THE COOPER-CHURCH AMENDMENT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 17, 2005
• Sequence Number: 31
• Publication Date: July 9, 1970
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
July 9, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
CONTACT OF MEMBERS OF CON-
GRESS BY GOVERNMENT AGEN-
CIES
(Mr. ARENDS asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute.)
Mr. ARENDS. Mr. Speaker, I was
somewhat amazed at the two recent
statements made by the gentleman from
California and the gentleman from Min-
nesota. I suppose my question should
be: So what is new now? Those of us
who have been around here for some
time have gone through this very same
experience year after year regardless of
what party is in power. Nothing new has
been added. The procedure is merely
repetitious. Do not get excited about it.
I happen to be one of those who, when
the President of the United States hap
pened to be a man named Jack Kennedy
and a President named Lyndon John-
son, they did not call me from any of
their departments, because it so hap-
pened these individuals were my Presi-
dents and I believed it was my duty, act-
ing in the welfare of the country, that
I support the President of the United
States regardless of party affiliation.
That is all there is to it.
HURCH AMEND-
ME
(Mr. McCLORY ask and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his remarks
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. McCLORY. Mr. Speaker, in our
action today on the Military Sales Act-
H.R. 15628-some will attempt to define
and elaborate on constitutional issues
affecting the respective prerogatives of
the President and the Congress in the
area of foreign policy.
However, the so-called Cooper-Church
amendment is neither a precise nor accu-
rate statement of the role of the Con-
gress in connection with the President's
primary- responsibilities in the area of
foreign policy and as Commander in
Chief of our Armed Forces.
It should be clear to all that the Presi-
dent has evolved a new foreign policy
which departs dramatically -from a pol-
icy which our Nation has pursued for
25 years.
The Nixon doctrine assures the com-
plete withdrawal of our American com-
bat forces from South Vietnam at the
earliest possible time. The President's
policy also provides for a reduction of
our miiltary involvement elsewhere-
and the assumption of major responsi-
bilities by those nations themselves
which are threatened by enemy attack.
The President has made good on his
promises to withdraw American forces
from Vietnam and from Cambodia. In
addition, it was announced within the
last few hours that 40 percent of our
American forces in South Korea would
be brought home.
President Nixon's policy is one which
I support-and which I believe is best
for our Nation and for the entire free
world. The slogan "Back Nixon for
Peace" makes sense to me. At the present
time, I would not want to back any other
person in our Government who may claim
that he has a better plan-or a sounder
foreign policy for the guidance of our
Nation. Of course, there is no feasible
way in which to substitute the judgment
of some other such person for the Presi-
dent of the United States.
In voting against a motion to instruct
the managers on the part of the House
to accept the so-called Cooper-Church
amendment, I am convinced that I am
voting for peace in Southeast Asia and
elsewhere-and that I am reposing con-
fidence in the most capable hands which
are avialable in this critical period of
our history-those of President Nixon.
This is not intended as an answer to
the difficulty constitutional issue which
has been raised. both before and following
the Cambodian operation. This subject
deserves careful and thoughtful atten-
tion and concern. It is my hohe that the
House bill-H.R. 18205-of which I am a
sponsor, now being heard by the House
Foreign Affairs Committee, will make it
possible to resolve that issue for the
benefit of this and future Presidents and
Congresses.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON S.
3215, NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON
THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (S. 3215) to
amend the National Foundation on the
Arts and the Humanities Act of 1965,
and for other purposes, with a House
amendment thereto, insist on the House
amendment, and request a conference
with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ken-
tucky? The Chair hears none, and ap-
points the following conferees: Messrs.
PERKINS, THOMPSON of New Jersey, BRAD-
xi s, REID of New York, and SCHERLE.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON
IT R 15R 22, FOREIGN MILITARY
SALES ACT
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 15628) to
amend the Foreign Military Sales Act,
with Senate amendments thereto, dis-
agree to the Senate amendments, and
agree to the conference requested by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, I object.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MORGAN
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to the provisions of clause 1, rule XX,
and by direction of the Committee on
Foreign Affairs, I move to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 15628) to
amend the Foreign Military Sales Act,
with Senate amendments thereto, dis-
agree to the Senate amendments, and
agree to the conference asked by the
Senate.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MoRGAN) is recog-
nized for 1 hour on his motion.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I have no
H 6513
desire to use any time and there has
been no request for any time, and in an
effort to move the legislation along I will
move the previous question.
Mr. WYDLER. Mr. Speaker, today I
have voted to send the foreign military
sales bill to conference with the Senate.
This bill is essential to our national de-
fense and that of our allies in both the
Far East and Mideast.
I urge the conference to report a bill
back quickly so that we might have the
means to supply Israel with needed mili-
tary equipment at a time when Commu-
nist pressure is being applied against her
in the Middle East.
The so-called Cooper-Church amend-
ment, although vague in its wording,
could serve to indicate congressional
concern with the Far East situation, but
its prohibition against paying salaries to
all persons engaged in any combat ac-
tivity in support of Cambodian forces
should be removed. I want Asia forces to
join together and fight together so that
American forces can come home. I want
to encourage such activity and to help
those resisting communism in the Far
East.
The words of this amendment are so
broad that they could prohibit U.S. con-
tributions to the U.N. to provide a United
Nations peacekeeping force to Cambodia.
In my judgment this provision is
against U.S. interests and sets a bad
precedent for those countries engaged in
the fight against communism around the
world.
We should be encouraging nations in
the world to join together to fight their
own battles against communism and not
restricting our efforts and their efforts
toward this end.
I believe such a prohibition should be
stricken and that the conference should
reach quick agreement on the bill so that
the President will have the power and
means necessary to help our friends and
allies.
Mr. FISH. Mr. Speaker, the purpose of
the Cooper-Church amendment passed
by the Senate and added to the Foreign
Military Sales Act is to prevent the
United States from becoming involved
through the use of American , combat
forces in the defense of another South-
east Asian government, and through such
a defense becoming involved in a widened
Vietnam war.
This was the purpose of an amend-
ment a opted by the Congress. last De-
cember which was aimed at forbidding
the use of American combat forces in
Laos and Thailand. Cooper-Church is
the extension of that same prohibition
to Cambodia.
If adopted, the Cooper-Church amend-
ment would:
First, bar funds for reintroducing
American forces into Cambodia;
Second, prohibit funds either directly
or indirectly for American advisers for
the Cambodian military forces;
Third, prohibit the payment by the
United States of salaries of mercenaries
to fight in Cambodia; and
Fourth, it would also forbid the fi-
nancing of aerial activity in direct sup-
port of Cambodian forces.
The Cooper-Church amendment would
not prevent,
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
 H 6514 Approved FplT.fMf5JJ6/%fDPPPS7R00040008003J211y 9, 1970
First, "hot pursuit" by American
forces of enemy troops into the Cam-
bodian sanctuaries:
Second. artillery fire from South Viet-
nam at enemy forces threatening our
troops from Cambodia:
Third, interdiction by our Air Force
of enemy supplies and troops moving
along the Ho Chi Minh trail and other
routes used to brink men and material
to South Vietnam: and
Fourth. military assistance to the
Cambodian government in the form of
small arras and supplies.
Thus, the Cooper-Church amendment
not only is direct;v in line with the
amendment of last December prohibit-
ing the use of American ground combat
forces in Laos and Thailand. it is in di-
rect agreement with the Nixon doctrine
with its pledge of no more Vietnams.
Passage of the Cooper-Church amend-
ment would not abridge any American
treaty obligation. It would not prevent
this country's efforts to create a South-
east Asian defense organization among
the countries directly involved. Its pas-
sage would not in any way impinge upon,
or weaken the President's powers in any
other area of the world-
It does strengthen and encourage the
Vietnam troop withdrawal policy initi-
ated by this administration: it empha-
sizes deescalation after the long years
of escalation, Its passage would. I believe,
also state the belief of Congress in the
need for national nriorit.ies in foreign
and military affairs. in the same sense
that this body has often addressed itself
in the past year and one-half to the
need for new priorities in domestic
affairs.
