam or spread condition in the universities.
tainly is due in part to the conditions Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I think The staff members' reports generally bore
revealed. by the Senate Internal Security they were backing the President's efforts out what others previously have found about
Subcommittee. in Vietnam. the extent of student and faculty opposi-
I also point out that trouble and tur- Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I think the tion the administration's Southeast Asian
moil has been going on on the Kent State President will have a rude awakening if policies.
campus for months and months. It has he feels that the fathers and mothers of The eight reported their findings earlier
been a continual process, as it has been these boys and girls are not deeply con- to senior staff members at the White House
on many other college and university cerned over this war in Vietnam. This is and In writing. The President invited them
campuses throughout the country. a matter that transcends occupational to give an oral report to him yesterday.
The point I am trying to make is that lines. It should transcend class lines. He now fully recognizes the extent of the
campus opposition to him and his policies
the trouble and turmoil on the campuses Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, I agree and is "very sensitive" to the problem, one
has been going on for a long time. whole heartedly with the Senator. But informant said.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 1Qp roved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-0033712000200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECOR n - SFM A r1 c nnnn
Hugh S1qan, 29, who visited. Princeton, Co- that the situation has turned around and Indeed, the issue of liquidating the
lumbia, Rutgers, Connecticut, College, the gone the other way.
Coast Guard Academy and New York Una- Vietnam war is now wholly a question versity, said after visiting Columbia that This is what shocked the business com- of tactics and timetable. This is true of
"the depth of feeling is considerably stronger munity. This is what shocked the stu- the Cooper-Church amendment and even
than I personally imagined." dents. This is what shocked the country. of the much broader McGovern-Hatfield-
lie met at Low Library on the Columbia That is why I am concerned. And I think Goodell-Cranston-Hughes amendment.
campus last month with a series of student. the RECORD should show that. The basic issue with which we still must
and faculty groups. Prof. Charles Frankel of Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the come to grips is a definition of the war
the philosophy department, a former assist- Senator yield?
ant secretary of state for cultural affairs, said Mr. s the Congress and, therefore,
after meeti Sloan that the Cambodian o . GURNEY. Mr. President, will the by implication, of the President under
of ter n was a blow to moderates on campus Senator yield further? contemporary circumstances. I do not say
Students "felt betrayed," Frankel said at Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the this in criticism of the Cooper-Church
the time. Dean Carl Hovde of Columbia col- Senator yield? amendment, which strongly favor and in
lege, who also met with Sloan, told reporters Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, to let my the drafting of which I participated as
that "patience has snapped over the (war) friend, the 'Senator from Florida, get his a member of the Foreign Relations Com-
issue." breath, I yield now to the Senator from mittee-but rather because it makes no
White House press secretary Ronald L. New York.
Ziegler said the . eight Staff members spent such claim for itself.
three or four days each visiting different cam- Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have What needs to be defined is how the
pules. Ziegler discounted one report that the some prepared remarks concerning the Congress is to exercise its policymaking
eight were stunned by the apposition senti- Byrd amendment which I would like to power with respect to war which is ex-
ment they encountered. deal with first. Then I would like to plicitly reserved to it in the Constitution
Other officials said it was true the eight make some remarks concerning the col- in consonance with the President's exec-
had been shocked by the extent to which loquy I have just heard between my dis- utive or command authority as Com-
coniservatlve and moderate students had
turned against the administration because tinguished colleagues. minder in Chief. The Constitution de-
of Cambodia. . BYRD AMENDMENT BEGS THE QUESTION fines this executive capacity of the Pres-
Ziegler said the staff members "talked to The amendment offered by the Sena- ident only to "take care that the laws be
students, administrators and faculty to get tor from West Virginia (Mr. BYRD) only faithfully executed." The President cer-
their views-,primarily to assess their feel- begs the question raised by the Cooper- tainly enjoys discretionary authority but
ings for thq specific purpose of communicat-
ing their views to tiie President." Church amendment and settles nothing. it is the discretionary authority of an
The staff members reported that a major For the President, according to his own executive. He does not have discretionary
target of campus criticism was Vice president declaration of his reasons for sending authority with respect to warmaking in
Agnew. U.S. Forces into Cambodia, has already, a policy sense. This is a power granted
The White House aides who made the sur- in the words of the Byrd amendment, to the Congress under the system of
veY for Mr: Nixon were, in addiFtion to Sloan: taken "such action as may be necessary checks and balances in the Constitution.
John L. Campbell, 26, he visited Duke, to protect the livs of U.S. Forces in But, the adoption by the Senate of the
North Carolina Central College and the Uni- South Vietnam or to hasten withdrawal Cooper-Church amendment-an impor-
versity of North Carolina.
William Casselman, 28, visited Claremont of U.S. Forces from South Vietnam." taut piece in an emerging mosaic-would
College and the University of California at But, the question now is-and it is be a significant historical milestone in
San Diego. raised by the Cooper-Church amend- asserting this authority of the Congress.
Christopher DeMuth, 23, Harvard, Univer- ment-whether the Congress can place Its historic significance may be further
sity of Massachusetts, Boston College, and a limit on the exercise by the President of enhanced by the President's open en-
Northeastern University.. = dorsement of the Byrd amendment.
Jeffrey Donfeld, 26, University of Cali- his power as Commander in Chief by re-
fornia at Berkeley, University of Texas and stricting his authority to use appropria- Under these circumstances I see the
the Los Angeles Valley Junior College. tions in the support of forces carrying Byrd amendment
table the t, in its Senate's effect, effort as to
rere-
Chester F. Finn, 25, Reed College, Univer- out his orders in Cambodia. This, I feel, ort to and table td ti l
sity of Washington and Montana State Una- the Congress has an absolute right to do. assert and i of t define t the resstis spel
cs
versity. The President may choose not to use an fled inssection 1, article he Congress h sCon-
o -
Lee
Lee Huebner, 29, Northwestern, Ohio State appropriation on these conditions, but fled . If the Byrd 8, a the Cons
and Bowling Green College in Ohio. Stitutisori If the Byrd amendment is
Don Murdock ,_28, University of Wisconsin, if he does use it, he cannot at the same adopted, it will set back a vital historic
Hdgewaod College in Madison, was., and time negate its purpose or its restriction.
Madison Area Technical and Vocational Col- What Senator BYRD tries to do is to process--the aCongre of the aw rmy ing.
page. turn the clock back to the time preced- Also Alo- it of will the give in momentum a
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I must say ing the Cambodian decision and to dis- phenomenon which new momentum to a
that the Senator from, Florida seemed regard the fact of the decision or its im- ich has aroused such
determined to relate the student unrest plications. I believe the Cooper-Church years--the concern in our NaeiPreside rnt recent
over Cambodia and the militant violence amendment is not only a proper, but a the warmaking ing power r in the nme of
on other campuses of 2 years ago, wise, exercise of the congressional au- authority as power the name Since
I thought perhaps the Senator had not thority. For, the Senate, is dealing in the the au first s C rumblings of Commander
World War Snce
n
read the article. Cooper-Church amendment with the have s n II, we
I think the RECORD should show con- question of extending the theatre of war power of this constantly.. expanding
elusively that there was deep concern, beyond Vietnam as a matter of basic dication w seen n by the thi thi the the Congress often due to ab-
deep unrest, and deep division in this policy. The Cooper-Church amendment mg g Powers. ughou of its t dec a e,
country as -a direct result of the Cam- seeks to restrain the President from us- this trend has Throughout the past decade,
bodian invasion. That has nothing to do ing his Commander in Chief authority ganed.an ominous mo-
with politics. with respect to the security of our forces It t has
has me
I find myself as a member of the loyal in Vietnam beyond the very limited in- reached the point where any effort opposition hoping and praying that the voivement which he himself has speci- Presidential justpower is the
regarded expansion oe
by some
President can be successful, knowing fied as essential for that security. defenders of the Presidency as an en-
that if he is successful, it will be the It is proper to state that nothing the croachment on the Office of the Presi-
biggest political thing that-he will have Senate can do, including the Cooper- dent. Many advocates of Presidential
going for him. Church amendment, can deprive the prerogative in the field of war and for-
We cannot ignore the fact that today President of his Constitutional authority eign polciy seem at times to be arguing
there is unrest in this country. After a as Commander in Chief. All the Congress that the President's "powers" as Oom-
Period, of 15 or 16 months of planned is asked to do by the Cooper-Church mander in Chief are what the President
disengagement--slowly, steadily, and amendment is to limit broader-scale in- alone defines them to be.
surely-many of us in the opposition volvement in Cambodia which would in- I believe that passage of the Byrd
party who had gone along with the trude upon the warmaking powers of the amendment would amount to Senate ac-
President on this matter; suddenly find Congress itself. quiescence in. this position-that is, the
Approved For Release 2002/01/02: CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S 8778
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONG".ESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 10, 1970
President enjoys such powers as Com- Business exigencies are now pressing
mander in Chief as he defines them to also, as are so many social problems in
be. I believe that this could undermine our country, for some way to bring this
our whole constitutional system and lead war to a close, and not to proceed again,
the Nation into grave new crises at home asunhappily Cambodia did, to devastate
and abroad. a large segment of the communtiy be-
What is most needed, in my ju.dg- cause they saw an expansion rather than
ment, is a new policy codification of rules a contraction of our war efforts.
to be followed in circumstances where I hope very much the Senate will face
military hostilities must be undertaken this issue which Is being so eloquently
in the absence of a declaration of war. debated by Senators. It is essentially a
There are two categories of such circum- constitutional issue.
stances: First, those on which a declara- Mr. BAYH. I appreciate the contribu-
tion of war is not justified or desirable tion of the Senator.
because of the total consequences Of a Mr. President, I. apologize for the
suddennes of events does not permit the
prior enactment of a declaration of
war.
In the nuclear age, hostilities are likely
to continue to take the form of "limited"
and even "clandestine" wars. Such wars
require a response adapted to the cir-
cumstances and those circumstances do
not seem to be adequately encompassed
in the 18th century concept of a "de-
clared" war, which is specified in the
Constitution.
The Congress has done little or noth-
ing, in my judgment, to adapt its con-
stitutionally specified "declaration-of-
war" power to 20th century circum-
stances. At the same time, our Presi-
dents have shown great vigor and in-
genuity in adapting and expanding the
Commander in Chief powers to deal with
limited and clandestine wars. The proc-
ess of atrophy of congressional power
and unilateral expansion of Presidential
power in warmaking has now reached
dangerous limits.
There is an urgent need for enactment
of a law which codifies historical prac-
tice as it has evolved in a prudent man-
ner harmonious with the Constitution.
The Congress has ample powers to this
under article 1, section 8, of the Con-
stitution. I have been working on such
legislation for some time and I intend
to introduce a bill to this effect shortly.
Now, I would like to make two obser-
vations respecting the previous colloquy.
One concerns the matter of the business
community which the Senator from Flor-
ida has been discussing. It is a fact, as
the Senator has said, that the stock
market has made a slight recovery from
its very deep low point. I hope that we
will not be confused by that fact. The
fact is that the stock market was at its
lowest point for 4 or 5 years. However,
it has made a slight recovery. I hope that
it recovers more.
Inflation makes it impossible to finance
the efforts of such a major corporation
as the Penn Central Railroad.
length of the debate. The Senator from
Florida has been anxious to pursue some
interrogation of the Senator from Indi-
ana, and that is the reason we have been
proceeding here.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further?
Mr. BAYH. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. I want to say also that
I appreciate the courtesy of the Senator
from Florida (Mr. GURNEY) because If he
had not allowed me to be yielded to and
make these expressions, I would not have
been able to do so.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BAYH. I yield.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, through-
out much of the debate, opponents of
the Cooper-Church amendment have
spoken as though they are for our serv-
icemen and that our servicemen are for
them. On the other hand, those who sup-
port the amendment presumably have
no such support among the servicemen
who are on the battle line in Vietnam.
Of course, that is not so. I am sure the
Senator from Indiana has received, as
I have, a great many letters from service-
men in Vietnam who wholeheartedly
support the effort we are making here.
One such letter arrived today. The let-
ter is addressed to the Senator from
Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT), the chair-
man of the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions. It is so pertinent, I believe it should
be printed in the RECORD.
The letter is from one of our fighting
men who has been in Vietnam for 10
months and who has been involved in'the
Cambodian operation. The letter is an
indictment of both our presence in
South Vietnam-which he labels as a
"travesty of reason"-and our invasion
of Cambodia-which he claims "was de-
signed to fool the American public."
Mr. President, the soldier writing this
letter concludes it with the following
plea:
Senator, I beseech you to listen to those
dissenters our Vice President has been criti-
There is a deep erosion of confidence, cizing, for they are concerned about me and
as shown by the plans for acquisition or their country. They certainly seem more
for other business improvements. alarmed than either the President or his
We are beginning to see a marked ero- "silent majority."
sion of confidence and a decrease in buy- I say "Amen" to these comments, and
ing by consumers and continuing infla- I hope that my colleagues will show their
tion. concern for this young soldier and the
The Vietnam war and the fact that thousands like him by rejecting any at-
there is in the minds of many people of tempt to water down the Church-Cooper
the United States the suggestion of an amendment. We can do no less and still
expansion of the war because of the Cam- meet our responsibility to these young
bodian move are very major contributing men.
factors. Many very outstanding business Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
lea4ers have expressed themselves on sent that this letter be printed in its
that score, entirety at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MAY 23, 1970.
Senator J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: My purpose in writing you is
twofold. First, I wish to add to the influx of
mail demonstrating opposition to the Cam-
bodian drive. As a soldier in Viet Nam for ten
months, I am already appalled by the tra-
vesty of reason my country is perpetrating
here; the push into yet another foreign ter-
ritory shocks and frightens me.
Secondly, I hope to bring to your atten-
tion the extent to which the military of l-
cials "planned" the Cambodian campaign,
a campaign which was supposed to save
American lives and shorten the war. _
My artillery unit, part of the 2nd Brigade,
of the Fourth Division, was sent into Cam-
bodia with absolutely no building materials,
and inadequate water. We didn't receive
sandbags, a necessity on any firebase, for
three days, and when we did receive them,
there were only ten bundles where we needed
160.
Never in Viet Nam did we have to do with-
out materials necessary to provide protec-
tion from mortars and rockets. But in Cam-
bodia, where the enemy has -artillery pieces,
we weren't supplied.
The official explanation was a shortage of
logistical equipment, such as the 21/2 ton
trucks which moved our battery's ammuni-
tion and supplies. If that was the case, then
why did our battalion commander use one
of the few trucks allocated to my battery to
move his personal privy and shower to PIei
Djereng (Viet Nam), when we needed a truck
for sandbags and water?
On our last night in Cambodia, we re-
ceived enemy mortars and rockets. A friend
of mine died, and many were injured: we do
not have overhead coverage. I submit that
what happened to us, and others, such as the
101st Airborne Infantry, who suffered badly,
was the result of something other than a
carefully planned maneuver designed to fore-
shorten the war and save lives. I submit that
the campaign, which purportedly captured
huge caches and killed many enemy-where
the numbers of weapons, supplies, and en-
emy dead published in both dubious and
captious-actually was designed to fool the
American public and benefit a small group of
people.
Senator, I beseech you to listen to those
dissenters our Vice President has been criti-
cizing, for they are concerned about me and
their country. They certainly seem more
alarmed than either the President or his
"silent majority."
Sincerely yours,
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, again I
commend the distinguished and able
Senator from Indiana for the fine con-
tribution he has made to the debate to-
day.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I appreciate
the comments of the distinguished Sen-
ator from Idaho.
I feel I have occupied the floor for too
lengthy a period of time. I see the Sena-
tor from Florida is no longer in the
Chamber, so perhaps he has no further
questions. I yield the floor, Mr. President.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had agreed to the amendments of
the Senate to the bill (H.R. 4204) to
amend section 6 of the War Claims Act
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 :.CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 10, 1970, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
of 1948 to include prisoners of war cap-
tured during the Vietnam conflict, and
for other purposes.
The message also announced that the
.,douse had agreed to the report of the
committee of conference on the disagree-
ipg votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill
(H.R. 11102) to amend the Public Health
Service Act to revise, extend, and improve
the program established by title VI of
such act, and for other purposes.
The message further announced that
the House had disagreed to the amend-
ment of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
12858) to provide for the disposition'of
certain funds awarded to the Tlingit and
Haida Indians of Alaska by a judgment
entered by the Court of Claims against
the United States; asked a conference
with. the Senate on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses thereon, and that Mr.
HALEY, Mr. EDMONDSON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr.
SAYLOR, and Mr. BERRY were appointed
managers on the part of the House at the
conference.
The message also announced that the
House had passed a bill (H.R. 17923)
making appropriations for the Depart-
ment of Agriculture and related agencies
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1971,
and for other purposes, in which it re-
quested the concurrence of the Senate.
HOUSE BILL REFERRED
The bill (H.R. 17923) making appro-
priations for the Department of Agricul-
ture and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1971, and for other
purposes, was read twice by its title and
referred to the CommitteSn Appro-
AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN
MILITARY AIJ ACT
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 15628) to
amend,the Foreign Military Sales Act.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President,
I rise to discuss the Cooper-Church
amendment to the Military Sales Act
and simultaneously the amendment of-
fered by my distinguished colleague from
West Virginia, Senator ROBERT BYRD.
The Cooper-Church amendment pro-
vides, among other things, that "in order
to avoid the involvement of the United
States in a wider war in Indochina and
expedite the withdrawal of American
forces from Vietnam," no funds nay be
expended after June 30 for retention of
U.S, ground forces in Cambodia, or for
conducting any air combat activity over
Cambodia other than to interdict the
moyement of enemy supplies into South
Vietnam. This, in essence, is the intent
of the amendment.
This amendment has given me a great
deal of concern as to just how I should
Gast Lily vote.
ffvQr the objective of the Cooper-
Church amendment. I do not want to
see the united States become bogged
down in a. ground war in Cambodia.
Mr. President, 3 years ago, upon my
return frot Southeast Asia, I made a
report on the floor of the Senate.
On April 11, 1967, I said that while
public attention was focused on Viet-
nam, sooner or later, if the war con-
tinued, the problem would be widened
and our Nation would be faced with
grave decisions regarding Laos and Cam-
bodia.
I want to read at this point a few
paragraphs of my speech of 3 years ago :
Our Involvement in Asia does not stop
with Vietnam.
In order to help the war effort there, we
have negotiated with Thailand and have
constructed, or are in the process of con-
structing, four huge military bases there,.
each of which I visited.
These bases are of great importance to
the American military effort in Vietnam.
For example, our giant B-52 bombers here-
tofore all flown from Guam-a 12-hotfr
round trip to target-will, beginning this
month, be operated partially, from Thai-
land-a 4-hour round trip flight to target.
But our presence in Thailand further com-
mits us in Asia, and it commits us to pro-
tect the Kingdom of Thailand.
Visualize, if you will, the map. Vietnam is
separated from Thailand by both Laos and
Cambodia. In other words, Laos and Cam-
bodia lie between the two countries in which
we are currently militarily Involved.
The ultimate fate of Laos and Cambodia
hangs in doubt with Communist pressure at
a high point.
A part of Laos is now an important mili-
tary base for the Vietcong yet, another part'
of Laos is cooperating with the United States.
Cambodia claims to be neutral and will
not permit the United States to overfly it
when U.S. planes go from Thailand to Viet-
nam. Yet, Cambodia is also a sanctuary for
the Vietcong.
Sooner or later, our nation may be faced
with grave decisions regarding Laos and
Cambodia.
If such is the case and we decide to inter-
vene, we will then have assumed the re-
sponsibility for all of what was French Indo-
china, plus its neighbor, the Kingdom of
Thailand. If we conclude not to intervene in
Laos and Cambodia, either or both could
become another Communist-dominated
North Vietnam.
That was my comment in 1967. Today,
we are faced with precisely the kind of
decision that I foresaw 3 years ago.
The decision is no easier now than it
would have been 3 years ago. In some
ways it is more difficult, because Commu-
nist aggression has spread.
From the very beginning, I have said
that the commitment of American
ground troops in a land war in Asia was
a grave error of judgment.
I have also maintained that the error
was compounded by the way in which the
war has been conducted. President John-
son and Secretary of Defense McNamara
tried to run it out of Washington-with
unrealistic reins on the military com-
manders in the field. It took quite a while
before the McNamara concept of a so-
called limited war was proved a farce. It
prolonged the war and increased the
casualties.
The 2 million Americans who have
participated in the Vietnam war for the
most part did not ask to go there. They
were sent there by their Government,
most of them having been drafted, taken
from their families, homes, and commu-
nities and sent to a far-off land to fight.
We now have in Vietnam some 425,000
Americans.
Whether it was wise or unwise to have
become involved in Vietnam is not the
S 8779
question now. We must deal with the
situation that exists today.
Our Nation is unified, I believe, in the
desire to get out of Vietnam. Our Nation
is divided, however, on how best this can
be accomplished.
This brings me to Cambodia and to
the Church-Cooper amendment.
In late April, there were indications
that President Nixon might be called
upon to make a decision with regard to
going to the aid of the Cambodian Gov-
ernment following the ouster of Prince
Norodom Sihanouk.
The President announced that he
would address the American people on
this subject the night of April 30.
That afternoon in the Senate prior to
the President's speech, I urged him not
to send American ground troops to fight
in Cambodia. I expressed the hope that
if aid were to be given in the form of air
support, advisers or arms, that it be
made clear of the Cambodian Govern-
ment-and to the American people-that
this would not lead to involvement of
U.S. combat forces.
I added:
There must be a limit to American involve-
ment in Asia. The United States cannot uni-
laterally assume the responsibility for the
security of all of what was French Indo-
china.
That evening, the President announced
his decision to attack North Vietnamese
and Vietcong sanctuaries along the Cam-
bodian-South Vietnamese border-and
he sent American troops to accomplish
this purpose.
I withheld judgment on the Presi-
dent's decision until I had the oppor-
tunity to obtain additional information.
At a White House meeting with the
President the following Tuesday, May 5,
I was assured, along with other members
of the Armed Services Committee, that
the President's action was a temporary
military tactic for a specific military
purpose.
The President stated categorically that
no commitments had been made by our
Government to guarantee the security
of the Cambodian Government. He as-
serted, too, that all American troops
would be withdrawn from Cambodia
prior to June 30, and that he had no
idea of our becoming bogged down in a
ground war in Cambodia.
The President's action, as he explained
it, did not contemplate the use of ground
forces to fight for Cambodia. The inva-
sion into Cambodia was, he said, for the
limited, specific purpose of destroying
enemy sanctuaries as a means of pro-
tecting U.S. soldiers in South Vietnam.
These sanctuaries are within 20 miles
of the Vietnamese-Cambodian border.
The invasion of a country with which
we are not at war normally is clearly
a matter on which the Congress of the
United States should be consulted. But
the President's action in regard to Cam-
bodia is not a clear-cut example.
It is, to use the President's words, a
temporary military tactic for the pur-
pose of protecting American troops in
the area adjacent to the enemy sanc-
tuaries.
Nor can Cambodia be considered a
neutral nation. The North Vietnamese
Approved For Release 2002/01/02: CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
S 8780
and Vietcong have been using Cambo-
dian territory without hindrance.
So I am of two minds in regard to the
Cooper-Church proposal:
We already have too many commit-
ments in Asia. I do not want the United
States to assume the responsibility of
protecting the Government of Cainbo-
dia; but I do not want our Commander
in Chief to be prevented by legislation
from taking reasonable temporary mili-
tary steps to protect American troops
still in Vietnam.
We have a prime obligation to those
Americans our Government has sent to
Vietnam. They are entitled to full pro-
tection.
This brings me to the amendment
offered by the Senator from West Vir-
ginia (Mr. BYRD). The Byrd amendment
would state in effect that while U.S. forces
could not be used to protect the Govern-
ment of Cambodia, they may be used to
protect the lives of U.S. forces in South
Vietnam, or to expedite the withdrawal
of American troops from Vietnam.
If the Byrd-amendment were approved
by the Senate, theft the Cooper-Church
proposal, as amended by Mr. BYRD, would
say to the President: "We do not want
U.S. forces to be used for the protection
of the Cambodian Government, but they
may be used in Cambodia as a temporary
military tactic, if the President deems it
necessary to protect American troops in
Vietnam, or to facilitate the ending of
the Vietnam war."
As stated earlier, I long have been
opposed to U.S. involvement in a ground
war in Asia. Somehow, that war must
be brought to an end.
But, as I see it, there is-at this late
date-no good solution.
President Nixon, I am convinced, is
making a sincere effort to achieve a solu-
tion-and, indeed, already has with-'
drawn 115,000 U.S. troops. He is pledged
to withdraw 150,000 more by next April-
50,000 of these by October 15 of this
year.
So he is making progress toward re=
ducing American involvement.
If one believes the President is sincere
in his desire to bring the war to a reason-
able conclusion, is not acting through
the Commander in Chief the most effec-
tive way to achieve the desired results?
Mr. President, I suggest the absence
of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr, Presi-
dent, I' ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
MODIFICATION OF UNANIMOUS-
CONSENT AGREEMENT
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
previous order of June 5, 1970, requiring
the running of the time for debate to
begin Immediately "after the disposition
of the Journal" on tomorrow, be changed
to "after approval of the Journal."
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BEN-
NETT). Is there objection to the request
of the Senator from West Virginia? The
Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is bordered.
MODIFICATION OF AMENDMENT
NO. 667
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to modify my amendment 667
star print to read as follows:
On page 5, line 7, before the semicolon in-
sert a comma and the following: "except that
the foregoing provisions of this clause shall
not preclude the President from taking only
such action as Is necessary in the exercise
of his constitutional powers and duties as
Commander in Chief, to protect the lives of
United States forces in South Vietnam or to
facilitate the withdrawal of United States
forces from South Vietnam; and the Presi-
dent is requested to consult with Congres-
sional leaders prior to using any United
States forces in Cambodia if, as Commander
in Chief, he determines that the use of such
forces is necessary to protect the lives of
United States forces in South Vietnam or to
facilitate the withdrawal of United States
forces from South Vietnam;"
Mr. President, the specific changes
which I would thus be making in amend-
ment 667, if I am permitted to modify
my amendment, would be as follows. I
would suggest that Senators may wish to
read the star print which is on their desks
as I attempt to make the precise sug-
gested changes clear.
I would modify amendment 667 to in-
sert the word "only" after the word "tak-
ing" on line 3; to delete the words "may
be" and insert in lieu thereof the word
"Is" on line 4; after the word "neces-
sary" on line 4, insert a comma and the
following language: "in the exercise of
his constitutional powers and duties as
Commander in Chief,"; and at the end
of the present language on line 6 of
amendment 667 delete the quotation
marks and the period, insert a semicolon
and add the following language:
And the President is requested to consult
with Congressional leaders prior to using any
United States forces in Cambodia if, as Com-
mander-in-Chief, he determines that the use
of such forces is necessary to protect the
lives of United States forces in South Viet-
nam or to facilitate the withdrawal of United
States forces from South Vietnam;"
Mr. President, that concludes the
modification which I propose.
My modification, when taken together
with paragraph (1) of the Cooper-
Church amendment and language from
the preamble of that amendment begin-
ning with the word "unless" on line 3
of page 5, would then read as follows:
June 10, 1970
Unless specifically authorized by law here-
after enacted, no funds authorized or appro-
priated pursuant to this Act or any other
law may be expended for the purpose of-
(1) retaining United States forces in Cam-
bodia except that the foregoing provisions
of this clause shall not preclude the Presi-
dent from taking only such action as is
necessary, in the exercise of his constitutional
powers and duties as Commander In Chief,
to protect the lives of United States forces
in South Vietnam or to facilitate the with-
drawal of United States forces from South
Vietnam; and the President is requested to
consult with Congressional leaders prior to
using any United States forces in Cambodia
if, as Comamnder in Chief, he determines
that. the use of such forces is necessary to
protect the lives of United States forces
in South Vietnam or to facilitate the with-
drawal of United States forces from South
Vietnam;
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. If I may
proceed for 30 seconds, I will then yield
to the Senator from Vermont.
I have asked the able majority leader if
he had any objection to my asking that
my amendment now be modified-and
unanimous consent is required in view
of the fact that the Senate has already
entered into an agreement to vote on
amendment 667 star print as it was writ-
ten at the time the request was granted.
The majority leader has no objection to
my offering this modification.
I have talked with the able Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and the
able Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH),
cosponsors of the Cooper-Church
amendment, to see if they would have
any objection to such unanimous-con-
sent request. They, in turn, have dis-
cussed the matter with the able senior
Senator from Vermont (Mr. AIKEN).
I have also discussed it with as many
of the cosponsors o; my amendment on
my side of the aisle as I could contact,
and I have also discussed it with the
able Republican assistant leader (Mr.
GRIFFIN), who is a cosponsor on the
other side of the aisle.
None of these Senators objects to my
offering this modification.
I yield to the able Senator from Ver-
mont.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, my ques-
tion is: The Senator from West Virginia
understands that our troops are now In
Cambodia and were sent into Cambodia
solely on the basis of tl}e President's con-
stitutional authority and not on the basis
of any legislative authority, does he not?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I under-
stand that the President, in taking the
action he took on April 30, did so in the
proper exercise of his constitutional au-
thority, powers, and duties. I must be
frank to say to the able Senator-and
this is my own opinion purely-that I
believe the Gulf of Tonkin Joint Resolu-
tion, which is now Public Law 88-408,
gave him additional legal authority un-
der which he could have acted. But the
Gulf of Tonkin Resolution notwithstand-
ing, I think the President acted in the
proper exercise of his constitutional pow-
ers and duties in moving into Cambodia
to protect the lives of our men in South
Vietnam.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 ::CJA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 10, 1970? CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Mr. AIKEN. I think the executive de-
partment has made it plain they do not
rely on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution
and have no objection to it being re
pealed.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Exactly. I
understand. the President did not rely
on that law.
Mr. AIKEN. And has no objection to
it being repealed.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I cannot
say that.
Mr. AIKEN. I think our Committee on
Foreign Relations has been given that
understanding. Therefore, it is purely on
constitutional grounds, and personally I
think he is on much' safer ground rely-
ing on constitutional authority rather
than on interpretation or misinterpreta-
tion of any legislative action.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I think I
would have to agree to that.
The PRESIDING OFFICE M-, Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from West Virginia to modify his amend-
ment No. 667?
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, reserv-
ing the right to object and I will not
object to the Senator seeking to secure
the best amendment he can present-
I think it is a worthy effort. I shall not
object to the modification-I would like
to follow the question of the Senator
from Vermont, that I may have a better
understanding of the purpose of the mod-
ificatlon. The change may be an im-
provement. The original amendment No.
667, which the Senator introduced to-
gether with, other cosponsors, has some-
what the same language. The amend-
ment No. 667 reads in part:
Except that the foregoing provisions of this
clause shall not preclude the President from,
taking such action as may be necessary-
And the modification would read-
shall not preclude the President from tak-
ing only such action as is necessary.
Then the Senator has added these
words:
In the exercise of his constitutional powers
and duties as Commander in .Chief, to pro-
teeb the lives of United States forces in South
Vietnam or to facilitate the withdrawal of
United States forces from South Vietnam.
Am I correct in saying that in the
Senator's judgment he considers the ad-
dition of the words "in the exercise of
his constitutional powers and duties as
Commander in Chief" as an important
change?
M. BYRD of West Virginia. I do. I
think it ties his "action" clearly to the
President's authority, duty, and power
under the Constitution without any re-
gard whatever to any legal authority he
might have under laws enacted by
Congress.
Mr. COOPER. The sponsors of the
Cooper-Church amendment have stated
that it is their view that we cannot con-
fex on the President any of his con-
etttutiQlial powers. Would the Senator
agree -to tht statement?
'. BYRI,? of West Virginia. Yes. I
agree that Congress cannot grant addi-
tiall constitutional powers to the
President.
On the other hand, we cannot di-
minish them.
Mr. COOPER. Would the Senator
agree, that being true, that the addition
of the words "in the exercise of his con-
stitutional powers and duties as Com-
mander in Chief" approves in advance
such determination as he may make?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. My
amendment does not approve or author-
ize anything. My amendment simply
attempts to preclude what I view as an
attempt by paragraph 1 of the Cooper-
Church amendment to restrict the con-
stitutional powers of the President of the,
United States: That is my view.
My amendment does not add any
powers. It does not authorize anything.
It is merely a limitation upon paragraph
1 of the Cooper-Church language taken
in combination with certain words in
the preamble.
Mr. COOPER. As I said earlier, I am
not trying to argue that the President
may make an improper decision. I am
talking about the effect of the amend-
ment.
As the language is written in the modi-
fied amendment, is it not correct that
its effect would be that if the President
made a determination, no one could chal-
lenge it?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I.think
he has certain constitutional authority
now; my amendment does not and could
not add anything to the constitutional
authority of the President.
Mr. COOPER. But by adopting this
modification, would not Congress be
saying, "Whatever the President deter-
mines, we approve?"
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I think
the language in my amendment merely
recognizes and tries to preclude the
Cooper-Church amendment from at-
tempting to alter the status quo, the con-
stitutional powers of the President, act-
ing as Commander in Chief. I think that
the language of the Cooper-Church
amendment in paragraph 1 cannot
amend the powers and authority of the
President under the Constitution, but I
think it attempts to restrict has au-
thority by indirection, through a cut-
off of funds. I say this, of course, with-
out any reflection upon the authors of
the amendment. But my amendment
does not give approval to anything. It
adds nothing. It authorizes nothing new.
It merely insists upon the status quo
with respect to the constitutional powers
of the President acting as Commander
in Chief, where the safety of American
forces in South Vietnam is concerned.
Mr. COOPER. Just one or two more
questions.
There is nothing in your modification,
is there, that provides for joint action
between the Congress and the President?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. There is
nothing in my amendment that requires
any joint action between the Congress
and the President.
Mr. COOPER. That is a distinction
between the Cooper-Church amendment
and the Senator's amendment. The
amendment of the Senator from West
Virginia leaves every determination
wholly open to the President, with no
requirement at all for joint action by
the Congress.
S 8781
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Only
when he acts within the total universe
of his constitutional power.
Mr. COOPER. Only he can make that
determination.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. But he
can do that now, without the Cooper-
Church amendment and without the
Byrd amendment.
Mr. COOPER. Under the clause, "and
the President is requested to consult with
congressional leaders prior to using any
U.S. forces in Cambodia if, as Com-
mander in Chief, he determines that the
use of such forces is necessary to protect
the lives of U.S. forces in South Vietnam
or to facilitate the withdrawal of U.S.
forces from South Vietnam," the modi-
fication provides only for consultation.
I ask, if the President should determine
that a situation in Cambodia were dan-
gerous to the security of our forces or
the security of the United States and,
he should decide to send in large forces
of the United States, occupy large ter-
ritories in Cambodia, commence the
support of the Cambodian Government,
join forces with the Thais, would he only
have to consult with congressional
leaders?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I cannot-
Mr. COOPER. I have taken a case that
is extreme, but we have to look at all
possibilities, and I have presented a case
which might occur.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. It might
occur.
Mr. COOPER. Would the modifications
require the President to come to Con-
gress, or would he just be required to
advise with congressional leaders?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. In the
first place, let me say that my amend-
ment does not touch paragraphs (2), (3),
and (4) of the Cooper-Church language.
Those paragraphs, as far as I am con-
cerned, are meritorious. I think there are
some loopholes in them, as I shall, at-
tempt to demonstrate in a little while;
but I think that paragraphs (2), (3), and
(4) are calculated and designed to avoid
American manpower participation and
involvement in a new war, for Cambodia,
against Cambodia, or in support of any
Cambodian Government.
Paragraph (1) is all that my amend-
ment affects. Paragraph (1), as I have
previously stated, in essence states that
unless hereafter enacted by law, no
funds authorized or appropriated in this
act or any other law may be expended
for the retention of U.S. forces in Cam-
bodia. I think that that language as it
exists, left untouched, if enacted, would
attempt to preclude the President from
properly exercising his constitutional
powers as Commander in Chief if he
thought it necessary to use U.S. troops in
Cambodia for the protection of the lives
of U.S. troops in South Vietnam. So my
amendment Is directed to perfecting what
I view as a flaw, a weakness, and a mis-
take in that language.
But conceding that my amendment
may be adopted, it adds nothing, it could
add nothing, to the constitutional powers
of the' President of the United States as
Commander in Chief. If he can do what
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 :CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S 8782
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 10, 1970'
the Senator says he may do with my
language enacted into law, it is only
because he can do it now, in recognition
of his authority and powers under the
Constitution of the United States. It
would not be through any additional
powers, authority, legal or otherwise,
granted by my amendment. Some per-
sons may even interpret it as a limitation.
