AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN MILITARY SALES ACT

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 57
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 17, 2005
• Sequence Number: 65
• Publication Date: May 27, 1970
• Content Type: OPEN

Approv
United States
of America
isudesirotn: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Congressional Record
PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 9 st CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
Vol. 116
WASHINGTON, WEDNESDAY, MAY 27, 1970
No. 86
Senate
(Proceedings of the Senate Continued From the Congressional Record of May 26, 1970)
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. 13816) to
improve and clarify certain laws affect-
ing the Coast Guard.
The message also announced that the
House had agreed to a concurrent reso-
lution (H. Con. Res. 646) providing for
an adjournment of the House of Repre-
sentatives from Wednesday, May 27,
1970, until 12 o'clock meridian, Monday,
June 1, 1970, in which it requested the
concurrence of the Senate.
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The message further announced that
the Speaker had affixed his signature to
the enrolled bill (S. 952) to provide for
the appointment of additional district
judges, and for other purposes.
.....Alirap.1944.4yzazyjaixactzi.
MILITARY SALES ACT
The Senate continued with the consid-
eration of the bill (H.R. 15628) to amend
the Foreign Military Sales Act.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore (Mr. METCALF). The Chair recog-
nizes the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an
amendment to the desk and ask that it
be stated.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The amendment will be stated.
The BILL CLERK. The Senator from
Kansas (Mr. DOLE) proposes an amend-
ment as follows:
On page 4, line 21, insert "(a) " after
"SEC. 7.".
On page 5, between lines 18 and 19, insert
the following new subsection:
"(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of
this section shall be inoperative during any
period that the President determines that
-citizens or nationals of the United States
are held as prisoners of war in Cambodia by
the North Vietnamese or the forces of the
National Liberation Front."
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, may
I respectfully request that the floor be
cleared of all attaches except those who
have business in the Chamber and that
Senators be required to take their seats.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore. The Senate will be in order. The
Senate is not in order.
All attaches who do not have business
in the Chamber are asked to leave the
floor immediately. The Senate will be in
order.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have of-
fered an amendment that I believe will
add real meaning to the Cooper-Church
amendment and go a step toward reas-
suring Americans now in combat that
their Nation and their President and
their elected representatives will not de-
sert them.
I am certain no Senator wishes for a
second to be misunderstood on this score.
Every Senator has the interests and the
life and the welfare of every American
serviceman at heart, with special feeling
for those in combat or for those who have
been captured in combat.
My amendment will put the Senate
on record in support of those men in a
way the entire world can understand and
in a way that free men everywhere will
applaud.
Mr. President, it is known that Amer-
ican soldiers and at least two American
journalists have been held captive in
Cambodia by the Vietcong and the North
Vietnamese prior to the American strike
into the Cambodian sanctuaries. As far
as we know, they still are there.
The two journalists were captured in
early April. American servicemen have
been captured from time to time in South
Vietnam and transported across the bor-
der into Cambodia where, our govern-
ment has been reliably informed, they
have been held in prisoner of war camps.
Mr. President, let me restate the
amendment at this time:
On page 4, line 21, insert "(a)" after "SEC.
On page 5, between lines 18 and 19, insert
the following new subsection:
"(b) The provisions of subsection (a) of
this section shall be inoperative during any
period that the President determines that
citizens or nationals of the United States are
held as prisoners of war In Cambodia by the
North Vietnamese or the forces of the Na-
tional Liberation Front."
It is obvious that the enemy has in-
deed regarded the Cambodian sanctu-
aries as North Vietnamese territory, to
hold, probably, in perpetuity.
Any irrevocable decision on our part
to quit Cambodia, never to return, could
well mean that American men will spend
the rest of their lives in North Vietnam-
ese prison camps in Cambodia. I can-
not conceive of any Senator acquiescing
to this kind of fate for men who have
fought in the service of their country. I
cannot conceive of any American being
willing to do nothing while American sol-
diers spend their lives in a foreign prison,
literally abandoned by their country.
For that reason, Mr. President, I have
offered an amendment to the Cooper-
Church amendment?that says the
Cooper-Church amendment will be in-
operative so long as, and at any time that,
American prisoners of war are being
held in Cambodia by the North Vietnam-
ese or the Vietcong.
Mr. President, I do not believe we can
do less. I do not believe Americans can
abandon their fellow Americans to a
cruel and ruthless enemy. How can we
ever explain that to their parents, wives,
and their children, or to our children?
Mr. President, the debate on the
amendment of the distinguished Sena-
tors from Kentucky and Idaho has fo-
cused attention on several crucial points
of our policy and objectives in Southeast
Asia. I would take this opportunity to
commend once again my colleagues for
the sincere concern and high purposes
which motivate their efforts.
One aspect of the limitations which
the Cooper-Church amendment on the
President's authority to protect Ameri-
cans in Southeast Asia concerns me very
deeply. This point was raised briefly by
the Senator from Texas (Mr. Towza)
in a colloquy with the Senator from Ken-
tucky on May 21.
The following exchange ensued:
Mr. TOWER. Let me pose a question to the
Senator from Kentucky. Suppose the Presi-
dent determined that a number of Americans
were being held captive across the border in
Cambodia. Would this amendment restrict
him or tie his hands as he sought to liberate
those prisoners?
Mr. COOPER. I think it would, by language,
I will be honest, but the decision of author-
ity, would be the President's.
S 7835
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7836 Approved Fi:65tingAM/RFOhat_p_pKi-A3NR00040008006fr6v
la 27, 1P-70
Mr. TOWER. It would prevent liberation of
merican captives over there.
Mr. COOPER. Unfortunately, many of our
men are held captive In North Vietnam. We
have had no success in freeing them. North
Vietnam ORB refused to obey the Geneva Con-
ventions with respect to the treatment of
prisoners. But do we continue to rely, if we
can, upon international rules as a settlement
try to secure the release of those prisoners,
or is the Senator asking whether wesliould
4.tsgage in a larger war In an attempt to free
them?
As the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky stated, his amendment would
restrict the President in a situation such
as the Senator from Texas posed. If
American prisoners were known to be
held in Cambodia?even within a few
miles of the border?the Cooper-Church
amendment, by its language, would not
permit a rescue operation to be launched
into Cambodia to save them.
Whether we are talking about one or
two prisoners or a whole detention cen-
ter, the Vietcong and North Vietnam-
ese wouid enjoy the use of Cambodian
territory as a sanctuary for the deten-
tion of prisoners taken in any and
every part of Indochina. We might see
develop a new sort of Ho Chi Minh
trail, this time for American servicemen
taken prisoner in South Vietnam. Once
in Cambodia. the enemy would have a
secure and unassailable base to detain,
harass, and propagandize the men in
their hands.
Imagine the men who would be the
victims of this practice and how they
would feel to know that there was no
hope, however slim, that friendly troops
might come to their rescue?because of
limitations placed on the Commander in
Chiefs powers.
TREATMENT OF AMERICAN PRISONERS
If the i e is one issue today in our coun-
try that truly transcends all differences,
it is that of the treatment accorded
captured U.S. military personnel. The
United States has always maintained a
strict national policy of fair and civilized
treatment for prisoners of war. and
Americans of all political and philosoph-
ical persuasions have expressed their
outrage and indignation over the un-
conscionable attitude and actions of the
Vietcong and North Vietnamese toward
American prisoners of war held by them.
We have had testimony which fully
documents the humiliation and abuse to
which captives have been subjected as
well as the unpardonable manipulation
of information on the status of prisoners
and missing men.
These tactics strike a universal chord
in all men of decency and honor, and we
have seen the response in Congress. In
the Senate and House. Members from
both parties have exerted determined
efforts to obtain information about
prisoners, exert congressional authority
and prestige in their behalf, and secure
aid for their families.
Mr. President. I would say that every
Member of this body and probably every
Member of the other body has had some
contact with the families, the mothers,
wives, or children, of men who are miss-
ing in action or prisoners of war in
Southeast Asia. On May 1, in an effort to
pay tribute to these brave and gallant
men a meeting was held in historic Con-
s! itution Hall. At that time nearly 1,000
mothers, children, and wives of Amer-
icans missing in action and American
pi isoners of war and thousand of others
joined to pay tribute to these 1.529 gal-
lant men. missing and being held captive
by the enemy somewhere in Southeast
Asia. very likely some in Cambodia.
Constitution Hall was filled to give
ringing support to these men and draw
the attention of all men of conscience
and compassion to the plight of these
gallant Americans. This was a bipartisan
effort in its truest sense. It was a non-
ideological effort in the truest sense. This
was an effort to alert American people to
the dangers some Americans have feared.
for not 1 month. 2 months. or 6 months.
but in many cases for 2 years, 5 years,
and 6 years.
I have received hundreds of letters
from wives, mothers, and children of
these gallant Americans praising the ef-
forts on May 1. praising Members of
Congress who were there, and praising
those who participated in other ways for
taking the time to indicate concern for
their fathers. husbands, and sons.
I might note that a resolution was
passed by Congress designating May 3
as a national day of prayer for these
men. We chose to declare our support for
these missing and captive Americans
within the context of Law Day because
May 1 is Law Day. We felt Law Day was
particularly appropriate, because one of
the provisions of the Law Day resolution
pas.sed by Congress some years ago dealt
with the ideals of international justice.
We felt in some small way on that eve-
ning the American people would know.
and primarily the wives, mothers, and
ehildren would know, that this Congress
and Members of this body and other
Americans from every walk of life had
not forgotten those 1,529 Americans.
Mr. President, North Vietnam is a sig-
natory to the Geneva Accords. These
conventions are the definitive statements
In international law concerning treat-
ment of prisoners of war, and both North
Vietnam and the NLF have persistently
and callously violated them, notwith-
standing ratification by North Vietnam
on June 28. 1957. Despite ratification and
the clear language of the conventions,
Hanoi and the Vietcong have committed
the following calculated violations: First,
they have refused to identify all Ameri-
can prisoners of war.
Second. they have denied to American
prisoners of war the right to communi-
cate regularly by mail with their families.
Third. they have refused to provide
proper nourishment and humane treat-
ment, for all American prisoners of war.
information on their detention camps.
and access by neutral observers: and.
fourth, they have continued to detain.
rather than repatriate, the seriously ill
and the seriously wounded.
Mr. President, I believe in the amend-
ment offered?and I trust that it will be
accepted, if not then adopted by an over-
whelming vote. It simply states that if
the President determines that American
nationals or American citizens are being
held in the country of Cambodia as
prisoners of war, then the provisions of
subsection at are inoperative. It is nec-
essary that, they be inoperative because,
as I interpret the Church-Cooper amend-
ment, and as it has been interpreted by
the principal sponsor of the amendment.
the Senator from Kentucky, in response
to the Senator from Texas, the amend-
ment would create the impression that
the President would be denied the right
to cross the international border of Cam-
bodia to rescue Americans who might be
prisoners of war of the North Vietnamese
or the forces of the National Liberation
Front, without first consulting Congress.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President. will
the Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from
Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. I appreciate very
much the Senator's yielding. Having
served with him since we both came to
Congress in the 87th Congress, and hav-
ing joined him in the May 1 rally on be-
half of the prisoners of war, and having
had many meetings in my own State
with members of the families of pris-
oners of war. I was phased that he would
let me be a cosponsor of this amendment.
It strikes me that we ought to make
this clear. as I understand the meaning
of the amendment of the Senator from
Kansas: We are not talking about any
major type of reinvasion of Cambodia
or of the North Vietnamese-occupied
areas of Cambodia. What the Senator is
talking about is the ability to move
quickly and perhaps rescue some of our
men if the situation develops that way.
I remember so well talking with mem-
bers of families of men missing in action,
or men who are thought to be prisoners
of war, who were captured within South
Vietnam?not North Vietnam, but South
Vietnam. We do not have the faintest
idea where they have those prisoners of
war. We do not know what has happened
to those men. It is entirely possible that
they could be held in some of the sanc-
tuary areas of Cambodia occupied by the
North Vietnamese.
It would seem to me that we would be
wrong if we went ahead and said we
could not do anything in this field even
though we knew that, a quarter of a
mile away, some Americans, whether
they be AID personnel or American mili-
tary personnel, were held prisoners under
that type of condition.
I am happy that the Senator from
Kansas has taken this step. I am happy
to cosponsor the amendment. I would
sincerely hope that we could make prog-
ress in alerting some of the North Viet-
namese and the Vietcong that this is
what. we are talking about; that the
United States means business about get-
ting some decent treatment, fair treat-
ment, and humane treatment, for the
people of the United States in respect to
its prisoners of war.
The efforts of the Senator from Kansas
in this field are outstanding. I heartily
endorse the amendment.
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE Let me respond first to
the Senator from Colorado, who was a
moving force in reference to American
prisoners of war and those missing is ac-
tion long before I came to this body.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 27, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7837
I have analyzed the Cooper-Church
amendment, and I have attempted to do
so very objectively in hopes some com-
promise might be reached; but this
analysis only points up the folly of try-
ing to tie the President's hands and say-
ing, in effect, to prisoners, whether they
be newsmen or American soldiers, if they
are held captive by the enemy in Cam-
bodia, that we turn our backs on them.
That, in effect, is what the Church-
Cooper amendment would require, be-
cause after July 1, the effective date of
the amendment, if it is passed, the
President will have no such power with-
out first consulting with Congress.
I daresay that if President Nixon were
faced with the question of coming to
Congress or saving American lives, he
would save the American lives and be
prepared to suffer the consequences,
whatever they might be for so acting. I
have great faith in President Nixon. I
have great faith in his integrity, and in
his efforts to extricate us from Vietnam.
But my amendment points up a sub-
stantial and very basic weakness in any
effort to hamstring the President of the
United States. Does or does he not have
the right, unhampered, to protect Amer-
ican Forces? Does or does he not have the
right, unhampered, to move to protect
American prisoners? If there is any
doubt, if there is one prisoner in Cam-
bodia, I could not vote for the Cooper-
Church amendment which would take
away that power, or at least cloud the
power the President may have to act
quickly.
That view is shared by the Senator
from Colorado, because his concern for
the protection of American forces.
This may be the first of a series of
amendments to emphasize that, notwith-
standing the intentions, notwithstanding
the improvement in the preamble, addi-
tional changes should be made in the
substantive language to make it crystal
clear?yes, to all Americans, but more
importantly to the enemy?that we have
not tied the hands of our President, that
we are not saying goodbye to American
prisoners of war, wherever they may be.
We should not pass a resolution which
says the President cannot act unless he
consults with Congress or has the con-
sent of Congress.
I do not believe that is the intention of
those who sponsor the Church-Cooper
amendment.
I would hope language can be agreed
upon to make clear that that is not the
intent of the Cooper-Church amend-
ment.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield further?
Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from
Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. It should be made
clear that we have had some men
downed, who have been captured in Laos.
We do not know where they are. We have
no vague recognition of whether or not
there are even prison camps up there.
But if we come to a congressional resolu-
tion which gays American forces are
never going to be put in the North
Vietnamese-occupied areas of Cambodia,
it would seem to me it would be reason-
able for the other side to say, "These are
natural places where we will hold them.
We will use them as some kind of bounty
so we can reach something that is favor-
able to us in other areas. We will not
make any deals at all until we get some
agreement that is acceptable to us."
Withholding the right of rescue opera-
tions in these types of circumstances, it
seems to me, would be wrong.
For that reason I strongly endorse the
amendment.
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from
Colorado.
I yield now to the Senator from
Florida.
Mr. GURNEY. I thank the Senator for
yielding tome.
Mr. President, I, too, want to express
my hearty assent and also my com-
mendation of the Senator from Kansas
for the fine leadership he has shown in
this prisoner of war matter. In fact, he
has gained nationwide recognition, as he
should, for taking the leadership and ex-
posing the inhumane actions of the
North Vietnamese so far as our Amer-
ican prisoners of war are concerned.
I also want to say, in support of his
amendment, that those of us who have
opposed the Church-Cooper amendment
and support the President in his actions
in Cambodia have, again and again
warned that the President's action in
Cambodia has essentially been a tactical
move. It has not been a broadening of
the war. Our opposition to the amend-
ment stems chiefly from the fact that we
think the President's hands are going to
be tied by the Church-Cooper amend-
ment, particularly as far as future ac-
tions and operations in South Vietnam
are concerned, and I think the signifi-
cance of the amendment offered by the
Senator from Kansas is that it points
out that in this one area is a situation
that we have seen will exist if we pass
the Church-Cooper amendment, and it
will tie the President's hands and limit
his actions so far as prisoners of war
are concerned, certainly, in Cambodia.
So I think the Senator's amendment
is well advised. I certainly hope it will
pass, and I would ask him if I may join
him in his amendment as a cosponsor.
Mr. DOLE. Yes. I yield first to the
Senator from Vermont, and then I shall
yield to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I would
like to get this clear in my mind: As I
understand, the amendment of the Sen-
ator from Kansas would authorize Pres-
ident Nixon to send troops into Cam-
bodia for ?the purpose of rescuing pris-
oners of war?
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. AIKEN. And also into Laos?
Mr. DOLE. I would hope he would have
that right, to rescue prisoners. But I
might say my amendment is limited to
Cambodia only, because the Church-
Cooper -resolution addresses itself to
Cambodia.
Mr. AIKEN. I am just asking what the
Senator's objective is. Would the Sen-
ator from Kansas expect the President
to send troops into North Vietnam,
where most of the prisoners of war are
held?
Mr. DOLE. Well, I would not reject
that idea.
Mr. AIKEN. Well, the Senator would
recommend it, would he not?
Mr. DOLE. I doubt whether my recom-
mendation would mean much. I think he
has that authority now.
Mr. AIKEN. Suppose prisoners of war
were moved out of North Vietnam into
China. Would the Senator authorize
sending troops into China to rescue pris-
oners of war? It seems to me a prisoner
of war-is just as unhappy as he can be,
regardless of where he is located; and if
the President has authority to rescue a
prisoner of war one place,. he certainly
should have the authority to rescue pris-
oners of war wherever they might be.
Mr. DOLE. I think he should have that
authority. I want to make it clear that
I do not recommend that he do any of
these things, but I think he should not
be restricted from doing them. The
enemy should not know in advance that
he might not do it, or cannot do it.
Mr. AIKEN. We have some prisoners
of war, I believe, in Cambodia already. I
heard we had some newspaper people
who had been taken prisoner.
Mr. DOLE. I think we have at least
two, maybe more.
Mr. AIKEN. I was just wondering how
far the Senator's objective went.
It seems to me if you can send troops
into one country to rescue prisoners of
war, you ought to be able to send them
into any country where prisoners of war
were kept.
I sympathize very much with the Sen-
ator's purpose, because we have people
in my State who do not knew whether
their boys are prisoners of war, or
whether they were killed, or what hap-
pened, and' you cannot get any informa -
Von from the enemy. I paid my respects
to them in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
last Friday.
Mr. DOLE. That is correct. I read the
Senator's statement.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator has a worthy
purpose, but the question is, where would
it stop?
Mr. DOLE. Let me say, before I yield
to the Senator from Florida, that I have
tried to limit the amendment to the
country of Cambodia, because that is the
resolution offered by the distinguished
Senators from Idaho, Vermont, Ken-
tucky, and Montana.
Mr. AIKEN. Yes. But I point out, it
would be unfair to the prisoners to say,
"You cannot hold our prisoners in Cam-
bodia, you have got to get them up the
line in Laos somewhere, or in North Viet-
nam." A prisoner of war is unhappy
wherever he is, and just as deserving of
rescue from one place as from another.
Mr. DOLE. I share the view of the Sen-
ator from Vermont, and, if necessary,
could broaden the scope of the amend-
ment; but I believe it is drawn in accord-
ance with the scope of the Church-
Cooper resolution. It is restricted to one
country, the country of Cambodia, be-
cause that is the country covered by th-
Church-Cooper resolution.
Mr. AIKEN. Yes.
Mr. DOLE. I would hope that the Pres-
ident has that right, and would have that
right in any event; but to make it certain.
because questions have been raised, I
offered the amendment.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7838 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE May 27, 1970
Mr. AIKEN. I believe the President is
on reasonably sound ground when he
claims constitutional authority, or at
least on much sounder grounds than
President Johnson was when he based his
actions for expanding the war on legisla-
tive authority, which I do not think was
very sound, because he certainly did not
interpret the legislation the way most
Members of Congress did.
But President Nixon. as I have held
from the beginning, was on much sounder
ground in basing his acts on constitu-
tional authority rather than legislative
authority. I do not know, for sure. but I
doubt if this amendment would add any.
thing to his constitutional authority.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President. I share, for
the most part, and associate myself with
the words of the Senator from Florida.
I was privileged to be in the Chamber
yesterday when he discussed in great
depth the powers of the President vis-a-
vis the powers of Congress and his in-
terpretation of those powers. Perhaps,
as he has indicated, many of us who sup-
ported the change in the preamble?and
my judgment is not equal to that of the
senior Senator from Florida?look upon
the change as an improvement.
Now that we have adopted the pre-
amble. which is the "eyewash" portion
of the amendment, we are now dealing
with its substantive provisions. The issue
is, as the Senator from Florida has just
stated very well, whether we will shackle
the Commander in Chief. whoever he
may be, President Nixon. or his successor,
and how far Congress should go in ex-
ercising our authority.
Yes, we have the power under the
Constitution to declare war. We have
that power. Yes, we have the right under
the Constitution to appropriate money.
There is no doubt about that. We have
grave responsibilities when it comes to
declaring war and appropriating funds
for any conflict or any declared war. On
the other hand, the President. as the Sen-
ator from Florida stated, is the Com-
mander in Chief. He does have the right
and he does have the power to make
tactical decisions, whether in Cambodia
or some other country around the world.
I have said from time to time that
there are those who fault President Nixon
for not heating up the conflict in the
Middle East. for not authorizing sales of
jets to Israel?which I support. Yet those
same critics criticize the President for
not extricating us from Southeast Asia.
I happen to believe on both counts that
the President is pursuing the proper
course. one of caution but primarily one
that is concerned with the best interests
of America. He is making every effort
to extricate us from South Vietnam. He
is making every effort to prevent this
country's getting involved in a larger
conflict in the Middle East. at the same
time recognizing the responsibilities we
have in that part of the world.
I would hope that we would be con-
sistent in our views, in our policies, and
in our statements. It seems that that one
right and one power that the President
must have, in any event, is to protect
American forces. I could subscribe, to
the provisions of the Church-Cooper
resolution if that were clearly spelled
out. It has been said in this Chamber by
the distinguished Senator from Ken-
tucky, the distinguished Senator from
Idaho, and the distinguished majority
leader, that certainly the President has
the right to protect American forces.
But I might suggest that there would be
some, yes, in this Chamber who, if the
President?on July 4, for exannile, 4 days
after the effective date of this resolu-
tion if adopted?were to find it necessary
to go back into Cambodia to protect the
American forces, on the following day
would rise in this Chamber and charge
that the President had violated the
Church-Cooper resolution, that he had
exceeded his authority under the
Church-Cooper resolution.
We can be practical. We are practical.
We understand how the people will in-
terpret the Cooper-Church resolution. If
It were passed in its present form and if
the President were to find it necessary
to take action, whatever action it might
be. to protect American forces he may
as well brace himself for an onslaught in
this Chamber.
The President understands that. He is
aware of his authority and responsibility
as Commander in Chief .The President
must act under the Constitution to pro-
tect American lives.
Mr. President, does it do any great
harm to the Cooper-Church resolution
to write in as a specific part of that reso-
lution that, notwithstanding anything
therein contained. the President's right
to protect the American forces shall not
be impaired.
If that were done, of course, the ex-
treme argument might be made that he
could go into China, into Russia, or into
Egypt, but let us be realistic. The -Presi-
dent understands the role of Congress,
he understands the role of the Senate.
Let me conclude by stating again the
amendment, which says:
The provisions of subsection (a) of this
section shall be Inoperative during any period
that. the President determines that citizens
or nationals of the Untied States are held
a? prisoners of war In Cambodia by the North
Vietnamese or the forces of the National
Liberation Front.
Mr. President. I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD a
statement made by the President on De-
cember 12, 1969, concerning the Ameri-
can prisoners of war, a statement made
on May 19, 1969. by Secretary of De-
fense Laird with reference to prisoners
of war, a statement made at a news con-
f - IVII7e on June 5. 1969, by Secretary of
Fr 11.Fr Rogers e Ame-ican pris-
- of war. a :a. iemet L made on May
22. 1969. by the former Ambassador and
Thie7 Negotiator at Pail,. Henry Cabot
ocige, a statement of December 30,
1969, by Ambassador Habib on prisoners
of war, and a State Department bulletin
entitled. -American Prisoners of War in
Vietnam: An Appeal to the U.N."
There being no objection, the state-
ments were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD. RS follows:
TOE WHITE HOUSE,
Der..rn her 12, 1969.
P,MARFIS OF TUE. PRESIDENT FOLLOWING A
MEET/NG WIT 1.1 WIVES AND MOTHERS OF
PRISONERS OF' WAR AND OF SERVICEMEN
MISSING IN ACTION, THE ROOSEVELT Room
Ladies and gentlemen: I have the very
great honor to present in this room today
five of the most courageous women I have
had the privilege to meet in my life.
Mrs. Nixon and I have met with 26 women,
of which these are a part, representing ap-
proximately 1.500 women, mothers and wives
of American servicemen who are missing in
Vietnam and who are or may be prisoners
of war. Some of these men have been prison-
ers or-miming for as long as five years. most
of them two to three years.
Insofar as the treatment of prisoners is
concerned, it would probably not be inac-
curate to say that the record in this war is
one of the most unconscionable in the his-
tory of warfare. And there have been, of
course, some very bad examples in past wars,
as we know.
What I have assured these very courageous
women is that, first, in reaching a settlement
of the war that an integral part of any settle-
ment that Is agreed to must be a settlement
that. Is satisfactory on the prisoner issue and.
second, that, clearly apart from reaching an
overall settlement of the war that this Gov-
ernment will do everything that it possibly
can to separate out the prisoner issue and
have it handled as It should be. as a separate
issue on a humane basis.
Finally. I would simply add that while we
all know that there Is disagreement in this
country about the war In Vietnam and while
there is dissent about it on several points,
that on this issue, the treatment of prisoners
of war, that there can be and there should be
no disagreement.
The American people, I am sure, are
unanimous in expressing their sympathy to
these women, to their children, and also in
supporting their Government's attempt to
get the Government of North Vietnam and
the VC to respond to the many initiatives
which we have undertaken to get this issue
separated out and prior to the time we can
do something to end the war.
I understand they will be here to answer
quest ions.
STATEMENT BY SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
MELVIN R. LAIRD
On numerous occasions I have expressed
my deep concern for the welfare of our
American servicemen who are prisoners of
war cr missing in action. In this regard, I
have directed Assistant Secretary of Defense
(ISA) G. Warren Nutter, who has been
named Chairman of the Department of De-
fense Prisoner of War Policy Committee, to
insure that the families of these servicemen
are receiving all assistance to which they
are entitled.
The North Vietnamese have claimed that
they are treating our men humanelY. I am
distressed by the fact that there is clear evi-
dence that this is not the case.
The United States Government has urged
that the enemy respect the requirements of
the Geneva Convention. This they have re-
fused to do.
The North Vietnamese and the Viet Cone
have never identied the n.rn.. ^* .11 the
U.S. prisoners whom they hold. For the most
part. information on some of these Ameri-
cans has come in the form of scattered, and
often distorted, propaganda films and photo-
graphs which the North Vietnamese have
chosen to sell or release.
We know that at least several U.S. pris-
oners were injured at the time of their cap-
ture and we are concerned about the medical
e:tre they are receiving.
The Geneva Convention requires a free ex-
change of mail between the prisoners and
their families and yet very little mail has
been received front only a few prisoners in the
past five years.
As of next month, more than 200 Ameri-
can servicemen will have been listed either
as prisoners of war or as missing in action
for more than three and one-half years. This
period of time is longer than any U.S. service-
man was held prisoner during World War II.
The Department of Defense continues to
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
- 27, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7839
hope for meaningful progress on the matter
of prisoner release in the Paris discussions.
In the meantime, we appeal to North Viet-
nam and the Viet Cong to respect the hu-
mane rights of those whom they hold pris-
oners of war.
Specifically, we call for adherence to the
Geneva Convention which requires:
1. Release of names of prisoners held.
2. Immediate release of sick and wounded
prisoners.
3. Impartial inspections of prisoner of war
facilities.
4. Proper treatment of all prisoners.
5. Regular flow of mail.
Most importantly, we seek the prompt re-
lease of all American prisoners.
SECRETARY ROGERS' NEWS CONFERENCE OF
JUNE 5, 1969
(The following is the State Department's
release of Secretary of State William P. Rog-
ers' news conference, which is authorized for
direct quotation.)
Secretary Rocnns._Ladies and gentlemen, I
am glad to see the room is not as crowded
as it was the last time. I have a short state-
ment here Pwould like to read:
I want to express my serious concern about
the Americans who are prisoners of war in
Southeast Asia. Many of these prisoners have
been held for three years or more. There is
a long tradition among nations that person-
nel captured in wartime be treated humane-
ly. This principle has been expressed in the
Geneva Convention of 1949 and is recognized
by more than 120 nations.
A basic requirement of the Convention is
that names of prisoners be provided to their
families and to an appropriate agency in a
neutral country. Communist leaders have
failed to observe this simple civilized re-
quirement which would mean so much to the
wives and families of the men who are miss-
ing in combat.
North Vietnamese officials have frequently
declared that the prisoners are treated hu-
manely. Many seriously question these state-
ments. Assurance could readily be provided if
North Viet-Nam would permit visits by im-
partial observers to. the prison camps. For the
sake of the prisoners and for their families,
we continue to hope for a positive response
from North Viet-Nam. We are prepared to
discuss this subject and to move quickly to-
ward 'arrangements for the release of prison-
ers on both sides, and I believe that any
sign of good faith by the other side in this
matter would provide encouragement for our
negotiations in Paris.
Thank you. I will take some questions.
AMBASSADOR LODGE'S STATEMENTS ON PW's
DURING MAY 22 PARIS TALKS
Opening statement: I cannot leave this
suibject (PW's) without protesting the atti-
tude which you have expressed most recently
last Tuesday, May 20, with respect to the
prisoners held in North Vietnam. You have
refused to provide a list of these prisoners
so that their families might know whether
they are living or dead. You have refused to
discuss the repatriation of the sick and
wounded which is a long-established inter-
national practice. You should know that the
attitude you have expressed with regard to
these basic humanitarian requirements can-
not have a favorable effect on our negotia-
tions here.
Additional remarks: Let me add one
observation about prisoners. It is difficult to
understand how you can claim to be treat-
ing our prisoners humanely when you refuse
to identify the prisoners you hold so that
their families can know the fate of their
relatives. You refuse to permit regular mail
exchanges. You reject impartial international
observation of conditions under which
prisoners are held: You refuse to discuss
release of sick and wounded prisoners. Yet
these are basic elements of humanitarian
treatment under established international
standards. We do not see how you can be
hurt by merely publishing the names of
those who are alive so that the uncertainty
which their families feel may be ended. To
express myself for a moment in human terms
instead of the language of diplomacy, what
is involved here is the prisoner's wife who
does not know whether her husband is alive
or whether he is dead. It is really hard to
believe that the security of North Vietnam
would be threatened if this wife were told
the truth about her husband's fate. We hope
you will reconsider your attitude on these
questions se that it will truly reflect the
humane policy which you claim to follow.
AMBASSADOR HABIB'S OPENING STATEMENT
(Following is the text of the opening state-
ment delivered by Ambassador Philip C.
Habib at the 48th Plenary Session of the New
Paris Meetings on Viet-Nam, December 30,
1969.)
Ladies and Gentlemen: The issue which I
wish to address today is the question of
prisoners of war. In the midst of this tradi-
tional holiday season, a season for family
reunions and celebrations, thousands of fam-
ilies are troubled over the fate of a relative
missing or captured in Viet-Nam. This is a
tragic situation, not just because family
members are missing at this holiday period,
but also because the families' uncertainty
and anguish is so unnecessary and uncalled
for.
I do not express only my government's view
on this unfortunate matter, nor only the
view of the American people. I express a
view that is almost universally shared. It
has been expressed in representative bodies
throughout the world?in the United States
Congress, in the United Nations, at the In-
ternational Red Cross Conference in Istan-
bul last September, by many National Red
Cross societies and by many governments. In
fact, on this issue, North Viet-Nam is vir-
tually isolated in the eyes of world public
cpinicn.
Ladies and gentlemen, there are two ques-
tions befo-re us, first, the critical question
of humanitarian treatment for the prisoners
your side holds. Secondly, the repatriation
Cf all prisoners.
On the first question, your side's position
does not conform to normal standards. On
the second question, your position is unrea-
sonable.
Some Americans have been held by your
side since early in 1964. Others have been
missing since that time. And yet you still
refuse' to inform all families of the fate of
these men.
On December 22, a spokesman for your side
is reported to have said, "We refuse to give
the list of names to the Nixon Administra-
tion, but the prisoners' families will know
their names by and by." A gradual, piece-
meal process of providing a few names at a
time to anxious families is no substitute
for making known without delay the names
of all prisoners of war.
Because of your side's continuing refusal
to identify all prisoners of war, my govern-
ment is today releasing to the press the
names of U.S. military personnel who are
missing in Southeast Asia and may possibly
be your prisoners. I will give your side a
copy of the list here as well. My government
Is 'taking this action in the hope that your
side, even at this late date, will indicate
which men are prisoners and those whom
you know to be dead, as a matter of humani-
tarian concern for their families.
Your side claims that you provide humane
treatment to the prisoners you hold. But you
permit no independent and objective author-
ity to verify this claim. Indeed, much of the
evidence available to the outside world re-
garding the treatment of prisoners held by
your side contradicts your claims. The pris-
oners have not been permitted to correspond
regularly with their families, and to receive
mail and packages on a regular basis. There
is no assurance that the prisoners actually
receive the mail sent them. Little mail is re-
ceived by families from the prisoners.
Regarding the issue of mail, two American
women who recently traveled to North Viet-
Nam reported that families of prisoners could
send a letter a month and a package of less
than six pounds every other month to the
POWs by addressing them with the prisoner's
name and serial number, care of "Camp of
Detention for U.S. Pilots Captured in the
Democratic Republic of Viet-Nam, Hanoi,
DRVN" and writing "Via Mosco" on the en-
velope. We would like your confirmation of
the accuracy of this report. We would also
like to know whether this means that the
American prisoners will be permitted to write
to their families on a regular basis.
As for the physical treatment of prisoners,
there is evidence that prisoners held by your
side have been subjected to solitary confine-
ment, as well as to other forms of physical
and mental duress. Your side has made no
systematic effort to repatriate sick and
wounded prisoners.
As President Nixon has said, this is an un-
conscionable position. There is no way it can
be justified to the families of the prisoners
or to the world at large.
This is not simply a narrow question of
legal obligations. This is a question of hu-
mane treatment which civilized nations ac-
cord to those who are helpless, who pose no
threat and who no longer have the means to
defend themselves. It is also a question of de-
cency toward the families of those who are
missing.
On our side, the United States Government
and the Government of the Republic of Viet-
Nam have undertaken to respect the Geneva
Convention in their treatment of prisoners
of war and have arranged for the ICRC to
visit prisoner of war camps in South Viet-
Nam. The camps are regularly visited by
ICRC delegates and doctors, who are able to
meet individual prisoners privately. The
names of the prisoners of war have been made
available to the ICRC. Prisoners of war are
able to send and receive mail and packages.
The Government of the Republic of Viet-
Nam in the past released sick and wounded
POWs. Regular international inspection has
shown that the prisoners of war held by the
Government of the Republic of Viet-Nam are
treated in accordance with the requirements
of the Geneva Convention.
Let me turn to the question of the release
and repatriation of prisoners of war. Your
side says that the prisoner question cannot
be settled except as part of an overall set-
tlement of the war in Viet-Nam. For our
part, see no reason why there oannot be a
negotiated release of prisoners of war on both
sides prior to an overall settlement. You still
refuse to discuss the release of the prisoners
you hold. Although you have released a few
prisoners on occasion, you refuse to negotiate
a repatriation- of all prisoners.
Instead of treating the prisoner question
as a humanitarian issue, your side appar-
ently wishes to use the prisoners as pawns
in bargaining for an overall settlement of
the war. But you refuse to negotiate serious-
ly in Paris, thereby delaying an overall set-
tlement of the war. Thus, you keep hun-
dreds of families in agonizing doubt about
the lives and welfare of their sons or hus-
bands -or parents while you seek to settle the
war .on your own terms.
If your side hopes to apply political pres-
sure upon the United States through. its
harsh attitude regarding prisoners of war,
you reveal .a 'thorough misunderstanding of
American public opinion. No American can
condone your side's handling of the prisoner
question. Your denial of the most fundamen-
tal precepts governing such matters has only
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7840 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 27, 1970
-
resulted ,n unanimous public iiondeinna-
:ton.
Ladies and gentlemen. I call on your side
to live up to the international standards for
t.le treatment of those who are missing or
held prisoner in Viet-Narn. This humani-
tarian issue should be dealt with separately
From the political and military questions we
face in the-Paris meetings. We propose that
our two sides enter promptly Into discus-
sions on all questions affecting prisoners of
war held in both sides, includIne the ques-
tion of their early release. The United States
Delegation stands ready to enter into such
negotiations without delay.
AMERICAN PRISONERS OF WAR IN VIETNAM:
AN APPEAL TO THE U,N.
This pamphlet consists of a statement
made by Rita F. Hauser, U.S. Alternate Rep-
resentative to the General Assembly. In
Committee HI (Social, Huinanitarlan. and
Cultural) of the U.N. General Assembly on
November 11, 1969.
iThe text of the statement hits been re-
printed from the Department of State Bul-
letin of December 11. 1967. The Bulletin, the
official record of U.S foreign policy. Is pub-
lished weekly and Is available for subscrip-
tion from the Superintendent of Documents,
U.S. Government Printing Other.. Washing-
ton. D.C. 20402. at $16.00 a year.;
We now POIMITIPIIPP general debate In this
committee on three subjects of moment:
elimination of all forms of racial dierimina-
tion, measures to be taken against nazism
and racial intolerance, and violation of hu-
man rights and fundamental freedoms. Of
the three, the violation of human rights and
fundamental freedoms appears to my delega-
tion to be singularly important. Indeed. its
importance to all delegations Is demonstrated
by its recurrence each year as a major sub-
ject of discussion.
This agenda item makes particular refer-
ence to colonial and other dependent coun-
tries and territories. My delegation continues
to deplore the inhumane practice of apar-
theid In South Africa and in Namibia and
associates itself with the efforts of the inter-
national community seeking peaceful and
practicable means for its elimination as soon
as possible. We also remain very concerned
about the serious violations of human rights
in other narts of Africa. These questions are
rightfully treated in many bodies of the
United Nations. Including the Security Coun-
cil. for they are of the utmost urgency and
ara vi ty.
Accordingly, Madam Chairman, while we
recognise fully the persistent and serious hu-
man rights violations in southern Africa. we
are of the 'view that the Third Committee
should not utilize all of its time on this as-
pect of the subject, so widely treated else-
where in the United Nations, lest by so doing
we neglect the many instances of grave vio-
lations of human rights elsewhere In the
world. I wish to recall that our agenda Item
itself refers to "the violation of human rights
and fundamental freedoms . in all
countries."
On reading the hundreds of petitions al-
leging violations of human rights which
,mine to the Commission on Human Rights
from sources in many countries, iny delega-
tion has noted the large number referring
to violations of articles 9-12 and article 19
of the Universal Declaration ?f Human
Rights. The latter provides that ''Everyone
has the right to freedom of opinion and ex-
pression.- including freedom to -seek, receive
and impart information and Ideas through
any media and regardless of frontiers."
Article 9 states that "No one shall be sub-
jected to arbitrary arrest, detention or- exile."
Articles 10, 11, and 12 afford full protection
and due process of law as to those charged
with a penal offense.
In reviewing the 1989 annual report of
that singular institution, Amnesty Interna-
tional. now consisting of 20 national sections
and over 15.000 individual members, the work
of which is to strengthen all international
movements supporting human rights, my
delegation was very much struck by the fact
that Amnesty International has taken up
Investigation of cases of political prisoners
during the year 1988-69 In 72 countries. In-
cluded was My own country, where the status
of conscientious objectors who have been im-
prisoned for violations of the conscription
laws has been looked into with the full co-
operation of my Governeinnt.
Newspaper reports and other media sources
make perfectly clear to us that the right of
political dissent is still a very precarious one
lor millions of people. Prisons bulge with
Huse who have dared to criticize or oppose
peacefully the policies of their governments;
and, alas, many such prisoners are brutally
ill-treated, In violation of all standards of
human decency. We note particularly the
evidence compiled in the report of the ad hoc
working group of experts as to African terri-
tories under colonial domination, which
documents the degree to which political
prisoners have been brutalized in these areas.
Rather than promote and encourage open
dissent, many governments have maintained
power with a reign of fear which serves to
terrorize the minds and, eventually, the
bodies of those who disagree.
In the time available to me. Madam Chair-
man. I cannot review all of these situations
occurring the world over. But in the course
of this debate, my delegation wishes strongly
to arrirm the Inherent faculty of all men?
if they are Indeed, as article 1 of the Uni-
versal Declaration of Human Rights states,
-born free and equal in dignity and rights.
endowed with reason and conscience"?to
exercise their basic right of freedom of spirit,
mind, and belief, wherever they may be lo-
cated and whatever may be the political and
social system under which they live.
These rights are no greater or smaller in
Africa than in the Americas, in Asia than In
Europe, They belong to all mankind and de-
rive from man's basic humanity. The right to
disagree, to dissent, is perhaps the most
cherished of all the political rights of man.
History teaches that yesterday's dissenters
often become today's majority, for through
reasoned dissent, man progresses If I may
so nate, my delegation was proud to witness
the free exercise of tree minds across our
country on October 15, a day on which many
Americans were able to express their dissent
with the Government's policy as others were
equally able to disagree publicly with the
dissenters. We are grateful for orderly and
reasonable disagreement; for we know that
in, country's policies are so sound or so cur-
ret that none will be found who disagree.
GENEVA CONVENTION ON PRISONERS OF WAR
Madam Chairman, my delegation is also
deeply disturbed at a most fundamental vio-
lation of human decency as to another cate-
gory of prisoners: those who are prisoners of
war protected by international law.
I would like to discuss a specific situation
involving prisoners which. I am sure you will
understand, is of particular concern to my
country. United States forces are engaged in
combat in Vietnam. It is our earnest hope
that this conflict will soon be terminated and
the task of rebuilding begun. But many hun-
dreds of American soldiers, airmen, marines,
and naval personnel are at present missing
or captured In Vietnam. How many of these
men, and which ones, are in captivity is a
secret closely guarded by the North Viet-
namese authorities. For each of these men
there is a wife, a child, a parent, who is con-
cerned with his fate. They are subjected to
uncertainty and despair which grow as each
day passes.
Our concern in this matter, expressed here
before the assemblage of nations. Is human-
itarian, not political. This concern was suc-
cinctly but urgently expressed in the agon-
izing question put by the many wives who
have gone to Paris to ask the North Viet-
namese delegation to the Paris talks: Please
tell me if I am a wife or a widow.
There exists an international convention,
legally binding upon all parties concerned:
the Convention on Protection of Prisoners of
War, conoluded at Geneva in 1949S This con-
vention applies to "all cases of declared war
or of any other armed conflict which may
arise between two or more of the High Con-
tracting Parties, even if the state of war Is
not recognized by one of them." It thus
hinds the United States, which ratified it in
1955. the Republic of Viet-Nam. which
acceded to it in 1953. and North Viet-Nam,
which acceded in 1957.
This convention, to whieh. I may add, there
are 126 parties, including more than 100
members of the United Nations, contains
provisions which, if implemented, would let
children know if their fathers are alive, par-
ents if their sons are well treated. It requires
that, and I quote: "Immediately upon cap-
ture, or not more than one week after arrival
at a camp, even if it is a transit camp, like-
wise in case of sickness or transfer to hospital
or to another camp, every prisoner of war
shall be enabled to write direct to his
family...."
The convention assures a prisoner the right
to remain in communication with his loved
ones and with an international or state
organization which has assumed the obli-
gation of safeguarding the rights of the
prisoner.
In addltic n to the right to receive mail and
packages, and to send a minimum of two
letters and four cards each month, the Ge-
neva convention specifies minimum humane
standards of detention, of hygiene, diet,
recreation, and employment. It requires that
seriously wounded or ill prisoners be re-
',striated as soon as they are able to travel.
It specifies that the detaining power shall
accept a neutral party to the conflict or a
respected international organization such
as the International Committee of the Red
Cross as a protecting power for the prison-
ers. It requires that the detaining power
provide the names of the prisoners it holds
to their families, as well as to the protecting
power, or to the International Committee
of the Red Cross, to pass on to -their country
of origin. It requires that the detaining party
permit on-the-scene inspection of its deten-
tion facilities.
Madam Chairman, my fellow delegates, this
convention is not meant to create a life of
privilege for captured military personnel. It is
meant to ensure minimum standards of hu-
man decency to helpless men who are in the
power of their military enemy and can no
longer pose a threat to that enemy and to
provide minimum solace to families who are
far from the front lines. In wartime, when
passions are inflamed, this convention seeks
to preserve those frail links of compassion
and decency which are so urgently needed.
Nurtured, these links may in turn help move
enemies toward a realization of their common
stake in finding the path to peace.
My country places the highest priority
upon implementation of this convention.
There are now some 30,000 North Vietnamese
and Viet Cong prisoners of war in South
Viet-Nam who have been accorded the status
and the rights Cf prisoners of war under the
Geneva convention, even though many of
them may not technically be entitled to such
prisoner-of-war status as defined in the con-
vention.
Treaties and Other International Acts
Series 3384.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May-27, 19PP
roved For RelomagnOlti 9pmeg.2_19gimp000sco65-6
- A
S 7841
The United States has tried again and
again to persuade Hanoi to apply the basic
minimum standards guaranteed by the con-
vention: identification of prisoners, the right
to send and receive mail, and a protecting
power to inspect detention conditions. We
remain immensely grateful to the govern-
ments which have cooperated in these regret-
tably unsuccessful efforts.
In contrast, the Government of the Repub-
lic of Viet-Nam, with the cooperation of its
allies, opened all detention camps to inspec-
tion by the International Committee of the
Red Cross. The names of POW's have been
made available to the ICRC. Prisoners of war
detained by the Republic of Viet-Nam have
the right to send and receive mail and pack-
ages. They are interned in six camps which
are administered by the Republic of Viet-
Nam and which, as regular international in-
spection has shown, conform to the require-
ments of the Geneva convention.
Let me be clear that we are not claiming a
perfect record on this subject. War is ugly
and brutal by nature, and violations by indi-
viduals have occurred. The point is, however,
that the Allied command has made every ef-
fort to ensure that the convention is applied.
This includes the issuance of-clear and ex-
plicit orders and, even more important, thor-
ough investigation of alleged 'Violations and
punishment of those found guilty. This pol-
icy is confirmed and supported by the con-
tinuous review, both official and unofficial,
which results from free access to POW's b-
delegates and doctors of the ICRC.
The United States neither seeks nor de-
serves praise for its efforts to implement the
convention. This is our duty?our legal duty
and our moral duty. The tragic fact, how-
ever, is that North Viet-Nam and the Na-
tional Liberation Front refuse to acknowledge
their legal and moral duty to apply similar
standards of treatment to the helpless pris-
oners in their power, Vietnamese as well as
American.
NORTH VIETNAM'S TREATMENT OF PRISONERS
The record is indeed sad. The North Viet-
namese authorities have refused to identify
the prisoners they hold. Only a limited mi-
nority of those men known by the United
States Government to have been captured
have been allowed to communicate with the
outside world. Mail even from this small mi-
nority has been infrequent and irregular. The
sick and the wounded have not been re-
patriated, nor have they been identified. Even
the minimum protection that would be af-
forded by inspection of POW facilities by an
impartial international body has been denied.
The ICRC's repeated. requests to be allowed
to visit the prisoners at their places of de-
tention have been repeatedly denied, nor has
any other accepted intermediary been given
access to the prisoners.
From the reports of the few men actually
released by North Viet-Nam and from other
sources has come disturbing evidence that
prisoners are being deprived of adequate
medical care and diets and that, in many in-
stances, they have been subjected to physical
and mental torture. For example, Lieutenant
Robert Frishman, one of the recently released
American prisoners, in a public statement on
September 2, 1969, shortly after his release,
said American prisoners are subject to "soli-
tary confinement, forced statements, living
in a cage for 3 years, being put in straps, not
being allowed to sleep or eat, removal of fin-
gernails, being hung from a ceiling, having an
infected arm which was almost lost, not re-
ceiving medical care, being dragged along the
ground with a broken leg. . . ." Recounting
the treatment of Lieutenant Commander
Stratton, Lieutenant Frishman said:
'The North Vietnamese tried to get Lieu-
tenant Commander Stratton to appear be-
fore a press delegation and say that he had
received humane and lenient treatment. He
refused because his treatment hadn't been
humane. He'd been tied up with ropes to
such a degree that he still has large scars on
his arms from rope burns which became in-
fected. He was deprived of sleep, beaten, had
his fingernails removed, and was put in soli-
tary, but the North Vietnamese insisted that
he make the false 'humane treatment state-
ments' and threw him into a dark cell alone
for 38 days to think about it."
This record is indeed chilling. It has been
noted and deplored by a great many interna-
tional observers. For example, Jacques Frey-
mond of the International Committee of the
Red Cross, reporting on the work of the Com-
mittee on Prisoners of War, highlighted the
contrasts between North and South Viet-Nam
as follows:
"In Viet-Nam, it (the ICRC) has so far had
limited success. In fact, in spite of repeated
representations, it has not been able to
obtain the agreement of the Democratic
Republic of Viet-Nam to the installation of
a delegation in Hanoi nor even to the visiting
of prisoners of war. . . .
"On the other hand, the ICRC is repre-
sented in Saigon and the delegates are able
to visit all prisoner of war camps. They also
regularly receive nominal rolls of these
prisoners."
In the face of such international criticism
there have been few breaks in the silence of
Hanoi. We have, however, been told?though
in the shrill phrases of propaganda, rather
than in the measured tones of statesmanship
cr humanitarianism?that the Geneva con-
vention does not apply because there has
not been a formal declaration of war and that
the American prisoners are "war criminals"
and therefore not entitled to the rights con-
ferred upon prisoners of war by the Geneva
convention. Despite this, Hanoi says, it treats
the prisoners "humanely."
Madam Chairman, my Government cannot
accept these assertions. The Geneva conven-
tion provides a detailed international stand-
ard of humane treatment against which the
treatment of prisoners of war can be meas-
ured. Hanoi's mere assertion of "humane"
treatment, which has never been verified by
impartial inspection, is no substitute. Fur-
ther, North Viet-Nam's denial that the con-
vention is applicable and its assertion that
It therefore cannot be the standard to meas-
ure its conduct have no basis in international
law. Hanoi says that the convention applies
only where there has been a declaration of
war. But it is clear from the language of the
convention, which I quoted earlier, that the
absence of such a declaration has no rela-
tionship to the convention's applicability and
does not justify a refusal to apply it.
Hanoi has also asserted that our men
held as prisoners are war criminals, apparent-
ly on the theory that any attacks against
North Viet-Nam or Viet Cong forces or
facilities are criminal acts and that all mili-
tary personnel involved in such attacks are
criminals. Such assertions are patently ab-
surd. Our men are not war criminals. More-
over, the Geneva conventions and modern
international humanitarian law reject any
suggestion that the protection of individual
war victims, whether soldiers or civilians, is
dependent upon moral or legal judgments
about the cause tor which their government
is fighting. The law is there to protect all the
victims of war on both sides. All countries
have an interest in seeing that it is respected.
The United States understands that every
country _believes that it is right and its
enemy wrong. But, Madam Chairman, the
Geneva convention was designed specifically
to meet this problem. It imposes upon all
combatant powers the obligation to treat
military personnel made helpless by their
captivity in accordance with a single objec-
tive and verifiable standard.
be made by a party to the Viet-Nam conflict.