Thus, the Cooper-Church amendment
would not hinder or bar administrative
freedom of action In Western Europe, In
our relations with out NATO allies, or in
the Middle East- If it did, I would be the
first to vote against it.
Rather. its adoption would clearly
state that in the view of this Congress
there is a time and r. place for all things.
That to stand firm against Communist
aggression in a rice paddy may be virtu-
ous, but in the priorities of a Western in-
dustrial nation it holds little meaning if
because of that stand that same aggres-
sor extends its influence over continents.
I am, of course, speaking of the critical
situation in the Middle East. Since my
election to Congress. I have strongly sup-
ported President Nixon's policy of with-
drawal from Vietnam, as it has been my
belief that only through such a with-
drawal could this Nation gain flexibility
in areas of the world of greater impor-
tance to our national interest. I have re-
peatedly warned that while this Nation
bled and died in the rain-soaked jungles
on the outer fringe of the vast Asian Con-
tinent, Russia has been moving steadily
into an area vital not only to the United
States, but to Western Europe.
For 6 long years while this Nation has
concentrated its entire foreign and mili-
tary energies on an area of little strate-
gic and no historic interest to the United
States. Russia has quietly moved into a
position of dominance in an area of his-
toric and strategic importance for the
entire Western World. While we have
torn the unity of this Nation in a no-win
war in an area that even were we suc-
cessful, it would bear little meaning to
the vital interests of this Nation, Russia
has moved a modern fleet into the Medi-
terranean, with major bases in that im-
portant sea and in the Indian Ocean.
While we have divided and torn the spirit
of this land and watched our best young
men fight and die half way around the
world, Russia has moved to dominate the
entire north African littoral.
While, in the name of American might
we have stood knee deep in a rice paddy,
we have frittered away every oppor-
tunity to protect our own self interest
in an area which provides three-quarters
of free world oil. We have done this
through concentration on Vietnam and
Vietnam alone. We have done this until
today we have only one friend or ally
in that entire area and that is Israel.
We have done It until President Nixon
has had to warn of the imminent danger
of confrontation of the super powers in
the Middle East.
For those who equate a defense of
Vietnam as of the same magnitude as a
defense of Israel and our position in
North Africa, Western Europe. and the
Mediterranean, I would point out that
such an equation in my mind would be
like attempting to equate a defense of
Madagascar in World War II as of the
same importance as a defense of Britain.
Thus, I do not view adoption of
Cooper-Church as a conflict between
administration and Congress. Rather I
view it as a cooperation between the
two branches of our Government. I see it
as the legislative branch saying to the
administrative branch: "You are correct
in your policy of disengagement and
withdrawal in Indochina. You are correct
in your view that a wider war in that
area of the world would serve no vital
interest of this Nation. We applaud your
policy which has so dramatically in
only 18 months turned disastrous esca-
lation into deescalation. We support your
move from war to peace."
Mr. Speaker, in my view Cooper-
Church would strengthen America's po-
sition in the world- It would clearly show
that the administration and Congress
are one in their determination to end
this long-drawn war, and that we stand
unified In desiring peace. It would also
serve notice to the Communist world
that we are moving to regain flexibility
in our foreign and military policies, and
that they will no longer be able to take
over the living room of the Western
World while we expend our resources on
the back alleys of the Asian Continent,
Mr. PELLY. Mr. Speaker, the question
before the House concerns the Cooper-
Church amendment to the Military Sales
Act.
Mr. Speaker, during the long debate
in the Senate on the Cooper-Church
Amendment, I read the newspapers and
even the Congressional Record discus-
sions on the various amendments hav-
ing to do with the Indochina War, but I
must admit the full implication of these
various amendments that were adopted
are rather vague. Before I vote to In-
struct our conferees to accept the Sen-
ate language that has been added to the
Military Sales Act. I would want a full
explanation as to what it does and what
it does not do.
However. what worries me about in-
structing our managers on the part of
the House that they must take the Sen-
ate language as it comes from the Senate
is something else. I hear. and I am con-
vinced it is true, that if we instruct our
conferees, there will be no bill: that it
will never get out of conference. My
fear is that if the Military Sales Act
is not enacted, the effect on the Middle
East situation could be very serious in
that it would prevent any action on our
part to maintain a balance of power be-
tween Israel and the Soviet backed
Arabs.
The Soviet operation of SA-III mis-
siles against Israeli aircraft in the Suez
Canal battle zone represents a further
and unprecedented phase of direct Rus-
sian military escalation in the Middle
East. Yet, if the Congress fails to pass
the Military Sales Act and it dies in
conference. any chance then of obtain-
ing the funds for supplying Israel Phan-
tom jets appears doomed: so regardless
of the merits of the Cooper-Church
amendment, I cannot vote in a way that
would preclude keeping a balance of
power in the Middle East for peace.
This is a difficult bargain for many,
Mr. Speaker, but as President Nixon
pointed out in his television interview
last week, the situation in the Middle
East probably is far graver than that in
Indochina, and I would hope that in
conference the Cooper-Church amend-
ment in a form more acceptable to all,
including the President, could be arrived
R L
I have always opposed any arms race,
and I do so in the matter of sending
arms to the Middle East. However, it is
merely a practical matter that these
jets are needed by Israel simply to main-
tain a balance. It is the Soviet Union
that is feeding the arms race by their
power play in the Middle East. What the
Russians seek is to dictate the terms of
a new Mideast order, one which in defer-
ence to the client states will deny Israel
both peace and security.
This is the crux of the issue now being
contested along the Suez Canal cease-fire
line. The battle is a crucial one because
on its outcome depends the future na-
tional integrity of democratic Israel and
also, in large measure, the future course
of the Middle East as a whole.
Mr. Speaker. I urge that the Senate-
passed Military Sales Act be sent to con-
ference without instructions, and let us
then get on with providing necessary
military balance of military might needed
in the Middle East.
Mr. PODELL. Mr. Speaker, on June
30, the U.S. Senate took an historic step
toward reestablishing the traditional
balance of power between Congress and
the Executive-
I support the motion to instruct in the
fervent hope that the House of Rep-
resentatives will join the Senate in re-
affirming the constitutional right of
Congress to declare war and regulate the
military.
When this body was called upon to
consider the Foreign Military Sales Act
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
 Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
July 9, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
in April, the idea of the United States
invading Cambodia was so remote as to
be inconceivable. Almost unanimously,
we agreed to strict limitations on Ameri-
can involvement in Laos and Thailand.
But the very thought of our expanding
the war into tiny, neutralist Cambodia
was so unbelievable that this body did
not bother to enact written limitations.
What happened next is now one of the
saddest pages in our ration's history.
On April 30, just 6 days after this body
passed the foreign military sales bill,
with prohibitions on our becoming in-
volved in Laos and Thailand, the Pres-
ident did what we had thought was too
inconceivable to consider. Without the
consultation' or consent of Congress, the
President plunged our Nation headlong
into war in Cambodia.
What warped delusions of conquest
and grandeur led to such an incredible
blunder? We can only guess.
We now know, however, that from
start to finish, the President's invasion
of Cambodia was a horrifying and com-
plete failure.
Let us compare the President's prom-
ises about the Cambodian venture with
what actually happened.
In his April 30 declaration of invasion,
the President promised to "attack the
headquarters for the entire Communist
military operation in South Vietnam."
This "headquarters" was never even
found.
The President promised that his inva-
sion of Cambodia would reduce American
casualties in Vietnam. There has been no
such reduction.
The President promised that his inva-
sion of Cambodia would limit the scope
of the Indochina war. The Communists
now control more of Cambodia than they
did prior to April 30.
The President promised that by June
30 the entire invasion, including air sup-
port for South Vietnamese troops in
Cambodia, would be ended. It is now
mid-July, and we are still risking the
lives of American flyers over Cambodia
skies.