Mr. COOPER. I say, with great respect,
it is a limitation only in the respect that
the President is asked to talk with the
leaders.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator Yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I view it
as a limitation in this respect: Without
any language at all, without Cooper-
Church, without the Byrd amendment,
but under the Constitution as it Is pres-
ently written, the President is Com-
mander in Chief of the Army and Navy.
I think that he may use U.S. forces in
Cambodia if he deems it necessary, now,
to protect the lives of American forces
in South Vietnam, and I do not believe
that he is confined to that constitutional
predicate for the use of U.S. armed forces
in Cambodia. I think he has additional
legal authority under the Gulf of Tonkin
language to so act.
But under my language, he would be
confined to the constitutional predicate
insofar as we would express our senti-
ments here. We cannot cut off or reduce
his constitutional authority.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I do not
want to drag out the discussion, I do not
condemn or criticize the military oper-
ation; it is done. But the explanation
given was that a situation existed which
could endanger our forces, not immedi-
ately, but in a period of the next few
months.
Assume that the President is. informed
of a situation in Cambodia which he con-
siders may be so dangerous to our troops
or to the security of this country that he
considers it necessary to move into Cam-
bodia with large forces, to assure their
protection; perhaps to Join with the
Cambodian troops and support the Cam-
-bodfan government; to provide instruc-
tors and supplies to the Cambodian
forces, and to South Vietnamese forces
in Cambodia.
Does not the Senator consider that is
a fairly large order, that it would be a
new course in the policy of the war?
Does he not consider that that would be
a situation where there should be a joint
determination by Congress and the Pres-
ident, when so much of our manpower
and our future resources would be
required?
But under the Senator's amendment,
there is no requirement for joint action.
In fact, on the contrary, if it does not
require it, in effect, it 'would make none
of those determinations ever come to
Congress.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. No. If
under my amendment it is not required,
it is because under the Constitution of
the United States it-is not required. My
amendment does not give the President
any additional authority, period. I agree
that the President, if we are going to
attempt to enter into any new commit-
ment, ought to come to Congress and get
its approval for such a new commitment.
But if we view what has been said by
the President and the experiences that
have developed since April 30 in the con-
text of the conditions that caused the
President to take the action that he did
on April 30, I believe that we will have to
recognize, first, that that was not a new
commitment, that it was the same war,
that we were fighting the same. enemy,
and that under the principles of inter-
national law, we were not, indeed, in-
vading a neutral territory we were just
going over into another part of the war
zone temporarily.
Second, I believe that in view of these
things, if the President is acting in good
faith-and we have got to have some
faith in the President, regardless of what
his name is or what his political party
may be-I have faith that before he
would attempt anything like such a new
commitment, he certainly would come
before Congress and request approval.
Third, I think that paragraphs (2),
(3), and (4) of the Cooper-Church
amendment, which I intend to support if
this language which I have offered is
adopted, go a long way toward expressing
the clear sentiment of Congress, if they
are enacted into law, against any involve-
ment of American manpower in any
"new commitment," in any "new war," in
any war "for" Cambodia or "against"
Cambodia or for or- against any other
country in Southeast Asia. I think they
go a long way, if I may say so to the
Senator from Kentucky, toward achiev-
ing what he hopes to achieve and what
we all want to achieve.
But I fear that paragraph (1) could,
to the extent that funds would be cut
off, do indirectly that which Congress
cannot do directly, and that is to inhibit
or infringe upon, contravene or diminish,
the powers of the President of the United
States as Commander in Chief. Finally,
may I say that the President's action in
such a hypothetical situation would de-
rive from his constitutional powers-not
from any new authority emanating from
my amendment, because there is none.
Mr, FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, Will
the Senator yield for a question?
Mr, BYRD of West Virginia. I yield to
the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. What bothers me
about the Senator's argument is an as-
sumption that he seems to make, which
he feels is self-evident, about the extent
of the President's legitimate constitu-
tional powers as Commander in Chief.
This theory, that, as Commander in
Chief, he has vague and unlimited pow-
ers to involve us in a war in other coun-
tries, is a brand new one, which I never
heard of before. Even Mr. Katzenbach,
in his most extreme statement before the
committee, did not dwell upon the Pres-
ident's powers as Commander in Chief.
Before the Cambodian incident, I do not
think it has ever been considered that
the Commander in Chief's power meant
any more than taking care of the needs
of the Army-in other words, give them
food, drink, and shelter, and look after
them-while it is In a battlefield that has
been authorized by Congress. It was never
before interpreted to mean that this gives
the President the capacity to attack or
to enter or to invade other countries,
on the theory that to do so might pro-
tect the lives of our troops.
I think this is a new theory, and I do
not think it is a sound constitutional as-
sumption. I think such an interpretation
flies in the face of the Constitution.
I would return, first and foremost, to
statements made by Alexander Hamilton
in this regard. They are a good authority;
at least I think they are. Being a strict
constructionist, I still like to return to
those who wrote the document and see
what their interpretation was. I should
like very much to read just one short
excerpt from Federalist No. 69, written
by Alexander Hamilton, who was, as the
Senator knows, a strong advocate of an
executive authority. He believed in a
strong executive. But this is what he said:
The president is to be commander in
chief of the army and navy of the United
States. In this respect his authority would
be nominally the same with that of the king
of Great Britain, but in substance much In-
ferior to Lt. It would amount to nothing more
than the supreme command and direction of
the military and naval forces, as first general
and admiral of the confederacy; while that of
the British king extends to the declaring of
war; and to the raising and regulating of
fleets and armies; all which, by the constitu-
tion under consideration, would appertain ti
the legislature.
Moreover, the very language of the
Constitution, it seems to me, is reveal-
ing, and I wish to emphasis it. This is
article II, section 2:
The President shall be commander in
chief of the army and navy of the United
States, and of the militia of the several
states, when called into the actual service
of the United States.
In other words, if I read that correctly,
the President is not Commander in Chief
at any time he so chooses, but rather
when the Armed Forces are called into
service by the Congress.
I grant that, by neglect and acqui-
escence, there have been some Instances
in which this has not been strictly fol-
lowed, and of course we all admit that
in the case of an emergency, an attack
upon this country, it has always been
interpreted that the President has the
right to take appropriate action.
What. the significance of this is, and
what bothers me about the amendment
of the Senator from West Virginia to the
Cooper-Church amendment, is that, it
would negate this amendment, and as
he has said-I think he has said it;
others certainly have said it-there is a
very remote possibility that the Cooper-
Church amendment could be entered
into law.
If the President opposed it, and I ain
sure he would, his veto could be over-rid-
den, but that is very doubtful. I am un-
der no illusion. But this is still a very
significant follow-on to the commitments
resolution. What is joined here is the in-
terpretation of the Congress' authority
versus the President's. The same issue
was involved in the commitments resol-
ution. I am interested in restoring a
reasonable participation by the legis-
lative branch in the making of foreign
policy.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 10, 197 0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 8783
To illustrate what I mean, I want to because most of the things I am talking from Kentucky. I was not saying that the
read from a question's and answers Pam- about arose in the previous administra- Senator from West Virginia said that in
phlet of the Bureau of Public Affairs, tion-we were not told about Cambodia. his amendment. I thought that in his ex-
nlunb er 12, on page"5, an official docu- Not only were we not told about the change with the Senator from Kentucky
ment of this administration, the Depart- Cambodian decision but also, we have he was assuming that the President has
ment of State, May 1970. I want to read been deliberately and consciously de- the power to do almost anything he
from it to illustrate what I think the ceived in the past with regard to such likes as Commander in Chief even so far
issue Is. things as the cost of the Thai troops as going into another country, such as
QUESTIONr. What is the legal basis for the whom we were paying over $200 million Cambodia.
President's decision to commit American and the amount we were paying to the Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I did not
lives and materials in Cambodia? Philippines for sending in their troops say, and I did not mean to say-if I did
ANSWER. The President was acting under to Vietnam. Many of these arrangements say-that the President may do what-
his constitutional authority as Command- that were made by the previous admin- ever he wants "or almost anything he
er-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the istration were not told to anybody. We likes" in going into Cambodia. I simply
United States. Also, as Chief Executive, he just now, as a result of the Symington said that I thought the action he took
and directing sdptrect{ng res our ponsibiliig foreign for policy. deter- subcommittee, are finding out about on April 30 was taken not on the basis
mining has the
them, after great and difficult troubles. of any legal authority which Congress
I'say this is not so. I think that any Much of this has not been revealed to may have given to him by statute but
reasonable. interpretation or any rea- the public, that he acted under his constitutional
sonable reading of the Constitution That is my objection to the Senator's powers as Commander in Chief.
does not support that. The President amendment. I do not think there is any- Even the cosponsors .of the amend-
does not have supreme responsibility un- thing in our history to justify this inter- ment-if I have not read incorrectly and
der the Constitution. If we wish to give pretation of the Commander in Chief's do not recall incorrectly-have conceded
up our authority and delegate it to him, powers. It is a new theory. The only that the President, in taking the actions
we do not change the Constitution. We thing comparable to it that I know of is he took on April 30 in ordering an incur-
simply abnegate, we abdicate, any re- a statement about the President's powers sion into Cambodia, acted within his
sponsibility for discharging our respon- by Dean Acheson, when he was in the constitutional powers. I do not believe I
sibility under the Constitution. We can- State Department, back in 1951. am misstating the position of the Senator
not changif'it. But we can neglect it. I know of no cases or anything of that from Kentucky. I have read the RECORD,
I think the basic assumption of the nature that would support this new and I think I am stating correctly, In
Senator's amendment is incorrect con- theory. I regret that I do not agree with essence, what he said. I believe the Sen-
stitutionally, and it would put the Sen- the Senator from West Virginia on this, ator from Kentucky has not found fault
ate in the position, if we approved it, of but I feel that the Senate has a role to with the President's actions, so far as
agreeing to his interpretation, which I play, and I want to see it play its proper their being within the ambit of the
think is a departure from the Constitu- role. I think the country would have been proper exercise of his Presidential powers
tion. I do not want to be part of a fur- better off under the previous adminis- as Commander in Chief is concerned.
ther weakening of the influence of the tration and it would be better off under Mr. COOPER. I have said that in our
Senate in the making and carrying out this one if there were genuine consulta- amendment we do not speak about mili-
of foreign policy. That is the main rea- tion with the Senate. tary operations. Our amendment is pros-
ton why I support the Cooper-Church Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the pective, beginning July 1. I have not tried
amendment. It is very unlikely to be en- Senator yield? to talk about what happened in Cam-
acted, but it is an expression of the atti- Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank bodia.
tude of the Senate. It Is similar in effect the able Senator. I think everyone is concerned with the
to the commitments resolution of last If I may just respond, the Senator operation. There was great uncertainty
year, which I think was a very healthy from Arkansas refers to "this interpre- in the country. But I am not here to speak
step toward restoring the role of the tation of the Commander in Chief's against the President. We are talking
Senate in our foreign policy. powers." The Byrd-Griffin language about the powers of the executive, and I
This is simply based upon the general makes no attempt whatsoever to inter- am concerned about the future exercise
idea that discussion and participation 'by pret the President's powers. It does not of those powers without any effort to
the Senate is a healthy thing, as opposed add to those. powers. It does not take come to Congress, even when that exer-
to allowing one man to make The kind of away from them. It does not define them. cise of power could lead to another new
decision that has taken us into Cam- It does not say what they are. It merely war.
bodia-which was done without consul- precludes the language in paragraph 1, Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I know of
tation with the Senate. when combined with language in the the Senator's concern.
As a matter of fact, so. far as the Com- preamble of Cooper-Church, from at- Mr. COOPER. It is a matter of great
mittee on Foreign Relations is concerned, tempting to circumvent or restrict or concern. It is not a derogation of Presi-
only 3 days before that took place, the diminish the President's powers under dent Nixon. We are trying to determine
Secretary of State appeared before the the Constitution, whatever they are. the rights of Congress.
committee and in a sense, disarmed us I do not attempt to say in the language Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I think
from any suspicion, because of his failure of this amendment what the President's the able Senator may have misunder-
to mention the pending invasion or any- powers are. We do not attempt to inter- stood my reference to him. I was merely
thing closely resembling it. Not only was pret the President's powers. They axe trying to respond to the distinguished
the committee not told, but also, due to what they are, not by what we say in Senator from Arkansas who had indi-
the fact that I had not the vaguest idea this amendment but by what the Consti- cated that he thought, according to his
such an action was contemplated. I was tution says they are. understanding of what I had said, that
Completely taken by surprise when the Mr. FULBRIGHT. I did not make i assumed the action in Cambodia, which
decision was announced. myself clear. I did not say the language was announced by the President on April
So I think this issue goes to the heart of the amendment says that. I said that 30_
of our constitutional system. Congress, the argument the Senator is making as- Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes.
especially the Senate, Is given a very spe- surnes that. BYRD of West Virginia (continu-
cial, role in. the area of foreign policy; it Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I have not Mr.
i na
in g) . Was within his constitutional
has responsibilities with regard to trea- made any argument. powers-
ties, ambassadors, the confirmation of Mr. FULBRIGHT. It was in the collo- FULBRIGHT. That is what you
-appointees, and so forth. quy of the Senator from West Virginia Mr.
said. As a Senator, I find it very difficult to with the Senator from Kentucky. It justify being here and not at least giving seems to me that the Senator from West Mr. BYRD of West Virginia (continu-
the country an opportunity to know Virginia assumes that the President, as ing) . And my response to that was that
what is going on in foreign policy. Commander in Chief, has these powers I thought even the cosponsors of the
With all deference-and I do not at- to go into Cambodia. I thought he said Cooper-Church amendment had con-
tribute all of this to this administration, that In his exchange with the Senator ceded that-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 CIA-RDP72-0.0337R000200240017-3
 S8784
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE June 10, 1970
Mr. FULBRIGHT. In other words, you
had assumed that, is that right?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Yes, I had
assumed that from a reading of the
RECORD.
I said, also, that there is no argument
with the able senator from Kentucky
and the able Senator from Idaho.-
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Well, the Senator
means that
,Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. If I might
continue with my sentence-I do not
think that they disagree, if I have read
their statements correctly in the CON-
GRESSIONAL RECORD, and I do not think
they question the constitutional power
and authority of the President in order-
ing the Cambodian operation.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Maybe I have not
made it clear. First, I want to distin-
guish between constitutional "power"
and "authority." The President may
often do things by power and by virtue
of his office which are in accordance with
the Constitution. I make the distinction
between power and authority, which is
something authorized under a legal in-
terpretation. Power is something that the
President has because others are willing
to follow his orders. We all know that
that sort of power is something quite
different from the President's constitu-
tional authority.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. There is
a great distinction.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I agree with the
Senator from Kentucky that we are not
trying to undo the invasion of Cambodia.
That is not what the Senator from Ken-
tucky wants to do. We all know that we
cannot undo that. It is done. I am in-
terested in the future, and I was making
the point simply because I do not want
to subscribe to any Senate action which
will be interpreted as a recognition that
as Commander in Chief the President can
move troops into any country when he
alone believes it is necessary. If you sub-
scribe to this new theory, there is no
limit to the President's authority. If he
feels that the activities of the Russian
Government are inimical to the safety
of our troops, under this. interpretation,
there is no reason he cannot bomb Mos-
cow tomorrow. It is an untenable theory.
It is a new theory. Maybe history will
prove there is substance to it. At the
moment, I do not believe that is the case.
I do not believe this theory will stand a
close constitutional examination; the
fact that the President has the power to
issue ordefs and to get the troops to fol-
low does not make the act constitutional
or in accordance with the letter and
spirit of the Constitution.
I agree with the Senator from Ken-
tucky. That is not the issue in his amend-
ment, but it is the issue In the Byrd
amendment. And passage of it would run
th6' risk of putting the Senate on record
as having this interpretation of denigrat-
ing what I believe to be the proper role
of the Senate.
I agree further with the Senator from
Kentucky. I am certainly not trying to
criticize this President. My major criti-
cism was voiced long before this Presi-
dent came into office. It was directed to
his predecessor. But I am very anxious to
do two things: One, stop the war in Viet-
nam and, two, restore the proper role of
the Senate in our constitutional system.
I can think of no greater safeguard to
the safety of this country than participa-
tion by the Senate-real participation by
the Senate-in decisions involving the
lives and fortunes of our people. I think
it is very important that the Senate have
a role, and I do not mean by that that
the Senate is smarter than anyone else.
It is simply that the procedures under-
taken by 100 men in the Senate, elected
from the various States, are, I think, a
healthy way in which to refine the issues
and bring to light any faults in them.
I believe in the Senate as a body which,
given the opportunity to discuss matters,
and given a reasonable amount of in-
formation, can make a contribution. That
is all I am saying. If we proceed along
the line of accepting the language of the
State Department that the President has
supreme responsibility, then we might as
well fold up'shop and make this a purely
honorable position, for life, as in the
House of Lords. If we wish to abdicate
our responsibility, we should not have to
run for office but should be appointed, so
that we would not have to be bothered by
running for office. The Senate would
thus be reduced to a ceremonial body,
like the House of Lords. However, I am
not about to contribute to that, if I can
help it.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I do not intend to belabor the dis-
tinction between powers and authorities
under the Constitution. I did use words,
perhaps, interchangeably. I hope I did
not misquote the Senator, but I think the
transcript will show that he, too, used the
word "power" a time or so when he may
have meant "authority." Whether we are
talking about powers or authority, my
amendment, as co-sponsored by 10 to
12 Other Senators, does not to use the
Senator's words, put "the Senate on
record" as having approved of any par-
ticular "interpretation" of the author-
ity of the President under the Constitu-
tion.
My language does not attempt to in-
terpret. It does not add to the President's
powers or authority. It does not take
away from them; it does not attempt to
define them. It merely says that what-
ever- they are, whatever they are, what-
ever they are, the President shall not be
inhibited, by cutting off funds, from
exercising such constitutional power and
authority if necessary to protect the
lives of our troops in South Vietnam.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I was referring to
the language of the Senator, in debate, a
moment ago with the Senator from
Kentucky and his words are part of the
amendment, in the arguments you pre-
sented.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. In es-
sence, the Senator is expressing his view-
point. He differs with me, and he has a
perfect right to disagree with me, as to
whether the President acted within his
constitutional authority in ordering the
Cambodian incursion. I think even the
sponsors of the Cooper-Church amend-
ment have said that the President acted
within his constitutional powers in that
action. But this language here does not
go to that action. It has nothing to. do
with what he did on April 30. It does not
touch that at all. It takes over after
June 30.
The Cooper-Church language says
that after June 30 no more funds can
be utilized for retaining U.S. Armed
Forces in Cambodia unless hereafter
specifically enacted by law. The lan-
guage that I have offered would simply
say, "except" when the President him,
self determines that it is necessary to
act, in order to protect our troops in
South Vietnam, and so forth, and so
forth.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not see how the
Senator can say that a recognition of
what the President may do or want to
do in the future is automatically consti-
tutional, that there is authority for it
in his role as Commander in Chief. I do
not believe it is a fact. I do not believe
there is any support for it. Adoption of
the Senator's amendment will be taken
as a precedent that the Senate has so
abdicated its foreign policy role as in
effect to be saying that the President
may do as he pleases.
There certainly would no longer be any
need for a declaration of war, because all
the President would need to do as Com-
mander in Chief is say, "I think we ought
to move into Mexico. These people are
threatening our troops." The Senator's
amendment would result in a complete
distortion and abdication of the role of
the Senate.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. What the
Senator from Arkansas has just said, if
I understood him correctly, would be a
complete distortion of the meaning of
my amendment.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, it
seems to me that this is what the Sen-
ator has said. We seem to have trouble
with semantics. I think I have inter-
preted correctly the Senator's remarks.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, will the
Senator from West Virginia yield for the
purpose of clarifying the parliamentary
situation?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I yield to the able Senator from
legislative history as to the meaning of Virginia for that purpose.
this amendment. The Senator from West Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the Sena-
Virginia stated-I thought unequivo- for from - West Virginia has asked for
cally-'that there is no question in the unanimous consent to modify his own
Senator's mind, or in the mind of the amendment. His amendment is before
Senator from Kentucky but that the the Senate pursuant to a unanimous-
President acted within his constitutional consent agreement, thereby precluding,
authority. as the Senator from Virginia under-
I say that is not an issue and would not stands it, any amendment to his amend-
be a proper issue in considering the ment or any substitute for his amend-
Cooper-Church amendment. It is an issue rent.
in considering yours, if that interpreta- My question is-and I do this for
tion is allowed to stand. You have already the record if the unanimous-consent
made in the legislative history of your agreement asked for by the Senator from
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 oved For Rele ~_~0U2/01/02: CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
~tNGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA'rP
West Virginia, is granted, the language
he is presenting this afternoon would
then take the place of his previous lan-
guage and would not,be subject to any
subsequent amendment or any substitute
before the vote at 1 o'clock tomorrow
except by unanimous consent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES). The Senator from Virginia is
correct,
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object-
-Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, would the Senator allow me to
make an observation?
Mr. SPONG. Certainly.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, even without this new modifica-
tion, is it not true, Mr. President, that
amendment No. 667, star print, which
I offered some days ago, constituted an
amendment in the second degree and
that it therefore could not be amended,
entirely aside from this new modifica-
tion which I have offered today.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES) . The Senator from West Vir-
ginia is correct.
Mr. SPONG..Mr. President, reserving
the right to object-and the Senator
from Virginia certainly does not want
to be in the position of preventing the
sponsor of an amendment to modify his
own amendment, especially when the
modification, to some degree, helps his
amendment-I would only ask that we
proceed with the debate in order that
certain other legislative history might
be established. It may be that in the
course of this debate there will be some
changes suggested which would be ac-
ceptable to the Senator from West Vir-
ginia.
I do. not now that there would be sig-
nificant changes, but there might be
changes In language that the Senator
from West Virginia, as well as others,
would later like to include but be pre-
cluded from doing so if we consent to
S 8785
rectly observed that there is a difference
between "authority" and "power."
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator from Arkansas quite correctly ob-
served it.
Mr. CHURCH. And in the modified
amendment which the Senator is offer-
ing, there are the words, "powers and
duties." It reads:
. . . in the exercise of his constitutional
powers and duties as Commander in Chief.
I personally think that language could
be improved, replacing "powers and
duties" with "constitutional authority as
Commander in Chief."
That term better represents, I believe,
what the Senator from West Virginia has
in mind.
I hope that the Senator will not fore-
close the possibility of any alteration
which might perfect the amendment and
thus do harm to what he is trying to
achieve in offering the modified lan-
guage.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I quite agree. There is always room
for improvement. And perhaps we can
improve it. But I must say that it has
not been easy to work out the modify-
ing language I have suggested here.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ap-
preciate that.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, if I may, after yielding to other
Senators that I had already promised to
yield to, I will then proceed with my
statement.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES). Is there objection?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I do not think the Senators are
ready to consent to my request yet.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I am
not ready.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Yes, I
ield t
th
S
y
o
e
enator from Colorado.
Ident, as I understand the parliamentary Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I have
procedures in the Senate, approval of dent, I misunderstood the able Senator. I been sitting here for some time, and one
my unanimous-consent request at this think his suggestion is well considered, or two of the items I wanted to discuss
time would not preclude me from asking I do not say that I will not agree to occurred far back in the line of discus-
unanimous consent that my language be any proposed changes in the language of Sion.
further modified, my modification. As I say, this language However, one or two of the remarks of
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I have was not taken off the top of my head, the chairman of the Committee on For-
made It clear that I have no desire to stop It was worked on, hammered out, and eign Relations in his colloquy with the
the Senator from modifying his amend- then rehammered and discussed with co- Senator from West Virginia bother me.
ment. But I would observe that from sponsors, legislative counsel, and so on. It may be that with the confusion I did
some of the language that has been dis- But I am perfectly willing to discuss the not understand him. I want to have
cussed in the moments that we have language for a while yet this afternoon. straightened out the question as to
been debating the matter, it might be Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, I thank whether or not the President is Corn-
that there is preferable language, prefer- the Senator. mander in Chief of the Army and Navy
able even,to the Senator from West Vir- Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- of the United States. He is the actual
ginia. I merely made my previous inquiry dent, I compliment the Senator on his Commander in Chief of the Army and
because I. think the record should show suggestion. Navy of the United States whether we
the parliamentary situation as of this Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the are at war or not-at all times. Does the
time. Senator yield? Senator agree with that statement or
In the. course of his remarks, it might Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- not?
aISo'Occur to ilae Senator from West Vir- dent, I yield to the Senator from Idaho. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
ginladethers that there could be fur- Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, In light the Senator from West Virginia yield so
ther, changes he might wish to make. of the language, I can understand what that I may reply?
ltg, BYRU.of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- has been troubling the Senator from Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I feel.tllat I need to respond to the Virginia. In the last few minutes of dis- dent, I yield for that purpose.
-of-the able Senator from Vir- cussion, for example, a question came up Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think it ties in
g1n1a? r gnize his sincerity of purpose concerning the term "authority" as op- with what I call the strict construction
here, l3uthaveto say that I have spent posed to the term "power." and the proper construction of the Con-
mahy` lours in attempting to perfect and The Senator from West Virginia cor- stitut#on, which I read again:
improve my amendment, taking into con-
sideration the legitimate concerns that
have been expressed to me by the able
Senator from Virginia and by other Sen-
ators whom I could name.
To say now that we ought not to grant
unanimous consent today, but should
continue to debate the matter in the hope
that tomorrow perhaps there might be
other language suggested, I hope is really
not within the cards here.
I have worked at least 2 days on this
language. And I have touched base with
the majority leader and with the spon-
sors of the Cooper-Church amendment,
and with the able assistant leader on the
minority side, and they have interposed
no objections.
We are boxed in now, if this unani-
mous-consent request is not granted,
with amendment No. 667, the star print.
We will have to either vote it up or down.
This is an attempt to improve that
language and to meet the legitimate con-
cerns on the part of many Senators.
I think most everyone agrees that this
Is an improvement.
I do not want to delay this or to put
it off: I want to secure unanimous con-
sent within a reasonable time or I may
withdraw my unanimous consent re-
quest. And I do not mean to say that
disrespectfully.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the Sena-
tor from Virginia had no intent of ask-
ing for any delay until tomorrow. I un-
derstood that the Senator from West
Virginia came to the floor prepared to
make some additional remarks in sup-
port of the Byrd-Griffin amendment, and
of the changes thereto.
I only suggested that there be a rea-
sonable period of time during which a
discussion take place, because there Is
a possibility that changes would occur to
the Senator from West Virginia.
For that reason, I suggested that we
defer acceptance of the modification for
a short time, but not with any idea of
delaying it until tomorrow. I would like
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S 8786
Approved For e6&R1AL2 Ri F72 A7 Q00200240017Pune 10, 1970
The President shall be Commander in Chief
of the Army and Navy of the ignited States,
and of the Militia of the several States, when
called into the actual service of the United
States.
What does the "when" mean, read to-
gether with the other provisions of the
Constitution that Congress is the one to
declare war and make regulations con-
cerning an Army and Navy, and Congress
is the one, and: the only one, that raises
and supports an Army and a Navy?
These are the responsibilities of the Con-
gress, not the President. That is what I
said a moment ago.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator from West Virginia yield fur-
ther?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. ALLOTT. I thank the Senator for
yielding.
I did understand the Senator correct-
ly. I want to make my position clear on
this matter, and I think, the Constitu-
tion is perfectly clear on it. It refers to
the President as Commander in Chief of
the Army and Navy of the United States
"and of the militia of the several States
when called into the actual service of
the United States;".
When a man enters the service of the
Army or Navy he is already in the serv-
ice of the United States. When he raises
his hand, he takes an oath to support
and defend the Constitution of the
United States. So the portion that the
Senator from Arkansas is referring to,
"when called into the actual service of
the United States," can only possibly
refer to the militia; and it is obvious
from a reading of the language that that
is what is intended.
at the White House with numerous
other Senators, perhaps 15, 20, or 40
Senators, and in the Subcommittee on
Defense of the Committee on Appropria-
tions-apparently did not come to the
attention of others at that time.
I feel that this is a basic matter. The
Constitution specifically gives Congress
the power to advise and consent in cer-
tain instances of appointments, and it
gives us the power for the ratification
of treaties. In addition-and this is very
significant and important-there was
considerable debate at that time as to
whether Congress would have to be
talked to, referred to, for advice and con-
sent not only when the President would
declare war, but also when the Presi-
dent would make peace. So all these
things are highly significant.
Mr. FULBRIGHT addressed the Chair.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, have I the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from West Virginia has the floor.
stitution and the intended limits on Presi-
dential discretion in the matter of war. I
should like to read those words to the Senate.
Abraham Lincoln wrote:
"Allow the President to invade a neighbor-
ing nation whenever he shall deem it neces-
sary to repel an invasion, and you allow him
to do so, Whenever he may choose to say
he deems it necessary for such purpose-and
you allow him to make war at pleasure.
Study to see if you can fix any limit to his
power in this respect, after you have given
him so much as you propose.
The provision of the Constitution giving
the war-making power to Congress, was dic-
tated, as I understand it, by the following
reasons. Kings have always been involving
and improverishing their people in wars, pre-
tending generally, if not always, that the
good of the people was the object. This, our
convention understood to be the most oppres-
sive of all kingly oppressions; and they re-
solved to frame the Constitution that no
one man should hold the power of bringing
this oppression upon us."
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield to
the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. ALLOTT. It must be noted and
this a very important distinction in the
remarks of Abraham Lincoln-that he
said "that no one man should hold the
power of making war." I believe that was
the quotation the Senator from Arkan-
sas made.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Lincoln said:
Allow the President to invade a neighbor-
ing nation-
Mr. ALLOTT. No; there was another
sentence.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. He said:
Whenever he shall deem it necessary-
The word "he" is underlined, apparent-
ly for emphasis-
Whenever he shall deem it necessary to re-
pel an invasion and you allow him to do so-
And that language is underlined-
Whenever he may choose to say he deems
it necessary for such purpose-and you al-
low him to make war at pleasure.
Mr. ALLOTT. That is the phrase:
And you allow him to make war at
pleasure.
But we do not have that situation now,
because the war has already been made.
It was made as a result of the Gulf of
Tonkin resolution, or it was made, per-
haps, without any authority at all. But
that is not pertinent at this time; the
war has already been made. It is in ex-
istence. The President is the Commander
in Chief of the Army and Navy. There
are no troops from the other groups; so
far as I am aware, no units of the militia
are engaged. If units of the militia are
engaged, they are incorporated in the
Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air
Force.
So therefore, they are at all times un-
der the command of the President.
So we are talking about making war
here. The war has already been made. At
a subsequent time I would be glad to ex-
plore with the Senator the situation of
what we do in these modern times, in this
greatly changed world. Maybe we will
have to approach this problem sometime.
If, on the radar blip some night NORAD
sees 40 or 50 or 100 or 200 missiles coming
over the horizon from the direction of
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I do
not want the floor.
Is the unanimous-consent request
pending?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Yes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not want to be
contentious. I did not realize that the
Senator's proposal was pending until I
came to the Chamber a moment ago. I
am not going to consent to it at the mo-
ment, certainly. I think that by inserting
the additional language we have been
discussing, including the request for con-
sultation, which I consider is the Pres-
ident's constitutional duty in any case,
the amendment becomes complicated. Of
course, the Senator from West Virginia
knows that I am opposed to his offering
his proposal, although as between the
two versions, this one has graver implica-
tions and, I think, needs further debate.
This proposal provides additional lan-
guage, and it is possible to assume from
it a greater abdication by the Senate
than the original language-if it is
adopted. It may be adopted. I do not
deny that the Senator from West Vir-
ginia has great influence in this body,
and his proposal might very well be
adopted. At the moment, I would not
want to say that I would not agree to it
at a later date. But the amendment has
additional implications, as I stated a mo-
ment ago, or assumptions with regard to
the President's authority as Commander
in Chief.
If the Senator from West Virginia will
allow me to do so, particularly in view of
the remarks of the Senator from Colo-
rado (Mr. ALLOTT), I should like to quote
from a statement which might appeal to
him. It was made by a well known man,
Abraham Lincoln. When he was a Repre-
sentative from Illinois, he made this
statement in 1846:
i do think it is interesting, however, in
view of the questions he posed earlier, to
remember that in 1846 President Polk sent
American forces into disputed territory in
Texas which precipitated the clash that
began the Mexican War.
Abraham Lincoln was then a Congressman
from Illinois, and he took strong exception
to the Presidential decision that led to our
involvement in the Mexican War. He wrote
some memorable words concerning the Con-
There has been much debate. about the
difference between the words "authority"
and "power." I think that if I do some-
thing with authority it is because I also
have the power. I find a differentiation
without distinction.
I had hoped to be able to discuss this
matter at some length this afternoon.
I have in my hand a very learned paper
written by Prof. Robert Sciglianno, of
the State University of New York at
Buffalo, on exactly tl 1s matter. In it, he
discusses at great length the formula-
tion of the Constitution and the positions
taken by various persons at that time.
Among other `things, he points out
that some people at that time wanted to
make a distinction and did make a dis-
tinction between the power of making
war and the power of declaring war. I
cannot come to any other conclusion
myself, and I must disagree with the
chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations. I think the primary and basic
responsibility of the Government in for-
eign relations does lie within the Presi-
dent. This does not mean he should not
advise with Congress.
I found myself in the previous admin-
istration a Member of the minority; yet
apparently I was privy to advice in com-
mittee. That was really the only advice,
because neither the President, the Sec-
retary of State, nor the Secretary of De-
fense ever took me into their offices and
Confided in me but the information
which was adduced in two places-on
two or three occasions' when I appeared
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP,72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
June 10, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
one of the other countries In this world-
surely I think it is our responsibility and
we ought to be looking at what our re-
sponsibility Is in that kind of condition-
I do not think in a few seconds anybody
is, going to have time to consult Congress.
This Is another aspect of the problem
that I hope will be discussed on the :floors
of the Houses of Congress. But the war
has been made and the President is Com-
mander in Chief.
Mr. FDLBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think it worth
mentioning with respect to the Gulf of
Tonkin resolution, the administration
itself, in a letter to the committee con-
cerning the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution, wrote that It is not relying on
the Gulf of Tonkin resolution and It has
no objection to its repeal. The preceding
President, President Johnson, said, after
it had been passed, that he could have
done what he did without the Tonkin
Gulf resolution, and that he could have
done it from a constitutional point of
view.
The Senator Is anticipating a speech
I was going to make a little later. Of
course, the President at that time used
it to try to neutralize possible opposi-
tion. He was wanting to get Republicans
and any-dissident Democrats disarmed
before he took action. That was the real
purpose of the Tonkin Gulf resolution.
It was not to get any additional constitu-
tional authority he did not have. He as-
sumed he had it. He said later he had it
and could do anything he wanted with it.
I disagree with Acheson's interpreta-
tion of Presidential powers and John-
soi 's interpretation. I said a moment ago
it comes to the question of the role of the
Senate, and I think it Is an important
one-
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. is the
Senator talking about Presidential power
or Presidential authority?
Mr. FtILBRIGHT. Presidential con-
stitutional authority; what he should do,
if we have a reasonable interpretation of
his role under the Constitution. If a man
wishes to go beyond that and violate
his constitutional oath, he may do it, if
people will respond to it.
Lastly, in response to the Senator from
Colorado's theory, if we accept that
theory the President could go into China
or go into Russia or go anywhere else he
likes. I think the Senator's theory is
basically faulty and very dangerous if
he says the President can do that. He
admits possibly there was no authority,
because-he does not defend the Gulf of
Tonkin Resolution. I hope he will not de-
fend it;because, in my view, it was ob-
tained by fraud -and misrepresentation:
and even if it had been a grant of au-
thority, having been obtained under such
false pretenses, it was not valid, any more
than, a contract 'obtained by fraud Is
valid ,But I do not think the theory that,
as Commander in Chief, the President
can expan" the war into additional coun-
tries, without any consultation or ap-
proval by Congress, is an acceptable one.
. grant that that is not what the
Cooper-Church amendment is trying to
get at, and that this has merely arisen
in the course of the debate. What I am
afraid of is that the amendment of the
Senator from West Virginia raises this
problem. It injects into the issue the
extent of the Commander in Chief's
authority.
I would very earnestly hope that we
would not do anything further to weaken
the role of the Senate, weaken it by
acceptance of language which seems to
endorse unlimited powers for the Presi-
dent as Commander in Chief.
I realize that the Constitution is not
self-executing and that Presidents de-
pend to a great extent on the respect of
the people and of Senators. If we wish to
ignore our role and turn it all over to
the President, there is no other authority
to fill the constitutional role assigned to
this body. I think it is essentially a politi-
cal matter and it depends on the com-
monsense of the Senate and the people as
to how the Constitution is binding.
My only comment on that is that last
year, by its vote on the commitments
resolution, the Senate voted-and I
shared the concern expressed then-that
we had not been as careful about exer-
cising our responsibility as we should
have been, especially in the Gulf of
Tonkin matter, and that we should try
to play a meaningful role in the foreign
policy area.