It adopted without dissent a resolution which
obtained the support of 114 governments and
national Red Cross organizations., That res-
olution called upon all parties:
" . . . to abide by the obligations set forth
in the Convention and upon all authorities
involved in an armed conflict to ensure that
all uniformed members of the regular armed
forces of another party to the conflict and all
other persons entitled to prisoner of war
status are treated humanely and given the
fullest measure of protection prescribed by
the Convention. . . ."
It also recognized?and again I repeat the
exact worda of this resolution:
"... that, even apart from the Convention,
the international community has consistent-
ly demanded humane treatment for prisoners
of war, including identification and account-
ing for all prisoners, provision of an adequate
diet and medical care, that prisoners be
permitted to communicate with each other
and with the exterior, that seriously sick or
wounded prisoners be promptly repatriated,
and that at all times prisoners be protected
from physical and mental torture, abuse and
reprisals."
We hope this committee will take note at
this session of the resolution passed without
dissent by the International Red Cross Con-
ference in Istanbul and that it will in a simi-
lar fashion reaffirm the obligations of all
parties to the Geneva convention. We espe-
cially hope that North Viet-Nam, which has
frequently expressed its abiding regard for
humane principles, will heed this unequivo-
cal and specific call reflecting the conscience
of the international community.
Madam Chairman, 2 weeks ago, on October
30, the Secretary General made the following
statement:
"It is the view of the Secretary General
that the Government of North Vietnam
ought to give an international humanitarian
organization such as the League of Red Cross
Societies access to the Americans detained
in North Vietnam."
We join in this view, and we urge all the
governments represented here today to use
their utmost influence so that at least this
single step forward can be accomplished. We
would indeed welcome the intervention of
any organization or group of concerned peo-
ple who may be able to reduce the anguish of
the prisoners and their families. But the Sec-
retary General has made a concrete, limited
proposal; its immediate implementation
would bring closer the day when the observ-
ance of the humanitarian principles of the
Geneva convention by all parties is complete.
I have spoken at length on this matter,
Madam Chairman, for it is of vital impor-
tance to the United States. It is also of para-
mount interest to all nations of the world.
The failure to treat any prisoner- of war,
wherever he may be, in accordance with com-
mon standards of decency, is an affrdnt to all
who claim the mantle of civilization.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would
hope that the sponsors of the Cooper-
Church amendment would view the
amendment I have offered in the spirit
in which it was offered, in the spirit of
making it clear that the Senate is on
record that nothing contained in the
Church-Cooper resolution shall in any
way prevent the President, directly or
indirectly, from taking any action he
deems necessary to protect American
prisoners of war.
The amendment is limited to Cam-
bodia because the Cooper-Church reso-
lution is limited to Cambodia.
ICRC RESOLUTION
The 21st International Conference of the S For a U.S. statement and text of the
Red Cross, held at Istanbul in September, resolution, see BULLETIN of Oct. 13, 1969, p.
cut through any possible quibbles that could 323.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7842 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 27; 1/O
There is significant reason to believe
that Americans are being held as pris-
oners of war in Cambodia and, in addi-
tion to the American servicemen, at least
two journalists, and perhaps more, are
being held there.
The amendment does no harm to the
Cooper-Church resolution. It does sig-
nal to the world that we care about one
American, two Americans. or 100 Amer-
icans, or however many there may be,
who may be missing in action or pirson-
ers of war in Cambodia.
This is an obligation we have. And this
is an obligation that we can under-
score by the adoption of the amend-
ment.
BRUTAL TREATMENT OF AMERICAN
PRISONERS OF WAR
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President, there
has been much said in the past several
years about the American prisoner of
war situation, the 1,400 to 1,500 men
being held by the North Vietnamese. I
do not think enough detailed attention
has been drawn to the actual living con-
ditions?if we can call it living?that
these men suffer.
There is a notion abroad, possibly put
forth by the Communists and echoed in
this country by their apologists, that
these men are well treated. Let me state
here flatly that every evidence indicates
they are not.
The evidence we have comes largely
from the few Americans who have been
released and from a limited number of
outside sources. And all of it points to
one thing: namely, that the North Viet-
namese are treating American prisoners
with calculated brutality.
Americans are held in solitary con-
finement as a matter of routine.
Occasionally they are placed in cages
and held up for public display.
Wounded Americans go for days and
weeks with their wounds untreated.
One American prisoner with a broken
arm was dragged through the streets for
the crowds to watch.
Other prisoners have been beaten.
Still others have been strapped up and
hung from the ceiling of their cells as
punishment for minor infractions.
One American prisoner, a Navy lieu-
tenant commander. was told by the North
Vietnamese he had to appear at a press
conference and tell foreign reporters he
had been treated well and humanely. He
refused because, according to fellow pris-
oners, his treatment had been far from
decent.
He had been tied so tightly with ropes
that there are still burn scars on his
arms.
He had been beaten.
He had been forced to go for days at
a time without food or sleep.
He had been held in solitary confine-
ment.
His wounds were allowed to fester and
become infected.
His fingernails had been torn out by
the roots.
All of this had been done to him, but
the North Vietnamese still demanded
that he appear before the reporters and
issue a statement they had written say-
ing he had been treated well and le-
niently.
When he refused to issue the statement
the North Vietnamese threw him in a
cell without light for 38 days to think it
over.
Mr. President. this is a commonplace
story. It is not unique, but has been re-
peated time and again.
So it is that when we are talking about
Americans being held prisoner we are
not talking about people being held in a
genteel detention center.
We are talking about men who are
forced to live under conditions which the
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals would not allow for animals in
this country.
As a nation we must continue to do
everything in our power to force the
Communists to the negotiating table to
discuss this problem seriously and in
good faith. They have refused to do so
until now, but the pressure of world opin-
ion is mounting on them. We must con-
tinue to fan that world opinion until it
brings the Communists to reason.
On this subject we will not give up,
nor will we be denied.
RESULTS OF THE CAMBODIAN
SANCTUARY OPERATION
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President. I submit
for the information of the Senate the re-
sults of the Cambodian sanctuary op-
erations as of 8 a.m., May 26, 1970
and ask unanimous consent that the
SUMMIT be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the sum-
mary was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
TOTAL OPERATIONS
Individual weapons .
Crew-served weapons.
Bunkers/structures destroyed...
hischinegun rounds.
Rifle rounds _ .
Total small arms ammunition
(machinegun and rifle rounds)...
Grenades._
Mines_
Satchel charge
fluniber
11,064
I. 846
6,643
2.689. 724
5. 126. 838
7. 816, 562
12. 574
2,966
VAI
24-hour
change
+122
+228
+13
?97.220
+12.550
?129,770
+265
+140
Miscellaneous explosives (pounds)
72, 000
Antiaircraft rounds
130.567
4-3.214
Mortar rounds._
79,311
+2.562
Large rocket rounds
Smaller rocket rounds.
1,090
15.061
+2
Recoilless rifle rounds.
19. 565
+1, 013
Rif.e (pounds)..
9.120. 000
+86.000
Man-months..,
ZOO. 640
1-1.892
Vehicles.
305
+41
Boats
40
Geaerators_
36
Radios
179
(i)
Medical supplies (pounds).
36. 000
Enemy KIA____
13. 044
+187
POW's (includes detainees). _
l.773
Onthanired
KENNETH GALBRAITH AND AL CAPP
Mr. GURNEY. Mr. President. the
Washington Post for May 26, 1970 car-
ries an interesting letter to the editor
from the distinguished humorist Al Capp.
dealing with the subject of Mr. Kenneth
Galbraith's thesis on American presence
in Asia.
Since Mr. Capp expresses himself in
such a unique fashion, and hits so di-
rectly to the core of the subject, I ask
unanimous consent his letter entitled.
"Al Capp on Galbraith" be printed into
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
From the Washington (D.C.) Post. May 26.
19701
AL CAPS' ON GALBRAITH
IL WEIS cczy. being away from home, to see
a letter from someone we're mighty proud
of In Cambridge, Mass., In print. Back home
we think Ken is the smartest economist since
Edna St. Vincent Miley. Smarter. His "Lower
the Gross National Product and Raise For-
eign Aid" solution is the same as her solu-
tion: "Let's Burn Our Candle at Both Ends"
but Ken was smart enough not to make it
rhyme, and his got taken seriously.
We are proud to see from your paper that
Ken is branching out as a military analyst,
and that he is, again, adapting his solutions
from classic sources.
Ken's theory that the people who "want"
the war is an unnamed cabal of high-ranking
military officers, is a "new" version of Goeb-
bels' theory that the Germans who "wanted"
her humilitation was a cabal of highly-
placed Jews, and Joe McCarthy's theory that
there was a cabal of hundreds of "pinkos and
Commies" In our State Department.
Goebbels didn't name them, any more
than McCarthy did, and Ken, a classicist to
the bone, doesn't name anyone in his cabal,
either.
Like Goebbels and McCarthy, Ken knows
you don't have to, to get the hate started and
the mobs howling.
And it's no good to ask Ken (anymore than
it was to ask Goebbels or McCarthy) WHO?
It's no good to ask if he means the GI's
who are sweating it out there. Or the gen-
eral officers in Asia who are being killed at
an unprecedented rate. Or, the top com-
manders, who, from Harkins to Westmore-
land, have ended their careers In bleakness
for doing their duty there.
It's no good to remind Ken that it was
only because of the stylish naivete of an ad-
ministration he was a powerful influence in,
that the military was called In, in the first
place.
Ken's got a sure-flre thing going there and
it's going to upset a lot of readers who don't
get along further to a story burled among
the "Jumbo Shrimp" and "Ground Chuck"
ads, headlined "Cambodia Invasion Reported
Upsetting Hanol's Timetable."
Al, CAPS.
WASHINGTON.
PERIOD FOR TRANSACTION OF
ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent. I ask unanimous consent that, there
be a period for the transacition of rou-
tine morning business with statements
limited to 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM EXECU-
TIVE DEPARTMENTS, ETC.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore (Mr. ALLEN ) laid before the Senate
the following letters, which were referred
as indicated:
PROPOSED LEGISLATION To GRANT RELIEF OF
PA YEE,' AND SPECIAL INDORSEES OF FEADO-
LENTL Y NEGOTIATED CHECKS DRAWN ON
DESIGNATED DEPOSITARIES OF THE UNITED
STATES
A letter from the Secretary of the Treasury
transmitting a draft of proposed legislation
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 26, 1970Approved For REINGREBSIONME :ffilt101111,7-2-9113MIRD00400080065-6
plans in this respect. Some of them do
not think he will be able to carry them
out; others do not want him to carry
them out, because they believe that war
and more war is probably the way to
settle this situation.
The Cooper-Church amendment will
help him resist the pressure which he is
bound to be under. Cambodia has simply
revived the old issue of hawks?extreme
rightists who believe ?that the use of
military strength is the way to settle all
international problems?and doves?
those who believe that we should beat
our weapons into pruning hooks and
plowshares, and not even defend our
country.
Neither of these extremist groups
ought to have much influence in our
country. I am afraid perhaps some of
them do. The great majority of Ameri-
cans, I am happy to say, are not extrem-
ists but are concerned over what is best
for our country.
We should, of course, keep America
adequately armed to protect our own
security; but we should not arm our-
selves with the intent of dominating
every part of this world. That is going
just too far.
There are countries in Asia that would
like to handle this situation if they were
given a chance to do so and if we would
keep our hands off. I believe that these
countries?Malaysia, Japan, Thailand,
Indonesia?could handle the situation in
Southeast Asia.
I notice that President Suharto visited
President Nixon this morning, and Pres-
ident Nixon commended him for his ef-
forts for peace. I say let it go a little fur-
ther and let President Suharto's country
and the other Asian countries, particu-
larly Thailand, Japan, and Malaysia,
work out this problem in accordance with
the Guam policy which was laid down
approximately a year ago.
We are getting mail that says, "Sup-
port the President." They say, "Support
the President" when he is doing what
they want him to do.
I notice that this morning the Presi-
dent asked for $500 million to aid in car-
rying out the desegregation program.
When the President talks about improv-
ing the lot of the workingman or the re-
lief of the poor, or of ending discrimina-
tion a great many of those who now say,
"Support the President and expand the
war," say, "Don't do what the President
wants you to do. Be against him if he is
helping the poor people in this country.
Good Heav ens, what right have these
people to expect help at taxpayers ex-
pense? We have to use that money for
the war going in Asia. Use the money
for that."
Well, I say that if you want to help'
the President, help him resist the pres-
sure that he is bound to be under to
carry on this war further?support the
Cooper-Church amendment.
I think I have made myself plain. I
have more that I could say.
Mr. CHURCH. Does the Senator desire
more time?
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. I want to say that in
all the time that has been consumed on
this amendment, I have just heard the
most effective and the most eloquent
speech on the subject. It is not only
plain; it is simple and understandable.
Mr. AIKEN. When the President
wants to help the poor people of this
country in any way, the same hawks
say, "Fight him. Don't let him do it.
They don't deserve help."
Mr. PASTORE. I say to the Senator,
"Amen."
Mr. AIKEN. It is time now for me to
stop talking.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, we rest
our case with the summation that has
just been made by the brilliant Senator
from Vermont.
I am prepared to yield back the re-
mainder of my time, if the Senator from
Kansas is prepared to do likewise.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum, and I
ask unanimous consent that the call for
the quorum be suspended at 2 p.m.,
which is the time set for the vote.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Under the previous order, the or-
der for the quorum call is rescinded.
Under the ?previous order, the Senate
will now proceed to vote on amendment
No. 653. On this question the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Donn)
and the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
EAGLETON) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Missouri (Mr.
EAGLETON) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER)
is absent on official business.
The Senator from Wyoming (Mr. HAN-
sEN) and the Senator from Texas (Mr.
TOWER) are necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from California (Mr.
MURPHY) is detained on official business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT ) and
the Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER)
would each vote "yea."
The result was announced?yeas 82,
nays 11, not voting 7, as follows:
[No. 149 Leg.]
YEAS-82
Aiken Cranston Hughes
Anderson Curtis Inouye
Baker Dole Jackson
Bayh Dominick Javits
Bellmon Fannin Jordan, N.C.
Bennett Fong Jordan, Idaho
Bible Fulbright Kennedy
Boggs Goodell Magnuson
Brooke Gore Mansfield
Burdick Gravel Mathias
Byrd, Va. Griffin McCarthy
Byrd, W. Va. Harris McClellan
Cannon Hart McGee
Case Hartke McGovern
Church Hatfield McIntyre
Cook Hollings Metcalf
Cooper Hruska Miller
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Prouty
Allen
Allott
Cotton
Eastland
Dodd
Eagleton
Goldwater
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Saxbe
Schweiker
Scott
Smith, Ill.
Sparkman
Spong
Stennis
Stevens
NAYS-11
Ellender
Ervin
Gurney
Holland
S 7817
Symington
Talmadge
Thurmond
Tydings
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
Yarborough
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
Long
Russell
Smith, Maine
NOT VOTING-7
Hansen Tower
Mundt
Murphy
So the amendment (Ng,. 65.3) was
agreed to, as follows:
---
Beginning on page 4, line 24, strike all
to and including line 6, page 5, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"SEc. 47. LIMITATIONS ON UNITED STATES
INVOLVEMENT IN CAMBODIA.?In concert with
the declared objectives of the President of
the United States to avoid the involvement
of the United States in Cambodia after
July 1, 1070, and to expedite the withdrawal
of American forces from Cambodia, it is
hereby provided that unless specifically
authorized by law hereafter enacted, no
funds authorized or appropriated pursuant
to this Act or any other law may be expended
after July 1, 1970 for the purposes of?".
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I move
that the vote by which the amendment
was agreed to be reconsidered.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, with re-
gard to the amendment that has just
been voted on, I wish to state that I was
on my way to the floor to make a very
brief statement. However, when I got
here, the vote was already in progress.
That statement would have been that
I proposed to vote for the amendment.
I considered the words, so far as the real
issue and the substance and the principle
involved, as not adding any meaning
whatsoever to the major amendment.
These words, to me, were not objection-
able at all. I think that the vital matter
here concerns the question of restraining
at this time the power of the Commander
in Chief, the President of the United
States.
Mr. HOLLAND subsequently said: Mr.
President, I think a little review of the
situation we are in might be appropri-
ate at this time.
In the first place, our situation in
Southeast Asia began with the passage
by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin reso-
lution. Everyone knows that. No one
questions it. It-has been admitted numer-
ous times during this debate.
I call attention to two facts: First, that
every Senator voted for the passage of
that resolution except two; and those
two Senators have already been removed
from the Senate by the votes of the peo-
ple whom they most directly represented,
the people of their States.
I call attention also to the fact that
numerous times we have heard talk about
repealing the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
Resolutions are now pending in the Sen-
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7818 Approved FtrcFrqfttsgingfili/CI?E~DPAL-9008ER00040008006gily 26, 1670
ate for that very purpose. No one has
been able to make any progress on them.
Why? Because no one has been willing
to jerk the rug out from under the feet
of a President who was proceeding to act
under general authority given him by the
Congress of the United States by the
passage of that resolution.
The third point I make is that it would
be particularly inappropriate to make
such an effort as limiting the powers of
the President or pulling the rug out from
under his feet in the case of the Presi-
dent, who does not happen to be the
President for whom I voted. He was not
the President when the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution was requested or when it was
pasesd. He inherited a situation under
which, when he came jnto office, there
were approximately 550,000 American
soldiers, marines, and airmen fighting in
South Vietnam, besides others commit-
ted in Thailand. Laos, and other nearby
territories, and besides Navy men.
So, Mr. President, the reason that I
voted against this so-called "softening
resolution"?and that is what it was, a
softening amendment?was because even
it proposes to limit the power of the Pres-
ident of the United States, as the Com-
mander in Chief of troops fighting in the
field, to take action which he thinks will
best protect them, and best assure their
speedy removal from Southeast Asia
and their speedy return to the United
States.
Mr. President, this softening amend-
ment which we have just adopted is soft-
ening in the respect that it adopts the
word "limitation" instead of the word
"prohibition." In other words, we would
seek to limit the President instead of
prohibiting him from acting.
That is a difference in degree, but it
still claims for Congress the power to
limit the President?not in the manner
of the making of war, as-so clearly stated
yesterday afternoon by my friend, the
Senator from Idaho, but in the method
ef the carrying on of the operations of
the war.
Mr. President, I am not willing, for a
moment, to vote even for a softening or
a modification amendment, which still
claims for Congress the right to limit the
power of the Commander in Chief to
do what he deems necessary?and he
has in his possession many more facts
than any of us?to best protect American
fighting men, to best assure their quick
and safe return to the United States.
That is one of the things in this so-called
softening amendment which I opposed,
because it puts on record every man who
voted for it?and I regret that as many
voted for it as did?as being in favor of
the power of Congress to limit the Com-
mander in Chief to do those tactical
things which are necessary in his opinion
to be done in the operation of armed
forces in the field confronting enemy
aimed forces.
The second thing I object to in this
so-called modifying prolog is not a
modification but an addition. It says that
after July 1, 1970, no funds of the United
States may be expended legally for any
of the purposes in the original resolu-
tion?and all four purposes are re-
tained?in these words: "unless specit-
cally authorized by law hereinafter en-
acted, no funds authorized or appropri-
ated pursuant to this act or any other
law may be expended after July 1, 1970"
to carry out the four objectives that were
stated in the original amendment and
that are still stated in the amendment,
or modified or softened or weakened
amendment.
The fact is that it is not weakened in
that particular because, as originally
stated, it would not have prevented the
expenditure of funds after July 1. 1970,
but would instead have prevented the
expenditure of funds as stated in the
four objectives without having stated any
specified date on which expenditures
would be cutoff.
Mr. President, to me, it is simply un-
thinkable that Congress can, after ma-
ture consideration, go no record as hold-
ing that Congress retains not just the
power to declare war?of course, we have
that?but the power to limit the Com-
mander in Chief in the tactical pursuit
of war and in his decisions which he
deems necessary to carry on that war
while the war is going on.
Who would have stood here for a mo-
ment and upheld the power of Congress to
vote a limitation that our Armed Forces
in Europe in World War II should not
cross the Rhine River, and when the
Hemmen bridgehead happened sto be
open to them, that they could not speed-
tly and at once take possession of the
bridge, cross over, and make possible the
capture of the Ruhr and the ultimate
victory which followed soon after?
Who would for a moment claim that
congress has the power to make any spe-
cific limitation of use of tactics by the
Commander in Chief and the command-
ers in the field of the Armed Forces of
the United States who are pursuing a
war, either declared by Congress or, as in
this instance, carried on by authority
given by Congress very clearly under the
passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?
That is just what we would be asked to
do if we were asked to adopt this amend-
ment, even in the amended or softened
or weakened form, though it is not soft-
ened and it is not weakened in all re-
spects, as I have just indicated.
1 should like to make one more point.
and I think it is a very clear one. The
iourth of the objectives we are trying to
declare against their being followed up
by the commanding officer, by the Com-
mander in Chief, in the event this
amendment be adopted, is this. I am try-
ing to find the last version. They have so
many versions of this so-called amend-
ment that it is difficult to find a particu-
lar one. But the last one does provide
that limitation shall prevent the use of
the Air Force above Cambodia except in
pursuance of certain objectives which we
have been pursuing all along but which
have not brought on any useful results.
I read from the last form of that
amendment. That is after the words that
say that no money expended as appro-
priated by this act or any other shall
be used for the following purposes, and
this is purpose No. 4:
Supporting any combat activity In the air
above Cambodia by United States air forces,
except for the interdiction of any supplies
or personnel using Cambodian territory for
attack against or access Into South Vietnam.
The fact is that for 5 years. while
these hiding places have been built up
and dug into the ground by the North
Vietnamese and the Vietcong?and
whatever else one may say about them,
one cannot claim that they are not good
diggers?they have dug literally hun-
dreds of miles of caverns and tunnels
into which to put these supplies. Those
supplies have been brought down, in the
main, along the Ho Chi Minh Trail. In
the main, the interdiction of those sup-
plies, the effort to prevent their being
brought down, has been pursued very
actively by the use of our Air Force, and
everybody knows it; but we have not
been able to prevent the continuation
of that flow and the vast accumulation
in the sanctuaries. Yes, we have had
some supplies more recently coming by
water to the lower part of Cambodia, and
thence across by land. But most of them
have come to those sanctuaries along the
Ho Chi Minh Trail. For 5 years we have
been trying to interdict or prevent, by
the use of our Air Force in great num-
bers, their coming down.
Under this resolution, it would say
that it is quite all right to use money
after July 1 for the interdiction of en-
emy supplies or personnel using Cam-
bodian territory for attack against or
access into South Vietnam?conceivably
for bringing down troops, materiel, or
personnel to the sanctuaries: but it is
not all right to use the other means of
ground attack which the President has
successfully used by these raids in at-
tacking and upsetting their plans and
capturing great amounts of materiel, in
capturing enormous amounts of food,
and in capturing tremendous amounts of
ammunition.
Mr. President, it does not make sense
to me that Congress should be asked,
after having given direction which we
have not called off?nobody has had any
success at all in an effort to repeal the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution?to call off
the most successful kind of attack which
the President has mule in the exercise of
his command as Commander in Chief to-
ward meeting this problem of bringing in
supplies from Russia and from China?
and that is where the substantial part of
It comes from. I do not think that anyone
in the possession of his senses will want
to go on record a saying, in the event
there should be a resumption of the con-
struction of sanctuaries and the supply-
ing of those sanctuaries, notwithstanding
the effort to prevent them by the use of
our Air Force, that the President should
be cut off in the future from doing Just
what he has done in destroying them so
greatly and capturing vast amounts of
guns, ammunition, and food, and that he
should be cut off in the future from doing
that if it became necessary in his judg-
ment to support his Armed Forces and to
help not only save their lives but also get
them out of South Vietnam and back to
this country.
Furthermore, Mr. President, it is my
feeling that we are being asked here to
do something which, in the first place, is
unconstitutional. I do not believe that
we have any such authority to limit the
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7658 Approved For Relea30/20115WWW3NOMIREEM-19C133gBIKIM0080065-6 May 21, 1970
President, it goes back to what I
said arlier, that it is not confined solely
to Ja son, but is also confined to all
comm a ities in this country. We have to
let ever ne know that we will keep the
system o ? -n and see that those who are
aggrieved 4.: n find justice and address
their grieva es through the system, and
that they do It have to resort to revolu-
tion and violen
The system Ca and will respond. That
is why we went Jackson.
Mr. MONDALE r. President, I thank
the Senator.
In our letter to the ttorney General,
we point out that in is audience of
some 100 students, mos of whom had
been on the scene at th time of the
shooting, only one in the e tire audience
had been questioned by loca authorities.
That one had been woun d in front
of the girls' dormitory. He ? ainted out
that he had not even been : sked to
identify, if he could, who it as that
had been shooting at him.
We think it is perfectly clear t t the
local authorities have no intent n of
doing anything about the Jackson tate
massacre and that the only hope i for
the Federal Government to use its
authority to convene a Federal gra d
jury and thoroughly investigate the ma
ter and determine who was responsibl
and issue an appropriate indictment.
If this is not done, it seems to me, as
we have pointed out, that to fail to do
so would encourage the committal of fur-
ther atrocities and the black people in
that area would despair of working with-
in a system that looks the other way
while their children are slaughtered.
Mr. President, as we finished today
surveying the scene and listening to wit-
nesses, an elderly black lady came up to
me.
She said:
You know, Senator, in one sense we have
seen this many times before around here?
black people being killed at the college and
elsewhere. But, you know, they have never
shot at a girls' dormitory before.
If anyone thinks that we are progress-
ing as a society, perhaps that is one thing
he ought to think about.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that our letter to the Attorney Gen-
eral of this date may be printed at this
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
MAY 21, 1970.
DEAR MR. MITCHELL: We urge you in the
strongest possible terms to convene a Federal
Grand Jury in Jackson, Mississippi, to deter-
mine whether the killing of innocent people
at Jackson State University constituted a vio-
lation of federal law.
We were surrunoned to Jackson on May 20
by state civil rights leaders as an ad hoc com-
mittee of inquiry to view the scene of the
killings and to hear the testimony of student
witnesses and state and local officials.
After inspecting the bullet riddled men's
and women's dormitories, the committee
members assembled in the Lynch Street Ma-
sonic Temple where we listened to testimony
with an audience of some 200 students and
townspeople. City and state officials who had
been sent invitations to participate were not
in evidence.
Our investigation revealed the following:
While there was some name-calling by the
students there was no evidence of greater
provocation than the throwing of one dust-
pan and of one bottle or small brick. There
was no testimony or evidence of sniper fire,
as alleged. Every person we talked to on the
campus and during the hearing, including
campus security guard M. L. Stringer, said
they heard no sniper fire. In our opinion the
shooting was essentially without provocation.
About 75 state and local police, accom-
panied by an armored truck, arrived on the
scene while firemen were extinguishing a
burning dump truck in a field opposite the
men's dormitory. The fire had been set, pre-
sumably by students, after a rumor spread
through the campus that Charles Evers had
been murdered. Firemen had withdrawn from
the scene when police massed in front of the
men's dormitory. There was some name-call-
ing and a dustpan was thrown from an upper
story window. Several officers moved to the
east side of the building and fired through
the upper story windows. No one was
wounded at this point.
Police then moved easterly up Lynch
Street and massed in front of Alexander Hall.
A large number of boys and girls were stand-
ing in front of the hall between the street
and the building. There was more name-call-
ing. A bottle or small rock was thrown into
the street. An officer was seen to raise a bull-
horn to his mouth, but no one heard him
speak. The crowd grew quiet and then, with-
out warning, there was a volley of automatic
weapons fire and shotgun blasts lasting from
30 seconds to one minute. The police fired
directly into the crowd and through every
window in the five story west wing of Alex-
ander Hall facing the street. About 20 shots
were also fired through windows in the
ddle wing. Pockmarks on a cement wall
a' .ut 30 feet from the north curb of the
at et opposite the dormitory indicate some
pol e turned and fired automatic weapons
in t at direction. This is where the body of
Jam Earl Green was later found.
The interior of the west wing was' a
shamb s, with broken glass everywhere, with
blood a over the ground floor entrance
where th wounded sought shelter, and with
bullet ho s through the interior cement
block wall It was a deadly fusillade and it
is a miracle . ore people weren't killed.
After the s ting the police busied them-
selves picking up spent shell casings while
the wounded led for help. We found no
indication the lice attempted to help the
wounded beyon summoning ambulances
with the words, we shot some niggers."
The police mad no attempt to disperse
the students befo firing on them. They
gave no order to disp rse. They fired no over-
head warning shots. I ey did not use tear
gas. They fired direct into the crowd and
Into the front of the wo en's dormitory with-
out warning. They ma 'e no effort to aid
the wounded afterward. In short, the act
had all the characteristi of a mass lynch-
ing.
The statement you made Cleveland, Mis-
sissippi, about violent de nstrations and
repressive reactions could no ave been con-
strued to apply here since? d we cannot
emphasize the point strongly ough?there
was no provocation to warrant e bloodbath
that took place. The claim of s -defense is
absurd considering this was women's
dormitory that was stormed.
It is also revealing that of th approxi-
mately 100 students at our hearing, nly one
had been questioned by represent ives of
local or state police agencies. This w one of
those wounded in front of Alexande Hall.
He reported two Jackson police officials ues-
tioned him for about 45 minutes afte the
shooting and never once asked him i he
could identify the man who shot him, al-
though he told the hearing panel he thou t
he could do so.
It is perfectly clear, Mr. Mitchell, th 't
neither state nor local officials have any in
tention of doing anything about the Jackson
e massacre. If you don't do anything,
th nothing will be done. We assert here
tha the moral responsibility for any con-
segue ces resulting from your failure to act
will re squarely on your shoulders. We can
foresee o possible consequences: One, that
the state and local police will be positively
encourage to commit further atrocities and,
two, that e Black people will despair of
working wit n a system that looks the other
way while th children are slaughtered.
The Black ople of Jackson and the
students at Jac on State University have
displayed remark le restraint so far. That
restraint is a gest e of good faith that can
be abused only at reat peril.
So we ask you, Mitchell, to act now
by convening a Fede 1 Grand Jury to in-
vestigate this tragic ep ode and to bring to
trial those responsible for the deaths of
James Green and Phillip ibbs, the wound-
ing of nine others and t e assault on the
entire group standing befo Alexander Hall.
Sincerely,
Senator BIRCH BAYH,
Senator WALTER F. M DALE,
Congressman WILLIAM LAY,
Congressman Dom ED Ds,
Mr. CLIFFORD ALEXANDER,
Mr. JOSEPH L. RAUH, JR.,
Mr. ROY WILKINS.
AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN
MILITARY SALES ACT
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 15628) to
amend the Foreign Military Sales Act.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I move to
amend section 47 of H.R. 15628, the Mili-
tary Sales Act, as follows:
Beginning on page 4, line 24, strike all
to the end, including line 6, page 51, and
insert in lieu thereof the following:
SEC. 47. Limitations on U.S. Involvement
In Cambodia: In concert with the declared
objectives of the President of the United
States to avoid the involvement of the
United States in Cambodia after July 1, 1970,
and to expedite the withdrawal of American
forces from Cambodia, it is hereby provided
that unless specifically authorized by law
hereafter enacted, no funds authorized or
appropriated pursuant to this act or ally
other law may be expended after July 1, 1970.
The amendment is offered on behalf
of the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) ,
the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANS-
FIELD), the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
AutEN) , and myself.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair advises the Senator from Ken-
tucky that the clerk must read the
amendment, notwithstanding its being
read by the Senator from Kentucky.
The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
Beginning on page 4, line 24, strike all to
the end, including line 6, page 51, and insert
in lieu thereof the following:
"SEC. 47. Limitations on U.S. Involvement
in Cambodia: In concert with the declared
objectives of the President of the United
States to avoid the involvement of the United
States in Cambodia after July 1, 1970, and to
expedite the withdrawal of American forces
from Cambodia, it is hereby provided that
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 after July 1, 1970."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, as I un-
derstand it, this is an amendment being
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 21, 1970
Appr"t/MilegSMMPP5191A-KRA
law e rcement officers spent their time
Picking used cartridges and left. May-
be they lied an ambulance, but there
was not o attempt?unless the stu-
dents forg everything they saw, and
all our witne s had been there?there
was not one a empt on the scene by
those who did t shooting to help any
of them.
Mr. President, a t are our kids to
conclude from that?
I invite the attentio of the Senator
From Ohio to an interest' article in this
issue's Time magazine, Inch I ask
unanimous consent to have ? lilted in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, t) article
article
was ordered to be printed in the ECORD.
as follows:
How To KEEP ORDE'R WITHOUT KILL*
Four at Kent State. Then six in Augu a
Ga. and two in Jackson, Miss. All dead
cause of the indiscriminate?and unneces
nary?use of mass firepower by armed officers
and troops trying to control destructive, or
disorderly crowds. In each ease a basic tenet
of all enforcement agencies was violated: ap-
ply the minimum amount of force required to
accomplish the objective. In an age of
mounting civil dissent, many more such situ-
ations seem inevitable, raising the question:
How can mobs be controlled without killing
anyone?
The avoidance of death in most cases is
simple: hold tire. Except to stop snipers.
shooting to kill can rarely be justified. Even
then, the Army, National Guard units and
police dena.rtments instruct their men to
first locate the-source of the sniper fire, and
to return it only by the pinpoint, one-shot-
at-a-time marksmanship of a trained rifle-
man. Laying down a fusillade. Army military
police are told, "accomplishes nothing con-
structive and creates hostility among inno-
cent bystanders," even If none are wounded
or killed. A sniper can often be silenced by
surrounding his position and forcing him out
with tear gas.
One of the clearest general guides to han-
dling civil disorders is that of the U.S. Army.
It places "full firepower" at the end of six
escalating levels of force to be employed in
riot situations?and then only when failure
to use it would lead to the "Imminent over-
throw of the Government, continued mass
casualties, or similar grievous conditions."
The first need, the Army emphasizes, is to
present a strong "show of force." By that is
meant the presence of enough soldiers to
convince a crowd that it can be overpowered.
Even then, progressive steps for displaying
force are urged. They range from keeping
rifles in their slings, to fixing sheathed bayo-
nets, then removing the sheaths, to finally
placing one round of ammunition in the
chambers of the rifles.
The next level of force includes various riot
formations, a general principle of which is
to always leave a mob a clear exit as troops
advance to clear an area. New York City's
Tactical Patrol Force has effectively used
wedge formations in which officers advance
to divide a crowd with nightsticks held low.
SHOOT TO WOUND
The U.S. Army advises use of fire hoses as a
next step, if needed. Tear gas, now widely
used as almost the first step by many agen-
cies, is considered a fourth-level tactic by the
Army. After that comes the use of fire by se-
lected marksmen, shooting at well-defined
targets, and finally volley fire. Even then,
such fire should be aimed low to wound,
rather than to kill.
After the race riots of 1967, the National
Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders urged
that a crash program of research be under-
taken by the Federal Government to develop
nonlethal weapons, which Could more effec-
tively bridge the gap between a strong show
of force and the use of guns. It cited as one
approach the practice of arming some Hong
Kong police with guns that fire wooden pegs.
Other possibilities would be the use of tran-
quilizer darts and the spraying of slippery
foam. Nothing much has come of such re-
search; yet the need for something more ef-
fective than tear gas and less deadly than
bullets Is increasingly an urgent necessity.
Meanwhile, what seems to be needed most is
better training, especially for young National
Guardsmen, and more discipline among all
lawmen who must contend with frightening
and maddening confrontations In streets and
on campuses. Many lives could be saved if
armed officers were to follow conscientiously
the general principles outlined in a booklet
all Ohio National Guardsmen are expected to
carry In their pockets when on riot duty:
"The keynote of all operations aimed at the
curtailment of civil disorder is restraint," it
says, "The well-trained, disciplined soldier is
capable of dealing successfully with civil dis-
order If he and his leaders use sound common
sense."
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, the ar-
t estates in part:
A v, National Guard units arid police de-
part rite instruct their men to first locate
the BO cc of the sniper fire, and to return
it only the pinpoint, one-shot-at-a-time
markerna hip of a trained rifleman. Laying
down a fu lade, Army military police are
told, "accom hes nothing constructive and
creates hostill among innocent bystand-
ers,- even if no e wounded or killed.
The Army has detailed list of pre-
cautions and steps to be taken to put
down violence where olence exists. I do
not believe there was any at Jackson
State, but even if there ere, where vio-
lence exists, there are a s of esca-
lated ways the Armed For a can move
in, specific ways directed at sniper by
a skilled marksman, in self a. ense, to
act against an identified sniper.
Mr. SAXBE. Mr. President, as a rmer
Attorney General I am sure tha the
Senator fought against what we call e
warning shot. He knows the trag
that result. A trooper takes after
speeder. The speeder attempts to es-
cape?this was not uncommon years
ago?and the trooper fires a warning
shot. A policeman down the road ob-
serves a car being fired upon and he de-
cides it must be a bank robber, an es-
caped murderer, or something, and the
pursuit is taken up. Before long, shooting
breaks out, every place by everyone that
can get hold of a gun. This way, speeders
have been killed by people who observed
the warning shot, thinking it was in
pursuit of a felon.
As the Senator knows, that often
happened.
At Kent State, the guardsmen had
come from a truck strike, arid they were
edgy. Does the Senator say there was
malice aforethought in the Jackson
State incident?
Mr. MONDALE. I was not there. I have
recited the evidence that we had?per-
mit me to say that what the students
said?I asked several of them, "What do
you think the circumstances were?" and
they said, "They were out to massacre
Maybe that is wrong. But the point of
It is that there are hundreds of black
students there who think the local au-
thorities were out to get them, to take
their lives. The behavior of the local
2fR0337R000400080065-6 S 7657
authorities is unprecedented and inde-
fensible, the way they fired upon inno-
cent people in a girls' dormitory, the way
they refused to help the sick and the
dying, and the repeated use of "nigger"
and other kinds of hostile comments by
the authorities. That was testified to by
the students. I believe this fits into the
context of the death which occurred pre-
viously at the same college, under the
same circumstances. It has opened up a
tremendous sense of discrimination,
hatred, and hostility that I think is so
bad as to be obscene and unspeakable.
I think it goes substantially beyond just
a question of green troops.
Mr. TYDINGS. Mr. President, I should
like to commend the Senator from Min-
nesota and the Senator from Indiana for
bringing this one aspect of the facts of
the tragedy at Jackson State to the at-
tention of the Senate. I certainly respond
In the same way that the Senator from
Minnesota has outlined.
Mr. President, I would hope that the
Attorney General of the United States
would convene a Federal grand jury and
make an inquiry into the events of the
Jackson, Miss., tragedy.
I think this is one thing which this
country has got to demand?equal jus-
tice under the law in all parts and all
areas of the Nation.
Mr. President, I would be happy to join
with the Senator from Minnesota and
others in such a request to the Attorney
General of the United States. I think
that at the very least we need a complete
Inquiry, And if there has been criminal
conduct involved, proper charges should
be brought.
I think that the basic liberties of this
country demand no less.
I am happy that I had the opportunity
to listen to such a graphic and yet con-
strained description from the Senator
from Minnesota and the Senator from
Indiana.
I commend them both for the efforts
hat they took to make the personal sur-
eillance, inquiry, and investigation into
t tragedy.
r. MONDALE. Mr. President, I thank
the nator from Maryland. His state-
men what we have come to expect of
his cha cteristic sense of fairness and
justice in hese matters.
Mr. BA . Mr. President, I will not
belabor the-saint to any great length.
But I think 1 important that we ad-
dress ourselves o the relevant fact, and
that is where do go from here.
The Senator fro Minnesota and I, as
well as others who 'ere present on the
scene yesterday, are lad to be joined
by the Senator from aryland in the
letter to the Attorney eneral of the
United States asking him the strong-
est terms to call a Federal ju
I think it is important not o y to find
out who is responsible for th blatant
misuse of authority, but also to e the
steps necessary to let the studen at
Jackson State and black citizens all o er
the country know that this Nation is co
cerned that this type of thing can happen
and will use all of the vehicles of our gov-
ernmental system to see that those who
perpetrated such a miscarriage of jus-
tice be brought before the bar of justice
and punished accordingly.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 21, 1970Proved For ItNintiQ05../06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
,SS1ONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7659
offered by the Senator from Kentucky to
the pending amendment.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator is correct. It is being offered on
behalf of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH), the Senator from Montana
(Mr. MANSFIELD), the Senator from Ver-
mont (Mr. AIKEN), and myself.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceed-
ed to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I move
to modify the amendment which I have
offered, as follows: In the last line of
the amendment, after "1970" put a com-
ma in place of the period and add "for
the purposes of".
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield at that point?
Mr. COOPER. Yes. But first I ask that
the amendment as modified be read. '
Mr. MANSFIELD. May I point out
that when the original amendment was
offered I think it did state through line
6 on page 5. I wash to ask the Presiding
Officer if that is correct.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is advised that that was the case.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, as I un-
derstand it, the Senator can modify his
own amendment as long as the yeas and
nays have not been ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair was about to make that announce-
ment. The Senator has that right.
The Chair will ask the clerk to state
the amendment as modified.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
Beginning on page 4, line 24, strike the
language clown to and including line 6 on
page 5 and insert in lieu thereof:
"SEc. 47. Limitations on U.S. Involvement
in Cambodia: In concert with the declared
objectives of the President of the United
States to avoid the involvement of the
United States in Cambodia after July 1,
1970, and to expedite the withdrawal of
American forces from Cambodia, it is hereby
provided that unless specifically authorized
by law hereafter enacted, no funds author-
ized or appropriated pursuant to this act
or any other law may be expended after July
1, 1970, for the purpose of?"
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, there
will be no voting on the amendment
tonight.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I thought
I had the floor. I modified my amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair has ruled the amendment is so
modified.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I would
like to make an explanation of the
change. I note that there is no change
in the operative part of the amend-
ment originally offered; there is no
change in subsections (1), (2), (3), and
(4) . The amendment goes only to the
preamble and there are two changes.
First, the date July 1, 1970, is made a
part of the amendment, and then, the
words are added at the beginning of the
amendment, "In concert with the de-
clared objectives of the President of the
United States to avoid the involvement
of the United States in Cambodia after
July 1, 1970."
I think the meaning is very clear. I
doubt it needs further explanation by me
at this time. I yield to my cosponsor, the
senior Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH).
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
very much. We have joined together in
modifying the preamble of the Cooper-
Church amendment for two reasons.
During the course of the debate, some
Senators have expressed the apprehen-
sion that it is just possible that this
amendment could be acted upon swiftly,
that the conference between the Senate
and House might take place with un-
characteristic speed, and that the bill,
with the amendment affixed to it, might
then go to the White House, be consid-
ered by the President, and signed into
law, and that all of this might con-
ceivably happen before July 1, 1970, with
the result that the law might then be
construed, at least by critics of the war,
as requiring a premature withdrawal of
American troops from Cambodia. For
the purpose of eliminating any possible
doubt on this score, we have made the
operative date July 1, 1970, which con-
forms with the President's own time
limit.
The second reason has to do with the
argument that this amendment some-
how be regarded as an affront to the
President, challenging his prerogatives
as Commander in Chief. Nothing could
be further from our intentions, a fact
borne out by the broad bipartisan sup-
port the amendment enjoys.
Our purpose, from the outset, has been
to act in concert with the declared policy
of the President of the United States, so
that the law itself could form a legisla-
tive backstop to the President's declared
determination to bring American troops
out of Cambodia by the end of June. We
think this is a responsibility that Con-
gress should share with the President.
So, just to eliminate any argument about
the purpose of the amendment, we felt
that the language of the preamble should
be changed as we have now suggested.
Again, I want to underscore what the
distinguished Senator from Kentucky
has said. None of the substantive provi-
sions in the amendment are changed in
any way by the proposed modification of
the preamble. ?
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. DOLE. Am I correct that section 47
is a committee amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is
correct.
Mr. DOLE. And in the event the
amendment now offered by the Senator
from Idaho and the Senator from Ken-
tucky were adopted, would further
amendments be in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Not to
that specific part, but to the remainder,
yes. All those sections of the committee
amendment which are untouched by the
amendment now pending would be open
to amendment.
Mr. DOLE. It would not be possible to
include what appears to be stricken out
of the amendment sent to the desk, "Or
as may be required to protect American
forces as their withdrawal from Cam-,
bodia proceeds"? If we adopt the amend--
ment in its present form, we could not
adopt another amendment to the pre-
amble to include the words just stated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair is advised, and responds, as long
as it does not touch the exact portion
that the modified Cooper-Church
amendment touches.
Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr.
Presiden
majority
ment alr
no votes
YRD of West Virginia. Mr.
, I am authorized by the able
eader to repeat the announce-
ady made, that there will be
night.
AMEND ENT OF THE FOREIGN
MI TARY SALES ACT
The Sen e resumed the consideration
of the bill H.R. 15628) to amend the
Foreign Mil ry Sales Act.
AMENDMENT
Mr. GOL WATER. Mr. President,
earlier today sent to the desk an amend-
ment to the ending committee amend-
ment, and I i tended later to call for it
as the busines of the day, but I was per-
suaded out of ecency to my friends on
the other side ot to do it. I am glad of
one thing, that *t forced a change in the
preamble.
So now I sen this amendment to the
desk and ask th t it be printed and lie
on the table.
The PRESIDI G OFFICER. The
amendment will b received and printed,
and will lie at the desk.
AMENDMENT 0 SOLID WASTE
DISPOS L ACT
AMENDMEN NO 652
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. resident, I intro-
duce for myself and he Senator from
Delaware (Mr. Boacs) , the Senator from
Maine (Mr. MusiciE) , e Senator from
West Virginia (Mr. RA ? OLPH), and the
Senator from Pennsylva la (Mr. SCOTT),
an amendment to the S id-Waste Dis-
posal Act designed to elp overcome
critical manpower shorta s in our Na-
tion's solid-waste disposal nd resource-
recovery systems.
This amendment would pr vide finan-
cial assistance for the develf iment, op-
eration, and expansion of edu ation and
training programs for occup tions in-
volving the design, operation, a d main-
tmance of solid-waste disposal and re-
source-recovery equipment an facili-
ties.
Mr. President, we must take im ediate
action to both fill the manpower hort-
ages in our Nation's solid-waste re-
source-recovery activities and to e
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved FtrdWerngs2M/M/W6A-BDP3Mck313gR0004000800Mfaj 21, 1970
nate e artificial job and skill require-
ments hat restrict the opportunities for
emplo ient and upward mobility of
low-inco e and unemployed persons
otherwise ?ualifted to fill these man-
power shor. ges.
The amen ent I am introducing to-
day is a majo step in this direction. It
does more than imply authorize funds
for manpower t Ming in these vital
areas. It also auth zes an investigation
of our manpower tr ing needs in solid-
waste disposal and r ource-recovery. It
is deplorable that eve though the busi-
ness of getting rid of o Nation's solid
waste is the Nation's tin ? highest mu-
nicipal expense, we do no even have a
sophisticated idea of tile ber and
type of personnel and mimpo 'er train-
ing programs needed to opera it.
In addition, my amendment au orizes
the Secretary to encourage progra ela-
tionships with industry that woul en-
hance the success and relevance of e -
cation and training programs for pe
sons preparing to enter an occupation
involving the design, operation, and
maintenance of solid-waste disposal and
resource-recovery facilities. The rele-
vance of all future manpower training
and education programs in the field of
solid-waste disposal and resource-re-
covery will depend on the coordination
of manpower training programs with
both the industries developing the prod-
ucts that present the greatest solid-waste
problems, and the industries developing
new technologies to deal with these prob-
lems. The technologies and managerial
skills of the business world are crucial
to the planning and design of innovative
and comprehensive systems for solid-
waste disposal and resource-recovery.
Specifically, the amendment I am in-
troducing today would?
First, authorize the Secretary of
Health. Education, and Welfare to sub-
mit to Congress the results and recom-
mendations of a complete investigation
into the need for additional trained
State and local personnel to, first, de-
velop and maintain solid-waste disposal
and resource-recovery activities, and
second, carry out the manpower train-
ing programs assisted under or for the
same purpose of the bill.
Second, authorize the Secretary to
provide funds to institutions of higher
education and to nonprofit organiza-
tions for projects designed to first, train
persons for occupations involving the
design, operation, and maintenance of
solid waste and resource, and second,
train persons, including teachers, adult
basic education personnel and super-
visory personnel, to train or supervise
persons in occupations involving the de-
sign. operation, and maintenance of
solid-waste disposal and resource-recov-
ery equipment and facilities.
Third, authorize the Secretary to
carry out occupational training projects
which involve a combination of training,
education, and employment in the op-
eration of solid-waste disposal and re-
source recovery equipment and facili-
ties.
Fourth, authorize the Secretary to
study the extent to which and manner
In which, artificial barriers to employ-
ment and occupational advancement in
the solid-waste disposal and resource-
recovery field restrict opportunities for
employment and advancement in such
field.
Fifth, authorize the Secretary to,
first, develop and promulgate guidelines,
based on the latter study, designed to
eliminate artificial barriers to employ-
ment and occupational advancement in
solid-waste disposal and resource recov-
ery activities and, second, to provide
technical assistance in complying with
the guidelines.
Sixth, require that all programs must,
as a condition for funding, provide pro-
cedures for fiscal control, fund account-
ing, periodic evaluation by an agency in-
dependent of the program and compli-
ance with program guidelines developed
as required by the amendment.
Seventh, authorize the Secretary to
encourage business with operations or
products in the solid-waste disposal and
resource-recovery field to participate in
and cooperate with occupational pro-
rams established with the assistance
Pcovided by the training amendment.
Xighth, authorize the Secretary to dis-
se? ate information which relates to
ou acting teaching and training meth-
ods, tennis, and curriculums devel-
oped by rojects assisted by the bill.
Public ttention recently has focused
on the cris our Nation faces in the dis-
posal of the ore than 200 million tons
of solid wast processed each year. No
one wants gar ge, but everybody pro-
duces it. The qu tion is, then, what are
we going to do a. out it and who is go-
ing to do it? Th? question and other
'crucial questions of r solid-waste man-
agement. crises dese solid answers in
terms of money and t 'ied manpower.
The rapid expansion o our technology
and economy, which cr tes the ever-
greater volumes of waste d the ever-
greater problems of prope waste dis-
posal, also offers the hope f solving
these problems. We have the hnology
and the managerial skills to s ve our
solid-waste problems. What we ? not
have are the funds and the skills to amn
the necessary manpower to utilize t m
properly.
In 1968, according to a study corn
pleted for the Urban Coalition, there
was a total deficit of 13.586 personnel in
the sanitation programs arid 1,748 per-
sonnel in the antipollution programs in
130 of our Nation's cities with 100,000 or
more population.
Today, New York City alone needs, to
meet its present solid waste disposal
schedules, an additional 2,125 unskilled
personnel and 450 skilled personnel in its
solid waste disposal programs. By 1974,
New York City, according to plans de-
veloped to deal with its solid waste dis-
posal emergencies, will have almost to
double the number of its incinerating
facilities. In light of this fact and the
fart that the city's solid waste produc-
tion rate is increasing 100 percent yearly,
It. is obvious that New York City, as well
as other cities, will be confronted in the
near future with significantly greater
manpower shortages.
'The problem is formidable and critical
especially when we consider, in light of
our Nation's unemployment crises, that
approximately one-half of the vacan-
cies that exist in sanitation and anti-
pollution programs could be filled by per-
sons without professional or advanced
technical training.
Adding to this problem is a lack of the
job analyses and revaluation of skill re-
quirements necessary to improve job
prestige, merit system coverage, possi-
bilities for advancement and public ac-
ceptability. This further restricts both
the employment opportunities of the low-
income and unemployed person and the
efficient use of personnel in the field of
solid waste management. These employ-
ment factors cannot be ignored for they,
In concert with training programs, de-
termine in the last analysis the avail-
ability of trained manpower at the point
of need for our Nation's solid waste dis-
posal resource-recovery activities.
The committee in question is going to
mark up the bill tomorrow. The amend-
ment has considerable interest in it, and
I hope very much it will be adopted and
be a part of the bill which will be re-
ported by the committee.