Finally, and most tragically, Mr.
Speaker, we have learned that news of
soon-to-be-replaced supplies we have
captured cannot drown out the cries of
our wounded in Cambodia, or the sobs of
those at home who have lost loved ones
asa result of the President's disgraceful
escapade.
We have learned that we cannot end
one illegal war by trampling over our
Constitution on the way to another ille-
gal war.
I ask the Members of this House to
join our colleagues in the Senate in say-
ing, "We must face our responsibility'
and share with the President the burden
of foreign policymaking."
I ask the Members of this House to join
our colleagues in the Senate in saying,
"We will have no more illegal wars."
Mr. SCHWENGEL. Mr. Speaker, today
I cast my vote against the previous ques-
tion on the motion to send the Foreign
Military Sales Act to conference.
My vote reflected a desire on my part
to have more extended debate on the
various amendments added by the Sen-
ate, particularly the Cooper-Church
amendment.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate spent a con-
siderable amount of time debating this
legislation. It seems to me we could spend
at least 1 hour debating and discussing
the amendments of the Senate before we
send the bill to conference.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I voted
against the motion to table the motion to
instruct the House conferees to accept
'the Cooper-Church amendment as
adopted by the Senate. My strong feeling
is that we should face head on the issue
presented by the Cooper-Church amend-
ment.
We in the Congress have too often been
accused of "ducking" issues. The adop-
tion of the motion to, in effect, table the
House allows the House to avoid the di-
rect question on the Cooper-Church
amendment. In my opinion, we should
have met the issue head on. We should
have been ready and willing to take a
stand on the Cooper-Church amend-
ment.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that we
will yet have the opportunity to vote on
the Cooper-Church amendment.
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Speaker, when I was
in Southeast Asia recently with the
House Select Committee studying recent
developments there, I was particularly
interested in learning what the chances
were for success of the Nixon doctrine
after U.S. involvement in that region is
ended. The chances seem slim unless the
nations of Southeast Asia evidence more
interest in regional cooperation and in
preparations for their own defense. If the
countries of the region are- to be im-
pressed with the need for developing
their own initiative, the United States
must first make it plain that under the
situation as it now exists we contem-
plate no expansion of our military pres-
ence in Southeast Asia to fight the other
nations' battles for them.
The Cooper-Church amendment is a
vehicle by which Congress can, in the
case of Cambodia, clarify the limits of
American support and intervention. If
it passes we can still provide weapons
and economic assistance for the defense
of Cambodia but the Lon Nol govern-
ment will be on notice that on,it rests
the primary burden for its own defense.
Similarly, the other nations of the re-
gion will, by passage of Cooper-Church,
be made to realize the need for reliance
on their own initiatives and manpower
to preserve the stability of Southeast
Asia.
Mr. Speaker, much of the dissatisfac-
tion in the country with our involve-
ment in Vietnam results from the failure
of Congress to carry out its foreign policy
role and exercise its war powers. It is es-
sential, therefore, if we are to avoid a
move divided nation and involvement in
another protracted war in Southeast
Asia, that Congress reassert its right
specifically to debate and act on further
American military involvement in the
region.
I have no doubt that the President is
sincere in his stated intention to refrain
from direct military aid to the Lon Nol
Government. However, the future holds
many uncertainties among them the
possibility that the President may decide
that his goal of a just peace in Viet-
nam cannot be achieved without an
American presence in neighboring Cam-
bodia. Such a decision could contain the
seeds of another Vietnam. I do not be-
lieve the President should make such a
move without consulting Congress and
receiving its approval for his proposed
course of action.
We have come to the realization that
our interests are best served by phasing
out our commitment in Southeast Asia.
The. Cooper-Church amendment is in
line with this policy of requiring local
forces to assume the burden of their own
defense and I urge concurrence in the
Senate's approval of this measure.
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Speaker, I urge
the conferees to accept the Cooper-
Church amendment.
I know that the various parliamentary
maneuvers that will take place might
obscure the substantive and symbolic
meaning of the Cooper-Church amend-
ment. What does it mean substantively?
It correctly provides that another direct
U.S. military operation into Cambodia
must have congressional approval. This
is long overdue. I do not denigrate the
power of the President as Commander in
Chief, but as Members of Congress, we do
have constitutional responsibilities in
the conduct of our Nation's foreign pol-
icy. The Cooper-Church amendment re-
affirms, in part, this congressional re-
sponsibility to seek congressional au-
thorization for a major U.S. military in-
volvement.
There are other worthwhile substantive
features of the Cooper-Church amend
ment. There are prohibitions against the
direct or indirect use of American ad-
visers in Cambodia. This prohibition
could prevent the creeping commitment
that inexorably lured us in the Vietnam
quagmire. I am hopeful that the prohibi-
tion against direct air support for the
Cambodian Army will have a similar ef-
fect, but reports from Cambodia suggest
that the military interpretation of U.S.
air interdiction will be justified as sup-
port of American troops. Still, with this
prohibition on record, the administra-
tion will be on notice that the Congress
does not want another Vietnam or an
Indochina war.
On the symbolic level, I feel the
Cooper-Church amendment has much
more import. It is another opportunity
for the Congress to exercise its constitu-
tional prerogative in the conduct of our
foreign policy. It has been correctly as-
serted that the executive branch has
primary responsibility for foreign policy,
but the abnegation of congressional
responsibility cannot be allowed to con-
tinue. I have utilized every means to
persuade, encourage, and force the in-
cumbent President to end our untenable
Vietnam commitment.
We are now offered another oppor-
tunity to act assertively and construc-
tively. The Cooper-Church amendment
reaffirms the obligation of the President
to consult with the Congress and seek
approval for major military involve-
ments. This is the first step. The next will
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
 Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R0004000800 1-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE my 9, 1970
come next month when I with other
concerned Members will offer an amend-
ment to the DOD appropriations bill
to provide the fixed and orderly with-
drawal of all U.S. troops from Vietnam,
the amendment to end the war.
Mr. Speaker. the time has come for
action. As elected Representatives, we
have the obligation to act and extricate
ourselves from this quagmire. We are
all painfully aware that this undeclared
war has caused or exacerbated our do-
mestic crisis. It has caused death and
destruction with little tangible results
except in the heartbreak of the families
of our dead and maimed soldiers. a
broken and crushed Southeast Asia. a
decimated civilian population. This is
graphic testimony to the bankruptcy of
our Vietnam policy. If the President Is
not willing to act then the Congress must
assume the burden. The Cooper-Church
is another step in taking this responsi-
bility.
I urge the conferees, whatever the
results of the House action today to ac-
cept the Cooper-Church amendment.
Congress as an institution for too long
has passively accepted Executive deci-
sions. It is time to act.
Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask
the Members of this body to register
their support today for those who will
be named as conferees to the House-
Senate Conference on the Foreign Mili-
tary Sales Act, H.R. 15628.
This will be a most difficult conference.
A number of points have been added to
the bill by the Senate. which will require
a most careful review by the House con-
ferees.
This will be a conference in which your
conferees will need the highest degree of
flexibility in order to achieve a reason-
able compromise-a compromise that will
be acceptable to the House.
I believe that the situation developing
in the Near East is causing many people
to become increasingly aware that this
legislation provides a vital tool to those
who seek to find ways to support our
friends and allies In that area.
This is only one of many reasons why
the conferees should be given the maxi-
mum opportunity to cope with a fast-
changing situation.
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, I am outraged that the House
of Representatives did not fully debate
or vote on the Cooper-Church amend-
ment to the Foreign Military Sales Act.
For more than 7 weeks the other body
debated, argued, agonized over whether
the Congress had the right and respon-
sibility to withhold funds for the con-
tinuation of military operations in Cam-
bodia after- July 1, 1970.
The Cooper-Church amendment
passed in the other body, and it fell to
the Members of this House to decide if
we were prepared to follow suit and reas-
sert congressional control and authority
over the warmaking powers.