This is my main objection to the
amendment of the Senator from West
Virginia: I believe it would weaken the
Senate's effort to reestablish its role.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me for two very brief
comments?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. ALLOTT. First, I find, in talking
with people, that they are willing to read
things into my thoughts that I never
thought of. I do not contend the Presi-
dent has a right to make war on China,
but I agree entirely with the Senator
from W1st Virginia that this is not a new
war. It is not a new country.
It is, In fact, not even an area that is
controlled by a new country. It has not
been for 5 years. I think that is the first
and greatest distinction.
Then I would like to add this : Since I
was a Member of the Senate at the time
the Gulf of Tonkin resolution-the Sen-
ator from Arkansas prefers that term,
rather than Tonkin Gulf; technically I
presume he may be right, or It is another
distinction without meaning-it may
have been procured by fraud, I do not
know; but I was a Member of the Sen-
ate at that time, and I just want to make
it clear that the Senator from Colorado
was not a party to the fraud, and I am
sure the Senator from Arkansas would
agree with that.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
want to make it clear that I was hood-
winked. I was guilty, if Senators want to
call it that-though certainly inno-
cently-of representing to the Senate
the same facts that were told to me by
the Secretary of Defense and the Secre-
tary of State. I repeated on the floor
what they had said to me in committee.
I was a vehicle, a conduit. Certainly I did
not have any firsthand knowledge of
what did or did not take place in the Gulf
of Tonkin.
S 8787
I did not suspect at the time that we
were misled. I think subsequent devel-
opments have clearly proved that we
were. Not only the committee hearings,
but a recent book which goes much
farther into the matter, including inter-
views with practically every member of
the crew of the Maddox, clearly estab-
lishes that we were hoodwinked.
All I am saying is that the Senator
from Colorado, without any blame what-
ever, was entitled to believe what I be-
lieved and what I said, as well as what
the other members of the committee
said; and the Senator from Colorado
had no other knowledge, either. I am
not trying to assess blame to him. I
do assess a great deal of blame to both
the Secretary of Defense and the then
Secretry of State, and to the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs, who came in and
told us these stories which were not true.
But that is beside the point here. I do
not think that the Gulf of Tonkin reso-
lution Is a valid, grant of authority, if
the President had the constitutional
right to do that. I do not think he did.
I think It was a denigration of the Con-
stitutl on, and an infringement of the
right of the Senate to play a role in this
matter, and of Congress to declare war.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, the able Senator from Arkansas
states that the amendment offered by
myself and others "injects the question
of the Commander in Chief's authority,"
or words to that effect.
Mr. President, the language which I
am seeking now to utilize does make
reference to the constitutional power of
the President as Commander in Chief.
The Senator from Arkansas will, of
course, vote against my amendment, be-
cause he feels quite sincerely that it
injects the question of the authority of
the Commander in Chief.
I think that paragraph (1) of the
Cooper-Church amendment injects the
question of the authority of the Com-
mander in Chief. It does not do so in so
many words, admittedly, but I think
that the authority of the Commander in
Chief under the Constitution is sought
to be inhibited-at least the attempt is
being made to inhibit, proscribe, cir-
cumvent, or diminish it by that language.
So I do not concede at all, I do not
agree at all, that the question with re-
spect to the authority of the Com-
mander in Chief has been injected by
the Byrd amendment. Not at all. That
question was implicitly injected when
paragraph (1) of the Cooper-Church
amendment was made a part of the bill
before us.
As I say, the Senator from Arkansas
will vote against my amendment, be-
cause he feels that way about it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Could I make-
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. May I
add that although my original amend-
ment, as modified, did not use the words
"in the exercise of his constitutional
powers and duties as Commander in
Chief," that meaning was meant to be
implied,
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES). Is there objection to the re-
quest of the Senator from West Virginia?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes, I object.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R0.00200240017-3
 S 8788 Approved For ftpMRL?WH723J.00200240017-une 10, 1970
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Objection will the Senator not accept my amend- servicemen withdrawn from all of South-
is heard. ment? It does not add to or enlarge, it east Asia as soon as it is possible to do so.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. At least right at does not increase-and could not-the I think we all want to avoid American
the moment I must object, because I constitutional authority, powers, or manpower involvement in another war,
must leave the Senate Chamber for the duties. of the President. So why does in a new war, in a war against Cambodia,
time being. the Senator not just accept it? That is in a war fqr Cambodia, in a war in sup-
Mr. BYRI) of West Virginia. Mr. Presi- a rhetorical question. port of any Cambodian government. But
dent, the modification that I am seeking Mr. CHURCH. Yes; the Senator an- I think we all also want to do every-
to bring about today attempts to further swers my question by asking his own. thing to protect our servicemen who are
nail down any actions by the President However, I am prepared to answer the in South Vietnam. It does not make any
in sending forces into Cambodia, which Senator's question. It is just a matter difference how they got there or who put
he may deem to be necessary, and anchor of who goes first. them there. They are there, and I think
such actions clearly in his constitutional Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. All right; we all agree that we want to do every-
1 t 4.U
powers
auth
rit
ti
d
,
o
y, an
du
es as Com-
mander in Chief, whereas the original
amendment which I offered-and which
will be voted on up or down, unless I am
permitted to offer this additional modifi-
cation-simply says "except that the
foregoing provisions of this clause shall
not preclude the President from taking
such action as is necessary." It does not
say anything about the "constitutional"
powers of the Commander in Chief. It
could be interpreted to mean his author-
ity and power under the Tonkin Gulf
resolution. But I am trying to get en-
tirely away from that in my modification
of today, and refer only to his authority,
powers, and duties under the Constitu-
tion.
This modification, it seems to me, is an
improvement even from the standpoint
of the Senator from Arkansas, If I may
say so.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield' for a question?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. It seems
to me to be an improvement on my
original language.
I yield to the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CHURCH. First, I. also regard the
modification that the Senator now pro-
poses as an improvement over the orig-
inal modification. That is not to say that
I endorse or support the new modifica-
tion; I hope to explain my reasons during
the course of the debate. I would like to
ask certain questions for the record, so
th t we may clearly understand just what
it Is that the Senator from West Virginia
has in mind in proposing this new lan-
guage.
He said earlier-and this is the basic
trouble with any amendment of this
sort-that it is neither within our power
to add or detract from such authority as
the President, as Commander in Chief,
may have under the Constitution. Is that
not correct?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Essen-
tially that is correct. And it is also correct
that the Senator from Idaho has said the
same thing.
Mr. CHURCH. Yes. We are in agree-
ment on that proposition.
If it is true that it is not within the
power of Congress, regardless of what
language we adopt-either to add to or
detract from the constitutional powers
of the President as Commander in
Chief-why is it necessary to write an
exception into this amendment at all?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator asks a good question. If it is true
that we, by statute, can neither enlarge
nor contract the President's powers, au-
thority, and duties under the Constitu-
tion as Commander in Chief-and we
both agree that we cannot-then why
e Senator from West Virginia try thing we possibly can to protect them
to answer the first question. The Sena- and get them home.
for from Idaho asked the first ques- Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
on. the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. All right.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. He asks,
why do we put this exception in?
Mr. President, I thought I had an-
swered the question when I made my
statement on June 3.
The language in paragraph (1) of the
Cooper-Church amendment, in connec-
tion with certain language in the pre-
amble, in my judgment, would seek to
restrict the President and inhibit, or
would seek to prevent him from dulyex-
ercising his authority, his powers, and
his duties under the Constitution to pro-
tect American troops in South Vietnam
if it became necessary to do so by re-
taining U.S. Armed Forces in Cambodia.
The Cooper-Church language seeks to
do that by cutting off funds.
The U.S. Government has sent many
American boys to South Vietnam. Over
400,000 of them are there now. They
did not ask to go. Most of them are there
through no choice of their own, and I
feel that it is the duty of the Govern-
ment to do everything it possibly can
to protect their lives while they are
there.
I can envision a time, on down the
goad beyond June 30, when the Pres-
ident, because of the exigencies of the
moment, might have to take action by
sending American forces back into Cam-
bodia in order to protect the lives of
American servicemen in South Vietnam.
I do not wish to tie his hands in such
an event, and this is why I have offered
the amendment to paragraph (1).
That is the only paragraph which my
language would attempt to perfect. So
that the Cooper-Church amendment, as
modified, would then read to the effect
that hereinafter no funds shall be ex-
pended through this act or any other
law for the retention of U.S. Armed
Forces in Cambodia, except and only if
the President determined it to be nec-
essary for the protection of U.S. troops
in South Vietnam.
So I seek by this amendment to make
clear that the Cooper-Church language
will not preclude the President, through
a cutoff of funds, from taking action
necessary to protect our men in South
Vietnam-acting always, of course, with-
in the ambit of this constitutional au-
thority, powers, and duties.
I have been concerned about the
Cooper-Church amendment since it was
first brought to the floor. I see a great
deal of good in it. I think it reflects a con-
cern which we all share in the Senate. I
think we all want to see American
I will be glad to yield in a moment. I
am attempting to answer the question
of the Senator from Idaho.
So it,was. as a result of a very deep
concern on my part that I sought to
devise some language which would assure
both our own fighting men in South
Vietnam and the enemy that the Presi-
dent's constitutional authority, powers,
and duties are not going to be contracted
or diminished by any cutting off of funds
as long as he determines it to be necessary
to take action to protect our men in
South Vietnam.
As I have said, I want to vote for the
Cooper-Church amendment. It has much
in it that is good. It is calculated and de-
signed to keep us from becoming involved
in another Vietnam. But I am afraid of
paragraph (1). It is for these reasons I
have Introduced the language if I may
say so, in answer to the question by the
distinguished Senator from Idaho.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator from West Virginia has given a very
thorough answer. I understand his mo-
tive, and I respect his point of view.
We are agreed on, at least two very
important premises. The first is that it
is not within the power of Congress to
abridge the President's constitutional
authority as Commander in Chief to pro-
tect American forces in the field, what-
ever that authority may be. Second, we
do not want to place American troops in
the field in any added jeopardy by legis-
lation.
Since we are in full agreement on
those two propositions, I think we can
find the language which will make it pos-
sible for us to converge on the same
course.
I want to tell the Senator why I
worry-though I concede that the new
language is more acceptable to me than
the former language-why I still feel so
strongly that we could make a serious
mistake in affixing an amendment of this
kind to the Cooper-Church proposal.
That mistake would have nothing to do
with the purposes sought to be served
by the Senator from West Virginia. How-
ever, if we adopt the Cooper-Church
amendment in its present form, without
making any congressional reference
whatever to the constitutional authority
that the President may possess as Com-
mander in Chief, and if he decides later
to order American forces back into Cam-
bodia, he will have to justify that action
to Congress and to the American people,
as a legitimate exercise of his own au-
Approved For Release 20021011d2 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 1 0, 1970 Approved FoCONGRESSI~NAL REORDDP7 QQJJ7P000200240017-3
thority. That is proper. The President
would be less likely to order a return
to Cambodia in force for any lengthy
period of time, if he had to rest his case
upon his sole authority as Commander
in Chief to protect the troops. In other
words, the action he would take under
that authority would be circumscribed,
it would have to be reasonably and di-
rectly related to the needs of.our troops
in the field.
But, on the other hand, if we adopt
this language, then we assume the risk
that, at some later date, the President
may point to it as having somehow con-
ferred in advance congressional consent
upon whatever he decides to do in Cam-
bodia, as long as he acts in the name
of protecting American troops in the
field.
There is a very good reason for us to be
concerned, having behind us the Tonkin
Gulf resolution experience. We passed
that resolution because we thought we
were giving- our approval to a reprisal
against certain torpedo boats that we
were told had attacked an American des-
troyer at sea. Concurrently, the Presi-
dent was assuring Congress and the
country that he had no intention of send-
ing any Americans into combat in Viet-
nam. A few months later, however, the
President changed his mind and-ordered
a huge expenditionary force into Viet-
nam, committing us to war on the Asian
mainland. Congressional approval, the
President said, had been given by the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
As proof that Congress had author-
ized his action, how many times were we
shown that resolution?
This is the reason why we are ex-
tremely wary of writing into this bill any-
thing which might later be interpreted as
constituting prior consent on the part of
Congress to whatever action the Presi-
dent may take in the name of protecting
American forces in the field.
That is the basis of the difference be-
tween-us. Yet, when the Senator confines
his exception to the constitutional au-
thority the President may havens Com-
mander in Chief, he does improve upon
the language, in my judgment.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sena-
tor from Idaho made reference to that
future exigency which would cause the
President to come back to Congress under
this bill, as not modified by the Byrd
amendment. The Senator from Idaho
said that the President would then have
to justify to Congress his actions in send-
ing men into Cambodia for the protec-
tion of American troops in South Viet-
nam.
What the Senator is saying, if I may
interpret in. my own way, most respect-
fully, is that he would have the President
come to Congress, ;and justify his con-
stitutional authority. That is what, in
essence, it would amount, to.
Mr. CHUftCf, What f had intended
to oonvey was this: If we make no refer-
ence in this amendment to the Presi-
dent's constitutional authority as Com-
mander in Chief, leaving the Cooper-
Church amentbr}ent in its present form,
then the Pesidnt,,later on would have
to base 'a return to Cambodia on leis own
authority as Commander in Chief and
demonstrate that his action "stemmed
directly from a need to protect our forces
in the field. Under these circumstances,
he would be much more careful to take
only those actions that could be reason-
ably justified. If we add the Senator's
language to the Cooper-Church amend-
ment, however, we may later have the
President Interpretting it as having
given him advance congressional consent
for much larger operations, in effect, for
expanding his authority, as long as they
are taken in the name of protecting our
troops in the field. That is the distinction
I am trying to draw.
Mr. PYRD of West Virginia, The Sen-
ator has a riht to interpret the Byrd
amendment in' that way, but I do not
interpret it as in any way giving the Pres-
ident, or attempting to give the President,
or claiming to give the President, or
assuming to give the President any au-
thority that he does not already have
under the Constitution of the United
States. I think that what the Senator
from Idaho is saying is that implicit in
the words of the Byrd amendment is
some new authority. Mr. President, there
is no new authority and none can rea-
sonably be read into the Byrd amend-
ment.
As I view the respective constitutional
authority of the President, as against
that of the Congress, under the Constitu-
tion, each operates in its own sphere. I
think each is supreme in its own sphere.
It seems to me that what the Cooper-
Church amendment would say, in para-
graph 1, if not amended, would be that
each is supreme in its own sphere, but
before the President can properly act to
carry out his constitutional authority,
within his own sphere, he must come over
into our sphere and get our approval, else
he cannot properly exercise his authority
within his own sphere to act as Com-
mander in Chief.
Of course, Congress has the power over
the purse. It can cut off funds for the
military or for anything else. If it does
that, it is restricting the power of the
President as Commander in Chief under
the Constitution and just as effectively, in
my judgment, as if Congress had passed
a constitutional amendment doing that-
which it cannot do-which only the peo-
ple of the United States can do.
Mr. PULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator from West Virginia yield for
clarification?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is he suggesting
that it is unconstitutional to cut off
funds?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. No.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not think that
I get the significance of that last remark
the Senator made, "as effectively as if
we had passed a constitutional amend-
ment"-
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Yes, yes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. What is the mean-
ing of that?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. What I
meant was
Mr. FULBRIGHT. It leaves the im-
plication that we are in some way, with-
out justification, impinging upon his
right as Commander in.Chief.
S8789
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I think we
would be in this instance.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do not think we
are at all.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I think
there is a twilight zone here.
Mr. FULBl IGHT. I do not quite un-
derstand that concept. Take the passage
of a law-
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. One ques-
tion at a time, please. The Senator from
Arkansas is a very skillful debater. He
asks a question, and before his oppo-
nent can attempt to answer the question,
he asks a second question and then a
third question, and then gives a lecture;
and by that time, of course, his oppo-
nent has forgotten what the first ques-
tion was all about.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Note the Senator
from West Virginia. He has the best
memory of any man in this body, and in
more ways than one. I have seen demon-
strations of it.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank
the able Senator. He is always most
courteous and overly generous. But, Mr.
President, what I am attempting to say
is that the Constitution can only be
amended through procedures as out-
lined in article V of the Constitution.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That I agree with.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. And that
the President, under article, II of the
Constitution, has certain powers and
duties.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. They are uncertain,
according to this debate.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. They are
uncertain. But-assuming just for the
sake of argument- that he had the con-
stitutional authority and duty to send
men to Cambodia on a temporary
basis-
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Well now-
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. If the
Senator wall allow me to assume this,
just for the sake of my argument, I am
assuming that the President acted with-
in his constitutional authority and duty
in doing what he did. There are other
Senators here, opposed to my amend-
ment, who do not argue with that. The
Senator from Arkansas will.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes, that is quite
right. I do.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I am as-
suming that the President can do it
again, if confronted with the same set
of circumstances,- and that he would be
acting properly within the ambit of his
constitutional authority and duty. But,
to do that, even for the purpose of pro-
tecting the lives of our men in South
Vietnam, he has to have money.
We cannot here amend the Constitu-
tion to say that the President has more
authority or that we will take away from
.him certain constitutional authority. We
cannot do that. But we can say there will
be no money. And we shall have just as
effectively, if we do that, prevented him
from carrying out his constitutional au-
thority and his duty, as if we had taken
a stroke of the pen and amend the Con-
stitution. It takes money to "retain
troops." And that is precisely what para-
graph (1) of the Cooper-Church amend-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S 8790
Approved For 'j 2 727ff00200240017 ne 10, 1970
ment is getting at. It is getting at the in procuring a military victory. What very well have the votes. If he is going
milk in the coconut, the money. bothers me is what the President actually to put something in the amendment, I
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, does does, as opposed to what he says. His ac- would much prefer that he put in the
the Senator mean by that that we are tions are designed to achieve a military language which does not go to the con-
not justified in using that power if we victory. stitutional issue.
choose to do so, if our judgment is that This is the kind of policy that the The Senator's amendment guts the
he is exercising his power-rather than Senate ought to be consulted about. We Cooper-Church proposal.
authority-in a way that is inimitable to ought to be told and we ought to be asked It waffles around with these constitu-
the interest of our, country. In the form of a declaration of war tional responsibilities and duties and
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. 'The Sen- whether or not that is 'a good policy for leaves greater uncertainty. It is a very
thi
ng.
ator from West Virginia is saying that the country. dangerous
Congress can cut off the money. It has I submit that it is an absolutely false Mr. COOPER. Mr.
the Power of the purse The Senator from doctrine to say that as Commander in Senator yield?
West Virginia is saying that he thinks it Chief, and because he inherited a war, Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
would be unwise in the midst of a shoot- he has the unlimited power to go into dent, if I may respond to the Senator
ing war when the lives of our soldiers are Cambodia or into any other country. from Arkansas, I will then yield to the
in danger in South Vietnam to cut off He says he is not relying on the Gulf Senator from Kentucky.
funds for the President to use in the ex- of Tonkin joint resolution. I was told in First of all, the Senator makes refer-
ercise of what he sees as his proper con- committee hearings that he is using his ence to the President wanting a military
stitutional authority and duty;: namely, authority to bring the soldiers home. victory. I do not believe that the Presi-
the protection of American forces in And the country accepted that until he dent is expecting to achieve a military
South Vietnam. moved into Cambodia. victory. But my amendment has nothing
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, the The Senator knows that the reaction to do with a military victory in South
Senator has now shifted, and I think of the country to that move was an in- Vietnam. I do not think that the Presi-
properly so, to the question of the wis- terpretation that he is expanding the dent expects to achieve that. I do not
dom of the action, rather than constitu- war. This changes the whole character think that any of us expect it.
tional authority. of the war. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, may
Does not the Senator feel that if he The Senator now wants to change the I ask a question?
is really interested-and I know he is, as amendment to have the effect of saying Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. In a
I am-in protecting the lives of the sol- that the President's authority as Com- moment. Second, the able Senator would
diers, that he should bring them. home in- mander in Chief authorizes him to do have us believe that the Byrd amend-
stead of putting them in Cambodia? anything he pleases. ment recognizes possession by the Presi-
This is where we have difficulty. The Senator has already said in the dent of "unlimited power to go into Cam-
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres- debate that the two sponsors of the bodia or into any other country."
ident, may I answer the question before 'Cooper-Church amendment admit that This amendment does not attempt to
the Senator goes on to another one? he has the power as Commander in Chief identify or to define or to interpret the
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Yes. to move into Cambodia. I reject that. powers of the President. And, of course,
Mr. BYRD of West Virginaa. Mr. Pres- The President himself recognizes the President does not have unlimited
Ident, I have heard it said that a military some limits. Why did he say, "I will go power to go into Cambodia.
withdrawal is one of the most difficult of only 21 miles." The Constitution does His powers are not infinite under the
all maneuvers. not say " that. He recognized that there Constitution. They would have to be in-
Yes, I would like to see our men was a different situation there, or he finite if they were unlimited. There is a
brought home. I would like to see them would not make a speech and say, "I will limitation on his powers.
come home tonight, tomorrow, or next go only 21 miles." The President cannot do anything
week. But I do not believe that they can Now he is beginning to expand this. which to him seems appropriate under
be brought home instantly, and as long Every time a new speech comes along, this amendment?
as they are there I think that the Pres- there is a change in the circumstances. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Why not? I do not
Ident has a duty under the Constitution If one accepts the theory that as Com- understand why not.
to do whatever he can do to protect mander in Chief he can do anything that, Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Because
their lives while they are in the process of to him, seems appropriate, there would the President is not the judge himself.
withdrawal, however gradual.-But if he be no limit. It is exactly what Abraham Mr. FULBRIGHT. Who is? Who does
does not have the money to perform his Lincoln said, that- there would be no judge?
duty and authority anti to do what he limit. We would have a scrapping of the Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The
feels is necessary in order to protect Constitution. President is not the sole judge of where
American lives, then he is prevented The purpose of the Constitution is not the constitutional line is drawn. The Su-
from doing so_ just as effectively as if to restrict anyone. But it does require preme Court has been known to declare a'
his authority under the Constitution had a sharing of responsibility. President's acts unconstitutional.
been abrogated by constitutional amend- I think it is a sound principle. Mr. FULBRIGHT. If he does not
ment. What good is authority if it cannot I think it would be a great tragedy if judge what is necessary to protect the
be used when needed? the Senate gave up its responsibility to lives of soldiers, who does judge? With
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, if debate subjects which involve the lives the language of your amendment, we do
the Senator would allow me to interrupt, and property of the people. not.
as to this business of retreat, and so on, This is the whole issue: Should the BYRD of West Virginia. The
no one is suggesting that our troops Senate abdicate its responsibility and say amenMr. dment which I have offered does
leave instantaneously. but on the other that as Commander in Chief the Presi- not attempt to interpret or define where
hand there is no great mystery about how dent cap do as he pleases any time he the Constitutional line is. It simply
to end the war. The French ended a simi- can say that it is to protect the troops? the he shall not l inhibited his
far war in 1954. In the course of approxi- Under the Byrd amendment, that would constitutional' authority to protect our
mately ,2 -months after they had made be all that he would need to say. troops in South Vietnam.
up their minds that it was not in the This is an absolutely new doctrine. I Mr. in South GHT. It leaves it up to
interest of France to continue with that never ran across this when I was in
war, they liquidated the war and got a school. I never ran across the matter of him.
cease-fire and?all of the killing of their the powers of the President being such Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Then,
soldiers stopped. The* withdrawal took that he could invade a country if he says who is to be the judge under the Con-
some time But there was no further it is to protect the troops-a country with stitution? Will 100 Senators act as Com-
killing of their soldiers. It went off in a which we had not heretofore been at war. mander in Chief?
111 t orslery way. I do not think it is sound at all. Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is what the
~i& is the alternative I was suggesting I think it would be a great mistake to Senator is saying; that the President as
if the lresident is interested in protect- put the Byrd language in the Cooper- Commander in Chief is the judge. It is
ing the lives of 'his soldiers, rather than Church amendment. The Senator may a new theory.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 10 1970 Approved For letffAJO2R18P7%MWf000200240017-3
Mr. BYRD Of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator opened up an entirely new vista of
discussion here when he said he would
rather vote on my first amendment than
on the modification because the first ver-
sion would jut the Cooper-Church
amendment.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is correct.
Mr..BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator surely does not want the Cooper-
Church amendment gutted.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. No, I would oppose
that.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Then why
the preference for my first amendment
if it would gut. Cooper-Church? I do not
want to gut the Cooper-Church amend-
ment; I want to improve it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am against both
of them. As long as you are going to gut
it, do it correctly, where it is obvious to
everyone; do not fuzz it up. The second
one is more insidious because It uses
language about constitutional authority
and the Commander In Chief and asks
that he consult with us. They consulted
with us before and they did not tell the
Mr. BYRD of West, Virginia. What
the Senator is saying is that the Sena-
tor from Idaho, who is a cosponsor of
the Cooper-Church amendment, in stat-
ing the second amendment is an' improve-
ment on the first amendment, although
it is more "insidious" and "fuzzy."
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is right.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The
modification guts it, ' but it is not as
"clear" in gutting it--even though the
Idaho Senator says it is an improvement.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. It fuzzes it up.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator Is calling into question the stated
position of the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I have been here
longer and I am more skeptical than
he is. He has more faith than I. I have
been here twice as long as he has been
here, and I have been through a num-
ber of these things before, and I know
how this kind of language can be
brought up later on and thrown. in your
face.
To say it is up to the President to say
what he may do at any time, anywhere,
is a new concept. I do not want to be
a part of that history making. I played
a part in the Gulf of Tonkin resolu-
tion. I did not have the skepticism then.
I did not believe the President would
misrepresent the facts to a committee,
but I have learned better. -
I do not want to leave the wrong im-
pression. I am just as strongly against
the proposed amendment as I am against
the moth( ca~tiion.If the Senator is going
to prevail, which he may because of his
influence in this body; I would want him
to prevail on his original amendment and
not the modified amendment. Then, the
matter would be clearcut. If this lan-
guage goes in, we will never know and
we will 4 co, Prpnte i. with a continuing
interpretation of the powers of the Com-
mander '1 i Chief. This is such a new
concept, used in this context, that I do
not believe it would be. wise at all. The
more I tink'of it tl~e more I think we
should have a vote, on the original
There is one other matter the Senator
mentioned.
Mn BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, before the Senator goes on, if the
Senator wishes us to vote on the original
amendment he has the power to decide.
The Senator would simply object to the
unanimous-consent request that I mod-
ify my amendment.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thought I did
object.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Then, we
could vote on the original.
I have acted in good faith in trying to
develop language which would meet the
legitimate concerns of several Members
of this body. I have sought to improve
the amendment and in some way bring
us at least part way toward the position
that has been taken by the sponsors of
the Cooper-Church amendment. I have
tried to tighten up the original language
of my amendment by tying it clearly to
the constitutional authority, powers, and
duties of the President-leaving aside
entirely any legal authority 'which he
may or may not have.
If the Senator feels that he would like
to object to my unanimous-consent re-
quest I shall have to stay with the old
language, and the Senate can vote on it.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me for one moment on
this point?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Surely.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I think
we have argued for 2 or 3 days in a
circular way the question of the author-
ity of the President as Commander in
Chief to protect our forces.
All agree he has that authority; that
the Congress cannot take it from him
or give it to him. The question is then
asked, "Why cannot it be written in the
amendment?"
The obvious answer is that we do not
need to write It into law it is his con-
stitutional authority. But if we write
it into law, then Congress accepts all
of its consequences.
Earlier today the distinguished Sen-
ator from New York (Mr. JAvITS) spoke
on the floor of the Senate about the first
Byrd amendment, and I wish to read
to the Senate two of his sentences that
I think apply to this matter:
I believe that passage of the Byrd Amend-
ment would amount to Senate acquiescence
in this position-that is, the President en-
joys such powers as Commander-in-Chief as
he defines them to be. I believe that this
could undermine our whole constitutional
system and lead the nation into grave new
crisis at home and abroad.
I believe the Cooper-Church, or
Church-Cooper amendment, and the
amendment of the Senator from West
Virginia have different purposes. Our
purpose is to place some check upon the
power of the President with respect to
Cambodia. In subsection 1 it states that
forces shall not be retained in Cambodia
after July 1. We do not mention the
President's constitutional powers.
If,_ in fact, our forces should come un-
der sudden attack in Cambodia, the
President would have the same power.
We say, that absent that kind of situa-
S 8791
tion U.S. forces should not be retained in
Cambodia without coming to Congress.
Also in sections 2 and 3-
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator cannot have it both ways.
Mr. COOPER. I believe we can. Either
we will give up every bit of authority in
the warmaking field, at minimum, we
should assert that in some cases Con-
gress has joint authority.
The Senator has worked very hard on
this matter. I know that he is an able
lawyer and thorough student. We have
talked about this matter many times.
However, I think if some limits are not
asserted we will end up finding there is
no limit.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the Senator
yield?
Mr. COOPER. We are urging, in line
with the President's policy to end the
war in Vietnam, to put the brakes on so
we will not become embedded in South-
east Asia.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, most respectfully I interpret what
the Senator says as having the best of
two possible worlds. He says the Presi-
dent could, in an emergency, even in the
face of the enactment of the Cooper-
Church amendment, utilize the "same
power" as he did on April 30.
Mr. COOPER. No.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The Sen-
ator did not say that?
Mr. COOPER. No. I said if they were
in Cambodia and came under sudden at-
tack on June 30, of course he would have
the power.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. Once out of Cambodia, I
do not believe he should go back.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the key
word is "retaining." That word was used
advisedly. The amendment.provides that
funds are not available to retain Ameri-
can forces in Cambodia after the end of
June.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Is the
Senator saying that if this bill is still
being debated on July 1, he is willing to
drop the paragraph (1) if all the troops
are out? There would then be no troops
in Cambodia to "retain." Would the Sen-
ator then be willing to delete that lan-
guage?
Mr. CHURCH. The word "retain," as
the debate has clarified, was used to
serve two objectives: First, to make it
clear that the Congress believed Ameri-
can troops should not stay in Cambodia
after the end of June; and, second, to
allow for those particular occasions that
might arise where the President, in the
exercise of his constitutional authority
as Commander in Chief, might have to
make a sudden strike into Cambodia in
order to effectively protect American
troops near the border. That is why we
used the word "retain." We meant for
it to cover both situations.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. What
does the Senator mean by a "sudden
strike"? Could not a "sudden strike" be
one which would take us into Cambodia
and "retained" there for 2 weeks, 4
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S 8792
Approved For ffiO?81kO,2 j J 724( *7. 900200240017 y 10, 1970
weeks, 6 weeks, or 3 months? It would
have been "sudden strike" and armed
forces would have to be "retained" in
Cambodia without funds for their re-
tention.
Mr, CHURCH. No. What I meant by
"sudden strike" was an occasion where
an enemy staging area, for example, was
being utilized to concentrate troops and
materiel for an imminent attack on
American troops across the border. Un-
der circumstances of that kind, in order
to protect effectively our forces across
the border, it might well fall within the
President's authority to strike ' the sanc-
tuary, clean it out, and withdraw again.
That is why we used the word "retain".
We felt that if the President decided
later to go into Cambodia in force, with
the intention of staying, that would be a
decision so significant that it would re-
define the theater of war. Properly, the
President should come before Congress,
make his case, and secure congressional
consent.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. My
amendment does not say he could go
back into Cambodia.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. But the language
does not say he could not, either.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. It says
paragraph (1) shall be effective except
when the President determines it neces-
sary to protect the lives of American
troops in South Vietnam.
Mr. CHURCH. Paragraph (1) is a pro-
hibition against retaining troops in Cam-
bodia. The Senator's language goes on to
say, in effect, except where the Presi-
dent, acting as Commander in Chief, de-
cides to remain in Cambodia in order to
protect American troops in South Viet-
earn.
His language, even his modified lan-
guage, would create an opening in the
Cooper-Church amendment that could
conceivably be cited to authorize a re-
turn to Cambodia for an extended period
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. My lan-
guage does not authorize anything that
the President is not already authorized
.to do. It merely prevents the Cooper-
Church language from attempting to
preclude the proper exercise of hfs con-
stitutional authority. It does not author-
ize anything new.
Mr-. CHURCH. In a legal sense, the
Senator is quite correct; it does not con-
fer any new or added power to the Presi-
dent. We are involved here In a question
of political power. If the modified lan-
guage of the Senator's amendment is
adopted, we will have given the President
a political tool to justify future action.
If we do not pass it and leave the bill
silent, then he will have to base any fu-
ture action upon inherent power, in
which case he will have to make certain
that the action is directly and intimately
related to the protection of our troops
in..the field.
From the golitical standpoint, I am
fearful this language will be seized upon
as giving prior consent to whatever he
does. In view of our experience with the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution, there is solid
basis for my'fears:
Mr.BBD of West Virginia. The real
political tool lies in the exercise of con-
gressional power over the purse. The
Appropriations Committees, for exam-
ple, are the only committees in the Sen-
ate and in the House which have real
power. The power of the purse is the
real political tool.
Paragraph (1) of the Cooper-Church
amendment, as written, and if un-
amended, would seek to use this real, raw
political tool-the power of the purse-
to contract, to diminish, the constitu-
tional authority and power of the Presi-
dent of the United .States, acting as
Commander in Chief, to take necessary
action to protect the lives of American
servicemen in South Vietnam. It would
say, "You may do this or that, but first
of all, you have to go back to the money
bag."
Let us lay this right out on the table
and bare it to the scrutiny of everyone's
eyes. The language in paragraph (1) of
the Cooper-Church amendment says,
"Mr. President, you may retain troops in
Cambodia after June 30 only if you come
back to Congress and, through the en-
actment of a new law, get appropria-
tions with which to pay those troops."
In essence, that is what it says: It does
not matter that an emergency may re-
quire quick action to protect American
lives in South Vietnam.
We all know the circuitous route by
which an appropriation bill becomes
law. The President coul-1 be confronted
with an emergency situation. He might
have to act, and it would be his duty to
act, as Commander in Chief under the
Constitution, to protect our men. But
the action that he would have to take
might require him to go back into Cam-
bodia. There could be the same set of
circumstances under which he went in
on April 30 to protect our troops. Our
troops might stay 60 days again the next
time. But he has to first go to Congress
under paragraph (1) of the Cooper-
Church amendment. First, there has to
be a budget estimate. Then there has
to be a hearing on the appropriation
bill. Then there has to be a discussion
by the committee during the markup of
the appropriation bill. Then, if the bill
is reported, it has to run the risk and the
gauntlet of the 3-day rule. Then it has
to be debated on the floor of the Senate.
It seems to me that what we are say-
ing to the President is, "You just can't
do it," because the enemy would have had
ample time to fold up its tents, remove
its men, weaponry, military materiel, and
ammunition, and move out, or it would
have had ample time, if it chose to do so,
in which strike and attack our men while
all of this discussion and all of this de-
bate was going on as to whether or not
we should appropriate the funds. We
are not cutting off his authority, the
sponsors of the Cooper-Church Amend-
ment say-no, but we are cutting off the
money. What is a more effective "poli-
tical tool" than money?
Mr. P'ERCY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. PERCY. I, first of all, want to make
clear that I have no objection to the
modification of the language the Sena-
tor from West Virginia would like to in-
troduce, and I hope he will be permitted
this evening to modify the language in
accordance with his own wishes, to im-
prove and modify his original intention.
Second, I have been concerned some-
what about subparagraph (1). I think
there can and should be an,exception
made.
I have an amendment which would
not affect our vote tomorrow, but which
I would like to send to the desk this
evening for consideration of our col-
leagues should the distinguished Sen-
ator's amendment fail tomorrow. I would
need about 60 seconds to submit it, and
would very much appreciate knowing
about when it might be appropriate for
me to do that this evening.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that I may
yield to the Senator from Illinois for the
purpose which he has outlined, and that
he may be recognized for not to exceed
3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CRANSTON). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. PERCY. I thank my distinguished
colleague very much indeed.
AMENDMENT NO. 686
Mr. President, in this debate on the
Cooper-Church amendment and the
Byrd amendment, we confront a variety
of important considerations. These con-
siderations include the desire of the
President and the American people to
shorten, rather than expand the war;
the question of the related responsibili-
ties of the President and the Congress in
the war-making process; and the concern
of everyone in the executive branch, the
Congress, and the country for the safety
of our forces in Vietnam.
It is my own feeling that we should not
expand the geographic scope of the war,
and that the President's promised total
American withdrawal from Cambodia as
of June 30, 1970, should be endorsed by
Congress.
This is the time for such an endorse-
ment. It is also the time for Congress to
reassert its constitutional prerogatives
to share with the President in war-
making decisions.