I ask unanimous consent that the text
of the amendment be printed as a part
of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be received and printed.
and will be appropriately referred; and,
without objection, will be printed in the
RECORD:
AMENDMENT No. 652
On page 2, line 2, strike out the quotation
marks.
On page 2, between lines 2 and 3, insert
the following:
"(8) The term 'resource recovery' means
the processing and recovery of usable ma-
terials from solid waste."
On page 6, between lines 16 and 17, insert
the following new matter:
"TRAINING GRANTS
"SEc. 209. (a) The Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare is authorized to make
grants to. and contracts with, institutions of
higher education, and to any other nonprofit
organization which is capable of effectively
carrying out a project which may be funded
by grant under subsection (b) of this section.
"tb) (1) Subject to the provisions of para-
graph (2), grants may be made to pay all or
a part of the costs, as may be determined by
the Secretary, or any project operated or to
be operated by an eligible institution or orga-
Mutton. which is designed?
"(A) to develop, expand, or carry out a
pt?am of training persons for occupations
in lying the design, operation, and mainte-
nani of solid waste disposal and resource
reco ry equipment and facilities;
"(B) to train persons, including teachers.
adult sic education personnel, and super-
visory pticsonnel to train or supervise persons
in occuptkions involving the design, opera-
tion and intenance of solid waste disposal
and resourt.g recovery equipment and fa-
cilities;
"(C) to ca out occupational training
projects which nvolve a combination of
training, educati?q. and employment in the
design operation ad maintenance of solid
waste disposal and source recovery equip-
ment and facilities.
"(2) A grant or co act authorized by
paragraph (1) of this beection may be
made only upon applicatio to the Secretary
at such time or times and qntaIntng such
information as he may presort except that
no such application shall be appNiveci unless
It?
Approved For Release 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 21, 1970APProved For Risymmegcn :amit-4572-9ppgivoLl000soo65-6
wa t to make the reimbursement if such
is d med appropriate.
Mr. President, I thank the Sena-
tor fri Nebraska for making this a
matter record. I hope that out of this
incident e can get a full clarification of
the matte of the franking privilege un-
der the circ stances which the Senator
has outlined.
Mr. CURTI Mr. President, I thank
the Senator for s forthright statement.
The junior Sen sr from Nebraska is
not a member of t Ethics Committee.
However, some of the matters do come
within the jurisdiction the Committee
on Rules and Administr. ion.
I am aware that the frai ing privilege
law and regulations are ra er broad.
The purpose of this is so tha ? material
directly involved in the public i ue un-
der discussion can be inserted.
I directed my remarks not at w 'ose
frank was involved nor at the other pa ts
of the communication. I directed my r
marks entirely to the communication
signed by Sam Brown and David Hawk
and primarily to the request for funds.
There are more than 200 million
people in the United States. Millions of
them are concerned one way or another
about all public issues. Millions of them
are concerned about the matter now
pending before the Senate. If 1 million
were to respond with a sum of money
averaging 50 cents, someone would have
collected $500,000.
I assume that Sam Brown and Dave
Hawk would be the recipients. They
asked for it.
I do not think that Brown and Hawk
should be in a position of embarrassing
the entire Senate of the United States.
I think that the entire Senate has a real
stake and a real interest in matters of
this kind.
I happened to serve in Congress prior
to our entry into World War II. At that
time there was great emotion all over
the country about the various acts of
involvement.
In those days they had an expression:
"Aid short of war."
Television was not with us at that
time. But radio was in great use.
A distinguished Member of the House
of Representatives, motivated by patri-
otic desires, was somehow involved in an
appeal for funds in order to get the in-
formation to the people.
The matter received considerable at-
tention in the House of Representatives.
I am not sure that the information was
all shown in the RECORD. But there was
grave concern among the leadership.
I do not want something like that to
descend upon the Senate. The RECORD
will show that I have singled out no Sen-
ator-. I have not mentioned any Senator.
My remarks were directed primarily at
these outsiders and at the raising of
funds behind the cloak of secrecy of a
post office box which might be compared
to a Swiss bank account that is operated
by number.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, I would
like to suggest?and, in fact, if I might
make this in the form of a request, be-
cause the Senator from Nebraska is the
ranking Republican member of the Sen-
ate Committee on Rules and Administra-
tion?that I would appreciate it if he
would take this particular case, along
with all of the material that I would be
happy to provide him which he may not
have and with the material that he dogs
have, and present this matter to the
Committee on Rules and Administration
in order that we might have a clear un-
derstanding of the propriety or the im-
propriety of this act. Perhaps at the same
time, the Senate ethics committee might
look into it.
This matter of the use of the franking
privilege needs to be clarified.
I have received solicitations under the
franking privilege of Congress asking
people to contribute to a right-to-work
drive and to send their contributions to
a certain post office box.
I have received communications under
the franking privilege on behalf of a new
student organization to compete with
the NSA?National Student Associa-
tion?that castigated the organization in
strong language and requested that con-
tributions be sent to a certain address.
I am not saying that this is right or
w ?ng, or that the other is right or
wro a g.
I a simply saying that I think this is
perha the time and that this is a good
vehicle which to move to get a new
clarificat n or definition of the franking
privilege.
I am told legal counsel that my ac-
tions were leg ly right.
I do not kno ut I do know that I
do not appreciat the situation in which
this has placeci, office or the Senate,
I do feel, as the Se ator from Nebraska
has said, that the tire Senate is in-
volved in this particu r thing.
I only regret that it as through my
frank that it became in olved.
Mr. BELLMON. Mr. Pre 'dent, in con-
nection with the question the distin-
guished Senator from Ne aska has
raised, I have in my possession franked
letter that arrived in our office t 's week.
It is on the letterhead of the C umbia
Society of International Law. It do ? not
bear the signature of any Member o he
Senate.
After this letter arrived we checke
into the rules and we find in section
4166 on page 341 of the Senate Manual
that?
A person entitled to use a frank may not
lend it or permit its use by any commit-
tee . .
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. BELLMON. I yield.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I am most reluctant to bring
up the question of the rule of germane-
ness. I think it might be argued as
whether or not the matter which has
been brought before the Senate by the
able Senator from Nebraska is germane.
I think, in its overall sense, there was
some degree of germaneness to it. I
think he performed a definite service in
bringing it before the Senate. I am
shocked and greatly disturbed about the
use of the frank for the purposes de-
scribed and by the persons identified,
who are not Senators.
However, at the same time, I do not
think it was entirely on point with refer-
r'r
1.1 Ocit,)
ence to the unfinished business before
the Senate. I did not raise the question
of germaneness because I thought it
would be argued that the Senator's
speech was germane.
I am very reluctant to press the point
In connection with what the Senator
from Oklahoma has to say, but I do
think that his remarks are not germane
to the unfinished business before the
Senate. I am sorry to have to interrupt
him.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I appre-
ciate the position of the acting majority
leader.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent, notwithstanding any issue of ger-
maneness, that the junior Senator from
Nebraska be allowed to continue for an
additional 5 minutes in order that I may
yield to the Senator from Oklahoma who
started to make a statement.
After that I shall yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, Mr.
President, I do object because if we are
going to make the rule of germaneness
work, we cannot agree under a unani-
mous-consent request that it be set
aside.
I amoembarrassed that I have to raise
this question with the Senator from
Oklahisana because he very graciously
agreed a while agc to delay his remarks
until a time_today when the 'rule will not
be operative.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I would
like to be heard on the point of germane-
ness. I shall not delay the Senate long.
Mr. President, if this is germane to
our discussion, then the content of the
letter is germane to what is under dis-
cussion. If it is not germane, that would
go to the point of whether or not the
matter might be franked. I believe any
discussion of any facet of the pending
resolution must be germane. I do not see
how we can narrow the discussion of the
pending resolution and exclude certain
facts and arguments that have to do with
the basic issue involved in the resolu-
tion. I regard this appeal of Mr. Sam.
Brown and David Hawk as part of it.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ent, will the Senator yield?
r. CURTIS. I yield.
. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I have listened very carefully to
what e able Senator from Nebraska
said abo t the item that was franked.
The fac that it dealt with the amend-
ment that as been offered by the able
Senator fro Oregon and other Sena-
tors?the so- lied amendment to end
the war in Vie lam?led me to believe
it was to some de ee, at least, germane,
even if the main t 'ust of the Senator's
statement was not. I did not object.
But now we have go into an entirely
different subject and suppose if we
allow the Senator from Oklahoma to
proceed with the discussio of his matter
before the Senate, then I cou,d talk about
my being chairman of the Cancer Cru-
sade in West Virginia and wh?er or
not it is ethical for me to frank a etter
asking funds for the cancer camp gn,
all of which, of course, would be utt?y
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
N
S 7636 Approved FrdWmgsipfli/n/lik:StlypIgN913NR0004000800,0-6
ay 21, 1970
no germane. The line must, be drawn at
so point.
. President, I have to object.
CURTIS. Mr. President. the mate-
rial t Senator from Oklahoma started
to rea which he has now handed to the
Senate rom Nebraska, begins:
The U ted States invasion of Cambodia
is in vioia on of its commitments. . .
The let is from the Columbia Soci-
ety of Inte ational Law. School of Law.
Columbia Un versity, New York, N.Y.
I assumed 1 this resolution and de-
bate concerne what wa.s happening in
Cambodia. Is t e discussion of an edi-
torial on this m tter germane but this
document not ge lane?
Mr. BYRD of W t Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident. will the Senat yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I yie
Mr. BYRD of West rainia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I certainly have to objection to
the discussion of any Ina r that is ger-
mane to the unfinished business, but
from my listening to the i tial remarks
by the distinguished Senate from Okla-
homa I got the distinct im ession the
matter was not germane. I ha e not read
the letter being held in the ha ds of the
distinguished Senator from nsas. If
the matter is germane I. of ecu . have
no objection.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President. I y d the
floor.
AMENDMENT NO 827
Mr. CH H. Dar. rressuta t. I send to
the desk a perfecting amendment and
ask that it be stated.
The PRESIDING 0/01.1C.E1a The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 9, line 1, strike out "for any pur-
pose" and insert in lieu thereof "for foreign
assistance (including foreign military sales)".
On page 9, line 8. after "appropriation" in-
sert "for foreign assistance (including for-
eign military sales)".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator ask unanimous consent that the
amendments be considered en bloc?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the amend-
ments be considered en bloc.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President. reserving
the right to object?and I reserve the
right to object only to clarify what these
amendments are?I wish to ask the Sen-
ator whether this is the amendment that
the Senator from Florida has been inter-
ested in, as well as the Senator from
North Dakota,
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct.
Regarding the foreign assistance bill
and the Foreign Military Sales Act, the
amendment provides that appropriations
shall not exceed the amount authorized
in the future.
Mr. GRIFFIN. This has no relation to
the so-called Cooper-Church amend-
ment?
Mr. CHURCH. That is correct. This
has nothing whatever to do with the
Cooper-Church amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I prom-
ised the distinguished Senator from
Alabama I would yield to him, which I
gladly do at this time.
OR DEE Or fruszanssa--oluscriopir TO /MB SUB1310/4
r. SPARKMAN. Mr. President. from
Committee on Banking and Cur-
re y, I report favorably with an amend-
the bill S. 3302, to amend the De-
Production Act. I submit. a report
timer I. I ask unanimous consent that
the r ,rt be printed together with ad-
ditions, and individual views.
The ESIDING OFFICER. Is there
?wee L10 ",
Mr. B D of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, 1 ob ct.
Mr. SP RKMAN. Mr President, I
ti sale lit ly report was privileged
Material.
Mr. BYRS of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, this it falls in the category of
morning busi ess and should be handled
during the pet ad for the transaction of
n,utine mornii business?or later today
lien the rule gennaness falls.
I am embarra ed to continue to make
titese objections.
M. SPARKM . I will reclaim my
;topers and come b ek later.
Mr. CHURCH. President, for the
inotrination of th Senate. when Will
the germaneness ru expire this after-
noons
Mr. BYRD of West irginia. Mr. Presi-
dant. i can an.swer tit Senator. It is at
a 32 p.m. today.
Mr. CHURCH. In proximately an
listir. I thank the Se tor.
Igr. Pres .ent, win the
Si ziator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Ir. GORE. Mr. President, I call to the
ai ntion of the Senate certain informa-
tell which seems to me to Illustrate the
need or Congress and the country, in-
deed le entire Government. to act so as
Lu pre rye the equation between the co-
oldinat branches of the Government,
particul -ly the executive and the legis-
holve.
Althoug the movement of U.S. troops
no.) Cam -. .ia was not the subject of
aooaultation .ith Congress, I would like
Lu read a lett( addressed to "Dear Fel-
los officer," ?,1 e Adm. W. R. Smedberg
III president ? the Retired Officers
Association. This etter is dated May 13.
Before reading n excerpt from the
letter. Mr. Presid t, in order that
nothing be Laken un irly out of context,
I ask unanimous cons t that the entire
letter be printed at the onclusion of my
remarks.
'the PRESIDING OFflCER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
See exhibit 1.)
Mr. GORE. Mr. President I read a
paragraph from this letter:
President Nixon told me. and few other
ont.:?ers of veterans and patriotic organiza-
tions, two days before his talk to t Nation,
that the action he was soon to er was
on:xi-valve if we were to escape th probe-
iality of total and humiliating deaft Viet-
Information from captured ene doe-
,tmenta. prisoner interrogation, aerial on-
Iti..kuwe and other intelligence so e
available to him had convinced him and
loilitary advisors that our position in Bout
Vietnam would soon be untenable, the Viet
ii:?,mization program destroyed, and a hu-
mi sting defeat in Vietnam almost assured
he ordered immediate and positive
11 to destroy the forces and massive sup-
pli of arms, ammunition, food and equip-
men which had been stored in underground
shalt ra in North Vietnamese "sanctuaries"
on t Cambodian side of the border along
the eat length of South Vietnam. These
stores were. he said, sufficient to supply sev-
eral ? orth ietnamese divisions for six
mont
Mr. ? resident, that is the fourth para-
graph n the letter. I direct the attention
of the nate to the entire letter, which
will be 'anted hereafter.
Mr. esident. if this letter is correct,
then ti President was imparting this
informa on to nonofficials of the U.S.
Governi nt?I do not know how many:
this says few. But it was withheld from
the Con ass of the United States, in-
sofar as is Senator is aware. In fact,
Secretary of State Rogers appeared be-
fore the nate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee on pril 27. He testified at some
length, c siderable length, about 3
hours. It i of course, possible that the
Secretary t State was not aware, when
he appear on the 27th and also on
April 2, of e planning underway to in-
volve the Inited States militarily in
Cambodia o that the invasion plans were
actually th awaiting the President's
decision.
If so, this sauld be an unusual, if not
irregular, sit tion. If not, vital informa-
tion on this rave issue was withheld
from the co ittee and the Congress
in violation o the spirit of the Secre-
tary's assuran of April 2, that he would
consult to the llest extent possible with
the committee an any possible military
action by the U ited States in Cambodia.
The Sihanou government was over-
thrown on Mar. 18, thereby setting in
motion a chain eaction that led to the
opening of a thir front in the Indochina
war. The Comm ttee on Foreign Rela-
tions, as I have s d, met with the Secre-
tary of State on April 2 and again on
April 27. At both if those meetings, the
members were vi Wally unanimous in
urging that the iited States not be-
come involved in a y way in Cambodia.
As I have said, th e was no indication
whatsoever at the eeting on April 27
that any proposal as being considered
in the executive bra h other than Cam-
bodia's request for 'Mary aid.
The Secretary of ate told the com-
mittee that the real roblem before the
Government was on ilitary assistance.
There was no intima on. let me repeat,
of any kind whatsoe r of which I am
aware that a decision as been made or
that a decision was im inent on plans to
invade Cambodia.
We now learn from e letter I have
read that the Preside ? according to
this letter, was discu.ssi g with private
citizens what was descri ed as a grave
threat some 2 days befor his speech to
the American people, at hich time the
Senate, so far as I know first learned
of this move.
We now learn that the tanning for
action in Cambodia began as soon as
Sihanouk was ousted. Sec tary Laird
related this fact in a backgr d session
with reporters on May 14. e Senate
Foreign Relations Committee requested
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
roved For Rgsrapgae/06 ? CIA-RDP72-00337
May 21, 19APP
IUNAI: RECORD? SEN
a stenographic copy of the conference. I
hay a stenographic copy of the notes
of t at meeting, which I ask unanimous
cons- t be printed at the conclusion of
my re .arks.
The ESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, 't is so ordered.
(See exh *it 2.)
Mr. GOR Mr. President, I would like
now to read brief excerpt from this
background co erence, a statement by
Secretary Laird s reported by the ste-
nographer for e Department of
Defense:
First, when the ch ige of government
came about in Cambodi I requested plan-
ning be done at that ti on the various
courses of action that con be taken. Our
government planning was sta ted in the lat-
ter part of March, and various ? oposals were
presented to me. I approved cel am n actions
and made certain other recomme. .ations to
the National Security Council and ? e Presi-
dent.
The plan that is currently going for rd is
a plan submitted by me to.the National cu-
rity Council and supported by me.
Let me repeat that it may be possib
that Secretary Rogers was unaware o
such plans, unaware of such decisions
Pending or decisions taken. On this I am
not advised.
If the Secretary of State were un-
aware, then it is a highly unusual, even
irregular performance for a high admin-
istration official. If the Secretary were
aware of these facts which I have re-
lated in part, and which will appear in
greater part from the insertion soon to
appear in the RECORD, the information
was deliberately withheld from the Sen-
ate of the United States in violation of
the Secretary's commitment to the com-
mittee, at an earlier date, to keep the
committee fully and frankly informed.
EXHIBIT 1
RETIRED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
Washington, D.C., May 13, 1970.
DEAR FELLOW OFFICER: Our Commander-
in-Chief, the President of the United States,
has made a difficult and courageous decision
to attack and destroy North Vietnamese
bases and war supplies along the South
Vietnamese border inside Cambodia. His
goals are understandable, particularly to
military men; (1) to shorten the war, (2)
to save American lives. (3) to enable his
Vietnamization plan to carry on to a suc-
cessful conclusion, (4) to permit self-deter-
mination of the South Vietnamese to con-
tinue to fruition, and (5) to minimize the
prospects of a disastrous defeat as the
strength of our forces in Vietnam grows less
during his previously announced withdrawal
program.
The order has been given, American mili-
tary, men are now in combat carrying out
the Commander-in-Chief's orders, and some
are dying in order that a larger number may
live.
At home, opponents of the Administration,
the "Doves", the Peace-At-Any-Price advo-
cates, and those who have been persuaded
that the United States has only to withdraw
its forces from Southeast Asia in order for
universal peace to exist throughout the
world, are working right now to tie the
hands of our President in this endeavor.
Many well'-meaning supporters of those pol-
icies seem to forget the additional jeopardy
to which such actions will subject our troops
in Vietnam.
President Nixon told me, and a few other
officers of veterans and patriotic organiza-
tions, two days before his talk to the Na-
tion, that the action he was soon to order
was imperative if we were to escape the prob-
ability of total and humiliating defeat in
Vietnam. Information from captured enemy
documents, prisoner interrogation, aerial re-
connaissance and other intelligence sources
available to him had convinced him and his
military advisors that our position in South
Vietnam would soon be untenable, the Viet-
namization program destroyed, and a humil-
iating defeat in Vietnam almost assured -un-
less he ordered immediate and positive ac-
tion to destroy the forces and massive sup-
plies of arms, ammunition, food and equip-
ment which had been stored in underground
shelters in North Vietnamese "sanctuaries"
on the Cambodian side of the border along
the great length of South Vietnam. These
stores were, he said, sufficient to supply sev-
eral North Vietnamese divisions for six
months.
I am convinced that the President had no
alternative; to do nothing would almost cer-
tainly insure the loss of all that we have been
fighting for in support of free peoples every-
where, and the abandonment of the princi-
ples for which more than 40,000 American
men have died in this war.
The voices of the organized minority are
stridently raised against our President's ac-
tion, giving great comfort and aid to the
enemy.
I believe that, as a citizen who holds, or has
d, a commission in the Armed Forces, you
want to add your support to those of us
ave for too long been the "Silent Ma-
by upholding our Commander-in-
his resolve to bring about an honor-
e, maintain the integrity of this
11 its commitments to its allies,
ose who have died in their ef-
ve freedom for all peoples.
f our meeting, the President
ed briefing on our general
eginning on page 3 I have
e of his more pertinent
li
wi
who
jority
Chief i
able pea
nation, f
and honor
forts to pres
At the time
gave us a deta
military posture.
briefly outlined s
and important poin
If you agree with t
pressed. I urge you a
take immediate and pos
lines suggested on the
Sincerely,
W. R. Sivi
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy,
dent.
1
e viewpoint I have ex-
a private citizen to
ive action along the
fo wing page.
BERG III,
etired, Presi-
EXHIBIT 2
SECRETARY LAIRD'S MEETING WITH ODFREY
SPERLING GROUP, MAY 14, 197
Secretary LAIRD. -However, will be dged
finally on the basis of its overall stra gic
success, and I believe that this is the p ce
where this operation will prove to be ev
more significant, and those were outline
by the President very carefully in his briefing
of the Congressional leadership, the 'gover-
nors, in his press conference the other day;
and they are, of course, the impact on Viet-
namization and the pacification program
which is tied up with the security aspects of
Vietnamization.
Two, the rate of withdrawals of Americans
from Vietnam, and three, the American
casualties, as we move into the third and
fourth quarter of this calendar year.
But I think in the final judgment, although
it is a tactical success now in every way, the
mission will be proven to be even more im-
portant from the standpoint of long-term
strategic guidelines that were set forth by
the President.
Question. I was travelling during this pe-
riod and I saw several reports, and maybe
these questions have been resolved while I
have been away, but did you or did you not
have reservations about our going into
Cambodia?
Secretary LAIRD. First, when the change of
government came about in Cambodia, I re-
quested planning be done at that time on
R000400080065-6-
Al. E
S 7637
the various courses of action that could be
taken. Our Government planning was started
in the latter part of March, and various pro-
posals were presented to me. I approved cer-
tain actions and made certain other recom-
mendations to the National Security Council
and the President.
The plan that is currently going forward
is a plan submitted by me to the National
Security Council and supported by me. I
don't want to give the impression that when
I present things to the National Security
Council that no discussion takes place, that
there is ,no give and take between the mem-
bers of the National Security Council and
others.
Every proposal which I have made to the
National Security Council has not always
been the proposal that has been adopted. I
have made more proposals to the National
Security Council than anybody else con-
cerning the Department of Defense and mili-
tary operations. But, I think the batting aver-
age has been pretty good as far as the De-
partment of Defense is concerned if you go
all the way back on the Vietnamization pro-
gram, the outline of that, the timing of the
troop withdrawals; if you go back on the
biological research changes that we have
made as far as biological warfare and as far
fts chemical warfare are concerned.
As far as this decision is concerned, I
supported it fully and I continue to support
it. There might have been a few things such
as timing of this operation are not exactly
in accordance with the plan that I sub-
mitted, they are within a few days.
Question. Did you have any conversations
at all with the President about the impact
domestically?
Secretary LA/RD. Of course. I presented
these evaluations to the President in very
emphatic and strong terms. I did not antici-
pate, however, the Kent University affair and
I would be misleading you that I even indi-
cated that. But I certainly was aware of these
problems. I am also aware of the Congres-
sional problems involved. I spend more time
with the Congress than anyone else does.
I probably talk to more members of Con-
gress, as well as more students, than any-
body else does by the way. I understand
those problems.
But, we are over here right now. Everyone
Is concerned about the Cooper-Church bill
which is going to be up for consideration in
the Senate today. When I was over in the
Congress, I used to be very interested in
working with few limitations on the Execu-
tive Branch of Government, and I under-
stand that, and I think it is a perfectly legiti-
mate area to operate in, because I believe
that Congress is certainly a co-equal branch
of the Government. And I don't get into these
local arguments over this business because
I've been on the other side of that issue for
too long.
The Cooper-Church Amendment is a seri-
Amendment. It will be interpreted not
ts effect of what is going on in Cam-
because it doesn't start until this op-
B
is all over. ut, as far as would
is concerned, it will have a tremen-
t upon the turndown of President,
it should be passed in the Sen-
the House. It has that kind of
for
bodi
eratio
opinion
dous eff
even thou
ate, then i
effect.
The point I
there are othe
that foreign milt
as the security of
trying to make here is that
amendments involved in
y sales bill that are more
far reaching and f
more damaging as far
e country, from my
point of view, than m

y people realize. Of
course, they deal with th disposition of mil-
itary surpluses. This is a w ole new ball game
that is written into that .11, and I don't
think that many people reali e that.
It is a whole new ball game s far as our
financing some of the commitme ts we have
made to countries already, including Israel,
including China, Including Turkey. You can
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7638 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE May 21, 1970
po it to almost any country. These are very
far- eaching changes that are in this bill,
and eere isn't much attention being paid to
this.
Quest a. In the bill or in the amend-
ment?
aacretar. LAIRD. In the bill, as amended.
Question. n other words, in the bill as it
conies to the oor.
Question. Ifs.you could respond just for a
minute, Mr. Se tory. You stated you sub-
mitted as a pla of action back to Cam-
bodia. Could you atell if this was your top
option or just one\ of half a dozen possi-
bilities? Did you !attar this above others as
possible approaches tiNthe Cambodian ques-
tion?
Secretary Lamm This as the top option.
The problem here, to be -very irank with
you. the listing of the sanktuaries, is not ex-
actly the same as in the ograin as I pre-
sented. They are all covered, But it is not
in the same order and I don's, want to mis-
lead you?the order has beeraashifted. but
all of the sanctuaries are in thevilan.
QUESTION. On U.S. troops va non-U.S.
troops, then from the beginning yd favored
the use of U.S. troops?
Secretary LAIRD. Well, you see, the'reason
you get into that. Is that as soon as y u go
into the Fish-Hook area U.S. troops a n:
volved. You understand that because
25th Division and the 1st Citatory Divisio
are right opposite that area. They have the
responsibility. The sanctuaries along the II
corps area. the IV corps area and the rest
of the III corps area, we have removed the
Americans in those areas and they have no
overall operational responsibility against the
other sanctuary firma.
So, the question of timing is important
from the standpoint of when we go into
the various sanctuary areas. Now, as far as
the Fish Hook area is concerned, this is the
where the command and control operations
have been emanating. We have had four
or five different faxes in that area where the
command and control is operated over a
period of the last few years. That, at the
start, looked like it would be a very tough.
area.
Now what happened was that after the
time the original plan was submitted and
the time that the final decision was made by
the President of the United States, the mili-
tary situation within the sanctuaries
changed. You had a situation where the risk
involved militarily became much lees than
the risk involved militarily at the start of
the operation when it was originally in the
planning stage. I'm sure you understand that
when the American planners were first look-
ing at this situation, you had a situation in
which the North Vietnamese were poised
against South Vietnam. Starting about the
middle of April, or in that general area, you
found your forms facing the other direction
and moving away from the sanctuary areas
so you would not have as great a military
confrontation.
So, the risk involved to Americans became
much less at that particular point when the
North Vietnamese became involved in point-
ing a large number of their forces in the
other direction. And when the risks became
less, not only as tor as the South Viet-
namese forces. but less also as far as the
American forces, and when the possibility of
the lower casualties, much lower casualties,
because of a lower military risk became ap-
parent irom our intelligence information,
there were certain changes andI supported
those particular changes.
In the original plan, when you had a com-
plete military confrontation up and down
the border, and all of the forces were aimed
toward south Vietnam, it was a little bit
different situation. When the risk to the
American forces was at a lower level be-
cause of changes that had been made in the
intelligence information that showed the
enemy were pointed towards Cambodia at
that time, this was the time to hit.
Question. And that changed your mind on
these....
Secretary LAIRD. That changed my mind.
Now, so, when you look at the different op-
tions that were available to us, I think you
have to consider the time period in which
you are looking at those options. The mili-
tary threat that was posed at that time, not
only to the Americans but also the South
Vietnamese. You know, some people say you
have until the 30th of June. Now, I am not
sure that we will have weather conditions
that will permit Us to go until the 30th of
June.
There are several things in the timing, the
weather conditions, and the fact that you
would not have a major military confronta-
tion because of the shifts that had come
about.
Question. Mr. Secretary. I don't think?I
don't quite understand?it seemed to me
that with the shifts that Caine about a re-
duction of sanctuaries would become less
important. I don't know why suddenly this
became such a critical problem.
Secretary LAIRD. This is not an operation
to destroy people. This is an operation to de-
stroy facilities and logistics support. They
could not remove all of their equiment.
They could not remove their ammunition.
They could not remove any of this buildup
in the time period that was involved. You
aKow there was some criticism about using
52'a three days before you went into Fish
Hook because it gave them warning. That is
nonamportant. We weren't interested in de-
stroyIng. necessarily, the military forees. We
were 1ttterested in making the movement as
easily awe could as far as the Americans,
-were con rned, but we weren't interested
in destroy g the people. You don't hear us
putting ou y count and things like that.
I have stayed mpletely away from that kind
of assessment? this operation.
This operatic) is being. I hope, judged
on a tactical boa on what is actually de-
stroyed and uncxive d
Question. What d. ou think of the ar-
gument that that r y isn't a very per-
suasive case because Russians can re-
supply them and the C 'ese can resupply
them with rice in a realei ly short period
of time, and, therefore, you ye not really
accomplished a lot.
Secretary LAIRD. Well, my aria er to your
question is that it will take from to nine
months. And, as you know. I keep i fairly
close touch with General Abrams an. .e has
always felt that during this pen., up
through August into September is the
Important period in our overall Vietna
zation program. He feels that this period
time, because of really our great emphasis
on the training and the increase in the RP
and PF started just a year ago at the time
of the Midway Conference when we approved
the largest increase.
This training program is going very well.
There is not a more sensitive military com-
mander that I know than General Abrams,
and no more sensible military commander.
He feels that this period of time is very crit-
ical and an important period.
Question. If I may ask another question.
Secretary Lamm They may have to go back
Into the sanctuary areas.
Question. Americans or South Vietnamese?
Secretary LAIRD. The South Vietnamese. At
thin time, they will be in a position where
aim can carry on this operation, even on the
bas:s of 24 to 38 hours. They will be in that
mar acular position.
As I told the committee the other day. I
would not be in a position where we said that
from now on the South Vietnamese would
never go into the sanctuaries. I Just think
triat is a ridiculous type of commitment for
the United States Government to take at this
? ?
time if we really believe in the Vietnamization
program, and I do.
Question. If there were not the angry back-
lash, a massive backlash, in this country to
which the Administration has had to address
itself, wouldn't have the President have
announced that you are pulling out of there
in the middle of this week. . . in other
words, it seems as though you are engaged
in an incomplete operation simply to placate
public opinion?
Secretary LAIRD. Well, that is not the case.
The President made the decision to announce
some of the timetables. He has not an-
nounced all of the timetables. There is a
timetable on every execution and in every
plan that comes in.
Now, the decision as far as the two areas
in which Americans have come out and are
coming out this week?they have come out
of other areas, but these are major numbers,
in the thousands?those operations are com-
pleted. They have gone on schedule and they
are completed. I don't believe that we should
not announce the completion of operations
and we have given our troop levels--
Question. My question is, have you in-
tended all along to announce that we were
going to come out the middle of this Week
and at the end of?
Secretary Lamm Oh, yes, we are going to
announce each operation.
I don't know why it is so unusual. We
have more newsmen, who are even using
General Abrams' plane to take them around.
and this idea that we can keep the com-
pletion of an operation a secret, I just don't
understand that because you can't do it.
Peter.
Question. Well, that is a little different.
How do you know this is going to be com-
pleted, you know, at the end of a week?
Secretary LAIRD. Well, we tell them. They
are briefed on this?how long they expect
to go into a particular area. We have not
kept that as to when it is completed tomor-
row or Saturday?
Question. I know, but I don't understand
what completion schedule can be toyed down
in advance on a military mission when you
don't know what you are going to run into.
the Job of destroying supplies, the opposition
you might meet?what Is the theory behind
announcing that certain units will be with-
drawn by the end of a week and by the mid-
dle of the following week, I don't quite get
ths:e.cretary
Lamm Well, in this particular
operation, this week, the operation was
scheduled to go on for 10 days and it was
finished in seven. It was scheduled on the
basis of 7 to 10 days based on the amount
of time it was necessary to do the search and
the fact that they thought there would be
military encounter. This is one of the areas
where we uncovered quite a bit of material.
The military action did not take place,
a d we are not going to stay there if we
do 't need to stay there for 10 days simply
beca
se we had no military activity involved.
Qu
ion. Could you unravel something
for me, ?
lease?
Beare
y LAIRD. I hope I can.
Questio
You said that the 5th and 25th
American
visions were in position, there-
fore, we sen
Secretary LA D
Question. The
Division were in
cause they happen
selected to go into Ca
as you know, the
1st copters and they all
Evans to relieve lahe Son
that you don't necessarily
forces on the border. That is
confuses me.
The second thing that confuses me?
Secretary LAIRD. I don't know why that
confuses you because we decided to use the
It is the reverse.
1st Cavalry and the 25th
ition, and, therefore, be-
to live there they were
bottle. Well, of course,
valry with 450 heli-
rente way from Camp
o it would seem
ye to use the
thing that
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 21, 19 A3proved For ROOMIng?0/411:, qtkiNFI32-ORNM0400080065-6
fore that had the security responsibility
and t
n we?
Ques on. Well, you had plenty of air lifts
to take re of the South Vietnamese.
Secreta LAIRD. Well, we airlifted South
Vietnames behind the border area, but they
didn't have e security. You know who has
the security n that border area right now.
Question. R ht.
Secretary LA RD. Okay. Well, we didn't
change the secur ty responsibility.
Question. But t ere would?
Secretary LAIRD. he security responsibili-
ties remained the s e and we airlifted the
South Vietnamese 1,n ehind that area.
Question. But that ouldn't dictate what
you do though.
Secretary LAIRD. Now, 1 ou wanted to take
and put?change the sec ity responsibility
and air lift the 1st Caval Division down
Into IV corps where we pul d all American
forces out and bring some So h Vietnamese
up opposite and change the se rity respon-
sibility, it could have been done, ? d I looked
at that, but there are certain -dis vantages
in moving American forces back in the IV
corps area. And those disadvantages, hang-
ing responsibilities in the IV corps ar , far
outweighed the advantage that you are 'lk-
ing about as far as the 1st Cavalry.
Question. Do I infer correctly that y u
could not have done the whole operation
finally approved solely with South Vietnam-
ese troops just on the basis of numbers
and equipment.
Secretary LAIRD. You could have? done it,
but you would have to change certain se-
curity responsibilities along the border.
Question. Is that what you are talking
about when you talk about considering mov-
ing the 1st Cavalry as a replacement for
South Vietnamese troops that you would
have used then?
Question. The second point, just a short
one, on Tuesday, you told the Senate Armed
Services Committee that there was evidence
of stepped up activity from the border sanc-
tuaries in Cambodia against South Vietnam?
Americans and South Vietnam and you
were, therefore, worried about increases in
casualties.
This morning, if I tune you in correctly,
you said the enemy was turning the other
way and going into Cambodia which would
seem to reduce the threat to Americans and
Vietnamese.
Secretary LA/RD. As far as these operations
were concerned, first, there are two questions
that you asked there.
First, as far as the orders to the North
Vietnamese and VC in-country during the
period leading up to the first few weeks in
May, there was no question and, many people
fail to realize that this has come about, this
last week the high point which was pre-
dicted in all of the documents and all of the
intelligence information that we had and
picked up during that period, and I discussed
this before the Coinmittee the other day, has
come about.
This idea that there has not been an in-
crease in activity?there has been an increase
in activity in the last 10 days. This did come
about, and we can show it to you statisti-
cally. Take our casualty figures today?the
casualty figures that were released in Saigon
this morning.
Question. Do you blame them on the
raids?I don't believe that.
Secretary LAIRD. No, that is not the point
that I am making. I am talking about the
increased dativity in-country that was being
supported from Cambodia, and they will be
supported from Cambodia.
Question. You can really confuse me, Mr.
Secretary because?
Secretary LAIRD. Well, I am sorry.
Question. Because with the movements
from the middle of the month to the end
of the month, the movement that embraced
the President's speech of the 20th and the
30th which way were they--you said earlier
Westward.
Secretary LAIRD. As far as the sanctuary
areas are concerned, there was movement in
the direction of by one-third, in the direction
of Cambodia. I don't want to give you exact
percentage, but about one-third in that area.
Question. Westward?
Secretary LAIRD. Yes.
Question. Were there movements that in-
creased the threat to our forces?
Secretary LAIRD. There were movements,
and there were plans and programs?if these
had come about?now I don't want to give
you the impression that they have not be-
cause they have in the last week. In-country
there were movements supported from the
sanctuary areas in III and IV corps.
Question. You earlier gave the impression
that what happened after the 15th of the
month was that the North Vietnamese troops
in the sanctuaries began moving westward.
Secretary LAIRD. Yes, about a one-third,
33 percent, about that. Don't use that
exact?
Question. About how many? 30,000? 40,-
000?
Secretary LA/RD. Well, the full force in-
country, the highest force in-country is
around the 40,000 level. This was down to
its low at 10,000 when they moved 1n-coun-
try.
Question. In-country means in Vietnam?
Secretary LAIRD. I am talking about in
ietnam. Now as they prepared for this par-
t ular highpoint, the in-country movement
doa go up. The important thing that I was
tryi to point out here was that there was
a mo ement out of the sanctuary areas in
the ofker direction for the -first time, and
this ma es the military challenge within the
sanctuari,s a much lesser threat because
you have ,t!,ow, if I have given the impres-
sion?
Question. understand that much.
Secretary LA\ico. Now, as far as the high
point is cancer/Id and as far as their plans
for activities aga st American forces, these
plans were from t sanctuary areas in the
other direction. No they have come about.
Let me just express, I m sure you know you
have probably had the nnouncement today
on our casualty figure. flere were 168, which
is a high casualty figure.
But, it is important tha you understand
that of that high casualt figure against
American forces, it was in-co try.
Question. That is not inclucllng the Cam-
bodian operation casualties?
Secretary LACED. Yes, that cii s include
Cambodia, and that Cambodian ?peration
casualties?I can give the exact i
think its 40?
Question. Are you saying that the in- ?un-
try figures excluding the Cambodian ii res
went up?
Secretary LAIRD. That is correct. We have
very high in-country casualty rate this week.
Question. Well, let me try to identify some
of my confusion, because I am sure I can't
claim enough?what were the movements
that took place between the 20th and 30th
in Cambodia ti_at so dramatically increased
the threats to our troops?
Secretary LAIRD. You are talking about
different things.
First, I am talking about the threat to
our troops in the sanctuary areas. Now, you
are talking about the threats to our troops
1n-country. Now, they are different questions.
Question. I am talking about the 20th to
30th when we didn't have any troops so far as
I know in that area.
Secretary LA/RD. The threats to our troops
in-country came about by the orders that
went out from the North Vietnamese head-
quarters to bring about a high level of ac-
tivity in ZOt.th Vietnam.
Now, that is a different threat than the
threat I am talking about in the sanctuary
areas. The threat in the Lanctuary areas is a
S 7639
different threat. That particular threat has
to do with the number of troops that are
stationed and located within the sanctuary
areas.My point in answering the question about
the military threat that was involved, the
military threat in the sanctuary areas depre-
ciated. But the military threat in-country,
not only in Cambodia, it went up, but it
also went up in-country, and that is the im-
portant point here. I hope that I didn't
confuse you by talking about the military
threat within the sanctuary areas. What I ani
talking about there is the number of people
that are there to confront American forces
as they move into the sanctuary areas.
Question. Who is the military threat in
Cambodia?you just said the military threat
in Cambodia.
Secretary LAIRD. The military threat as far
as Cambodia went up. That was brought
about by the increased activity by the North
Vietnamese as they moved and faced west---
Question. You mean those couple of towns
they talk about?
Secretary LAIRD. I think that, as you know,
whether you'Vere there when I testified on
this yesterday?that particular military
threat is not concerned, as far as I am con-
cerned, in Cambodia and in Laos. I am in-
terested in Cambodia and Laos for only one
reason and that is the effect of the opera-
tions in Cambodia, and Laos, supply routes
and its effect on Vietnam.
Question. Can I ask one question which
may be of only historic significance at this
point? How did 30,000 to 40,000 in three
months become 120,000 in a year? Can you
play back that process a little bit for us? The
impression some of us had was that when
the President left for Hawaii, in that general
period, the end of that week, the 17th to 18th
of April, there was C general feeling that
this was going to be a three or four-month
package involving 40,000 men or so.
After he went up to CINCPAC and came
back and announced his decision out west,
it became a one-year time frame and there
were a larger number of people involved.
What were the considerations there and what
was the process by which the thing changed?
Secretary LAIRD. The 284 figure which was
used by the President is the figure at the end
of the fifth increment that you probably?
and what he did was combine the fourth and
fifth increments as far as troop reduction is
concerned and he carried the program
through which which was either, the 7th or
the end of April or the first of May.
Question. But he eliminated the interim
deadline too by combining the two incre-
ments.
Secretary LAIRD. What he did was he took
himself out of the business of having to meet
a deadline every three or four months and
turned it over to the Department of Defense.
Question You still regard that as the in-
terim deadline, at the end of the fourth in-
crement as being a deadline which has to be
et since it was turned over to the Depart-
m nt of Defense? ?
cretary LAIRD. We have to meet it be-
cans we have these projections in our
budgeS gentlemen, and we can't go up for a
supple ntal appropriations bill and our
budget 1 based on these planning figures.
I had not anted to go to the Congress and
tell them w t the planning figures were, but
the President as made a determination to
announce the and these are the planning
figures that are n the budget, right to the
numbers?right o the nose--these are our
planning figures.
Question. What w cCain's input on the
Cambodian operation?
Secretary LAIRD. On th
troop withdrawal,
he wanted the delay. He joined with General
Abrams and wanted no announcement.
On the Cambodian operation, he supported
the plans which were developed by General
Abrams with a few modifications.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 640 Approved For Release 21, 1970
2005/06/Q6 ? CPARDP72r00/3p7R0004000800f4f.
CONGRESSIONAL RECOtto ? JLIN.rt
stion. I had the impression?it may be
totall erroneous, that McCain was a pretty
strong ever on the Cambodian thing. What
was the degree of McCain's influence on the
Camb n decision?
Secrets LAIRD. He certainly supported it.
there's no ?u tion about that. The briefing
which he ? esented to the President?I had
the briefing n advance, of course. The plan
that was p ented was the plan that had
been presen ? to the National Security
Council, and 11. briefed the President on it.
I think a m or portion of his briefing
many of you ma have had. It has to do with
a run through of utheast Asia?I am sure
you had been in is oftice and he?but I
don't go over the a slings that are given to
the President.
Question. You are 'lking about the brief-
ing before April 20th n w?
Secretary LAIRD. He ked me about the
briefing Admiral McCal gave to the Pres-
ident of the United Sta s at breakfast, in
Honolulu, at the time t e President went
out to welcome the astro and he had
breakfast with?spent an h ir with Admiral
McCain. They had a breakfas and he wanted
to know whether that briefing ad any effect
upon the decision.
Question. And you are sugges ng that the
briefing was relatively routine?
Secretary LAIRD. The plan as pr nted by
General Abrams and modified by ussions
that we had had here, but that ? an had
been put together, you know, it ? d not
been approved in the operations untl Mon-
day night or Tuesday morning of the 'eeks
the President?but the plan had rill bee ? put
together.
Question. But he had gotten it before
got it from McCain or is that the first t e
that he had seen it?
Secretary LAIRD. I had given him the plan
the plan has been transmitted to him.
Question. Last week?
Secretary LAIRD. Well, before that.
Question. The question--
Secretary LAIRD. But it had not been ap-
proved.
Question. How concerned are you on the
divisiveness on the home front?
Secretary LAIRD. I am very concerned
about it and that's why we have been making
every effort not only to live with our budget,
but to cut our budget, so that we can make
available to other priorities within our Gov-
ernment resources. We have, I think, done
very well on this. We have gone from 44
percent of the budget to 34 percent. We have
gone from 8.7 percent of the Gross National
Product down to 7 percent. I am concerned
about the Selective Service Act. Last year
they said we couldn't get it changed, we have
gotten it changed. We have the random se-
lection and during the months of March and
April, the first two months that it has been
used, we are back taking youngest first. The
system is working.
Question. You anticipate?
Secretary Lanus We are also trying to make
the changes as far as making the draft a
more fair and equitable means of taking
young people into the service. I am familiar
with these other priorities that we have to
face up to and that is why?
Question. I am not talking about this. sir.
I am talking about the backlash to this
Cambodian divisiveness, had you anticipated
that?
Secretary Laren. I think I have answered
that. I felt that there would be, It had to be
considered. It was one of the considerations
which I presented. As I said earlier this
morning, I anticipated difficulty in that
area, difficulty as far as the Congress was
concerned, and this was taken into account
during the decision-making process. It was
taken into account by -the President of the
United States. There Is one thing?and I
don't want to be repetitious, but I did not
anticipate the Kent University killings, I did
not.
Question. Well, do you attribute to the
Kent situation what might be called guer-
rilla warfare on the colleges in this country?
Secretary LAIRD. I think that, as well as
Borne other things did escalate that type of
activity. There's no question about that in
my mind It did have an effect.
Question. Do you have under considera-
tion any scheme under which you would
send no draftees to Vietnam?
Secretary Lame. I want this understood
that such a program is a possibility when
you get down to 200.000 to 240.000 and our
studies show that it is a possibility in that
area. What I am trying to do as Secretary of
Defense is get all draft calls down to zero.
Our primary goal Is to get draft calls re-
duced to the zero level.
The problem is that if you go out and say
you are going to have an all-volunteer force
in Vietnam when we get to 240,000 or some-,
thing like that, at that particular time you
have a tremendous changeover because there
would be a lot of draftees that would still
be in your service and still there. So, you
would have well over 70 percent of the people
at that time.
Now, you could phase in the volunteer
force, but I don't want to give the people the
impression that you can just change It over
night, because you're going to have quite a
few draftees that are still in Vietnam even
in your support force?in security force,
your air support and in your logistics sup-
port.
this is something that we can move
towards. but I don't want to say it will be all
volunteer when we get between 200,000 and
240,000 because you still have draftees there.
You see, we've got this short rotation, this
is one of the problems. Last night I had din-
ner with Charlie Goodell and I told him that
I watched a little bit of his TV perform-
ance, and/ thought that one of the things
that bothered me the most about it was the
anner in which he handled the fact that
are putting men into Vietnam and not
tinning?I just believe that it really de-
s'r a your credibility when you don't Melt-
cat that it's because of the short location
pen that we have to rotate people. Even
if we me down to the figure sooner than
the sident anticipated in his announce-
meut, '.u're still going to have an input,
because e don't allow people to serve there
for more than 12 months. The impression
that we ar putting thousands of people into
Vietnam th month just is not an accurate
portrayal of hat's going on over there. We
do put tho cts in a week, but it's because
of this rotatio Well, that is?
Question. Mr. ecretary, to what degree, if
any, were we m tivated in Cambodia by a
desire, for mint reasons perhaps, to sup-
port the anti-Stha ouk Government?
Secretary Lams far AS I am concerned.
I was not motivated ? my recommendation.
Question. It may b military reasons that
this would be--
SCUM...SIT LAIRD. Bees as I WAS motivated
on the basis of the etnamization pro-
gram, making further r ? ictions in Ameri-
can forces S possibility d the reduction
of casualties as far as Am loans are con-
',.eined in the future.
I don't believe our Governm nt has a com-
mitment to Cambodia. Our fitment is
to our own forces and our co tment is to
...ce that the objective we've t in Viet-
nam is achieved, and that's whe I put it.
Question. What would you reco mend if
the communists appear to be about to over-
throw Lon Nol Government and re lace it
with the one that is out?
Secretary LAIRD. I have made my tion
very clear on that as far as our opera as
are concerned, even applies to Laos too.
is my opinion and I would still recommen
the interdiction of supplies and personnel.
As far as our country is concerned even if
we're asked to stop bombing the Ho Chi
Minh Trail, I eaeuld recommend that we con-
ti
ue to bomb the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and
e interdiction of supplies as long as it's in
protection of the Americans.
at's where I would limit it.
we were asked to stop that kind of
ity, either in Laos or Cambodia, I am
g
as the Secretary of Defense, this is a
on that would be made by the Presi-
of the United States. I'm telling you
m.y recommendations would be and
all I can tell you.
e has been no decision made. You
ake a decision on the basis of some
tion like that, but I didn't want
e on what my recommendations
act!.
talk
dec
dent
what
that'
Th
don't
iffy q
to
would
Quest
the Ca
acter of
. -
on: On the question of limits, has
Ian operation changed the char-
limited war? It used to be pretty
step-by-step business with pretty
ts on what we could and could not
President said, he made a mas-
What change do you foresee in
ter of limited war as a result of
is,????
much a
tight Inn
do. As t
sive step.
the char
this?
Secrets
at this fro
of Defense,
problem, th
something t
warfare is c
time and I d
differently th
ried on for a
Chi Minh Trail
We have pro
fare is concern
tem whether it
or whether it a
It applies to an
from a military s
planners standpo
take Into conside
commit American
warfare you have
Question. You d
tem strictly then as
IS occupied?
Secretary LAIRD. By
Question. By a 1.
which is the enemy?
Secretary LAIRD. Y
that it wouldn't?I co
meat .. (Note: Tape
situation does exist.
Question. In talking
Mr. Secretary, is it your
tary of?
Secretary Lame. Gentle
the White House at 9 o'c
to hedge on any of your
am running a little late.
Dan, you are supposed
here. !Laughter.]
Question. One more ciu
sanctuary business, Mr. Secre
Secretary Lanus Really, I sho
Question. Thank you very
LAIRD. Well, of course, looking
the standpoint of the Secretary
believe that the sanctuary
occupied sanctuary problem is
at's existed as far as limited
cerned for a long period of
ft look at this operation any
n that which we have car-
od many years on the Ho
terns as far as limited war-
but the sanctuary prob-
pplies to the United States
piles to Israel or whether
ne else is a problem that
endpoint, and the defense
t. I think you have to
tion if you are going to
to that kind of limited
give them protection.
e the sanctuary prob-
part of a country which
4.1
the enemy.
e of another country
that is correct. So
d get into that argu-
blank.) But similar
bout the Mideast,
ilosophy as Secre-
en, I have to be at
. I don't mean
questions, but I
get me out of
tion on that
ary.
ld be going.
uch.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Presid
nt, I com-
mend the able Senator from Tennessee
for placing these insertions 'the REC-
ORD. As one who was prese t at the
committee hearing, I add m corrob-
oration to the recollection of he dis-
tinguished Senator from Te essee.
The committee was in no way dvised
of the impending Cambodian op ation.
From what the Senator has said,
others were advised--others who were
not even part of the T.J.S. Govern ent.
This exemplifies what many of
this body have been saying, the Se in
ate
Is often the last to know. We must ke
action here that will rectify this sit
a-
tion, and restore the Senate to the r le
\.the Constitution intends for it to p
We can do that only if we reassert o
own authority. This is, in part, what we
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
?
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
g 21, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE S 7644
to do through the ad
I
of
le
option of the
-Church amendment.
Mr.
RE. I thank the Senator.
e to add emphasis to his re-
the Founding Fathers pro-
e elected representatives
ould have a responsib
ng of such decisions as
see
Coop
should
mark tha
vided that
the people
part in the ma
herein referred
This letter, if c
the decision was b
sundry private citize
formation with respect
withheld from the Senate
personage than the Secretar
himself.
This is a shocking situation. It
subject to which the Congress and t
country mus
Tea, indicates that
g discussed with
while the in-
it was being
no less a
of State
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, what is
the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ment of the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Idaho yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from Florida.
Mr. HOLLAND. I understand, from
reading the amendment now proposed
to section 12 of the pending measure,
that the distinguished Senator proposes
to limit the rather broad provisions of
section 12, as appearing in the original
bill, so that they will now apply only to
funds appropriated for foreign aid or for
the furnishing of arms.
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. HOLLAND. And not to funds cov-
ered by any other appropriation bill.
Mr. CHURCH. Yes.