Unhappily, Mr. Speaker, the House of
Representatives did not accept and in
reality could not even face up to this re-
sponsibility. Working in collusion with
the White House, the leadership on both
sides could not arrange for even 1 hour
of general debate. Imagine that--the 435
Members of the House of Representatives
had collectively less than 60 minutes to
discuss a matter of grave national con-
sequence. With a singularly collective
callousness toward the citizens whom we
represent, the House leadership allowed
less than 14 seconds per Member for us
to debate the question of war and peace.
The antiquated rules of the House of
Reps esentatives must be reformed and
radically revised. The Members of the
Houle must be allowed adequate time to
debt? to and fully explore the vital na-
tional problems which face us. More
importantly we must be able to vote
on these vital substantive questions; and
our individual votes should be clearly
recorded for our constituents and all the
American people to see.
The American people have a right to
expect that their representatives will
forthrightly accept and exercise their
constitutional responsibilities to order
national priorities.
The American people have a right to
know that their representatives are de-
bating and voting on vital national is-
sues.
The American people have a right to
know how their elected representatives
vote in Congress.
The rules and procedures of this House
must become more responsive to the
mood of the times and to the people.
If America is proud of being an "open
society," let us in this same spirit open
the debates and votes of the House of
Representatives to the scrutiny of all.
I had planned, Mr. Speaker, to join in
the general debate urging the House to
adopt the Cooper-Church amendment.
Unfortunately, I was not permitted to
speak. Had I spoken, I would have said
the following:
W? MUST SUPPORT THE COOPER-CHURCH
AMENDMENT
Mr. speaker. I strongly urge the House to
accept the cooper-Church Amendment as
contained in the revised Foreign Military
Sale. Act now before us. The Cooper-Church
Amendment, In keeping with the declared
objectives of the President, prohibits the ex-
penctiture of funds to support the involve-
ment of U.S. forces in Cambodia after July
1, 1970, without explicit Congressional ap-
proval-All American forces have now been with-
draw n from Cambodia. This amendment pro-
hibi _s the reintroduction of Q.B. forces into
Cambodia, outlaws the use of American air
power in support of Cambodian troops, stops
the use of American advisors operating to
supixxt Cambodian military operations, and,
tinnily, prohibits American funds from sup-
porting third country mercenary operations
in Cambodia.
Thr+se provisions, Mr. Speaker, are eml-
nen'.ly sound. One need not go too far back
in history to recall the quagmire into which
America fell because we had "advisors" in
Vietnam; and it makes little sense for the
American taxpayer to subsidize the use of
That or Vietnamese or any other "foreign"
Asian troops in Cambodia through the-
pay-ment of under-the-counter subsidies to for-
eign countries.
The Cooper-Church Amendment in no way
undermines the constitutional power of the
Pre.?Ident as Commander-in-Chief. The
Pre ;dent would still retain full power to do
whatever is ncceai.ary to protect the lives of
our troops wherever they may be deployed.
This is a vital point.
I support this Amendment. Mr. Speaker,
as a minimum first step toward restricting
U.S. military involvement In Indochina and
reasserting congressional prerogatives over
the war-making power. I am an original
sponsor of what is now H.R. 1000 which will
cut off all funds for U.S. military activity
in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos after July 1,
1971. This Is the House version of the "Mc-
Govern-Hatfield Amendment" which I hope
will be taken up and passed by both bodies
without further delay.
Weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. I warned that the
United States might be supporting military
action In Cambodia through the "backdoor"
via Thailand. Subsequent development have
shown all too clearly that my fears were in-
deed being realized. By adopting the Cooper-
Church Amendment the House will effectively
cut off all backdoor financing for the Cam-
bodian military operations. And hopefully our
action will serve as a precedent to eliminate
all American "backdoor" support for military
operations anywhere in the world.
If America is to become involved in mili-
tary action on any continent, let the Con-
gress openly discuss and approve such ac-
tion. The power and dignity of the Congress
Itself is directly at stake. Passage of this
amendment will be an explicit recognition of
our determination to reassert our Constitu-
tional prerogatives and squarely meet our
Constitutional responsibilities.
To do less. Mr. Speaker, would be to abdi-
cate our mandate from. the electorate to re-
order our national priorities.
Mr. BROWN of Michigan. Mr.
Speaker, although the dissatisfaction,
which I share with many, about the
Southeast Asian situation gives popular
appeal to proposals such as the Cooper-
Church amendment, I think it is intel-
lectually and legislatively dishonest to
single out one geographic area where
such a restrictive provision on use of
funds may have greater popularity and
pretend that other potential Vietnams
do not exist.
The proponents of this amendment
contend that their efforts are aimed at
restoring to the Congress its proper con-
stitutional role in warmaking decisions;
yet, the substance of what they propose
hardly scratches the surface of this very
basic and fundamental question.
How can the so-called antiwar Mem-
bers of Congress decry the violence and
"warmongering" tendencies of this Na-
tion insofar as our involvement in Viet-
nam is concerned and, yet, not take any
steps to preclude such violence and "war-
mongering" by unilateral act of the Pres-
ident in the Middle East, Europe, South,
and Latin America, Africa, and other
places in the world? And, how can the so-
called antiwar Members of Congress de-
cry the disastrous effort on financing of
our domestic needs by the drain on our
Federal budget caused by our involve-
ment in Southeast Asia and, yet, not
only not object to financial commitments
for military sales in all parts of the
world but actively be frontline support-
ers of the "sale" of over $1 million Phan-
tom jets to Israel?
Do you think that the people of this
Nation are so stupid as to fail to see the
intellectual and legislative dishonesty-
the intellectual and legislative inconsis-
tency-of these positions?
I totally concur with the premise that
the Congress must immediately devote
its best thinking and efforts to a better
delineation of the powers of the Presi-
dent as Commander in Chief vis-a-vis the
powers of the Congress with respect to
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
 Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
July 9, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
1116517
this Nation's military activities and com- supremacy for this Nation-as clearly ment shall not hire troops of other coun-
mitments under our constitutional man- set forth the separation of powers as did tries to support the Government of
date for a separation of powers. But, this our forefathers at a time when a fledgling Cambodia,
effort, this duty, this obligation, must be nation the constitutional mandate for By passing this amendment, we will
directed at all military activities, in- separation of powers had application not be interfering with the powers of
volvements, and commitments, not just only to a preserving of our independence the Executive. We will be laying down
to one existent involvement too geo- and campaigns against Indians, where policy for the Executive to execute. This
graphically limited at best and post facto the most potent weapon used was a is what the Constitution says the people
in its application at worst. Are we to as- musket. of the United States are paying us to do.
sume that the fuzzy thinking of the pro- Mr. Speaker, I would also like to com- Of course, to say the Cooper-Church
ponents of this type proposal will await ment upon the procedural aspects of the amendment is constitutional is not to say
each new involvement unilaterally en- motion to instruct the conferees. Frank- it, is necessarily desirable. But in my view
tered into by the President as Com- ly, to avoid criticism of "gag rule" I it is most highly desirable.
mander in Chief for the taking of similar would have preferred to have given the Four Presidents, from Truman through
"after the fact" action and expect to be proponents of an instruction of the con- Johnson, made decisions which progres-
praised and honored for their efforts as ferees an opportunity to express their sively led us into the Vietnam quagmire.
they do on this occasion of our involve- views thereon. However, procedurally, President Truman chose to support the
ment in Southeast Asia? this became impossible. This preference French in their effort to reestablish colo-
It is my fervent hope that not only the is not expressed because I believe some nial domination over Vietnam. When the
Congress, but the people of this Nation new argument might be made or new French effort collapsed, President Eisen-
will reject this superficial, and probably material presented, since I think most of hower chose to begin an American effort.