These objectives-endorsing the Pres-
ident's plan for withdrawal from Cam-
bodia by June 30 and reasserting the con-
stitutional prerogatives of the Congress
in war-making can be achieved by an
amendment to the Foreign Military Sales
Act which will take into full considera-
tion the safety of our forces in Vietnam.
I now send to the desk an amendment
which would disallow the commitment of
U.S. forces to Cambodia unless it were
necessary to respond to a clear and direct %
attack upon forces of the United States
from Cambodia.
It is my hope that the language of this
amendment would be satisfactory to the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER).
to the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH),
and to the President, who share our con-
cern for peace, for constitutional bal-
ance, and for the safety of our American
men in Southeast Asia.
The amendment reads simply as fol-
lows:
On page 5, line 7, strike the words "(1) re-
taining United States forces in Cambodia"
and insert the words "(1) having United
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June Y0, Y970Approved For &esdWlggpp l/P02 1~;RBP72-E&327J 000200240017-3 S 8793
States force in Cambodia except where the
use of such forces is necessary, pending Con-
gressional approval, to respond to a clear
and direct attack upon forces of the United
States from Cambodia."
Its purpose is simply to insure that we
send a direct and definite message from
the Congress of the United States and
from the President to the North Viet-
namese that, should they go back in and
use these sanctuaries for the purpose of
launching an attack upon. us, we in Con-
gress, forthwith and in advance approve
the President's moving in to protect our
forces and the program of withdrawal
from Vietnam, but that the President,
after he responded to that, would come
back to Congress for our assent to or
disapproval of the action that 'is taken,
and for whatever debate would be re-
quired.
Clearly I have certainly been influ-
enced by the eloquent discussions by
the distinguished Senator from West
Virgina that there should be some ex-
ception in this case, and the exception
we are trying to provide and protect the
country and our forces against is the use
of those areas for an attack upon us. That
is as simple and clear as I can make it.
Mr. BYRD of. West Virginia. Exactly.
Mr. 'PERCY. I thank my distinguished
colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be received and printed,
and will lie on the table,
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield to
the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, ]: thank
the Senator from West Virginia.
I think it is important that we estab-
lish legislative history here. I shall try
to phrase this question so that it applies
to either the amendment or modifica-
tions that the Senator from West Vir-
ginia has submitted-both to the amend-
ment he submitted on last Wednesday
and the modification he submitted today.
The Senator from West Virginia has
said that neither of his proposals adds
anything to the constitutional authority
of the President of the United States.
I would be interested in the views of the
Senator from West Virginia as to the
constitutional authority of the President
of the United States at the present time,
specifically with regard to situations
that I outlined in a series of questions
on yesterday. These questions are five
in number. They are printed an pages
88687 and S8688 of the June 9 RECORD.
I might say to the Senator from West
Virginia that earlier in the day both the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER)
and the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCE) gave their views on these five
situations.
I believe that, whether or not any of
the pending amendments are adopted,
we would do well to have in the RECORD
the answers to the questions from the
sponsor of all the amendments.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Very well.
Would. the Senator like. to restate the
questions?
Mr.- SPONG. I would be pleased to do
I should-Ake to know if the language
of the Byrd modification, contemplates
the president's right-and rather than
"right" I will substitute "authority," in
view of our discussion earlier-authority,
as Commander in Chief, to do the fol-
lowing, under the language of the
amendments, or if the Senator feels that
the President already has that authority
under the Constitution: First. To pre-
vent enemy forces from crossing the
border into South Vietnam and to pur-
sue and destroy such forces as they at-
tempt to leave South Vietnam for Cam-
bodia? This contemplates a distance into
Cambodia of no more than 2 or 3 miles.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, first I emphasize again the premise
which the able Senator from Virginia has
already recognized-to wit, that the Byrd
amendment, whether we are talking
about the modification before the Senate
or about the modification which, under
the previous order, is to be voted on to-
morrow, authorizes nothing new. It adds
nothing new. Whatever the President
may do in the future, in the event either
modification is accepted, he- could have
done just as well without the enactment
of either.
This brings me to this method of at-
tempting to answer the Senator's ques-
tion: I am saying, in answer to all four
or five questions, that my amendment
really has no bearing on them, because
it does not add any authority to what the
President already has as Commander in
Chief under the Constitution.
Mr. SPONG. I would respectfully dis-
agree with the Senator from West Vir-
ginia. I believe that what the Senator Is
adding is language that could be subject
to interpretation, and that in both his
first modification and his second modifi-
cation there is language which, should
the Cooper-Church amendment be en-
acted by the Senate, could give the im-
pression of additional discretionary au-
thority to the President of the United
States.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, of course all of this language is
subject to definition. The language in
the Cooper-Church amendment is, like-
wise, subject to definition and interpreta-
tion. The lawyers will interpret it. They
will argue about it. They will disagree
with respect to the language in the
Cooper-Church amendment. So, indeed,
any language that we put in, call it the
Byrd amendment or anyone else's
amendment, is going to be subject to de-
finition by someone, subject to inter-
pretation, and subject to disagreement
among the authorities.
But, Mr. President, my amendment
does not authorize anything. Take, for
example, the Formosa resolution. It was
a joint resolution "authorizing" the
President to do something. Take, for a
further example, the Middle East resolu-
tion. It was a resolution that the Presi-
dent "be and hereby is authorized" to
do something.
My amendment does not "authorize"
the President to do anything. It merely
makes an exception in the thrust of
paragraph (1) of the Cooper-Church
language and defines as well as it can
the circumstances in which that excep-
tion will be made. The President, acting
under the Cooper-Church language, as
amended by my amendment, would be
acting within his constitutional powers
as Commander in Chief, not through any
authority granted by my amendment.
Mr. SPONG. May I ask the Senator
from West Virginia this: If no addi-
tional authority is granted by the lan-
guage, as the Senator says, would the
Senator give me his present interpreta-
tion of the constitutional authority of
the President of the United States with
regard to any of these five situations? I
will refer specifically to the third one.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. May I
respond to the first one?
Mr. SPONG. Yes.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. The first
one was as follows, as the Senator in-
cluded in yesterday's RECORD:
To prevent enemy forces from crossing the
border into South Vietnam and to pursue
and destroy such forces as they attempt to
leave South Vietnam for Cambodia? This
contemplates a distance into Cambodia of
no more than 2 or 3 miles.
[Mr. BYRD of West Virginia addressed
the Senate. His remarks will appear
hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.]
"The Communist regime in North
Vietnam," I repeat. That is the same
enemy against which the incursions into
Cambodian sanctuaries were made on
April 30 by U.S. Armed Forces. That is
the same enemy against which I seek to
preserve protection for our American
servicemen in South Vietnam through
the wording of my amendment. But no
"second Gulf of Tonkin resolution" is
required-Public Law 88-408 refers to
Southeast Asia and expressed support
and approval of Presidential action to
"repel armed attacks"-yes, even from
Cambodia-"against the forces of the
United States."
Therefore, the Congress has given its
advance approval and support of the
President, as Commander in Chief, to
take all necessary measures to "repel any
armed attack" against the forces of the
United States "launched from Cambo-
dian sanctuaries." That advance ap-
proval was given in Public Law 88-408,
as I have already stated. My amendment
could not become a second Gulf of Ton-
kin resolution. In the first place, it does
not enlarge the congressional sanction
of the use of Presidential authority as
set forth in Public Law 88-408. The
truth of the matter is the Cooper-Church
language would, in effect, seek to negate
the Gulf of Tonkin joint resolution-
Public Law 88-408-without amending
or repealing Public Law 88-408 outright.
Of course, any language is subject to
definition and interpretation by the law-
yers and by everyone else. The language
of the Cooper-Church amendment is not
the last word in perfection-I say this
with all due respect to the sponsors
thereof-and it, too-as I will soon at-
tempt to demonstrate-can be subject to
definition. But I believe that the verbiage
of my amendment, when taken with my
own statements and those of cosponsors
of my amendment, leaves no room for
doubt as to its intent and meaning. I
know that there are those who say that
the President might send troops to Cam-
bodia to fight for a Cambodian Govern-
ment and that he may do so under the
guise of acting "to protect U.S. forces in
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S8794 Approved ForC81le~,sghI,Q~(Q~/QE i 172 SpQ3A7Q00200240017une 10, 1970
South Vietnam." But we have to have
faith in our President as Commander in
Chief, regardless of who he is or what his
political party may be, at the time. And
it would seem to me that any President,
in sending troops again into Cambodia is
going to have to make his case, and it
will have to be a good one. It will be sub-
jected to the burning scrutiny of every
critical eye-and it should be.
Our problem, here in the Senate, it
seems to me, is to state with as much
clarity as is possible, the intent of the
Congress to avoid American manpower
involvement in any new war in Asia-
such as a war against the government
of Cambodia or a war in, support of the
government of Cambodia-while, at the
same time, not infringing upon or weak-
ening, in any way-or appearing so to
do-the authority and duty of the Pres-
ident, as Commander in Chief, under the
Constitution, to take such action as is
necessary to protect the lives of U.S.
forces in South Vietnam or to facilitate
their withdrawal from South Vietnam.
Mr. President, paragraph (1) of the
Cooper-Church amendment has trou-
bled me from the beginning. I want
to eliminate American manpower in-
volvement in Southeast Asia--not in-
crease it. I believe that paragraphs (2),
(3), and (4) are intended to do this-
although paragraph (2) carries a loop-
hole as big as a tunnel-big enough 'to
allow the use of "any U.S. personnel in
Cambodia" who engage in "cambat ac-
tivities" so long as they do not do so
"in support of Cambodian forces." All
the President would have to say, under
paragraph (2), in explaining the use of
U.S. "personnel" In Cambodia, to "en-
gage in any combat activity," is that they
are fighting to support South Vietnamese
forces-not Cambodian forces. This is
my interpretation of the language.
Why do Senators strain at a gnat and
swallow a camel? Why do Senators who
oppose my amendment-which would
permit U.S. ground troops to be used in
Cambodia only when necessary to pro-
tect the lives of American servicemen in
South Vietnam-support the language in
paragraph (2) which would permit U.S.
personnel to engage in combat activity in
Cambodia for the support of South Viet-
namese forces? Are U.S. "forces" in para-
graph (1) to be distinguished from U.S.
"personnel" in paragraph (2) ? If so, it
is a distinction without a difference as
long as U.S. "personnel" may "engage in
any combat activity."
But, as I say, paragraph (1) of the
Cooper-Church amendment has troubled
the from the beginning. I cannot cast a
vote to tie the President's hands when
it .comes to necessary action to protect
American troops in South Vietnam-and
there are over 400,000 there now. Ask the
fathers and mothers and sisters of those
400,000 American men in South. Vietnam
what should be done. They will say that
they want to see their sons and, brothers
return home as soon as possible but,
while they are there, protect their lives.
Mr, 'resident, I had to introduce this
amendment. I could not vote for the
Cooper-Church amendment without it.
I know of the genuine concern on the
part of all Senators with regard to this
matter. As I indicated in my Senate floor
-speech on June 3, I feel that we in the
Senate must take every action within our
constitutional power-so long as we do
not attempt to preclude the proper exer-
cise of his constitutional powers by the
President, acting as Commander in
Chief-to avoid American manpower in-
volvement in a new war in Asia, whether
it be a war against Cambodia, or for
Cambodia, or in support of any Cam-
bodian Government.
I have also indicated that I share the
concern of other Senators who believe
that the President made a mistake-un-
der the peculiar circumstances of the
Cambodian incursion-in not consulting
with congressional leaders in advance of
the action taken. When I say congres-
sional leaders, I would leave it up to the
discretion of the President as to the
identity of those congressional leaders.
Certainly I would think that the majority
and minority leaders in both bodies
would fall within the definition.
In any event, in order to reach these
legitimate concerns on the part of all of
us, and in order to make the intent of my
amendment as incontrovertible, as in-
dubitably clear, and as infallibly certain
as I can possibly make it, I have asked
unanimous consent to modify my amend-
ment No. 667, star print.
I hope that the Senate will adopt my
perfecting language. If the supporters of
the Cooper-Church amendment really
want to see their amendment become
law, I may be mistaken, but it seems to
me they should get behind my amend-
ment to paragraph (1) and vote to adopt
it. The chances of ultimate enactment
of the Cooper-Church amendment would
thereby be enhanced, I believe.
No, Mr. President; my amendment is
no "blank check." And it is not a "sec-
ond Gulf of Tonkin Resolution." It is a
bona fide, good faith effort to eliminate
what many of us regard as an unaccept-
able restriction upon the protection of
American servicemen. As I say, the Gov-
ernment sent these men to South Viet-
nam and it has a duty to do everything
it can to protect their lives while they
are there.
Mr. President, will the Chair again
submit my unanimous-consent request
to the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator renew his request?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I renew
my request.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, is there objection to my request?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT)
objected earlier to this unanimous-con-
sent request. He advised me that he did
not intend to withdraw his objection.
He remained in the Chamber for a pe-
riod of time after he made his objection.
When he was obliged to leave, he asked
me to protect his rights, and I am there-
fore obliged to object in the name of the
Senator from Arkansas.
As the Senator from West Virginia
knows, I prefer the modified version of
his amendment that he has offered to-
day to his previous amendment, and it
is my hope that tomorrow we can ex-
amine this situation further prior to the
time for the vote, and perhaps some ac-
commodation can be reached.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection
is heard.
Mr. CHURCH. I hope the Senator will
renew his offer tomorrow.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I thank the Senator. I hope
that tomorrow the Senate will permit
me to modify my amendment. As the
Senator from Idaho has indicated, it
is his feeling-and I share that feeling-
that the modification which I now seek to
have included is an improvement over
my modification of the other day, and
I would hope that the Senate would
want to vote on what is generally con-
ceded, I believe, to be improved language
over that which is before us.
But I will, of course, accept the will
of the Senate. I appreciate the reasons
why the Senator from Idaho has found
it necessary to object this evening.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. I have told the Senator
that I would not object to the modifica-
tion.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. I continue in that posi-
tion.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank
the Senator.
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, if the Sen-
ator will yield, I would like the RECORD
to show that I was present, and I have
no objection. I prefer the Senator's sec-
ond modification.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank
the able Senator.
Mr. President, I do not ever wish to be
in the position, myself, of objecting to a
Senator's having the opportunity to mod-
ify his own amendment; but this is the
right of any Senator, and I had the
opportunity before today-as a matter
of fact, I had the opportunity before the
Senate entered into any agreement-to
modify the amendment to my heart's
content. But the further modification is
the result of further study.
So I hope that the Senate tomorrow
will permit us to vote on this modifica-
tion; but if it does not, we will vote on
the first modification, and I may even
be constrained to withdraw my unani-
mous-consent request. We shall see.
I yield the floor.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, every day
I receive numerous letters and memo-
randa from the academic community
expressing interest in, and concern about
the current debate over the President's
powers as Commander in Chief.
I have recently received an especially
interesting document from Prof. Robert
Scigliano, a member of the department
of political science at the State Univer-
sity of New York at Buffalo.
Professor Scigliano enjoys the high
regard of his professionals in political
science. His? books include "The Supreme
Court and the Presidency, Technical As-
sistance in Vietnam," and "South Viet-
nam: Nation Under Stress." In addition,
Approved for Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved, For Release 20 /01/ DP 8000200240017-3
0 CONGRESSIONAL C 1~-
June 0, 197
he is currently doing research directly power to "declare" war would imply an ex-
related to the subject of this current ecutive, one to "commence" war. Whatever
debate-the war powers of the President. effect the decision to give Congress the power
to "declare" rather than "make" war has
In fact, this research will soon resold in had, delegates to the Constitutional Con-
a book from the reading of which we all vention thought it would draw less of the
will profit. war power from the executive reservoir.
proprcigliano has been kind The broad war and foreign relations powers
enough to share with us all some of his of the President were also recognized in the
thoughts on one relevant aspect of the legislation containing many by the First sta Congress,
current debate. He has sent me a fasci- which, Constitutional Chas
mating essay on the intentions of the been called a The act contn establishing inuiny the nal Co
y
iounding Fathers with regard to the vention. laDepartment, caa whoe business ury
war 'power. Consider his findings with President was given no authority by the
regard to the Constitutional Convention Constitution, delegated the duties of the
and the First Congress: Secretary to him; but the acts establishing
the ~s
There is considerable evidence that the the stated, In identical WarthaDepartment
Framers generally were inclined to View cthe u- retar would "perform and execute such
powers of war and foreign
ri affairs as act to duties as shall, from time to time, be enjoyed
five. They did not, t and large, object on or entrusted to him by the President." In-
but were the Proudest possess not be these enabled cidentaliy, when the same Congress changed
but were anxious alth he want the name of the Foreign Affairs Department
him a war', act in an although an they did want to that of the Department of State, in order
hm to s able to ea emergency-, making that it might assume certain domestic re-
they wished to prevent him from m s nsibilities, it did not hesitate to specify
treaties, especially treaties of peace, on his the added duties of the Secretary.
own authority.
The question of the President's powers professor Scigliano is also illuminat-
arose first Conv laention.O One the One of days the of the Virginia Constitutional Resoolutions trig with regard to the important pas-
stipulated that the executive under the Con- sages of the Federalist, and of the Con-
stitution would "possess the executive powers stitution on which the Federalist is such
of Congress" under the Confederation (there a brilliant commentary. Professor Sci-
being no executive branch under that gov- gliano says:
erument). Charles Pinckney said he was for There is no question that the Constitution
"vigorous executive but was afraid the ex- conveys broad war power to the President.
ecutive powers of the existing Congress might To be sure, only one provision explicitly con-
extend to peace and war, etc.," and John vet's this power: that which makes him
Col giving givvineng pl him imly h [thee exec ive]t "he ww not ?under in chief of the army and navy
e the power power of the United States; and of the militia of
war pea slid peace." ex the power , war and d the several states, when called into the ac-
tual service of the United States." The Fed-
that of "launching" war and "concluding" eralist is often cited as evidence that the
peace. The t he ea Convention meaning was debates by usuallytheconex - - Framers intended the President to have "no
veyed in t Convention ers that any high military or naval com-
S 8795
state officials are obligated simply "to sup-
port this Constitution."
The President's war power in the Consti-
tution does not rest solely on the commander-
in-chief clause. He is also charged with the
duty "to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed." This power does not refer
explicitly to military matters, of course, but
it is applicable to them. Rebellion, insur-
rection, and other civil disturbances obstruct
the execution of the laws: May not the Pres-
ident use military force, if necessary, to elim-
inate the obstruction? A reasonable infer-
ence from the "take care" clause is that he
may, and Presidents have acted upon it. It
is not surprising, given the implications of
this clause, that James Wilson, a leading
Framer, should describe it in the Pennsyl-
vania ratifying convention as a "power of no
small magnitude."
. Mr. President, so that all Senators may
have the benefit. of Professor Scigliano's
splendid scholarship, I ask unanimous
consent for his memorandum to be
printed in the RECORD; along with his
brief cover letter to me.
There being no objection, the letter
and memorandum were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK AT
Hon GORDON ALLOTT,
U.S. Senate,
Washington,'D.C.
DEAR SENATOR ALLOTT: In consideration of
your interest in the question of the war
power of the President, I am enclosing some
thoughts on that subject. They are taken
from research on which I am at present en-
gaged.
Sincerely,
ROBERT SCIGLIANO,
Professor.
pression "make" war and peace, used in the mailer who was not also President might THE PRESIDENT AND THE WAR POWER: THE IN-
In ina, asmuch treaty. as not have." There, in Number 89, Hamilton TENT OF THE FRAMERS
The needs so a me law em p ophasis making
he point needs observed that the President's authority as (By Robert Scigliano)
term on Is sometimes etthe sun- commander in chief "Would amount to
r the use utiona t the
dst od mean order nothing more than the supreme command There is no question that the Constitution
de to mean wage" war. es amended d and direction of the millrtary and naval conveys broad war power to the President. To
meet these meet thesee objectives, the delegates forces, as first general and admiral of the be sure, only one provision explicitly conveys
"corn-
that the power of Confederacy " But clearly such an interpre- this power: that which makes him "corn-
the resolution r provide
"to y carry Into effect the national tonal would be tation misconceives what Hamilton meant mander in chief of the army and navy of the
"to into efface the national lows" and by "supreme command and direction." In United States; and of the militia of the sev-
" to i de d d for." ." ouB t t the cases not therwist Federalist Number 74, where Hamilton took eral states, when called into the actual serv-
have seriously meant the delegates could not up the commander-in-chief clause again, he ice of the United States." 1 The Federalist
that could be given the Po limit the powers explained his meaning as follows: "The di- is often cited as evidence that the Framers
that rion of war implies the direction of the intended the President to have "no powers
that esolo swan President. Certainly
the resolution was never invoked for that common strength; and the power of direct- that any high military or naval commander
purpose, despite occasions on *hich it might mg and employing the common strength. who was not also President might not have."
have been, and it quietly passed from view forma a usual and essential part in the defi- There, in Number 89, Hamilton observed that
the being ref of with slate matters le ration of executive authority." Nowhere in the President's authority as commander in
the Committeexistence Detaa d late July. of the the Federalist is there support for the thesis, chief "would amount to nothing more than
P was still in eh do yet bye any of decided frequently put forward today, that Presides- the supreme command and direction of the
casually remarked, ed tial incumbents, not the Framers, forged the military and naval forces, as first general and
upon, esident's powers rs had Morris yet been
commander-in-chief clause into a potent admiral of the Confederacy." " But clearly
-, Presi as though it were sepossedenn that the the sword." executive instrument. such an interpretation misconceives what
de wqof of the e Pre Pressident of 's the war sword." power The Constitutional oath of office required Hamilton meant by "supreme command and
The direction." In Federalist Number 74, where
Ttquestion
e again in the as to Convention, indirectly, - of the President confirms Hamilton's under- . Hamilton took up the commander-in-chief
In r the e August debate s ti whetexr Con- standing of the como chief
clause. clause again, he explained his meaning as fol-
illuminates t s not itself a grant mon grant of f power, it t a least
lows: "The direction of war implies the di-
aress' control over it war make" war exprese it is
es empoweri s?ing it to "make" wor de- ithe military power granted the e section of the common strength; and the
olare" war. What the delegates wanted was chief executive elsewhere in the document. power of directing and employing the come
to give the legislature the power to bring The oath reads: "I do solemnly swear (OF mstrength. of directing a a usual athe
or bstablish war (they also debated as to affirm) that I will faithfully execute the mon o is the definition of executive and n entiwho should be given the power to "make" office of President of the United States, and part xact ids ve author-
but some of them saw important will, to the best of my ability, preserve, pro- Nowhere fi port fthe thesis, he frequently of eut forward
peace), -
"declare." of meaning between "make" and tact, and defend the Constitution of the Port for that th s s, fre ently put, sat and
"declare." Madison and Elbridge Gerry, for United States." Indeed, the oath seems to today, that nti c umbents not he
example, feared that power in the legislative light up an area which is wider than the executive instrument
branch to "make" 'war might leave none in oommnader-in-chief clause. If the President clause The Into
Constitutional a t potent itutional oath of office required
the executive branch "to repel sudden at- may do all that is necessary to preserve, Pro- President confirms Hamilton's under-
the Constitution whereas a power to "declare" war tact, and defend the Constitution, what is of of the theof the commander-in-chief clause.
would leave the President able to act in an he forbidden to do when the Constitution i8 standing prnergenoy. Roger Sherman, on the other imperiled? It is worth noting that no other If it is nn ot inatesItselfhea granary poweer, it grantedat
hand, believed'the_President could still repel officer of government takes the same oath
federal
ressmen
Con
nt
id
P
,
g
res
e
.
6'ttacks under a Congressional power to as the
"make" war, and he feared that a legislative judges and the executive officers, and all
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S 8796
Approved.For Release 200/ 1/ 72-0 7 0200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD RATE June 10, 1970
the Chief executive elsewhere 133 . the docu-
ment. The opth, reads: 'I do solemnly swear
(or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the
office of President of the United States, and
will, to the best of my ability, preserve, pro-
tect, and defend the Constitution of the
United States." s Indeed, the oath seems to.
light up an area which is wider than the
commander-in-chief clause. If the President
may do all that is necessary to preserve, pro-
tect, and defend the Constitution, what is
he forbidden to do when the Constitution is
imperiled? It is worth noting that no other
officer of government takes the same oath 94
the President. Congressmen, federal judges
and executive officers, and all state officials
are obligated simply "to support this Con-
stitution." 8
The President's war power in the Constitu-
tion does'not rest solely on the commander-
in-chief clause. He is also charged with the
duty "to take care that the laws be faith-
fully executed. "7 This power does not refer
explicitly to military matters, of course, but
it is applicable to them. Rebellion, insur-
rection, and other civil disturbances obstruct
the execution of the laws: May not the
President use military force, If necessary, to
eliminate the obstruction? A reasonable in-
ference from the "take care" clause is that he
may, and Presidents have acted upon it. It
is not surprising, given the implications of
this clause, that James Wilson, a leading
Framer, should describe it in the Pennsyl-
vania ratifying convention as a "power of no
.small magnitude." 8
Finally there is the vesting clause of
Article II of the Constitution. By it, "The
executive power shall be vested in a President
of this; United States of America." 9 There has
been considerable dispute as to whether this
clause makes a general grant of war power
to the President. The issue has two parts:
Does the clause grant general executive
power, and, if so, does that power extend to
military matters?
It has been argued that the vesting clause
merely stipulates the title of the person who
will exercise the executive power enumerated
in the body of the executive article. But this
argument has too much against it. It the
Framers intended the President's executive
power to be limited to an enumeration, why
did they not .say so? They did say, in Article
I, that Congress would possess "all legisla-
tive powers herein enumerated." 19 The Presi-
dential enumeration, moreover, is obviously
incomplete. For example, it Mentions the
President's power to nominate and, with the
Senate's advice and consent, to appoint pub-
lic officials, but it says nothing about the
power of removal. It states that he may re-
quire the written opinions of the heads of
executive departments, but is silent concern-
ing his other relations with officials in the
executive branch. The somewhat sketchy list
of powers in the executive article is satisfac-
torily explained if the vesting clause is seen
to convey general executive power. Under this
interpretation, some powers were enumerated
in the article because they were legislative or
judicial in nature (for example, the veto and
pardon powers) and wottid not otherwise be
possessed by the President. Some were
enumerated for emphasis (apparently the
power to require written reports falls here,
although Hamilton In The Federalist con-
sidered it "a mere redundancy in * the
plan""). And certain enumerations (most
notably, that of the appointment power)
were intended to limit the President's pos-
session of executive powers.
Those Framers who had most to do with
shaping the executive article, James Madison,
ciouverneur Morris, and James Wilson, all
coppidere4 the. vesting clause of the article
,to convey general power to the President.
So did most members of the First Congress
(including most members who'had also been
Framers) when, in establishing executive de-
partments, they denied any power in Con-
gress to control the removal of the heads of
the departments .'s Political practice, and
practical necessity, have supported the gen-
eral-grant theory of executive power.
The more arguable question is whether
executive power includes power over war. At
first glance, this does not seem possible; but
let us examine the question closely. Early
American thinking about the powers of gov-
ernment was influenced mainly by the writ-
ings of. Locke, Montesquieu, and Blackstone,
all of whom had the British government as
their subject of study. It is true that Locke
distinguished the power of executing do-
mestic laws from that of "wax and peace,
leagues and alliances, and all the transac-
tions with all persons and communities
without the commonwealth." He called the
first power "executive" and the second "fed-
erative if any one pleases.... I am indif-
ferent as to the name," but he observed that
they were nearly aways united in the same
hands 18 For Locke, this power corresponds to
the power which every man possessed in the
state of nature to execute the law of nature
for himself. The law of nature is basically
one of self-preservation, and civil societies
execute that law for themselves in their rela-
tions with each other, as did particular men
before they entered into civil society. Mon-
tesquieu maintained Locke's definition of
the two powers, while calling them both
simply "executive," one dealing with do=
mestic and the other dealing with external
matters 1{ In a similar way Blackstone saw
the prerogatives of the British crown to ex-
tend to sending and receiving ambassadors;
making treaties, leagues and alliances; and
making war and peace?2
Among the Framers, Hamilton most clear-
ly expressed the Lockean conception of ex-
ecutive power. The reader is referred to the
statement of Hamilton we have cited in
connection with the commander-In-chief
clause. We might also cite his view In Fed-
eralist Number 78 that "the execution of
the laws, and the employment of the com-
mon strength, either for this purpose or for
the common defense, seem to comprise all
the functions of the executive magistrate." 1s
Hamilton's great argument under the name
of "Pacificus" in defense of Washington's
Neutrality Proclamation of 1793 was
grounded on the belief that the Constitution
gives the President, as part of the executive
power, a general power of transaction af-
fairs with other countries 17 Hamilton's ma-
jor antagonist on the issue of the nature of
executive power was his colaborator in the
writing of the Federalist numbers, James
Madison. Writing as "Helvidius," Madison
responded to Hamilton-Pacificus, denying
that the war and treaty powers were execu-
tive in nature and arguing that the execu-
tive power was concerned with the execu-
tion of the laws 11 Madison appears to have
taken a similar position very early in the
deliberations of the Constitutional Conven-
tion, when he indicated his agreement with
the-views expressed on the subject of the
President's powers by James Wilson. The
only powers which Wilson considered "strict-
ly executive" were those of executing the
laws and appointing officers not appointed
by the legislaturel9
Madison was driven to reply to Hamilton's
"Pacificus" articles by Jefferson's urgent en-
treaty. "For God's sake, my dear sir," Jeffer-
son wrote his friend, "take up your pen,
select the most striking heresies and cut him
to pieces in the face of the public." S9 Well
might Jefferson have been concerned. If the
broad grant of executive power given the
President by the Constitution includes
power over military and, more generally, for-
eign affairs, as Hamilton maintained then
the President's authority in this realm is not
confined to the enumerated powers in Ar-
ticle II and, on'the other hand, Congress's
authority there is confined to the enumer-
ated powers in Article L That is to say, Con-
gress in the military and foreign realm
possesses the power to declare wax and the
Senate the power to approve treaties and
diplomatic appointments, and nothing else;
and these powers, being exceptions to the
general executive power reposed in the Pres-
ident, are to be strictly construed. On the
other hand, if, as Madison maintained, the
broad grant of executive power given the
President does not include power over mili-
tary and international matters, then the
President's authority in this realm is limited
to the enumerated powers in the Article.
The only explicit powers are those of making
treaties and receiving ambassadors, and his
designation as commander in chief of the
army and navy.
It should be noted that Madison's view of
the President's war power is not a narrow
one. With the commander-in-chief clause
apparently in mind, he had this to say about
its scope in one of his Helvidius pieces: "In
war, a physical force is to be created; and it
is the executive will, which is to direct it.
In war, the public treasures are to be un-
locked; and it is the executive hand which is
to dispense them. In war, the honors and
emoluments of office are to be multiplied;
and it is the executive patronage under
which they are to be enjoyed." a He stated
in the Constitutional Convention that the
executive "would necessarily derive so much
power and importance from a state of war
that he might be tempted, if authorized, to
Impede a treaty of peace," and so attempted
to exclude him from participation in such
treaties.a And in the Virginia ratifying con-
vention, he assured his fellow delegates that
the Constitutional Convention had main-
tained the maxim "that the sword and the
purse ought not to be put in the same
hands." zs
Even so, Madison's view of the scope of
the executive power cannot be sustained.
Does he regard the commander-in-chief pow-
jer as executive in nature? If so, then the
general grant of executive power conveyed
in the vesting clause (and which Madison
believed was conveyed in that clause) must
include the power of war and foreign rela-
tions. If not, then what kind of power could
it possibly be? Further, consider his conces-
sion that "the executive may be a convenient
organ of preliminary communications with
foreign governments, on the subjects of
treaty or war." 20 Upon what is this con-
venience based? What of the various other
transactions which the United States must
have with foreign governments? They, too,
seem to come conveniently, or naturally,
within the domain of the President, and yet
no explicit power is given to him by the Con-
stitution. And what about the Presidential
oath? The words "preserve, protect, and de-
fend" in the oath must have had special
meaning to Madison, for he co-sponsored
the amendment which added them there?'
Does the sweep of these words contemplate
nothing more than a chief executive who
makes treaties and receives ambassadors and
a commander in chief who directs the physi-
cal force of the nation, as important as these
powers may be? Do they not call to mind
someone who will be much concerned with
"the cpllective interest and security?"-an
expression which Madison himself, inci-
dentally, used at one point in the Conven-
tion to describe the power of the execu-
tive 21
The fact is that,Madison did not consis-
tently si}stain his own position, expressed in
the early- Convention deliberations as Hel-
vidius, regarding the nature of executive
power; nor that expressed as Helvidius re-
garding the scope of the power given the
President by the Constitution. Nor did Wil-
son appear to have been more consistent. If
the executive power consists of executing the
laws and appointing" to office, as he, along
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 10, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
with Madison s ted in the convention de11b-
erations, referre to, how could he speak as
follows on the subject of the Senate's powers:
"Besides their legislative powers, they possess
three others, viz: trying impeachinents, con-
curring in making treaties, and in appointing
officers"? 21 Note also Wilson's observation
stitution ",'secured all the internal advantages
of a repubilc,'at the same time that it main-
tained tjIe external dignity and force of a
monarchy." Clearly, Madison and Wilson
found it easier to expel war and foreign af-
fairs from the domain of executive power
than to keep them out. Their difficulty, we
may suggest, lay in the fact that war and
foreign affairs are from a theoretical point of
view most reasonably explained as being ex-
ecutive, or akin to executive, in nature; and
from a practical point of view most reason-
ably entrusted, in major Part at least, to the
President.
There is considerable evidence that the
Framers generally were inclined to view the
powers of war and foreign affairs as executive.
They did not, by and large, object to having
the President possess these powers but only
'to his possessing them without limitation.
They were anxious that he not be enabled to
launch a war, although they did want him
to be able to act in an emergency; and'they
wished to prevent him from making treaties,
especially treaties of peace, on his own
authority.
The question of the President's powers
arose in the first days of the Constitutional
Convention. One of the Virginia Resolutions
stipulated that the executive under the
Constitution would "possess the executive
powers of Congress" under the Confedera-
tion (there being no executive branch under
that government). Charles Pinckney said
he was fora "vigorous executive but was
afraid the executive powers of the existing
Congress might extend to peace and war,
etc.," and John Rutledge plainly objected
that ",he was not for giving him [the ex-
ecutive] the power of war and peace" m By
the power of war and peace, as the context
makes clear, was meant that of "launching"
war and "concluding" peace. The same mean-
ing was usually conveyed in the Convention
debates by the expression "make" war and
peace, used in the sense of, making a law
or making a treaty.SO The point needs some
emphasis inasmuch as the use of the term
"make" war in the Constitutional Conven-
tion is sometimes misunderstood to mean
"wage" war. In order to meet these objec-
tions, the delegates amended the resolu-,
tion to provide that the power of the yet-
to-be-organized executive would be "to carry
into effect the national laws" and "'to ap-
point to offices in cases not otherwise pro-
vided for." 81 But the, delegates could not
have seriously meant so to limit the powers
that could be given the President. Certainly
the resolution was never invoked fOr that
purpose; despite occasions on which it might
have been, and it quietly passed from view
after being referred with other matters to
the Committee of Detail In ],ate July. While
it was still in existence and before any of
the President's powers had yet been de-
cided upon, Gouverneur Morris casually re-
marked, as though it were self-evident, that
the President_would be "in possession of the
sword." 82.
The question of the President's war power
came up again in the Convention, indirectly,
'-tl}e August debate as to whether Con-
gress control over war, should bq expressed
as eiilpoweriiig it' to izmake" war or "de-
clare' war 82 Wet, t}le,delegates wanted was
to give the legis legislature the power to bring on
or establish war (they also debated as to who
should be given the power to "make" peace),
but some of t leW Caw important nuances of
meaning between "make" and "declare."
Madison and Elbridge Berry, for example,
feared that power in the legislative branch
to "make" war might leave none in the exec-
utive branch "to repel sudden attacks,"
whereas a power to "declare" war would leave
the President able to act in an emergency.
Roger Sherman, on the other hand, believed
the President could still repel attacks under
a Congressional power to "make" war, and
he feared that a legislative power to "de-
clare" war would imply an executive one
to "commence" war. Whatever effect the
decision to give Congress the power to "de-
clare" rather than "make" war has had, dele-
gates to the Constitutional Convention
thought it would draw less of the war power
from the executive reservoir 14
The broad war and foreign relations pow-
ers of the President were also recognized in
the legislation enacted by the First Con-
gress, which, containing many of the Fram-
ers, has been called a continuing Constitu-
tional Convention. The act establishing the
Treasury Department, concerning whose
business the President was given no author-
ity by the Constitution, delegated the duties
of the Secretary to him; but the acts estab-
lishing the Foreign Affairs and War Depart-
ments stated, in identical language that the
Secretary would "perform and execute such
duties as shall, from time to time, be en-
joyed on or entrusted to him by the Presi-
dent." 2s Incidentally, when the same Con-
gress changed the name of the Foreign Af-
fairs Department to that of the Department
of State, in order that it might assume cer-
tain domestic responsibilities, It-did not hesi-
tate to specify the added duties of the
Secretary.