Mr. HOLLAND. The substance of this
will mean that funds included in a for-
eign aid appropriation bill, or a bill pro-
viding for the furnishing of arms to
other nations, must have been author-
ized prior to the appropriation or at the
time of appropriation in order to become
an actual appropriation, exendable out
of U.S. funds?
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator's interpre-
tation of the amendment is entirely ac-
curate. Judging from previous colloquy.
we have had on the subject, it is my
understanding that the version now
pending has the approval of the Senator
from Florida who, of course, is a ranking
member of the Senate Appropriations
Committee.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator. The Senator from Idaho
is correct in what he has just stated. It is
my feeling that in connection with ap-
propriations for foreign aid and for the
furnishing of arms to other nations, we
should be peculiarly careful, and I find
no abjection to limiting those appropria-
tions alone to matters that have been
previously authorized.
There is only one additional point I
wish to explore, and that I think we cov-
ered in our earlier colloquy: I want to be
very sure that if there were any items
covered in the foreign aid appropria-
tions bill of last year which have not yet
been obligated or expended, they will not
be affected by this provision as it is pro-
posed to be amended by the current
amendment.
Mr. CHURCH. That is my understand-
ing. The current amendment is prospec-
tive. It does not reach back to business
previously completed by Congress.
Mr. HOLLAND. I so understand it;
and yet I am a little disturbed by the
wording of section 12, which begins as
follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of
law enacted before the date of enactment of
this section.
I simply wanted the record to be com-
pletely clear that notwithstanding the
meaning of those words, the distin-
guished Senator from Idaho and those
who stand with him from the Committee
on Foreign Relations, in insisting upon
this amendment, which is completely in
line with their jurisdiction, have no in-
tention whatever to affect appropriations
made last year under the foreign aid ap-
propriation bill of 1969.
Mr. CHURCH. We have no such intent.
I assure the Senator on that score. If
there Is any doubt about this, the legisla-
tive history we have made on the Senate
floor should clear it up.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator.
I have already stated in a previous col-
loquy what the Senator well knows to be
the fact, that this legislation will have
to be approved at the other end of the
Capitol; but I do think appropriations
in this particular field should have pe-
culiar care, peculiar caution, and that
subjecting them to the absolute condi-
tion that they must have previous au-
thorization does provide that peculiar
care and caution which I think is appro-
priate.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator,
and I fully agree with his observation.
Mr. HOLLAND. I see the Senator from
North Dakota in the Chamber also. He is
the ranking minority member of the Ap-
propriations Committee, as well as the
committee which deals with foreign aid
and with arms sales to other nations;
and I should be greatly interested to hear
any comment he cares to make upon it.
Mr. CHURCH. I yield to the Senator
from North Dakota,
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, after listening to the colloquy
which has taken place between the dis-
tinguished Senator from Florida and the
distinguished Senator from Idaho, this
amendment takes care of the objections
I raised on this floor a few days ago.
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy that the
Senator has no objection. We can pro-
ceed, then, with a vote on the amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Idaho.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. TOWER. Does the Senator from
Idaho still have the floor?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GRAVEL). No; the Senator from Idaho
gave up the floor. Does the Senator from
Texas wish the floor?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I had not
Intended to yield the floor.
Mr. TOWER. I wish to have the floor
before the question is put before the
Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. When the
question was put, the Senator from Idaho
lost the floor. Does the Senator from
Texas wish the floor?
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I intend
to proceed for some minutes. It may run
to an hour, and conceivably longer than
that. Therefore, I would be happy to
yield to any of my colleagues who might
have some comment on this particular
amendment.
Mr. HOLLAND, Mr, President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. TOWER. I yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. If the Senator does
oppose this amendment, I shall of course,
stay here; but I have conferees in my
office. If the Senator has no opposition
to this amendment, I would hope he
would permit its passage.
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, 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. TOWER. M. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHURCH, Mr. President, I move
the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendments
beginning on page 9, line 1.
tjt=t169.2411-17;4:titstg*It,oi move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was adopted.
Mr. HOLLAND. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
cikg.geac1.4?,-
.41.1?1100.1?1.?????11111?Mb
PUBLIC OPINION POLLS THE PRESIDENT PLUNKS
M CHURCH. Mr. President, some
Sena rs have argued, in the course of
this d ate, that the Senate should take
no acti of any kind, inasmuch as re-
cent po s have shown the President
comman 'ng a better than 50 percent
standing public opinion in the wake
of the Am loan invasion of Cambodia.
These polls e widely used to bolster
the argtune that a majority of the
American peo le support the President's
Cambodian ac on.
What these a guments fail to take into
account, howe r, is the phenomenon
known to public epinlon analysts as the
"rallying to the ause" factor in deter-
mining the depth if public opinion.
I have here a pa or that has just been
prepared by Prof. 'chard A. Brody, of
Stanford University, respected analyst
of public opinion, co erning the May 3
Gallup poll showing percent of the
public "approving of t way President
Nixon is handling the C bodian situa-
tion." It is interesting t at this is the
same percentage the Pre dent enjoyed
in March on his handling if the Viet-
nam situation.
Professor Brody has come the con-
clusion that contrary to the resident
commanding a favorable majo ty from
the American public, this poll " ctuallY
Indicates opposition and not supp rt."
The professor points out that ublic
opinion favoring the President "c bs ?
sharply when he takes action?an ac-
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
7642
Approved Fa.; p.ivm a912451a6/n&led/1-21RicAng7R0004000800,6fe* 21, 1!)
lion, it seems; if the action is a dra-
matic one, the rise in public approval is
eharieer yet."
some examples well illustrate this
fact. Public opinion favoring President
Truman rose 11 points after American
entry into the Korean conflict; Presi-
dent Kennedy enjoyed a 10 percent rise
in popularity at the time of the Cuban
Missile Crisis in 1962, and?as the pro-
fessor notes:
Even Lie disastrous Bay of Pigs Invasion
was followed by a rallying to the cause; ap-
proval of president Kennedy moved from 72
Dement Oes:ore the action to 82 percent it.f-
,,er it.
In the final analysis, Proiessor Brody
states:
The question of approval of President
Nixon's riandling of the Cambodian situa-
tion is thus a test of tile "rirolying to his
cause"; President Nixon dunked that
test.! In other words, tile tragically dra-
matic move into Cambodia has not of-
casioned a rallying oi the American people
to Mr. Nixon's cause.
Mr. President, I commend Professor
Brody's paper to the Senate and ask
unanimous consent that it be printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection. the paper
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
its follows:
THR SILENT MAJORITY STANDS IN 01'ruarlIoN
TO THE INDOCHINA Vi AR
hy Richard A. 13nxiy)
The tiallup Poll showing more than May
percent 'approving of toe way President
Nixon is handling the Cambodian situation"
actually indicates opposition and not sup-
port. In the face of this report, how can one
claim that the "silent majority- opposes the
war in Indochina?
Over the years public opinion analysts havo
alentlited a phenomenon called "rallying t..0.
he cause"; public approval at the President
climbs sharply when ine takes action (any
action. It seems); if the action is a dramatic
one, tile rise in public approval Is sharper
yeC.
Some examples: After the passage of the
Truman Doctrine, public approval of Presi-
dent Truman rose trout percent to
sixty percent; our entry into txie_Korean War
was accompanied by an eleven percent rtte
in approval of Truman; the Cuban Missile
Crisis was followed by a ten percent growth
in approval. Even the disastrous Bay of Pigs
invasion was followed by a rallying to the
cause, approval of President Kennedy move
:ruin seventy-two percent be:ore Cie sett
to eighty-two percent oilier it.
The question of approval of President -
on's handling of the Cambodian anus, on is
Huts a test oi the "rallying to his ause";
President Nixon. dunked that testi March,
on Lite question 01 approval of h handling
of the situation in Vietnam, iiity lie percent
apprirved, in April. roily-eight recut ap-
proved and forty-one percen disapproved;
neither of these polls shows different dis-
,ribution than tile Ciallup hill following his
a,i1,11. In other words, e tragically dra-
mate, move into came is has; not occa-
wiled a rallying or th American people to
NIxan's cause!
If we look at an era to other questions
ceneep asked the blic, we can coins to un-
derstand why t dramatic failure to rally
:a the Presiden taken place: In the first
place the pub is pessimistic about the out-
come. Fiftyi e percent think a major in-
volvement Cambodia is unavoidable?they
ataa:!ree h the President on this score.
Itallyin the cause in the past has been
;iecom Med by optimism or at least a hope-
fulness that "maybe it'll work"?that op-
timism IS now tacking in the public: leas
than a third believe that we can avoid a
major involvement in Cambodia. Beyond
pessimism, the public disapproves of the
Major facet of the Cambodian escalation.
Six Americans in ten disapprove of "send-
ing troops to help Cambodia" and only
tweety-eight percent believe we should.
Pessimism was reinforced by the flow of bad
news from Vietnam was central in the mas-
sive growth In popular dissatisfaction with
the Johnson administration. The pessimism
over the Cambodian invasion Is the prelude
to a withdrawal of public support for the
Nixon administration. And it should be re-
membered that Mr. Nixon began with a sub-
stantially smaller stock of public support
did President Johnson.
If the public rejects the sending of troops
to Cambodia and thinks an undesired major
involvement is likely, why do so many peo-
ple still approve of Nixon's handling of the
war? The answer can only be that a major-
ity doesn't approve of the handling of the
14 at but rather of the President as a symbol.
We can come to understand this if we reflect
on public opinion during the Johnson ad-
ministration. At the ebb of public support
President Johnson, when substantial ma-
jorities disagreed with the main features of
his Vietnam policy, a third of the America
people still were willing to say they approv
his handling of the war. For Presi at
Johnson this situation contrasts sharply itli
the situation in 1986 when the pub ap-
proved not only of his handling of e war
but, of the details of the policy lin he was
following. President Nixon's sup rt seems
to be structured more like that ? f Johnson
at the eoo than Johnson in 1
The symbol of the Preald cy can only .
carry a President so lone d Mr. Nixon's
string is running out. Th silent majority
is not with the President n his Cambodian
experiment.
Mr. TOWER. Mr President, I would
like to discuss two mewhat interrelated
arguments whic mave been pun forth as
criticisms of President and the ad-
ministration d those who support the
U.S. effort ciutuheast Asia.
The first these arguments avers that
tlie cover ? ent now in South Vietnam
is so op essive and indifferent to the
needs ? the people of South Vietnam
that is really no better than that of
H I. The argument is extended, some-
t illogically, to say that unless the
Red States undermines the South
ietnamese Government by negotiating
it away at the bargaining table, this
country cannot pretend to be assisting
the people of South Vietnam.
Let us briefly compare the Government
of South Vietnam with that in Hanoi and
see if there is, in fact, "not a dime's
worth of difference."
First, there are 25 newspapers in
Saigon, many of which often disaeree
strongly with the Thieu-Ky govern-
ment, There is one newspaper in Hanoi,
and I defy anyone to show me an in-
stance in which it has opposed the Com-
munist government there.
There are 60 political parties in South
Vietnam, many of them powerful and
active enough to influence and oppose the
Thieu-Ky government. In North Vietnam
there is only one political party. the
Cominunist Party.
In South Vietnam there is a strong
union movement with some 500.000
members. In North Vietnam there is. of
course, no union. I might add here that
the president of the South Vietnamese
union association, Phan Quoc Buu, no
puppet of the Saigon governme . He
and his newspaper have bitterly posed
It on occasion and even risked prison-
ment to do so. And yet, the u on move-
ment is alive and thriving i uth Viet-
nam.
Finally, I think it is im' .rtant to note
that the Thieu-Ky govi nment has re-
instituted the village lovernment sys-
tem in rural South ietnam. Further-
more, the central vernment is rearm-
ing the villages through the village
militia.
This is par cularly noteworthy. No
government s universally unpopular ?
and oppress e as the Thieu-Ky govern-
ment is a sed of being by its detrac-
tors, wo I dare place weapons in the
hands o the people. And yet, the Saigon
gover ent has actively pursued the
arm ent of village militias. These mili-
tias ave been effective defenders against
Vii ong and North Vietnamese troops.
ey have used their weapons against
e real oppressors, the Communists?
not the Thieu-Ky government. This is
tremendously significant. Is there a Com-
munist country in the world that will
allow its people to be armed? There is
not?not one in the world.
Finally, I would remind those who are
completely critical of the South Viet-
namese Government of a simple his-
torical fact.
During the 100 days in 1954 when the
border between North and South Viet-
nam was open, over a million Vietnamese
people fled from the North to the South.
One million individuals, who "voted with
their feet" against the Communist take-
over of North Vietnam and the dictator-
ship of Uncle Ho, fled to safety in the
South. I am unaware of any mass migra-
tion of dissatisfied South Vietnamese
citizens to North Vietnam. Apparently,
the people in the South are not as con-
vinced as some war critics seem to think
that they would profit from Communist
domination,
I am reminded of the time prior to
World War II when Nazi Germany closed
its borders, on the assumption that the
oppressed Swiss people might flee in too
great numbers into free Germany.
Parenthetically, I would note that the
border was closed by North Vietnam
after 100 days in 1954 in order to stem
the flow of Vietnamese from North to
South. This action was taken even
though the North Vietnamese had signed
the Geneva agreement which called for
the border to remain open for 300 days.
For some reason, any alleged breach of
the Geneva agreement by the United
States or its allies is considered to be
immoral and unconscionable.
But, for some reason, those who op-
pose our efforts in South Vietnam today
seem to think that the breach of the
Geneva Accords by the North Vietnamese
is a matter to be overlooked.
Those who accuse the United States of
violating the Geneva agreement?an
agreement which it never signed?might
well ask just what we would gain from
following an agreement continually
broken by the North Vietnamese.
Mr. President, I do not hold the South
Vietnamese Government out as a perfect
Approved For Release 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7148 Approved For RetwalgieN0A61 it1612P72-00337R000400080065-6
H.D? SENATE 'May 14, 1970
new developments there warrant our
immediate and continued attention.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the article published in the
New York Times of Thursday, May 14,
1970, to which I have referred be printed
at this point in the RECORD, and I thank
the courtesy of the Senator from South
Dakota.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
100 RUSSIAN PILOTS REPORTED IN EGYPT
FLYING INTERCEPTORS
(By William Beecher)
WASHINGTON, May 13.?American and other
Western intelligence sources report that
about 100 Soviet pilots have been sent to
the United Arab Republic in recent weeks
to man three or four squadrons of jet inter-
ceptors.
The sources say that this is in addition to
70 to 80 Russian pilots who have long been
training Egyptian fliers in Egypt. The new
complement of pilots is reported to ,be part
of a military advisory force that now num-
bers 8,000 to 10,000 men.
Military and diplomatic sources have also
provided the following reports on new Soviet
activity in Egypt:
Approximately 100 pilots and their main-
tenance crews were transfirred, to Egypt
from assignments with three or four opera-
tional squadrons in Russia. Some of the latest
model MIG-21's were flown in as well, and
other aircraft were borrowed from the Egyp-
tian Air Force.
The 8,000 to 10,000 Soviet military advisers
in Egypt, up from a total estimated at 2,500
to 4,000 men before the build-up, are said to
include entire air defense missile and anti-
aircraft artillery crews, maintenance men
and communications specialists.
Twenty SAM-3 air defense missile sites
under construction would contain 160 mis-
sile launchers when they are completed. Some
estimates suggest that for a really effective
defense of military bases in the Alexandria,
Cairo and Aswan Dam areas, the Russians
might want to expand to 40 SAM-3 sites.
One unconfirmed report is that the Rus-
sians have moved in an armored brigade of
troops to provide ground defenses against
possible Israeli commando raids on the mis-
sile sites.
The Russian pilots are believed to be op-
erating from a number of airfields west of
the Nile River, from Alexandria to well south
of Cairo. They often scramble into the air
when radar shows Israeli planes are heading
toward the Suez Canal, which is only three
to five minutes flying time from Cairo.
ISRAELI-SOVIET CLASH FEARED
To date no direct engagement between
Israeli and Soviet jets has been reported.
The principal concern of many Nixon ad-
ministration officials is whether the Russians
will decide to take over primary responsibility
for air defense of all Egypt, including the
west bank of the Suez Canal. If this happens,
Defense and State Department officials fear
Israeli jets will be sure to clash with Soviet
jets.
For the time being, Israel is forgoing deep
raids into the Cairo-Alexandria region to
avoid a direct confrontation with Soviet pi-
lots and antiaircraft missile crews.
INFORMATION SKETCHY
Anthrican and Western intelligence
sources concede that information on the
precise shape of the Soviet build-up in Egypt
is sketchy and in some details open to dis-
pute.
For example, Israeli officials recently pro-
vided the United States With tape record-
ings of intercepted radio transmissions that
included 200 excerpts attributed to Russian
pilots.
American sources say these recordings in-
cluded duplications and do not demonstrate
that there are now more than 200 Soviet pi-
lots flying missions in Egypt. Presumably
much of the independent United States in-
formation on the presence of Soviet pilots
also comes from intercepted communica-
tions.
American analysts believe the Russians de-
cided to deploy some of their own air de-
fense ground and air crews out of fear that
continued Israeli air raids deep into Egypt
could undermine President Gamal Abdel
Nasser.
The Russians are also said to have been
angered by an Israeli air strike several weeks
ago near Helwan, nine miles south of Cairo,
in which some Russian military advisers were
reported to have been killed and others
wounded. This incident has not been pub-
holy mentioned by the Russians, the Egyp-
tians or the Israelis.
? Meanwhile, the Nixon 'Administration is
considering whether to provde additional F-1
and A-4 fighter-bombers to Israel:.
Abba Eban, the Israel Foreign Minister, is
coming to Washington next week, apparently
to renew his country's plea for arms and eco-
nomic assistance. Israel is believed -to be
seeking 25 to 50 F-4 Phantom jets and 100
A-4 Skyhawks.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I be recognized
at this time for 8 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
SENATOR McGOVERN ADVISES LE-
GION AND VFW COMMANDERS TO
QUIT PLAYING POLITICS
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I want
first of all to have printed in the RECORD
two news releases?the first, a joint
statement issued by the commander of
the American Legion and the command-
er of the Veterans of Foreign Wars on
yesterday after, according to press re-
ports, they were escorted to the Senate
Press Gallery by the Republican floor
leader, the distinguished Senator from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Scow).
The second statement was issued ear-
lier on February 28 at Jefferson City, Mo.,
by the commander of the VFW, Mr.
Gallagher.
I urge all Members of Congress who
have not seen these statements to reflect
on them carefully and then consider that
they were actually made in the name of
veterans who have risked their lives for
this country. I frankly am shocked and
appalled that two Americans who claim
to speak for veterans could utter such
un-American statements. So before I
comment further on the statements, I
ask unanimous consent that they be
printed at this point in the RECORD. '
There being no objection, the news re-
leases were ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
JOINT STATEMENT DY AMERICAN LEG/ON NA-
TIONAL COMMANDER J. MILTON PATRICK
AND VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS NATIONAL
COMMANDER RAY GALLAGHER
WASHINGTON, D.C. In the name of the more
than six million members of the American
Legion, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and
their Auxiliaries, we condemn the actions
of those Senators who would tie the Presi-
dent's hands by withholding funds from his
efforts to bring the war in Southeast Asia
to an honorable conclusion with safety for
our troops assured.
The proposals of these individuals amount
to a declaration of surrender to communist
forces, and constitute a stab in the back for
our boys in combat.
We would remind these Senators that
they are directly responsible for the presence
of United States forces in Vietnam. They
owe these troops and their country no less
than full support for the President's plan--
so far successful beyond the imagination--
to bring the conflict to an 'honorable con-
clusion with complete safety for our troops.
We specifically criticize Senators Church,
Cooper, Fulbright, McGovern, and others who
follow their actions as prime movers of leg-
islation which would assure the humiliation
of the United States and pose a direct threat
to the safety of our forces disengaging from
the Vietnam Conflict.
We are urging the Congress and all Amer-
icans to unite and support our President and
our forces in Southeast Asia.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo.?The national com-
mander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars said
Saturday the United States might have to
resort to a "police state" to contain the mili-
tant left wing.
Raymond A Gallagher, a Redfield, S. Dak.,
lawyer, told newsmen that America's is a
Government by majority and warned of the
dangers of the militant minority.
Gallagher was in Jefferson City to speak
before State VFW officials.
"Sometimes, the minority must yield to
the majJrity," Gallagher said. "So far they
have not. Instead, they go out into the
streets and demonstrate, destroying build-
ings, even people.
"If the minority continues to refuse to
yield, the only alternative is some type of
power structure to farce them," Gallagher
said. "I hate to see this country develop into
some type of police state, but, to have se-
curity for our people, it may be necessary."
Of the defendants in the "Chicago Seven"
trial, Gallagher said, ". . . you can't have a
mockery like we had in Chicago because they
are dedicated to destroying the system. They
aren't concerned with the courts unless the
courts rule with them. But when the court
or Government rules against them, they re-
bel violently. This has to be stopped."
"This is still a major form of Government,"
he said, "and the majority should be in con-
trol?not the roAnority." He said those on
the militant left have vowed to continue
their tactics "until they make the majority
conform to the minority. This isn't the
American way of life."
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, I want
to admonish Mr. Martin Patrick, the
commander of the Legion, and Mr. Ray
Gallagher, the commander of the VFW,
to quit playing politics with the veterans
organizations and betraying the best in-
terests of U.S. veterans.
These fellows claim to be speaking for
more than 6 million members of the
American Legion and the VFW. I have
been a member of both of those orga-
nizations for 25 years, and neither Pat-
rick nor Gallagher speaks for me. Nor do
they speak for large numbers of combat
GI's who have communicated their views
to me and other Senators.
I regard the views of these self-styled
foreign policy experts as nonsense that
no reasonable person would give a second
thought. Let them extol the virtues of
the Nixon foreign policy, if they wish.
Let them distribute their political propa-
ganda in the Senate Press Gallery _es-
corted by the Republican floor leader, if
they wish. But they ought to take off
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
?May 14, 1970
Approved FRGeeEaSsi(RENK69 -111D AFRAJI 37 R 000400080065 - 6 S 7147
We are solemnly obligated, Mr. Presi-
dent, legally, morally, and in the name
of honor and decency, to stand by these
men even as they stood by America.
We must not forget them, we cannot
abandon them, our principles and our
tradition forbid us to forsake them.
Mr. President. I have catered an
amendment to the pending legislation,
which would stay and enjoin any action
under the terms of the legislation until
the President of the United States has
successfully arranged and obtained the
release and safe return to their families
and to their country of every American
prisoner of war presently held by the
Vietnamese Communists.
America?with President Nixon in the
forefront?prays and strives for peace.
Americans long for a cessation of fight-
ing and dying?of separation and hard-
ship.
This truly great Nation?with her
record of unparalleled generosity to all
mankind?would see Woodrow Wilson's
dream become reality--not a balance of
power, but a community of power?not
organized rivalries, but an organized
common peace."
However, Mr. President, we must
deal?not with noble dreams but with
harsh facts created by the Communist
masters in Hanoi, Peking, and Moscow.
I submit that President Nixon?con-
fronted, as he is, with the cold calcula-
tions, callous aggression, and endless
maneuvering of the latter-day orien-
tal khans?is pursuing--with all his
strength?our great goals of bringing
peace to the Far East and bringing our
troops back home.
I hope that Congress will support our
Commander in Chief in his desire and
his effort to restore and to maintain
peace in the Far East, the Middle East,
and across the earth.
I believe that the defeat of the pend-
ing legislation is in the best interests of
the United States. I believe?also--that
if this legislation is aprpoved, my amend-
ment must be included in order that we
keep faith with those who ?tiered their
lives for us?in order that this Nation
continue to be recognized around the
world as the home of a brave and decent
People who will never turn their backs
on their own.
I assert?Mr. President?that when
the American servicemen who have borne
the battle in Vietnam with uncommon
valor and dedication return to our shores,
that they all return together?the sol-
dier, the sailor, the airman, and the
prisoner. All who have served and suf-
fered side by side have earned this right
and deserve no less.
AMENDMENT NO. 626
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President (Mr.
TIUGHEsP. I am going to be quite brief
because. as I understand it. we are oper-
ating under morning busineas rules.
I am concerned over this matter, and
so are many other people, as to the reac-
tion which has occurred to the Cam-
bodian episode.
For many years, I have been saying
that the action of Presidents Kennedy
and Johnson in injecting ground troops
into Vietnam was a fundamental mis-
take. that I hoped we could get them out
as soon as possible, and that we have to
deal with everything which has been im-
posed upon us by the Ration of the two
prior Presidents.
As a result, I was delighted to have
President Nixon turn that around and
begin to withdraw troops and promise
to withdraw more.
The action now going on, he has stated.
will be completed by July 1. that Amer-
ican forces will be withdrawn from Cam-
bodia and, at that time, we can con-
tinue with the program of withdrawing
an additional 150,000 troops from South
Vietnam.
Accordingly, Mr. President, I send to
the desk at this time an amendment,
which I would ask be printed in the REC-
ORD at the conclusion of my remarks, and
that it be printed and lie on the table.
The PRESrDING OFFICER (Mr.
Iloaars). Without objection, the amend-
ment will be received and printed, and
will lie on the table; and, a ithout objec-
tion, the amendment will he printed in
the RECORD at the conclusion of the re-
marks of the Senator from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, the
amendment specifically backs up what
the President is saying. It provides that
after July 1 we will not authorize the
use of funds for the introduction or the
retention of American forces in Cam-
bodia, except where it may be necessary
to protect the lives of our men in South
Vietnam.
'File amendment would act prospec-
tively' instead of retroactively. It would
follow along the assurances we have re-
ceived from the President. It would re-
tain some jurisdiction in Congress over
what future action may be.
In my opinion, the amendment will
neither hamper the President in preserv-
ing the lives of those ordered into com-
bat nor will it do anything to hinder
the increase in the Vietxiiiinization pro-
gram which the President has already
announced.
As a result, it is my hope that my
amendment can be brought up as. per-
haps, a substitute for the amendment re-
ported from the Committee on Foreign
Relations.
At the appropriate time, I intend to
bring up the amendment and have it
debated.
The text of the amendment is as fol-
lows:
Jaaaaajaaa_ar No. 62(3
On page 4, line 24, strike out section 7,
snd insert in lieu thereof the following:
-SEc. 7. The Foreign MilPary Sales Act is
further amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new section:
'PRONTBSTING USE OF AM TRICAN GROUND
COMBAT TROOt's 1N c A M EIODIA
SEC. 47. In accord vnta the expressed
einen us ot the President of the United
Sta*.es. none of the funds authorized by this
or other Act shall be used after July I, 1270,
to finance the introduction or retention of
American ground combat troops into Cam-
bodia without the prior consent of the Con-
gress. except to the extent that such is re-
quired. as determined by the President and
ported promptly to the congress, to pro-
tect the lives of American troops remaining
within South Vietnam.'"
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. President, in this
morning's New York Times, there is an
article published, under a Washington
dateline, indicating that American and
western intelligence sources report 100
Soviet pilots have been sent to the UAR,
so that it is part of a military advisory
force now numbering 8,000 to 10,000 men.
Mr. President, the widening conflict in
Southeast Asia has obscured, for the most
part, a dangerous escalation of force and
intervention in the Middle East.
The Arab-Israel conflict and the cold
war confrontation between the great
powers represents the greatest danger to
world peace because of the possible in-
volvement of either Soviet or U.S. forces.
The participation of Soviet pilots as
a part of the Egyptian defensive air com-
mand has not only had a serious effect
on the balance of forces there, but could
very well provide the spark which could
ignite an ever consuming and ever wid-
ening war of global proportions.
Mr. President, while Mr. Nixon is be-
ing criticized for a move into Cambodia,
it seems to me only fair to recall his re-
straint and caution in denying last
March the Israeli request for additional
phantoms and skyhawks. The President's
decision to deny this request sought to
.reduce the dangers and the tensions in
the Middle East. Furthermore, Mr. Pres-
ident, the administration's decision was
made not only in the face of domestic
and political pressure, but against the
background of huge military aircraft
purchases by the Arab Nations. These
new inventory of military jets were not
as dangerous as their numbers_ implied,
we understood, because the Arab Nations,
particularly the United Arab Republic,
lacked trained pilots and competent per-
sonnel. Now that limitation has appar-
ently been removed.
President Nixon has ordered a full re-
view of the strategic balance in the Mid-
dle East. The State Department is ask-
ing Moscow for an explanation of its
purpose and intent. But, in the mean-
time, the Congress should be prepared
for the prospect that additional mili-
tary aid to Israel is essential if a bal-
ance of force is to be maintained.
I suggest. Mr. President, that this Gov-
ernment should seek to provide this as-
sistance if found to be necessary on an
international and multilateral basis. In-
deed the call from Israel was for interna-
tional assistance.
Mr. President, the Soviet Union may
not want war in the Middle East, but they
also do not want peace. The Kremlin's
policy is not aimed at returning peace
and stability in that part of the world,
but in establishing a strong Soviet sphere
of influence in the Arab nations?par-
ticularly in the United Arab Republic.
This policy which has led to direct Soviet
intervention in the form of Soviet Mig
pilots represents immense dangers. Nas-
ser's threat to President Nixon on May 2:
King Hussein's criticism of U.S. policy
and his move toward the Soviet Union of
May 4; and Prime Minister Meir's vow
to fight the Russian pilots if necessary a
day or so later are more than verbal
eruptions, but are manifestations of a
deteriorating condition, as we learn of
repeated and stronger attacks across the
Suez Canal and the Jordan River.
To repeat, Mr. President, serious as
may be the problems in Southeast Asia,
circumstances in the Middle East and the
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 14, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
lected families over a 10-month period.
In he New Jersey experiment the Gov-
ern nt was merely making temporary
grants o a few people. With the enact-
ment of .R. 16311, we would be estab-
lishing a ew principle, the principle
that everyo has a right to a certain
level of incom whether he works or not.
I believe that ? Ice this principle is es-
tablished, there ill be a substantial
change in people's titude toward work.
In my view, the adequacy of the
0E0 figures is typica if the adminis-
tration's efforts in regal'. to HR. 16311.
I do not have time in thi peech to go
through the multiple Ma ? . ? uacies of
this welfare expansion legisla in but I
think one point is especially sig 'ficant.
Over 6 months ago, when the a min-
istration was testifying in favor o the
family assistance plan before the Ho e
Ways and Means Committee, Congress
woman GRIFFITHS asked Secretary Finch
to list all the places in the bill where
the Secretary is given authority to de-
cide policy and issue regulations and to
indicate what the regulations might be
in every case. This was an especially
important question because there are
over 30 delegations of authority in the
act. This information was never provided
to the Ways and Means Committee.
When the Senate Finance Committee
hearings were held over a half a year
later, I asked if Secretary Finch could
furnish this information. The Secretary
indicated that he had been working on
some regulations for day care but that
he did not have the information which
Mrs. GRIFFITHS had requested. He prom-
ised to furnish it for the record, but at
the time this speech is being made, the
material requested has not yet been re-
ceived by the Senate Finance Committee.
Therefore, it appears that not only
does the Secretary not know how he
would administer this multibillion-
dollar plan, he does not even care to try
to determine how he will administer it.
As presently written, the act assures
only one thing. It assures that there will
be a guaranteed cash benefit level. There
is no guarantee of job training and lob
placement. As a matter of fact, the Sec-
retary indicated that they have not even
tried to grapple with the problem of
placing welfare recipients in jobs?a key
point in administration rhetoric.
If the bill is to have meaning and if
it is to be a bill which I can support,
there will have to be substantial changes.
The delegations of authority will have
to be changed to provisions of law. More
importantly, there must be some process
which will assure that maximum em-
phasis will be given to job training and
job placement.
I commend to the attention of the
Senate a bill, S. 3156, the Employment
Opportunity Tax Act of 1969, which I
introduced last November.
The bill I introduced would provide a
10-percent tax credit to industries which
would conduct a job training program.
The tax credit would be available only to
employers who provide on-the-job train-
ing and who keep the employee on the
job after he is trained. Another impor-
tant feature of my bill is a provision for
a 10-percent tax credit for employers
who hire an individual through the work <
incentive program of the Social Security
Act. At the time I introduced this bill, I
realized that the work incentive program
enacted in 1967 had been a dismal fail-
ure. Few individuals were enrolled in
training programs and even fewer had
actually been placed in productive jobs.
In moet cases, individuals who are cur-
rently on the welfare rolls are not the
best employment risks. Therefore, if we
are to encourage industry to hire these
individuals, we must give tax credit.
During President Nixon's campaign,
he urged the adoption of tax incentives
as a means of promoting more effective
job training. There is no more appropri-
ate place for tax incentives to be con-
sidered than in conjunction with the
President's family assistance plan.
If. the administration is to make good
on its rhetoric about workfare rather
than welfare, it must secure the adoption
of an amendment which will actually
ace welfare recipients in productive
jo
It ust substitute meaningful legis-
lation or the 30 delegations of author-
ity in . 16311. Only when this is done
can the t be characterized as welfare
reform rat er than welfare expansion.
When the enate Finance Committee
sent the Lam assistance plan back to
the drawing bo d, I requested that the
administration g e thorough considera-
tion to my tax in ntive approach and
that it write mean gful work require-
ments into the bill.
Press reports have i dicated that the
administration plans to ake very little
changes in its program.
Mr. President, I hope t t these re-
ports are erroneous. I hope at the ad-
ministration will reconsider s e of the
fundamental premises of its an and
that it will give real consideratio to my
tax incentive approach.
Mr. President, as best I can dete ine
the facts from research by my staff, lir
Government now has some 19 Fede 1
agencies conducting some 39 cliff eren
training programs. They are a complete
mystic maze, and not even Members of
the U.S. Senate can determine how many
there are, how effective they are, or
whether or not they are producing the
desired results.
I know that some of these training
programs are doing a good job. In many
instances, however, they train individ-
uals for nonexistent jobs. In other in-
stances, they send them off to work
camps at vast cost?in excess of $8,000
a year?and they return without a job,
without any increased talent, without
any increased education, only to resume
going on welfare rolls or? walking the
streets of our principal urban areas.
If we have a partnership between Gov-
ernment and business, we can train peo-
ple for jobs then in being; and when they
get through training, they will be trained
for a particular job. They will be on the
payroll. They will become taxpayers
rather than beneficiaries of the taxes of
working people throughout the country.
I do not believe that the overwhelming
majority of American people want to
work in order to provide a living for peo-
ple who choose not to work. That is not
the American way. I think the over-
whelming majority of the American peo-
S 71TP
pie believe in -doing everything they pos-
sibly can for those who cannot work. We
want to help the aged. We want to help
the blind. We want to help the disabled.
We want to help the dependent children.
But I do not believe that the American
people believe that we ought to tax all
our citizens, and that those people who
choose to work and desire to work should
be required to support the individuals
who do not want to work.
Therein, I think, is the great weakness
of the program that the President has
submitted. Should the program not be
revised as the Committee on Finance has
directed, we will have to do some exten-
sive rewriting on our own Initiative. Only
if this bill is changed to provide real
reform can I support it.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. TALMADGE. I yield to the dis-
tinguished Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.
President, I commend my distinguished
colleague, the Senator from Georgia, for
the fine speech he has made and the
facts he has brought out.
I am in full accord with the amend-
ment he has submitted with respect to
the tax incentive. It is the only sensible
approach I know, of to the problem of
hiring those who do not have jobs. An
employer who would hire people to train
them would normally hire them in the
community where the unemployed live,
and he would hire them for a job they
would have permanently after learning
to run the job.
One of the reasons why employers have
not done more of this in the past is that,
under the wage and hour laws today, a
trainee must be started at the minimum
wage scale. The employer carries them
along for several months. The trainee
probably proves inefficient and nonpro-
ductive, and the employer has to let him
go, so he has wasted that much money.
Therefore, employers are prone not to
hire that particular class of people. If an
employer has to hire trainees, he hires
he most apt traineers, high school grad-
tes, the most intelligent, so that it will
co t him the least to train them for a
job e wants them to keep. An employer
who ires people and trains them at his
expe e wants to keep those employees,
becau he has paid for training them.
If th e is some tax incentive, as the
Senator rom Georgia has pointed out,
by which the Government would share
part of t training cost, the employer
would be uch more apt to hire people
who are les likely to be easily trained
over a perio ? of time than he would be
to take the b htest ones he could find
in the area.
Mr. TALMA E. I certainly concur
with the Senato The Senator has had
broad experience 'n hiring employees.
and I know that he peaks with the voice
of wisdom in this fl d.
No employer is goi to employ some-
one when he thinks t employee's pro-
ductivity will be less an the cost of
hiring him. If we can ave a partner-
ship between Governine t and private
business, as the Senator h pointed out,
we can have a training pro am that will
work. When the employee ts through
training he will have a job; e will al-
Approved For Release 2005/06/06.: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
40.41proved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECOR I ) ? SENATE May 14, 190
ready be working. He will become a tax-
payer when Ms training period is over.
In my own _State I visited a number
of industries in searching for answers
to this problem and I found many pro-
grams that were working exceedingly
well.
For example, in We Albany area I
found people operating sophisticated
equipment and making automobile tires.
A few years ago they were plowing be-
hind a mule and some of them were un-
employed. Their educational skills were
very low. Their working skills were low
Prior to training.
Then I went to the Dublin area and
I saw people making furniture that was
shipped all over the world. These were
people who had come from agricultural
areas, who had come from the farms,
with limited education.
I went to Augusta, Ga., and I saw peo-
ple makinn sophisticated surgical equip-
ment and dressings and things of that
type. Just a few months before they
had been unemployed or underemployed.
So I know that a training program of
this type will work. I have seen the re-
sults. I think that Is what our Govern-
ment should do to get people off the wel-
fare rolls, to make productive, useful,
and self-respecting citizens of them, so
that they can contribute something to
society rather than be the beneficiaries
of the other taxpayers of America .
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield for a
question?
Mr. TALMADGE. I am delighted to
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. In
the Senator's survey of the plants he
visited, did he not find that the em-
ployers who hired these people hired
them for a particular job: that when
these people were trained, the employers
needed them?
Mr. TALMADGE. Exactly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may proceed
for 2 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. TALMADGE. They first made
arrangements with the vocational-tech-
nical schools in the community to work
with them and help train these individ-
uals. As soon as these individuals
were trained in these vocational-tech-
nical schools, the employer had a job
for them that day_ They went to, work
that day. They are still working. They are
taxpayers now. They have some pride in
what they are doing. They have self -
respect. They have the respect of the
community. They are no longer bene-
ficiaries of tax funds, but they are tax-
payers themselves.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. The
Senator did not find that the company
making automobile tires started training
people to work in a furniture factory, did
he?
Mr 'FALMADGE. No.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina.
Neither did he find the opposite.
Mr_ TALMADGE. They taught the
trainee to operate a specifie piece of
machinery, to do a specific thing.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. And
when the person was trained, he had a
permanent job.
Mr. TALMADGE. Exactly.
Mr JORDAN of North Cu rolina. He
became a citizen of that community, and
he Is happy in that job because he be-
came a part of that institution, whatever
it is.
Mr. TALMADGE. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. The
Senator has delivered a fine and wise
speech, and in my opinion his approach
Is the way out of this problem.
Mr. TALMADGE_ I appreciate the re-
marks of the Senator. and I appreciate
his contribution.
ORDER FOR TRANSAL tiON OF
ROUTINE MORNING BUSINESS
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent that there be a Period
for the transaction of routing morning
business, with a 3-minute limitation on
statements therein.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, will the
Senator withhold that request?
Mr. TALMADGE. Yes.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President. I ask
unanimous consent to speak for 6 min-
utes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is FO ordered,
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that, at the conclu-
sion of the speech of the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. EASTLAND).
there be a period for the transaction of
routine morning business, with state-
ments therein limited to 3 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
obiection. It is so ordered,
The Senator from Mississippi is-recog-
nized for 6 minutes.
litforisaarelaaaCiataalaiLidatULY.aerei&Lare.
plaT..--STallatigailaaa _taw laaartarD-
j2Lagi.
ANAZ.12LAKN
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I send
to-the desk an amendment, and I ask
unanimous consent that it be printed and
lie on the table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Moss). Without objection, the amend-
ment will be received and printed, and
will lie on the table.
The amendment (No. 625) was re-
ceived and ordered to Ile on the table.
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, I op-
pose the pending legislation for a num-
ber of very basic reasons.
My opposition is based on the firm be-
lief that this action comes at the wrong
time and is directed toward the wrong
President.
This President has already reduced?
substantially?the number of Americans
engaged in Vietnam and has announced
ailother withdrawal of 150,000 of our
GIs.
Further, the operation he ordered
against areas under the complete con-
trol?for an extended period of time?
of the Hanoi Communists is aimed di-
rectly at the achievement of the goal
toward which we strive?the safe dis-
engagement and removal of our fighting
forces from Vietnam.
Any first-year student at West Point.
Annapolis, or in an ROTC program?
provided that some ROTC units survive
the vicious attack that has been
launched against this concept., which
has done so much for our country?any
of these students can state, with abso-
lute certainty, that the denial of logisti-
cal support to an enemy is the first rule
of warfare.
The capture?by American and
South Vietnamese troops?of enormous
amounts of weapons, ammunition, and
other material will cripple Hanoi's capa-
bilities over a wide operational front?
furnish time for the orderly develop-
ment of the Vietnamiza.tion program?
and?most important of all?contribute
to the security of our own forces.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD a
tentative list of the equipment which
has been captured.
There being no objection, the list was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Military update of Cambodian operations,
May 13,1970
Latest cumulative data:
Individual weapons captured_ _ _ 7.274
Crew-served weapons captured__ 1,012
Rice (tons) 2,390
Rice (man-months) 105,160
Rocket rounds captured 9,025
Mortar rounds captured 13,231
Small-arms ammunition cap-
tured 8,375,925
Land mines captured 1.200
Bunkers destroyed 3,294
Vehicles destroyed or captured_ - 171
NoTs.?The above figures are tentative
cumulative results as reported by lin, mama
Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, this
President has stated?publicly and re-
peatedly?his determination to bring our
soldiers and sailors home at the earliest
possible date. I am convinced that he is
working very hard to attain this end, and
I am equally convinced that his foremost
concern?as the program moves ahead?
is maximum support and safety for every
man who wears our uniform and whom
this Nation sent to Asia.
Therefore?I repeat?I shall vote
against this legislation because it would
do what the President is already doing.
It comes before us in the wrong adminis-
tration and at the wrong time in relation
to the protection of American forces
committed to combat in the region and
with regard to the safe withdrawal of
these forces.
However, Mr. President, in the event
that this legislation is adopted, it is, in
my view, the clear duty of the Senate
and of this country to remember each
of those American boys who are, today.
enduring cruel captivity as prisoners of
war of the barbarous regime which rules
from Hanoi.
- These men?who have suffered to the
limit of human endurance at the hands
of their Communist captors deserve
what they have earned at the hands of
the land they fought to defend.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For RelQase 2005/06/06 ? CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
CONGRESSIONATi RECORD ? SENATE
labor camps. In a remark-
able political and logistical operation, a
Polish army more than 100,000 strong was
moved out of the Soviet Union via Iran, Iraq
and Israel, to the Italian front which had
just been opened up.
It is not commonly realized that, after the
British and Americans, the Polish army
which General Anders commanded was the
third largest army to participate in the war
on the Allied side.
The heroism of the Polish army in Italy
is a legend which those of us who lived
through those difficult times will never for-
get. In the historic battle of Monte Cassino,
where the Germans had held out for many
weeks against attacking Allied forces, it was
the Polish army which finally seized the
castle on top the mountain after storming
up its bloody slopes; and in doing so, they
opened the way to Rome for the Allied
forces.
General Anders' death is a sad blow to the
Polish exile community and to all men who
cherish freedom throughout the world.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. In
recognition of the very great con-
tribution which he made to the Allied
cause in World War II, I have today
written to the Postmaster General of
the United States urging that the Post
Office issue a commemorative stamp in
honor of Gen. Wladyslaw Anders. I
earnestly hope that this proposal will
meet with the approval of the Citizens'
Stamp Advisory Committee.
SENATOR JAVITS PRAISES NATION-
AL TV PRESENTATION ON VIET-
NAM BY SENATORS GOODELL,
HATFIELD, McGOVERN, CHURCH
AND HUGHES
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, the com-
pelling and reasoned articulation of the
critical need to end the Vietnam war,
presented by Senators GOODELL, HAT-
FIELD, MCGOVERN, CHURCH, and HUGHES
in their Tuesday night television broad-
cast to the Nation, was an excellent con-
tribution to the current national debate
on U.S. policy in Indochina. As a Senator
who has worked closely on many oc-
casions with these same Senators to gain
peace in Vietnam, I wish to make clear
my strong support for their stated ob-
jective of establishing how the Congress
can contribute effectively to end the
Vietnam war. The question for Senators
like myself who agree on the policy ob-
jective is whether the amendment spon-
sored by this group is the' best means
for the Senate to invoke from the legis-
lative and constitutional standpoints.
It is my hope and expectation that
further consultation between the amend-
ment's sponsors and other Senators like
myself will lead to a procedure which
will make possible the support of a solid
majority in the Senate. Senators
GOODELL, HATFIELD, MCGOVERN, CHURCH,
and HUGHES have rendered an outstand-
ing public service in the cause of peace
through their broadcast to the Nation
and in submitting their important legis-
lative amendment to the Senate.
CONCLUSION OF FURTHER ROU-
TINE MORNING BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, fur-
ther morning business is concluded.
AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN
MILITARY SALES ACT
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 15628) to
amend the Foreign Military Sales Act.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent that the
time under the Pastore germaneness rule
begin running as of now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ad-
dress myself to the pending bill, par-
ticularly that part thereof known as the
Church-Cooper amendment.
Referring to the area involved in Cam-
bodia where we have crossed over the
line to get at the sanctuaries, I requested
the Department of Defense this morn-
ing to give me the actual figures, down
to and including the latest available,
with reference to just what had hap-
pened there since that part of the battle
started, with reference to the capture of
supplies, ammunition, and matters that
go to make up military equipment, as
well as the manpower situation.
About an hour ago the Secretary of
Defense sent me this statement, which
I shall read for the information of the
Senate. I think it has a special place,
WO, in the RECORD.
Mr. President, in my opinion, during
the few short days that this part of the
battle has been going on, which is dis-
tinctly and essentially a part of the war
in Vietnam, I think it has been relatively
highly successful. I read this statement,
a summary statement of the activities:
On the basis of current reports of the
amounts of enemy supplies and equipment
located so far in Cambodia by South Viet-
namese and American forces, the weapons
alone are sufficient to equip about 20 enemy
battalions. More than 7,000 rifles and 1,000
crew served weapons (e.g., mortars and ma-
chine guns) have been captured, along with
more than 8 million rounds of small arms
ammunition, which would have supplied
these 20 battalions for upwards of a thou-
sand battalion-size attacks.
Those are enormous figures. Continu-
ing the statement:
:Food supplies located so far comprise al-
most five million pounds of rice, the basic
food for Southeast Asia. This rice would have
fcsa the entire enemy force in III and IV
Corps in South Vietnam for 5 months.
We know that the III and IV Corps
cover a very considerable area in South
Vietnam. I wish that this had been given
in terms of square miles, but that area
Is an important area, and a considerable
area in square miles.
I quote again:
Twenty-two thousand mortar and rocket
rounds have been found. This amount of
munitions would have supplied about 3,000
fire attacks in South Vietnam of the same
intensity that the enemy has been conduct-
ing in recent weeks?about seven rounds per
attack.
That refers to the small, quick, rapid
mortar and rocket attacks that they
have been very successful in. This would
have taken care of 3,000 such attacks.
I continue the quotation:
More than 5,400 enemy have been killed
in Cambodia and about 1,400 have been de-
tained. If earlier estimates of about 40,000
enemy troops in Cambodia are correct, this
S 7175
loss by the enemy means that about 17 per-
cent of his Cambodian forces have been de-
stroyed.
Loses by the enemy thus far in terms of
men, munitions, and supplies will indeed
have a significant effect on his future opera-
tions.
That is the end of the statement.
Mr. President, that means that, almost
within throwing distance of the line be-
tween South Vietnam and Cambodia, arid
really a part of the battlefield that our
men are fighting on, and have been, all
these arms and munitions and battle
supplies have been found which could
have been used and would have been used
in the course of months. Certainly they
would have been used against our men
and the troops of South Vietnam.
Call it what we will about where the
boundary line is, or what strict construc-
tion of the Constitution of the United
States requires, this is a very significant
thing, highly helpful to our position, en-
abling the saving of a great number of
lives of our men and those of the allies.
As a matter of fact, it is the first big
thing that has been done in a long time
that really does substantially contribute
to the bettering of our position there.
Yes, Mr. President, it is true I am a
strict constructionist of the Constitution.
But the time has long since passed for
making a strict construction here, when
we have been sending these men into
battle for months and years, and still
are, right this minute?right this min-
ute?not as a part of an act of aggression,
but as a part of an action, now, of reced-
ing and trying to pull out.
It is under those conditions, and for
those reasons?and because blood is
being spilled, and lives lost, and will con-
tinue to be as a result of the use of just
such ammunition as we are destroying
here?that I say, let us not stay our hand
now, and thus send the enemy word that,
"You will never be subjected to this
again."
I hope we can pull out. I wish we could
pull out tomorrow, out of Cambodia, and
stay out forever. But I know as long as
we are there, engaged in these battles,
we ought not to be sending ward to the
enemy, "We are going to leave you alone
hereafter as far as this area is con-
cerned."
That is what we will be doing if we pass
a law saying that our Commander in
Chief is prohibited from doing anything
like this again, regardless of the circum-
stances, unless he can get another law
passed.
There are a lot of things about this
war that are not pleasing to me. We have
made plenty of mistakes. But I pray we
will not make this mistake. Not this one,
sending such glad tidings to our adver-
saries, not only those in Hanoi, but those
who are allied with them?Peking, Mos-
cow, and others?that we are going to
tie a part of our other hand behind us,
and we are not going to proceed unless
another law can be passed.
Mr. President, I believe that when all
these facts are exposed, and this has
sunken into the commonsense of the
American people, their verdict will be,
"No; do not do it."
This is not a time to be stepping in
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080Q65-6
S 7176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE may 14, 13,u
here and stopping a procedure of battle
that has every evidence of being highly
profitable_ There is no reason to promise
now that we will never do it again unless
we can get a law passed.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I wish
to commend the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi. Once again he has
demonstrated that he is not only very
learned and knowledgeable, but he is
also a statesman as he rises at this point
in the history of our country to say
some things that ought to be said now
on the floor of the Senate.
I am as concerned as any Senator
about the prerogatives and the powers
of the Congress, and particularly of the
Senate.
But I do not understand the argument
of some who support the amendment
and variations thereof being talked
about today. The Constitution says Con-
gress shall have the power to declare
war. Any Senator is perfectly within his
rights if he wishes to introduce a reso-
lution to declare war, or to argue the
point that war ought to be declared or
ought not to be declared, because the
Constitution does say that Congress has
the power to declare war.
It should be noted, however, that a de-
claration of war is a very broad policy
declaration on the part of the Congress.
On the other hand, the Constitution
gives the President, as Commander in
Chief of the Armed Forces, the respon-
sibility to for military decisions, strategy,
tactics, and so forth. In Congress we
cannot, and should not, attempt to make
battlefield decisions, or to draw precise
lines or to make decisions regarding the
time or scope of a battle, nor should we
try to direct the Commander in Chief
specifically with regard to how battles
should be conducted, or exactly where
they should be conducted. Such decisions
are beyond the Constitutional powers of
Congress and it would not be in the in-
terests of the United States for the Con-
gress to attempt to make such deci-
sions. I am very much concerned that
the amendment before us gets into that
territory and that area of decisionmak-
ing?areas which are appropriately and
Properly left to the Commander in Chief.
As one Senator, I would not favor a
declaration of war at this particular
time, under these circumstances. At an
earlier point I think that might have
been a question properly to be put to
the Senate. It is somewhat of a moot
question now, because under the facts
as they have developed, we are as a mat-
ter of fact engaged in a war with North
Vietnam and the Vietcong.