counterproductive attempt toward dis- us have followed the extensive debate in President Kennedy chose to expand that
charge of the Congress' responsibility on the Senate quite closely and even the effort. And President Johnson chose to
this fundamental issue. House had earlier debated the substance commit a half million American combat
It is my fervent hope that there will of the proposal at some length when this troops in pursuit of military victory.
be popular rejection of this bandaid solu- bill was originally before us for consid- I think almost all of us regret these
tion and equally popular demand that eration. Rather, I dislike any attempt to decisions. If we could somehow go back
the Congress enact legislation giving "to prevent a reasonable opportunity to be in time and advise these Presidents, our
the President the things that are the heard by any Member even though he advice at each juncture would be an ur-
President's and to Congress, the repre- may disagree with the position I sup- gent "Stay out." It is a heck of a lot easier
sentative of the people, the things that port. to stay out than to get out once we are in.
are the Congress'." Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Speaker, I have- Now we are at a similar fork in the
Just as the fathers of our Constitu- heard it said that President Nixon is the road. We must decide whether or not we
tion attempted to make this delineation only President we have, and we must want to preclude a commitment to the
of authority and responsibility between back him to the hilt. We must not op- preservation of the Government of Cam-
the President and the Congress with re- pose his present foreign policies, and bodia.
spect to the warmaking power, so must we must give him carte blanche to do I suggest it is strongly in the national
we for today make applicable, useful, whatever he wishes in the future. interest to rule out this commitment. The
and effective that which has been so in my view, both the Constitution and Lon Nol government has precious little
conceptually established by our fore- common sense require us to reject this to recomend it. It has almost no deln-
fathers in our Constitution. line of reasoning. Yes, Mr. Nixon is the onstrated popular support.
I have held the belief and totally con- only President we have. But a President The only move Lon Nol has made that
cur with those who contend that the is neither a king nor a dictator nor a has aroused any popular enthusiasm has
"declaration of war" contemplated by God, even in matters of foreign policy. been the slaughtering of several hundred
the framers of our Constitution is ob- Nor is he, as is frequently asserted, the ethnic Vietnamese civilians, which we
solete today, although their concept of a Nation's Commander in Chief. He is can hardly applaud.
separation of the warmaking power-the Commander in Chief of the Armed All Lon Nol has going for him is his
military action commitment power-be- Forces. This means only that he is su- anticommunism, and even this is not
tween the President and the Congress is perior to every general and admiral; it very impressive. Two years ago he was
still valid. says nothing about his relationship with selling guns and supplies to the Vietcong.
the Congress nor with the American Today he finds anticommunism more
The claim has been made that where au-
f people. ; profitable. Tomorrow, who knows?
formal declaration ion oo f war nothing short of a In any case, as we are finding with Ky
constitution's demand and d for will congressional satisfy con- the By power of very precisely Government between ethe the distributing
vari- the and Thieu, it takes more than anticorn-
trol of the war power. It is difficult, though, ous branches, the Constitution explicitly munism to make a viable or desirable
to find any rationale for such a claim. In denies the President the power to make government.
addition to the obsolescence and general un- certain types of major foreign policy de- Six years ago, Senator Morse warned
desirability of a formal. declaration today, cisions on his own. He cannot bind the Senators who were about to vote for the
the claim finds support neither in the Ian- Tonkin Gulf resolution they would live
guage of the Constitution, the intent of the country to a treaty without two-thirds to regret it. During the past few weeks,
framers, the available historical and Judi- concurrence of the Senate. He cannot
cial precedents nor the purposes behind the conduct any military activities at all we have seen Senator after Senator get
clause. (Emphasis added.) unless the entire Congress indicates its up on the floor and tell how much he
Congress, the President, and the Power To approval by the authorization-appropri- now regrets his vote.
Commit Forces To Combat-Harvard Law ations process. In 1964, we were. asked to open a Pan-
Review, vol. 81, June 1968. Although the authority of the Congress dora's box that should not have been
For myself, I suggest that we terminate to establish policy through the authori- opportunity r opcomplied. to lock Today we box have that
the rhetoric, speechmaking, and ex- zation-appropriations process is supreme, should o shut t a box our-
tended debate and put our hearts and as a practical matter it is necessary to selves of f itlocked. If we do to not wish avail we had.
our minds into a sincere effort toward leave day-to-day decisions in the hands Mr. it, K we are , Mrgoof going
a r sent had.
the
resolution of this fundamental and in- of the Executive. But today we are not the DChurch-Cooper . amendment to the
escapable problem. For myself, I have dealing with a day-to-day decision. Foreign S gn Military Sales Act, H,R. 15628,
already spent hours and days toward the We are dealing with the broad policy and I hope very much that the House
finding of a legislative solution which outlines of the Cooper-Church amend- conferees will go along with the Senate
will comprehensively, and on a functional ment. This amendment says it is the pol- amendment in the forthcoming House-
basis, establish the limits of the Presi- icy of the Government of the United Senate conference.
dential and congressional authority and States not to widen the Vietnam war I opposed U.S. intervention in Cambo-
responsibility. I am satisfied that such into Cambodia. It says the U.S. Govern- dia and I feel the Congress should make
guidelines can be established and that ment shall not send Americans to die in clear in law its opposition to further ex-
we can, for today and tomorrow-in this an attempt to preserve the Government tension of our military activity in the
age of nuclear weaponry and world of Cambodia. It says the U.S. Govern- Far East.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
 Approved F V % N~~6/ C&6-RDPIT81PRRJ37R00040008003h-py 9, 1970
However, I shall oppose any effort in
the House to tie the hands of the House
c lliferees in their negotiations with their
Senate counterparts. In particular, I re-
frrr to the reported plan to instruct the
Ilouse conferees to accept the Church-
Cooper amendment.
,LTy opposition to this proposed maneu-
ver is one of basic policy on procedure-
not the issue. I support the Church-
Cooper amendment and hope it will sur-
vive the conference.
However, as one who has participated
in and chaired numerous House-Senate
conferences, I believe it is a serious mis-
take to freeze the House conferees in
advance on any particular point of dif-
ference.
For this same reason. I am opposing
the effort to freeze the House conferees
on the postal reform bill as regards the
House-approved so-called right to work
provision.
I believe the conferees should have
freedom to act within the full range of
conference limitations,
When the conference report is re-
turned to the House. the Members then
will have the opportunity to act on any
specific point In the agreement reached
by the conferees. At that time. I hope to
have the opportunity to vote in support
of the Church-Cooper amendment.
Mr. OTTINGER. Mr. Speaker, the ac-
tion in the House of Representatives to-
day in regard to the Foreign Military
Sales Act and the Cooper-Church
amendment was nothing short of dis-
graceful.
Through a series of parliamentary ma-
neuvers supported by the leadership, the
House rejected the Cooper-Church
amendment without permitting even the
briefest debate on one of the most Im-
portant issues facing the country.
The Cooper-Church amendment went
nowhere near far enough in defining and
limiting the power of the Executive to
wage war without the consent of Con-
gress. It did, however, represent an Im-
portant first step in that direction. It also
represented the results of 7 weeks of
debate in the Senate; yet the House re-
jected the Senate's proposal in less than
1 hour and without any discussion what-
soever.
One result of this hasty and ill-con-
sidered action was to prevent debate on
other provisions of this bill. Thus, the
House accepted without question or dis-
cussion a provision in the Senate version
which prohibits the sale of aircraft to any
country but Vietnam. By accepting this
provision without debate, the House
has-perhaps unwittingly-threatened to
close the door on the sale to Israel of the
jet airplanes that are so badly needed to
preserve the balance of peace in the
Middle East and offset Russian missile
installations in Egypt.
The day was not totally without gain,
however. It did produce a record vote on
the Cooper-Church amendment. This
was not the final chance for the House
to act on the Foreign Military Sales Act.
Eventually the House will again have an
opportunity to pass on the results of the
Senate-House Conference, Those inter-
ested in seeing Congress exert its au-
thority in ending the war in Indochina
now have a check list of the Congressmen
who need further attention from their
constituents.