Even Jefferson, who professed no love for a
vary energetic government, shared the broad
view of the executive power. In fact, his re-
marks on the subject sound Hamiltonian. In
September, 1789, he wrote Madison as fol-
lows: "We have already given in example, one
effectual check to the dog of war, by trans-
ferring the power of declaring war from the
executive to the legislative, from those who
are to spend, to those who are to pay." 88 In
an opinion he prepared in his capacity as
Secretary of State he declared: "The trans-
action of business with foreign nations is ex-
ecutive altogether. It belongs, then, to the
head of that Department [that is, branch],
except as to such portions of it as are espe-
cially submitted to the Senate. Exceptions
are to be construed strictly." 37 In writing the
American ambassador to France in 1793, he
commenced that "the executive [is] charged
with the direction of the military force of the
Union, and the conduct of its affairs with
foreign nations." 88 Finally, if further proof
is needed, Secretary of State Jefferson, also
in 1793, informed Citizen Genet that the
President, "being the only channel of com-
munication between this country and foreign
nations, it is from him alone that foreign
nations or their agents are to learn what is
or has been the will of the nation." 49
We may summarize as follows: The Con-
stitution gives the President broad power in
the realm of war and foreign relations; and
this power appears to be conveyed not only
through specific grants in Article II but also
and more fully through a general grant of
power contained in the vesting clause of the
Article. If this last is true, and, as we have
pointed out, the evidence is not undisputed,
then Congress' power to declare war and the
Senate's power to ratify treaties are excep-
tions to the general grant. As exceptions, they
are to be strictly construed; what was not ex-
pressly taken from the 'President remains
with him.
In our concern with the executive powers
of the President, we should not overlook the
legislative powers of Congress. The legislative
branch, possesses formidable powers of its
owns-11ot just slices from the executive
stock-which give it extensive direction over
S 8797
the conduct of war and foreign affairs by
the President. The' most significant powers
dealing directly with these subjects author-
ize Congress "to provide for the common de-
fense," "raise and support armies," and "pro-
vide and maintain a navy." 40 In addition,
Congress has received from the Constitution
powers primarily of a non-military character
which have an important bearing upon mili-
tary matters. The stipulation that all money
drawn from the Treasury be under appropri-
ation acts reinforces the powers just cited,
and the power to regulate commerce with
foreign nations furnishes a basis for legisla-
tive direction of some aspects of foreign pol-
icy, as well as the conduct of hostilities at
sea.41 Finally, the so-called sweeping clause
of the Constitution gives Congress broad au-
thority to carry into execution by legislation
the President's powers over military and for-
eign affairs.42 Thus, despite all the President's
authority in military and foreign affairs, Con-
gress, as Story has said, has "a controlling
influence over the executive power, since it
holds at its command all the resources by
which a chief magistrate could make himself
formidable. It possesses the power over the
purse of the nation, and the property of the
people. It can grant, or withhold supplies; it
can levy, or withdraw taxes; it can unnerve
the power of the sword by striking down the
arm which wields it." 43
CONCL V SION
We may summarize our argument as fol-
lows: The Constitution grants the President
broad war-making powers. This judgment
is supported by express provisions of the
executive article, including the Presidential
oath. It appears also to be supported by the
vesting clause of the article. The vesting
clause, we have argued, conveys general ex-
ecutive power to the President, and this
power includes not only that of executing
the laws but that of war and foreign affairs
as a whole. This general power is both illus-
trated and qualified in the enumeration of
powers in the executive article, and qualified
by the delegation of certain executive func-
tions to Congress. With respect to the war
power, Congress was given authority to de-
clare war and, through the Senate's par-
ticipation in treaties, to conclude peace.
Our interpretation of the nature of ex-
ecutive power is that made by the writers
on government from whom the principle of
separation of powers was derived. Our in-
terpretation of the executive power vested
by the Constitution in the President best
comports with the terms of the document
and the necessities of government. There is
considerable evidence to support both in-
terpretations in the deliberations of the Con-
stitutional Convention and in other views
expressed and actions taken by members of
the founding generation, although the evi-
dence is not uncontroverted. Some persons
at the time of the formation of the govern-
ment appear to have been uncertain with
respect to the exact nature and scope of the
President's executive power; some expressed
the belief that the executive power was lim-
ited basically to the execution of the laws
(with the supervisory power over executive
personnel that this Implied), although they
also tended to express views supporting our
broader interpretation as well; and some
appear to have believed that the executive
power extended to all of the war power ex-
cept that of launching war and making
peace, which they considered to be legis-
lative powers. The weight of the evidence
supports the position we have argued.
However great, the President's war power
is limited. If he employs the force of the
community, it is the legislative branch
which, as Locke tells us, "has a right to
direct how the force of the community shall
be employed."" The President is in posses-
sion of the sword but it is one which Con-
gress has selected and whose condition it
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 S 8798
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE June 10, 1970
ensures; he wields the vteapon but, unless
attacked, when and against whom it directs.
And yet Congress, as Locke also tells is, is
much less capable of directing the Presi-
dent's actions in the military and foreign
domain than When he acts in his ordinary
executive capacity. Such actions "must be
left in great part to the prudence of those
who have this power committed to them to
be managed by the best of their skill for the
advantage of the commonwealth."' " Indeed,
without denying Congress's ultimate Consti-
tutional control over the war power, are there
not circumstances when the President might
be justified in acting outside of the law?
What 11 "a strict and rigid observation of
the laws may do harm, as not to pull down
an innocent man's house to stop the fire
when the next to it is b}lrning?" 46 But we
need not borrow from Locke for our author-
ity: Does not the Constitution, contemplat-
ing its own preservation, oblige the President
to preserve and protect and defend it?
r'ooTNOTsS
Art. I, sec. 2, para. 1.
The quotation is from Edward S. Corwin,
The President; Office and Powers (New York:
New York University Press, 1948) , p. 276,
but many others have said substantially the
same thing. For a recent example, see Joseph
E. Kallenbach, The American Chief Execu-
tive (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), p.
526..
Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James
Madison,. The Federalist (New York: Modern
Library, 1937), p. 448.
A Ibid., p. 482.
6 Art. II, sec. 1, para. 9.
6 Art. VI, para. 3.
V Art. II, sec. 3 and sec. 1, para. 1, respec-
tively.
6 Jonathan Elliot, rd., The Debates in the
Several State Conventions on the Adoption
of the Federal Constitution, and ed. (Wash-
ington: Jonathan Elliot, 1836), vol. II, p.
474. See also Federalist No. 70, op. cit., pp.
454-63.
6 Art. II, sec. 1, para. 1.
11 Art. I, sec. 1, para. 1.
11 No. 74, op. cit., p. 482.
12 See Charles C. Thach, The Creation of
the Presidency, 1775-1789 (Baltimore: The
Johns Hopkins Press, 1922), ch. VI, "The
Removal Debate," pp. 140-165.
John Locke, Two Treatises on Civil Gov-
ernment, Book I$, sees, 14$-48.
14 Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws,
Book XI, esp. ch. 6.
"William Blackstone, Commentaries on
the Laws of England, vol. I, pp. 252-58.
1e Op.cit., p. 486. Compare this language
with Locke's reference to the power "of em-
ploying the force of the community in the
execution of such laws, and in the defense
of the commonwealth from foreign Injury.-
(OP-Cit., Book II, ch. 1, sec. 3).
"Alexander Hamilton, "Pacifirus," in
Works, ed. by Henry Cabot Lodge (Putnam's
Sons, 1940), col. IV, pp. 432-89.
1,1 James Madison, "Letters of Heividius," in
Writings, ed. by Gaillard Hunt (New York:
G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1904). vol. VI, pp.
143-82.
19 Max.Farrand, ed., Records of the Federal
Convention of 1787; rev, ed. (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1937) vol. I, pp. 65-67,
June 1 (Madison's notes); p. 70, June 1
(King's notes).
90 Madison, op.cit., vol. VI, p. 138 n.
"Letters of, iwlelividius," No. IV, op.cit., p.
174.
m Farrand, op.cit., vol. II, Sept. 7, p. 540
(Maddson's notes).
98 Elliot, op.cit., vol. III, p. 367.
9, "Letters of Helvidius," No. I, p. 146.
11 Farrand, op.cit., vol. II, Aug. 27, p. 427
(Madison's notes).
911bid., July 17, p. 34 (Madison's notes).
2' Elliot, op.cit., vol. II, p. 474. Emphasis
supplied. This place in the Pennsylvania rati-
fying convention, but see also his comments
in the Constitutional Convention in Far-
rand, op.cit., vol. II, Sept. 6, p. 523 (Madi-
B Farrand, op.cit., vol. III, p. 139.
m Farrand, op. cit., vol. I. June 1, pp. 64-65
ifestations date from the lend-lease pro-
gram of 1941. It is, I believe, regrettable
that it has taken a crisis to bring the
question into the spotlight and demand
action upon it. But the failure to re-
'*See, for example, ibid., vol. I, pp. 73-74
("making peace and war"); vol. II, p. 318
("It would be singular for one authority to
make ware and, another peace"), p. 319
("there is a material difference between the
cases of making war, and making peace");
vol. III, p. 405 (the power "of making war,
was divided between the Senate and the
House of Representatives"-not from the de-
bates but from a letter by Morris).
S17bid., June 1, p. 65 (Madison's notes).
ax Ibid., vol. II, July 24, p. 105 (Madison's
notes). Morris later in the Convention re-
ferred to the President as "the general
guardian of the national interests." (Ibid.,
Sept. 7, p. 541 [Madison's notes] ).
66Ibid., vol. II, August 17, pp. 318-19
(Madison's notes).
as Although not directly relevant to our dis-
cussion, it should be mentioned that some
delegates also shared Rufus King's concern
"that 'make' war might be understood to
[mean] 'conduct' it, which was an executive
function." (Ibid., p. 319).
m Laws of the United States, vol. II, secs.
6, 32, 48.
81 Letter to James Madison, Sept. 6, 1789, in
Thomas Jefferson, Writings, ed. by Andrew A.
Lipscomb and Albert E. Bergh (Washington:
The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assn., 1903),
vol. VII, p. 461. Emphasis supplied.
07 "Opinion," Apr. 24, 1970, ibid., vol. III, p.
16. Emphasis supplied.
36 Letter to Gouverneur Morris, Aug. 16,
1793, ibid., vol. IX, p. 195.
as Letter to Edmond C. Genet, Nov. 22, 1793,
ibid., p. 256..
46 Art. I, sec. 8. Other grants in this section
authorize Congress "to define and punish
piracies and felonies committed on the high,,.
seas, and offences against the law of na-
tions"; "make rules for the government and
regulation of the land and naval forces";
"provide for calling forth the militia to exe-
cute the laws of the union, suppress Insur-
rections, and repel invasions"; "provide for
organizing, arming, and disciplining the
militia, and for governing such parts of them
as may be employed in the service of the
United States"; and "exercise exclusive legis-
lation in all cases. whatsoever . over all
places purchased by the consent of the legis-
lature of the state in which the same shall
be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arse-
nals, dockyards, and other needful build-
ings." The Fourth Amendment indirectly
grants power to Congress: "No soldier shall,
in time of peace be quartered in any house
without the consent of the owner, nor in
time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law." And the habeas corpus provision of
Art. I, sec. 9, in a negative way gives power
either to Congress or the President, or to
both: "The privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus shall not be suspended, unless when
in cases of rebellion or invasion the public
safety may require it."
"Art. I, sees. 9 and 8, respectively.
42 Art. I, sec. 8.
46 Joseph Story,Commentaries on the Con-
stitution of the United States (Boston: Lit-
tle, Brown, 1858), vol. I, p. 372.
S4 Locke, op. cit., Bk II, sec. 143.
41 Ibid., see. 147.
46 Ibid., sec. 159.
AMENDMENT NO. 687
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the ques-
tion of congressional prerogatives in the
area of foreign affairs and war is not a
new one. It goes back to the framing of
the Constitution. Its more modern man-
just that.
While the Senators and Representa-
tives who voted for the Tonkin Gulf res-
olution certainly did not intend to vote
for a major war of indeterminate dura-
tion, the language of that resolution is
clear: d quote:
(T) he'United States is, therefore, prepared,
as the President determines, to take all
necessary steps, including the use of armed
force, to assist any member or protocol state
of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense
Treaty requesting assistance in defense of
its freedom.
Three conditions are imposed under
the resolution: First, the President must
decide that force is necessary, second,
the force must be used in a SEATO mem-
ber or protocol state, and third, the state
in which the force is used must have re-
quested U.S. assistance.
These three conditions have been met
in Southeast Asia-first in Vietnam,
later in Cambodia, Even without the res-
olution, the President has maintained,
with I believe some legal basis, that he
has had authority to undertake the ac-
tions which he has ordered. In addition
to this, the realities of the military situa-
tion led to the conclusion that the area
of Cambodia entered by U.S. troops had
for some time been a theater of war, a
sanctuary for enemy troops operating in
South Vietnam.
Accordingly, it was the President's pre-
rogative as Commander in Chief to go
in. One of the sponsors of the Cooper-
Church amendment, Senator CHURCH,
has stated that neither he nor Senator
COOPER have based sponsorship of their
amendment on the belief that the Presi-
dent acted illegally or exceeded his au-
thority under the Constitution.
Consequently, it is policy-future pol-
icy concerning Cambodia-with which
the Senate should now concern itself.
The Senate, regardless of the dim pros-
pects for agreement with the House,
should express itself and attempt to par-
ticipate in the formulation of our future
policy in Cambodia. The Cooper-Church
amendment seeks to do this. It might be
viewed as an attempt to redefine the
theater of the war, not to determine how
to conduct the war within an authorized
theater. I believe a majority of the Sen-
ate wishes to join an expression against
the use of U.S. forces in Cambodia in
support of Cambodian troops or in sup-
port of any Cambodian Government. I
know a majority of the Senate share my
fear of a widening land war in Asia in-
volving U.S. troops. What I believe the
Senate should do is state a clear caveat
against this in a manner that does not
impinge upon the President's authority
as Commander in Chief, and is consis-
tent with its own constitutional preroga-
tives, including the appropriation of
funds.
Certainly I do not want to endanger
further a single U.S. serviceman who is
in Southeast Asia, nor do I wish to be
a party to anything that could delay the
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP7-pp~7R000200240017-3 S8799
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
June j 0, i i i
announced disengagement of our troops
from South Vietnam. On the other hand,
I do not believe the Senate wishes to
grant broader powers in Cambodia to the
President as Commander in Chief with-
out his having to consult with Congress
prior to entering a new theater of war.
The senator from West Virginia (Mr.
BYRD) seeks to guarantee the protection
of our troops in South Vietnam and, to
facilitate the withdrawal of U.S. forces
from South Vietnam by modifying the
Cooper-Church amendment as follows:
Except that the foregoing provisions of
this clause shall not preclude the President
from taking such action as may be necessary
to protect the lives of United States forces
South
drawaiof United States forces from South
Vietnam.
Or, the Senator from West Virginia
seeks to modify the language as follows.
I ask unanimous consent to have this
language, as previously submitted by the
Senator, printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the modifi-
cation of amendment No. 667 was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
5 line 7 before the semicolon
O
a
AMENDMENT NO. 687
In the belief that the Cooper-Church
language would not be damaged if we
spell out the authority we presently un-
derstand the President to have as Com-
mander in Chief and if we redefine the
theater of operations, I propose the fol-
lowing language. I do so mindful of the
parliamentary situation, which, in the
absence of unanimous consent, would re-
quire that the Byrd amendment be voted
upon first. Also, I offer the language with
the knowledge that it is difficult to spell
out the specifics of the President's pres-
ent independent authority as Com-
mander in Chief. The language is as
follows :
Except that the foregoing provisions of
this clause shall not prevent the President
from taking action along the Cambodian
border with South Vietnam to forestall
enemy attacks from that area into South
Vietnam, to repel such attacks once they
are in progress, and to engage enemy forces
fleeing from South Vietnam into that area
of Cambodia, if the President as commander-
in-chief concludes that such action is es-
sential to the protection of United States
troops in South Vietnam and to their with-
drawal from that country.
As has been stated in the debate, we
are operating in a gray area in determin-
ing senatorial and presidential constitu-
tional prerogatives. This makes it neces-
sary that the Senate define its position
as clearly as possible.
Mr. President, I send this amendment
to the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CRANSTON). Without abjection, the
amendment will be,received and printed
and will lie on the table.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, what is the pending question
before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
pending question is the adoption of the
amendment of the Senator from West
Virginia.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, for the record, may I say that
it is my present intention to submit anew
tomorrow the unanimous-consent re-
quest which I made today and to which
there has been objection.
n p
g
insert a comma and the following: "except
that the foregoing provisions of this clause
shall not preclude the President from taking
only such action as is necessary, in the exer-
cise
ass Commander in Chief, lto powers and duties
protect the lives
of United states forces in South Vietnam or
to facilitate the withdrawal of United States
forces from South Vietnam; and the Presi-
dent is requested to consult with Congres-
sional leaders prior to using any United
States forces in Cambodia if, as Commander
in chief, he determines that the use of
such forces is necessary to protect the lives
of United states. forces in South Vietnam or
to facilitate the withdrawal of United States
forces from South Vietnam;"
Mr. SPONG. I believe this language,
which has a commendable purpose, could
be subject to a broad interpretation, an
interpretation that would allow the Pres-
ident to widen the conflict beyond the
-theater of war along the South Vietnam-
ese-Cambodian border. It is also subject
to interpretation that would sanction the
use of U.S. forces in Cambodia in support
of Cambodian forces anywhere in Cam-
bodia,, despite the stated opposition of its
sponsor, Senator'BYRD, to such policy at
this time.
TRANSACTION OF ADDITIONAL
ROUTINE BUSINESS
- By unanimous consent, the following
additional routine business was trans-
acted:
ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF A
BILL
a. 364
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I ask unanimous consent that,
at the next printing, the name of the
Senator from Washington (Mr. JACK-
soN) be added as a cosponsor of S. 364,
the Uniform Services Retirement Pay
Equalization Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CRANSTON). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN
MILITARY SALES ACT-AMEND-
MENT
AMENDMENT NO. 687
Mr. SPONG submitted an amendment,
intended to be proposed by him, to the
bill-H.R. 15628-to amend the Foreign
Military Sales Act, which was ordered
to lie on the table and to be printed.
(The remarks of Mr. SPONG when he
submitted the amendment appear later
in the RECORD under the appropriate
heading.)
ADDITIONAL COSPONSOR OF AN
AMENDMENT
AMENDMENT NO. 674
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, on behalf of the Senator from
Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT), I ask unanimous
consent that, at the next printing, the
name of the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH) be added as a cosponsor
of amendment No. 674 to S. 3112, to re-
quire an investigation and study, includ-
ing research, into possible uses of solid
wastes resulting from mining and proc-
essing coal.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CRANSTON). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
RECESS UNTIL 11 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, if there be no further business to
come before the Senate, I move, in ac-
cordance with the previous order, that
the Senate stand in recess until 11
o'clock tomorrow morning.
The motion -was agreed to; and (at
7 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.) the Sen-
ate took a recess until tomorrow, Thurs-
day, June 11, 1970, at 11 a.m.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
SET
Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 2
Tuesday - 9 June 1970
5. (Secret - JGO) The transcript of the Director's testimony
of 13 March 1970 was forwarded to Senate Foreign Relations Committee
and returned at the close of business.
6. (Confidential - JGO) Talked to Mr. Roy Banner, General
Counsel, NSA, who advised that he would be meeting later in the day
with Mr. Frank Bartimo and Mr. Robert Andrews of Department of
Defense General Counsel. He noted that prior to this office's
conversation yesterday with Messrs. Bartimo and Andrews, DOD
General Counsel had in effect filed Chairman Henderson's letter
for later consideration.
7. (Confidential - GLC) Saw Charles Campbell, Administrative
Assistant to Senator Richard B. Russell (D., Ga.), and asked him if
Mr. Maury's letter on served his purposes. Campbell
said it had. He said he was forwarding a copy of our letter to
as we had expected.
8. (Confidential - GLC) Talked to Richard Spears, Special
Research Assistant to Senator George Murphy (R., Calif. ), about a
constituent letter from Thomas M. Caffo asking about Representative
Tunney's allegations to the effect that CIA was supporting an opium
war in Laos, I referred to Mr. Maury's conversation with the Senator
on this subject and left with Spears a copy of the New Yorker article on
this subject and our commentary on the article which he could draw on
in responding to Mr. Caffo. Spears said he would touch base with the
Senator on this and thanked me for the backup material.
9. (Confidential - JMM) Called Ed Braswell, Chief of Staff, Senate
Armed Services Committee, to say that we were prepared to provide an
oral briefing in response to his request regarding the military situation
and economic outlook in Cambodia. Braswell said his schedule was
crowded and uncertain and he would have to call us back to fix a date.
25X1A
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 8, 1970,
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE H 5201
tee goes back to review the total pro-
gram and come up with a recommenda-
tion not only on the part of the
subcommittee and the full committee
studying the problem but also the Eco-
nomic Development Administration.
Mr. PICKLE. I thank the gentleman
for those comments.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. Will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. PICKLE. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. DON H. CLAUSEN. I want to state
to the' gentleman in the well that this
is one of the primary reasons why our
committee has made the decision simply
to extend this legislation for the one
year. In this way we can take into ac-
.,count all the factors such as the one the
gentleman is concerned about.
Mr. PICKLE. I thank the gentleman.
I do hope that the Economic Develop-
ment Administration will come up with
a solution to this matter. Here in this
county of my district they have been
planning for 4 years and getting ready
to do something; but they have never been
brought under the program. This ought
to be changed. The gentleman recog-
nizes this, I am sure. I want the gentle-
man to understand that I am not trying
to rewrite the eligibility standards. I be-
lieve they should be changed. But in this
particular instance, if a county is to re-
ceive planning money, it ought to be a
part of this program. So at the time that
this bill is presented in a year from now
or when it comes up in the other body,
we should get some relief. This does not
automatically mean that the county will
get the money. It means they will have
to still be approved. It means that they
will be considered eligible and not neces-
sarily that they will receive the money.
Mr. HARSHA. I hope, with the assur-
aXice of the Members on the floor today
that we will give your proposition very
serious consideration, you will withhold
offering any amendment at this time and
let us take it up in due course in the full
committee.
Mr. PICKLE. In view of the fact that
you have asked the Economic Develop-
meat Administration's office downtown
to give you specific recommendations
looking toward working this solution, to-
gether with the Department of Labor,
and the strong assertions made here on
the floor, I will not offer the amendment.
But I do ask the committee to try to
oo t this inequity.
CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentle-
man from Minnesota (Mr. BLATNl[x).
The amendment was agreed to.
'T'he CXTA AN. Under the rule, the
Committee ristes.
Accordingly the Committee -rose; and
the Speaker Having resluned the chair,
Mr. SLACK, Chairman of the Commit-
tee of the 'hole House on the State of
the t1nionn reported that the Committee,
having had a under' consideration the bill
(H.R. 157(12)to amend the Public Works
and Economic"Development Act of 1965
to extend the authorizations for titles I
through IV'through i`fscal yeaf1971, pur-
su fIt to Mouse"T esolution' 1045, he re-
portec`thebill back to the Touse with an
amendment adopted by the Committee
of the. Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The-question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
MOTION TO RECOMMIT OFFERED BY MR. ZION
Mr. ZION. Mr. Speaker, I offer a mo-
tion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. ZION. I am in its present form, Mr.
Speaker.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. ZION moves to recommit the bill H.R.
15712 to the Committee on Public Works.
The SPEAKER. Without objection, the
previous question is ordered on the mo-
tion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
passage of the bill.
The bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. HARSHA. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend their remarks on the bill just
passed and to include extraneous matter.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
There was no objection.
PERMISSION FOR SUBCOMMITTEE
ON NATIONAL PARKS AND REC-
REATION, COMMITTEE ON IN-
TERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS,
TO SIT DURING GENERAL DEBATE
TODAY
Mr. HALEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that the Subcommittee on
National Parks and Recreation of the
Committee on Interior and Insular Af-
fairs may sit today during general de-
The SPEAKNA. Is there- objection to
Florida? (. - '
There was n
AUTHORIZING SELECT COMMITTEE
TO STUDY RECENT DEVELOP-
MENTS IN SOUTHEAST ASIA AND
TO REPORT ITS FINDINGS
Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, by direction of the Committee
on Rules, I call up House Resolution 976
and ask for its immediate consideration,
The Clerk read the resolution as fol-
lows :
Resolved, That
(1) The Speaker of the House shall ap-
point a select committee of eleven Members
of the House, two from the Armed Services
Committee, two from the Foreign Affairs
Committee, and seven from the House at
large and shall designate one Member to
serve as chairman, which select committee
shall immediately proceed to Southeast Asia
to investigate all aspects of the United States
military involvement in Southeast Asia. The
select committee shall, within thirty days of
the adoption of this resolution, report to the
House the results of its investigation.
(2) For the purpose of carrying out this
resolution the committee is authorized to sit
and act during the present Congress at such
times and places whether the House is sit-
ting, has recessed, or has adjourned.
Mr. ROSENTHAL (during the read-
ing). Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state his point of order.
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, in the
resolution according to the copy that has
been given out what the Clerk read has
been stricken from the resolution, the
"whereas" clauses.
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state
to the gentleman that that is a com-
mittee amendment. The Chair was about
to instruct the Clerk to report the com-
mittee amendments after the original
resolution had been read.
The Clerk will report the first commit-
tee amendment.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 2, line 1,
strike out all of line 1, and insert the fol-
lowing: "committee of twelve Members of
the House, six of which shall be from the
majority party and six from the minority
party, as follows: two from the".
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
committee amendment.
Mr. CAREY. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, will it be in order
under the resolution to attempt to rein-
state the "whereas" clauses if it be
stricken without objection?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state
that if the committee amendment is
voted down then of course the original
language will be before the House.
Mr. CAREY. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the committee amendment.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HOSMER. What is the matter now
being considered by the House?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state
that the matter now before the House is
the committee amendment to House Res-.
olution 976, page 2, beginning in line
and going down to the words "from the"
in line 4. That is-the committee amend-
ment that is pending at the present time.
The question is on the committee
amendment.
The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. CAREY. Mr. Speaker, I object to
the vote on the ground that a quorum is
not present, and make the point of order
that a quorum is not present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify absent
Members, and the Clerk will call the
roll.
Approved for Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 H 5202 Approved For Rene ~ gNe ,Cft~BW-Y-00 bgJ0200240017-3 June 8, 1970
The ? question was taken; and there Monagan Pike
were-yeas 227, nays 95, not voting 107, Morgan Podeu
aS follows Moss Randall
Murphy, Ill. Rees
YEAS---227
Abbitt Flowers Mosher
Adair Flynt Myers
Anderson, Ill. Foreman Natcher
Anderson, Fountain Nelsen
Tenn, Frelinghuysen O'Neal, Ga.
Andrews, Ala, Frey Pell-
Andrews, Fuqua Pettis
N. Dak. Galiflanakis Pickle
Annunzio
Areads
BAshle Md.
Belcher
Bell, Calif.
Bennett
Bette
Bevill
Biester
Blackburn
Blanton
Blatnik
Goldwater
Goodiing
Grriifiin
Grover
Gubser.
Gude
Hamilton Reid, Ill.
Hammer- Relfel
schlnidt Rhodes
Hanna Riegle
Hansen, Idaho Roberts
Harsha Rogers
Colo
,
.
Brinkley Harvey Rogers, Fla.
Brock -Heckler, Mass. Roth
Broomfield Henderson Ruppe
Brotzman Hogan Sandman
Brown, Mich. Horton Satterfield
Brown, Ohio Hosmer Saylor
Broyhill, N.C. Howard Schneebeli
Broyhill, Va. Hunt Schwengel
Buchanan Hutchinson Scott
Burke, Fla, Ichord Sebelius
Burleson, Tex. Jarman Shriver
Burleson, Mo. Johnson, Calif. Sikes
Burton, Utah Johnson, Pa. Sisk:
Button Jonas Skubitz
Byrnes, Wis. Jones, N.C. Slack
Caffery Kazen Smith, Calif.
Camp Kee
Casey Keith
Cederberg King
Chamberlain Kleppe
Chappell Kluczynski
Clancy Kuykendall
Clausen, Kyl
Don H. Landgrebe
Clawson, Del Langen
Cleveland Latta
Collier Lennon
Collins Lloyd
Conable Long, La.
Corbett Lukens
Coughlin McClory
Cramer McCloskey
Crane McClure
Cunningham McCulloch
Daniels, N.J. McDade
Davis, Ga. McDonald,
Davis, Wis. Mich.
de la Garza McKneally
Dellenback. Madden
Dennis
Devine
Mahon
Maiuiard
Dickinson Martin
Duncan Matsunaga
Dwyer May
Edmondson Mayne
Edwards, Ala. Meeds
Edwards, La. Mglcher
Erlenborn , Michel
Esch Minshall
Eshleman
Evins, Tenn.
Fallon
Feighan
'Findley
Adams
Addabbo
Albert
Anderson,
Cal
Biaggif.
BBrooks Fraser
Bunke, Mass. Frdedel
Cabell
Carey
Caller
Clark
Clay
Cobelan
Cochran
Delaney
Montgomery
Morse
Morton
Pirnie
Poage
Puff
Price, Tex.
Pryor, Ark.
Purcell
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Snyder
Springer
Stafford
Stanton
Steiger, Ariz.
Steiger, Wis.
Stephens
Stubblefield
Stuckey
Taft
Talcott
Taylor
Teague, Calif.
Tea?'ue, Tex.
Thompson, Ga.
Thomson, Wis.
Udall
Vander Jagt
Waggonner
Wampler
Watson
Watts
Whalen
White
Widnall
Wig?ins,
Wilson,
Charles H.
Winn.
Wright
Wyatt
Wydler
Wylie
Wyman
Zion
Zwach
,NAYS=Bb
Dent Hays
Donohue Hechier, W. Va.
Eckhardt Helstoski
( UbQns
Gonzalez
Green, Pa.
8;,1Mtl):s
rocs
1,..
thaway
Hawkins
Edwards, Calif. Hicks
Eilberg Holifleld
Evans, Colo. Hull
Flood Jacobs
Ford, Kavak
William D. Kastenmeier
Koch
Leggett
Long, Md.
Lowenstein
McFall
Macdonald,
Mass.
Mikya
Miller, Ohio
M h
Mink
M
Quie
Quillen
Obey
O'Hara,
O'Konski
Olsen
Patman
Patten
Perkins
Philbin
Sullivan
Tiernan
Tunny
Ullman
Van Deerlin
Vanik
Waldie
Wolff
Yates
Yatron
Young
Zablocki
Rodin
Rooney, Pa.
Rosenthal
Rostenkowski
Roybal
Ryan
Scherle
Shipley
Stokes
Abernethy Ford, Gerald R. O'Neill, Mass.
Alexander Fulton, Tenn. Ottinger
Ashbrook Gallagher Passman
Aspinall Gaydos Pepper
Ayres Gettys Pollock
Baring Glaimo
Barrett Gilbert
Boiling Green. Oreg.
Brasco Halpern Railsback
Bray Hanley Reid, N.Y.
Brown, Calif. Hansen, Wash. Reuse
Burton, Calif. Harrington Rivers
Bush Hastings Robison
Carter Hebert Roe
Chisholm
Colmer
Conte
Conyers
Cowger
Culver
Daddario
Daniel, Va.
Dawson
Derwinski
Diggs
Dingell
Dorn
Dowdy
Downing
Dulski
Farbstein
Fascell
Fish
Fisher
Foley
So the
agreed to.
Jones, Ala.
Jones, Tenn.
Kirwan
Kyros
Landrum
Lujafi
McCarthy
McEwen
McMillan
MacGregor
Mann
Mathias
Meskill
Miller, Calif.
Mills
Mollohan
Moorhead
Murphy, N.Y.
Nichols
Nix
Powell
Preyer, N.C.
Price, Ill.
Rooney, N.Y.
Roudebush
Ruth
St Germain
Schadeberg
Scheuer
Staggers
Steed
Stratton
Symington
Thompson, N.J.
Vigorito
Watkins
Weicker
Whalley
Whitehurst
Whitten
Williams
Wilson, Bob
Wold
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Hebert with Mr. Gerald R. Ford.
Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts with Mr.
Wilson.
Mr. Staggers with Mr. Bray.
Mr. Whitten with Mr. Bow.
M>'. Passman with Mr. McEwen.
Mr. Pepper with Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Roe with Mr. Pollock.
Mr. Hanley with Mr. Reid of New York.
Mr. Rivers with Mr, Williams.
Mr. Gilbert with Mr. Halpern.
Mr. Vigorito with Mr. Watkins.
Mr. Stratton with Mr. Fish.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with
Conte.
Mr. Symington with Mr. Cowger.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Robison.
Mr. Gaydos with Mr. Ruth.
Mr. St Germain with Mr. Meskill?
Mr. Reuss with Mr. Schadeberg.
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Culver.
Mr. Dorn with Mr. Gettys.
Mr. Scheuer with Mr. Diggs.
Mr. Brasco with Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Conyers with Mr. Harrington.
Mr. Burton of California with Mr. Powell.
Mr. Preyer of New Jersey with Mr. Mollo-
han.
Mr. Mills with Mr. Hungate,
Mr. Downing with Mr. Pucinski.
Mr. Dawson with Mr. Kirwan.
Mr. Farbstein with Mrs. Hansen of Wash-
ington. i
Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Foley.
Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Jones of Tennessee.
Mr. Kyros with Mr. McMillan.
Messrs. DENT, ALBERT, BYRNE of
Pennsylvania, FRIEDEL, EILBERG,
MONAGAN, MACDONALD of Massachu-
setts, and DONOHUE changed their
votes from "yea" to "nay."
Messrs. HALEY and HAMMER-
SCHMIDT changed their votes from
"nay" to "yea."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
COMMrrrSE AMENDMENTS
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Conuni.ttee amendment: On page 2, line
5, strike out the word "seven" and insert in
lie
th
"
u
e word
eight"
.
The committee
agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 2, line
7, after the word "as", strike out "chairman,
which" and insert In lieu "chairman. The".
The committee amendment was
agreed to.
The SPEAKER, The Clerk will report
the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 2, line
10, strike out the word "thirty" and insert
in lieu the word 'forty-five".
The committee amendment was
agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the next committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Committee amendment: On page 2, line
15, after the word "places", insert "as it
deems appropratell
The committee amendment was
agreed to.
he SPE A T--
Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Hastings. the next Committee a aThe Clerk
mendmentili report
Mr. Moorhead with Mr. Ayres. The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Baring with Mr. Ashbrook.
MFulton of Tennessee with Mr. Carter Commttte amendment: On page 2, follow-
r. Daniel of Virginia with Mr White- ing line 16, insert:
Mr. Ottinger with Mr. Nix.
Mr. Mann with Mr. Whalley,
Mr. Nichols with Mr. Roudebush.
Mr. Miller of California with Mr. Mathias.
Mr. Fisher with Mr. Bush.
Mr. Fascell with Mr. MacGregor.
Mr. Dingell with Mr. Rallsback.
Mr. Aspinall with Mr. Wold.
Mr. Colorer with Mr, Derwinski.
Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Jones of Alabama.
Mr. Price of Illinois with Mr. Steed.
Mr. Hagan with Mr. Dowdy.
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Dulski
Mr. Brown of California with Mrs. Chis- uRe "Ouse of Representatives upon vouchers
holm, signed ." by the chairman of the select cum-
and fix the lcompensation of such ea --- -' may "1ijul 1L
, consultants-technicians, andeclerical
and stenographic assistants as it deems nec-
essary and advisable. The select committee
is authorized to reimburse the members of
its staff for travel, subsdstence, and other
necessary expenses incurred by them in the
performance of the duties vested in the
select committee other than expenses in con-
nection with meetings of the select com-
mittee held In the District of Columbia.
"(4) The expenses of the select commmttee
shall
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 I R000200240017-3
June 8, 1970' Approved FoCrBftWaWA1P - 7?-~S~
The committee amendment was agreed
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Tennessee'(Mr, ANDERSON) is recognized
for 1 hour.
PARLrAMEIITA101 INQUIRY
Mr. CARE''. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield for a parliamentary in-
quiry?
Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. I yield
to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. CAREY, Mr. ` Speaker, at what
point did the Speaker put the committee
amendment which appears on page 1 to
strike out the preamble?
The SPEAKER. That question will
come after the adoption of the resolu-
tion.