We are not engaged in a war with
Cambodia. We have not invaded Cam-
bidia. as some of the critics say over
and over again. We are not challenging
the Government of Cambodia. We are
not contesting the Armed Forces of Cam-
bodia. In fact, we are not even on ter-
ritory that the Government of Cam-
bodia has occupied or controlled during
recent years.
In Cambodia we are involved in hostil-
ities with the same enemy and we are
lighting him on territory and on geo-
graphy that the enemy, and not the
Government of Cambodia, has occupied
and controlled during recent years.
As we consider these amendments re-
solutions, particularly the so-called
Church-Cooper amendment, it is impor-
tant to keep in mind that one person is
absolutely essential to the hope of nego-
tiating a peaceful settlement of this war,
and one person is absolutely essential to
the success of an orderly withdrawal of
our troops. Of course, that person is the
President of the United States.
The credibility of the President of the
United States is very important. That the
President of the United States should be
believed; that others realize that he
means what he says and says what he
means, is of utmost importance?not
only in the United States, but more im-
portant, as far as the enemy is con-
cei lied. Because if the Senate should in-
fer by the adoption of this amendment
that we doubt, or do not believe the
President, then how can we expect the
enemy to believe what the President of
the United States is saying?
Such an inference would not only be
very damaging to the prospects for peace,
but it, would also be very unfair. I submits
to this President who has been cautious
arid very careful in his statements con-
cerning the Vietnam war.
He has not made overly optimistic
statements about our progress in the
war. He has made no promises that he
has not felt firmly convinced he could
keep. On the basis of his record so far,
surely this President is entitled to some
good faith support on the part of Con-
gress. He is entitled t6 the benefit of the
doubt, particularly because the credibil-
ity of the President of the United States
is so essential to the goals that we all
want.
So I believe the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi is performing a great
service today when he points out the
dangers that are inherent in the amend-
ment we are considering.
Even if we were to draft an amend-
ment which was precisely tailored to the
exact and actual intentions of the Presi-
dent, it seems to me that it would be a
mistake to adopt such an amendment.
We would be tying our own hands need-
le.ssly in a way that would serve the
enemy, and would make it more difficult
to negotiate with the enemy. I am sure
the enemy would be delighted if we were
to announce that we are going to tie our
OA n hands in this way.
So I hope that, as this debate goes on,
that Senators and the people will con-
sider carefully what is at stake here, I
hope and trust that the Senate will not
Lake any action which will have the re-
sult of impeding the President in his ef-
forts to withdraw our troops on an order-
ly basis and to negotiate a settlement of
this conflict.
Mr. President, 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 PRIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I am about to suggest the absence
of a quorum, and I think Senators should
be put on notice that this will be a live
quorum.
Mr. President, I suggest the absence of
a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll and the following Senators
answered to their names:
[No. 145 Leg.1
Allott Fulbright
Baker Griffin
Bel imon Hansen
Byrd, W. Va. Hollings
Church Irryeska
Cook liughes
Cooper Javits
Curtis Magnuson
Dole Mansfield
Fannin McGee
Miller
Packwood
Prouty
Proxmire
Schweiker
Scott
Sparkman
Thurmond
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Indiana
Mr. Bsorst a the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. CANNON) , the Senator from Con-
necticut (Mr. Dope), the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) , the Senator from
Oklahoma (Mr_ HARRIS) , the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY), the
Senator from Louisiana (Mr. Lorre), the
Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE) ,
the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. Moat-
TOY?.), the Senator from Connecticut
Mr. RIBICOFF) , the Senator from Geor-
gia (Mr. RUSSELL) , the Senator from
New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS, and the
Senator from Texas (Mr. YARBOROUGH) ,
are necessarily absent.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT ) , the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
BROOKE) , the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
GOLDWATER) , the Senator from New York
(Mr. GOODELL) , the Senator from Mary-
land (Mr. MATHIAS) , the Senator from
California (Mr. MURPHY) , and the Sen-
ator from Ohio (Mr. SAXBE) are neces-
sarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota Mr.
MUNDT / is absent because of illness.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum
is not present.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I move that the Sergeant at Arms
be directed to request the attendance of
absent Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
Hottmes). The question is on agreeing
to the motion of the Senator from West
Virginia.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ser-
geant at Arms will execute the order of
the Senate.
After some delay, the following Sena-
tors entered the Chamber and answered
to their names:
Aiken
Allen
Anderson
Bible
Boggs
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Case
Cotton
Cranston
Dominick
Eagleton
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Fong
Gore
Gurney
Hart
Hartke
Hatfield
Holland
Inouye
Jackson
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
McCarthy
McClellan
McGovern
McIntyre
Metcalf
Moss
Muskle
Nelson
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Randolph
Smith, Maine
Smith, Ill.
Spong
Stennis
Stevens
Symington
Talmadge
Tower
Tydlngs
Williams, Del.
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
The PRESIDING OFFIE,Lit. A quo-
rum is present.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Ago oved For Release 2005/06/06 ? CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May .14, 197w r CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S7177
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The assistant, legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the committee
amendments be adopted en bloc.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I re-
serve the right to object, and at the
request of other Senators, and in my
own behalf as well, I am constrained
to object.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Does the Senator
object to considering the Cooper-Church
amendment, which I assume is what he
is directing his objection against? That
is on the bill. That is one of the amend-
ments put in the bill by the committee.
It was done so regularly, through demo-
cratic and senatorial procedure, and I
just wonder if there is going to be a stall
against considering the Church-Cooper
amendment in view of the conditions
which face the Senate and the country
today or whether we should consider the
business which confronts this body.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, if the
distinguished majority leader will
yield?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I certainly do not in-
tend to indicate any objection to consid-
eration of the amendment. Perhaps I
misunderstood the majority leader's re-
quest. It was a unanimous request that it
be adopted. Was it not?
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is right; that
the committee amendments be adopted
en bloc?the amendments which were
reported favorably by the Committee on
Foreign Relations, which happens to
have jurisdiction of this particular bill.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Then I would respond
to the distinguished majority leader in
this way: Certainly, it is very much in
order to consider committee amendments
when they come before the Senate, and
the Senator from Michigan is only pre-
serving a right which is in accordance
with the normal procedure, as I under-
stand it. The Senate can, of course, adopt
committee amendments by unanimous
consent, but very frequently we do not
do so; and when such an amendment is
not adopted by unanimous consent the
Senate is then in a position to vote on it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
understand the objection raised by the
distinguished Senator. I would say that
usually, as a courtesy to a committee,
almost always, committee amendments
are offered and accepted en bloc.
I call up the first committee amend-
ment.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me for a matter of
information?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.
Mr. STENNIS. As the Senator from
Mississippi understood, the Senator's
unanimous-consent request was that the
amendments be adopted en bloc.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.
Mr. STENNIS. As the Senator from
Mississippi understands, the request was
that they be agreed to all together.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is right. Then,
of course, the bill would be open to
amendment.
Mr. STENNIS. But the Cooper-Church
amendment would already be adopted.
Mr. MANSFIELD. It is in the bill, and
it would be subject to amendment with
the committee amendments?the same
procedure as followed by the distin-
guished chairman of the Committee on
Armed Services as to his proposals when
they come out in legislative form, out of
his committee.
Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will yield
further, of course the Senator from
Montana knows there is divided opinion
here about the Cooper-Church amend-
ment. There was divided opinion in the
Foreign Relations Committee on it. The
Senator from Mississippi does not know
whether it is going to take the turn of
just a vote up or down on the Cooper-
Church amendment, or the proposal of
a substitute, or whether there will be a
proposed amendment to that amend-
ment. Certainly until something more
could be known, the Senator from Mis-
sissippi would share with the Senator
from Michigan the idea of objecting.
I point out that the Senator from
Mississippi does not want to unduly de-
lay the matter, but simply to delay it for
the sake of debate or understanding.
This is a far-reaching matter. It has
been out of the committee only, a short
time, and they have done a lot of fine
work on it.
So it is something we cannot agree to
en bloc, or agree to have go by With just
slight debate.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
think the Senator from Mississippi is
under an illusion if he thinks we are
trying to get by on the basis of a slight
debate. We are not. We are facing up to
a grave constitutional question, which
I think the Senate should be unani-
mously behind, because it is the Sen-
ate's responsibility and authority, in my
opinion, which is at stake. I am sur-
prised that there are Senators who would
place the position of this body in a sec-
ondary position. This is a most impor-
tant issue, and I call up the first amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state the first committee amend-
ment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
On page 2, line 13, after the word "ex-
ceed", strike out "$275,000,000 for the fiscal
year 1970 and not to exceed $272,500,000 for
each of the fiscal years 1971 and 1972;" and
Insert "$250,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 1970 and 1971";";
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the first
amendment.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I am
going to make a point of order of no
quorum, unless a Senator is ready to
speak.
Mr. MANSFIELD. No, make the point
of no quorum, and we will have a live
quorum. We have something pending be-
fore the Senate now on which a vote
can be taken, and on which discussion
should be had.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I suggest the absence
of quorum.
Mr. MANSFIELD. And, Mr. President,
for the information of the Senate, this
will be a live quorum.
The PRESIDING OrTICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called
the roll, and the following Senators an-
swered to their names:
Boggs
Burdick
Byrd, W. Va.
Church
Cook
Cotton
Cranston
Dominick
Ellender
Ervin
[No. 146 Leg.]
Gore
Griffin
Hansen
Holland
Hollings
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Mansfield
McIntyre
Nelson
Pastore
Pell
Percy
Prouty
Schweiker
Stennis
Symington
Thurmond
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quorum
is not present.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia, Mr. Presi-
dent, I move that the Sergeant at Arms
be directed to request the attendance of
absent Senators.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the motion of the
Senator from Maine.
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Ser-
geant at Arms will execute the order of
the Senate.
After some delay, the following Sena-
tors entered the Chamber and answered
to their names:
Aiken Gurney Pearson
Allen Hartke Proxmire
Allott Hatfield Randolph
Anderson Hruska Scott
Baker Hughes Smith, Maine
Bellmon Inouye Smith, Ill.
Bible Jackson Sparkman
Byrd, Va. Javits Spong
Case Magnuson Stevens
Cooper McClellan Talmadge
Curtis McGee Tower
Dole McGovern Tydings
Eagleton Miller Williams, Del.
Eastland Moss Young, N. Dak.
Fannin Muskie Young, Ohio
Fong Packwood
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
CRANSTON) . 4 quorum is present.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, what
is the pending amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment be-
ginning on page 2, line 13.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
would the Chair please have the amend-
ment stated?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state the amendment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 2, line
13, after the word "exceed", strike out
"$275,000,000 for the fiscal year 1970 and
not to exceed $272,500,000 for each of the
fiscal years 1971 and 1972";" and insert
"$250,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
1970 and 1971";
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. Pres-
ident, I would hope that the Senate
would accept the amendment. It does
reduce the amount from $275 million to
$250 million. It would restrict it to fiscal
year 1970, which is about ended now and
just for 1 year, 1971. This was all ap-
proved, as I recall, pretty much unani-
mously by the committee, and I would,
therefore, certainly hope that the
amendment would be agreed to.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
would hope that the Senate, would fol-
low the advice of the distinguished Sen-
ator from Delaware because this is a re-
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved (!grrsTRVEM6CMT6416d0WR_DR-RER37R000400080M-6
S 7178 y- 14, .r-do
duction. It was approved unanimously
in the committee. If we could have a
voice vote, fine; otherwise, I will ask for
the yeas and nays.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas-and nays were ordered.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Florida will state it.
Mr. HOLLAND. Was the committee,
in placing this amendment in the bill,
unanimous in its action?
Mr. CHURCH. The committee was
unanimous.
Mr. HOLLAND. From both sides of
the aisle?
Mr. CHURCH. From both sides of the
aisle.
Mr. HOLLAND. Then what is the rea-
son for a request for a rollcall vote on
this amendment?
Mr. MANSFIELD. The reason is that
some Members desire a rollcall vote,
even though it was agreed to unani-
mously in committee. What the reason
for the rollcall vote is. I do not know.
Personally, I would as soon have a voice
vote.
Mr. HOLLAND. Is there any insist-
ence upon a rollcall vote, in view of the
fact that this was- the unanimous action
of the committee?
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. No. I did
not ask for it.
Mr. HOLLAND. I notice the Senator
from Tennessee expressing himself over
there. Is there any objection to having
a voice vote?
Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Tennessee will state it.
Mr. BAKER. Is my understanding cor-
rect that the yeas and nays have been
ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They
have been ordered.
Mr. BAKER. Then it would take
unanimous consent to withdraw the re-
quest for the yeas and nays?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator is c,orrect.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I ask
that unanimous consent. If anyone
wants a rollcall vote, all they will have
to do is to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Florida?
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objec-
tion is heard.
The question is on agreeing to the
committee amendment beginningun page
2, line 13.
On this question, the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. BATH), the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. CAratox), the Senator from Connec-
ticut (Mr. Dope), the Senator from Ar-
kansas (Mr. F'uLsaisicr), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS) , the Sena-
tor from Michigan (Mr. HART) , the
from Massachusetts (Mr. KENNEDY).
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Mc-
CRRTHY) , the Senator from Montana
(Mr. METCALF) , the Senator from Minne-
sota (Mr. MONDALE), the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA) , the Sena-
tor from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF),
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL),
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STEN-
NIS', the Senator from New Jersey (Mr.
WILLIAMS, and the Senator from Texas
Mr. YARBOROUGH) are necessarily absent.
1 further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Indiana
tIvIr. BATH , the Senator from Connecti-
cut (Mr. Dom)), the Senator from Okla-
homa (Mr. HARRIS), the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. HART), the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. Lonic and the Senator
from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) would
each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that, the
Senator from Utah Mr. BENNETT), the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
BROOKE ) , the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
GOLDWATER ) , the Senator from New York
Mr. GOODELL) , the Senator from Mary-
land (Mr. MATHIAS) , the Senator from
California (Mr. MURPHY) and the Sen-
ator from Ohio (Mr. SAXBE) are neces-
sarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT ) is absent because of illness.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Utah (Mr. BENNErr), the Senator from
Massachusetts (Mr. BROOKE), the Sen-
ator from New York (Mr. GOODELL) , the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
.MoNoT), the Senator froth California
(Mr. MURPHY) , and the Senator from
Maine (Mrs. Shrum) would each vote
"yea."
The result was announced?yeas 70,
nays 3, as follows:
No. 147 Leg
YEAS-70
Aiken
Allen
Allott
Anderson
Baker
Beilmon
Lible
Boggs
Burdick
Byrd. Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Case
Church
Cook
Cooper
cotton
Cranston
Curtis
Dole
Dominick
Eagleton ?
Eastland
Ellender
Fannin.
Ervin
Bayh
Bennett
Brooke
Cannon
Dodd
Pulbright
Goldwater
Goodell
Gravel
Fong
Gore
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Hartke
Hatfield
Holland
Hollings
Hruska
Hughes
Inouye
Jackson
Javits
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan. Idaho
Magnuson
Mansfield
McClellan
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
Miller
Moss
NAYS-3
Thurmond
Muskie
Nelson
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Prouty
Proxmire
Randolph
Schweiker
Scott
Smith, 111.
Sparkman
Spong
Stevens
Syinington
Talmadge
Tydings
Williams, Del.
Young, N. Disk.
Young, Ohio
Tower
NOT VOTING-27
Harris
Hart
Kennedy
Long
Mathias
McCarthy
Metcalf
Mondale
Montoya
Mundt
Murphy
RlblcoS
Russell
Saxbe
Smith, Maine
Stennis
Williams, N.J.
Yarborough
So the amendment on page 2, line 13,
was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will state the next committee amend-
ment.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 2, line 19, after the word "there-
of", strike out "during the fiscal year 1970
shall not exceed $350,000,000 and during each
of the fiscal years 1971 and 1972 shall not
exceed $385,000,000", and insert "shall not
exceed $300,000.000 for each of the fiscal
years 1970 and 1971".
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. Pres-
ident, this would reduce the amount of
credit sales by $50 million. Again, as I
recall, it was approved unanimously by
the committee, and I hope the Senate
will approve the amendment.
Upon request, I ask for the yeas and
nays so that the conference will know
the position of the Senate.
Mr. PASTORE. I ask for the yeas and
nays, Mr. President.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the second com-
mittee amendment on page 2, beginning
on line 19. On this question the yeas and
nays have been ordered, and the clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk called the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Indiana
(Mr. BATH), the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. CANNON'. the Senator from Con-
necticut (Mr. Dom), the Senator from
Arkansas 'Mr. FULBR/GHT), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) , the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS) , the Sen-
ator from Michigan (Mr. HART) , the Sen-
ator from Hawaii (Mr. INouvE) , the Sen-
ator from Massachusetts (Mr. [KENNEDY),
the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG),
the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. Mc-
CARTHY) , the Senator from Montana
(Mr. METCALF) , the Senator from Min-
nesota (Mr. MONDALE), the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA) , the Sena-
tor from Connecticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) , the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL), the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS),
the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WIL-
LIAMS), and the Senator from Texas
(MT. YARBOROUGH ) are necessarily ab-
sent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr.
BATH) , the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. Dope). the Senator from Oklahoma
(Mr. HARRIS), the Senator from Michigan
(Mr. HART) , the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. Lorre), and the Senator from Con-
necticut (Mr. RIBICOFF) would each vote
"yea,"
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT), the
Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
BRooKs), the Senator from Arizona (Mr.
GOLDWATER), the Senator from New York
(Mr. GOODELL) , the Senator from Mary-
land (Mr, MRTiruis) , the Senator from
California (Mr. MURPHY), and the Sen-
ator from Ohio (Mr. SARRE) are neces-
sarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
Corrow) and the Senator from Colorado
(Mr. Domnixcx) are detained on official
business.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approv For Release 2005/06/06 ? CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 14, 197u ed CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
If present and voting, the Senator
from Utah (Mr. BENNETT), the Senator
from Massachusetts (Mr. BaooKE) , the
Senator from New York (Mr. GooDELL),
the Senator form South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT), the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
DomusucK), and the Senator from Cali-
fornia (Mr. MURPHY) would each vote
"yea."
The vote was recapitulated.
After some delay:
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President,
I ask for the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The reg-
ular order is called for.
The result was announced?yeas 64,
nays 7, as follows:
(No. 148 Leg.]
YEAS-64
Aiken
Allen
Anderson
Baker
Bellmon
Bible
Boggs
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Case
Church
Cook
Cooper
Cranston
Dole
Eagleton
Ellender
Fannin
Fong
Gore
Griffin
Allott
Curtis
Eastland
Bayh
Bennett
Brooke
Cannon
Cotton
Dodd
Dominick
Fulbright
Goldwater
Goodell
Gurney
Hansen
Hartke
Hatfield
Holland
Hollings
Hruska
Hughes
Jackson
Javits
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Magnuson
Mansfield
McClellan
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
Miller
Moss
Muskie
Nelson
NAYS-7
Ervin
Smith, Maine
Thurmond
NOT VOTING-29
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Percy
Prouty
Proxmire
Randolph
Schweiker
Scott
Smith, Ill.
Sparkman
Spong
Stevens
Symington
Talmadge
Tydings
Williams, Del,
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
Tower
Gravel
Harris
Hart
Inouye
Kennedy
Long
Mathias
McCarthy
Metcalf
Mondale
Montoya
Mundt
Murphy
Ribicoff
Russell
Saxbe
Stennis
Williams, N.J.
Yarborough
So the second committee amendment,
on page 2, beginning on line 19, was
agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will report the final committee amend-
ment.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. On page 4, line
21, insert the language down to and in-
cluding line 21 on page 9.
The committee amendment is as fol-
lows:
Beginning on page 4, after line 20, in-
sert as follows:
SEC. 7. The Foreign Military Sales Act is
further amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new section :
"Sm. 47. PROHIBITION OF ASSISTANCE TO
CAmaomA.?In order to avoid the involve-
ment of the United States in a wider war in
Indochina and to expedite the withdrawal of
American forces from Vietnam, it is hereby
provided that, unless specifically authorized
by law hereafter enacted, no funds authorized
or appropriated pursuant to this Act or any
other law may be expended for the purpose
of ?
"(1) retaining United States forces in
Cambodia;
"(2) paying the compensation or allow-
ances of, or otherwise supporting, directly or
indirectly, any United States personnel in
Cambodia who furnish military instruction
to Cambodian forces or engage in any combat
activity in support of Cambodian forces;
"(3) entering into or carrying out any con-
tract or agreement to provide military in-
struction in Cambodia, or to provide persons
to engage in any combat activity in support
of Cambodian forces; or
"(4) conducting any combat activity in the
air above Cambodia in support of Cambodian
forces."
SEC. 8. Unless the sale, grant, loan, or
transfer of any International Fighter aircraft
(1) has been authorized by and made in ac-
cordance with the Foreign Military Sales Act
or the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, or (2)
is a regular commercial transaction (not fi-
nanced by the United States) between a party
other than the United States and a foreign
country, no such aircraft may be sold,
granted, loaned, or otherwise transferred to
any foreign country (or agency thereof) other
than South Vietnam. For purposes of this
section, "International Fighter aircraft"
means the fighter aircraft developed pursu-
ant to the authority contained in the proviso
of the second paragraph of section 101 of
Public Law 91-121 (relating to military pro-
curement for fiscal year 1970 and other
matters).
SEC. 9. (a) Subject to the provisions of
subsection (b). the value of any excess de-
fense article given to a foreign country or in-
ternational organization during any fiscal
year shall be considered to be an expenditure
made from funds appropriated for that fiscal
year to carry out the provisions of part II of
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and at
the time of the delivery of that article a sum
equal to the value thereof shall be withdrawn
frorn such funds and deposited in the Treas-
ury as miscellaneous receipts.
(b) The provisions of subsection (a) shall
apply during any fiscal year only to the ex-
tent that the aggregate value of all such
articles so given during that year exceeds
$35,000,000.
(c) For purposes of this section "value"
means not less than 50 per centum of the
amount the United States paid at the time
the excess defense articles were acquired by
the United States.
At the top of page 7, insert a new sec-
tion, as follows:
SEC. 10. (a) No excess defense article may
be given, and no grant of military assist-
ance may be made, to a foreign country un-
less the country agrees?
(1) to deposit in a special account estab-
lished by that country the following
amounts of currency of that country:
(A) in the case of any excess defense arti-
cle to be given to that country, an amount
equal to 50 per centum of the fair value of
the article, as determined by the Secretary
of State, at the time the agreement to give
the article to the country is made; and
(B) in the case of a grant of military as-
sistance to be made to that country, an
amount equal to 50 per centum of each
such grant; and
(2) to make available to the United States
Government, for use in paying obligations of
the United States in that country and in
financing international educational and
cultural exchange activities in which that
country participates under the programs au-
thorized by the Mutual Educational and
Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, such por-
tion of the special account of that country
as may be determined, from time to time, by
the President to be necessary for any such
use.
(b) Section 1415 of the Supplemental Ap-
propriation Act, 1953 (31 U.S.C. 724), shall
not be applicable to the provisions of this
section.
On page 8, after line, 2 insert a new _
section, as follows:
S 7179
Sm. 11. (a) In considering a request for
approval of any transfer of a defense article
to another country under section 505 (a) (1)
and (a) (1) of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, and section 3(a) (2) of the Foreign Mili-
tary Sales Act, the President shall not give
his consent to the transfer unless the United
States itself would transfer the defense ar-
ticle under consideration to that country.
(b) The President shall not consent to the
transfer by any foreign country or person to
a third or subsequent country or person of
any defense article given, loaned, or sold by
the United States, or the sale of which is
financed by the United States (through
credit, guaranty, or otherwise) , unless the
foreign country or person which is to make
the transfer first obtains from the country
or person to which the transfer is to be made
an agreement that such country or person
will not give, sell, loan, or otherwise transfer
such article to any other foreign country or
person (1) without the consent of the Presi-
dent, and (2) without agreeing to obtain
from such other foreign country an agree-
ment not to give, sell, loan, or otherwise
transfer such article without the consent of
the President.
SEC. 12 (a) Notwithstanding any provision
of law enacted before the date of enactment
of this section, no money appropriated for
any purpose shall be available for obligation
or expenditure?
(I) unless the appropriation thereof has
beet previously authorized by law; or
(2) in excess of an amount previously pre-
scribed by law.
(b) To the extent that legislation enacted
after the making of an appropriation author-
izes the obligation or expenditure thereof,
the limitation contained in subsection (a)
shall have no effect.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not
be superseded except by a provision of law
hereafter enacted which specifically repeals
or modifies the provisions of this section.
Sm. 13. For purposes of sections 9, 10, and
11?
(1) "defense article" and "excess defense
articles" have the same meanings as given
them in section 644 (d) and (g), respectively,
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961; and
(2) "foreign country" includes any depart-
ment, agency, or independent establishment
of the foreign country.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the
Chair said "the final committee amend-
ment." Is that correct?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is
correct.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, is the
amendment now pending?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is now pending.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
1VIr. HOLLAND and Mr. HANSEN ad-
dressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Florida.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I would
like to address a question to the Senator
now handling the bill. I note that part of
the amendment; namely, section 10, be-
ginning at the top of page 7, and extend-
ing to the end of that section?indeed,
extending to the bottom of page 9, I
think?relates in part to what is called
"excess defense article" and "excess de-
fense articles."
I ask the handler of the bill if he can
supply for the RECORD a statement as to
whether that term includes captured
materiel, captured by our forces or corn-
ing into the possession of our forces,
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06,? CIA-RDE727QQ337R0004000800,65-6
S 7180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SEEN E May 14, 19i0
from the raids of the sanctuaries, or oth-
erwise.
Before I conclude my question, I note
that on page 9, beginning with line 15,
there is a provision which reads: "de-
fense article" and "excess defense arti-
cles" have the same meanings as given
them in sections 644 (d) and IV , re-
spectively, of the Foreign Assistance Act
of 1961"?which act we do not have be-
fore us.
would like the Racoae to show, there-
fore. what is meant by the terms "excess
defense article" and "excess defense ar-
ticles" in this bill, as to whether or not
that term covers captured materiel, arms
and other captured material of use to
armed forces.
Mr. CHURCH. First, Mr. President, I
ask that the pertinent provisions of the
law referred to in section 13 of the pend-
ing bill?section 644 Id) and ( g ) , respec-
tively, of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961?appear at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the sections
of the statute referred to were ordered to
be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
SEC, 644. DEnNITIONS.?As used in tills
Act?
? ? ? ? ?
(a ) "Defense article" includes:
(1) any weapon, weapons syritein, muni-
tion. aircraft, vessel, boats, or other imple-
ment of war;
(2) any property, installation, commodity,
material, equipment, supply, or goods used
for the purposes of furnishing military as-
sistance:
(3) any machinery, facility, tool, material,
supply, or other item necessary for the manu-
facture, production, processing repair, serv-
icing, storage, construction, transportation,
operatiori, or use of any article listed in this
i?ubsectioia; or
(4) any component or part of any article
listed in this subsection; but
F.-hail not include merchant yeas:els or, as
defined by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (42 U.S.C. 2011), source mate-
rial. bypnxiuct material, special nuclear ma-
terial, or atomic weapons.
(g) "Excess defense articles" mean the
quantity of defense articles owned by the
United States Government which is In excess
of the mobilization reserve at the time such
articles are (dropped from Inventory by the
supplying agency for delivery to countries or
international organizations as grant assist-
ance under this Act.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. One minute, please. I
would like to finish my statement.
Mr. HOLLAND. I have anotner ques-
tion also
Mr. CHURCH. I believe that these two
provisions of the law should appear in
the RECORD, SO that they are available for
everyone to read.
Mr. HOLLAND. Since they are not
available now, will the distinguished Sen-
ator state for the RECORD whether the
provisions of the pending bill to which
T. have referred, "excess defense article"
and "excess defense articles," include or
exclude captured materiel and goods of
military usefulness?
Mr. CHURCH. Although the commit-
tee did not raise that particular question,
the two provisions of the law seem to be
sufficiently inclusive to embrace captured
weapons.
However, the Senator raises a question
for which I am not now prepared to give
a precise answer. We shall endeavor to
get that answer, and as soon as we have
it. I will inform the Senator, and place
the answer in the RECORD.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield further, while I am not
in a position to make any commitment
as to my position on this amendment
whatever at this time, I would hope, re-
gardless of what that position may be,
that the provision of this amendment is
not so broad as to preclude our Armed
Forces in the field from supplying to
allies or those who are defending them-
selves in Cambodia or in Laos with guns,
ammunition, and material of all kinds
which have been captured from the
North Vietnamese or the Vietcong.
Mr. CHURCH. I can reassure the Sen-
ator on that particular point. As he
knows, a certain quantity of AK-47's
which were captured from the North
Vietnamese and the Vietcong in Vietnam
have already been transferred to the new
Cambodian Government.
The amendment does not prohibit the
transfer of weapons of that kind to
Cambodia. It addresses itself, rather, to
a prohibition against American military
advisers. The committee left out any ref-
erence to such weapons because it was
not the committee's intention to exclude
the transfer of small arms to Cambodia.
It was our intention, rather, to prevent
us from getting involved in an escalat-
ing type of military assistance program
that would necessitate our supplying
Cambodia with American military ad-
visers and other military personnel.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield, I appreciate his frank-
ness. I call attention, however, to the fact
that unless there be limiting words ei-
ther in the amendment now proposed or
in the provisions of the earlier act, mil-
itary equipment which had been cap-
tured might or might not be covered,
anti it would seem to me that the wise
course would be to have included spe-
cific language on that point.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. CHURCH. I appreciate the Sena-
tor's having raised this point. We will
supply him with an answer. If there is
any ambiguity, it will be cleared up.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator,
May I say, speaking only as one Senate:.
I would much prefer to have our troops
in the field, with proper authority from
their field commanders, given the au-
thority to transfer such captured ma-
teriel to people fighting for their own
lives against the same people who are
fighting us, the Communists, rather
than simply have it destroyed or brought
back to where it would have to be stored.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, will the
_Senator yield me 1 minute?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I would
like the RECORD to show that the Senator
from New Hampshire missed this last
rollcall because he understood the Ap-
propriations Committee was diligently
trying to report the education appropria-
tion bill, and because he reported to that
committee and could not get back up here
In time to vote. That is the reason, and I
would like to have it appear so in the
RECORD. This Senator will not make the
mistake of being so punctual and faith-
ful in his committee attendance in the
future.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I ask
the distinguished Senator from Idaho if
there is any intention to modify section
12. As it is now written, it would raise
havoc with many appropriations that are
- related to the subject matter of the bill.
For example, it would exclude any
money to operate the overseas schools
for the education of the children of mili-
tary personnel. It would make impossible
payments to widows of recently deceased
Members of Congress. In the first two
appropriation bills that have been passed
by the other body, there are at least a
dozen items that would be adversely af-
fected by this provision as it is now
written.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the ques-
tion the Senator raises has nothing to do
with the Cooper-Church amendment.
Instead, his question refers to the prob-
lem that came before the Senate last year
when we were considering the foreign aid
authorization bill and the Foreign Aid
Appropriations Act. The Senator will re-
call that at that time we were asked to
appropriate more money than the Sen-
ate and the House of Representatives
had authorized in the Foreign Aid Act,
and this amendment was intended to
change that in such a way that appro-
priations hereafter will not exceed au-
thorization bills.
The points the Senator raises have
been included in the amendment's lan-
guage which extends beyond foreign aid
or the field of foreign military sales. I
understand that the distinguished ma-
jority leader and the chairman of the
committee (Mr. FULBRIGHT) are amicable
to restricting this provision so that it will
merely apply to foreign aid and to for-
eign military sales. That would eliminate
the problems to which the Senator
refers.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I would
have no objection to that. Otherwise, I
think the provision raises so many prob-
lems I would have to object to it.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I send
to the desk two perfecting amendments
to section 12, and ask that they be con-
sidered en bloc.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendments will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follotia:
On page 9, line 1, strike out "for any pur-
pose" and insert in lieu thereof "for foreign
assistance (including foreign military sales)".
On page 9. line 8, after "appropriation"
Insert "for foreign assistance (including for-
eign military sales) ".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the amend-
ments.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, may I ask
the Senator a question? I did not follow
where the amendments were to be made.
Are they to be inserted on page 9?
Mr. CHURCH. Right here; yes.
Mr. HANSEN, Mr. President, a little
while ago, I asked for recognition, and
the distinguished senior Senator from
Idaho had made a unanimous-consent
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337M0400080065-6
May 14., 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 7181
request, and, because there was compe-
tition with his voice on the floor, I was
unable to hear what the request was.
Would the Senator be kind enough to
tell me what it was?
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
quest was that the two amendments be
considered en bloc.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield, since his proposed
amendments apply to the amendment
which we are going to consider tomorrow,
since I think there are serious questions
in connection with that amendment,'
which I would not want to see frozen
by the adoption of any amendments
today, I hope that the vote on the pro-
posed amendment to the amendment
may also be put off until tomorrow, so
that we can see it as it is printed in the
RECORD and find out just what its effect
would be.
May I say to my distinguished friend
that I also am concerned about another
thing. As the Senator knows, the Con-
stitution permits appropriations for the
armed services to be made for 2 years,
and the proposed amendment, I notice,
in one or more places applies to amend-
ments pursuant to this act or to any
other act, which would cover appropria-
tions made last year.
I hope that any proposed changes to
this particular lengthy amendment
would be deferred until we have a chance
to see them. We are asked to vote for
them, without even understanding what
is in them.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, in view
of the objection raised by the distin-
guished Senator from Florida, I with-
draw the amendment, and ask that it be
printed. Copies of it will be available for
Senators tomorrow.
I also ask unanimous consent that the
text of the amendment, as proposed, be
printed at this point in the RECORD, so
that it will be available to all who read
the RECORD tOnlOTTOW.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. The amend-
ment is withdrawn.
The amendment is as follows:
On page 9, line 1, strike out "for any pur-
pose" and insert in lieu thereof "for foreign
assistance (including foreign military
sales)".
On page 9, line 8, after "appropriation"
insert "for foreign assistance (including
foreign military sales) ".
Mr. HOLLAND. I express my sincere
appreciation to the Senator. I am not
at all certain that I shall object in any
way to the amendment, but I want to
know what we are doing. As the Senator
knows, if we vote on an amendment to
this committee amendment, that part of
the committee amendment becomes
frozen; and I think that would be unwise;
and I am glad he agrees.
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to oblige
the Senator. In so doing, I point out to
him that the amendment in question
does not relate to the prohibition of as-
sistance to Cambodia which Senator
COOPER and I have offered.
Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator
for his consideration.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the names of
the distinguished Senator from Illinois
(Mr. PERCY) and the distinguished Sen-
ator from Indiana (Mr. HAR'TKE) be
added as cosponsors of the Cooper-
Church amendment. There are now 32
Senators cosponsoring the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent, if it has not already
been granted, that when the Senate ad-
journs today, it stand in adjournment
until 12 o'clock noon tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(Later, this order was modified to pro-
vide for an adjournment until 11:30
a.m. tomorrow.)
AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN
MILITARY SALES ACT
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 15628) to
amend the Foreign Military Sales Act.
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield for a brief state-
ment on Cambodia?
Mr. CHURCH. I would be happy to
yield the floor at this time to the Senator
from Maine.
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. I do not care
to have the floor. It will only take me
about a minute. I will take the floor, if
that is the Senator's wish.
Mr. CHURCH. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Maine is recognized.
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President,
yesterday I received a joint letter from
the majority leader and the minority
leader to me, in my position as ranking
member of the Committee on Armed
Services, urging that the committee give
highest priority to legislation on Cam-
bodia.
The letter had a tone of extreme ur-
gency with respect to "the highest na-
tional interest."
But there seemed to be no particular
urgency in the delivery and transmission
of the letter because while the letter was
dated May 7, 1970, it was not delivered
to my office until 6 days later on May 13,
1970.
The Post. Office Department cannot be
blamed because the letter was placed in
the "inside mail" box and did not leave
the premises of the Senate in its trans-
mission and delivery.
Apparently we need to reactivate the
Pony Express and assign it to service
with the U.S. Senate on matters of ur-
gency of "the highest national interest."
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I have
sent for a copy of the letter which the
distinguished senior Senator from Maine
wrote to me on yesterday, which was
hand delivered by her administrative as-
sistant. 'I sent her a reply in which I ex-
pressed my regrets and apologized. I
think I should make the RECORD clear.
That letter was written on the
seventh, on a Thursday, and I signed it
on the seventh. I do not know who is to
blame for it. I do not think the Post
Office Department is to blame. I am
sorry that it did take that long to be de-
livered.
I think the Senator from Maine was
right in raising the questions she had
because of the slowness in receiving a
communication from the joint leader-
ship. I am personally sorry that I did
not think of using Senate pages to de-
liver the letter at that time. I apologize
to the distinguished Senator for any in-
convenience or embarrassment it may
have caused.
I also sent the following letter to the
other Senators, who were likewise de-
layed in getting the mail?to the chair-
man of the Appropriations Committee,
the President pro tempore of this body,
the senior Senator from Georgia (Mr.
RUSSELL) ; to the distinguished senior
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG),
the ranking Republican member of the
Appropriations Committee; to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
STENNIS), the chairman of the Armed
Services Committee; to the distinguished
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT),
the chairman of the Committee on For-
eign Relations; and to the distinguished
Senator from Vermont (Mr. AIKEN), the
dean of the Republicans in this Chamber,
the ranking Republican member of the
Committee on Foreign Relations. Those
five Senators received this reply. I will
read the letter to Senator AIKEN:
DEAR GEORGE: Please accept my apologies
for the letter sent to you by the minority
leader and me under date of May 7th which
was not delivered until today, May 13.
I am indeed sorry that there was this de-
lay in delivery. I do not think it is the fault
of the Senate mail service. We should have
used a page to deliver the letter. I am deeply
sorry and I hope you will accept my apologies
for any inconvenience and embarrassment
this may have caused you.
With best personal wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
MIKE MANSFIELD.
Mrs. SMITH of Maine. Mr. President,
may I say to the distinguished majority
leader that no apologies are necessary as
far as I am concerned. I wondered about
the urgency of the matter, first; but,
second, I wondered what the value of the
inside mail service in the Senate is to us
in the Senate if it cannot be depended
upon more than that was. I took it to
be an extreme urgency, but apparently
it was not that urgent.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, the
Senator is mistaken. It was a matter of
some urgency. I had thought it would be
delivered that night. I did send the let-
ter in plenty of time. Unfortunately, that
was not the case.
I just want to again publicly extend
my apologies to the Senator from Maine
and to set the RECORD straight so far as
the Senator from Maine is concerned.
Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO
11:30 A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that, instead of the
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE May 14, 1970
Senate convening at 12 noon tomorrow.
the Senate adjourn, upon the completion
of business today, until 11:30 am. to-
morrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR COOK TOMORROW
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that at the conclusion
of the prayer and the disposition of the
reading of the journal tomorrow, the dis-
tinguished Senator from Kentucky tMr.
Como be recognized for not to exceed 30
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Witnout
objection, it is so ordered.
/ AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN
MILITARY SALES ACT
The Senate continued with the consid-
eration of the bill (H.R. 15628k to amend
the Foreign Military Sales Act.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President. will the
Senator from Idaho yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield for
questions.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President. on Tuesday
of this week, the junior Senator from
Kansas submitted an amendment which
I may offer as substitute language for
the so-called Church-Cooper amend-
ment. At that time I said, and repeat
today, that I applaud the sincere efforts,
of the Senator from Idaho, the Senator
from Kentucky, and other sponsors of
the Church-Cooper amendment: but I
also share the concerns of others in this
Chamber regarding the right of any
President to protect American troops,
I am wondering whether the Senator
from Idaho has had on opportunity to
study the proposed amendment that I
submitted on Tuesday. It reads:
In line with the expressed intenttion of
the President of the United States, no funds
authorized or appropriated pursuant to this
Act or any other law shall be used to finance
the introduction of American ground com-
bat troops into Laos, Thailand, or Cambodia
without the prior consent of the Congress,
except to the extent that the introduction
of such troops is required. as determined by
the President and reported promptly to the
Congress, to protect the lives of American
troops remaining within Soul h Vietnam.
This was commonly known in the
other body as the Findley amendment. It
was adopted by the other body and
later dropped from the Military Sales
Act.
It occurs to me this language does, in
essence. what the authors of the Church-
Cooper amendment intends to do or pro-
poses to do. At the same time it does
give the President that right, the right
which he might have in any event, to
protect American troops remaining in
South Vietnam.
I take this opportunity to exchange my
views with those of the Senator from
Idaho. if he has any comment to make.
Mr. CHURCH. I would say, first of all.
to the Senator that the substitute he
proposes would, in my judgment, render
the Cooper-Church effort meaningless.
If this language is adopted, the Senate
will merely be making an idle gesture.
With all deference to the Senator, the
exception he recommends provides a
loophole big enough to drive the Penta-
gon through.
It we are to make a serious effort,
within the constitutional powers of Con-
gneiss to establish the outer perimeters
on American penetration into Cambodia.
it will be necessary, then, to adopt the
language that the committee approved,
or something very close to it.
The proposed substitute offered by the
cher ingui.shed Senator from Kansas is
unacceptable. It would gut the amend-
1114'llt, rendering it meaning Less.
ldr. DOLE. Let me say to the Senator
from Idaho that that is not the intent
of die Senator from Kansas. I am won-
cieling, with relerence to the Senator's
ati,undment, would he concede, notwith-
standing the language in the amend-
ment, that the President has the con-
stitutional power and the constitutional
tiaift and obligation to Lake an action
he felt necessary to protect American
treops.
Mr. CHURCH. I would say to the
Steatur that Senator COOPER and I have
that sed our amendment in such a way
as not to challenge the rigitts the Presi-
delit may have. under the Constitution,
to act as Commander in Chief. We have
also taken -great pains to draft 411e
amendment in such fashion as to assert
powers that we believe are vested by the
Constitution to the U.S. Congress. We
have merely provided that the money
appropriated by Congress shall not be
aye:fable for the purpose of retaining
einsiican troops in Cambodia, or for the
poi ewe of setting up an escalating min-
tasy assistance program that could lead
to an entangling alliance with the new
Cambodian regime. These are the objec-
tives of the amendment. They clearly
fail within the power of Congress. They
simply hold the President within the
limas of his declared policy but, if he
should decide later that these limits need
to be exceeded, that the United States
should extend its occupation of Cam-
bodia. or enter into an obligation to come
to the military assistance and defense of
the Cambodian Government. then he
would have to come back to Congrass,
present his case, and ask Congress to lift.
cations.
That kind of procedure reasserts the
responsibilities the Constitution vests in
Congress, powers which Congress should
have been asserting down through the
years.
With all deference to the distinguished
Senator from Kansas. if we were to sub-
stitute his amendment in place of this
amendment, we would merely be making
an empty gesture.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President. let me say
and make it very clear that I share some
of the reservations of the distinguished
Senator from Idaho. and so stated at the
outset publicly, that I hope our efforts in
Cambodia were to protect American
troops, and to keep the Vietnamization
program on schedule, not an effort to
shore up the Lou Nol government. Thus,
I share the concern of the Senator from
Idaho, the Senator from Kentucky, and
others who have Joined as cosponsors;
but the point is that, notwithstanding
the language in the Senator's amend-
ment. or consistent with the language in
the Senator's amendment, does the Sen-
ator from Idaho agree or disagree that
the President. as Commander in Chief.
notwithstanding the passage of the
amendment and the enactment of the
amendment as part of the Military Sales
Act, would still have the, power, under
the Constitution, to go back into Cam-
bodia or any country to protect American
troops?
Mr. CHURCH. Whatever authority the
President has under the Constitution.
Congress cannot take from him. That is,
however, only one side of the coin. The
other side has to do with the authority
of Congress. as vested in it by the Con-
stitution. The Cooper-Church amend-
ment is designed to assert that authority
in such a way as to keep the present
Cambodian operation within the limits
declared by the President as his objec-
tive. It is idle for us to write language
regarding the President's own constitu-
tional authority. That is why we have
avoided any reference to the President or
to his responsibilities as Commander in
Chief. We have confined our amendment
to that authority which belongs to Con-
gress?determining how and where pub-
lic money can be spent.
Further, the Senator mentioned, in
connection with his proposed amend-
ment, that the Senate had earlier passed
an amendment, which became law, lim-
nine the expenditure of funds in regard
to the introduction of American ground
combat troops into either Laos or Thai-
land.
That amendment pas.sed this body on
December 15, 1969. It reads as follows:
In line with the expressed intention of the
President of the United States, none of the
funds appropriated by this act shall be used
10 finance the introduction of American
ground combat troops into Laos or Thailand.
We did-not then go on to say?
. . except to the extent that the introduc-
tion of such troops is required, as determined
by the President and reported promptly to
Inc Congress, to protect the lives of American
troops remaining within South Vietnam.
It was not thought necessary, then, to
say that. It is not necessary now. What-
ever power the President has under the
Constitution we cannot take from him.
But we can establish limits on the ex-
penditure of public money, so that. if he
wants to exceed those limits, he must
then come back to Congress, present his
case, and ask us to lift the limitations.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Idaho yield?
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator from Idaho yield further?
Mr. CHURCH. I promised to yield to
the Senator from Missouri. I shall then
be happy to yield further to the Senator
from Kansas.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, for
personal reasons, it-was riot possible for
Inc to be on the Senate floor on Docem-
ber 15 last. I am interested in an ar-
ticle from the newspapers on that day,
which pointed out that the White House
endorsed the amendment with respect to
Laos and 'Thailand as being consistent
with administration policy in Southeast
Asia. The article quoted the minority
leader as saying:
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May. 14, 1970Approved For 1j8ftlgscSKOp iadl:672-A00N00400080065-6
... After a White House meeting that Presi-
dent Nixon had told the Congressional Re-
publican leaders that the prohibition,
adopted yesterday by the Senate was "defi-
nitely in line with Administration policy."
Ronald L. Zeigler, the Presidential secre-
tary, gave added emphasis to the Adminis-
tration's acceptance of the Senate move by
saying the White House regarded the prohi-
bition as an "endorsement" rather than a
"curbing" of Administration policy.
The amendment to the defense appropria-
tions bill, adopted yesterday by a '73-17 vote,
states: "In line with the expressed intention
of the President of the United States, none
of the funds appropriated by this act shall
be used to finance the introduction of Amer-
ican ground combat troops into Laos or
Thailand."
This wording, it was disclosed today, was
approved by the White House in aavance of
adoption.
In the wake of the Senate action, the
amendment, hastily drafted during a secret
session on American military involvement in
Laos, was being subjected to varying inter-
pretations as to its significance and impact.
Senator Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho,
the principal author of the amendment, de-
scribed it as a "reassertion of Congressional
prerogatives" in foreign policy, designed to
make clear that the President could not com-
mit combat troops to Laos or Thailand with-
out the specific consent of Congress.
I have been in that part of the world
many times, and do not see any major
difference between the terrain and prob-
lems of any of those various countries;
or differences with respect to what is
or is not the authority of the President,
or of the Congress, with respect to our
relationships with said countries.
Does the Senator agree?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I agree
wholeheartedly. As the Senator well
knows, there lies within Laos as much
of a threat to our forces as lies within
Cambodia. In Laos, the Communist sup-
ply lines extend down the Ho Chi Minh
trail. When we prohibited the use of
any funds in the military appropria-
tions bill for fiscal year 1970 for the
purpose of introducing American ground
combat troops in Laos, there was no
outcry from the White House that this
was undermining presidential authority
or conveying a message to the world
that we were trying to tie the President's
hands. Yet, the same principles were
involved then as are involved now.
All of a sudden, we are told that a
series of ominous developments will oc-
cur if the Senate rouses itself from its
lengthy slumber and begins to assert
some of its constitutional - authority.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
appreciate what the able Senator says,
because this latest venture seems com-
parable to the point of similarity. It
was in October that we found out,
whereas the ground war in Vietnam was
being deescalated openly, the air war
over Laos was being heavily escalated
in secret.
I am sure everyone wants to see hos-
tilities out there lessened, and the whole
business terminated at earliest oppor-
tunity.
Mr. President, I worry about all this
sudden apprehension over the amend-
ment now being offered by the able Sen-
ator from Idaho because of the parallel
aspect of the amendment that everyone
seemed to agree on last December, only
a few months ago.
I am especially worried because the
peoople did not know what was going on
in Laos until we finally got our hearings
out to the public in April, many months
after the testimony had been taken.
When it comes to Cambodia, no one
In the Congress, to the best of my knowl-
edge?and I am on both of the commit-
tees primarily involved?knew anything
about it until well after our troops were
in combat in Cambodia.
I hope that any apprehension on the
part of any Senator with respect to
Cambodia?an apprehension that was
conspicuously lacking with respect to
Laos or Thailand last December?does
not mean there will be more wars out
there; or that we will have more combat
instead of less.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I thank
the distinguished Senator from Missouri.
I agree with him that the action we in the
Senate took last December came follow-
ing disclosures made in executive ses-
sion dealing with the extent to which we
had been committed in Laos, without our
having even been informed.
Basic constitutional questions are at
issue here. Are we going to permit our
Government to slide relentlessly toward
all power being concentrated in the
hands of one Chief Executive?
Are we going to permit our Govern-
ment to become a Caesardom, or are we
going to reassert the authority that the
Constitution placed in Congress?
That is the fundamental issue. I find
it very hard to understand why objection
is being raised, when the limitations we
seek to impose are so reasonable, so
modest, and so much in conformity with
the President's own declared purposes.
And it also raises the same question
that the Senator from Missouri posed
here earlier. Is there something else the
President has in mind? Are we going still
further, or returning to Cambodia again
and again?
If that is the case, then all the more
reason for setting the outer limits and
for requiring the President to come here
and seek our advice and consent con-
cern any move that would involve us
still deeper in the morass of Southeast
Asia.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
heard the Vice President of the Govern-
ment of South Vietnam on the television
this morning. The net effect of what
he had to say was that he did not have
any intentions of stopping at any par-
ticular line in Cambodia.
It seems to me this is another illustra-
tion of why the limitation on what we
supply, as presented in this amendment,
is so important. General Ky is going
right ahead in Cambodia, based on what
it was said he asserted this morning.
I wish that the statement made by
our distinguished Ambassador to South
Vietnam in executive session before the
Foreign Relations Committee only this
morning, and in reply to my bringing
this interview up could be printed in the
RECORD at this point. Of course, it can-
not be. But I must say the whole Indo-
S 7183
china operation is becoming increasingly
disturbing.
I have never taken the floor before to
criticize in this way the conduct of this
war by this Administration; but I just
do not want to see our people again in
the position where they think we are
doing one thing, only to find out later
we were actually doing another.
I am puzzled about current policy
of the United States, all over the world.
Only a few days ago?I believe earlier
this week?I went to a meeting in the
House Office Building attended by many
distinguished Members of the Congress.
Among those who talked in very strong
fashion in support of now supplying
badly needed planes to the State of Israel
were the distinguished minority leader
of the Senate, the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania (Mr. Scorr) , and the distinguished
minority leader of the House of Repre-
sentatives, Representative FORD.
They assured the group gathered at
this luncheon of their full support of
Israel when it came to selling them the
planes in question; good, because this
Is the only country that could sell them
these modern planes, except for France
and the Soviet Union.
I heard this morning also that 168
young Americans were killed last week in
Southeast Asia. That is many more than
have been killed for many weeks, as a
result of these new offensives in Cam-
bodia.
In effect for justification for our being
in the Far East we are told the wars in
Indochina are important to the security
of the United States. We must defend
this country against Communist satel-
lites in that part of the world.
If it is important for us to defend the
United States and all other countries
of the free world against Communist
satellites in the Far East, why is it not to
our own interest, especially when we are
the only country willing and able to do
so, to sell airplanes to the one country
that without any American military, the
only country I know of so fighting with-
out our assistance, is fighting Communist
satellites in the Middle East?
This is one of those peculiar twists in
the foreign policy of the United States
that is not entirely clear to me.
Mr. President, let me commend the
able Senator from Idaho. I listened for
many hours to him and our colleague on
the other side of the aisle, the senior
Senator from Kentucky, when they
drafted this amendment. I am glad to
support it especially in that I note the
able majority leader and the ranking Re-
publican, not only of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, but of the Senate, are
now also cosponsors.