Through its actions today the House
once again abrogated the responsibilities
of the legislative branch to serve as check
and balance to the Executive. By supple-
menting parliamentary maneuvers for
public debate on important Issues, the
House has again dramatized the urgent
need for reform of the legislative process
to make Congress truly representative
and responsive-
I urge the Senate to hold firm In its
position. I also urge that the hundreds
of thousands of concerned citizens con-
tinue and even redouble their efforts to
persuade those representatives who voted
against the Cooper-Church amendment
today of the need for the House to accept
its responsibilities to end the Indochina
war.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I move
the previous question on the motion.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
ordering the previous question.
The question was taken: and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. FRASER. 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 roil.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 247. nays 143, not voting 41,
as follows:
1 Roll No. 2071
YEAS-247
Abbitt
Clawson, Del
Grover
Abernethy
C:eveland
Gubser
Adair
Collier
Hagan
Albert
Collins
Haley
Alt sander
Gilmer
Hall
Anderson,
C?nable
Hammer-
Tenn.
Corbett
schmidt
Andrews, Ala.
Cowger
Hansen, Idaho
Annunzio
Crone
Harsha
Arends
Cunningham
Harvey
Arth brook
Daniel. Va.
Hastings
Ayres
Davis, Ga.
Hays
Baring
Davis, Wis.
Hebert
Beall. Md.
do is Garza
Henderson
Belcher
Delaney
Hogan
Bennett
Dennis
Holifleld
Berry
Dent
Hosnier
Betts
Derwinaki
Hull
Br viol
Dickinson
Hunt
Blackburn
Dorn
Hutchinson
Blanton
Dowdy
Ichord
lk,ggs
Downing
Jarman
Belling
Dulski
Johnson, Pa.
Bc:w
Duncan
Jonas
Bray
RInionds n
Jones. Ala.
Br L .kley
Edwards, Ala.
Jones, N.C.
Brock
Erlenborn
Jones, Terra,
Brooks
Eshleman
Kazen
Brutcman
Evans, Than.
Kee
Brown, Mich.
Fallon
King
Brown, Ohio
Felghan
Kieppe
Broyhill, N.C.
Fisher
Kluczyneki
Broyhill, Va.
Flood
Kyl
Buchanan
Flowers
Landgrebe
Fla.
Burke
Flynt
Landrum
,
Burleson. Tex.
Ford, Gerald R. Langen
Burton, Utah
Foreman
Latta
Byre:es, Wis.
Fountain
Lennon
Oabell
Frelinghuysen
Lloyd
Camp
Frey
Lujan
Carter
Fuqua
Lukens
Untey
Gallagher
McCrory
Cederberg
C;armatz
McCloskey
Chamberlain
Goldwater
McClure
Chappell
Doodling
McCulloch
Clancy
Gray
McDade
Clark
Green, Oreg.
McFall
Clausen,
Griffin
McKneally
Don H.
Gross
McMillan
MacGregor
Price. 111.
Steiger, Ariz.
Mahon
Price, Tex.
Steiger, Wis.
Mailliard
Puctnskl
Stephens
Mann
Purcell
Stratton
Marsh
Buie
Stubblefield
Martin
Quillen
Taft
Mathias
Railsback
Talcott
Slav
Reid. Ill.
Taylor
Mayne
Rhodes
Teague, Calif.
Michel
Rivers
Teague, Tex.
Mi11er, Calif.
Roberts
Thompson, Ga.
Mills
Rogers, Fla.
Thomson, Wis.
iliri hall
Rostenkowski
Waggonner
Loire
i-t t.h
Wampter
'.!':ell
Roudebush
Watkins
Mnllohan
Rousselot
Watson
Monagan
Ruth
Watts
Montgomery
Sandman
Whalley
Morgan
Satterfield
White
Murphy, Ill.
Schadeberg
Whitehurst
Murphy, N.Y.
Seberle
Wigrins
Myers -
Schmita
Williams
:atcher
Schneebell
Wilson, Bob
Nelsen
Scott
Winn
Nichols
Sebellus
Wold
O'Neal, Ga.
Shriver
Wright
Passnan
Sikes
Wylie
Patman
Skubitz
Wyman
Folly
Slack
Yatron
Perkins
Smitb. Calif.
Young
Pettis
Smith, N.Y.
Zablocki
Pickle
Snyder
Zion
Pirnie
Springer
Zwach
Pcage
Staggers
Poll
Steed
NAYS-143
Adams
Glaimo
Olsen
Addabbo
Gibbons
O'Neill, Mass.
Anderson,
Gilbert
Ottinger?
Calif.
Gonzalez
Patten
Parrett
Green. Pa.
Philbin
Plaggi
Griffiths
Pike
theater
Gude
Preyer, N.C.
Pingham
Halpern
Randall
Biatnik
Hamilton
Rees
Boland
Hanley
Reid, N.Y.
nrademas
Hanna
Reuss
Bravo
Harrington
Riegle
Burke, Mass.
Hathaway
Robison
iturlison. Mo.
Hawkins
Rodino
Burton, Calif.
Heckler, W. Va. Roe
Puttou
Heckler, Mass.
Rooncy, N.Y.
Byrne, Pa.
Helstoski
Rooney, Pa.
Geller
Hicks
Rosenthal
Chisholm
Horton
Roybal
Clay
Howard
Ruppe
Cohelan
Hungate
Ryan
Conte
Jacobs
St Germain
Conyers
Johnson, Calif. Scheuer
Gorman
Karth
Schwengel
Coughlin
Kastenmeler
Smith, Iowa
Culver
Keith
Stafford
Daniels. N.J.
Koch
Stanton
Dellenback
Kyros
Stokes
Diggs
Long. Md.
Stuckey
Dingell
Lowenstein
Sullivan
Donohue
McCarthy
Syniington
Dwyer
Macdonald,
Thompson, N.J.
Eckhardt
Mass.
Tiernan
Edwards, Calif.
Madden
Tunney
Eilberg
Matsunega
Udall
Each
Meads
Ullman
Evans, Colo.
Meicher
Van Deerlin
Farbateln
Mikva
Vander Jagt
Faseell
Miller, Ohio
Vanik
Fish
MInizah
Vigorito
Foley
Mink
Waldie
Nord,
Moorhead
Weicker
William D.
Morse
Whalen
Fraser
Mosher
Widnall
Friedel
Moss
Wolf[
Hilton, Pa.
Nix
Wyatt
Fulton, Tenn.
Obey
Wydler
Galifanakis
O'Hara
Yates
Gaydos
O'Konskl
NOT VOTING-41
Anderson, Ill.
Devine
Pepper
Andrews,
Edwards, La.
Podell
N. Dak.
Findley
Pollock
Ashley
Gettys
Powell
Aspinall
Hansen, Wash.
Pryor, Ark.
Bell, Calif.
Kirwan
Rarick
Broomfield
Kuykendall
Reifel
Brown, Calif.
Leggett
Rogers, Colo.
Bush
Lone, La.
Saylor
C affery
McDonald,
Shipley
Carey
Mich.
Sisk
Cramer
McEwen
Whitten
Daddario
Meskill
Wilson,
Dawson
Morton
Charles H.
Denney
Nedzi
So the previous question was ordered.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
 1970Approved For RV8R&RESgIQ J jCA? Z2_0 8 (1Q0400080031-3
July 9
,
11VV
The Clerk announced the following
pairs :
on this vote
Mr. Long of 'Louisiana for, with Mr. Carey
against.
Mr. Gettys for, with Mr. Brown of Cali-
fornia against.
Mr. McEwen for, with Mr. Nedzi against.
Mr. Rarick for, with Mr. Leggett against.
Mr. Whitten for, with Mr. Dawson' against.
Mr. Caffery for, with Mr. Powell against.
Mr. Relfel for, with Mr. Shipley against.
Mr. Morton for, with Mr. Podell against.