Mr, CAREY. I thank the Speaker.
Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, I yield 30 minutes to the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Nebraska
(Mr. MARTIN), pending which I yield my-
self such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 976
provides for the establishment of a se-
lect committee of 12 members, six from
each side of the aisle, to go to Southeast
Asia as soon as practicable on a high
priority fact finding mission and to re-
port back its detailed observations to the
full membership of the House within 45
days of the adoption of the resolution.
The members of the select committee
would be appointed by the Speaker, with
two being from the Committee on Armed
Services, two from the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, and the remainder from
the membership generally.
Mr. Speaker, I do not need to elaborate
to this body on the acute, urgent respon-
sibilities we all face relative to Southeast
Asia-as individual Members and as the
legislative body in closest contact with
the people. I believe this is an excellent
resolution, a very timely resolution, a
very Important resolution, and one which
should be passed by an overwhelming
majority this afternoon. To do other-
wise, I believe, would be a keen disap-
pointment to most Americans who are so
seriously concerned and so very con-
stderably divided over our involvement
in the war in Southeast Asia and what
the future course of that involvement
will be.
I am impressed by the fact that the
proposed select committee would not
come back with 'briefcases full of recom-
mendations. Rather, its function would
be to report accurate, detailed, objective
observations and facts which I believe
would be of great value to each indi-
vidual Member, in deciding his own ap-
proach to the problems` of Southeast
Asia. While I am sure the special Presi-
dential task force will do a good job,
nothing can replace a firsthand. report
from one's own colleagues. While each
of us may differ very much as to view-
points, we stand on one great area of
co=on grrnind in that we each repre-
Sent_and are directly responsible to 470,-
00,0 constituent'Alr erican citizens. Thus,
I believe.a report from a small com.-
nilttee of the House would be of greater
value thana report from any other group.
I am confident at our great Speaker
would See that this committee would be
eomnosed of Members of varied view-
points that no one could validly label it
a committee of hawks or a committee of
doves. He has always been most fair and
prudent in these matters.
Mr. Speaker, there are some who will
say this committee will cost the tax-
payers some money. Of course it will, but
only a minute amount compared with the
more than $20 billion we are spending on
that war.
There are also some who will say, with
justification, that the presence of the
committee will add to the worries and
workload of our commanders out there.
This is true, but as one who has in past
years been on the receiving end of con-
gressional visits, I believe I can reassure
my colleagues that the additional work-
load and responsibility on the part of the
commanders will be welcomed and is
more than offset by the appreciation by
the troops and others that a committee
of Congress has enough interest to come
out and talk with them.
The committee would be authorized
to appoint and fix compensation for
necessary employees and consultants and
reimburse them for travel and subsist-
ence, subject to action of the House Ad-
ministration Committee and approval on
the floor.
Mr. Speaker, I understand this resolu-
tion, or its equivalent, has a bipartisan
sponsorship of 71 or more of our col-
leagues. I want to commend the gentle-
man from Mississippi (Mr. MONTGOMERY)
for being its author and chief sponsor
and for all the hard work he has put
in on it.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the adop-
tion of House Resolution 976.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, as the
gentleman from Tennessee has ex-
plained, House Resolution 976 provides
for a select committee of 12 members
to be appointed by the Speaker to go to
Vietnam and Southeast Asia, and to make
a report as to what is going on over there
within 45 days. The resolution provides
that six Members shall be appointed
from each side of the aisle, including
two from the Armed Services Commit-
tee and two from the Foreign Affairs
Committee, the balance to be appointed
from the membership at large. I under-
stand that 72 Members have cosponsored
this resolution which we are consider-
ing this afternoon.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, the resolu-
tion provides for a legislative commit-
tee to go to Vietnam and Southeast Asia
and to make a report to the House. We
have a similar committee at the present
time that I understand is currently, or
at the present moment, returning from
Southeast Asia, a committee appointed
by the President, which is composed of
some Members of the legislative branch
of our Government. I do feel that the
legislative branch of our Government has
very definite responsibilities in this area,
and I feel that our branch of the Gov-
ernment should have a committee to go
there with adequate time to check into
the situation and the various things they
H 5203
find, come back, and make a report-
that is all this resolution does.
I was astounded yesterday, if the CBS
news reporting was correct, when they
showed a picture of the 'Presidential
committee 10 miles inside Cambodia. The
comment was that the battalion they in-
spected was equipped with new uniforms
and new boots, and their rifles were all
polished up, which I think was more or
less a superficial view of what is going
on over there.
I trust this select committee, if the
resolution is adopted, will be able to
make a more objective review of what
is going on in South Vietnam than ap-
peared from the CBS broadcast yester-
day.
I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the dis-
tinguished author and sponsor of the res-
olution, the gentleman from Mississippi
(Mr. MONTGOMERY).
(Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker-
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield for a question before he
starts? Will the gentleman tell us why
he wants to strike out the "whereas"
clauses of the resolution?
Mr. MONTGOMERY. May I answer the
gentleman after I make my remarks?
At that time I shall try to answer the
gentleman's question.
I want to thank my distinguished col-
league from the State of Tennessee (Mr.
ANDERSON) for allowing this time and
compliment him on the fine manner in
which he has explained the merits of
House Resolution 976 to our colleagues.
In my remarks today I will be appeal-
ing to the good judgment and common-
sense of each Member to consider this
measure on the basis of its merits. And
this resolution does have merit.
In simple language, House Resolution
976 would pave the way for the Speaker
to appoint a select committee of 12 Mem-
bers to go to Southeast Asia on a high
priority factfinding mission. The com-
mittee would be equally divided between
the majority and minority parties with
two coming from the House Armed Serv-
ices Committee, two from the House For-
eign Affairs Committee, and eight from
the House at large.
This group of 12 colleagues would be
representing each one of us. It would be
their duty and responsibility to look into
many aspects of our involvement in
Southeast Asia. I would expect each
Member of the House to be given the op-
portunity to offer suggestions, if they so
desire, to the select committee on what
to see and what to do. In this way we
could accomplish what is logistically im-
possible to do-that is, send all 435 Mem-
bers to Southeast Asia.
The select committee would be given
45 days in which to report back their
findings to this body from the date of
adoption of the resolution. I feel this
will allow them ample time to make their
pretrip plans, conduct a thorough on-
the-site investigation, and draw up their
final report for the House.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to make one
Approved For telease 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 R 5204 Approved For RV8MJRRffi 1YA 11 D72_0WaNJ00200240017-3 June 8, 1970
very important point at this time about In closing, I would only hope that the I ask the gentleman to yield for this
the objectives of the select committee. arguments I have presented today will purpose: I am the one who moves to
It will be their duty to gather as much stir the good judgment of my colleagues strike the whereas clauses on every res-
factual and current information as pos- to vote in the affirmative for House Reso- olution which ever appears before the
sible on the situation in Southeast Asia lution 976. Committee on Rules. I have done that
and make a detailed report to, their col- Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- since I have been a Member because
leagues and only a report. They would tleman yield? basically I feel the information as to the
supply the information this body needs Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the matter and the point of the resolution is
to reach decisions, and then it would be gentleman from Illinois. generally contained in the report.
up to each individual Member to reach Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, may I ask i merely believe that the whereas
his , or her own opinions. Each Member the gentleman two,questions? First, why clauses are surplusage. This is a tra-
will have the facts, the same facts. The is it proposed to strike the preamble? ditonal position with me and has nothing
oonclusions reached from these facts Why is it the committee recommends to do with anything that might have
would be at the discretion of each striking the preamble to the resolution as been used in the whereas clauses.
Member. amended? Second, do the 71 sponsors of Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
Earlier I mentioned the merits of this resolution favor the striking of the tleman yield?
House Resolution 976. One .of the first preamble which apparently states the Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the
that comes to mind is the fact that the rationale for the resolution? gentleman from Illinois.
resolution was cosponsored by 71 mem- Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, Mr. YATES. May I point out the in-
bers representing both parties and the answering the second question, that congruity which exists in the resolution,
entire spectrum of political philosophies. would have to be left up to the 71 spon- in view of the statement by the distin-
The Select Committee possibly should be sors whether they would agree to sup- guished chairman of the Committee on
made up of members with varied opin- port what the Rules Committee has Rules. The gentleman refers to the lan-
ions on the Far East situation but done. I .Will support the Rules Commit- guage which appears on page 2, lines 7
members who would be open minded on tee. They acted in their wisdom, I am through 9, which read:
their onsite inspections and observa- sure. The select committee shall immediately
tiona in Indochina. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, will the proceed to Southeast Asia to investigate all
One of the most obvious merits to me. is gentleman yield? aspects of the United States military involve-
that we will be sending 12 members Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the ment in Southeast Asia.
to southeast Asia to-act as our eyes and gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. COL- Then on page 3 the following appears:
ears. My three trips to South Vietnam MER.) Amend the title so as to read: "To au-
have convinced me of the importance of Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank thorize a select committee of the House to
seeing for yourself exactly what is taking the gentleman for yielding. Permit me study firsthand the recent developments in
place in southeast Asia. Briefings and to say first to the gentleman from Illi- Southeast Asia and then report its findings
situation reports such, as we receive nois and to any other interested parties to the House of Representatives within
from time to time are of help, but they that so far as I, personally, am con- forty-five days of its adoption."
are not the complete answer. To use an cerned, it makes no difference to me What is the purpose of the commit-
expression, "You have got to be where whether the preamble is stricken or not tee? Is it to study all aspects of the war
the action is." stricken, I can only enlighten the gqn- in Southeast Asia as the first provision
You have to actually talk to our serv- tleman, I hope, by saying that when the states, or is it to study what has hap-
icemen in the field, you have to observe Committee on Rules considered this pened in Southeast Asia following the
the capabilities of the South Vietnamese, resolution, the question was raised by a invasion of Cambodia and the other facts
you have to talk to national and local member of the committee that the pre- or allegations which are alleged in the
Vietnamese leaders in private, you have amble was such that the resolution it- whereas clauses? What will the commit-
to get out in the countryside to see our self covered all the, aspects of it and, tee be expected to do?
pacification program at work, and you, therefore, it was not necessary to have Mr. MONTGOMERY. Will the gentle-
have to talk, to American civilians such the preamble, man permit' me to try to answer the
as missionaries. It is necessary to do The SPEAKER. The time of the gen- question?
these and other things on a firsthand and tleman from Mississippi has expired. , I tried to state that this provides for
personal basis if you expect to really Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker; a fact-finding committee, which will re-
learn, about American involvement in will.the gentleman yield me 3 additional port to the gentleman from Illinois and
Southeast Asia, minutes? the Congress. They will come back and
As I stated earlier, the ideal qr utopian Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr. report to the gentleman all the infor-
situation would be to send all 435 mem- Speaker, I yield the gentleman 3 addi- mation they can get about all aspects of
bers to see for themselves. I wish this tional minutes. the war, as possible. The gentleman can
were possible. But since it is not, the Mr. COLMER. Mr. Speaker, will the take the information and handle it in
next best choice we have is to send 12 gentleman yield further? any way he sees fit.
of our colleagues to observe for each of Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield' further The SPEAKER. The time of the gen-
us and have them report back to us in a to the gentleman from Mississippi. tleman from Mississippi has again ex-
factual, objective and unbiased manner. Mr. COLMER. In substantiation of pired.
Another merit to House Resolution that view let me call the attention of the Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.
976 is the answer it would provide for a House to lines 7 through 12 on page 2 of Speaker, I yield the gentleman 2 addi-
small group of critics of the Congress the resolution. That portion of the reso- tional minutes.
who say we are not exerting the leader- lution reads: Mr. CAREY. Mr. Speaker, will the
ship we should as far as the conflict in The select committee shall immediately gentleman yield?
Vietnam is concerned. I do not wish proceed to Southeast Asia to investigate all Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the
aspects of the United States military involve-
to dwell on what we have or have-not ment in Southeast Asia. The select commit- gentleman from New York.
done in the past. We need to look to the tee shall, within forty-five days of the adop- Mr. CAREY. I have been listening very
future. I wall my vote to be cast on tion of this resolution, report to the House carefully to the remarks of my distin-
the most current and thorough infor- the results of its investigation. guished colleague from Mississippi, be-
mation at my disposal. I want to know in other words, the resolution itself cause, as the primary author of the res-
that my vote will be cast on the basis olution, I think his viewpoint. on how it
provides for the investigation of all as-
of the.facts and not an assumption on should be constructed, as well as, that of
of part. i believe that my s 12 colleagues pests of the war, whereas the preamble
w would only point out and emphasize the committee, is most important to
ewill bgsending to Southeast Asia will
Cambodia. all of us.
be able 't-6 provide me with these facts. The gentleman has indicated the com-
Mr. Speaker,'I have tried to cover only Mr. SISK. Mr. Speaker, will the gen- tleman yield? mittee should have varied points of view,
the high points and the most compell- should be broadly representative of the
ing merits of House Resolution 976. Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the House, should be openminded and totally
There are others which I am sure my gentleman from California (Mr. Srsx). unbiased.
colleagues will be able to ascertain for Mr. SISK. I appreciate" the gentle- I totally support this position..I sup-
themselves by reading the resolution. mans yielding. port the stricken as well as the unstricken
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 a&
? Q19-C DF7 2eiDei37ROO0200240017-3 H 5205
Approved F l
e
Q
June 8, 1970
whereas clauses, which are an indication group. I want to state that I am not would say to him I feel certain, on the
of 'the 'interpretation of the author of personally interested in being appointed basis of this resolution, that the Speaker
the resolution. to this study team, but I think those who will appoint a group to go to Southeast
I am trying to bring out that my sup- share some of my views should be repre- Asia which will be more responsive to the
port of the resolution is in terms of an sented. broad-based feelings of the Members of
openminded unbiased, committee. I won- There are at least four major different Congress than the group returning at the
der if the gentleman would agree on this points of view on this subject. There present time.
point: I should like to serve on this corn- are those who are so strong in their op- Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the gentle-
mittee the gentleman has authored. I position to the Vietnam war that they man for his statement, but I will none-
might suggest myself to the Speaker. I support the so-called end the war theless seek an opportunity to offer my
should like to do all I can to get all. the amendment, set forth in House Resolu- amendment. To that end, I will demand
facts possible for this House to pass judg- tion 1000. They are those who are critical a vote on the previous question on the
ment on. However, I happen to be a cola- of the Cambodian operation and who resolution. I urge those who would suP-
nel of infantry in the inactive reserve. I were among the 145 who voted on May 7 port an amendment of the character I
therefore feel my judgment could be for an opportunity to vote against ex- have offered or who object to the pro-
colored by my rank in the military, and tension of the war into Cambodia amend- cedure which permits no amendments to
if chosen on the committee I would re- ment. There are those who support the vote down the previous question at the
sign because of the affiliation with the President. The fourth group comprises end of the debate so that we can have
military, and if chosen on the committee those who favor much stronger military an opportunity to debate and vote on
I would resign because of the affiliation action than we have taken to date. amendments on their merits.
with the military, in order to have no .If this committee is to be created it Mr. HOWARD. I would hope that the
problem with respect to my judgment as ought to include representatives of all gentleman would not seek a vote on that
a member of the military serving in the these points of view. It should also in- because I believe the legislative history
House. elude Members who will have the in- has already been set.
Would the gentleman believe that this ciination to question what they are Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 Misso situation might have an effect on any- shown, to look behind it and to make in- minutes to)t for entle an from of deouri
one serving on this committee? quiries on their own. the purpose ate
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I think the gen- A story in today's New York Times only
tleman is aiming at one of the authors of shows the kind of tour that the military (Mr. HALL asked and was given per-
the bill, namely, myself, but if the gen- in Vietnam likes to arrange for visiting mission to revise and extend his re-
tleman has any objection to my serving dignitaries, a real Potemkin village type marks.)
of tour. Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I have lis-
this Ia commit that will be selected, How many Members who will be ap- tend with great interest to this debate.
I certainly belie ee ve he should make his is
intenitons known the Speaker. pointed to this committe can speak Viet- I have watched this resolution arise and
Mr. . CA CA REY. I certainly have no per- boniest? Probably none. But there should I certainly have nothing against those
journeyed to South Vietnam at
sonal objection to the gentleman be some who will at least undertake to who have
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Speaking for get their own interpreters, so they cart their own expense and have come back
myself_ I think I could have an unbiased talk with confidence directly to the Viet- with their own information. I have no
opinion even though I do hold a com- namese people. inclination to oppose additional informa-ion
M f
mission in the National Guard of the In short, there are all kinds of reasons the Iof any type for t theo Me hers of
United States. I feel as though I could. why there should be a representative , with In the three trips that I have made over group on this committee. that "information" does not become "in-
there before I feel as though I gained Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, will the telligence" until it is distilled on the
something. gentleman yield? basis of "need to know" in the military,
Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr. Mr. BINGHAM. I yield to the gentle- and is truthfully portrayed.
I have nothing against architects ex-
tinguished 4 minutes to the die- man from New Jersey. ercising oversight and surveillance of the
gentleman from New York Mr. HOWARD. I want to commend many problems sight the Federal Govete
for purposes of debate only. the gentleman from New York for the ment.
(Mr. BINGHAM asked and was given concern he has shown that the commit- But, Mr. Speaker, I feel that we need
permission to revise and extend his re- tee shall be representative of all the an extra commission or another group
marks.) viewpoints on both sides of the Southeast of our own or any other going into a
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, may I Asia question. I agree with him, and I theater of operations like South Vietnam,
ask the gentleman from Tennessee, would like to state for his information just about as much as we need extra
handling the bill on behalf of the Rules that this has been the declared intent holes in the head.
Committee, whether it is true that he from the inception of the introduction There have been far too many people
has declined to yield to me for the pur- of this resolution. I did not put my name who have gone there already. This is people
pose of offering an amendment? on the resolution until after conferring area for invitation into a high-risk area,
Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. That is with the gentleman from Mississippi of foreign speech, by another sovereign
correct. Yes. and having heard that it was his in- nation, primarily. Our armed services
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I regret tent that this be broad based. In testi- are there on this basis and are far too
that the procedure, apparently standard many before the Committee on Rules busy to become impressed hosts.
procedure of the Committee on Rules is it was discussed by the Committee on We have just, by action or call of the
that no amendment to this resolution Rules, and everyone who testified that Chair, hroted an open-ended proposition,
can be considered' or debated. I have if this was going to be a worthwhile an the resolving clause hereto, and we
prepared to offer an amendment. It was committee and. an assignment on be- certainly are subverting and overlap-
circulated to the membership last Friday, half of the Congress and the gauntry, ping the Powers of the Committee on
as soon as I heard about this resolution, it should be broad based. I believe the Armed Services of this House which is
proposing langauge to be added to the Speaker has every intention of making properly constituted to exercise section
resolution that the Members to be ap- it that. 8, article 1 of the Constitution, to say
pointed should be "representative of the Mr. BINGHAM. I take it that the gen- nothing of the Defense Subcommittee on
varying points of view on the President's tleman from New Jersey shares my view- Appropriations, or the Foreign opera-
actions in' Indochina, including both Point that the four Members who were tions Committee or the Committee on
critics and supporters." appointed to the President's study team Government Operations.
Now, with due respect to the Speaker- from the House were representative of The function, Mr. Speaker, of actually
and I am sure the Speaker would intend only one point of view on the Vietnam running the war and how it can be op-
to appoint' representatives of varying war and did not constitute a representa- erated after the Policy is set by Congress,
points of view on this matter-a pro- tive selection of the membership of the for the Army, Navy, and Air Force and
vision} like this should be in the resolu- House. the broad policies such as numbers and
tion..It would assist the Speaker in his Mr. HOWARD. I would not care to funding set by the legislative branch of
task of appointing a representative prejudge the President's selection, but I the United States-is that of the execu-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 H 5206
Approved For Rely ' 1 LC11k R7I3-OO O200240017-3 , June 8, 1970
tive branch., Congress can set the broad generals and the buck privates, the sea-
policy as we, did in the case of the Fu1- men and the admirals, the Air Force gen-
bright resolution, but the strategic and erals and the airmen, get on with win-
tactical military procedures and the ning the war, and bring our men back
"how," are constitutionally delegated to home safely.
the Commander in Chief, the President. Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.
of the United.States, Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from
In my opinion and for a long time, Nofth Carolina (Mr. GALIFIANAKIS) such
Mr. Speaker, we have had too much time as he may consume.
congressional quarterbacking and sec- Mr. GALIFIANAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I
and guessing of the commanders in the rise in support of House Resolution 976.
theater of operations. To paraphase, (Mr. GALIFIANAKIS asked and was
never have sa, many armchair generals given permission to revise and extend his
said so much about so little they never remarks.)
should have said in the first place. There Mr. GALIFIANAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I
is unnecessary duplication. rise in support of House Resolution 976,
Mr. Speaker, I am one of those who a resolution to send a select committee
the records will show, turned down a of House Members to Southeast Asia.
position on the present Presidential fact- Surely this is not the time for partisan
finding delegation, on the, basis that thoughts, not while American soldiers are
somebody needed at this time to say dying every hour in Vietnam and in Cam-
"No, take the expense of going over bodia. Today is not the occasion for the
there and back, which is a questionable executive branch and the Congress to sit
trip, and apply it on the Federal deficit in opposite corners and sulk instead of
and let us protect the taxpayers at joining together to end the war.
home." Especially is this applicable here Mr. Speaker, the problem of Commu-
in the legislative body of the people nist activities in Southeast Asia has now
where trade, taxes, tariffs, ? and levies been with us for 25 years and has shad-
must originate. owed the terms of five Presidents and
Mr. Speaker, this is unnecessary dup- 12 Congresses. And in recent years, as
lication. It is a waste of the taxpayers' public dissension over the war has in-
money. It is a chance for a "junket" with creased, the conflict has begun to tear
a "well-earned stopover in fair Hawaii" at the foundations of our Government
for a few days on the way back. itself.
The "hawks" and "doves" are being Because we in the Congress appro-
turned Into carrier-pigeons and are priate the funds to continue the war, we
mimicking the myna bird. have our own constitutional responsi-
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think we bility in military affairs. Under article I,
should vote this down out of hand, and the Congress has the power to declare
vote down both the whereas and re- war, to provide for the common defense,
solving clauses, and then I think we and to raise and support armies-with
should vote down the entire resolution, the provision that no military appropria-
Mr, GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the tion shall last longer than 2 years. These
gentleman yield? are clear constitutional responsibilities.
Mr. HALL, I yield to the gentleman It is time that we met them.
from Iowa. As Congressman, we must share in the
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I commend burden which this war has become. And
my colleague from Missouri and join him we can-if we do not play the game of
in his opposition to this resolution and obstruction-help the President to
unjustified junket. It seems to me that achieve his announced goal of ending
the least the House,could do would be to the war. To do so we must meet our own
postpone action, if that is possible, until constitutional obligations.
the special congressional committee that That is why I support this resolution.
was this morning In Hawaii gets back It is only a hesitant first step, but it is
here from Vietnam and reports, a beginning toward confronting the
This is a further unnecessary expendi- problem of ending the war.
ture of, the taxpayers' money at this This select committee will enable the
time. Again, I agree with the gentleman Congress to reach its own conclusions
in his opposition, and I hope the resolu- about American commitment in South-
tion wi11 be voted down, east Asia based on the facts, not on emo-
Mr, HALL. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate tions or dead theories. It is answerable
the gentleman's contributions. I realize to the Congress and to no one else. I
that there are some here who think would not predict what information the
that that was a window-dressing com- committee might bring back, of whether
mission, and all facts will not be ascer- that information would sustain, supple-
tained, I doubt if more, facts can be ment, or differ from the information of
obtained in 45. days in canned briefings other sources.
by the military than were obtained in 7 Mr. Speaker, during his campaign, the
days. I doubt they could learn more if President announced that he would try
setting in the RVN General Assembly in to bring us together. On no issue is it
view of the language barrier. Be that as more important that we come together
it may, an unofficial but personal count than on the way to end the war. If we
of Representatives of Congress journey- do not work this goal-Congress and
ing to the theaater of Operations indicate President, Republicans and Democrats-
that o7er 175. have been there in the then the war will continue like a machine
east 5 years. I think it is time we quit that is beyond our control.
the fe_11er-Xnerehants touring to the
theater of Aperations, and who sub-
seque ifly make the, convenient stopover
in 1awaii on the way ?back, and let the
meeting the constitutional responsibili-
ties which have been evaded for so long.
I urge each of my colleagues to give
favorable consideration to this resolu-
tion. It is not a partisan attempt to de-
tract from the President. Rather, it is
an effort to provide the Congress with
the facts to act intelligently-in concert
with the administration, and not against
it.
Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the dis-
tinguished gentleman from New York
(Mr. Rosax' r AL) for the purpose of de-
bate only.
(Mr. ROSENTHAL asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ROSENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I come
to the same conclusion as the distin-
guished gentleman from Missouri, but I
think for somewhat different reasons.
Very candidly, the operative language
in the resolution suggests that the select
committee shall proceed to Southeast
Asia to investigate all aspects of the
U.S. military involvement in Southeast
Asia. I am one of those who believe that
Congressmen can learn a great deal from
being out in the field, and I have urged
all my colleagues to travel the world over
to learn about our military involvement
and foreign aid institutions, but in this
connection I think we ought to just hesi-
tate for a moment.
The fact of the matter is that we do
have committees of Congress constitu-
tionally charged with these responsibili-
ties. I feel personally aggrieved that the
Committee on Foreign Affairs is shunted
aside while this special committee is
raised to stardom to render what could
be a very important report, and have a
very significant public relations aspect
on the American public.
My view of why this would not be
useful at this time is that if any Member
of the Congress is legitimately interested
in all aspects of the U.S. military in-
volvement in Southeast Asia, then the
way to properly do this is to hold open
public hearings on the basis for our in-
volvement in Southeast Asia. There
should be a review and analysis of the
secret treaties and commitments that
the U.S. Government is involved in in
Southeast Asia.
If this visit is going to be a quickie
military inspection of Cambodia and the
caches involved, then may I say it is go-
ing to turn into a charade and virtually
a whitewash, and then it would do a great
disservice to this body that we all have
the greatest respect and affection for.
Frankly, I feel aggrieved that more
senior members of the Committee on For-
eign Affairs did not see fit to make this
argument, but the fact of the matter is
that that committee has indeed the re-
sponsibility and ability and the where-
withal to conduct this kind of investi-
gation. One military investigation will
lead to another. We will find out that
we collected x number of rifles and have
reported x number of dead.
But the American people-and they
But if we do cooperate, then we can end should be genuinely concerned in what
the war and end it safely and quickly. we are doing in Southeast Asia-should
And we can do much to restore the proper - listen to all sides of the case, and to
role of the Congress in foreign policy by what George Ball said before our com-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 8, 1970' """' ?, ? `- ? CONGRESSIUl,9"AT"RECC)RIT'HOU5EE - ??,?,?,`?,?,`-?,?, ' ' ?,
mittee the other day, when he said that I raise a question on what is meant
he regretted the decisions that the Nixon'
administration has so far taken with re-
spect to Cambodia, because it is a re-
peat of the fateful earlier decisions taken
by Its predecessors. And he"said, in lead-
ing up to that:
We mistook Tonkinese aggression for Chi-
nese imperialism and, failing to scrutinize,
the menace in terms of its marginal rele-
vance to the power balance', we committed
the power at our command to a terrain
where, for both physical and political rea-
sons, it was impossible to use it effectively.
Mr. Speaker, there are political issues
and answers to the problem of Southeast
Asia and until those political issues can
be settled the involvement of the United
States will not be terminated.. For that
reason, I oppose this resolution.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield
3 minutes to the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania (Mr. FuaxoN) for the purpose
of deb to only.
Mr. 'FULTON of Pennsylvania. Mr.
Speaker, in times of emergency and in
times of pressure, there is often made
poor law by those having the responsi-
bility of decision. This House of Repre-
sentatives should take the time to debate
extensively and in depth what is meant
by this resolution, House Resolution 976.
It is amazing to find such broad cospon-
souship by Members, and such disagree-
ment as to what the resolution means.
For example, to strike the preamble from
the resolution, strikes the reason for the
resolution, the area of reference and
constitutional responsibilities of the
Congress, as well as the need for Con-
gress to have accurate and detailed in-
formation, from the bill. Is this expedi-
tion of House Members to set out to
Southeast Asia with the general instruc-
tion "to investigate all aspects of the
United States military, involvement in
Southeast Asia," as a line and a half on
page 2 of the resolution provides? One
half of line 8, and line 9 on page 2
of the bill are the only authority for
a world-shaking investigation officially
made on behalf of the House of Repre-
sentatives. Imagine making the investi-
gation in depth for the purpose of U.S.
official.. congressional action, with no
hearings, no witnesses, no sources, no
checking of briefings by military person-
nel of our, own, or any other country,
with the requirement of report shall be
made within 45 days of adoption of the
resolution. Queen Isabella did better in
her instructions to Columbus.
The House of Representatives has for-
mally set up standing committees that
have jurisdiction 4f the military policy in
this House the Armed Services Commit-
tee, and we have a committee on the
relations with foreign countries, the For-
eign Affairs Committee of this House.
The, House has given jurisdiction of ob-
ligation and . expenditure of Federal
funds to the Committee on. Appropria-
tions, with the particular appropriation
subcpmmittees, who have jurisdiction of
.these various elements of U.S. mone-
tary and financial commitments abroad,
stemming from everything from U.S. aid
of, a military type to peacetime economic
and, development aid, even to education
and cultural welfare programs.
mittee went to nine countries in South
and East Asia: Vietnam, Thailand, Phil-
ippines, Formosa, Okinawa, Japan, South
Korea, India, and Pakistan, and also
Hong Kong. We were unable to cover
Australia, New Guinea, New Zealand,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Burma. How can
South Korea with 47,000 troops fighting
in South Vietnam be ignored? Seoul is
certainly not in Southeast Asia, nor is
Tokyo, and so forth.
What countries . comprise the term
"Southeast Asia"? This can be any
number of countries. It is not just a few
countries. Does this just include North
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia? Of course
not. Such a limited view and such a lim-
ited study, as proposed, is not only im-
possible, imbecilic, but dangerous.
"Facts" based on this study can very ad-
versely affect the carrying on of the war,
but our U.S. relations around the world,
our many U.S. treaty commitments, and
cause disruption of well-founded and
longtime friendly relations with many
countries.
Second, is this resolution meant to be
limited to authorization for an investi-
gation of facts? What kind of facts? Or
is it an investigation of U.S. policy? Is
that U.S. military policy? Is it U.S. for-
eign relations policy? Economic or trade
policy? Is it U.S. foreign aid policy? Is
it CIA policy?
When the resolution says "all aspects"
that, of course, includes military policy
all around the world because any of the
great powers and their allies, even non-
alined countries, have some influence in
Southeast Asia. The world is such an
untidy place, and this resolution is such
a small broom. We Members on the For-
eign Affairs Committee who have studied,
read volumes of history, heard thousands
of witnesses on world conditions, causes,
and probabilities, peoples, customs, and
wars and disruptions, can hardly wait
for this report in 45 days with the "true
facts." When this report is made, it may
disagree with the investigators who are
just now on their way back, the Presi-
dent's factfinding commission. If the re-
ports are each unanimous then no mem-
ber of the investigations is thinking very
much, or very deeply. If these reports
disagree with the State Department, the
CIA, in what position does this put the
Members of Congress who have already
served on the regularly constituted and
standing committees of the U.S. House
of Representatives who have jurisdiction
in these very fields and what is more, the
responsibility for action, and not just
debate?
What does the President of the United
States, or the Joint Chiefs of Staff, do
with the "facts" found by the President's
own current fact-finding commission, if
there is a disagreement?
Should the U.S. Congress have the re-
sponsibility for the day-to-day running
of a war 10,000 miles away in an area
that most Members have never been nor
had any expreience? My answer is the
answer of the U.S. Constitution, "No." I
H5207
have spent almost a year in the Orient
after my graduation from Harvard Law
School, have been a member of the House
Foreign Affairs Committee almost 20
years, have visited these countries from
time to time, and have studied, listened
to experienced witnesses, read volumes of
history and current events, but I would
refuse to serve on any such select com-
mittee with such little time, shallow in-
vestigation, and forced quick judgment.
I strongly believe we should have some
considered answers before the House
quickly sponsors another "study" com-
mittee with no legislative jurisdiction but
which is simply to make a quick report
in 45 days.
I would ask the managers of the res-
olution specifically-Is it facts that the
select committee is looking for or is it
policy that they are looking for?
Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. I yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. GRAY. I know that my friend is
sincere in his remarks, but I just heard
that the factfinding committee to which
he alluded is on its way back after 2 days.
Does the gentleman from Pennsylvania
really believe that a searching inquiry
could be made in a small time period of
48 hours?
Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania. You are
right; I do not. I do not believe a con-
ducted military tour or State Depart-
ment tour of House Members is going to
come up with very many facts, upon
which the judgment of the Members of
the House should rest, in decisions in-
volving the very lives and security of the
men in our U.S. Armed Forces, as well
as the freedom and security of the citi-
zens of the countries of Southeast Asia.
Here we have a committee such as this
select committee which goes to South-
east Asia really with no specific instruc-
tions as what to do and they are just
taken around, and shown fragments,
and preordered spots. Who makes the
`decisions why they may be taken to
certain places?
In 1965, with the Asian Subcommittee
of the House Foreign Affairs Committee,
we made a long and serious study of the
Asian situation at first hand, visiting
nine countries, including Vietnam. We
studied to prepare for the trip, consulted
with heads of state, foreign ministers,
military leaders, members of parlia-
ments, business and labor leaders, reli-
gious members of many faiths, studied
when we came back, and made recom-
mendations against escalation of U.S.
military forces in Vietnam at that time,
1965. Our study committee report was
filed as House Report No. 1345 of the
89th Congress, second session. It con-
tains 89 pages and much reference mate-
rial. I would. strongly advise the Mem-
bers generally, as well as the select com-
mfttees, to study this excellent source
material.
The question is this, is the House to
have this committee come back and com-
ment on escalation or on deescalation on
further U.S. involvement in Cambodia,
Laos, and Thailand? On immediate with-
drawal of U.S. forces, Vietnamization?
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 :CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
I have always opposed committing U.S. American generals, one of whom Is a former
ground troops to a .land war., in Asia. I President of the United States, had warned
have studied the strategy carefully and of the inadvisability of placing large num-
w111 give the basis of my opinion, through bers of American ground troops in Asia for
pr are. e, The hose
the statements and.,studies by most compe- pose of purpose this b of paper fighting a i s s land
tent U.S. U.io1cials. views f in the context t in which h they there
were
I o my comments the warnings given.
of our U.S. military leaders from the U.S. DOUGLAS MACARTHUR '
News, & World .Report issue of April 26, Senator MCMAHON.... General, your rec-
1966, in the article "Should United States ommendations for operations in China would
right a Ladd War in Asia? Views of still be a limited war. We would not commit
Military Leaders," as follows: American ground forces to the operation in
SHOULD UNITED STATES FIGHT A LAND Wt China under any circumstanes, as I under-
.m ASIA? VIEWS OF MILITARY LEADERS stand er.
The question of U.S troops' fighting a land no ir. Tha Aia of course, with the general
war in Asia is up for, debate again. In the limitation of the contingencies of campaign.
past, most U.S. military men have opposed I believe it would be master folly to con-
getting tied down with ground forces so far template the use of United States ground
from home. Now, as the number of Americans troops in China. I do not believe it would be
in South Vietnam, increases, military ob- necessary. (p. 103)
servers are giving the problem a new look. ? w y
Below is what acne prominent officials Senator KEFAUVER. But you said, General
have had to say on the supject in the two MacArthur, you nor no one else had rec-
decades sIncer.yVorld War II. - I-
No mail in his - the continent, in China proper; that it be
right mind would ad-
vocate sending our own ground forces into limited to blockade and bombing by air and
continental China."-Address to Congress, reconnaissance by air.
April 19, 1951. I wondered if any substantial number of
Omar Bradley, General of the Army, former technicians actually went along with
Chi's
what kind of situation that
Chairmap, Joint Chiefs of Staff : pu
ts us in.
?I do not believe we should get involved puts Gen n.
in a land war in Asia General MACARTHUR. I see no objection ct e.
if we can possibly it at all, Senator. It is Commionpractice.
avoid it. . . , It of course depends on the it
I feel as I said in my statement here, I think
We would be fighting a wrong war at the
wrong place and against a wrong enemy."-
Congressional Hearings, May, 1951.
Dwight D. Eisenhower, former President:
"I told nay associates in January of 1954
that I could not at that moment see the
value of putting United States ground forces
in southeast Asia... . It the United States
were, unilaterially, to permit its forces to
be drawn into conflict in Indo-China and in
A succession of Asian wars, and end result
would be to drain off. .our resources and to
weaken our overall defensive position.