Whereas I have full respect for the au-
thority under the Constitution of the
President of the United States, I have
equal pride, under the advise-and-con-
sent clause of the Constitution, for the
prerogatives and rights of the Congress
of the United States, of which I am a
Member.
I thank my able friend.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I very
much thank the Senator for his splen-
did contribution to the debate.
I remember, apropos of the Senate's
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 20.05/06/06_? CJA7RDP72m110337R0004000800651all ,:1,70
S 7181 CONGRESSIONAL RtCORD ? SEA ATF
action last December in limiting the use
of public money for the purpose of in-
troducing American ground combat
troops into Laos, that we took that ac-
tion after we finally learned the facts.
Things have come to a sorry pass in this
country when neither the American peo-
ple nor the Congress is even told that
our country is being involved overtly in
combat in a foreign country.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President. will the Sen-
ator yield?,
Mr. CHURCH. I shall yield to the
Senator in just a moment..
What was true with respect to Laos
is also true of Cambodia. We tried to
find out what was planned for Cambodia.
Twice the Secretary of State came to
meet with the Committee on Foreign
Relations, once on April 2 and again on
April 27. At neither time were we told.
nor was it hinted to us. that the Presi-
dent intended to order American troops
into Cambodia.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Would the Senator
have included Cambodia In his resolu-
tion last December if he had had the re-
motest conception that we would be at-
tacking Cambodia at this time?
Mr. CHURCH. If anyone had sug-
gested that Cambodia was on the list,
there is no question in my mind that
Cambodia would have been added to
Laos and Thailand. I am sorry it was
not. Perhaps if we had added it then, we
would not be faced with this serious crisis
now.
Mr. President. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Kansas,
Mr. DOLE. I take issue with the word
"attack" used by the distinguished Sen-
ator from Missouri. I also remind him
that another great Missourian, former
President Truman. went into Korea
without the consent of Congress.
Let me say to the Senator from Idaho
that I supported and voted for the reso-
lution on Laos and Thailand. The Sen-
ator knows the language of my substi-
tute is almost identical with the lan-
guage drafted with great care by the
Senator from Idaho and others, except
it has one additional provision.
Does the Senator believe the Presi-
dent. whoever he may be, has a right,
notwithstanding whatever Congress
might do, to protect American troops?
Mr. CHURCH. As I said before and
will say again, whatever right the Pres-
ident has, is vested in him by the Con-
stitution.
It is not within the legislative power
of Congress to deny him that right. That
is not what we are trying to do here. We
are trying to assert the rights we have
under the Constitution.
Mr. DOLE. I concur in that.
Mr. CHURCH. If the Senator would
stop where we stopped in December and
suggest, in line with what we have al-
ready done, that in the case of Cam-
bodia. we adopt a similar amendment
which would read:
in line with the expressed Intention of
he President of the United States, no funds
authorized or appropriated shall be used to
nuance the introduction of American ground
,ombat troops into Laos, Thailand, or Cam-
'podia without the prior consent of the Con-
gress?
Then I would consider it as a substi-
tute. It is the final language that undoes
the limitation.
The final proviso reads. "except to the
extent that the introduction of such
troops is required, as determined by the
President and reported promptly to the
Congress, to protect the lives of American
troops remaining within South Vietnam."
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President. will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I shall yield to the Sen-
ator in a moment.
It is our responsibility here to set limits
with respect to the spending of public
money. We cannot undertake to define
the President's power, but we can under-
take to set limits on the expenditure of
public funds. If the President feels those
limits should be exceeded, let him come
here and make his ease.
Mr. DOLE I appreciate the Senator's
expertise. The Senator is an expert in
this area and I wish to ask this question.
In the event the Cooper-Church proposal
passed, as in the case of the amendment
last December, which was by a vote of
73 to 17, as I recall, tines the Senator
believe that takes away any right of the
President or gives him more rights
than he had under the Constitution? In
the Senator's opinion would it mean that
he had a right to protect American
troops, if it meant crossing a border into
Taos or Thailand? What is the Senator's
best judgment?
Mr. CHURCH. My best judgment is
that he did not send troops into Laos,
which it was recommended that he do,
because he recognized that Congress had
established limits in the law with re-
spect to Laos and Thailand. In other
words, if we assert our authority, we can
establish limitations which the Presi-
dent will respect. If he feels the need,
he will come here and present his case.
That was the role Congress was author-
ized to fulfill in regard to war and peace
until we abdicated our authority, placing
most of it in the President's hands. We
do very little nowadays except vote the
money, while leaving It to the President
to decide who, where, and when we shall
fight.
We have reached the point, however,
where we must reassert our constitu-
tional powers. We must now recognize
that Congress must recover its authority
in those areas that mean the most to the
country, such as war and peace, and
ultimately, the life and death of this
Republic.
Mr. DOLE. Does the Senator from
Idaho agree or disagree that a President,
v.nether it be President Nixon or some
other President, has the right under the
Constitution to protect American forces?
Does the Senator agree that he has this
right., or does the Senator believe he does
not have this right? Perhaps we can work
out some accommodation on the Ian-
gUage if we can agree.
Mr. CHURCH. I repeat to the Senator
what I have said before, because it is the
only way I know to say it. I do not be-
lieve the power lies with the Senate or
the House of Representatives, or both
bodies of Congress, to define the Presi-
dent's authority under the Constitution.
That would be an act of futility.
On the other hand, we can move af-
firmatively within the bounds of our own
powers, and that is what this amend-
ment is designed to do. But if you "fudge"
it up, then it is an empty gesture, and
the Senate becomes nothing more than a
fudge factory.
Mr. DOLE. I would like to ask the Sen-
ator, What happens if we agree to the
amendment and then, the President
finds it necessary to move troops across
a boundary line? Is he then faced with
another confrontation with Congress be-
cause we would not make clear what the
President's rights might be in that case?
Mr. CHURCH. There is no doubt in
my mind that if ever the safety of
American troops is involved, then the
President can make his case and the
Congress will quickly move to do what-
ever is necessary to support the Presi-
dent in his efforts to safeguard Ameri-
can troops. There is no problem along
these lines. That is a decision which
should be shared between the President
and the Congress, as the Constitution in-
tended. It is not a decision which lies ex-
clusively in the power of one man. The
President can always come up here and
present his case. If we draw no limits,
then it is open to him to act alone,
which he has been doing, and which
his recent predecessors have been doing.
In fact, it is this process which has
gotten us stuck so fast in a bottomless
bog in Southeast Asia.
Mr. DOLE. In the face of imminent
danger to American troops, the Senator
says the President must come to Con-
gress and request the authority from
Congress to give protection to these
American troops?
Mr. CHURCH. I have said, and I do
not think it is necessary to say it
again?
Mr. DOLE. I feel it is necessary and
beyond that vital.
Mr. CHURCH. That if the President
should act under his authority, as vested
in him by the Constitution of the United
States, this authority cannot be dimin-
ished or withheld from him by Congress;
but we also have authority that we can
assert, and that it is the objective of the
Church-Cooper Amendment.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield.
Mr. GORE. I have listened with a
great deal of interest to this colloquy,
which deals with a fundamental consti-
tutional question. I would like briefly and
Impromptu to express some views.
The genius of our system is that we
have coordinate, coequal branches of gov-
ernment, with checks and balances one
upon the others and the others upon the
one. The warmaking powers are vested
In the legislative and the executive. A
war cannot be waged except with the
support of both.
By the rationale advanced by my dis-
tinguished and able friend the junior
Senator from Kansas, the President
would have the authority to lanuch an
attack upon China tomorrow, or tonight,
or at this moment, without the approval
of Congress. China is a sanctuary, in-
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Maj 14, /970Approved For it.i8Ragtimptug :Reffig72-gRogooLl000soo65-6
S 7185
deed the greatest sanctuary of the war,
to the enemy in Southeast Asia. It sup-
plies rice, ammunition, the supplies,
equipment, and materiel of all sorts. So
by that reasoning, by that rationale,
without the approval of the elected rep-
resentatives of the people, the Congress,
indeed, even without any consultation
with them, the President could say, it
is in the interest of saving American
lives, the lives of those who are now in
Vietnam, to bomb, to attack, to eradi-
cate the sanctuary in Red China.
Would not that be just as logical, just
as constitutional, as what we-have just
heard?
Mr. CHURCH. I must concede that it
would. The Senator's argument under-
scores the fact that the authors of our
Constitution never envisioned that a
President, on his own decision, would
send American troops to a war in a dis-
tant, foreign country.
The whole purpose of placing the war
power in the hands of Congress was to
make certain that such a fateful de-
cision would be formulated by the rep-
resentatives of all the people, including
the President, and not by the Chief Exec-
utive alone. Why, the framers of the
Constitution would turn in their graves
if they knew how the shared responsi-
bility, which they provided in that docu-
ment, has eroded away.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. GORE. This seems to the senior
Senator from Tennessee a strange in-
terpretation for one who is a self-pro-
claimed strict constructionist. I must say
that I was struck by the lack of logic,
by the lack of reasoning, by the absence
of principle, when the President said to
a group of Representatives and Sena-
tors, at which conference I was sitting
beside the distinguished senior Senator
from Idaho, that he would not go farther
than 35 kilometers without the approval
of Congress. I thought that strange. A
President who, without the approval or
even consultation with Congress, had
ordered an invasion of a sovereign coun-
try by thousands of American troops was
yet telling representatives of the people
that he would not invade farther than
20 miles without the approval of Con-
gress.
What is the difference in principle be-
tween 20 miles and 30 miles, or the whole
country?
Mr. CHURCH. It escapes me.
Mr. GORE. The tragic mistake was
ordering the invasion, the crossing of the
boundary of a small neutral country.
When the reaction in the country and in
the world was adverse then to placate
the Congress he promises about 50 of us
that he will not invade farther than 20
or 21 miles without the approval of
Congress and that all U.S. troops would
be withdrawn from Cambodia by June
30, 1970. But now that the Congress
wishes by this resolution to take his
promise at face value, a lobbying effort
is undertaken and the propaganda min-
idns are unloosed to accuse those of us
who wish to be strict constructionists of
the Constitution where war or peace
and the lives of American boys are con-
cerned of being unpatriotic. Deplorable,
perfectly deplorable.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
from Tennessee for his comments.
Mr. PELL Mr. President, will the
Senator yield.?
Mr. CHURCH. I yield to the Senator
from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. Along the line of the pre-
vious questions and points, when the
patriotism of those of us who support
this amendment, who believe our present
policies wrong, is questioned by the two
largest veterans' organizations, I think
it is of interest to note that 82 percent
of the sponsors of the amendment under
discussion are veterans, as opposed to
71 percent in this body as a whole. I
think it is an interesting statistic.
Now I would like to ask the Senator,
who, as a lawyer, is more educated in
the law than I am, and is also versed in
international law, what is the difference
between the sanctuaries in Thailand
from which our bombers move and the
sanctuaries in Cambodia from which the
North Vietnamese move.
Mr. CHURCH. The difference is that
the Thai sanctuaries are ours and the
Cambodian sanctuaries are theirs.
[Laughter in the galleries.]
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, may we have order in the galleries?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The gal-
leries will be in order.
Mr. PELL. I thank the Senator for
that correct reply.
What would be the difference in inter-
national law if, just as we, the big
brother of South Vietnam, have moved
into Cambodia to extirpate North Viet-
nam's sanctuaries, let us say China, as
big brother of North Vietnam, offered
to extirpate our sanctuaries in Thailand.
So far North Vietnam has intelligently
resisted the blandishments of China, but
suppose one day she succombed. Would
there be any difference in international
law?
Mr. CHURCH. I say to the Senator
that the sequence of possibilities he sug-
gests exposes the weakness of the de-
cision that the President has made to
strike against the Cambodian sanctu-
aries. After all, all of Indochina behind
the enemy lines constitutes the enemy's
sanctuary, and, as the Senator has ob-
served, we have our sanctuaries, too, in
Thailand, in the sea around the Indo-
china peninsula?dominated entirely by
American naval forces?and even, in a
sense, in the air above the battleground,
which is also dominated by American air
forces.
If this war becomes a pursuit of sanc-
tuaries, then, if past experience is any
guide, our thrusts will be met by enemy
counterthrusts, and the danger, of course,
Is that this will force a spreading of the
war, perhaps beyond our imaginations.
Mr. PELL. I would like to ask another
question of the Senator in the field of
law, where I need perhaps to be educated
a little more.
It has seemed to me that in the last
few days that a new dimension has been
added to the Cambodian invasion, or in-
volvement, or incursion, or whatever we
wish to call it, in that we are now not
only involved on the. land and in the
air, but we are also involved on the sea.
We in the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions took some' note of that fact, and
actually strengthened the amendment of
the Senator from Idaho to cover the sea
forces on the river. But at that time
events were moving, so fast that we did
not realize that what seems to be a block-
ade would be extended at sea.
As I understand it, now there is what
is called a protective patrol, which, from
my memory of service in World War II,
means a blockade, around Cambodia and
South Vietnam up to the DMZ line.
In other words, we are treating Cam-
bodia more sternly, when it comes to a
naval blockade or whatever we call it,
than we are Hanoi and Haiphong, which
seems odd.
I was wondering if the Senator's rec-
ollection is the same as mine, that a
blockade usually means war, is consid-
ered as an act of war or can be consid-
ered as an act leading to war.
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct.
Mr. PELL. And, in order to be legal,
does it not have to be effective, in other
words total?
Mr. CHURCH. I would not attempt
to pass judgment upon the legality of a
blockade. The actual effectiveness of a
blockade depends upon its totality.
Mr. PELL. All of these questions on
which I am being educated bear out the
necessity for the passage of the amend-
ment under discussion, and I further af-
firm my delight and pride in being one
of the cosponsors.
Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator
very much for his generous comment.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, will
the distinguished Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Would the distin-
guished Senator pass on the legality as to
the effecitve date? Is the intent, since
it is an appropriations act, not until July
1? Is that the intent?
Mr. CHURCH. No; the amendment is
written in such a way that it would take
effect upon its enactment into law; that
Is, it would take effect immediately after
signed into law by the President.
Mr. HOLLINGS. SA then, in that
provision, for example, on page 5 at lines
4 and 5, "it is hereby provided that, un-
less specifically authorized by law here-
that we now have in course in Cambodia
after enacted, no funds authorized or ap-
propriated pursuant to this Act or any
other law," since the moneys presently
being expended for the 'military activity
are being expended under "any other
law," it would, immediately upon signa-
ture, cut off funds for the present mili-
tary activity in Cambodia at this time,
or prior to July 1?
Mr. CHURCH. I would like to clarify
that for the distinguished Senator.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Yes.
Mr. CHURCH. The amendment goes
into effect upon enactment, but the
amendment provides that no funds shall
be appropriated, or no appropriated
funds shall be used, for certain purposes.
So the effect of the amendment has to
be considered in the light of those
purposes.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-0033ZR000400080065r6 -?
S 7186 CONGRESSION AL RECORD ? SENA-I E, , 1 )
The first purpose is against retaining
American forces in Cambodia. If it were
to happen that this amendment could
be affixed to this bill, could go to con-
ference, could survive conference, and
then go to the President for his signa-
ture before the current operations are
finished--
Mr. HOLLINGS. Right.
Mr. CHURCH. The language of the
bill would still be such as to permit the
President to complete the present
operation.
The amendment prohibits American
forces from being retained, in Cambodia.
The President has said he does not in-
tend to retain American forces in Cam-
bodia. He has assured the country that
they will be coming out within the next
few weeks, and that he will withdraw all
American forces from Cambodia, in any
case, on or before July 1 of this year.
So the amendment is drafted to per-
mit him to proceed with the present en-
gagement within the confines of his own
declared policy. It would, however, pro-
hibit him from changing that policy and
retaining American forces in Cambodia,
without Brat obtaining congressional
consent.
Mr. HOLLINGS. But on page 5, that
number, which is "retaining," is suc-
ceeded by No. (2). which says -paying
the compensation or allowances of, or
otherwise supporting, directly or indi-
rectly. any U.S. personnel in Cambodia.
Ma CHURCH. As instructors. This is
the second objective of the amendment,
which is to prohibit the use of funds for
sending American military advisers and
instructors into Cambodia in support of
Cambodian forces. According to the
President, there are none there now.
The President has stated, moreover,
that the only military assistance he has
thus far approved has beer, the transfer
of small arms to Cambodia. Our purpose
is to prevent that modest military assist-
ance program, which involves no Ameri-
can personnel, from e.scalating into the
transfer of sophisticated weapons, re-
quiring American instructors and Amer-
ican advisers. This would move us into
Cambodia as we moved into Vietnam,
first with a modest military a.ssistance
program, then with military instructors,
advisers, and personnel, and finally with
combat troops.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Obviously, from the
Senator's answer, he understands it
clearly. But in this use of terminology,
where some say we are -withdrawing"
and others say we are -invading," we
cannot tell which direction we are head-
ed. Would the Senator object to a July
1 effective date, since he says all this is
going to end by July 1 and since this
is an appropriation act for the next fis-
cal year, and that is what the Senator
intends and the President intends?
Would that be all right?
Mr. CHURCH. I certainly would give
it serious consideration, I would want
to discuss it with other sponsors and co-
sponsors of the amendment.
This particular point came up in com-
mittee hearings. I want to tell the Sen-
ator the reasons that we decided not to
put the actual date into the amendment
so that he will understand why it was
that a specific date was not included.
The first reason was that it might be
construed as an approval of the action,
which concerned some members of the
committee very gravely.
Second, it was felt that a dateline,
though it is the President's own de-
clared dateline, might be held up as
a manacle to the President which would
prevent him necessary latitude of a week
or two if developments in the field made
that desirable.
We wanted to give him all the flexi-
bility he should reasonably have, while
still taking him at his word, that we de-
cided not to insert the date.
However, an argument can be made on
aite other side of that proposition; and I
know the argument, I respect it. and I
Nay to the Senator that any suggestion
along that line would be one that we
ould seriously reflect upon.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President. I know
that the Senator from Kansas wishes the
floor, and I will not detain him much
longer.
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 terri-
tory in Texas which precipitated the
clash that began the Mexican War.
Abraham Lincoln was then a Con-
gressman from Illinois, and he took
strong exception to the Presidential de-
cision that led to our involvement in the
Mexican War. He wrote some memo-
rable words concerning the Constitution
and the intended limits on Presidential
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 Ilat1011 whenever he shall deem it neces-
zi.ay to repel an invaalon, and you allow him
to do do so. Whenever he may choose to say
Ise deems it necessary for such purpose?and
you allow him to make war at pleasure.
6tudy to see If you can fix any limit to his
power In this respect. alter y-ou 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
orid impoverishing their people in wars, pre-
tending generally, If not always, that the
good or the people was the object. This, our
convention undertook to be the most oppres-
sive and all kingly oppressions: and they ye-
to frame the Constitution that no
,,ne man should hold the power of bringing
this oppression upon us.
I yield the floor.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I AM aware
of that quotation by Lincoln, and I am
aware that he lost the next election. I am
not certain it was because of his position
on that issue.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DOLE. I yield.
Mr. CHURCH. I think it was. I think he
did, indeed, lose the next election be-
cause he stood on a constitutional prin-
ciple that. he felt was more important.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me re-
mind the Senator from Idaho, as I stated
on Tuesday?and again today?that I
approve in part, of his efforts. I know of
his sincerity and that of the senior Sen-
ator from Kentucky.
Everyone, with the exception of some
17 Members, supported the Senator from
Idaho's amendment on December 15 of
last year with reference to Laos and
Thailand. I have quickly reviewed the de-
bate on that amendment, and find no ref-
erence at all to protection of American
troops. Of course, there was no refer-
ence to Cambodia because at that time
Sihanouk was still in power, and it is un-
derstandable why we did not concern
ourselves with that country at that time.
I can also understand why we did not
address ourselves at that time to the
very vital question?and perhaps the
overriding question?in my mind and
that of other Senators, and that is the
protection of American troops and what
right the President may have in respect
thereto. We all recognize, and say pub-
licly?that we should not be involved
in another Vietnam, whether it be in
Laos, Thailand. Cambodia, or wherever.
But I remind my colleagues that Pres-
ident Nixon has kept the faith. He has
kept his promises with reference to South
Vietnam. He has announced troop with-
drawals, and he has carried out each
troop withdrawal on schedule?in fact,
in some cases ahead of schedule.
It appears that in our efforts to cir-
cumscribe the powers of the President.
we are saying to the President, in this
instance. -Even though you say you will
disengage from Cambodia on July 1,
even though you are reducing the war in
Vietnam. even though you have deesca-
lated the bombing, even though you have
reduced the number of troops by 115.000
and have announced another reduction
of 150,000 since January 20, 1969, you
are not to be trusted." So it is incumbent
upon us, in the U.S. Senate and in the
U.S. House of Representatives, not to lit-
erally handcuff the President of the
United States.
We can always rely on the Constitu-
tion. I trust we always may have that
right. It seems, however, that we should
have some position on the vital ques-
tion: Do we or do we not believe that
the President of the United States. when
American troops are threatened with im-
minent danger, has the right to move
to protect them?
The language of my substitute. which
I may offer as a substitute for the- so-
called Cooper-Church amendment. is
identical for the most part to the lan-
guage drafted by the senior Senator
from Idaho last December. It contains
just one proviso and one exception:
Except to the extent that the introduc-
tion of such troops is required as deter-
mined by the President and reported
promptly to Congress to protect the lives of
American troops remaining within South
Vietnam.
Let me make it very clear that I share
the concern expressed by the distin-
guished Senator from Idaho and do not
want to become involved in a war in
Cambodia. I would reject being in Cam-
bodia to shore up the Lon Nol govern-
ment_ I do believe, however, we must give
this President, or any President. the
right to protect American troops who
may remain in South Vietnam.
Therefore, the junior Senator from
Kansas feels that either through some
substitute language or some provision
added to the so-called Cooper-Church
amendment, it should be made clear that
Approved For Release 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Mag /4, 197CAPproved For EkokiklidgmoN Rem12_12pAinooLl000soo65-6
this Congress recognizes that right of
the President. I say to my friend from
Idaho that it appears that by him not
commenting directly on the question, I
assume that one may see it either way?
either the President has that right or
the President does not have that right.
It also appears we are in general
agreement as are most Members of this
body concerning some of the basic pur-
poses of the Cooper-Church amend-
ment. But there are some?I count my-
self in that group?who want to make
certain that the President of the United
States, the Commander in Chief by the
Constitution and the Chief Executive
Officer by the Constitution, has that
right when he determines it is neces-
sary to protect the lives of American
troops remaining within South Vietnam.
Extreme arguments can be made that
perhaps the largest sanctuary is Red
China or that there may be other sanc-
tuaries in Laos or Thailand, and that
this language could be used to undo what
Congress feels it should do.
But if this issue is seriously considered,
then what is really the question and what
is being said to the American people is
that this Congress lacks faith in the
credibility of this President. But I would
say again that the President of the
United States, since January 20, 1969, has
kept faith with the American people with
reference to South Vietnam. He has kept
his promise on troop withdrawals. The
level of troop reduction is now 115,000
below the level when he took office. He
has announced an additional troop re-
duction of 150,000, and that will be car-
ried out on schedule.
The purpose of my exchange with the
Senator from Idaho is to determine
whether there may be some common
ground or some area where not only the
President can be accommodated, but also
the consensus of Congress.
I recognize the power of Congress un-
der the Constitution to declare war and
the power of Congress to appropriate
money. I am aware of the 2-year pro-
hibition and know the purpose of that
prohibition and agree with it.
Mr. President, the junior Senator
from Kansas also recognizes that this
issue has been raised ever since the
time of George Washington?in al-
most every administration since then.
Thus it seems, and I would hope that in
the debate on the pending amendment
perhaps some broad agreement can be
reached. I would, therefore, again ask
the Senator from Idaho, in all sincerity
and with great respect, whether he be-
lieves, knowing the Constitution as he
does, and knowing the rights and pow-
ers of the Congress and the President as
he does, whether he believes that, in the
event of danger to American troops and
the need to protect the lives of those
troops, does the President have that
right?
Would the distinguished Senator from
Idaho comment on that?
Mr. CHURCH. I would be very happy
to comment. Is the Senator going to
continue his remarks?
Mr. DOLE. Yes.
Mr. CHURCH. We are, then, going
back again over the old ground
Mr. DOLE. Let me say ahead of
that?
Mr. CHURCH. I can answer the Sen-
ator. I will answer the Senator. The
President of the United States, acting
as Commander in Chief, has, in the past,
and will in the future, take action he
feels necessary to protect American
troops in the field. We could not deny
him his powers under the Constitution
to do that, if we tried. But, we are not
trying to do that with this amendment.
It is wrong to characterize this amend-
ment as handcuffing the President of the
United States.
It is wrong to cast it in the' light of
not trusting the President of the United
States.
There was a reason that the Constitu-
tion vested certain responsibilities in
Congress when it came to war and when
it came to control of purse strings. Our
Founding Fathers thought that that au-
thority could better be exercised by
many men rather than only by one man.
All this amendment attempts to do is
to impose certain limits upon the use of
public money, which is the prerogative
of Congress. The amendment looks to
two objectives; namely, one prohibits use
of money, to retain American forces in
Cambodia--?which the President says he
does not intend to do; and, second, it
prohibits the use of money to get us en-
tangled in a new military alliance with
the Cambodian regime in Phnom Penh.
Congress has that right. If the Presi-
dent later thinks that these restrictions
on the use of public money should be
lifted, then he ean come here and make
his case and we can decide.
But the insistence that, somehow, the
exercise of the powers which were vested
by the Constitution in Congress is an
affront to the President of the United
States, seems to me to be the most de-
meaning of all possible arguments that
could be made where the integrity of
Congress is concerned.
That is why I say to the Senator?
and I have answered him several times
over regarding it?that I think it is as
plain as it can be, that we intend neither
to handcuff the President nor to inter-
fere with his right to act within his re-
sponsibilities under the Constitution, nor
do we intend to raise questions concern-
ing the sincerity of his purposes.
We simply undertake to impose, on
our own responsibility, certain limits as
to the use of public money. I think the
time has come for us to do that.
If, indeed, the President should decide
at a later date to plunge this country
even more deeply into Southeast Asia,
then I think he should come to Congress
and ask for our consent.
That would be, I think, the result of
this amendment. And I think it would
be a healthy result for the institutions
of this Republic.
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the
senior Senator from Idaho. Again, I be-
lieve there can be some area of accom-
modation here. I am certain that the
Senator from Idaho is aware of the
broad support that was enjoyed by him,
on both sides of the aisle, last December
for his amendment with reference to
Laos and Thailand.
S 7187
Therefore, if that language was ade-
quate in December of 1969, it should be
adequate in May of 1970.
It also occurs to me, there could be
that same broad support simply by re-
stating the Laos and Thailand amend-
ment to read:
In line with the expressed intention of the
President of the United States, no funds
which shall hereafter be authorized or ap-
propriated pursuant to this act, or any other
law, shall be used to Balance the intro-
duction of American ground troops into Cam-
bodia without prior consent of Congress.
Or perhaps some other language, just
to make certain we protect the rights of
those there at the present time. Because,
as stated earlier, I supported the Senate
amendment last December. I recognize
the rights of Congress and its responsi-
bilities under the Constitution. I would
hope that, during the course of this de-
bate, some agreement with reference to
the pending amendment, or some sub-
stitute language therefor can be reached.
But, I repeat, whatever we may feel
in this Chamber, I believe the American
people would interpret action by the Sen-
ate, if the pending amendment were to
be adopted, as a direct slap at the Presi-
dent of the United States for taking the
action he deemed was necessary on April
30, to accomplish two things, to protect
the lives of American troops and to keep
the Vietnamization program on schedule.
Mr. President, it will be some months
before we know whether the President's
judgment was correct.
It will be several months before we
know, whether American lives were saved,
and whether casualties were, in fact, re-
duced.
It will be several months before we
will know whether, because of the action
in Cambodia, the Vietnamization pro-
gram can be kept on schedule.
Thus, whatever the intention may be?
and I question no one's motives?but
whatever the intentions may have been
at the time, it appears clearly now that
this amendment confronts the President
of the United States, who has said time
and again that on July 1, or before, all
American troops will be withdrawn from
Cambodia, and appears to question his
judgment and his word as Commander
in Chief.
I appreciate the response by the senior
Senator from Idaho, and would assume
from his response that he might agree, in
the event of danger to American troops,
that the Commander in Chief could use
such powers he has under the Constitu-
tion, to do what he thinks appropriate to
protect the lives of American troops, or
other Americans for that matter.
Accordingly, I say to my distinguished
colleague from Idaho, perhaps some ac-
commodation can be made, to demon-
strate to the American people that Con-
gress wants to share the responsibility,
that it has an obligation to share the re-
sponsibility, but in doing so, it will not
take an indirect slap at the Commander
in Chief, whoever he may be.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I have
Just one final word this afternoon. I be-
lieve that the discussion has made it clear
that the central issue involved here has
to do with the constitutional powers of
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S7188 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE May 14, 19;-0
the Congress and the President in the
matter of a foreign war.
In the May 14 edition of the Washing-
ton Post, a very impressive and scholarly
article, written by Merle J. Pusey, Is
published. It is entitled "Presidential
War: The Central Issue."
The article is of such quality that it
should be called to the attention of all
Senators.
Mr. Pusey writes:
PRESIDENTIAL WAR: THE CENTRAL ISSUE
.By Merio J. Pusey;
It would be a pity If the serious constitu-
tional issue underlying the current protests
against the war should be lost in the cyclone
of threats. anti-Nixonisms and obscenities.
However clumsy they may be in articulating
it, the students do have a iegitunate com-
plaint. They face the poseibility of being
drafted against their wel for service in a
presidential war.
All the talk about pigs, revolution and
smashing the establishment fails to alter the
fact that, in one basic particular, the dis-
senters are the real traditionalists. Madison
and Jefferson would have understood the
anger on the campuses against tile dispatch
of young men to war in Southeast Asia at the
dictation of one powerful executive. Madison
and his colleagues wrote into the Constitu-
tion a fiat prohibition against such a con-
centration of power. Yet it now seems to be
accepted as standard American practice.
President Nixon reiterated his claim to the
tear power the other night in his news con-
ference in explaining that none of his ad-
'"-ens was responsible for the invasion of
cambodia, he said:
"Decisions, of course, are not made by vote
in the National Security Council or in the
Cabinet. They are made by the President with
the advice of those, and I made this decision.-
The question or going to Congress far the
decision or even of discussing the matter with
congressional leaders appears not to have
been considered. The result of the decision
was to extend the war to another country.
lie any interpretation tnat, may be placed
noon it, this was a grave involvement tor the
eation. Most of our Presidents would have
deemed et imperative to go to Congress for
authority to take such a step.
Now the administration is resisting the
attempt of the Senate Foreign Reiations
Committee to cut on funds for military op-
erations in Cambodia. The committee has
carefully tailored its restriction so as not to
interfere with the President's avowed in-
tention of clearing the sanctuaries and then
withdrawing the American forces. But this
has met with opposition irom tile State De-
partment on the broad ground that actions
of the Commander in Chief should not be
subject to statutory reetrictione.
There are several interesting phrases In
this letter which Assistant Secretary Da-
ted H. Abshire sent to the Foreign Relations
Committee. He contends that Congress
ehould riot limit military spending in such
e way KS to "restrict the lomat (nen Lai pow-
ers of the President tor protection of the
armed forces of the United States.' The um-
piication seems to be that the President Mae
authority to send our armed forces any-
where .n the world, for purposes which he
teinks appropriate, and then to take whet-
ever atiditIonal action he may think feces-
ary to protect those knees. Under this
reasoniug, it seems, no one can do anything
a presidential war.
This view ot the war power is not. of
-.tires. unique with the Nixon administra-
aon. President Truman made even more ex-
eansive claims to unlimited presidential
power. anti LBJ was not far behind. Mr.
:axon's State Department is merely mouth-
ing what has become accepted doctrine in
the executive branch. But it is an outrageous
doctrine that flies into the face of the let-
ter and spirit of the Constitution and is
repugnant to the basic concepts of democ-
racy.
There Is no principle about which the
founding fathers were more adamant than
denial of the war power to a single executive.
After extended debate they gave Congress the
power to ralee and support armies, to con-
trol reprisals and to declare war, which, of
ermrse. includes the power of authorizing
limited war. The President was given au-
thority to repel sudden attacks. but there
is nothing in the Constitution which sug-
gee.s that this can be legitimately stretched
to cover militarr operations in support of
other countries in remote corners of the
werld.
In a literal sense. therefore, it is the stu-
deete?or at least the nonviolent majority
among them?who are asserting traditional.
conetitutional principles? It is the State De-
parment which is asserting a wild and un-
supportable view of presidential power that
intiarlis the future of representative govern-
ment.
Somehow the country must get back to
the principle that Its young men will .not be
da,f tad and sent into foreign military ven-
tures without specific authority voted by
Congress. That is a principle worth strug-
gling for. Congress now seems to be groping
its way back to an assertion of its powers.
but its actions are hesitant and confused, as
If it were afraid to assume the responsibility
for policy-making in such vital matters of
ihe and death.
Of course Congress is at a great disadvan-
tage when it tries to Use Its spending power
to out off a presidential war for which it has
recklessly appropriated funds in the past.
In these circumstances. the President is al-
ways in a poeltion to complain that the result
will be to endanger our boys at the fighting
fronts. Congress. seems to have discovered no
sound answer to that warning.
But Congress could stop presidential wars
before they begin by writing into the law
firm prohibitions against the building of
military bases in foreign countries and the
dispatch of American troops to other coun-
tries without specific congressional approval.
If Congress is not welling or able to devise
$oftie means of restoring the war power to
the representatives of the people, we may
have to modify our system of government so
that the President would become answerable
to Congress for abuses of power. In the light
of our Vietnam experience. It seems highly
improbable thee the country will long con-
tinue to tolerate unlimited power in one
roan to make war.
Mr. President, it is this very objective,
the objective of setting the limits to pre-
',eat our present incursion into Cambo-
dian territory from becoming an unlim-
ited new front in an expanded war in
Southeast Asia that this amendment is
offered. We can set limits now if we will
only act. We can set these limits in strict
accordance with the President's declared
policy if we will only act. Then, should
the time ever come when the President
thinks a further extension of the war is
justified, he would be obliged to come
back to Congress, as he should have done
in the first place, and lay his case before
us. That was the kind of sharing of power
the Constitution contemplated. It is time
we got back to it in this country.
AMENDMENT NO. 628
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I submit an
amendment which I send to the desk and
ask that it be printed and lie at the desk.
The PRIIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be received and printed,
and will lie on the table.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, this amend-
ment proposes to strike from lines 5 and
6 page 1 of the pending amendment the
words "expedite the withdrawal of
American forces from . . ." and insert in
lieu thereof the following words: "... fa-
cilitate a negotiated peace in . . ."
The section presently reads as follows:
In order to avoid the involvement of the
United States in a wider war in Indochina
and to expedite the withdrawal of Ameri-
can forces from Vietnam, It is hereby pro-
vided .
As I would amend it, it would read as
follows:
In order to avoid the involvement of the
United States in a wider war in Indochina
and to facilitate a negotiated peace in Viet-
nam, it Is hereby provided . . .
What I seek to do by this amendment
Is to draw a clear distinction between a
negotiated peace, on the one hand, and
the policy of "Vietriamization," so called.
which we have had since June of last year
and which has not brought an end to the
war and during the existence of which
this country has suffered more than 50,-
000 casualties on the other hand.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President,
adoption of the amendment being de-
bated here today would prevent the
President of the United States from tak-
ing future actions he might deem neces-
sary to insure the safety of our 400,000
troops remaining in Vietnam.
Furthermore, tying the President's
hands in the proper exercise of his role
as Commander in Chief of our committed
military forces, would certainly hamper
the chances for success of the Vietnam-
ization program.
In this connection it could delay the
return home of some 150,000 more U.S.
troops scheduled to come out of Vietnam
by next spring. The President has
promised faithfully to carry out this
withdrawal but if we restrict him he
may be unable to follow through.
Many argue President Nixon had no
right to attack the Communist sanctid-
aries in Cambodia. It is my contention
he had an obligation to do so. In taking
this action he will undoubtedly reduce
our casualities over the next year and
also insure continued success of the Viet-
namiza tion program.
This limited action in Cambodia is
within the range of power of the Presi-
dent as Commander in Chief of our
Armed Forces. He was executing a con-
stitutional prerogative, clearly supported
by history. His power under article 2 of
the Constitution as Commander in Chief
is broad and sweeping. Many Presidents
have committed American forces to com-
bat in foreign countries Without a decla-
ration of war by the Congress. These
operations, for the most part, did not in-
volve an act of war by the United States
against the country involved but were
measures to protect American interests,
personnel or troops. Most of these opera-
tions met with the approval of the gov-
ernments whose territory was involved.
And further, the vast majority of these
operations were limited in nature and
Approved For Release 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
may?14, /970Approved For85Imggin6A06 ? CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
L RECORD? SENATE S 7189
scope, as is our present involvement in
Cambodia.
Our fighting men have moved into for-
eign territory many times. In recent his-
tory President Truman sent U.S. forces
into Korea and we fought-there for sev-
eral years without a declaration of war.
President Eisenhower sent American
forces into Lebanon and President John-
son sent them into the Dominican Re-
public and South Vietnam.
Generally accepted rules of interna-
tional law support the President in the
Cambodian operation. As a matter of
international law when a neutral coun-
try like Cambodia cannot maintain its
neutrality, and when the result threatens
the lives of U.S. forces nearby, then the
right of self-defense is clearly recog-
nized.
The Cambodian operation is a limited
military operation and it has been ex-
tremely successful. Can anyone in this
Chamber deny that this action will, in
the long run, reduce American and al-
lied castialties in South Vietnam?
It seems to me the results of the op-
eration to date should amply answer
that question. As of today the Pentagon
reported the following information:
Enemy killed 5, 404
Detainees 1, 131
Individual weapons captured 7, 540
Crew-served weapons captured 1, 071
Rice (tons) 2,499
Rice (man months) 109, 956
"Man months" means the number of
men who could live on that rice for a
month.
Rockets (each) captured 9,405
Mortars (each) captured 13, 384
Small arms ammunition cap-
8, 474, 425
tured
Land and personnel mines cap-
tured 1,384
Bunkers destroyed 3, 318
Vehicles destroyed or captured 178
In the face of these figures, how can
critics of the President dispute the fact
this operation was needed, was success-
ful, and will save American lives as well
as shorten this war?
Mr. President, while the general thrust
of this amendment argues for U.S. de-
tachment from Cambodia, its provisions
go much further. A brief examination of
the amendment clearly supports this
fact.
In paragraph 1 the amendment pro-
hibits "the retaining of United States
ground forces in Cambodia." This simply
would prevent the use of American forces
in Cambodia for any purpose at any time.
It is unwise to the tell the Commander
in Chief and the military leaders in the
field that the enemy operating from
across the street can come over and at-
tack you, but you cannot cross the street
to his side in self-defense. There is no
clear line defining this border and the
present Cambodian Government is op-
posed to the use of their territory by
North Vietnam as a military base to
launch attacks against a friendly neigh-
bor, President Nixon has described the
Cambodian operation as limited in scope,
and he predicts withdrawal of all our
forces by July 1.
The President also stated any further
operations into Cambodia to destroy the
Communist sanctuaries there will be
conducted by the South Vietnamese.
However, suppose a South Vietnamese
force of several thousand should make a
raid into the sanctuary areas of Cam-
bodia and should be trapped and threat-
ened with annihilation. This amendment
would tie the hands of the President and
the military leaders in such a situation to
the extent they would be unable to
launch a rescue operation should it be
required.
Further, who is to say that the present
Cambodian Government will not collapse
and thereby open Cambodia to unre-
stricted use by the North Vietnamese? In
such an event should we prevent the
President from striking massive build-
ups of enemy troops who are poised to
thrust into South Vietnam and kill
American soldiers remaining there? I
will not be a party to such a restriction.
In paragraph 2 of the amendment the
United States is prohibited from "pay-
ing compensation or allowances of, or
otherwise supporting, directly or indi-
rectly, any person in Cambodia who, first,
furnishes military instruction to Cam-
bodian forces; or second, engages in any
combat activity in support of Cambodian
forces."
Mr. President, the committee report on
the Military Sales. Act to which this
amendment is affixed, states the purpose
of this paragraph is to prohibit involve-
ment of the United States in support of
the Cambodians through the use Qf ad-
visers or military instruction.
The President has already made it
clear that such action is not presently
necessary or desired. Furthermore, the
Cambodian Government has not re-
quested such support. Nevertheless, if the
safety of our remaining forces in Viet-
nam would be enhanced by such action
it seems unwise to me for the United
States to telegraph to the world it would
not undertake any steps in sanctuaries
which threaten our fighting men in
South Vietnam.
Paragraph 3 of the Cooper-Church
amendment prohibits the United States
from "entering into or carrying out any
contract or agreement to provide mili-
tary instruction in Cambodia, or persons
to engage in any combat activity in sup-
port of Cambodian forces."
This paragraph could bring into ques-
tion the legality of our support to the
South Vietnamese Government should
they decide their national security would
be strengthened by providing military
Instruction or support to the Cam-
bodians. These two countries are fighting
the same enemy, the North Vietnamese,
so why should the South Vietnamese be
denied the right to work with their allies
against a common enemy?
The Foreign Relations Committee re-
port on this paragraph states its purpose
is to "prohibit the United States from
doing indirectly what cannot be done
directly," such as paying for the services
of "mercenaries or others who, without
this provision, could be brought in to aid
the Cambodian forces."
Mr. President, I submit we are sup-
porting the South Vietnamese, and if
their security is threatened by North
Vietnamese forces in Cambodia, why
should we withdraw our aid if they find
it necessary to strike the enemy sanctu-
aries there as is presently being done?
Such an action by the South Vietnamese
would surely aid the Cambodians, and
this paragraph apparently would prevent
any forces supported by the United
States from aiding the Cambodians.
If the South Vietnamese deem it nec-
essary to their own security to work with
the Cambodian forces in defeating a com-
mon enemy, why should the United
States stand in their way? That is what
the whole Vietnamization program is
about?allowing the people of these
threatened and invaded countries to
fight their own wars as best they can.
Finally, paragraph 4 raises another
serious question. As stated in the amend-
ment, it would prohibit "supporting any
combat activity in the air above Cam-
bodia by U.S. air forces except the inter-
diction of enemy supplies or personnel
using Cambodian territory for attack
against or access into South Vietnam."
In connection with this paragraph I
raise this question: Who is to say where
the North Vietnamese weapons of war
are headed and for what use? Are these
supply movements against the South
Vietnamese or the Cambodians?
Mr. President, if we pass this amend-
ment it will undermine the President in
carrying out his constitutional duty to
do his utmost to provide for the protec-
tion of our fighting men. Its passage
would wreck any chance we might have
left to obtain a just solution in South
Vietnam by peaceful negotiations.
Finally, Passage of this amendment
would be met by jubilation in Hanoi,
Moscow, Peking, and other Communist
capitals throughout the world, as it
would signal the waving of a white flag
to the forces of tyranny and oppression.
Surely the Members of this body must
realize that passage of this amendment
would tie the hands of the President and
Commander in Chief in many crucial
areas which might not even be visual-
ized in this debate. Its passage could
deny him options which at some later
time might be critical to the safety of
our remaining forces in South Vietnam.
The Senate might be interested in
knowing that during the War Between
the States President Lincoln's conduct of
the war did not always meet with favor
from the Congress. As a result the Con-
gress established a committee in January
1862, known as the Committee on the
Conduct of the War.
This committee told President Lincoln
how to manage the war, and there was
considerable political meddling in mili-
tary affairs. In his book titled "Lincoln
or Lee," Author William Dodd wrote the
committee "hounded the President" on
the conduct of the war despite the great
burdens on the President at that time.
Mr. President, we should avoid any
such parallel in these modern times. The
people of this country elected President
Richard Nixon Commander in Chief in
1968. In 1972 they will have an oppor-
tunity to approve or disapprove of his
conduct while in office. It would be noth-
ing less than tragic if the legislative
branch tries to take upon itself the dic-
tating of military decisions clearly within
the purview of the President.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 7190 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE May 14, 1970
Let us not make the U.S. Senate a war
room front which we dictate tactics and
strategy to a Commander in Chief who
has pledged to Vietnamize this war. He
has kept every pledge made concerning
Vietnam. Some 150,000 of our troops have
;Then successfully withdrawn and another
150.000 will be out by next spring.
The previous administration kept say-
iris the war would end soon. President
Nixon has made no such pledge, but he
has pledged to gradually reduce our in-
volvement. He does not desire an expan-
sion of the war. He favors the opposite.
It would be a tragic mistake to tie his
hands and proclaim to the enemy that
'ehich he has been unable to win on the
battlefield may now be won in the United
States.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent
te have printed in the RECORD an article
entitled "President's War Power Threat-
ened," written by David Lawrence and
published in the Washington Evening
Star of May 13, 1970.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
:From the Wasnington iO.C.) Lvening Star.
May 13, 19 101
PR TRENT'S WAR POWKR "ft !BEATEN Ell
t By David Lawrence,
For the first time in American Ifistery, the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee has
:enored not only the spirit but also the let-
ter of the Constitution. It has approved an
amendment to a bill which, if accepted by
the Senate and the House. would deprive the
commander-in-chief of the armed iorces- -
namely. the Preskient--ot his power to con-
duct military operations. In the midst of a
war, a congressional committee recommends
a law to withhold funds unless its methods
and restrictions are followed.
The principle Is important to the security
of the United States, which has joined with
other countries?twice m Europe and twice
in Asia?to prevent communism from taking
over small countries and eventually dom-
inating the free world.
13y a vote oi 9 to 4. the Set:ate committee
has, begun to say to tile President that tic
matter what contingencies may arise_ lie must
pursue a specified course with respect to
Cambodia. lie is being told to iollow the rules
outlined by the committee in connection with
operaidons that the President Ieels are neces-
sary to protect the remaining American
troops in south Vietnam. Other senators are
proposing modifications. and administration
supporters are suggesting SUM C, too.
Assistant Secretary ot State David M. Ab-
shire, In a letter to the committee, said that,
while the amendment reported out by the
committee coincides with the intention of the
President concerning the limited role of
American forces in Cambodia, "we do not
consider it desirable that actions or the cons-
manner-in-chief should be subject to statu-
tory restrictions."
S. tiody knows just IA hat. the North Viet-
namese nary do after a substantial number
of American combat troops have been with-
from South Vietnam. There is a pos-
- ty that attacks will be launched from
in Cambodia and North Vietnam and
:fie South Vietnamese will need all the
they can get in thwarting tilern. The
e-te Ment, as commander-in-chief, needs a
e hand in dealing with military cumin-
- te.3. This has always been the rule.
amendment voted by the Senate For-
,-e:ii Relations Committee would bar not only
Ise of U.S. combat troops in Cambodia
hilt the employment of American adviser.;
arid instructors. The President, however, has
to look at the problem on a long-range basis.
He must be sure that the American troops
Who are left in Vietnam for the time being
are not threatened by any major offensive,
for this could mean the loan of many lives.
Nixon has said that by July 1 our troops
will be out of Cambodia. The enemy has not
started any offensives that could Interfere
with such a deilsion, but, in a war, nobody
ktiows when or from what direction an at-
tack may Come, This Is why the commander-
in-chief must have the widest discretion In
the use of troops and equipment.
Interference by Congress tri the actual op-
eration of the armed forces is a serious thing
at any time. But nowadays the Communists
can derive much encouragement from such
situation. 'nay may feel inclined to take
thances on the theory that the President
will not dare to return any troops to Viet-
natn once they have been removed. A big as-
sault Might therefore be launched by Hanoi
against the remaining Americans and the
South Vietnamese after a major part of the
S. forces have been withdrawn.
There has been plenty of opposition in
congress by isolationists before Wars began.
But during a war no attempts have been
made actually to impair military movements
m the use of smiles or navies. This has been
'eft to the judgment of the commander-In-
chief.
it may be that If a constitutional convent-
ha called some day, as has been pro-
vosed In recent years, a new amendment will
he offered to restrict the powers of Con-
gress so that there can be no possible right
to interfere with the flow of appropriations
necessary to maintain a military operation
M the midst of a war. Fir once the corn-
mander-in-chlef has committed troops in an
expedition designed to thwart an Interna-
tional enemy like the CsmmunIsts and to
prevent eventual attacks on the United
Sates itself, the power to deal Instantly with
developments Must be, as heretofore, within
the discretion of the President.
ORDER FOR TRANSACTION OF ROU-
TINE MORNING BUSINESS TO-
MORROW, AND RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR STENNIS Ale.rhR RE-
MARKS OF SENATOR COOK
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent that, on
tomorrow, at the conclusion of the re-
marks of the able Senator from Ken-
tucky (Mr. Cook), there be a period for
the transaction of routine morning busi-
ness, with statements therein limited to
3 minutes; - and that immediately follow-
ing the transaction of routine morning
-business, the unfinished business be laid
before the Senate, and that the able
junior Serator from Mississippi (Mr.
anions) be then recognized for not to
exceed 1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER IMr.
BELLMON). Is there objection to the re-
quest of the Senator Hum West Virginia?
The Chair hears none, and it is so
ordered.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE--
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
following enrolled bills:
S. ase. An act to prcolde for Federal Gov-
ernment recognition of and participation In
international expositions proposed to be held
in the 'United States, and for other purposes;
and
S.2999 An act to authorize. In the District
of Column.a, the gift of all or part of a hu-
man body after death for specified purposes.
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS,
FISCAL YEAR 1970
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask that the Chair lay before the
Senate the message from the House of
Representatives on House Joint Resolu-
tion 1232.
The PRESIDING OFFICER laid be-
fore the Senate the joint resolution H.J.
Res. 1232) making further continuing
appropriations for the fiscal year 1970,
which was read twice by its title.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent that the
Senate proceed to the immediate consid-
eration of the joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OteriCER. Is there
objection?
There being no objection, the Sen-
ate proceeded to consider the joint
resolution.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I have been asked by the able Sen-
ator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER
who is the acting chairman of the Senate
Appropriations Committee, and who is
presently presiding over a meeting of the
Appropriations Committee, to present
this joint resolution to the Senate. It has
been cleared with the minority. As I
understand it, there is no objection from
the minority to the consideration of this
matter at this time.
That being the case, I shall proceed
with a brief statement which was pre-
pared by Senator ELLENDER, and which he
has asked that I read in his stead.
Mr. President, this joint resolution is
absolutely necessary in order to avoid
payless pay days for Government em-
ployees and the interruption of veterans'
readjustment benefit payments.
The second supplemental appropria-
tion bill, 1970, passed the House of Rep-
resentatives on May 7 and it was received
and referred in the Senate on Monday,
May 11. The President has submitted
additional budget estimates to the Sen-
ate for consideration in connection with
this appropriation bill, and these budget
estimates were filed at the desk here in
the Senate on May 11. It is obvious that
the Committee on Appropriations is go-
ing to have to hold additional hearings to
give appropriate consideration to this
bill. Consequently, the bill cannot be
considered on the floor of this body in
the very near future. The bill as it passed
the House provides funds for pay in-
creases and also for veterans' readjust-
ment benefit payments.
Senators will recall that salaries of
Government employees were increased
effective July 1, 1969. In addition, there
was a 6-percent retroactive pay in-
crease effective generally on December
27, 1969. None of the appropriation bills
which were enacted into law for fiscal
year 1970 provided funds to finance these
pay increases, but the increased pay-
ments have been made to personnel
throughout the fiscal year, as authorized,
for these two pay increases. As a result.
practically the entire Federal Govern-
ment will be out of funds at some time in
the near future. The first agency to be
affected is the Bureau of Commercial
Fisheries in the Department of the In-
terior, which the committee has been
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
IVRCIA 14, 1970App roved For CiiitiCslittifilteMKE BEIWKW7_24MINV00400080065-6 S 7191
advised will not be able to meet its
payroll on May 13. Under the circum-
stances, it would appear that orderly
procedure would require the Senate to
consider this continuing resolution at
this time.