Mr. Kuykendall for, with Mr. Ashley
against.
Mr. Devine for, with Mrs. Hansen of Wash-
ington against.
Mr. Denney for, with Mr. Kirwan against.
Mr. Cramer for with Charles H. Wilson
against.
Mr. Bush for, with Mr. Pepper against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Aspinall with Mr. Pollock.
Mr. Rogers of Colorado with Mr. Andrews
of North Dakota.
Mr. Sisk with Mr. Bell of California.
Mr. Pryor of Arkansas with Mr. Findley.
Mr. Edwards of Louisiana with Mr. Mc-
Donald of Michigan.
Mr. Daddario with Mr. Meskill.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
The doors were opened.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, notwith-
standing the fact that the previous ques-
tion has been ordered on my motion to
go to conference, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there now be 1 hour of debate,
one-half to be controlled by myself and
one-half by the gentleman from Michi-
gan (Mr. RIEGLE) who has announced
that he will propose a motion to instruct
the conferees.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MORGAN).
The motion was agreed to.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. RIEGLE
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. RIEGLE moves that the managers on
the part of the House at the conference on
the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on
the bill H.R. 15628 be instructed to agree to
that part of Senate amendment numbered 3
designated as section 7.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER. The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, in the event
a motion to table the motion offered by
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
RIEGLE) is not made, and there is an
hour's debate on the motion, who will
control the time?
The SPEAKER. The Chair will state
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
RIEGLE) will control the time.
MOTION TO TABLE OFFERED BY MR. HAYS
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a mo-
tion to table.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. HAYS moves to lay on the table the
motion offered by Mr. RIEGLE.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. HAYS) to lay on the table the
motion offered by the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE).
Mr. YATES. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Speaker, I have been
prevailed upon to attempt to withdraw
my motion on the understanding that
there will be some equal division of time,
and if it is not too late I would ask unani-
mous consent to withdraw my motion to
lay on the table the motion offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE).
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, I object.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 237, nays 153, answered
"present" 1, not voting 40, as follows:
[Roll No. 208]
YEAS-237
Abbitt
Duncan
MacGregor
Abernethy
Edmondson
Mahon
Adair
Edwards, Ala.
Maflliard
Albert
Erlenborn
Mann
Anderson,
Eshleman
Marsh
Tenn.
Evins, Tenn,
Martin
Andrews, Ala.
Fallon
Mathias
Arends
Feighan
May ?
Ashbrook
Fisher
Mayne
Ayres
Flood
Michel
Baring
Flowers
Miller, Calif.
Beall, Md.
Flynt
Mills
Belcher
Ford, Gerald R. Minshall
Bennett
Foreman
Mize
Berry
Fountain
Mizell
Betts
Frelinghuysen
Mollohan
Bevill
Frey
Montgomery
Blackburn
Fuqua
Morgan
Blanton
Goldwater
Murphy, Ill.
Boggs
Goodling
Murphy, N.Y.
Bolling
Gray
Myers
Bow
Green, Oreg.
Natcher
Bray
Griffin
Nelsen
Brinkley
Gross
Nichols
Brock
Grover
O'Neal, Ga,
Brooks
Ragan
Passman
Brotzman
Haley
Patman
Brown, Mich.
Hall
Pelly
Brown, Ohio
Hammer-
Perkins
Broyhill, N.C.
schmidt
Pettis
Broyhill, Va.
Hansen, Idaho
Pickle
Buchanan
Harsha
Pike
Burke, Fla.
Harvey
Pirnie
Burleson, Tex.
Hastings
Poage
Burton, Utah
Hays
Poff
Byrnes, Wis.
Hebert
Price, Tex,
Cabell
Henderson
Purcell
Camp
Hogan
Quie
Carter
Hosmer
Quillen
Casey
Hull
Railsback
Cederberg
Hunt
Randall
Chamberlain
Hutchinson
Reid, Ill.
Chappell
Ichord
Rhodes
Clancy
Jarman
Rivers
Clark
Johnson, Pa.
Roberts
Clausen,
Jonas
Rogers, Fla.
Don H.
Jones, Ala.
Roth
Clawson, Del
Jones. N.C.
Roudebush
Cleveland
Jones, Tenn.
Rousselot
Collier
Kazen
Ruth
Collins
Kee
Sandman
Colmer
King
Satterfield
Conable
Kleppe
Schadeberg
Corbett
Kluczynski
Scherle
Cowger
Kuykendall
Schmitz
Crane
Kyl
Scott
Cunningham
Landgrebe
Sebelius
Daniel, Va,
Landrum
Shriver
Davis, Ga.
Langen
Sikes
Davis, Wis.
Latta
Skubitz
de la Garza
Lennon
Slack
Delaney
Lloyd
Smith, Calif.
Dennis
Lujan
Snyder
Dent
Lukens
Springer
Derwinski
McClure
Staggers
Dickinson
McCulloch
Steed
Dorn
McClory
Steiger, Ariz.
Dowdy -
McFall
Steiger, Wis.
Downing
McKneally
Stephens
Dulski
McMillan
Stratton
Stubblefield
Wampler
Winn
Stuckey
Watkins
Wald
Taft
Watson
Wright
Talcott
Watts
Wydler
Taylor
Whalley
Wylie
Teague, Calif.
White
Wyman
Thompson, Ga.
Whitehurst
Young
Thomson, Wis.
Wiggins
Zablocki
Vander Jagt
Williams
Zion
Waggonner
Wilson, Bob
Zwach
NAYS-153
Adams
Garmatz
O'Konski
Addabbo
Gaydos
O1ren
Alexander
Giaimo
O'Neill, Mass.
Anderson,
Gibbons
Ottinger
Calif.
Gilbert
Patten
Annunzio
Gonzalez
Philbin
Ashley
Green, Pa.
Preyer, N.C.
Barrett
Griffiths
Price, Ill.
Biaggi
Gude
Pucinski
Biester
Haipern
Rees
Bingham
Hamilton
Reid, N.Y.
Blatnik
Hanley
Reuss
Boland
Hanna
Riegle
Brademas
Harrington
Robison
Brasco
Hathaway
Rodino
Burke, Mass.
Hawkins
Roe
Burlison, Mo.
Hechler, W. Va.
Rooney, N.Y.
Burton, Calif.
Heckler, Mass.
Rooney, Pa.
Button
Helstoski
Rosenthal
Byrne, Pa.
Hicks
Rostenkowski
Celler
Horton
Roybal
Chisholm
Howard
Ruppe
Clay
Hungate
Ryan
Cohelan
Jacobs
St Germain
Conte
Johnson, Calif.
Scheuer
Conyers
Karth
Schneebeli
Corman
Kastenmeier
Schwengel
Coughlin
Keith
Smith, Iowa
Culver
Koch
Smith, N.Y.
Daddario
Kyros
Stafford
Daniels, N.J.
Long, Md.
Stanton
Dellenback
Lowenstein
Stokes
Diggs
McCarthy
Sullivan
D'ngell
McCloskey
Symington
Donohue
McDade
Thompson, N.J.
Dwyer
Macdonald,
Tiernan
Eckhardt
Mass.
Tunney
Edwards, Calif.
Madden
Udall
Ell berg
Matsunaga
Ullman
Esch
Meeds
Van Deerlin
Evans, Colo.
Melcher
Vanik
Farbstein
Mikva
Vigorito
Fascell
Miller, Ohio
Waldie
Fish
Minish
Weicker
Foley
Mink
Whalen
Ford,
Monagan
Widnall
William D.
Moorhead
Wolff
Fraser
Morse
Wyatt
Friedel
Mosher
Yates
Fulton, Pa.
Moss
Yatron
Fulton, Tenn.
Nix
Gafiflanakis
Obey
Gallagher
O'Hara
ANSWERED "PRESENT"-l
Gubser
NOT VOTING--40
Anderson, Ill.
Findley
Pollock
Andrews,
Gettys
Powell
N Dak.