"If we, without allies, should ever find our-
selves fighting at various places all over the
region, and if Red Chinese aggressive partici-
pation were clearly identified, then. we could
scarcely avoid, I said, considering the neces-
aity of striking directly at the head insteaft
of the tall of the snake, Red China itself."-
From President Eisenhower's book, "Man-
date for Change," which was published by
Doubleday and Company, Inc., in 1963.
Maxwelt'D. Taylor, General, former Chair- I had nothing ;to do with anything except
man, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and former Am- a military -decision that ground troops
bassador to South Vietnam: . should . not be committed in force-our
"I have been among the officers who have ground troops.
said that a large land war- in Asia is the last Senator KEFAUVER. As I understand, your
thing we should undertake. I was slow in conception was based upon our Inability to
joining with those.. who recommended the get enough troops there, and that you have
introduction of ground forces in South Viet- no feeling that If we had sufficient ground
m."-Interview" published in "U.S. News troops, that we shouldn't use them on the
World Report" on Feb. 24, 1966. continent of Asia, on the mainland of China
p
I afn also reading into my comments General MACARTHUR. I believe that
the excellent study by the Legislative strategic conception it is an impossible asonea
,
Reference pperylce of the Library of Con- sir. I do not believe .. .
gressIl of July" 13, 1965, entitled "Land Senator KEFAUVER. Your conception is
War l Asia: views of Generals Mac- based upon the feeling that we do not have
Arthur, Bradley, and Eisenhower," by sufficient troops to accomplish that purpose;
Tl3omas C. Lyons Jr. Analyst in Military is that ra
General l MA?
MACARTaUR. That is one of the
,arid World Demography of the reasons. Another reason is that the man-
'orei n Affairs, Di ion.
_ ., power of those countries is sufficient; if we
This study impressed me strongly after aid and assist them in ,their training and in
our stud y tzi tq Southeast Asiain 1965
k
..
LAND WAR - IN .
A VIEWS of GENERALS 'All MacArthur quotations from: Military The Bradley MACARTHUUR, BRADLEY, AND EISE;ENERA Situation in the Far East. Hearings before Situation in the quotation
Easti Hearings before
In light of the the Committee on Armed Services and the the Committee On Armed Services and the
present situation in Viet Committee on Foreign Relations, United Committee on Foreign Relations, United
Nam, it has been stated on a number of States Senate. 82d Cong., 1st Sess. Part I. States Senate. 82d Cong., 1st Sess. Part 2.
occasions, especially in the American news- Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1961. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1951.
papers, that three well-known and respected (May 3 through May 14, 1951.)
(may 15 through ,may 31, 1951.)
Approved For-Release 2002/01/02: CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
a mission in Greece. We have got missions
In a great many countries. They go and ad-
vise, but it does not commit us beyond the
technicality of the assistance that the in-
dividuals can render.
I don't think it would be material one
way or another whether they went in with
them or not, as far as the efficacy of the
forces is concerned. I can see no reason
why if our Air and our Navy are engaged
against the Red Chinese, and our troops in
Korea are engaged against the Red Chinese
why the use of a few hundred technicians
would be a matter of any serious import.
My recommendation that ground troops
should not be committed to China was not
on the basis of avoiding any concept that
we were not utilizing our force to the maxi-
mum. It was because of the sacrifice that
would be involved in our forces because of
our inability with our bases 10,000 miles
away to maintain large units of ground
June 8, 1970
their supply features, they do not need the
assistance of our ground forces. They would
need assistance probably from the Air and
the Navy. (pp. 106-107)
t ? t i t
Senator CAIN. General MacArthur, Morgan
Beatty of the National Broadcasting Co. said
in a recent hook-up that on the 26th day of
last June, General MacArthur himself made
the following statement to Ambassador Dul-
les and to accredited news reporters:
Anybody who commits the land power of
the United states on the continent of Asia
ought to have his head examined. May I In-
quire if you recall having made such a state-
ment to Ambassador Dulles?
General MACARTHUR. I don't know whether
I made the statement, but I confirm abso-
lutely the sentiments involved.
Senator CAIN. T41s reference to Morgan
Beatty was made by a colleague of mine, who
thought that you, General MacArthur, had
made that statement to Beatty on June 26,
and at a later date had said something
different.
The Senator to whom I refer went on to say
that, with reference to the Beatty statement:
"I say that I not only agree wth th
t b
a
ut
, I believe that any man in a responsible posi-
tion in our military forces who would do that,
which would amount to committing our land
forces against Red China on the mainland
of China, not only ought to have his physical
head examined, but ought to have his official
head cut off."
May I inquire if, in your opinion, there is
any legitimate reference to any attitude Cf
yours, or any kind, character or description,
in that comment made on the 11th day of
April, on the floor of the United States
Senate?
General MACARTHUR. None whatsoever; and
the other comments-all I can say as to
them
"A
"
-
men
(pp 158157
..-)
R * * R
OMAR BRADLEY 2
Senator BRIDGES. What about Korea-when
we entered the Korea conflict a day or two
after June 25, 1950, did the Joint Chiefs of
Staff take into consideration all of the po-
tential risks at that time militarily?
General BRADLEY. Yes sir. We had always
hoped we would not have to fight In Korea,
and that's why we were in favor of getting
out of Korea as far as our occupation was
concerned. Because strategically it is a poor
place to fight. And we did consider these
things at the time the question of interced-
ing in Korea was .taken.
Senator BRIDGES. Now you are of the, theory
that has been expressed here that we should
not get involved In a land war on the main-
land of Asia?
General BRADLEY. Yes. I do not believe we
should get involved in a land war in Asia
if we Can possibly avoid it.
Senator BRIDGES. Then you do not agree
with a certain United States Senator who
said the other day that in case Communist
China or Russia attacked India we would be
in war in an hour, Or something like that?
General BRADLEY. I did not hear the state-
ment. I still repeat that I would hate very
much to see us involved in a land war in
Asia.
Senator BRIDGES. Then What I am getting
at, You are consistent whether it is China,
Indochina, India, or Siam or what not, you
have a basic thought for Considering all fac-
tors that we should not be involved with
our own troops on the mainland of Asia.
 June? 8, 19 70,
For(I;cJN ff?glUNA/L2Kfffi- DP?WU5E _000200240017-3
strike in Indoclvl". Although the three
thg. Cir umstanGee I the time, but right now
I feel as li, said ,ix my statement here, I
think we would be fighting a wrong war
at the wrong place and against a wrong en-
emy. (p. 753)
bIVIGUT n. trsri4HOV 'J.d4 3
General 'Eisenhower"s views on Viet_Nazn
are clearly defined and explained in Chapter
XIV of his book, Mandate for Change. The
Chapter gives the. reader a clear insight into
how one liresident tried. to cope with the
diplomatic and military situation during the
time of the French 'fighting in Indochina.
Early in 1954, Eisenhower wrote that he
had the following thoughts on the war on
Viet Nam:
";Another consideration in any conceivable
intervention was the type of forces which
might be employed. There seemed to be no
dearth of defensive ground strength in In-
dochina. I told my associates in January of
1954 that I could not at that moment see the
value of putting United States ground forces
In Southeast Asia.
"One possibility was to support the French
with air strikes, possibly from carriers, on
Communist installations around Dien Bien
Phu. There were grave doubts in my mind
about the effectiveness of such air strikes on
deployed troops where good cover was, plenti-
ful. Employment of air strikes alone to sup-
port French forces in the jungle would create
a double jeopardy; it would comprise an act
-of war and would also entail the risk of hav-
ing intervened and lost, Air power might be
temporarily beneficial to French morale, but
I had no intention of using United States
forces in any limited action when the force
employed would probably not be decisively
effective." (p. 341)
Throughout early 1954 Eisenhower and
Dulles tried to sell the idea abroad that any
American Intervention in the fighting would
have to meet at least two qualifications: One,
there would have to be,approval from Con-
gress, and two, American ground troops would
be committed to Viet Nam only if there were
several Allied countries joining simultane-
ously in the fighting.
On April 4, 1954, President Eisenhower
,wrote to Winston Churchill. explaining his
Ideas of a "regional grouping" of several
countries, who would come to the aid of the
trench forces, Near the end of the letter, the
following sentences appear: "The important
thing is that the coglition be strong and 'it
must be willing to poin the fight if neces-
sary. I do not envisage the need of any ap-
preciable ground forces on your or our
part...... [Emphasis added.) p. 347)
As events at Dien Bien Phu were coming
to a devasting conclusion and the meetings
in Geneva were starting to go into high gear,
President Eisenhower wrote to General Gru-
enther at NATO headquarters:
"As you know, you and I started more
than three years ago trying to convince the
French that they could not win the Indo-
china war and particularly could not get
real American supporf in that region unless
they would unequivocally pledge independ-
ence to, the Associated States upon the
achievement of military victory. Along with
this-inched as a corollary to It-this Ad-
ministration has been arguing that no West-
ern power can go to Asia militarily, except
as one ofconcert of powers, which concert
must include local Asiatic peoples." (p. 352)
As the situation at Dien Bien Phu became
hopelessly lost, Eisenhower commented in the
following way:
"We discussed once more the possibility
of United States interventlon by an air
All Eisenhower .quotations from: Man-
date for Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Garden, bity,NeeweYork, Doubleday and Com-
pany, Inc., 1$63. Chapter XIV, "Chaos in
Inid.ochlna,'`
service chiefs--Army, Navy, Air Force-had
recommended against this course, there was
some merit in the argument that the psy-
chologlOal effect of an air strike would raise
French and Vietnamese morale and improve,
at least temporarily, the entire situation.
"During the course of this meeting I re-
marked that if the United States were, uni-
laterally, to permit its forces to be drawn
into conflict in Indochina and in a succession
of Asian wars, the end result would be to
drain off our resources and to weaken our
over-all defensive position. If we, without
allies should ever find ourselves fighting at
various places all over the region, and if Red
Chinese aggressive participation were clearly
identified, then we could scarcely, avoid, I
said, considering the necessity of striking
directly at the head instead of the tail of the
enake, Red China itself." (p. 354)
Throughout this chapter there are a num-
ber of inferences that Eisenhower had seri-
ous reservations about engaging the Commu-
nists with all-out military force in Indo-
china.
Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.
Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentle-
man from California (Mr. HANNA).
Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, you see my
name on this resolution, and I do not
cavalierly or casually sign anything in
this House.
I became a signer, of this particular
resolution for three reasons-the first
because I appreciate and understand the
beliefs of the American people. The
American people believe that Congress
ought to have a balance of power with
the President. The American people have
just learned that the President has sent
his group out to back up or to bring a
report on the basis of his action. They
think, and they question in my district
and I suspect some in your districts, are
questioning and wondering what the
Congress is doing.
I think the fact that the President did
name this commission on his behalf is
even more strongly an argument why
the House should take the action sug-
ges ed by this resolution. You may say
tha .what people believe is wrong, and
you may be right. Beliefs are often oper-
ative facts. I remind Members of the
story of Othello. We as readers know
that none of the things Othello believed
about his wife are true, but she is just as
dead in the third act .as if they were true.
That is the operative effect of belief.
The American people believe that the
American Congress ought to be more ac-
tive in terms of the problems in Vietnam.
I think we ought to back up that belief
by an examination to find out what the
facts are and the. answers to questions
that have been raised and especially to
those that have not yet been raised.
Some Members have spoken about a
military review. I am not interested, and
I hope that the committee will not be
interested in jawboning or justifying
what has been done. The important
question to us is, What has happened to
the options for our policy in Vietnam?
We have to have an assessment of those
options that is independent so that we
can take our stand on the basis of our
power as an independent branch of
Government.
Mr. Speaker, I have two other reasons
for The next
reason suthetHouse Sneeds to have en
H 5209
lightenment on the status of our exist-
ing options.
Third, because of the need of the
House to find alternatives to our mili-
tary involvement in Vietnam, we ought
to support the resolution. When we take
out 500,000 men, we are going to be do-
ing something to the economy of that
country which must be balanced
out. When we begin to remove our
troops, we leave our installations, and I
am anxious to know- where the $3 to $6
billion of investment in installations is
going. The House should have the an-
swer to such questions. I hope the House
will go out and find the answer to these
questions.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from New
Hampshire (Mr. CLEVELAND).
(Mr. CLEVELAND asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, as
one of the cosponsors of the resolution,
I rise in support of the resolution and
commend the gentleman from Missis-
sippi for taking the initiative in spon-
soring the legislation. I subscribe to
most of the reasons that have already
been stated for supporting the resolu-
tion.
I would like to make a couple of addi-
ti'onal comments. I find it strange in-
deed that some of the people who are
opposing the resolution on the floor of
the House are echoing the same senti-
ments, and are talking about getting all
sides of the spectrum represented. I have
great confidence in the leadership of this
House that it will be fair in selecting this
committee. But those gentlemen who
are questioning this resolution. are pre-
cisely akin to some people who have
been coming into my office day after day
after day for the last 45 days, and they
have been saying, "Oh, is it not terrible.
Is it not terrible. The President is too
powerful. The Congress should take ac-
tion but they are not doing anything."
Here is a chance for Congress to do
something. I commend the gentleman
from Mississippi for taking the initiative
in doing something. The point many
people are missing in dicussing the bal-
ance of power between the Executive and
Congress is the fact that if an imbalance
exists and I think it does, a contributing
factor is the failure of Congress to re-
form its procedures as a first step toward
redressing that imbalance.
The other point I wish to make in sup-
port of this resolution is that although
it is perfectly true that there are other
committees of this House which may have
jurisdiction in this general area, the sad
fact of the matter is that for the time
being, at least, those committees do not
appear to be acting in this area. I com-
mend the gentleman from Mississippi for
taking the initiative.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. CLEVELAND, I yield to the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. HAYS. Just because someone hap-
pens to oppose this resolution is no sign
they are all in the category you are talk-
ing about.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R0002,00240017-3
 115210
Approved For Release 0 / 1 2 - 7.2- 000200240017-
CdNC SS une 8, 197'0
be brainwashed by certain people in
South Vietnam.
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, I thank
the gentleman from Alabama. I think
what tllp gentleman has said is quite im-
portant.
It is quite important also that this
Mr. RANDALL. I presume the gentle-
man from California is speaking in sup-
port of the resolution? Does he have any
information as to the accuracy of the
figures given by the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. HALL) who said 173 Mem-
bers of Congress had made factfinding
trips to Vietnam? Does the gentleman
know whether the number has been 175
or 200 or more?
Mr. HOSMER. I do not have the fig-
ure. I know many of the Congressmen,
in response to their responsibility as high
officials of the U.S. Government, to
handle whatever questions the Congress
has to handle, have felt it wise to go out
there. I know that the gentleman him-
self has taken the time and trouble to do
so.
Mr. RANDALL. Yes, you will recall we
were in Vietnam, you as a member of the
Joint Atomic Energy Committee and my-
self as a member of the Committee on
Armed Services, I recall we were there
together in January 1968 just prior to
the,Tet offensive of that year. Does the
gentleman feel that our trip was corn-
pletely successful and we were able to get
all the facts we would hope or preferred
to have come home with? I cannot speak
for the gentleman from California but
the only time I felt I was really learn-
ing anything or not being led about to
see only what we should see, was when I
managed to separate myself from our es-
corts on two different afternoons. I
learned more on those two days than
all the other time combined. The reason
was I was not in company with the mili-
tary, and without an escort. During those
hours, I saw and learned much more
than when I was guided and directed
where to go and what to do.
Mr. Speaker, I have no way to know
by what vote of the Rules Committee this
resolution comes to the floor today. Like
other Members, I can observe that House
Resolution 976 has portions struck
through and other portions printed in
italics which indicate it is a much
changed resolution from that which was
submitted by the joint sponsor of the
resolution.
There are several reasons why I can-
not support this resolution. The fore-
most reason is that some portions of the
resolutions are inconsistent with other
portions. In other words it is incon-
sistent within itself. It is an incongru-
ous document. To emphasize such a
charge one has only to look at page 2,
line 7 where it is stated the select com-
mittee is to proceed immediately to
Southeast Asia to investigate all aspects
of our involvement there. Then on page
3 after line 3, the title has been amended
to state that the purpose of this reso-
lution is to authorize the select com-
mittee of the House to study the recent
developments of Southeast Asia. Thus
while on page 2 the committee is
charged to investigate all aspects of our
involvement, on page 3 they are excused
from such strenuous duties and per-
mitted to investigate only recent devel-
opments. Perhaps that was a well taken
afterthought becaue no committee no
matter how efficient or no matter how
large a staff can accomplish a very
thorough investigation of all aspects of
Mr. CLEVELAND. If I made that im-
plication,'I take it back. I'said "some of
them." That is what I really meant to
say. I did not mean to include the gentle-
man from Ohio.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 10
minutes to the gentleman from Cali-
fornia (Mr. Hos.RER).
and was given
(Mr. I 19A asked
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
1Vtr. HOSM2..Mr. Speaker, I certainly
do not feel that either the Armed Serv-
ices Committee of the House or the For-
eign Affairs Committee has slackened in
any way' in-its attention to matters hav-
ing to do with Southeast Asia, or any
part of that area. This resolution to my
mind is not in response to that kind of
situation or anything of that nature.
These two regular standing committees
have general longtime Jurisdiction of all
kinds in the area of their definition, and
to have a select committee to find facts
with respect to a particular ad hoc situ-
ation has long been the practice of this
body.
That is all that is being sought by the
resolution before us. It is in response to
the fact that there-is in this country a
tremendous interest at this point in the
military affair in Southeast Asia. 'Many
people have come - to Washington not
only to make their views and concerns
about this war known to the President
of the United States, but, as each Mem-
ber of this body well knows, they have,
also come to Capitol Hill to make their
views. known to their elected representa-
tives in the legislative branch of this
Government of ours.
To ignore a responsibility in respect
to the war and to state 'that it is a mat-
ter solely in the jurisdiction of the exec-
utive branch is: to ignore the very basic
division of powers and responsibilities of
our Government which are shared by the
three branches and which this legislative
branch has since the beginning of the
situation in Southeast Asia had to assume
considerable responsibility.
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr.
Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentle-
man from Alabama.
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr.
Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding.
Mr. 'Speaker, I support this resolution.
I want to express the prayerful hope that
those who are appointed to go to South
Vietnam and 'to Southeast Asia do not
come back brainwashed as many did who
have been over there.
I have been on the Defense Appropria-
tion Committee for years. I have had all
-kinds of glowing promises made about
the war. At one time we were told by our
former Secretary of Y')ef ense that ' the
boys would be home by Christmas. The
nextt year he said that now we see the
end of tl}e tunnel. The next year he said
that we have stopper losing the war.
Then the 'next year nhe said that ?we are
winning the war. I am threadbare with
these ;,lowin icturesiaintec( by those
vvho go over there. A`gam I say, my pray-
elf ful hope is 'that those who go will not
body have its own independent judgment
and knowledge with respect to such re-
cent developments as the Vietnamization
program and how good it is, and how
fast the armed forces of Vietnam are
coming along in order to assume the
burden of that war, and how well pacifi-
cation is coming along, and how realistic
is the pace of withdrawal that has been
announced by the executive -branch of
the Government. What can we tell the
people we represent about these things?
They ask us. They expect us to know. We
have a responsibility to find out for our-
selves.
Further, I hope if it is at all possible
that the select committee might be able
to turn up facts which would be helpful
in the prisoners-of-war problem.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I want to
make a comment relative to the commit-
tee appointed by President Johnson at
the time of the elections in South Viet-
nam, when I had suggested a committee
such as the one being suggested today.
The committee was appointed and went
out. I did not serve as a member of that
committee, but I went out there on my
own, and strangely enough the commit-
tee appointed by the President viewed
the elections from the Caravelle Hotel
and had very little time in the country-
side.
I think an important point was an ob-
servation made by one of the gentlemen
before, that if this committee goes out,
it must have some Vietnamese inter-
preters, so the members can understand
what is going on and not be led around
by the nose as the previous committees
have been.
Mr. HOSMER. I thank the gentleman
from New York for his comments about
the previous committee that went there
to observe the election several years ago.
It triggers my mind to state what the
relationship might be between this pro-
posed select committee and the commit-
tee sent to Vietnam by the President.
In the first place, that is an executive
committee. Its itinerary and its actions
and its makeup were determined by the
executive department. It functions un-
der and serves that branch of Govern-
ment.
I would hope that the select committee,
if formed, would give due consideration
to whatever facts are determined by that
Presidential committee, use whatever in-
formation it found available from it, but
would cover the bases which had not
been covered by that committee and
would cover the bases which needed to
be covered more thoroughly than it has
covered during its short existence.
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HOSfvI6iR. I am delighted to yield
to the gentleman from Missouri.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 8, 1970'Approved For 2- 00200240017-3
8 H 5211
our involvement and proceed to write any Mr. BIAGGI, I thank. the gentleman to go to southeast Asia, study first hand
kind of a report on the results of their for yielding. recent developments in the area, and
investigation wi n 45, vs. It is just not I rise in support of this resolution. within 30 days from its inception report
humanely possible Yet that is what the With relation to the question of econ- its findings to the House. In this connec-
colnmittee is, required to do under the omy I believe this is a poor time to per- tion, I commend the distinguished gen-
language of line 10 on -page 2 of the reso- mit such a minuscule sum of money to tleman from Mississippi (Mr. MoNT-
lution, interfere with any action that would GOMERY) for his dedicated and tireless
The , second reason that prompts me aid in resolving the overriding problem efforts which have been instrumental in
to oppose this resolution I*, that the ,pre- of our Nation-the war in Southeast bringing this proposal before the House
amble which Should serve as a guideline Asia. today.
to the select committee_ has has been Intelligence comes in many and varied In my judgment, the need for this
stricken._That preamble contained three forms. If the select committee is prop- committee is in no way diminished by
paragraphs, the first of which is notfac- erly apportioned and selected Congress the fact that the President's special fact-
tually true but the second and third and the Nation can. Only benefit. finding commission is in the process of
paragraphs should have been retained However, my relationship with mili- compiling a report on its trip to the bat-
to serve as diregtion*,pf the House to tary investigation has been extensive and tle zone. I believe the House should act
the select, committee which it is creating enlightening. I can assure the gentleman to provide a balance to the President's
by this resoltulon. that if the committee follows the pre- commission because although the fact-
Mr, HOSMER, Everyone has his own scribed route I would suggest very finding group certainly will provide a
techniques for obtaining and evaluating strongly it would result in an exercise valuable service to the country by virtue
information, and 'be nothing more than a futile effort, of its activities and report, I believe the
I may say to. the gentleman, until ofie My productivity increased when I situation in Southeast Asia to be so com-
gets to the Congress itself, even, one ceased to 'inform the military of my plex that more than 96 hours would be
really does not understand what this presence on military installations in need to be spent in the area if, any in-
great institution really is and its mani- the course of conducting investigations dividual or group were to obtain the most
fold im lications. That is_ an indication of of abuses on the various bases through- functional perspective.
the value of personally taking. a look at out the country. Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House
things which you should know about if I suggest strongly that this committee would provide a 30-day investigation and
you are to deal with theme responsibly. be 'sent. However, before they embark report period. This would be far more
And, 1 would like to respond to whoever they should uncover or develop sources appropriate a time frame to operate
brought up_ the matter of, a,,_ reservist of information so that they will have under. I say this based on personal ex-
being unable to function fairly on this contacts when they get there. The op- perience, for 2 years ago I spent ap-
select committee. The purpose of the ponents of this resolution bewilder me proximately 1 week touring the embat-
committee is to ascertain facts, not in the light of hue and cry across the tled area of South Vietnam. In the course
whitewash anybody and it could not do Nation seeking an.end to the war and of my travels I achieved a much greater
so if it wanted to. It,appears to me that greater participation by Confgres. This is understanding of the forces at work in
a person "witl} some pastor, present mili- Congress' constitutional prerogative and Vietnam and the progress we were mak-
tary experience might better be able duty. Hence it ill behooves anyone to ing in the war; however, I believe my
to determine the facts, than someone else. deny Members of the House any source perception and judgments would have
At leas he would understand the lingo. of information. This source may well be been even more acute had I been able
Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, will received with greater creditability than to spend more time in the country itself.
the gentleman yield? some have been provided to date, and is Mr. Speaker, I believe this select com-
Mr. XXOSMER. I yield to the gentleman oft contradictory. mittee would provide an extremely valu-
from Mississippi. Mr. HOSMER. If the gentleman will able internal factfinding instrument for
Mr. MONTGOMERY. In answer to the permit me to say this, I believe we can the House ofRepresentatives, As such it
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. HALL) said find 12 Members in this House who are would provide a needed balance in the
that there were about 175 Members who not about to be conned by anybody, who present reporting mix on the status and
had been to Yietnam during the war can come back with, facts upon which level of our current involvement in
years. We have been over there about 6 their colleagues can rely. Southeast Asia. This balance would be
years, If. we divide six into 175 we get Let me say further that, after listen- enhanced by the Speaker's insuring that
an average of less, than 30 Members per ing to the copious words of tribute to the 12 Members appointed to the com-
year who have been over there. the Speaker only a week or two ago, mittee will be of varying points of view
Mr. HOSMER. Which averages 21/2 per I think we can feel full confidence in with regard to present policies in South-
month. his ability and determination to form east Asia. This issue is far too important
Mr. MONTGOMERY. It seems to me a balanced committee which will do its for its resolution to be affected by parti-
that less than 30 Members a year going to job in a balanced way. san politics, or political ambitions.
Vietnam is, certainly not too many. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, will the gent- I urge the passage of House Resolution
Mr. DE LA GAR,ZA? Mr. Speaker, will leman yield? 976.
the gentleman yield? Mr. HOSMER. I yield to the gentle- Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr.
Mr. HOSSMER, I yield to the' gentle- man from Ohio. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only
man from Texas. Mr. HAYS. I would like to make a I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
Mr. DE LA GARZA, I should like to ask suggestion, Since it is going to take a gentleman from California (Mr. Moss).
a question, but first I should like to make couple of battalions to protect these 12, (Mr. MOSS asked and was given per-
a statement, and since the gentleman from Missis- mission to revise and extend his re-
The men, in Vietnam are doing their sippi thinks that everybody wants to marks.)
duty in winning that aspect of the war. take a look, I do not want to go, but I Mr. MOSS. Mr. Speaker, this resolu-
We are losing it back here. What earthly think the other 422 plus the 12 should tion, if adopted, will create something
reason could we have to go there and be sent over and give them all a rifle, that cannot possibly work. For 15 years,
investigate policy formulated here in the and in that way we can release the two I have chaired investigating committees
State Department, here at the White battalions from having to give protec- of this House. One of them has gone out
House and here at the Pentagon? What tion to them.
coud,}yp learn about policy at the battle- Mr. HOSMER. Let me say, having to Vietnam at least three times in the
field ixl Xitnam? last 4 years and it has taken literally
Mr. Oetna n am going to regard been there a couple of times, that the months of careful and diligent work in
the . gentle gentleman's statement is an exaggeration advance of the committee going out in
_ nl s Words as entirely a by at least two battali
statement ons. order to have information showing where
rather than in part a question. Mr. PRICE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as investigative effort should be concen-
hl GGI. Mr. Speaker, will the one of the original sponsors of the pro- trated to, produce any meaningful results.
gei tlemen.yield? posal, I urge my colleagues to lend their This contemplates immediate departure
Mr. HOSMER, I
yield to the gentle- support to House Resolution 976, a bill upon adoption. It will take 45 days to
man from New York. to nth . , - 12 _ _, _ _ ... - _
Approved For'Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 ,Approved For CONGRESSIONAL RECORllDP7 f8USYR000200240017 ne 8, 1970
H 5212
tee must go out, investigate, and report dent's policies in Southeast Asia refers be spokesmen for our people? If you
back. I can assure you, again speaking back to the date when we voted over my heard a burglar outside your door
from a great deal, of experience, that opposition for the resolution which the would you call someone downtown to
you cannot do it. It just is not within the gentleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT) come and find out what the noise is or
realm of possibility. You can have 45 presented, which, in a sense, subscribed would you go see for yourself?
men who will go out and look and see and to . all that the President was doing in Let us determine for ourselves what is
learn something, but they will not make Southeast Asia. That resolution was so going on and then maybe we can speak I a comprehensive investigation even interpreted
be-
as abnY eel minority a vote of fore little bit al ooff dayvJune
the activity in Vietnam much h less the
involvement in Cambodia, in Laos, or in confidence, in President Nixon's policies. 4 issue of the southern Illinoisan news-
Thailand. This is self-delusion. Now, Mr. Speaker, the record is clear paper with two Associated Press dis-
Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge in this resolution that we think we had patches. One headline reads "Objectives
that the House not indulge in it. Let us, better take a second look and send a Won, Nixon Tells United States." Then,
if we are going to have a committee, give select committee over there to take that on the same page in daring headlines
them the time, give them the staff, and second look. Evidently, we are less con- "Senior Military Officers on Cambodia
let them go out and do the kind of a fident in the undertakings of the execu- Say, 'It's Too Early To Tell.' "
Job that this Congress is worthy of pro- tive branch. Mr. Speaker, if the President and the
ducing. Let us not give an inferior prod- So, I look upon this resolution as a re- top military people in the field fighting
uct hastily put together to the American pealer of the Wright resolution and I the war are in disagreement about what
people. shall, therefore, support it. is going on, how can we possibly know?
Mr. MARTIN. "Mr. Speaker, I yield Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr. I hope the President is right, but I want
such time as he may use to the gentle- Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distin- the Congress to report, then we can make
man from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) . guished gentleman from Texas (Mr. a better judgment on what to do.
(Mr. TAFT asked and was given per- CABELL). Mr. Speaker, I want to commend my
mission to revise and extend his re- (Mr. CABELL asked and was given distinguished friend from Mississippi
marks.) permission to revise and extend his re- (Mr. MONTGOMERY) for allowing me
Mr. TAFT Mr. Speaker, with many marks.) to join with him in cosponsoring this im-
reservations I will support this resolu- Mr. CABELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the portant proposal and also to commend
tion, on the chance that it will produce gentleman for yielding this time to me. him for his hard work in bringing out
even one Iota of information that will Mr. Speaker, there is no man in this the resolution.
be helpful in bringing about a peaceful House that I admire more as a friend Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1
solution and in preventing future Viet- and as a legislator than I do the author minute to the gentleman from Nebraska
nams. Properly, it would be preferable of this resolution. But, I must rise in (Mr. CUNNINGHAM).
for the Foreign Affairs Committee to opposition to it. (Mr. CUNNINGHAM asked and was
have acted to provide the background on Mr. Speaker, if this Congress wants to given permission to revise and extend his
present, past, or future foreign policy do something about the affair in South- remarks.)
aspects of the problem, with other stand- east Asia, then why not fall in behind Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I
ing committees making appropriate in- our Executive leadership in fighting this came here with an open mind and have
quiries within their jurisdictions. war to a successful conclusion. There listened to this debate.
But my feeling is that these commit- can be no political negotiations as long It appears to me that this resolution, if
tees do not seem to have handled the as we are dealing from weakness. Let us it passes, will accomplish nothing. They
problem comprehensively to date, nor get the military advantage which we will come back with varying opinions and
have executive factfindings done so. must have. Let us unite behind our lead- muddy the water. I agree with the gentle-
It .is essential that the Congress, and ership. Let us show the people of America man from Texas who spoke a moment
especially the House, strengthen, its role that we are not yellow dogs and run ago to the effect that I have full faith
in factfinding and policy formation in with our tail between our legs at every and confidence in the Committee on
foreign affairs. Perhaps the proposed sign of opposition. Let us get the military Foreign Affairs, in the Committee on
commission can help do that. If so it will superiority and prove it and then they Armed Services, and above all in the
be worth the effort. will come to the conference table. We Commander in Chief. I do not think we
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. 'Speaker, I would can deal from strength and not from should cloud the picture any further as
like to confirm what the gentleman from weakness and we can get this thing over. it has already been clouded by the vary-
California (Mr. SisK) said earlier in the Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr. ing pronouncements of the approxi-
debate; that is, it is the policy of the Speaker, I yield the remaining time on mately 175 Members who have already
Committee' on Rules to eliminate all our side to the distinguished gentleman visited Southeast Asia. This proposed
"whereases" in the resolutions that are from Illinois (Mr. GRAY). trip indicates lack of confidence in the
reported out of the Committee on Rules. (Mr. GRAY asked and was given per- two great committees of the House:
This has been a standard practice for mission to revise . and extend his Foreign Affairs and Armed Services.
many years, and that is the reason why, remarks.) I supported President Johnson and I
as the gentleman from California ex- Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, the only way strongly support President Nixon, our one
plained, the "whereases" in the pream- to make our dreams come true is to stay and only Commander in Chief. I am go-
ble of this resolution were eliminated. It awake. We have before us a resolution ing to vote against this resolution for
was to follow out the general policies of that is going to provide us with informa- those reasons. To do otherwise is to pro-
the Committee on Rules over the past tion so we can go home and talk to our long the war because of the various polit-
many years. constituents between now and November ical ' viewpoints which the committee
Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr. about what the Congress, the House of members will express and can only lead
Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentle- Representatives that is charged with the enemy to believe we have no guts to
man from New York (Mr. CARES0. passing all appropriation bills first is see this struggle through to a successful
Mr, CARET. Mr. Speaker, I rise in doing about Vietnam, about Cambodia, conclusion. The news media will really
support of this resolution. I am con- and about the way we are spending have a field day exploiting this foolish
vinced we can'do no mote than profit by money for the defense of this great Na- trip.
all of the information we get in any tion. Mr. ROGERS of Florida. Mr. Speaker,
rnauner On what is going on in Southeast Mr. Speaker, I will say to my col- I rise in support of House Resolution
Asia. I rise because I support the integ- leagues that I am a little bit surprised' 976, a resolution to immediately send a
rity of every Member of this body and that we have opposition to this resolu- select committee of 12 Members of the
the belief that they will go out and do a tion, much less what the consequences House of Representatives to Southeast
fair factfindingjob and come back with will be if you vote it down. Asia to investigate the aspects of U.S.
valuable " knowledge, and, of course, all Mr. Speaker, we are the elected Rep- military involvement in that area.
knowledge has some value. resentatives of the people. If we are I am cosponsoring this resolution with
Moreover, I support the resolution be- not even willing to find out from Mem- my good friend and colleague, Mr. Mont-
cause the only place T can find this bers of our own body as to what is really gomery of Mississippi, and many other
House Is on record In terms of the Presi- going on in Southeast Asia, how can we Members of the House in a bipartisan ef-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : GIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 June 8, 1970' Approved For( 2 P1 %F000200240017-3 H5213
fort to obtain the facts regarding past of Congress have visited Vietnam since an important part that should have been
and present developments in Southeast the commencement of hostilities. One
Asia retained has been stricken out.
. Member has said facetiously that the Now I am not suggesting that if this
The use of military forces in Vietnam body count of the Members of Congress resolution is approved and if this com-
and now in Cambodia has been the sub- who have served in Vietnam runs over mittee is appointed by the Speaker that
Jett of intense concern and debate across 175 and is approaching the 200 mark. it will be weighted by those members who
the Nation and in Congress, I am very Yes, Vietnam has been investigated and would prejudge before they investigate,
concerned about the many conflicting re- investigated and investigated. Some or develop preconceived conclusions be-
ports on the factual situation in South- valuable information has been brought fore the report was written. I am not
east Asia, which seem to be coming from back but along with this has been a suggesting that there would be a white-
a number of different sources. lot of misinformation. wash in any sense of the term. I do not
I certainly think that the people of I will not support this resolution today believe that it wonnld be fair to say, this
our Nation and thg Members of Congress because one committee recently ap- would be just another junket for about a
would greatly benefit from the proposed pointed by the executive branch had dozen members. I do suggest that this is
committee's accounting of the facts sur- Members from both bodies of Congress. no way to investigate our involvement.
rounding our involvement in Southeast It is my understanding that this com- Our fighting men are trying to do their
Asia, particularly in view of recent de- mittee worked somewhat over 3 days but duty. If there is any failure of policy it
velopments. less than a total of 4 days and are now is not in Vietnam but right here in
Therefore, I urge my colleagues to join on their way home. Certainly this House Washington. Our military personnel are
with me in supporting House Resolu- should weigh and consider the report of trying hard to achieve their objective.
tion 976. this committee before we indulge in the Someone has said it would take nearly
Mr. COHELAN, Mr. Speaker, I will formation of another select committee, a battalion of our troops to protect this
vote against House Resolution 976, a bill Mr. Speaker, one of the paramount committee. That may be exaggeration,
to establish a 12-member select c!ommit- reasons that we should defeat this resolu- but I think the Members of Congress
tee to study the recent developments in tion today is that the House and Senate should keep out of the way of our men.