No new employees can be employed
under the resolution, nor can any new
contracts or programs be instituted. Like-
wise, it does not permit the expansion of
any continuing program. It is designed
merely to avoid disruption of the Fed-
eral Government. The resolution does
not make any appropriations; it merely
authorizes the utilization of funds which
are already contained in the second sup-
plemental appropriation bill as it passed
the House of Representatives. Further,
a provision in the resolution reads: "All
expenditures made pursuant to this joint
resolution shall be charged to the appli-
cable appropriation, fund, or authoriza-
tion" provided by the second supple-
mental appropriation bill.
Mr. President, I urge the adoption of
this joint resolution.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on the third reading and passage
of the joint resolution.
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1232)
was read the third time, and passed.
AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN
MILITARY SALES ACT
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 15628) to amend the
Foreign Military Sales Act.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, when, last
year, the Senate adopted an amendment
to prohibit the use of U.S. ground troops
in Laos and Thailand, it did not occur
to the Senator from Tennessee nor to
other Senators with whom I have spoken
that it would be advisable to include the
small, neutral country of Cambodia in
that prohibition.
We now see that it might have been
very advisable to do so. Indeed, it now
appears that, except for that amend-
ment, Laos might have been invaded.
However that be, we are well advised,
now, of the unprecedented interpreta-
tion given by President Nixon to the
Constitution with respect to the war-
making powers. So I offer a substitute
amendment to prohibit the use of funds
herein authorized for invasion of either
Laos or China. I send the amendment to
the desk, and ask that it be printed and
lie on the table.
The PRESIDING 01,1010ER. The
amendment will be received and printed,
and will lie on the table.
PROGRAM
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, a motion will be made shortly to
adjourn until tomorrow.
On tomorrow, the Senate will convene
at 11:30 a.m. Immediately after the dis-
position of the reading of the Journal,
the able Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOK) will be recognized for not to ex-
ceed 30 minutes, following which there
will be a period for the transaction of
routine morning business, with state-
ments therein limited to 3 minutes.
Upon completion of the routine morn-
ing business, the unfinished business will
be laid before the Senate, at which time
the able Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
STENNIS) will be recognized for not to ex-
ceed 1 hour.
ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 11:30 A.M.
TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, 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 adjournment until
11:30 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The motion was agreed to; and (at 4
o'clock and 49 minutes p.m.) the Senate
adjourned until Friday, May 15, 1970,
at 11:30 o'clock a.m.
CONFIRMATIONS
Executive nominations confirmed by
the Senate May 14,1970:
U.S. PATENTS OFFICE
Robert Gottschalk, of New Jersey, to be
First Assistant Commissioner of Patents.
Lutrelle F. Parker, of Virginia, to be an
examiner in chief, U.S. Patent Office.
U.S. MARSHAL
Donald D. Hill, of California, to be U.S.
marshal for the southern district of Cali-
fornia for the term of 4 years:
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
igag 13, 197APProved ForIt&RiteM,51/Agin ?
orA6L. ROW-PRLWAT?400080065-6
S 7105
national priorities be realigned to give first
preference to meeting the domestic needs
of our own people in such fields as educa-
tion, housing, health, public safety, trans-
portation, environmental improvements and
recreation, and to removing the injustices
which are responsible for the widening di-
visions in our society; therefore
Resolved, by the Council of the City of
Philadelphia, That we hereby memorialize
the President and the Congress of the United
States to act immediately to end the tragic
waste of American lives and resources in
Vietnam so ?143 to give priorities to meeting
the domestic needs of our own people.
Resolved, That certified copies of this Reso-
lution be forwarded to the President of the
United States, Vice-President, Speaker of
the House, President Pro Tempore of the
Senate, United States Senators from Penn-
sylvania and Congressmen from Philadelphia,
as evidence of the sentiments of this leg-
islative body.
AMENDMENT OF THE FOREIGN
MILITARY SALES ACT
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (HR. 15628) to amend the
Foreign Military Sales Act.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the committee
amendments be agreed to en bloc and
that the bill as thus amended be treated
as original text for the purpose of fur-
ther amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FULBRIGHT subsequently said:
Mr. President, a few minutes ago I asked
unanimous consent that the committee
amendments be agreed to en bloc.
The distinguished Senator from Mich-
igan (Mr. GRIFFIN) was under obligation
to object and was in the process of ob-
jecting but he did not catch the eye of
the Presiding Officer in the chair, who
announced that the amendments were
agreed to en bloc.
I now would like to ask unanimous
consent that that unanimous-consent
agreement be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
SCHWEIKER) . Is there objection to the
request of the Senator from Arkansas?
The Chair hears none, and it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I want
to thank the Senator from Arkansas very
much for his kindness and cooperation in
this regard. The Chair, ordinarily, would
have asked, "Is there objection?" under
those circumstances, and would then
have said, "Without objection, it is so
ordered."
Both the Chair and the Senator from
Michigan now realize that I should have
objected. I was under the obligation to
object, and I appreciate very much that
the Senator from Arkansas realizes that.
If, on tomorrow, he wants to renew his
request, after I have had an opportunity
to discuss it with some of my colleagues,
then I think it will be appropriate.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Let me reassure the
Senator from Michigan it is sort of a
tradition around here. I had no idea
there would be any objection, or I would
have objected myself. I do not believe
that we can operate the Senate on that
kind of inadvertence.
Mr. President, it is with both a sense
of great reluctance and a feeling of
guarded accomplishment that I present
this bill to extend the foreign military
sales program to the Senate.
My reluctance derives from the fact
that I take no pride in asking my col-
leagues to approve the portion of this
bill which contributes to the spread of
conventional military hardware. On the
other hand, there is a feeling of accom-
plishment because of the committee's
adoption of a number of significant
amendments, including the prohibition
on further involvement in Cambodia and
a number of restrictions on the military
aid and sales programs.
The basic purpose of this bill is to au-
thorize continuation of the military
credit sales program for fiscal years 1970
and 1971.
It would authorize credit sales of
$300 million in military arms and equip-
ment for each of those years and would
authorize the appropriation of $250 mil-
lion each year to finance the sales. The
sales financed under this program are
made primarily to less developed coun-
tries. Credit sales to rich countries are
generally financed either through com-
mercial channels or the Export-Import
Bank.
But the credit sales program must be
viewed in the context of the total picture
of U.S. arms exports. The Department
of Defense estimates that in the current
fiscal year the United States will sell
abroad a total of about $1.9 billion in
arms and military equipment. Of that,
$300 million will be financed under au-
thority of the Foreign Military Sales
Act. In addition to the sales volume, the
United States will supply $392 -million
in arms through the military grant aid
program and will have an additional $166
million in surplus arms and equipment?
valued at one-fourth of acquisition cost?
to give away. Thus, the United States
will sell or give away nearly $2.5 billion
in military materials this fiscal year.
point out also that there are some
$9 billion worth of surplus arms and
military equipment now available for
the Department of Defense to give
away?even to Cambodia?without any
congressional limits. And the total is
mounting rapidly as U.S. forces are
withdrawn from Vietnam. In addition to
the excess arms, the funds available un-
der the regular grant aid and sales pro-
gram, the President may, under section
506 of the Foreign Assistance Act, give
other nations up to $300 million of arms
and equipment out of the Department
of Defense's stock if he considers it vital
to our national security. The sources of
U.S. arms are many and the volume is
vast. The credit sales program authorized
by this bill is only the tip of the iceberg.
All of these programs add up to the
fact that the United States is the world's
largest producer and exporter of military
equipment. And in this global context, I
call attention to the grim reminder that
for the period from 1964 to 1969 total
military outlays around the world
amounted to over $1 trillion. According
to the Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency, this sum when measured against
available economic resources exceeds the
value of all goods and services produced
in the United States in the past year; it
is more than 2 years' income for the
world's developing countries in which 21/2
billion people live; and it is equal to as
much money as was spent by all govern-
ments on all forms of public education
and health care in the 6-year period.
Few would disagree that this is a pret-
ty sad commentary on the priorities set
by governments around the world. But
the future is even more bleak. Drawing
on a recent United Nation study, the
Christian Science Monitor graphically
reported recently:
If one silver dollar coin was dropped every
second, it will take 126,000 years to exhaust
the amount of money that will be spent on
world armaments in the next 10 years.
As a practical matter there is little
that the committee can do to change the
outlook for that forecast. But it did act
to try to control the contribution the
Pentagon planned to make toward mak-
ing the prediction a reality. It made a
number of substantive changes that may
help to stem the flow of American weap-
ons abroad. I would like to describe brief-
ly the moat significant actions taken.
Nothing was more indicative of the
Pentagon's blatant disregard for the in-
tent of Congress than its giving away of
some $140 million in surplus military
equipment to Taiwan following Con-
gress' refusal to appropriate $54.5 million
in additional military aid above the
amount authorized. AS a result of this
attempt to increase appropriations over
the authorization level, and the Penta-
gon's attempt to make an end run
around the Congress by using the sur-
plus program, two amendments have
been added to this bill to prevent such
developments in the future.
The first, dealing with the excess prop-
erty issue, restricts the Department of
Defense's authority by imposing a $35
million ceiling on the amount of surplus
military arms or equipment that may be
given away in any fiscal year. A portion
of the original cost of any surplus ma-
terial given away above that amount
would be deducted from the funds avail-
able for grant military aid.
The second, relating to appropriations,
simply states that any appropriation
above the amount authorized cannot be
used and that any appropriation for
which there is not an authorization can-
not be expended. This amendment writes
into law the principle, supported by the
Senate in two votes last year, that the
appropriation of funds which are not au-
thorized is bad practice and, if carried to
extremes, could seriously undermine the
authority of all legislative committees.
In addition to these two amendments,
the bill contains provisions which re-
quire: that recipients of military grant
aid, including surplus equipment, pay in
their local currency 50 percent of the
value of the grants, the funds to be used
to meet U.S. obligations in the country
and to finance educational and cultural
exchange programs; that the United
States not approve requests by foreign
countries to transfer military equipment,
supplied under the grant or sales pro-
gram, to any country to which the
United States would not supply the arms
directly; that the President be given
explicit control over successive transfers
of military equipment supplied under
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S7106 Approved FrollVeRtgsiM/AT/W:c9M121f7bla313ZR0004000800qprh 13,
Government-financed programs; and
that sales or grants of the International
Fighter aircraft, except for those given
to Vietnam or sold through commercial
channels, be authorized under the regu-
lar military grant aid or sales programs.
Mr. President. the fact that. the com-
mittee felt compelled to adopt these re-
strictions serves only to emphasize the
failure of policies which have resulted
in making the United States the world's
leading arms merchant. This policy,
which places such great reliance on arms
as a means or solving problems of human
and national relationships evidences a
tYpe of national illness.
It is the kind of illness that has spread
deceptively and insidiously for many
years and now permeates our entire body
It is an illness that blinds both policy-
makers and public to our Nations basic
traditions and values to produce a kind
of "Doublespeak" where lives are saved
by sending more men into combat; vil-
lages are destroyed in order to save them;
and risks for peace are taken by buying
more weapons of destruction.
It is the kind of illness that has drawn
us into Vietnam; that has nurtured our
adventure in Laos; and that has brought
us to the brink of a far wider war
throughout Indochina.
In short, it is the kind of illness that
prostitutes and distorts. It is the kind
of illness that must be cured if we are
to ever achieve peace abroad or at home.
The Church-Cooper-Aiken-Mansfield
amendment, to prevent any further U.S.
involvement in Cambodia, is a small, but
important step in the recovery process.
Last year, by a vote of 70 to 16, the
Senate adopted the national commit-
ments resolution expressing the sense of
the Senate that "a national commitment
by the United States results only from
affirmative action taken by the executive
and legislative branches of the U.S. Gov-
ernment by means of a treaty, statute,
or concurrent resolution of both Houses
of Congress specifically providing for
such commitment." By its action of
April 1970 in initiating hostilities within
the territory of Cambodia without the
consent or even the prior knowledge of
Congress or any of its committees, the
executive branch has shown disregard
not only for the national commitments
resolution but for the constitutional
principles in which that resolution is
rooted. In the wake of recent events,
there is reason to reassert, with renewed
conviction, a statement made in the
Foreign Relations Committee's report
of April 16, 1969. on the national corn-
mi Erne ntS resolution:
Our country has come far toward the
concen:ration in its national executive of
unchecked power over foreign relations, par-
ticularly over the disposition and use of the
Armed Forces. So far has this process ad-
t-enced that, in the committee's view, It is
no Ionizer accurate to characterize our Gov-
?rntnetit in matters of foreign relations. as
.me of separated powers checked and bal-
:Laced against each other.
The notion that the authority to com-
mit the United States to war is an Exec-
utive prerogative, or even a divided or
uncertain one, is one which has grown
up only in recent decades. It is the re-
suit, primarily of a series of emergen-
cies or alleged emergencies which have
enhanced Executive power, fostered at-
titudes of urgency and anxiety, and
given rise to a general disregard for con-
stitutional procedure.
In fact, there was neither uncertain-
ty nor ambiguity on the part of the
framers of the Constitution as to their
determination to vest the war power ex-
clusively in the Congress. As Thomas
Jefferson wrote in a letter to Madison in
I 159:
We have sire Ldy given in example one ef-
fectual cneck to the Dog of war by trans-
ft.-1ring the power of letting him loose from
the Executive to the LegLlative body, from
+.vhn arc to spend to 'hose who are to
As to the y-owers of tile President as
Commander in Chief, Alexander Hamil-
ton, an advocate of strong executive
power, wrote in Federalist No. 69:
The President, is to be commander in chief
or, the army ami navy of the United States.
In this respect his authority would be nom-
if.ally the same with that of the King of
i;reat Britain, hut In suh..tance miicsh in-
f.,,r:or to It. L would amount to nothing
more than the supreme command and direc-
tion of the military and naval forces, as first
General and admiral of the Confederacy,
wade that of the British king extends to
declaring of war and to the raising and
r.-gulating of fleets and armies?all which,
the Constitution under consideration,
,5,)01(1 appertain to the legi. lature.
The present administration's view of
tile President's power as Commander in
Chief is almost the polar opposite of
Hamilton's. In its comments of March 10,
3909. on the then pending national com-
mitments resolution, the Department of
State made the following assertion:
As Commander in Chief. the President has
tlie sole authority to command our Armed
Forces, whether they are within or outside
he United States. And, although reasonable
men may diffur as to the circumstances in
which he should do so. the President has the
,:.onstItutional power to send U.S. military
forces abroad without specific congressional
approval.
Like a number of its predecessors, the
present administration is basing its
claim to war powers on either a greatly
inflated concept of the President's
authority as Commander in Chief, or in
some vague doctrine of inherent powers
of the Presidency, or both. Another pos-
sibility is that the matter simply has not
been given much thought.
Whatever the explanation may be, the
fact remains that the Executive is con-
ducting a constitutionally unauthorized,
Presidential war in Indochina. The com-
mitment without the consent or knowl-
edge of Congress of thousands of Ameri-
can soldiers to fight in Cambodia?a
country which has formally renounced
the offer of protection extended to it as
a protocol state under the SEATO Treaty,
and to which, therefore, we are under no
binding obligation whatever?evidences a
conviction by the Executive that it is at
liberty to ignore the national commit-
ments resolution and to take over both
nie war and treaty powers of Congress
when congressional authority in these
areas becomes inconvenient.
It is noteworthy that, in his address
to the Nation of April 30 explaining tiis
decision to send American troops to Cam-
bodia, the President did not think it
necessary to explain what he believed to
be the legal ground on which he was
acting, other than to refer to his powers
as Commander in Chief of the Armed
Forces. Equally noteworthy was the
President's repeated assertion in his press
conference of May 8 that he?and he
alone?as Commander in Chief was re-
sponsible for the conduct of the war and
the safety of our troops. This sweeping
assertion of the President's authority as
Commander in Chief amounts to the re-
pudiation of those provisions of article I,
section 8 of the Constitution, which em-
power Congress not only to "declare war"
but to "raise and support armies," "pro-
vide and maintain a Navy," and "make
rules for the Government and regulation
of the land and naval forces." It is true,
of course, that the present administra-
tion's attitude in this area hardly differs
from that of its predecessors?except
that preceding administrations took no
special pride, as the present administra-
tion does, in adherence to a "strict con-
struction" of the Constitution.
The Senate's adoption of the Church-
Cooper-Aiken-Mansfield amendment will
be a significant step toward restoring the
health of our constitutional system of
checks and balances. Both its purpose
and language are simple and straightfor-
ward. Its purpose is simply to prevent in-
volvement by the United States in a wider
war in Asia by insuring that our forces
are withdrawn from Cambodia and that,
the United States does not end up fight-
ing a war in behalf of Cambodia. I will
not go into the several points of the
amendment since the sponsors of it will
discuss its details in their presentations.
Mr. President, I believe that, with the
amendments adopted by the committee.
this is a good bill and I hope that the
Senate will approve the committee's rec-
ommendations.
AN EXPLANATION OP THE COOPER-CHURCH
AMENDMENT
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, first, I
want to commend the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations for the excellent explanation
he has made of the military sales bill,
as recommended to the Senate by the
committee, and the endorsement he has
given to the Cooper-Church amend-
ment, which I should like to explain fur-
ther at this time.
The United States is still stuck fast in
the longest war of its history in the
former French properties known as In-
dochina. Three Presidents, representing
both political parties, have been unwilling
to put an end to the American involve-
ment in this Asian war.
Throughout this protracted period, the
Congress of the United States has per-
mitted each President to exercise blank-
check powers. In so doing, we have
shrunk from the use of our own author-
ity under sectiori 8 of article 1 of the Con-
stitution, which vests in Congress the
purse strings, together with the power
to declare war, to raise and support
armies, to provide and maintain a navy,
and to make rules for the government
and regulation of the land and naval
forces. Our failure to make effective use
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Mc* 13, 191yproved For RtlamtitiM9Ni?
L -89832--waialfP400080065-6
S 7107
of any of these powers, while the war
was passed from one President to an-
other, is one for which historians may
judge us harshly.
Within the past 2 weeks, another front
has been opened in this interminable
war?again as the result of a Presiden-
tial decision taken without so much as
a bow to Congress. The dispatch of Amer-
ican troops into Cambodia, though pres-
ently limited in scope, could easily be-
come the first step toward committing
the United States to the defense of still
another government in Southeast Asia.
Sobering as this specter should be, in
light of our experience in Vietnam, it
nonetheless presents Congress with a
historic opportunity to draw the limits
on American intervention in Indochina.
This is the purpose of the amendment
that Senator COOPER and I, joined by
Senators MANSFIELD and AIKEN, urge the
Senate to approve. If enacted into law,
it would draw the purse strings tight
against a deepening American involve-
ment in Cambodia.
There is a precedent for what we are
asking the Senate to do. It lies in the
action taken last December when, you
will recall, the Senate adopted over-
whelmingly a modification I proposed to
an amendment offered by Senators
COOPER and MANSFIELD to the military
appropriations bill for fiscal year 1970.
It provided that "none of the funds ap-
propriated by this act shall be used to
finance the introduction of American
ground combat troops into Laos or Thai-
land." There is reason to believe that this
amendment, which became law, had a
restraining effect on our newest ven-
ture, because the President is said to
have rejected recommendations that the
current operation include Laos as well
as Cambodia. To have done otherwise,
might well have placed the President in
the untenable position of breaking the
law.
We now seek to do for Cambodia what
our earlier amendment did for Laos. But
since American forces have already en-
tered Cambodia, the amendment we pro-
pose would set limits on their interven-
tion, prevent them from remaining in
Cambodia, and preclude any military en-
tanglement on our part with the govern-
ment of that country.
Unquestionably, CongresS has the
power to accomplish these objectives.
But this power, so little used in recent
years, amounts to so much idle talk, un-
less a majority proves willing to invoke
it. Our amendment is drafted in such
manner as to invite, and offered in the
hope that it will attract, majority sup-
port.
Some have argued that it is useless
for the Senate to legislate limits, when
the House of Representatives has al-
ready backed away from them. I do not
agree. Nor do I believe the Senate should
. be put off on such a pretext. If the
amendment were affixed to a House
passed bill, such as the Military Sales
Act now pending before the Senate, and
then strongly backed by the Senate as
a whole, the vote would provide our con-
ferees with a mandate to insist that the
amendment be retained in any final ver-
sion of the bill.
The amendment itself is a realistic
one. It is no exercise in futility; it does
not attempt to undo what has been done.
Instead, it is addressed to the immediate
need of preventing the United States
from bogging down in Cambodia, and
from committing itself to the defense of
another Asian government on a new
front.
It does this by: First, denying funds
for the retention of American forces in
Cambodia; second, prohibiting funds for
the instruction of Cambodian military
forces or for hiring mercenaries to fight
for Cambodia; and, third, forbidding the
use of any appropriation for conducting
combat activity in the air above Cam-
bodia in support of Cambodian forces.
In sum, the amendment is directed
against those very activities which led
to our entrapment in Vietnam. Its adop-
tion would erect a legal barrier against
further penetration of American forces
into the jungles of Southeast Asia and
help expedite the withdrawal of our
troops from Vietnam.
Mr. President, legislative action is
needed now, not only to make certain
that the avowed perimeters of our attack
upon Cambodian sanctuaries are not ex-
ceeded, but also to bar the beginnings
of an escalating military assistance pro-
gram to the new Cambodian regime. We
owe nothing to the generals who have
seized power in Phnom Penh. We have
made them no promises. For once in our
lives, we stand unfettered by any treaty
obligations. We have no duty to furnish
them with arms, let alone to come to
their defense.
Still, it takes no exercise of the imagi-
nation to forecast, now that the Cambo-
dian boundary has been breached and
our gunboats ply the Mekong, that pres-
sures will soon develop for sending an
American military mission to Phnom
Penh which, in turn, would generate a
whole set of American obligations to the
new Cambodian regime. This very se-
quence of events led us ever deeper into
the morass in Vietnam. We must not
travel down that tragic trail again.
This war has already stretched the
generation gap so wide that it threat-
ens to pull the country apart. The new
generation never saw in Vietnam the
demons that our generation perceived.
Unlike American Presidents, who were
mesmerized by the "lessons" of World
War II, our brightest young people never
believed that Ho Chi Minh was Adolf
Hitler in disguise, or that our failure to
send in our own troops to fight for the
government we subsidized in Saigon
would amount to another "Munich."
They knew that Vietnam really had
nothing to do with the security of the
United States, the safety of the Amer-
ican people, or the well-being of our
society. And so they soon came to view
the war as an unwarranted intrusion on
our part in a Vietnamese struggle which
we should never have made our affair.
It does no good to tell these young
people that our "will and character are
being tested," that we shall not be hu-
miliated or accept our first defeat. They
do not believe a mistaken war should be
won. They believe it should be stopped.
That, for them, is the path of honor.
Little wonder, then, that our genera-
tion has lost communication with young
America. We move in two different
worlds; we speak two different tongues.
We would pass each other by, like two
ships in the night, were it not for the
collision course we oldsters have charted:
we keep drafting them to fight our war.
We persist in that course, even at the
price of alienating millions of young
Americans.
The deep disillusionment of college
students in their country and its insti-
tutions has its roots in Vietnam. When
the power of the State is used to force
young men to fight a war they believe to
be wrongful, under penalty of imprison-
ment if they refuse, the seeds of sedi-
tion are sown. We now reap the bitter
harvest, manifested in the angry upris-
ings on campuses from coast to coast.
Whenever the limb is shaken, all the
leaves tremble. Once the moral author-
ity of the Government is rejected on an
issue so fundamental as an unacceptable
war, every lesser institution of authority
is placed in jeopardy. Every sacred prin-
ciple, every traditional value, every set-
tled policy becomes a target for ridicule
and repudiation. Cauldrons of anarchy
soon begin to boil.
So it has happened that our country
is coming unstuck. The crisis in our land,
the deepening divisions among our peo-
ple, the festering, unattended problems
at home, bear far more importantly up-
on the future of the Republic than any-
thing we have now, or have ever had, at
stake in Indochina. That is why the time
has come for Congress to draw the line
against an expanded American involve-
ment in this widening war.
Too much blood has been lost, too
much patience gone unrewarded, while
the war continues to poison our society.
If the executive branch will not take the
initiative, then the Congress and the peo-
ple must.
LIST OF COSPONSORS
Mr. President, when the amendment
was originally offered, Senators MANS-
FIELD and AIKEN joined Senator COOPER
of Kentucky and myself in recommend-
ing it to the Committee on Foreign Re-
lations. The committee adopted the
amendment by a vote of 9 to 5 and affixed
it to the Foreign Military Sales Act now
pending before the Senate.
Since the committee took that action,
many other Senators have asked to be
listed as cosponsors of the amendment.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that their names be affixed as
cosponsors.
The full list of cosponsors is:
Senator AIKEN of Vermont; Senator
BAYH of Indiana; Senator BROOKE of
Massachusetts; Senator CASE of New
Jersey; Senator CHURCH of Idaho; Sen-
ator COOPER of Kentucky; Senator
CRANSTON of California; Senator FUL-
BRIGHT of Arkansas; Senator GooDELL of
New York; Senator HARRIS of Oklahoma;
Senator HART of Michigan; Senator
HATFIELD Of Oregon; Senator JAVITS Of
New York; Senator MANSFIELD of Mon-
tana; Senator MATHIAS of Maryland;
Senator MONDALE of Minnesota; Senator
Moss of Utah; Senator PEARSON of Kan-
sas; Senator FELL of Rhode Island; Sen-
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080085-6
S 7108 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE ay 13, .1-d--;C
itteer PROXMIRE of Wisconsin; Senator
IZiaicoFai of Connecticut; Senator SAXSZ
en Ohio: Senator SCHWEIKER of Pennsyl-
vania; Senator SYMINGTON of Missouri;
laulatOr TYDINGS Of Maryland; Senator
WILLIAMS of New Jersey; Senator Youarc
of Ohio; Senator Met:lova:am of South
)akota: Senator HUGHES of Iowa; and
:73eitator Si-RAVEL of Alaska.
Mr. President, as of now, the total
number of Senators sponsoring the
amendment is 30.
Thp PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection it is so ordered.
Mr CHURCH. Mr. President. I also
aek that a text of the amendment In its
revised form, as reported from the Com-
elitt.ie on Foreign Relations, be printed
at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the text was
ordered to be oririted in the RECORD, as
follows:
,RCH-COtH,ER AMENICAE.T
Sec. 7. The Foreign Military Sates Aet is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
"Sec. 47. Prohibition of assistance to Cam-
bodia.?In order to avoid the involvement of
the United States in a wider war in Indo-
china and to expedite the withdrawal of
American forces from Vietnam. It is hereby
provided that, unless speeitically authorized
by law hereafter enacted, no funds author-
ized or appropriated pursuant to this Act or
any other law may be expended for the pur-
pose of?
"Iii reedninz United States force.; in
Cambodia:
"i 21 paving the Compensation or a:low-
:I:ices of. or otherwise supporting. directly or
Indirectly. any United States personnel in
Cambodia who furnish military instruction
to Cambodian forces or engage in any com-
bat activity in support of Cambodian forces;
"al) entering into or carrying out any
contract or agreement to provide military
instruction in Cambodia. or to provide per-
sons to engage in any combat activity in
sopport of Cambodian forces: or
"14) conducting any combat activity in
the air above Cambodia in suppert of Cam-
bodian forces."
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I am
pleased to share with my colleagues a
Petition signed by students from my home
State of Idaho attending Harvard Uni-
versity who protest against the U.S. in-
vasion of Cambodia.
I ask unanimous consent that this peti-
tion, together with the names of the
students who signed it, be printed at this
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the petition
with list of names, was ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
Mee a. 1970.
le)NORABLS FRANK CHURCH: We. Idaho
students attending Harvard University, wish
to register our opposition to President Nixon's
policy in Southeast Asia. We strongly feel
that the immediate, complete withdrawal of
United states troops from Indochina is es-
for the fulfillment of our national
goals. Therefore, we urge you to take any
steps necessary to disengage the United
States from this unfortunate war.
Mike E. Brandeberry, Boise, Tom Ambroae,
Wendell. Daniei F. Brandeberry, Boise, Irene
Kelly, Jerome. Ralph J. Coates, Buhl, Craig
lpsen, Montpelier, Matthew Berman. Moscow,
Tarry Le Bishop, Boise, Del Ray Maughan,
Heise, Robert T. Rotten, Coeur d'Alene. Rob-
ert Stevens, Pocatello, Julian R. Birnbaum,
caidwen. Marie Kelly, Jerome, Melanie York.
Boise. Richard Smith, Caldwell, Steve Mike.-
veil, Boise.
Mr. CHUR,C.H. Finally, Mr. President,
an excellent and perceptive article ap-
peared in the New York Times of Sun-
day, May 10, 1970, written by the distin-
guished columnist Harrison E. Salisbury.
In the article Mr. Salisbury points out
that the initial political reaction to our
movement. into Cambodia has been to
draw the Soviet Union and Red China
closer together, the first time this has
happened in a number of years.
A few days ago, when members of the
Senate Foreign Relations and the House
Foreign Affairs Committees attended a
briefing in the White House on the Cam-
bodian venture, I came away convinced
that the President of the United States
had launched a large gamble for small
stakes.
After listening closely to the President's
expianation anci to the answers he gave
to the many questions asked, I felt that
;f lie were to win the gamble, he would
iMin no more than a temporary removal
of certain border bases to which the en-
emy would soon return: if he lost the
gamble, the enemy reprisals might well
take the form of a Communist take-over
of Laos or Cambodia or both, and beyond
Indochina, the repercussions might tend
to resolidify the fractured Communist
world. That indeed seems to be what is
haapening.
Let me read to the Senate portions of
this very perceptive article by MT. Salis-
bury. He points up what very large losses
may be entailed for the United States as
a result of a military venture which, at
bet, can produce only the most limited
anti temporary of benefits.
Mr. Salisbury writes:
The United States action m Cambodia has
touched off a swift Chinese diplomatic of-
feialve which Is radically altering Sino-
Soelet-American relationships and may open
the way to temporary easing of Sino-leoviet
tel
'rhe Chinese motes were endertaken at a
moment when toe sib-Soviet conflict had
touched a new height of violence. They came
in the face of major new Soviet troop move-
ments to the disputed fronner with China.
erew, however, as a result of the personal
Ireerventecin of Chairman aleo Tse-tung the
praicipal Soviet diplomatic negotiator, Dep-
uty Foreign Minister V. V. Kuznetsov, has re-
tuaied to Peking amid rumors that Moscow
and Peking may be willing to lay aside, in
par I and for the Woe belag. their bitter
qv.arrt'l.
Premier Chou En-hal moving with remark-
able deftness, has managed to seize for China
the leadership In the Communist response
to the united States action, tie has managed
to put China a: the head of an emerging
euelition of Indochinese powers and may
HI,ve stalemated the Soviet Union in what
treght have been a new escalation of the
Siac-Soviet quarrel.
WARNIM: TO U
In the process the Chinese' have delivered
a low-key warning to the United States that
escalation of the war in Indochina might
bring about their interventien; made an oi-
fer of "volunteer." to Prince Sihanouk (which
he graciously declined); blocked the Rus-
elms almost completely out of the direct re-
lations with any of the Indochina coun-
tries; re-estabiithed warmer and closer rela-
tions with bristly North Korea; and laid the
foundation for a possible "united front" of
China, the Indochina states and North Korea
against "U.S. aggression."
The consequences to future United States
and future Soviet policy of the Chinese diplo-
matic biitzkreig may be far-reaching.
Tne United States is scheduled to meet
with Communist Chinese delegates in War-
saw May 20 for a renewal of two-power dis-
cussions designed to lead to a new basic
American-Chinese relationship. Diplomats
now wonder whether the meeting will actual-
ly be held. They rate its chances for progress
as something less than zero.
At the same time the specter emereed of
increasing difficulties with the Soviet Union,
particularly in the critical SALT talks under
way in Vienna. Premier Aleksei Kosygin him-
self raised the question of confidence in this
connection in his Moscow press conference.
The effect .if the United States action on
the critical confrontation in the Middle East
was still uncertain. One Washington theory
was that the President beteved a display of
"muscle" in Cambodia would deter the So-
viet Union from stepping up its military sup-
pert of Egypt. The validity of this hypothesis
remains to be tested.
TOUCH OF IRONY
The principal power to suffer in the rapid
sequence of events appeared to be the United
States. Instead of a diplomatic horizon
marked byescalating rhetoric and menacing
military moves by the two Communist powers
the prospect emerged of a new if shaky "cool"
between Moscow and Peking.
An ironic touch was the fact that as of
early April. Russia and China had come to
another derailment in their long, harsh dis-
agreement. Mr. Kuznetsov had been ordered
to return to Moscow. New Soviet military
units were ordered up to the China frontier.
Polemics, suspended since the inception of
the Peking talks in late October, had begun
again.
The propaganda war took a major turn
April 22, the 100th anniversary of Vladimir
Lenin's birth, when the Chinese published
the most slashing assault they had ever de-
livered against Moscow?a declaration com-
paring Party Secretary Leonid Brezhnev to
Adolf Hitler, Soviet Russia to Nazi Ger-
many?complete with Nazi racist overtones.
They charged Russia with contemplating a
NazIblitzkreig against China.
Moscow retaliated by spewing into the air-
waves personal vilification of Chairman Mao
Tse-tung. charging him with complicity in
the murder of his first wife, the death of his
eldest son, and a wide catalogue of crimes
and misdemeanors.
But, with the mounting escalation of the
United States action in Cambodia, a simul-
taneous escalation of the Sino-Soviet con-
flict bec:une increasingly embarrassing to
both Peking and Moscow. Neither side was
prepared to abandon the deep-rooted quarrel
but there was rising urgency to lay it to
one side for a while?if possible.
QUARREL PUT ASIDE
Premier Chou En-lal went into action,
providing petrenage for the Indochina pow-
ers conference, promising support and "vol-
unteers" if necessary. On May Day Chair-
man Mao Tse-tong himself, ignoring Soviet
personal attacks, sought out a Soviet diplo-
mat, V. CF. Gankovsky, and urged that the
Sino-Soviet talks resume.
By week's end the well-oiled propaganda
machinery in Moscow and Peking was swing-
ing into line. China attacks on Moscow
ceased. Russian propaganda against Peking
began to taper off--but did not cease com-
pletely.
Moscow was still stung by China's emer-
gence as the chief protecting power in Indo-
china and by Peking's obvious effort to
shoulder Russia aside in that part of the
world. But faced with a Chinese fait accompa
and the critical implications of United States
action in Cambodia it seemed that Russia
would, for the moment, put aside the China
quarrel for the sake of over-all opposition to
the United States,
Mr. President, I offer this article as
evidence of how much we stand to lose
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
_maw 13, 19ftvproved For RitivitnacKgp?ALCA-M1W-003.1RIAOR400080065-6
diplomatically and strategically as a re-
sult of the attack we have made into
Cambodia. I think that the risks in-
volved for the United States, if it per-
mits itself to be drawn still more deeply
into this war, are so immense that we
must no longer put off the responsibility
we have, as representatives of the peo-
ple, to assert powers which are vested
by the Constitution in the Congress.
The purpose of this amendment is to
set the outer limits of American pene-
tration into Cambodia. We take the
President of the United States at his
word that the present operation is lim-
ited in scope, that it is confined to the
capture of particular border sanctuaries,
and that, as soon as this objective is ac-
complished, American forces will be
withdrawn.
The amendment simply says, in effect,
that Congress undertakes to set the
outer limits of American involvement
in Cambodia. As soon as the bases are
captured, as soon as the objectives of the
operation are achieved, then no further
funds are available for retaining Ameri-
can forces in Cambodia. That is the first
objective of the amendment.
The second objective is to lay down a
legislative barrier against the kind of es-
calating military assistance program
which, once commenced, can easily lead
this country into an entangling alliance
with the new regime in Phnom Penh.
We know from our experience in Viet-
nam that what commences as a limited
military aid program can readily ex-
pand into a much more extensive pro-
gram; that small arms soon lead to
more sophisticated armaments; and that
these weapons, in turn, lead to the neces-
sity for introducing American instruc-
tors and advisers who, once committed,
create pressures for the final commit-
ment of American combat troops. That
was the sequence of events in Vietnam,
and we must make certain it does not be-
come the sequence of events in Cam-
bodia.
The adoption of this amendment would
prevent this from happening. If future
developments were to lead the President
to advocate a renewal of our attack upon
Cambodian territory, or a more extensive
occupation of that country, then he
would be obliged to come to Congress,
make his case before us, and ask the
Congress to lift its prohibition against
such an expanded war.
Now, Mr. President, we should have
done this a long, long time ago. For too
long, we have abdicated away our au-
thority to the President, sitting on our
hands hoping the American people
would look the other way, while this war
has gone on and on, while casualties
have mounted inconclusively, until to-
day our Involvement in Vietnam has be-
come the longest war of our history and
one of the costliest. Still there is no end
in sight. The time has come for the Sen-
ate to assume its responsibility under
the Constitution, drawing outer limits on
this latest involvement, and insisting
that if the President intends in the fu-
ture to expand still further our partici-
pation in this war, he come back to the
Congress, make his case, and ask Con-
gress for the consent that the Constitu-
tion intended us either to grant or to
withhold.
I hope in the coming days of debate
that we can clearly set forth the consti-
tutional issue involved here. I hope that
we can encourage the Senate to adopt
this amendment as a proper assertion of
congressional authority.
Last December, we took the first step,
Mr. President, when the Senate adopted
overwhelmingly an amendment of mine,
made a part of the military appropria-
tions bill for fiscal year 1970, that pro-
hibited the introduction of American
ground combat forces into Laos or Thai-
land. That represented the first instance,
in the whole long course of this war, that
Congress had undertaken to use the
purse strings to draw a line. At the time,
the President said it was in conformity
with his own policy. He did not raise
questions about undermining his author-
ity as Commander in Chief; he accepted
the decision of Congress, as consistent
with its responsibility in determining
how and where public moneys shall be
spent.
No different principle is posed by this
amendment. If the earlier amendment
was acceptable to the President, it es-
capes me why this amendment should
not be, for each rests upon the right of
Congress, under the Constitution, to con-
trol the spending of public money, and
each is pointed toward the necessity of
establishing limits to the American in-
volvement in a wider Indochina war. I
think it is the second step, a necessary
and logical step to take, in view of the
developments of the last 2 weeks, to re-
assure the American people that Con-
gress is alive and living in Washington,
D.C.
So I hope, when the debate has been
completed, that the Senate will support
the amendment.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. GORE. I congratulate the Senator
upon a very able address and upon the
many praiseworthy efforts he has made
In this field.
I wanted to suggest the possibility of
an amendment. I do not ask the Senator
to give his reaction now, nor do I wish
to offer an amendment now, but I would
like to call it to his attention. He may
wish to think about it, or if he wishes to
respond now, fine.
On lines 5 and 6, if we strike the words
"expedite the withdrawal of American
forces from," and substitute instead, "to
facilitate a negotiated peace in," this
would make the first clause of the sen-
tence beginning on line 4 read as follows:
In order to avoid the involvement of the
United States in a wider war in Indochina
and to facilitate a negotiated peace in Viet-
nam.
What I seek to do by this possible
amendment is to draw a clear distinction
between "Vietnamization" and a nego-
tiated peace. As the able Senator knows,
I have not, from the day Vietnamization
was announced, believed that it could
work or would work to bring an early
peace, to bring an early end to the war.
Indeed, I do not believe it is designed to
S 7109
bring an early end to the war. It is a
formula, not to end the war, but to
prolong the war. It is a phased with-
drawal, having as its purpose sustaining
the Thieu-Ky regime in power in Viet-
nam. "Vietnamization," therefore, is
contradictory to and incompatible with
a negotiated settlement.
A witness before the Foreign Relations
Committee this morning said that only in
the past 2 years had priority been given
to the ability of the Saigon government
to defend itself. Well, I suppose he was
talking about defending itself against
its own people as well as its neighbors in
North Vietnam.
What seems to me should be our top
priority is not sustaining Thieu and Ky
in power, but achieving a negotiated set-
tlement. In my view, this means a com-
promised peace based upon a coalition
government, or a compromised govern-
ment, or an agreed government?use
whatever term one likes?in Saigon.
It is the purpose of this amendment
to draw a distinction between a phased
withdrawal?which is "Vietnamiza-
tion"--and a negotiated peace, which
would permit not a long, drawn-out
piecemeal withdrawal, but disengage-
ment, a cease-fire, peace, and the bring-
ing of all of our sons home.
Mr. CHURCH. Let me say to the dis-
tinguished Senator that, of course, I
would give very serious attention to any
amendment he might propose. He and
I both share the same skepticism about
the President's policy of Vietnamization.
I agree fully with the Senator from
Tennessee that this policy, as it has been
explained to us, is not one that will take
the United States out of the war in Viet-
nam, but, rather, one that is designed to
keep us in the war for years to come. All
that Vietnamization will accomplish is
a reduction in the number of American
forces?
Mr. GORE. Unilateral reduction.
Mr. CHURCH. Yes, a unilateral re-
duction in the number of American
forces, bringing, according to the Presi-
dent's announced intentions, the total
down to about half of what it was at the
time that Mr. Nixon became President,
from something over half a million men
;to something close to a quarter of a mil-
lioik men; and those remaining will con-
tinue to fight the war. They will con-
tinue to give aerial support, artillery
support, combat engineer support, logis-
tical support?
Mr. GORE. Infantry.
Mr. CHURCH. Even infantry, to se-
cure our own remaining forces; and they
are scheduled to give that support in-
definitely, as long as it is necessary to
keep them there in order to sustain in
power the government in Saigon.
So I agree wholeheartedly that Viet-
namization is not an acceptable method
for extricating the United States from
its involvement in Indochina, but noth-
ing in this amendment is meant in any
way to express the approval of the Sen-
ate as regards the Vietnamization policy.
All that this amendment does is to set
the limits on the new American venture
In Cambodia, to make certain that we
neither bog down in Cambodia nor estab-
lish an elaborate military assistance
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
Approved For Release 2005/06M ? _CIA:RDP72=QQH7R0004000800h5a1 13,
S 7110 CONGRESSIONAL KLCOKll ? ShINA Tho
program that commits us to the defense
of the new regime in Cambodia.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President. will the
Senator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield.
Mr. GORE. Of course, since Viet-
itemization is the only program we have,
other than the recent widening and re-
escalation of the war, all of us must hope
that it will prove successful; but I must
say that I have never thought that a
unilateral withdrawal, or unilateral re-
duction, of U.S. forces while the other
side increases, augments, builds up, de-
ploys greater and larger forces, could
possibly lead to other than a reescala-
Hon, which we now have had, or the
danger of a slaughter of the American
forces remaining there.
After all, how long can one side reduce
while the other side increases, without
facing a catastrophe?
Obviously, the administration recog-
nized that further reductions would pre-
sent a hazard. It was inevitable that this
would occur. It is inevitable that it will
recur, unless it be that, by some unusual
change of circumstances, South Vietnam
becomes able to master its own situation.
It appears now that a program is un-
derway to "Vietnamize" Cambodia. I
am not sure how this is going to turn
out.
I wish to draw a clear distinction be-
tween a negotiated peace. which is the
goal I wish to see achieved, and "Viet-
itemization," which I am not sure I wish
to approve.
The Senator says the proposed resolu-
tion does not constitute an approval of
Vietnamization. I wish to approve a ne-
gotiated settlement. This, it seems to
me. should be the first goal. I shall leave
this in the RECORD, and we can consider
it further.
Mr. CHURCH. I appreciate that. The
Senator and I are kindred spirits. and
I am confident that it will be possible
for us to reach an accord with regard
to the intended aim which will fully
satisfy the Senator.
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
OPERATION OF LARGKR JETS AT
NATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. SPONG. Mr. President, the recent
action by the Federal Aviation Adminis-
tration to allow larger jets to operate at,
National Airport not only contradicts
assurances given to me and other Sena-
tors, but totally Ignores the community
interest in seeing reasonable limits estab-
lished at that facility.
In making this decision, it appears
that the FAA consulted only the airlines
whose convenience and profit would be
served. The people over whose homes
these aircraft fly and whose communities
are blighted by this overburdened airport
are left to take the consequences.
Mr. President. the FAA claims to be
acting in the true public interest, but it
has not once asked what the public
thaught or let its voice be heard. In the
one case in which the public was offered
a forum to express its views on conges-
tion at National Airport?the Civil Aero-
nautics Board's Washington-Baltimore
airport Investigation?the FAA was in-
strumental In having that case discon-
tinued even before a formal hearing was
held. Is it any wonder that public con-
fidence in government is so low?
Mr. President, I have introduced a bill
which would remove National and Dulles
Airports from the control of the FAA and
give the communities affected a strong
voice in their future operation.
In this connection, I ask unanimous
consent to have printed in the RECORD
three recent editorials: "Airport Logic."
published in the Norfolk Virginian Pilot
of May 3, 1970; "Bigger Jets at Na-
tional," published in the Washington
Post of May 4, 2970; and "Stretching the
Rules," published in the Washington
Evening Star of May 12, 1970.
There being no objection, the editorials
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Norteik Virginian Pilot, May 3,
19701
A TRFORT LOGIC
A -Ingle management for the airports at
the Nation's capital is as logical as a single
menagement for the port terminals in
Hampton Roads. This is a part of the thrust
of a bill introduced by U.S. Senator William
B. Spring Jr.
Senator Spoof's bill also would get the
Fe,leral Government out of the commercial
airport business. The Federal Aviation Ad:
ministration owns and operales both Wash-
ington National and Dulles International,
and critics contend that the FAA runs them
for the benefit of the airlinef, exclusively.
The Senator's bill would create an author-
it:, made up of representatives from Vir-
ginia. Maryland, and the District of Colum-
bia which would hire a staff to run the air-
parts.
The authority would give lite communities
a voice in the airports' operations and as-
sure greater eflialency by channeling some
of the overload at Washington National to
the relatively empty runways at Dulles In-
tel tional.
acnator Sponge bill. introduced last No-
vember, was prompted by the Civil Aeronau-
t!, Hoard's failure to hold a single public
hearing or take any action in an investiga-
tion of the crowded conditions at Washing-
non National. The CAB last week formally
dropped the investigation al ter almost three
rtunatelV. a hearing on the Spong bill.
called by the Senate Commerce Committee's
Aviation Subcommittee June 9-10, seems
cle,aarted to do the CAB's job of investigating
Senator Sponge charge that "the FAA has
been operating these facilities as though they
ware its private property."
The Federal agencies' apparent lack of con-
cern over present congestion is even more
alarming in the face of an expected three-
fold growth in air traffic to the Capital by
1980.
Instill the Washington Posa May 4, 19701
BIGGER JETS AT NATIONAL
Feery once in a while, it seems, the air-
!Mee and the Federal Aviation Admiraistra-
tian have to be reminded that they should
be working to make Dulles and Friendship
this area's major airports, not National.
Senator Spong dropped in that reminder last
week when he discovered that the FAA is
permitting stretched 727s to land at Na-
tinned. These are the long versions of one
of the two-engine jet models allowed there,
and their additional passenger capacity alone
(170 as compared with 131) Is Sufficient to
keep them out.
What happened was that the FAA "tem-
porarily" lifted the ban on these planes
during the semi-strike of the air controllers.
It did so for a perfectly good reason?more
people could be moved in fewer planes, thus
easing the load on the air traffic control sys-
tem. But this "temporary" action has out-
lived the strike and, as we unhappily learn-
ed with the jets, once you let a particular
type of plane land at National you have
all kinds of problems barring it subse-
quently.
The trouble with National, as far as this
community is concerned, consists of noise,
dirt and congestion. The hope of eliminat-
ing It as an airport seems gone, although
that would be the proper step, and the only
part of the problem which can still be con-
trolled is congestion. The place is too crowd-
ed now and bringing in bigger planes with
more passengers is only going to make it
worse. The best way to get passengers out
of National and out to Dulles, where they
can be accommodated better, is to get air-
planes out to Dulles. Allowing bigger 727s
into National only postpones that day and
it has already been postponed far too long.
From the Washington Star, May 12, 19701
STRETCHING THE RULES
In the public interest, during the recent
air controller slowdown, the Federal Aviation
Administration relaxed its rules to allow the
so-called "stretch" jets to operate at Wash-
ington National Airport. Now, with the slow-
down over, the larger jets remain. And
timely protests have been registered by both
Virginia's Senator Spong and Representative
Gude of Maryland.
John H. Shaffer, the FAA chief, defended
the rule stretchout in a speech the other
clay, in which he also repudiated the con-
tinuing demands that National be shut down
altogether.
On the latter point, we're in his corner.
The air capacity of National provides a vital,
logical service to the Nation's Capital. Its
value, in the years ahead, will become even
more apparent. And we doubt that the
shrillest of the airport's opponents really be-
lieves there is the slightest chance that this
facility, in view of the spiraling pace of air
travel, will be closed.
But Shaffer, for his part, doesn't seem to
understand that he is undermining his own
cause by slipping In little extras sought by
the airlines?of which the stretch jets are
a prime example- at every opportunity. In
fact, according to Spong, the decision contra-
dicts the specific recommendation of a con-
fidential study by-the FAA itself, which con-
cluded that the use of the stretch 727s would
violate the intent of operational restraints
imposed by the agency on National more
than two years ago.
In his argument, Shaffer said that Dulles
Airport, in time, will join National in han-
dling all the traffic it can bear. No doubt he
is right, and the time to start looking else-
where in earnest for further airport capacity
is already overdue.
But Dulles is by no means at a point of
congestion. And that is where the larger jets,
with their increased passenger loads, ought
to be routed now?rather than to impose new
pressures on facilities at National which al-
ready are jammed.
ADDRESS BY SENATOR KENNEDY
ON FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE WAR-
REN AND THE CURRENT CRISIS
IN CIVIL LIBERTIES
Mr. HART. Mr. President, for the past
5 years, the J.F.K. Lodge of B'nai B'rith
has honored great Americans by pre-
senting them with its Profiles in Courage
Award, On April 28, the sixth of the
awards, the award for 1970, was made
to former Chief Justice Earl Warren. I
believe that the lodge honors itself by
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S6976 Approved For ReHONGREIS5MINAL CRX0M02-06nitikaii0400080065-6 May 12, 1970
ator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT), for re-
ferral to the proper committee, a bill to
authorize further adjustments in the
amount of silver certificates outstanding,
and for other purposes.
This legislation has been requested by
the Secretary of the Treasury and is in
keeping with action we took in 1967 to
reduce Treasury liability for silver cer-
tifloates, whenever it has been deter-
mined by the Secretary of the Treasury
that such certificates have been lost or
destroyed or held in private collections
never to be presented for collection. In
addition, the bill would authorize the
Secretary to reduce the amount of cer-
tain old Federal Reserve and National
Bank notes outstanding in keeping with
the policy regarding silver certificates es-
tablished in 1967.
I ask unanimous consent that the bill
be printed in full in the RECORD follow-
ing my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GRAVEL) . The bill will be received and
appropriately referred; and, without ob-
jection, the bill will be printed in the
RECORD.
The bill (S. 3825) to authorize further
adjustments in the amount of silver cer-
tificates outstanding, and for other pur-
poses, introduced by Mr. SPARKMAN, for
himself and Mr. BErnstrr, was received,
read twice by its title, referred to the
Committee on Banking and Currency,
and ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
S. 3825
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
first section of the Act of June 24, 1967 (31
U.S.C. 408a-2) is amended by inserting a
comma and the words "Federal Reserve bank
notes, and National bank notes" immediately
after "silver certificates" wherever the term
appears and by striking out "(not exceeding
$200,000,000 in aggregate face value)".
S. 3826?INTRODUCTION OF A BILL
TO TERMINATE PRICE-SUPPORT
PROGRAMS FOR TOBACCO
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I introduce,
for appropriate reference, a bill to ter-
minate all price-support programs for
tobacco beginning with the 1971 crop of
tobacco.
The bill would also terminate export
subsidies for the export of tobacco to any
foreign country after December 31, 1970.
Passage of this bill will terminate the
Government's schizophrenic approach
to tobacco. On one hand the official Gov-
ernment health officer, the Surgeon Gen-
eral, informs us that smoking cigarettes
is dangerous to our health. On the other
hand, the Federal Government spends
the taxpayers' money to subsidize the
growth of tobacco.