Hansen, Wash.
Pryor, Ark.
Aspinall
Holifield
Ranch
Bell, Calif.
Kirwan
Reifel
Broomfield
Leggett
Rogers, Colo.
Brown, Calif.
Long, La.
Saylor
Bush
McDonald,
Shipley
Caffery
Mich.
Sisk
Carey
McEwen
Teague, Tex.
Cramer
Meskill
Whitten
Dawson
Morton
Wilson,
Denney
Nedzi
Charles H.
Devine
Pepper
Edwards, La.
Podell
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
On this vote :
Mr. Reifel for, with Mr. Gubser against.
Mr. Caffery for, with Mr. Aspinall against.
Mr. Gettys for, with Mr. Shipley against.
Mr. Rarick for, with Mr. Pepper against.
Mr. Long of Louisiana for, with Mr. Charles
H. Wilson against.
Mr. McEwen for, with Mr. Nedzi against.
Mr. Whitten for, with Mr. Podell against.
Mr. Devine for, with Mr. Dawson against.
Mr. Denney for, with Mr. Carey against.
Mr. Morton for, with Mr.. Brown of Cali-
fornia against.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3
 H 6 20 Approved F pgS4/ /( :, ft1RDPTke,,;y7R00040008003,~-l~y 9y 1970
Mr. Andrews of North Dakota for, with Mr.
Leggett against.
Mr. Bell of California for, with Mr. Powell
against.
Mr. Bush for, with Mr. Kirwan against.
Air. Cramer for, with Mr. Saylor against.
Mr. Pollock for, with Mrs. Hansen of Wash-
ingwn against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Holifleld with Mr. Broomfield.
Mr. Sisk with Mr. Anderson of Illinois.
Mr. Pryor of Arkansas with Mr. Findley.
Mr. Edwards of Louisiana with Mr. Rogers
of Colorado.
Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. McDonald of
Michigan.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Speaker, I have a
live pair with the gentleman from South
Dakota -Mr- REIFEL). If he had been
present he would have voted "yea." I
voted "nay." I withdraw my vote and
vote "present."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints
the following conferees: Messrs. MoR-
CAN, ZABLOCKI, HAYS, ADAIR, and MAIL-
LIARD.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFERE N
S. 1076, YOUTH CONSERVATION
CORPS
Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent to take from the
Speaker's table the bill (S. 1076) to es-
tablish a pilot program in the Depart-
ments of the Interior and Agriculture
designated as the Youth Conservation
Corps, and for other purposes, with a
House amendment thereto, insist upon
the House amendment, and agree to the
conference requested by the Senate.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ken-
tucky? The Chair hears none, and ap-
points the following conferees: Messrs.
PERKINS, DANIELS of New Jersey, O'HARA,
HATHAWAY. WILLIAM D. FORD. MEEDS,
BURTON of California, Mrs. GREEN of
Oregon, and Messrs. HAw1INs, GAYDOs,
SCHERLE, QUIE, EsCH, STEIGER of Wis-
consin, ERLENEORN, ESHLEMAN, and
COLLINS.
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND
Mr. ADAIR. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that all Members may have
5 legislative days in which to extend their
remarks in the RECORD upon the military
sales bill.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from In-
diana?
There was no objection.
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON
H.R. 17070, POSTAL REORGANIZA-
TION AND SALARY ADJUSTMENT
ACT OF 1970
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent to take from the Speaker's
desk the bill (H.R. 17070) to improve and
modernize the postal service, to reorga-
nize the Post Office Department, and for
other purposes, with a Senate amend-
ment thereto, disagree to the Senate
amendment, and request a conference
with the Senate thereon.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, re-
serving the right to object-and I do
not intend to object to the request of the
gentleman from New York iMr. DULSKI),
the chairman of our committee-I take
this time to advise the House that I shall
seek recognition to make a motion to
instruct the conferees in respect to the
language in the House-passed bill guar-
anteeing to postal employees their right
to join or refrain from joining labor
unions. We had extensive debate on this
issue when H.R. 17070 was before the
House on June 17. and at the conclusion
of that debate, the house voted over-
whelmingly, 179-95, to write into the bill
the following language:
Each employee of the Postal Service has
the right freely and without fear of penalty
or reprisal, to form, join or assist a labor
organization or to refrain from any such
activity, and each employee shall be pro-
tected in the exercise of this right.
Despite obvious attempts to create a
smokescreen and to suggest that the
original bill does not change existing law
regarding compulsory unionism, I want
to make the point once again that tinder
existing law, including Executive orders
which have the force and effect of law,
there is no way a union shop can come
into existence in the Federal service.
Under the provisions of the Senate ver-
sion of H.R. 17070, the Postal Authority
and the unions could negotiate a union
shop, or a union shop could be brought
into existence through binding arbitra-
tion. This would mean that a long-
tifne. efficient career employee could be
faced with the choice of joining a union
or losing his job. Let me make it clear
that we are not arguing here for a Na-
tional right to work law. We are not
arguing for an amendment to the Taft-
Hartley Act. We are simply saying that
every American citizen should have the
right to work for his Government without
being compelled to join a labor union. I
do not believe that the majority of the
American people want us to enact a law
which can result in making competent,
efficient postal employees-choose between
joining a union against their will or los-
ing their jobs.
Mr. Speaker, this position has been
editorially supported by leading news-
papers throughout the Nation including
the Washington Evening Star, the New
York Times, the New York Daily News.
the Cincinnati Enquirer, the Lancaster,
Pa., New Era, the Macon. Ga., News, the
Phoenix Republic, the Chicago Daily
News, the Dallas Times-Herald, the New-
ark Evening News, the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch, the Philadelphia Bulletin, the
St. Louis Globe-Democrat, the Baltimore
Sun, the Worcester, Mass., Telegram, the
Goldsboro, N.C., News-Argus, the Chi-
cago Tribune, and many, many others. I
urge my colleagues to protect the tradi-
tional freedom of all Federal employees
to join or refrain from joining a labor
organization.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HENDERSON. I am happy to yield
to the gentleman from Iowa.
Mr. GROSS. And the vote by which
the House expressed its support for the
freedom of choice amendment was taken
only 3 weeks ago, and by a margin of
approximately 2 to 1 the amendment of
the gentleman from North Carolina was
adopted; is that true?
Mr. HENDERSON. The exact vote was
179 to 95.
Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, reserv-
ing the right to object, if I may have
the attention of the chairman of the
committee, is it the intention of the
chairman to move to table the motion to
be offered by the gentleman from North
Carolina?
Mr. DULSKI. Mr. Speaker, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. Yes, I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. DULSKI. Definitely.
Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, may
I first commend the chairman for being
consistent in his principles and consis-
tent with the position he has previously
taken.
Recognizing the parliamentary com-
plications, may I point out to the Mem-
bers that we want to go to conference on
postal reform and the only way we can
get this right-to-work labor issue out of
the way is to instruct the House con-
ferees in such a way as to eliminate it
from consideration in conference. There-
fore in the interest of postal reform we
should support the gentleman from
North Carolina.
May I say that the postal unions are
not at all upset by this development.
They primarily want a pay raise. Most
postal workers are union members, so
this is an academic issue with them.
The Postmaster General is rather dis-
turbed that the right-to-work issue, ac-
tually complicated postal reform. We
can remove this issue once and for all by
instructing the conferees and then we
ran proceed to write a proper postal re-
form bill.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva-
tion of objection.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Dufsxl) ?
There was no objection.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. HENDERSON
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I
offer a motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. HENDERSON moves that the managers
on the part of the House at the conference
on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses
on the bill, H.R. 17070, be instructed to in-
sist on the provision beginning on page 32,
line 8, which reads as follows:
"(b) Each employee of the Postal Service
has the right, freely and without fear of pen-
alty or reprisal, to form, join, and assist a
tabor organization or to refrain from any
such activity, and each employee shall be
protected in the exercise of this right."
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080031-3