Southeast Asia. have established regularly constituted If we pass this resolution today, it
We have been over and. over this committees to do this job. It should be means we will telegraph ahead that
ground. The central question that we done with the Foreign Affairs Committee another committee had been formed
face is: when are we going to extricate or the Armed Services Committee or the and when it will arrive in Vietnam. All
ourselves from this Southeast Asian, Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. the window dressing will be ready upon
"quagmire"? I have constantly fought What are these regular committees for if arrival. Another committee is not need-
to have our military commitments in it is not to investigate our involvement in ed. It will not accomplish a thing. It
t ou have Asia end ed. co a member in Southeast Asia? will cost a substantial sum of money
the Foreign sia led. As a merit tee of This resolution seems to leave the im- after all the experts, consultants, tech-
the House Appropriations committee, I plication or the innuendo that the Con- nicians, clerks, and stenographic assist-
have studied these issues in depth. My gress is not now possessed of the facts ante called for on page 2 have been paid
conclusion has been consistent. We about our military involvement in South- and then reimbursed for their travel and
should get out now. east Asia. The adoption of this resolution subsistence. While the expense will be
The central question, Mr. Speaker, is would be an admission that all we have substantial there is no assurance of a
whether we have enough information to done about Vietnam and all that has been productive result or even any possible
make a reasoned de enough I feel that the approved by the standing committees and forecast of the consequences such a re-
m
cor arect easone decis response is not then once again approved on the floor of port might produce.
forth t "study" but a both bodies of Congress had been done This resolution should never have been
e r assertion without any knowledge or any investiga- brought to the floor at this time. It
of congressional authority. tion of the facts of our involvement. Of should be defeated.
This is an unnecessary bill and should course, such an innuendo or implication Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr
be defeated. is not only inaccurate, it is ridiculous, Speaker, I move the brevious
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Speaker, I intend To oppose this resolution today is not question
on
to oppose House Resolution 976. One por- to ignore any responsibility of the Con- the resolution.
ITARY INQUIRY
tion of the resolution states that there gress or to turn anything over to the Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, a parlia-
shall be an investigation of all aspects executive branch. Our standing commit- mentary inquiry.
of our involvement, This is completely tees have worked long and diligently to The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. AL-
incongruous with another portion of the get the facts. BERT). The gentleman will state his par-
resolution which relieves the commit- Mr. Speaker, I fall to understand liamentary inquiry.
tee after they have studied only the re- why the preamble of this resolution Mr. BINGHAM. Will the Chair enter-
cent developments in Southeast Asia. It was stricken. I could not have supported tain a motion to recommit with an
is quite obvious and apparent that two the resolution if the first paragraph amendment to the resolution?
sections of the resolutions fly in the face alone had been retained and the last The SPEAKER
of each other. They tend to pull the two stricken because the first pro tetlem n The
committee in opposite directions. May- alleges that the Cambodian incursiona has New Chair York that ea mto the otion totreecomm
be that portion which holds the com- added a new dimension to the war. Many not in order on a resolution from the
mittee only to the study of recent de- of us do not believe this to be the fact. Committee on Rules.
velopments is a more reasonable com- The second paragraph is harmless and Mr. BINGHAM. I thank the Chair.
mission because the resolution requires inoffensive. We all know that deploy- The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ques-
not only that all facts be investigated ment of our military forces has been the tion is on ordering the previous question.
about our military involvement but that subject of intense debate in the Congress. The question was taken; and the
a detailed report be prepared and sub- That is a truism. But why was the third Speaker pro tempore announced that
mitted to the House all within 45 days paragraph stricken? The Congress needs the ayes appeared to have it.
following. the adoption of this resolu- as much accurate and detailed informa- Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, I object
tion. I submit this is impossible to ac- tion as possible to fulfill its constitutional to the vote on the ground that a quorum
complish. responsibilities. If this resolution is to is not present and make the
Most of us would gladly support this mean anything then this point of
paragraph of order that a quorum is not present.
resolution} if _it were not a fact that there the preamble should have been retained The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently
have already been an overwhelming as a guideline for the select committee. a quorum is not present.
number of investigations by Members In other words, the preamble itself is The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
of the Congress in the past. I suppose somewhat like the content of the body of the Sergeant at Arms will notify ab-
it would take quite a bit of book work the resolution. Part of it is untrue, part sent Members, and the Clerk will call the
to find out exactly how many Members of it is unnecessary and meaningless, and roll.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 H 5214
Approved For d 9 : * RJ2-OQ Jl, 000200240017-3 June 8, 1970
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 246,_nays 80, not voting 103,
as follows:
[Roll No. 1551
Abbitt
Adair
Albert
Anderson,
Calif.
Anderson,_ Ill.
Anderson,
Tenn.
Andrews, Ala.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Annunzio
Arends
Beall, Md.
Belcher
Bell, Calif.
Bennett
Betts
Bevill
Biaggi
Blackburn
Blanton
Blatnik
Boggs
Boland
Bow
Brinkley
Brad
Brooks
Brotzman
Brown, Mich.
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Broyhill, Va.
Bucbapan
Burke, Fla.
Burleson, Tex.
Burlison, Mo.
Burton, Utah
Byrne, Pa.
Byrnes, Wis.
Cabell
Caffery
Camp
Casey
Cederberg
deller
Chamberlain
Chappell
Clancy
Clark
Clausen
Don, 7 ,
Ciawso?, Del
Cleveland
Collier
Collins
Calmer
Conable
Corbett
Carman
Coughlin
Cramer
Daniels, N.J.
Davis, Ga.
Davis, Wis.
cte la Garza
Delaney
Dellenback
Denney
Dennis
Dent
Devine,
Dickinson
Donohue
Dowdy
Duncan
Dwyer
Edwards, Ala.
Edwards; La.
Erlenborn
Eshleman
Evans, Tenn.
Feighan
SEAS-246
Findley Morton
Flowers Myers
Flynt Natcher
Foreman Nelsen
Fountain O'Neal, Ga.
Frelinghuysen Pelly
Frey Perkins
Friedel Pettis
Fuqua Philbin
Galifianakis Pickle
Garmatz Pirnie
Gibbons Poage
Goldwater Poff
Gray Price, Tex.
Griffin Pryer, Ark.
Gross Pucinski
ubser Quie
aley Quillen
all Randall
Hamilton Rarick
Hammer- Reid, Ill.
schmidt Reifel
Hanna Roberts
Hansen, Idaho Robison
Harsha Rodino
Harvey Roe
Hastings Rogers, Fla.
Hays Rostenkowski
Hebert Roth
Henderson Ruppe
Hogan Sandman
Holifleld
Hosmer
Howard
Hull
Hunt
Satterfield
Saylor
Scherle
Schneebeli
Schwengel
Hutchinson Scott
Ichord Sebelius
Jarman Shriver
Johnson, Calif. Sikes
Johnson, Pa. Sisk
Jonas Skubitz
Jones, Ala. Slack
Jones, N.C. Smith, Calif.
Kazen Smith, Iowa
Kee Smith, N.Y.
Keith Snyder
King Springer
Kleppe Stafford
Kluczynski Stanton
Kuykendall Steiger, Ariz.
Kyl Steiger, Wis.
Lanngrebe Stephens
Langen Stubblefield
Latta Stuckey
Lennon Sullivan
Lloyd Taft
Long, La. Tal.cott
Long, Md. Taylor
Lukens Teague, Calif.
McClory Teague, Tex.
McCloskey Thompson, Ga.
McClure Thomson, Wis.
McCulloch Udall
McDonald, Waggonner
Mich. Wampler
McFall Watts
McKneally White
Madden Widnall
Mahon Wiggins
Mailliard Williams
Marsh Wilson,
Martin Charles H.
Matsunaga Winn
May Wright
Mayne Wyatt
Melcher Wylie
Michel Wyman
Miller, Ohio Young
Minish Zablocki
Minshall Zion
Mize Zwach
Mizell
Montgomery
NAPS-80
ddi~mm Edwards, Calif.
Addabbo Esch
illb rg
Ashley
Biester Evans, Colo.
Bingham Flood
Brademas Foley
Broomfield 'Ford,
Burke, Mass:. William D.
Button Fraser
Carey Fulton, Pa.
Clay Gonzalez
Co.elan Green, Pa.
Cu ham Griffiths
Ec1t Gude
Hathaway
Hawkins
Heckler, W. Va.
Heckler, Mass.
Helstoski
Hicks
Horton
Jacobs
Karth
Kastenmeler
Koch
Leggett
Lowenstein
McDade
Macdonald, O'Konski Stokes
Mass. Olsen Tiernan
Meeds Patman Ullman
Mikva Patten Van Deerlin
Mink Pike Vander Jagt
Monagan Podell Vanik
Morgan Rees Waldie
Morse Riegle Whalen
Mosher Rogers, Colo. Wolff
Moss Rooney, Pa. Wydler
Murphy, Ill. Rosenthal Yates
Nedzi Roybal Yatron
Obey Ryan
O'Hara Shipley
NOT VOTING-103
Abernethy
Alexander
Ashbmok
Aspinall
Ayres
Baring
Barrett
Ford, Gerald R. Ottinger
Fulton, Tenn. Passman
Gallagher Pepper
Gaydos Pollock
Gettys Powell
Gialmo Preyer, N.C.
Gilbert Price, Ill,
Goodling Railaback
Brasco Green, Oreg. Reid, N.Y.
Bray Hagan Reuss
Brown, Calif. Halpern Rhodes
Burton, Calif. Hanley Rivers
Bush Hansen, Wash. Rooney, N.Y.
Carter Harrington Roudebush
Chisholm
Conte
Conyers
Cowger
Crane
Culver
Daddario
Daniel, Va.
Dawson
Derwinski
Diggs
Dingell
Dorn
Downing
Dulski
Edmondson
Fallon
Farbstein
Fascell
Fish
Fisher
Jones, Tenn. St Germain
Kirwan Schadeberg
Kyros Scheuer
Landrum Staggers
Lujan Steed
McCarthy Stratton
McEwen Symington
McMillan Thompson, N.J.
MacGregor Tunney
Mann Vigorito
Mathias Watkins
Meskill Watson
Miller, Calif. Weicker
Mills Whalley
Mollohan Whitehurst
Moorhead Whitten
Murphy, N.Y. Wilson, Bob
Nichols Wold
Nix
O'Neill, Mass.
To the previous question was ordered.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts with Mr.
Gerald R. Ford.
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Ayres.
Mr. Downing with Mr. Bray.
Mr. Dulski with Mr. Carter.
Mr. Fallon with Mr. Fish.
Mr. Giaimo with Mr. Halpern.
Mr. Staggers with Mr. Goodling.
Mr. Steed with Mr. Meskill.
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Pol-
look.
Mr. Price of Illinois with Mr. Raildback.
Mr. Whitten with Mr. Watkins.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.
Weicker.
Mr. Baring with Mr. Bob Wilson.
Mr. Aspinall with Mr. Cowger.
Mr. Branco wtih Mr. Oonte.
Mr. Landrum with Mr. Aahbrook.
Mr. Kyros with Mr. Crane.
Mr. Miller of California with Mr. Der-
winski.
Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Bush.
Mr. Dingell with Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Fascell with Mr. McEwen.
Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with Mr. Mac-
Gregor.
Mr. Gallagher with Mr. Reid of New York.
Mr. Hagan with Mr. Ruth.
Mr. Hanley with Mr. Schadeberg.
Mr. Stratton with Mr. Watson.
Mr. St Germain with Mr. Whalley.
Mr. Pepper with Mr. Roudebush.
Mr. Nichols with Mr. Mathias.
Mr. Moorhead with Mr. Whitehurst.
Mr. Mann with Mr. Wold.
Mr. McMillan with Mr. Mollohan.
Mr. Hungate with Mr. Jones of Tennessee.
Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Preyer of North
Carolina.
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Passman.
Mr. Daddario with Mr. Vigorito.
Mr. Brown of California with Mrs. Chis-
holm.
Mr. Conyers with Mr. Burton of Cali-
fornia.
Mr. Scheuer with Mr. Diggs.
Mr. Powell with Mr. Kirwan.
Mr. Culver with Mr. Gettys.
Mr. Dorn with Mr. Daniel of Virginia.
Mr. Farbstein with Mr. Harrington.
Mr. Rivers with Mr. Mills.
Mr. Dawson with Mr. Symington.
Mr. Fisher with Mr. Gilbert.
Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Ottinger.
Mr. Reuss with Mr. Nix.
Mrs. Hansen of Washington with Mr.
Gaydos.
Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Rhodes.
Mr. MONAGAN changed his vote from
"yea" to "nay."
Mr. BROOKS and Mr. YOUNG
changed their votes from "nay" to "yea."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The ques-
tion is on the resolution.
Mr. HALL, Mr. Speaker, on that I de-
mand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 223, nays 101, not voting 105,
as follows:
[Roll No. 156]
YEAS-223
Abbitt Feighan McClure
Adair Findley "McCulloch
Adams Flowers McDade
Addabbo Foley McDonald,
Albert Foreman Mich.
Anderson, Fountain McFall
Calif. Fraser McKneally
Anderson, Frelinghuysen Macdonald,
Tenn. Frey Mass.
Andrews, Ala. Friedel Madden
Andrews, Fuqua Mahon
N. Dak. Galiflanakis Mailliard
Annunzio Garmatz Marsh
Arends Gibbons Martin
Ashley Goldwater May
Bell, Calif. Gonzalez Meeds
Bennett Gray Melcher
Bevill Green, Pa. Michel
Biaggi Griffin Miller, Ohio
Blester Grover Minish
Blackburn Gubser Mink
Blanton Gude Mizell
Blatnik Haley Montgomery
Boggs Hamilton Mosher
Brademas Hammer- Myers
Brotzman schmidt Natcher
Brown, Mich. Hanna Nelsen
Brown, Ohio Hansen, Idaho Obey
Broyhill, N.C. Harsha Olsen
Broyhill, Va. Hastings O'Neal, Ga.
Burke, Fla. Hathaway Patten
Burke, Mass. Hebert Perkins
Burleson, Mo. Heckler, W. Va. Pettis
Button Heckler, Mass. Pickle
Byrne, Pa. Henderson Pike
Caffery Hogan Pirnie
Camp Holifleld Poage
Carey Hosmer Podell
Cederberg Howard Poff
Chamberlain Hunt Price, Tex.
Chappell Ichord Pryor, Ark.
Clancy Jacobs Puclnski
Clausen, Jarman Purcell
Don H. Johnson, Calif. Quie
Cleveland Johnson, Pa. Quillen
Collins Jonas Rarick
Colmer Jones, Ala. Rees
Corbett Jones, N.C. Reid, Ill.
Carman Kazen Reifel
Coughlin Kee Riegle
Cramer Keith Roberts
Daniels, N.J. King Robison
Davis, Ga. Kleppe Rodino
Dellenback Kluczynski Roe
Dennis Koch Rogers, Fla.
Donohue Kuykendall Rostenkowski
Dowdy Kyl Roth
Duncan Landgrebe Roybal
Dwyer Langen Ruppe
Edmondson Latta Sandman
Edwards, La. Lennon Satterfield
Eilberg Lloyd Saylor
Erlenborn Long, La. Scott
Each Long, Md. Sebelius
Eshleman Lukens Shriver
Evins, Tenn. McCloskey Sikes
'Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72=00337R000200240017-3
 June 8, 1970 Approved For&e;WM61Aj21y2fia~Y000200240017-3
Skis bitz TStu
aft key
Black Taylor
Smith, Iowa Teague, Tex.
Snyder Udall
Springer Ullman
Stafford Van,Deerlin
Stanton Vander Jagt
Steiger, Ariz. Waggonner
Stephens Wampler
Stubblefield Watts
NAYS-101
White Mr. Baring with Mr. Bob Wilson.
Widnall Mr. Aspinall with Mr. Cowger.
Wiggins Mr. Brasco with Mr. Conte.
Williams
Winn Mr. Landrum with Mr. Ashbrook.
Wright
Wyatt
Wydler
Zwach
H 5215
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently
a quorum is not present.
The Doorkeeper will close the doors,
the Sergeant at Arms will notify ---
Mr. Dingell with Mr. Lulan.
Mr. Fascell with Mr. McEwen.
Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with M
M
r
oc
,-
Adereon, Ill. Edwards, Calif. O'Konski Gregor.
Beall, Md. Evans, Colo. Patman Mr. Gallagher with Mr. Reid of New York.
Belcher Flood Pelly Mr. Hagan with Mr. Ruth.
Berry Flynt Phibin Mr. Hanley with Mr. Schadeburg.
Betts Ford, Randall
Bingham William D.. Rhodes Mr. Stratton with Mr. Watson.
Boland Fulton, Pa. Rogers, Colo. Mr. St Germain with Mr. Whalley.
Bow Grifths Rooney, Pa. Mr. Pepper with Mr. Roudebush.
Brock Br'ey GGross Rosenthal Mr. Nichols with Mr. Mathias.
Brooks Hoe Ryan Mr. Moorhead with Mr. Whitehurst.
erl
e li Mr. Mann with Mr. Weld. Annunzio Gray
Broomfield Hawkins Sch
hilbi
Buchanan Hays all Mr. McMillan with Mr. Mollohan ?r as Griffin Pchana Sh
l
a y ickle
,u Tex, HeLstoskiCalif Mr. Hungate with Mr. Jones of Tennessee. Beall, Md. Grover Pirnie
p
Burton, Te Hicks Steiger, Wis. Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Prayer of North Bell, Gue Poff
Byrnes, Wis. Horton Stokes Carolina. , Calif. Hide Prig
Bennett Haley Price, Ark
Tex.
Cabell Hull Sullivan Mr. Alexander with Mr. Passman. Berry Hall
Casey Hutchinson Talcott Mr. Daddario with Mr. Vigorito. Betts Hamilton Pryor, .
Cellar Pucinski
Clark Karth Teague, Calif. Mr. Brown of California with Mrs. Chls- BOvill Hammer- Purcell
Kastensneier Thompson, Ga. holm, Blackburn , schmidt Quillen
Clawson, Del Leggett Thomson, Wis. Mr. Conyers BBlanton Hansen, Idaho Rarick
Clay Lowenstein Van,i Tiernan with Mr. Burton of California. Bow Harsha ni.
Cohelan Mcclory Vandk Mr. Schauer with Mr. Diggs. Brinkle
y Reid, s
Collier Mayne Waldie Mr. Powell with Mr. Kirwan. Brooks Harvey Rhes
Conable Mlkva Whalen Mr. Culver with Mr. Gettys. Brotzman Henderson Roberts
bCunningham Minehall Wilson, Mr. Dorn with Mr. Daniel of Virginia. Brown, Mich. Hogan RRooge ' -Colo.
Davis, Wis. Mize Charles H. Mr. Farbstein with Mr. Harrington. Brown. Ohio Hosmer Roatenkowski
d la Garza Monagan Wyman Mr. Rivers with Mr. Mills.
Delaney Morgan Yates Broyhill, Va. Hunt
Denney Morse Yatron Mr. Dawson with Mr. Symington. Buchanan Hutchinson Sandman
Dent Morton Young Mr. Fisher with Mr. Gilbert. Burke, Fla. Ichord
Devine Moss Zablocki Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Ottinger. Burleson, Tex. Jarman Saylorfield
Dickinson Murphy, Ill. Zion Saylor
Eckhardt Nedzi Mr. Reuss with Mr. Nix. Burlison, Mo. Johnson, Calif. Scherle
Edwards, Ala. O'Hara do Mrs. Hansen of Washington with Mr. Ga - Burton, Utah Johnson, Pa. Scott
cott
y Button Jonas Sebelius
NOT VOTING--l05 Mr. McCarthy with Mr. Schwan ei. Byrne, Pa. Jones, Ala. Sikes
Matsunaga Byrnes, Wis. Jones N.C. Sisk
Abernethy Fulton, Tenn.. Ottinger Mr. ago with Mr. Smith of New Cabell Kaz
Alexander Gallagher Pasaman York. Kazan n
r Skubitz
Ca Kee Slack
lack
Ashbrook Gaydos Pepper Mr. Tunny with Mr. Wylie. Camp mp Keith
Aspinall Gettys Pollock Smith, Calif.
Ayres Gialmo Powell Messrs. JACOBS and DUNCAN CCeederberg Kleppe Smith, Iowa
Baring Gilbert Prayer, N.C. Changed their votes from "nay" to "yea." Chamberlain Kluczynskl Snyder
Barrett Goodling Price, Ill. Chappell Ku kendall
Bolling Green, Oreg. Price, Rallsback The result of the vote was announced Clancy Kyl Stringer
Blasco Hagan Reid, N.Y. as above recorded. Clausen, Stafford
Bray Halpern Reeuss Landgrebe Steiger, Ariz.
Brown, Calif. Hanley Rvere A motion to reconsider was laid on the Clawson, Del ILaaattgaen Steiger, win.
Brown,, Calif. Hansen, Wash. Rooney, N.Y. table. Cleveland Lennon Stephens
Bush Harrington Roudebueih Collier Llo d Stubblefield y
Carter Hungate Ruth The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. AL- Collins tong, La. Sullivan
Chisholm Jones, Tenn. St Germain BERT). The Clerk will report the pre- Colmar Long, Md. Taft
Conte Kirwan Schadeberg amble. Conable Lukens Talbott
Conyers Kyros Schauer Corbett McCloskey Taylor
Cowger Landrum Schwengel The Clerk read as follows: Cramer McCulloch
Crane Lujan Smith, N.Y. Whereas the use of United States troops in Cunningham McDonald, Thomsson, G8
Culver McCarthy Staggers Cambodia and increased air activity over Davis, Ga. Mich. Thomon, Wis. Wis. Daddario McEwen Steed North Vietnam have added a new dimension de la z McFall Vand
Daniel, Va. McMillan Stratton de la Garza, McKneally Vander Jar
Dawson MacGregor Symington to the war in Southeast Asia; and Dellenback
Derwinaki Mann Thompson, N.J. Whereas such use of military forces of the Denney Madden Wampler r
Diggs Mathias Mahon Watts
Dingell Matsunaga Vigorlto United States has become the subject of Dennis ine Maiiard Watts
Dorn Meskill Watkins intense debate in the Congress, and Devine Marsh White
Dickinson Martin
Downing Miller, Calif. Watson Whereas the Congress to fulfill its consti- Dowdy Matsuna a Widnall
Dulski Mills Weicker tutional responsibilities should have accu- Duncan May 8 Wnn
Fallon Mollohan Whalley rate and detailed information regarding the Edmondson Mayne Winn
Farbstein Moorhead Whitehunt extent of the United States involvement in Edwards, Ala. Melcher Wright
Wydler
Fascell Murphy, N.Y. Whitten Edwards, La. Michel Ohio
Fish Nichols Wilson, Bob Southeast Asia: Now, therefore, be it Wyman
Fisher Nix COMMrTTEE AMENDMENT TO PREAMBLE EsErlenborn hleman Minsha Miler, ll
Zablocki
Zion
Ford, Gerald RO'Neill, Mass. Wold The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk Findley Mize Zwach
So the resolution was agreed to. will report the committee amendment to Findley Mizell
The Clerk announced the following the preamble. ri Eckhardt pairs: - The Clerk read as follows: Adams Eckhardt Hull
Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts with Mr. Committee amendment: On Anderson, Esob Hull
Gerald R. Ford. page 1, strike Jacobs
out the preamble. Calif. Evans, Colo. Korth
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Ayres. Ashley Foley
Mr. Dawning with Mr. Bray. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The cues- Biaggi Fraser L Leggett
Mr. Dulski with Mr, Carter. tion is on the committee amendment toBingha Bingham Fulton Fulton Lowenstein
Mr. Fith Mr. Fish. the preamble. , McDad
e
Fallon l l n with Mr. Halpern. Blatnik Gonzalez z Macdonald,
Mr. Staggers with H
s Maw
Pa. .
Mr. alpern. Speaker peaker question was taken; and the Broomfiel Brodemeld Green, Griffiths
Mr. Steed with Mr. Meskill. pro tempore announced that Burke, Mass, Gross Maeda
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mr. Pollock. the ayes appeared to have it. Carey Hathawa Mikvo
Mr. Price of Illinois with Mr. Railsback. Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Speaker, I object to Cohelan Hawkinsy Mink
Mr. Whitten with Mr. Watkins. the vote on the round that a Corman Hays Morgan
Mr. Thompson quorum Coughlin Hechler, W. Va. Morgan
of New Jersey with Mr. Is not present and make the point of Daniels, N.J. Heckler, Mass, Mosher
Weicker. order that a quorum is not present. Dwyerue Helstoskl Moss
Hicks Murphy, Ill.
were-yeas 210, nays 84, not voting 135,
as follows:
[Roll No, 1571
YEAS-21o
Abbitt Flood Montgomery
Adair Flowers Morse
Albert Flynt Morton
Anderson, Ill. Foreman Myers
Anderson, Fountain Natcher
Tenn. Andrews, Ala. Gallflanakis Pelly Patten
Andrews, Gibbons
, . . Perkins
N n..-
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 H 5216
Approved For C~IeNasg f?4/A(12 i&W 2 gf000200240017-3June 8, 1970
Mr. McMillan with Mr. Mollohan. ' CORRECTION OF VOTE
Mr. Hungate with Mr. Jones of Tennessee.
Mr. Abernethy with Mr. Preyer of North Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, on
Carolina. rollcall No. 156 I am recorded as not vot-
Mr. Alexander with Mr. Passman. ing. I was present and voted "yea." I ask
Mr. Daddario with Mr. Vigorito. unanimous consent that the RECORD be
Mr. Brown of California with Mrs. Chis- corrected accordingly.
holm. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
Nedzi
Riegle
Tunney
Obey
Robison
Ullman
O'Hara
Rodino
Van Deerlin
O'Konski
Rooney, Pa.
Vanik
Olsen
Roybal
Waldie
Patman
Ryan
Whalen
Pike
Schneebeli
Wolff
Podell
Stanton
Yates
Randall
Stokes
Yatron
Rees
Tiernan
NOT VOTING-135
Abernethy
Frelinghuysen
Pepper
Alexander
Frey
Pollock
Ashbrook
Fulton, Tenn.
Powell
Aspinall
Gallagher
Preyer, N.C.
Ayres
Garmatz
Price, Ill.
Baring
Gaydos
Quie
Barrett
Gettys
Railsback
Boggs
Glaimo
Reid, N.Y.
Boland
Gilbert
Reifel
Bolling
Goodling
Reuss
Green, Oreg.
Rivers
Bray
Hagan
Roe
Brock
Halpern
Rooney, N.Y.
Brown, Calif.
Hanley
Rosenthal
Burton, Calif.
Hanna
Roudebush
Bush
Hansen, Wash.
Ruth
Carter
Harrington
St Germain
Celler`
H?bert
Schadeberg
Clark
Clay
Jones, Tenn.
Shipley
Conte
Kastenmeier
Shriver
Conyers
Kirwan
Staggers
Cowger
Kyros
Steed
Crane
Landrum
Stratton
Culver
Lujan
Symington
Daddario
McCarthy
Teague, Tex.
Daniel, Va.
McClory
Thompson, N.J.
Dawson
McClure
Vigorito
Delaney
McEwen
Watkins
Dent
McMillan
Watson
Derwinski
MacGregor
Weicker
Diggs
Mann
Whalley
Dingell
Mathias
Whitehurst
Dorn
Meskill
Whitten
Downing
Miller, Calif.
Wiggins
Dulski
Mills
Wilson, Bob
Edwards, Calif.
Mollohan
Wilson,
Evins, Tenn.
Moorhead
Charles H.
Fallon
. Murphy, N.Y.
Wold
Farbstein
Nelsen
Wyatt
Fascell
Nichols
Wylie
Fish
Nix
Young
Fisher
O'Neal, Ga.
Ford, Gerald R. O'Neill, Mass.
Ford, Ottinger
William D. Passman
So the committee- amendment to the the right to object=and I shall not ob-
preamble was agreed to. ject-to the amendment to the title, I
The Clerk announced the following would simply like to point out that today
pairs: we have had many rollcalls on.matters
Mr. O'Neill of Massachusetts with Mr. Ger- of very little importance under the same
ald R. Ford. rules that deny and prevent rollcalls
Mr. Barrett with Mr. Ayres. on major issues such as the ABM, the
Mr. Downing with Mr. Bray. SST, water pollution, the nuclear car-
Mr. Dulski with Mr. Carter. rier and a great many other vital issues.
Mr. Fallon with Mr. Fish. I think this points out one of the im-
Mr. Gia.imo with Mr. Halpern. portant needs for revising and improving
Mr. Staggers with Mr. Doodling. the rules of this House.
Mr. Steed with Mt. Hoskin. Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to
Illinois York with w Mr. irh RaMir. ilsback. Pollock. the amendment to the title.
MrMr.. Price-of eeyof New
il
Mr. Whitten with Mr. Watkins. The title was amended so as to read:
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr. "To authorize a select committee of the
Weicker. House to study firsthand the recent de-
Mr. Baring with Mr Bob Wilson. velopments in Southeast Asia and then
Mr. Aspinall with Mr. Cowger. report its findings to the House of Rep-
Mr. Brasco. with Mr. Conte. resentatives within 45 days of its
Mr. Landrum With Mr. Ashbrook. adoption."
Mr. Kyros with Mr. Crane.
Mr. Miller of California with Mr. Derwin- A motion to reconsider was laid on the
ski. table.
Mr. Murphy of New York with Mr. Bush.
Mr. Dingell with Mr. Lujan.
Mr. Fascell with Mr. McEwen.
Mr. Fulton of Tennessee with Mr. Mac-
Oregor.
Mr Gallagher with Mr. Reid of New York.
Mr. Hagan with Mr. Ruth.
Mr, Hanley with Mr. Schadeberg.
Mr. Stratton with Mr. Watson.
Mr. St Germain with Mr. Whalley.
2i Pepper with Mr. Roudebush.
Mr. Nichols with Mr. Mathias.
Mr. X in with Mr. Wold.
Mr. Conyers with Mr Burton of California. the request of the gentleman from
Mr. Scheuer with Mr. Diggs. Hawaii?
Mr. Powell with Mr. Kirwan. There was no objection.
Mr. Culver with Mr. Getty.
Mr. Dorn with Mr. Daniel of Virginia.
Mr. Farbstein with Mr. Harrington.
Mr. Rivers with Mr. Mills.
Mr. Dawson with Mr. Symington.
Mr. Fisher with Mr. Gilbert.
Mrs. Green of Oregon with Mr. Ottinger.
Mr. Reuss with Mr. Nix.
Mrs. Hansen of Washington with Mr.
Gaydos.
Mr. Boggs with Mr. Boland.
Mr. Celler with Mr. Nelsen.
Mr. Delaney with Mr. McClure.
Mr. Dent with Mr. Schiver.
Mr. Edwards of California with Mr. Clay.
Mr. Evins of Tennessee with Mr. Stanton.
Mr. Garftlatz with Mr. Frelinghuysen.
Mr. Hanna with Mr. Frey.
Mr. Hebert with Mr. McClory.
Mr. Willlnm D. Ford with Mr. Quie.
Mr. Holifield with Mr. Reifel.
Mr. Roe with Mr. Schwengel.
Mr. Shipley with Mr. Wyatt.
Mr. Young with Mr. Wiggins.
Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. Brock.
Mr. O'Neal of Georgia with Mr. Wylie.
Mr. Clark with Mr.- Kastenmeier.
Mr. McCarthy with Mr. Rosenthal.
Mr. ASHLEY changed his vote from
"yea" to "nav."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
TITLE AMENDMENT
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. AL-
BERT). Without objection, the amend-
Mr, VANIK. Mr. Speaker, reserving
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
extend their remarks on the resolution
just agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr.
ALBERT). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Hawaii?
There was no objection.
AUBURN FINDS ROAD TO PEACEFUL
DISSENT
(Mr. NICHOLS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his remarks,
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. NICHOLS. Mr. Speaker, colleges
and universities throughout the country
have been plagued with violence and dis-
ruptions during the past few weeks. Al-
most every institute of higher learning
has had some type of disturbance, but
the great majority of our campuses have
remained peaceful.
Auburn University is an excellent ex-
ample of school officials handling a
touchy situation in such a way as to avoid
violence and to promote understanding
between the students and the adminis-
tration.
Auburn President Dr. Harry Philpott
spent 6 hours on a park bench outside his
office talking with individuals and groups
of students. This action countered a pro-
posed day-long strike called for by a
liberal student group to protest U.S. in-
volvement in Cambodia.
The following article from the May 24
edition of the Birmingham News outlines
the peaceful dissent at Auburn University
recently :
[From the Birmingham News, May 24, 19701 _
No VIOLENCE: AUBURN FINDS ROAD TO
PEACEFUL DISSENT
(By Charles Nix)
The longest day had ended very late on
the Auburn campus. It had ended without
a single reported violent incident. Students,
faculty and administrators-many bone-
weary, some exhausted-were quietly jubi-
lant that Auburn had found the way to air
disagreement and dissent within a frame-
work of mutual respect and orderliness,
The substance of violence had been on the
campus Thursday, but what seemed like an
overwhelming spirit of restraint prevailed.
The Human Rights Forum had called for
a strike to protest U.S. involvement in Cam-
bodia, the war in Vietnam and the deaths of
students, black and white, across the nation.
The forum had brought in speakers. Some
of the speakers urged the students to "recog-
nize your enemies," "get in step" with other
university students and to "push for what
you believe."
Then there was a change that put a night
meeting into the day's schedule, and calls
for a candlelight march on the university
president's home.
Tension built. People got tired.
The conditions were never better at Aub-
urn University than Thursday for student
violence to mar the unblemished record that
has set the college apart from many across
the nation.
But when it was over, student leaders and
administrators could call it a day of "intelli-
gent, rational discussion of the Issues."
"I was proud of Auburn today," said Dr.
Harry M. Philpott, president of the univer-
sity, at the most tense moment of the day.
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
ECRE
JOURNAL
OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
Monday - 8 June 1970
1. (Confidential - JMM) Talked to Chairman David Henderson,
Subcommittee on Manpower and Civil Service of the House Post Office
and Civil Service Committee, regarding S, 782 (Ervin bill). Henderson
said that:
a. He plans to take up the bill in executive session and
report it without hearings in the fairly near future--perhaps
this month.
b. He personally will support a complete exemption for
the Agency but cannot predict the position of other members
of the Subcommittee or the full Committee.
c. lie cannot delay action on the bill indefinitely and would
like to hear from the Executive agencies concerned within the
next two weeks.
d. He recommends that agencies seeking full exemption
make the strongest possible case in their formal response
to the letters he has sent requesting views.
'e. Meanwhile he thinks we should explain our problem
privately to members of the Subcommittee and try to get
their support.
2. (Secret - JMM) Briefed Russ Blandford, Chief Counsel, House
Armed Services Committee, on Soviet Y-class submarine deployment,
possible Moscow visit by Nasir, ChiCom aircraft production, Soyuz-9
mission, Soviet MRBM deployment, and the situation in Cambodia.
3. (Secret - JMM) Briefed Ed Braswell, Chief of Staff, Senate
Armed Services Committee, on Soviet Y-class submarine deployment,
possible Moscow visit by Nasir, ChiCom aircraft production, Soyuz-9
mission, Soviet MRBM deployment, and the situation in Cambodia.
Braswell said he would like for Senator Stennis' benefit updated
figures on the number of North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese troops
now operating in Cambodia, and the effect of the fighting on the Cambodian
economy.
SCE
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
 Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3
SECRET
Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 2
Monday - 8 June: 1970
4. (Secret - JMM) Briefed Bill Woodruff, Counsel, Senate
Appropriations Committee, on the Cambodian situation, ChiCom aircraft
production, Middle East situation, Soviet ICBM deployment, Soviet
submarine deployment, and the possible Nasir trip to Moscow.
5. (Secret - JMM) Briefed Ralph Preston, Staff Assistant, House
Appropriations Committee,on the Cambodian situation, ChiCom aircraft
production, Middle East situation, Soviet ICBM deployment, Soviet
submarine deployment, and the possible visit of Nasir to Moscow.
6. (Secret - GLC) Talked with Mary Rita Robbins, on the staff
of the Senate Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, about our
destroying extra copies of some of our old testimony before the combined
Space and Preparedness Committees. With her agreement we will do this,
checking with her in each instancf, to make certain that her records and.
ours are the same.
We are retaining copy number 1 of the Director's testimony of
29 January 1960 and destroying copies 2 through 6.
We are also retaining copy number 1 of the original transcript
of the Director's testimony of 24 February 1960 (which had been
incorrectly bound by the printers) and copy number 1 of the transcript
which was corrected. We are destroying copies 2, 3, 8, and 9.
25X1A 7. (Confidential - GLC) CRS, called
concerning a request she had received from Mr. Richard Long, State
25X1A Department, for biographies on two -officials. These
are for a Member of Congress who will be oin to with a
congressional delegation. I suggested that provide the
biographies to the State Department for transmittal to the congressman
without attribution to the Agency.
SEE !+
Approved For Release 2002/01/02 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000200240017-3