I realize that the growing of tobacco
is of great economic importance to our
citizens in several States, but tobacco
has been proven to be a hazard to the
health of the Nation, and, therefore, the
Government should not be involved in
subsidies to encourage its continued
growth.
During the past several months I have
received numerous letters from all parts
of the country written by citizens who
are concerned about the hypocrisy of our
Government concerning tobacco. They
point out that the Surgeon General's
various reports on the hazards of tobac-
co make it inappropriate for the Govern-
ment to continue to subsidize the growth
of tobacco. This bill should have wide
support among the citizens of this
country.
I would like to point out that the bill I
am introducing today does not terminate
Price supports for other crops such as
grain, cotton, and so forth, but the health
hazard involved in the use of tobacco
Places that particular crop in a separate
category.
I ask unanimous consent to have the
bill printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GRAVEL). The bill will be received and
appropriately referred; and, without ob-
jection, the bill will be printed in the
RECORD.
The bill (S. 3826) to terminate all price
support programs for tobacco, beginning
with the 1971 crop of tobacco, introduced
by Mr. Moss, was received, read twice by
its title, referred to the Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry, and ordered to
be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
5. 3828
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
notwithstanding any other provision of law,
beginning with the 1971 crop of tobacco, no
price support for tobacco Shall be made
available to producers in any year.
(b) Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no export subsidy may be paid to any
-person under the Agricultural Trade Devel-
opment and Assistance Act of 1954, as
amended (Public Law 480, Eighty-third
Congress) , for the export of tobacco to any
foreign country after December 31, 1970.
S. 3827?INTRODUCTION OF A BILL
TO ALLOW STATES TO APPLY
MORE STRINGENT REGULATIONS
THAN THOSE SET UNDER THE
FEDERAL MEAT INSPECTION ACT
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I am today
introducing a bill to allow States to apply
more stringent marking, labeling, pack-
aging, or ingredient requirements than
those set under the Federal Meat In-
spection Act. This bill is a companion to
legislation introduced in the other body
by Congressman JAMES G. O'HARA of
Michigan. Our common concern stems
from the current attack being leveled on
the Michigan comminuted meat law,
which set stringent and precise stand-
ards on the sale of va\rious prepared
meats within the State. Several national
meatpacking firms are seeking to bring
comminuted meats into Michigan which
do not come up to the standards set under
the Michigan law, though they are in ac-
cord with the less stringent Federal regu-
lations. These firms contend that the
United States has preempted the field
from the States, and that compliance
with the less stringent Federal require-
ments is sufficient to allow them to sell
their products in Michigan.
Mr. President, when a State takes the
side of the consumer in the battle against
shoddy goods, I think the State should be
given free rein to protect our fellow citi-
zens. lam sure it is not the intent of the
Federal legislation to prevent States from
moving faster than the Federal Govern-
ment in promulgating tough meat stand-
ards. The legislation I am introducing
today would clarify that aspect of the
Federal law by explicitly allowing States
to set standards tougher than the Fed-
eral standards.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the text of my bill be printed
In the RECORD at the conclusion of my
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRA-
VEL). The bill will be received and ap-
propriately referred; and, without ob-
jection, the bill will be printed in the
RECORD.
The bill (S. 3827) to allow States to
apply more stringent marking, labeling,
Packaging, or ingredient requirements
than those set upon the Federal Meat In-
spection Act, introduced by Mr. HART,
was received, read twice by its title, re-
ferred to the Committee on Agriculture
and Forestry, and ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 3827
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
408 of the Federal Meat Inspection Act, (21
U.S.C. 678) is amended by striking the word
"Marking" and inserting in lieu thereof the
words, "Except where such requirements are-
more
stringent than those imposed under
this t
A sctr, marking".
SENATE RESOLUTION 407?SUBMIS-
SION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHOR-
IZING THE PRINTING OF A COM-
PILATION ENTITLED "ESTABLISH-
MENT OF THE SELECT COMMIT-
TEE ON EQUAL EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITY, UNITED STATES
SENATE" AS A SENATE DOCU-
MENT
Mr. MONDALE submitted the follow-
ing resolution (S. Res. 407) ; which was
referred to the Committee on Rules and
Administration:
S. Ras. 407
Resolved, That a compilation of materials
entitled "Establishment of the Select Com-
mittee on Equal Educational Opportunity,
United States Senate", be printed as a Sen-
ate document, and that there be printed
one thousand eight hundred additional cop-
ies of such document for the use of the
Select Committee on Equal Educational Op-
portunity.
AMENDMENT OF FOREIGN MILI-
TARY SALES ACT
AMENDMENT NO, 622
Mr. DOLE 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. DOLE when he
submitted the amendment appear later
in the RECORD under the appropriate
heading.)
AMENDMENT NO. 623
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, when
the President sent American troops into
Cambodia, he did more than widen the
war. He pointed up, for all the American
people to see, the broad constitutional
issue of the control of U.S. foreign policy,
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 12, 1970 Approved IMilitaIREstuagf(t60?0?1M3DIRWM7R000400080065-6 s 697
proceedings regarding certain American In-
dian tribal claims (with accompanying re-
ports); to the Committee on Appropriations.
REPORTS OF THE COKIFFROLLER GENERAL
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States, transmitting. pursuant to
law, a report on Federal grants for con-
struction waste treatment facilities which
benefit industrial users. Federal Water
Quality Administration. Department of the
Interior dated May 8, 1970 (with an accom-
panying repert); to the Committee on Gov-
ernment Opekations.
A letter frok. the Comptroller General of
the United Stafe. transmitting, pursuant to
law, a report on uestiona.ble claims under
the medicaid progi.pi for the care of persons
In State institutiode for the mentally re-
tarded in California, 'Social and Rehabilita-
tion Service, DepartmeNr Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare. dated ay 11. 1970 (with
an accompanying report); s'Sp the Committee
on Government Operations. \
A letter from the Comptroller General of
the United States. transmittinevursuant to
law, a report on the examination Lit financial
statements pertaining to insuranLet opera-
tions of the Federal Housing AcinNstra-
tion, fiscal year 1969. dated May 12. 1970
with an accompanying report): to the dem-
mittee on Government Operations
REPORT ON LOWER COLORADO RIVER SARIN \
DEVELOPMENT FUND
A letter from the Deputy Assistant Sec-
retary of the Interior, reporting, pursuant
to law, upon the status of the revenues
from and the cost of constructing, operating,
and maintaining each Lower Colorado River
Basin unit: to the Committee on Interior
and Insular Affairs.
PETITION
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tern-
pore (Mr. METCALF) laid before the Sen-
ate a letter, in the nature of a petition.
from Mrs. Elizabeth Picardi, of Falls
Church. Va., proposing that national
guidelines governing student protest are
urgently needed, and suggesting that the
President sponsor a convention for all
national college and university presi-
dents, which was referred to the Com-
mittee on Labor and Public Welfare.
REPORTS OF COMIVIITTEF.S
The following reports of committees
were submitted:
By Mr. METCALF. from the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, with an amend-
ment:
S. 786. A bill to grant all minerals, includ-
ing coal, oil, and gas, on certain lands on the
Fort Belknap Indian Reservation. Mont.. to
certain Indians, and for other purposes (Rept.
No. 91-860).
By Mr. JACKSON, from the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, with an amend-
ment:
S. 3337. A bill to provide for the disposi-
tion of funds appropriated to pay judgments
in favor of the Yakima Tribes in Indian
Claims Commission dockets numbered 47-A.
162, and consolidated 47 and 164, and for
other purposes (Rept. No. 91-8571.
By Mr. McGOVERN, from the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, with amend-
ments:
S. 886. A bill to convey certain land of
the United States to the Inter-Tribal Coun-
cil. Inc., Miami. Okla. (Rept. No. 91-8591.
By Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. from the Com-
mittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, with
amendments:
S. 940. A bill to prohibit the licensing of
hydroelectric projects on the Middle Snake
River below Hells Canyon Dam for a period
of 10 years (Sept. No. 91-858).
By Mr. HATFIELD. from the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, without
amendment:
H.R. 780. An act to authorize the Secretary
of the Interior to conetruct, operate, and
maintain the Merlin division. Rogue River
Basin project, Oregon. and for other pur-
poses (Rept. No. 91-856).
By Mr. BIBLE. from the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs, with amend-
ments:
S. 759. A bill to declare that the United
States holds in trust for the Washoe Tribe
of Indians certain lands in Alpine County,
Calif. (Rept. No. 01-861).
By Mr. MAGNUSON. from the Committee
on Commerce, without amendment:
S 3102. A bill to amend section 4 of the
1.'1011 and Wildlife Act of 1956, as amended,
to extend the term during which the Secre-
tary of the Interior can make fisheries loans
under the act (Sept. No. 91-862)
By Mr. SPARKMAN, from the Committee
on Banking and Currency, without amend-
ment:
S_. .7. Res. 196. Joint resolution Increasing
the .itithorization for college housing debt
service grants for fiscal year 1971 (Rept. No.
01-863).
Mr. FULBRIGHT. from the Committee
on Foreign Relations, without amendment:
\St. Res. 173. Joint resolution authorizing
le grant to defray .1. portion of the cost of ex-
plpding the United Nations headquarters In
theNLInited States (Rept. No. 91-864).
By\eVIr. FULBRIGHT, from the Committee
on Foheign Relations. with amendments:
fib tary les Act (Sept. No. 9e-865).
R. IZ28. An act to amend the Foreign
BIII,S INTRODUCED
Bills were iNtroduced, read the first
time and, by urkanimous consent, the
second time, and \keferred as follows:
By Mr_ GRAVEls:
8.3824. A bill to ahienci section 702 of
the Housing and Urban 'Development Act of
1965 to assist further in\ the provision of
basi7 water and sewer faties In those
communities where the need '(s most acute:
to the Committee on Banking 41d Currency.
(The remarks of Mr. Cleaves, ien he in-
troduced the bill appear later in tte Rix-0Rn
under the appropriate heading 1 \
By Mr. SPARKMAN for himshlf, and
Mr. BeNsurrr) :
8.3825. A bill to authorize further ad t
merits In the amount of silver certiflcabs
outstanding, and for other purposes; to th
Committee on Banking and Currency.
(The remarks of Mr. SPARKMAN when he
introduced the bill appear later in the
RECoRD under the appropriate heading.)
By Mr. MOSS:
S.3826. A bill to terminate all price-sup-
port programs for tobacco beginning with
the 1971 crop of tobacco; to the Committee
on Agriculture and Forestry.
(The remarks of Mr. Moss when he intro-
duced the bill appear later in the RECORD
under the appropriate heading )
By Mr HART:
8.3827. A bill to allow States to apply
more stringent marking, labeling, packaging.
or ingredient requirements than those set
under the Federal Meat Inspection Act; to
the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
(The remarks of Mr. HART when he intro-
duced the bill appear later in the RECORD
under the appropriate heading.)
By Mr. EAGLETON (for himself. Mr.
TYDINGS, and Mr. &poem) :
8.3828. A bill to amend the District of
Columbia Cooperative Association Act; to
the Committee on the District of Colum-
bia.
By Mr. MONDALE:
S.3829. A bill for the relief of Theodoros
Kostas; to the Committee on the. Ju-
diciary.
S. 3824?INTRODUCTION OF A BILL
AMENDING THE HOUSING AND
URBAN DEVELOPMENT ACT OF
1965
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, the pres-
ervation and enhancement of the qual-
ity of life in the United States is a task
of which Congress has become increas-
ingly aware and undoubtedly will ad-
dress more attention to in the future.
The President in his state of the Union
message delivered to a joint session of
the Congress on January 22 of this year
stated:
We will carry our concern of the quality
of life to the farm as well as the suburb, to
the village as well as the city. What rural
America most needs is a new kind of as-
sistance. It needs to be dealt with, not as a
separate nation but as a part of the overall
growth policy for all America.
With emphasis on the quality of life
throughout the United States, I am in-
troducing a bill to amend section 702 of
the Housing and Urban Development Act
of 1965 to assist further in the provi-
sion of basic water and sewer facilities
in those communities where the need is
most acute.
The amendment will enable the Sec-
retary of the Department of Housing and
Urban Development to increase the
amount of the grant for basic sewer and
water facilities not to exceed 90 percent
of eligible costs to all communities hav-
ing a population of 15.000 providing the
remaining criteria stated in the act are
met. Previously, this discretion was
allowed only within metropolitan areas
In communities of 10,000 inhabitants.
This amendment would generally en-
able communities with severe health
problems as a result of the lack of sewer
and water facilities and unemployment
twice the national average who are un-
able to finance the construction of such
facility without an increased grant to
do so.
It would give the Secretary latitude
in raising the grant from 50 percent of
eligible costs to a point where the corn-
unity could assume the financial bur-
n but not to exceed 90 percent of eligi-
b costs.
e PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HAR-
RIS). The bill will be received and appro-
priat referred.
The iill (S. 3824) to amend section
702 of t Housing and Urban Develop-
ment Act if 1965 to assist further in the
provision ? basic water and sewer fa-
cilities in t ? e communities where the
need is most cute, introduced by Mr.
GRAVEL, was r ived, read twice by its
title, and referr to the Committee on
Banking and Cu cy.
S. 3825?INTRODUCTION OF A BILL
TO AUTHORIZE FURTHER AD-
JUSTMENTS IN THE AMOUNT OF
SILVER CC:R.1'1/01CA ITZ OUT-
STANDING
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I in-
troduce, for myself and the senior Sen-
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 12, 197Approved For RottextalactMirat: aktigtt72=0ALWARM0400080065-6
particularly, as it involves the matter of
making war.
The American people have seen, and
they do not like what they see. They see
our military men apparently having the
President's ear, giving him the same bad
advice they gave his predecessors. They
see the mistakes of the past repeated all
over again. They demand action from
their elected representatives to regain
control over military policymaking.
The actions of the Defense Depart-
ment, no less than those of any other
Cabinet department or any administra-
tive agency, must be limited to the au-
thority granted by law. Neither the
Defense Department, nor any other seg-
ment of the executive branch of Govern-
ment, can be permitted to disregard those
limits with impunity. If the American
system of government is to work, our
sprawling bureaucracy must be account-
able for? its actions.
Since the end of World War II, we
have seen a pattern of congressional ac-
quiescence in matters of military policy.
Our past history of blanket acceptance
of the Executive's actions involving both
military and foreign policy is not only
in sharp contrast to our close scrutiny of
domestic programs; it also amounts to
an abdictation of clearly defined consti-
tutional responsibilities.
Last year, Congress took the first
important step toward a more careful
review of the military budget. It is ob-
vious that this effort will be continued.
But there is another area of Pentagon
activity which has received far less pub-
licity, and hence has had far less of an
impact on public consciousness than ex-
cessive military spending. I refer spe-
cifically to military aid, and to a most
particular kind of military aid?that by
which equipment and material in excess
of the needs of our Armed Forces is
transferred to foreign governments.
The Defense Department and the State
Department find the legal authority for
this surplus arms program in sections
503 (a) and 644(g) of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961, as amended. These pro-
visions authorize the President to furnish
military assistance by loan or grant, and
define the term "excess defense articles."
But the existence of legal authority
Is no guarantee of legislative control. For
what we are dealing with in this trans-
fer of surplus military supplies is some-
thing above and beyond the ordinary
military assistance appropriations which
Congress makes every year. It is military
assistance which is not charged against
appropriations. It can be disposed of
either by sale or gift; the bulk of this
equipment, however, is given away.
By relying on this program for the dis-
posal of surplus arms abroad, the Pen-
tagon needs no congressional authoriza-
tion. Furthermore, there is no dollar lim-
itation on the quantity of arms which
can be transferred under this program.
While the Defense Department does re-
port its various surplus arms transactions
when it comes before Congress request-
ing its annual military assistance appro-
priation, there is nothing to prevent a
report being submitted after the fact of
transfer?well after some transaction
that can be both embarrassing and even
dangerous. And under present law, there
Is little Congress can do to regulate
such transactions even if we were fully
informed in advance of what the Penta-
gon planned to do.
The lack of congressional power to
control this program is in sharp con-
trast to other types of military assistance
'programs. For example, direct military
grant assistance under the traditional
foreign aid program requires annual au-
thorizations and appropriations by Con-
gress. Thus, Congress can limit the
amount of military aid available to for-
eign governments under this program.
Another method of transferring arms
to foreign governments is under the mil-
itary sales program.
It was not too long ago that the Pen-
tagon had complete latitude with respect
to military sales. In the summer of 196'7,
it was revealed that the Export-Import
Bank was opening lines of credit by
which the Pentagon was able to sell arms
to countries without revealing the names
of these countries to the Bank. This un-
business like way of doing things was
nevertheless quite acceptable to the Ex-
port-Import Bank, because its so-called
country loans were guaranteed by the
Pentagon up to 25 percent through a
revolving fund maintained for that pur-
pose. Over $600 million worth of arms
loans were made to underdeveloped
countries through this program.
This "country X" program was not a
secret, but it was not exactly a household
word. Once it surfaced, however, there
was fast action. The Pentagon's loan
guarantee program was abolished, and
the Export-Import Bank was forbidden
to make any more loans to finance arms
purchases. The Defense Department can
still sell arms on credit, but it must first
obtain congressional authorization; and
Congress sets an annual ceiling on the
amount of such sales.
In addition, Congress has forbidden the
use of military aid to furnish sophisti-
cated weapons systems to underdevel-
oped countries. It has imposed restric-
tions on military aid to Latin American
and to Africa. It has stipulated that the
sale of military equipment to less devel-
oped countries shall be cut off if those
countries divert either economic assist-
ance of Public Law 480 assistance to mil-
itary expenditures, or if they divert their
own resources to unnecessary military
expenditures.
All of these restrictions were imposed
with one end in view?congressional con-
trol of U.S. military assistance. All were
designed to plug any leak in the dike and
to make the policies of the Congress per-
fectly clear to the Executive.
Yet, despite the best efforts of the
House and the Senate, we now find an-
other leak in the dike?the disposal of
military hardware and equipment that
has been declared in excess of U.S. needs.
And it is a leak which is becoming larger
every day.
Several weeks ago, the State Depart-
ment disclosed that surplus U.S. military
equipment originally costing $3.4 billion
had been given to foreign governments
under this program over the past 19
years. But the important point is that
within the last 2 years, the Pentagon has
begun to rely on this program to a much
S 6977
greater extent than in the past. Since
other types of military assistance have
been brought under congressional control
and thereby reduced in scope, the Penta-
gon views the surplus arms program as
the primary means of getting back into
the business of military assistance on a
grand scale.
The best example of this trend was re-
vealed by the probing of Representative
&IN/0 CONTE, a member of the House
Appropriations Committee. His investi-
gation disclosed some interesting and
unknown facts about the transfer of arms
to Nationalist China?the same country
which caused such a great controversy
during the debate over the fiscal year
1970 foreign aid appropriations bill.
This bill was blocked during the last
session of Congress because the Senate
conferees would not agree to providing
$54.5 million for an extra Phantom jet
fighter squadron for Nationalist China.
When that item was finally deleted, the
appropriations bill went through, with
Nationalist China receiving approxi-
mately $25 million in direct military as-
sistance.
Yet, while all this was going on, Con-
gressman CONTE obtained information
from the Defense Department which
revealed that the Pentagon had secretly
supplied the Nationalist Chinese with
some $157 million worth of weapons and
equipment under this excess disposal
Program?over six times the amount ap-
proved by Congress in direct military as-
sistance to that country. Included in this
little package were four 20-year-old de-
stroyers, equipment for a Nike-Hercules
battery, more than 35 F-100 Super Sabre
jets, more than 20 F-104 Starfighters,
more than 30 C-119 Flying Boxcars,
some 50 medium tanks, about 120?howit-
zers, and thousands of M-14 rifles. While
the Pentagon declined to confirm or
deny the truth of this story, the State
Department confirmed it the very next
day.
According to John Finney's story in
the New York Times of March 29, 1970,
the State Department described the
transaction "as part of a general pro-
gram of using surplus arms to bolster
the defenses of such 'forward defense'
countries as South Korea, Turkey, and
Taiwan." It was noted that in recent
months, the Defense Department has
transferred under this program some
790,000 used rifles, carbines, and subma-
chineguns to South Korea.
It has also been disclosed that about
73 percent of all surplus equipment is
now going to Taiwan, Turkey, South Ko-
rea, and Greece. While aid to Greece
has apparently consisted only of trucks,
ammunition, and small arms because of
the embargo of heavy military supplies
imposed against that country after the
military coup in 1967, the question can
be raised as to whether Congress would
have approved any military aid to Greece
during this period. Because of the com-
plete Executive discretion under this pro-
gram, Congress never had the oppor-
tunity to approve or disapprove.
It is interesting that the State De-
partment was willing to confirm Con-
gressman CONTE'S report about the re-
cent arms transfer to Nationalist China,
while the Defense Department remained
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S6978 Approved Fez5MitivssAgrapirt?cAtbRDB1261313137R000400080011%9 12, 1970
silent. We may speculate that the State
Department, which is supposed to clear
the disposal of any surplus military item,
acceded to this transfer with reluctance.
Certainly State does not exercise the
tight control over the disposal of surplus
weapons that it manages to maintain
over military sales.
The fact is that this surplus arms pro-
gram is being used to supplement a re-
duced and congressionally regulated for-
eign assistance program. Indeed, ac-
cording to the New York Times, the
principal justification offered by State
Department officials for the recent ship-
ment of surplus arms to Nationalist
China was the sharp reduction in the
military assistance program.
Unless something is done. Congress
may soon lose control over the transfer
of arms to foreign governments. The
leak in the dike must be plugged.
That is why I am today submitting an
amendment to H.R. 15628, the Foreign
Military Sales Act, which is now before
the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is in-
tended as an amendment to the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, and it is designed
to recapture control of the surplus arms
disposal program from the Department
of Defense?vesting it in the Congress,
where it rightfully belongs.
My amendment has two parts: First,
it sets a ceiling, an absolute annual ceil-
ing, of $50 million on the amount of
arms and equipment that may be dis-
posed of as military surplus. Further-
more, that $50 million valuation is based
on the acquisition value of the items?
what they cost the Government when
they were originally purchased. At pres-
ent, the Pentagon sets a "utility" value on
this surplus of 30 percent of its original
cost. My amendment would do away with
this arbitrary valuation, which carries
with it an obvious opportunity for
manipulation.
Second. under this amendment, the
Executive would be required to submit
to Congress annually a schedule of the
countries to which it proposes to transfer
military surplus, as well as the items to be
transferred to each country. The ap-
proval of this schedule would rest with
Congress. Once the schedule is approved.
if the Executive wants to add a new
country to the original list, or to increase
the cost of surplus arms to be trans-
ferred to any country by more than 10
percent. it would have to come back to
Congress for additional approval.
It is my hope and belief that through
this amendment, we can bring surplus
military assistance back under the for-
eign aid program, and hence under the
control of Congress in law and in fact.
It is vitally important to do so at this
time. For as John Finney noted in the
New York Times:
With the reduction of the United States
military forces and withdrawal of troops from
South Vietnam, billions of dollars' worth of
weapons are being declared surplus by the
military services. A study by the start of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee suggest
that the total may come to $10 billion, al-
though State Department officials believe
this estimate is too high.
Thus. given the increased availability
of surplus arms and given the increased
reliance by the Pentagon on this pro-
gram, the time is ripe for congressional
action. If this program is not brought
under congressional control, I fear that
we could become involved in other mili-
tary adventures as unsound, as unpopu-
lar, and as unrelated to our vital national
interests as the endless conflict in which
we are now bogged down in Indochina.
In order to put a stop to the independ-
ent foreign policy of the Pentagon, to
prevent the use of military assistance
for unapproved purpo.ses. and to insure
that every transfer of military arms and
equipment is undertaken only with con-
gressional sanction, we must change the
surplus arms program. The amendment
which I have proposed makes this
possible.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the text of this amendment be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
TALMADGE). The amendment will be re-
ceived and printed, and will lie on the
table; and, without objection, the
amendment will be printed in the
RECORD.
The amendment (No. 623) is as
follows:
AMENDMENT No. 623
At the end of the bill, add the following
w section:
SEc. 7. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
Is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
'?Src. 652. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES -f (
The total cost of excess defense articles that
may be transferred to all foreign countries
and international organizations shall never
exceed 950,000,000 during any fiscal year. The
President shall transmit annually to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Sen-
ate and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives a report
enumerating each excess defense article to
be transferred during the succeeding fiscal
year and the foreign country or international
organization to which each such article is to
he transferred.
"lb) There shall be authorized by law for
each fiscal year the total cost of excess de-
fense articles that may be transferred to each
foreign country and each international or-
ganization. No excess defense article may
be transferred to any such country or or-
ganization (1) If there is no authorization
for any transfer to that country or organiza-
tion for that fiscal year, or (2) when there
exists such an authorization for that coun-
try or organization, If the coat of that arti-
cle, when added to the total of the costs of all
such articles already transferred to that
country or organization during the same
fiscal year (if any), exceeds the total of the
costa of all excess defense articles so author-
ized to be transferred to such country or or-
ganization during that fiscal year plus 10
per centum.
(c) For purposes of this section, the cost
of each excess defense article is the cost to
the United States of acquiring that article."
NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON S. 3678.
FOREIGN BANKING SECRECY
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I wish
to announce that the Subcommittee on
Financial Institutions of the Committee
on Banking and Currency will hold hear-
ings on S. 3678. a bill to amend the Fed-
eral Deposit Insurance Act to require
insured banks to maintain certain rec-
ords, to require that certain transactions
In U.S. currency be reported to the De-
partment of the Treasury and for other
purposes.
The hearings will be held on Monday
through Thursday, June 1, 2, 3, and 4,
1970, and will begin at 10 a.m. in room
5302, New Senate Office Building.
Persons desiring to testify or to submit
written statements in connection with
these hearings should notify Mr. Ken-
neth A. McLean, Senate Committee on
Banking and Currency, room 530Q, New
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20510; telephone [phone].
ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS
ON OIL SHALE RESERVES
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, on behalf of
the Subcommittee on Minerals, Ma-
terials, and Fuels of the Senate Interior
Committee. I announce that public hear-
ings have been scheduled for next Thurs-
day, May 14, on the situation with re-
spect to development of the vast oil
shale reserves in the public lands.
The hearings will open at 10 o'clock,
and will be held in the Interior Commit-
tee room, 3110, New Senate Office Build-
ing. The subcommittee has urged In-
terior Secretary Walter J. Hickel to ap-
pear personally to set forth the facts and
make recommendations to us to enable us
to reach a determination as to whether
new legislation is needed to bring about
development. The Director of the Office
of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Re-
serves also has been invited to appear.
Mr. President, studies by the Sub-
committee on Minerals, Materials, and
Fuels of the Interior Committee show
that our country may be facing critical
shortages of energy in the not too dis-
tant future. The supply situation is
rendered more acute by our growing
awareness of the perils to our environ-
ment from the production and use of
certain forms of energy.
This is a most necessary and a most
healthful development. But unless we are
to become increasingly dependent on for-
eign sources for fuels, we must find and
develop new sources within our own bor-
ders to meet the burgeoning require-
ments of our economy and way of life.
One of the great potential sources of
energy, as yet untapped, is the vast oil
shale reserves in Utah, Colorado, Wyo-
ming* and other Western States, includ-
ing Alaska. The richt and most abun-
dant of these reserves lie in federally
owned lands. These deposits are subject
to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, but
all reserves in Federal lands were with-
drawn in 1930 by President Hoover in the
wake of the Teapot Dome scandals.
Secretary Udall tried to initiate a pro-
gram in 1967 for development of these re-
serves. Unfortunately, the potential de-
velopers felt that the conditions he laid
down were too stringent, too uncertain,
and too expensive for a wholly new in-
dustry, and nothing concrete came of
Secretary Udall's program.
As I have stated, our country will need,
and need soon, the energy locked up in
these oil shale reserves. It is hoped our
subcommittee hearing will clarify the po-
litical and economic situation so that de-
velopment of this great federally owned
natural resource may get underway.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
May 12, 19 Approved For Rdsg,figiM?IONNE itlpfkillU2AMTIM040008006p-6
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
The Senate, in executive session, con-
tinued with the consideration of the
nomination of Harry A. Blackmun, of
Minnesota, to be an Associate Justice of
the Supreme Court of the United States.
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, on May 4,
the Senate Judiciary Committee by a
unanimous vote of 1'7 to 0 recommended
approval of the nomination of Judge
Harry A. Blackmun for membership on
the U.S. Supreme Court.
From every indication Judge Blackmun
appears to meet high standards of judi-
cial competence, temperament, and per-
sonal integrity. It is important to note
that during several days of hearings no
one requested to appear before the Judi-
ciary Committee to testify in opposition
to this nomination. It is also significant
that Judge Blackmun is a "strict con-
structionist" in opinion of President
Nixon.
His judicial opinions are well written
and scholarly, and they show an aware-
ness of the broad social problems of our
day and a perception of current trends
in the law. The American Bar Association
found that, as a judge, he considered and
weighed in a fair manner all arguments
presented to him. The ABA further stated
that:
Judge Blackmun was interviewed and im-
pressed us as a judge who is sincere, frank,
understanding and cooperative, one who con-
scientiously and with open-mind weighs
every reasonable argument with careful
knowledge of the record, the arguments, and
the law.
Judge Blackmun's qualifications to be
an Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court are evidenced by his broad general
experience in law and business, 11 years
service on the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals, 8 years experience as a pro-
fessor of law, and 16 years of work as
a practicing attorney. Judge Blackmun
has the unanimous support of his col-
leagues on the eighth circuit, as well as
that of a former chief judge of that
circuit. He also has the backing of judges,
lawyers, and law-school deans in the
eighth circuit and throughout the
country.
Judge Blackmun's financial holdings
have been fully disclosed and adequately
explained; they show no apparent con-
flicts of interest His testimony before
the committee was given with great care
and full candor.
The Supreme Court serves as the court
--of final appeals in our judicial system.
Individuals appointed to the Court are
appointed for life. Consequently, they
should measure up to high standards of
moral, ethical, and judicial integrity if
public trust and confidence are to be
promoted and preserved. On the record,
the nomination before us meets such
standards. Accordingly, I believe the
Senate should advise and consent to the
nomination of Judge Harry A. Blackmun
to be an Associate Justice of the U.S.
Supreme Court.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent to proceed as in legisla-
tive session, to discuss an amendment
to the so-called Church-Cooper amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GRAVEL) . Without objection, it is so
ordered.
7--
I AMENDMENT TO THE FOREIGN
MILITARY SALES ACT
AMENDMENT NO. 622
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send to
the desk an amendment to the Foreign
Military Sales Act (H.R. 15628) . I ask
unanimous consent that it be printed
and ordered to lie on the table. I also
ask unanimous consent that the text of
. the amendment be printed in the RECORD
at the end of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be received and printed
and, without objection, the amendment
will lie on the table and will be printed
in the RECORD, as requested by the Sen-
ator from Kansas.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. DOLE. I may offer this amend-
ment as a substitute for the language
of the amendment submitted yester-
day by the distinguished Senator from
Kentucky (Mr. COOPER), the distin-
guished Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH), and others, because I feel it
would more fully accomplish the aims
than that amendment.
Let me point out that I share the con-
cern of the Senator from Kentucky and
the Senator from Idaho. They have long
distinguished themselves and this body
by their sincere dedication to the wise
direction of this country's foreign pol-
icy. Like them, I, too, have had some
misgivings over the recent turn of
events in Indochina and am not fully
convinced the use of American troops
within Cambodia was necessary to pro-
tect present U.S. troop positions in Viet-
nam or to secure the Vietnamization
process.
However, I have great faith in Presi-
dent Nixon?in his wisdom, his courage,
and his desire to do everything in his
power to protect American troops while
pursuing their withdrawal at the fast-
est possible rate.
The Cooper-Church amendment ex-
presses a legitimate congressional con-
cern that the conflict in Vietnam not
be broadened or expanded into the sur-
rounding nations and kingdoms. The dis-
tinguished Senator from Kentucky said
as much in his statement on May 7.
However, I am concerned there be no
limitation on the President's power to
protect U.S. military forces.
I have therefore chosen language
which does clearly state Congress' inten-
tion that the war not be expanded and
at the same time avoids any possible
interpretation which would lead any for-
S 7027
eign or domestic party to think the Pres-
ident's power to protect our men has
been hamstrung in any fashion.
I am highly concerned that the con-
flict in Indochina not be broadened or
expanded. I am more concerned, how-
ever, that nothing can be -done to jeop-
ardize the safety of our forces or the
President's power to protect them.
This amendment would accomplish
the purpose of expressing congressional
sentiment. It would also clarify some
questions which the Cooper-Church
proposal does not fully resolve.
Mr. President, briefly, the amendment
would provide, by amending the Foreign
Military Sales Act, as follows:
In line with the expressed intention of
the President of the United States, no funds
authorized or appropriated pursuant to this
Act or any other law shall be used to finance
the introduction of American ground com-
bat troops into Laos, Thailand, or Cambodia
without the prior consent of the Congress,
except to the extent that the introduction of
such troops is required, as determined by the
President and report promptly to the
Congress to protect the lives of American
troops remaining within South Vietnam.
Mr. President, I ask and urge the sup-
port, of my colleagues for this amend-
ment to insure the ,utmost safety and
security for our troops in Vietnam.
EXHIBIT 1
Amendment No. 622.
Strike out section 7 and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SEC. 7. The Foreign Military Sales Act is
further amended by adding at the end there-
of the following new section:
"Sze. 47. Prohibiting Use of American
Ground Combat Troops in Laos, Thailand,
and Cambodia.---In line with the expressed
Intention of the President of the United
States, no funds authorized or appropriated
pursuant to this Act or any other law shall
be used to finance the introduction of
American ground combat troops into Laos,
Thailand, or Cambodia without the prior
consent of the Congress, except to the ex-
tent that the introduction of such troops is
required, as determined by the President and
reported promptly to the Congress, to pro-
tect the lives of American troops remaining
within South Vietnam."
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 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. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN-
ATOR THURMOND
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that at the conclu-
sion of the vote on Judge Blackmun, the
distinguished senior Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. THURMOND) be recognized
for not to exceed 1 hour and a half.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Approved For Release 005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00040008006-6
S7028 Approved (;t5?81ims/M919.6ffegilibRIDIR&CA013i7R0004000800fi4 12, 1970
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT
Mr. MANSFIELD Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that, when the Sen-
ate completes its business today, it stand
in adjournment until 12 o'clock noon
tomorrow.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF
THE CHAIR
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
move that the Senate stand in recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question is on agreeing to the motion of
the Senator from Montana.
The motion was agreed to and. at
12:05 p.m., the Senate recessed, subject
to the call of the Chair.
At 1 o'clock and 55 minutes p.m.. the
Senate reassembled, when called to or-
der by the Presiding Officer (Mr. Tat-
MitaGX).
SUPREME COURT OF THE
UNITED STATES
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the nomination of Harry
A. Blackmun. of Minnesota, to be an
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States.
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President. at this
time, I would like to have printed in the
RECORD, from the record of the Commit-
tee on the Judiciary in connection with
the nomination of Judge Harry A. Black-
mun to be a member of the Supreme
Court, substantially those cases filed by
the Justice Department on pages 15 and
16, and that portion with reference the
canons on page 16. I ask unanimous con-
sent to have those excerpts printed at
this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the excerpts
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD.
as follows:
ni the light of the extended debate over
the confirmation of Judge Haynsworth, Judge
131ackmun requested the advice of the De-
partment, and requested the Department to
call to the attention of the Judiciary Com-
mittee. the following specific situations.
Stock in Ford Motor Co. & American Tel.
& Tel. In October. 1957, prior to assuming
the bench. Judge Blackmun purchased fifty
ahares of stock in Ford Motor Company, at
a total purchase price slightly in excess of
a2.500. Approximately six months after be-
coming a circuit Judge, he participated in
the decision of the case of Hanson v. Ford
Ccreipany, 278 lead 586 (1980). Prior
to doing so, Judge Blackmun recalls discuss-
nig the matter with then Chief Judge John-
isof the Court of Appeals for the Eighth
eeit, and concluding that his interest in
case was de mournis and that he should
not disquaafy himself. He wrote the opinion
if the Court of Appeals. directing the district
,or to reinstate a jury verdict in the
itmount of 424.500 which had been rendered
itcainst the Ford Motor Company. but which
lie district court had set aside.
Pour years later Judge Blackmun was a
ineither of a panel of the Court of Appeals
..vitich heard and decided the case of Kotula
Ford Motor Company, 338 F. 2d 732. In
case. Judge Matthes wrote the opinion
the court, upholding a Judgment of the
district court which had set aside a Jury
,,erdict of $12,500 in favor of the plaintiff.
In January. 1970. Judge Blackmun re- gest s that it may Impose a stricter test than
ceived notice of his assignment to a case in the statute. However, in the light of the ex-
which a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford tremely small amount, both absolutely and
Motor Company. Gateway Ford Truck Sales, proportionally, of Judge Blackmun's holdings
was a party. In view of the national atten- in the corporations involved, this would ap-
tion that had focused on the issue of ills- pear to be an appropriate case for the appli-
qualification as a result of the debates over cation of the rule of "de minims non ourat
ale confirmation of Judge Haynsworth. Judge Zen" In interpreting Canon 29 and Formal
Black.mun advised Chief Judge Van Ooster- Opinion 170. The de minima-4 principle in no
bout that he regarded himself as disquali- way impairs the safeguarding of both the
lieu, and the CRS, was assigned by the Chief fact and appearance of impartiality which
Judge to another panel. Bridgrman v. Gate- the Canon rightfully demands of our Judges,
W07/ Ford Truck Sales, Docket No. 19,749 and yet it permits a commbn-sense applica-
(Feb. 4, 1970), tion of the rule where a Judge's interest is
During 1963 and 1984. Judge Blackmun genuinely insignificant. The underlying ques-
acquired 22 shares of American Telephone tion under the Canoni is whether Judge
and Telegraph Company stock, at a total cost Blackmun either acted with partiality or cre-
of approximately *1.350. In 1987, he partici. Maid an appearance of partiality in the above-
natal in the decision by the Court of Appeals entitled cases. In the opinion of the Depart-
of Mahoney V. Northwestern Hell Telephone ment, he did neither.
Company. 377 F. 2d 549 (1987i. In that case. Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I
the Court of Appeals in a brief per curiam
opinion upheld the Judgment of the court think it is significant in considering this
below which dismissed the plaintiff's corn- particular nomination, for which I in-
plau.i for lack of diversity Jurisdiction as re- tend to vote, that it brings into issue the
quireo by statute. The plaintiff had prayed same four issues that confronted Judge
for $35.000 damares. alleging that he was a Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr. in his nom-
riti2,-1 of Nebras'ai, and that the defendant illation to be a member of the Supreme
Northwestern Bell Telephone Company was, Court. The fact is that the Blackmun-
for turisdIctIonal purposes, an Iowa corpora-
Lima The Court of Appeals upheld the die- Haynsworth parallel is almost word for
trict nidge's ruling that the defendant was word, case for case, former clients, in-
a Ner;raska corporation, and therefore both terests, and even cases involving the
the paintiff and the defendant were citizens holding of a stock interest.
anti residents of the same state. Significantly, they emphasize further
'The statute governing disqualification for the 3 M case?the Minnesita Mining &
federtd Judges is 28 U.S.C. 455, which- provides Manufacturing Co. in which Judge
in aertInent part as follows "Any Justice or Blackmun had an interest at the time of
juave of the United States shall disqualify
himself In any case in which he has a sub- _a ruling?which parallels in large meas-
/Asocial interest. . ."
ure the famous Brunswick case involved
The Department of Justice has advised in the Haynsworth nomination. It will
Juoge Blackmun that in its opinion he did be remembered, Mr. President, that in
not have In any of these three cases such a the Brunswick case. Judge Hayns-
"substantial Interest" as would require him worth did not hold the stock at the time
to disqualify himself. By any quantitative of the arguments before him or when the
standards. Judge Blackmun's interest in the decision was made. He purchased the
two Ford cases can only be described as mi- stock thereafter, and at the time a mo-
cro,icopic In 1960 he owned fifty shares out tion for rehearing was considered, he did
of more than 16.000.000 issued and outstand-
ing, the stock. The very same is true in
Ing In 1964 he owned 100 out of more than
52,000.000 shares issued and outstanding the 3 M case. Of course, the difference is
isanzatin stock. The $24.500 Jury award in- that the opinion was filed, but the fun-
vol.:ea in Hanson Is likewise but a tiny frac- damental is still there: "Do you now hold
tint of Ford's 1960 net Income of approxi- the stock?"
mively *427.000.000. and the 112,500 award As they said, the amount made no dif-
Myrayed In Kotula is an even tinier fraction ference. No one ever doubted the honesty
of Ford's 1964 net income of approximately of Judge Haynsworth. They all asked
$505.000.000.
him to remain as Chief Judge of the
Judge Blackmun's holding of 22 shares of
fourth circuit, where he now continues
American Telephone and Telegraph Company
stoek in 1967 must be related to the nearly to serve with distinction. But the point
540,000.000 shares outstanding in 1987. The was the "appearance of impropriety."
485.000 prayed far by the plaintiff in Ma- Mr. President. I insert these cases in
hoary Is an InnnPesimal portion of American the record to emphasize the double
Telephone and Telegraph Company's 1967 standard employed by my colleagues in
net income of aoproximately one and one- the Senate as a body, apparently, on
half billion dollars.
whether or not a judge is from South
in short, if the word "substantial" in 28
1.1.a...C. 455 Is to be given any meaning at all, Carolina or from Minnesota. Apparent-
Judge Blackmun vas not required to disqual- ly, if one is from South Carolina, the
if y riiniselt In any of these three cases, standards or qualifications by way of
? ? ? ethics, former client, and interest?sub-
('mon 29. American Bar Association Can.. stantial or not?are higher than would be
orl). of Judicial Ethics, provides that "a Judge required of a Minnesota judge.
should abstain from perforating or taking believe?as they all concluded in the
part In any Judicial act In which his personal
Haynsworth case?that Judge Hayns,
Interests are Involved:. The ,erro "personal
interests- is no% defined. though Formal worth adhered to the law, and I believe
Clso won No 170 states that a iudge who is a that Judge Blackmun adher.li to the
stoekholder In a corporation which is a party law. The interests were inconsequential.
to 'otgation pentane in his court should not The law says "substantial." However, in
perform any judicial function with respect to the Haynsworth case, my colleagues,
that law suit wrich involves an exercise of consisting of a jury, found otherwise. /
discretion,
am willing to abide by their finding.
The relationship between the federal stat-
ute pertaining to disqualification, 28 U.S.C.
455. and Canon 20 Is far from clear. Different tS. 2994) which provided that any in-
language is used in each, and the absence of terest or real estate holding whatever by
the adjective "substantial" In the Canon sug- a Judge would be disqualification. so
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
S 6978 Approved For Retw#31QP?gtilitfAICitERIAD-0-0SENN/R400080065-6 May 12, 1970 -
silent. We may speculate that the State
Department, which is supposed to clear
the disposal of any surplus military item,
acceded to this transfer with reluctance.
Certainly State does not exercise the
tight control over the disposal of surplus
weapons that it manages to maintain
over military sales.
The fact is that this surplus arms pro-
gram is being used to supplement a re-
duced and congressionally regulated for-
eign assistance program. Indeed, ac-
cording to the New York Times, the
principal justification offered by State
Department officials for the recent ship-
ment of surplus arms to Nationalist
China was the sharp reduction in the
military assistance program.
Unless something is done, Congress
may soon lose control over the transfer
of arms to foreign governments. The
leak in the dike must be plugged.
That is why I am today submitting an
amendment to H.R. 15628, the Foreign
Military Sales Act, which is now before
the Senate Judiciary Committee. It is in-
tended as an amendment to the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961, and it is designed
to recapture control of the surplus arms
disposal program from the Department
of Defense?vesting it in the Congress,
where it rightfully belongs.
My amendment has two parts: First,
it sets a ceiling, an absolute annual ceil-
ing, of $50 million on the amount of
arms and equipment that may be dis-
posed of as military surplus. Further-
more, that $50 million valuation is based
on the acquisition value of the items?
what they cost the Government when
they were originally purchased. At pres-
ent, the Pentagon sets a "utility" value on
this surplus of 30 percent of its original
cost. My amendment would do away with
this arbitrary valuation, which carries
with it an obvious opportunity for
manipulation.
Second, under this amendment, the
Executive would be required to submit
to Congress annually a schedule of the
countries to which it proposes to transfer
military surplus, as well as the items to be
transferred to each country. The ap-
proval of this schedule would rest with
Congress. Once the schedule is approved,
if the Executive wants to add a new
country to the original list, or to increase
the cost of surplus aims to be trans-
ferred to any country by more than 10
percent, it would have to come back to
Congress for additional approval.
It is my hope and belief that through
this amendment, we can bring surplus
military assistance back under the for-
eign aid program, and hence under the
control of Congress in law and 4n fact.
It is vitally important to do so at this
time. For as John Finney noted in the
New York Times:
With the reduction of the United States
military forces and withdrawal of troops from
South Vietnam, billions of dollars' worth of
weapons are being declared surplus by the
military services. A study by the staff of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee suggest
that the total may come to $10 billion, al-
though State Department officials believe
this estimate is too high.
Thus, given the increased availability
of surplus arms and given the increased
reliance by the Pentagon on this pro-
gram, the time is ripe for congressional
action. If this program is not brought
under congressional control, I fear that
we could become involved in other mili-
tary adventures as unsound, as unpopu-
lar, and as unrelated to our vital national
interests as the endless conflict in which
we are now bogged down in Indochina.
In order to put a stop to the independ-
ent foreign policy of the Pentagon, to
prevent the use of military assistance
for unapproved purposes, and to insure
that every transfer of military arms and
equipment is undertaken only with con-
gressional sanction, we must change the
surplus arms program. The amendment
which I have proposed makes this
Possible.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the text of this amendment be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
TALMADGE). The amendment will be re-
ceived and printed, and will lie on the
table; and, without objection, the
amendment will be printed in the
RECORD.
The amendment (No. 623) is as
follows:
.444 DLTZMENT No. 623?,
At the end of the -UM add the following
new section:
SEC. 7. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
is amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
"Sze. 652. EXCESS DEFENSE ARTICLES. ?(a)
The total cost of excess defense articles that
may be transferred to all foreign countries
and international organizations shall never
exceed $50,000,000 during any fiscal year. The
President shall transmit annually to the
Committee on Foreign Relations of the Sen-
ate and to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
of the House of Representatives a report
enumerating each excess defense article to
be transferred during the succeeding fiscal
year and the foreign country or international
organization to which each such article is to
be transferred.
"(b) There shall be authorized by law for
each fiscal year the total cost of excess de-
fense articles that may be transferred to each
foreign country and each international or-
ganization. No excess defense article may
be transferred to any such country or or-
ganization (1) if there is no authorization
for any transfer to that country or organiza-
tion for that fiscal year, or (2) when there
exists such an authorization for that coun-
try or organization, if the cost of that arti-
cle, when added to the total of the costs of all
such articles already transferred to that
country or organization during the same
fiscal year (if any), exceeds the total of the
costs of all excess defense articles so author-
ized to be transferred to such country or or-
ganization during that fiscal year plus 10
per centum.
"(c) For purposes of this section, the cost
of each excess defense article is the cost to
States of acquiring that article."
NOTICE OF HEARINGS ON S. 3678,
FOREIGN BANKING SECRECY
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I wish
to announce that the Subcommittee on
Financial Institutions of the Committee
on Banking and Currency will hold hear-
ings on S. 3678, a bill to amend the Fed-
eral Deposit Insurance Act to require
insured banks to maintain certain rec-
ords, to require that certain transactions
In U.S. currency be reported to the De-
partment of the Treasury and for other
purposes.
The hearings will be held on Monday
through Thursday, June 1, 2, 3, and 4,
1970, and will begin at 10 a.m. in room
5302, New Senate Office Building.
Persons desiring to testify or to submit
written statements in connection with
these hearings should notify Mr. Ken-
neth A. McLean, Senate Committee on
Banking and Currency, room 5300, New
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.
20510; telephone [phone].
ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS
ON OIL SHALE RESERVES
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, on behalf of
the Subcommittee on Minerals, Ma-
terials, and Fuels of the Senate Interior
Committee, I announce that public hear-
ings have been scheduled for next Thurs-
day, May 14, on the situation with re-
spect to development of the vast oil
shale reserves in the public lands.
The hearings will open at 10 o'clock,
and will be held in the Interior Commit-
tee room, 3110, New Senate Office Build-
ing. The subcommittee has urged In-
terior Secretary Walter J. Hickel to ap-
pear personally to set forth the facts and
make recommendations to us to enable us
to reach a determination as to whether
new legislation is needed to bring about
development. The Director of the Office
of Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Re-
serves also has been invited to appear.
Mr. President, studies by the Sub-
committee on Minerals, Materials, and
Fuels of the Interior Committee show
that our country may be facing critical
shortages of energy in the not too dis-
tant future. The supply situation is
rendered more acute by our growing
awareness of the perils to our environ-
ment from the production and use of
certain forms of energy.
This is a most necessary and a most
healthful development. But unless we are
to'become increasingly dependent on for-
eign sources for fuels, we must find and
develop new sources within our own bor-
ders to meet the burgeoning require-
ments of our economy and way of life.
One of the great potential sources of
energy, as yet untapped, is the vast oil
shale reserves in Utah, Colorado, Wyo-
ming, and other Western States, includ-
ing Alaska. The richest and most abun-
dant of these reserves lie in federally
owned lands. These deposits are subject
to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, but
all reserves in Federal lands were with-
drawn in 1930 by President Hoover in the
wake of the Teapot Dome scandals.
Secretary Udall tried to initiate a pro-
gram in 1967 for development of these re-
serves. Unfortunately, the potential de-
velopers felt that the conditions he laid
down were too stringent, too uncertain,
and too expensive for a wholly new in-
dustry, and nothing concrete came of
Secretary Udall's program.
As I have stated, our country will need,
and need soon, the energy locked up in
these oil shale reserves. It is hoped our
subcommittee hearing will clarify the po-
litical and economic situation so that de-
velopment of this great federally owned
natural resource may get underway.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6
41 12, 1970 Approvettmei&g,RARFofemOw:EgEW1937R000400080065-6
S 6977
-Particularly as it involves the matter of
making war.
The American people have seen, and
they do not like what they see. They see
our military Men apparently having the
President's ear, giving him the same bad
advice they gave his predecessors. They
see the mistakes of the past repeated all
over again. They demand action from
their elected representatives to regain
control over military policymaking.
The actions of the Defense Depart-
ment, no less than those of any other
Cabinet department or any administra-
tive agency, must be limited to the au-
thority granted by law. Neither the
Defense Department, nor any other seg-
ment of the executive branch of Govern-
ment, can be permitted to disregard those
limits with impunity. If the American
system of government is to work, our
sprawling bureaucracy must be account-
able for its actions.
Since the end of World War II, we
have seen a pattern of congressional ac-
quiescence in matters of military policy.
Our past history of blanket acceptance
of the Executive's actions involving both
military and foreign policy is not only
in sharp contrast to our close scrutiny of
domestic programs; it also amounts to
an abdktation of clearly defined consti-
tutional responsibilities.
Last year, Congress took the first
important step toward a more careful
review of the military budget. It is ob-
vious that this effort will be continued.
But there is another area of Pentagon
activity which has received far less pub-
licity, and hence has had far less of an
impact on public consciousness than ex-
cessive military spending. I refer spe-
cifically to military aid, and to a most
particular kind of military aid?that by
which equipment and material in excess
of the needs of our Armed Forces is
traasferred to foreign governments.
The Defense Department and the State
Department find the legal authority for
this surplus arms program in sections
503(a) and 844(g) of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1981. as amended. These pro-
visions authorize the President to furnish
military assistance by loan or grant, and
define the term "excess defense articles."
But the existence of legal authority
is no guarantee of legislative control. For
what we are dealing with in this trans-
fer of surplus military supplies Is some-
thing above and beyond the ordinary
military assistance appropriations which
Congress makes every year. It is military
assistance which is not charged against
appropriations. It can be disposed of
either by sale or gift: the bulk of this
equipment, however, is given away.
By relying on this program for the dis-
posal of surplus arms abroad, the Pen-
tagon needs no congressional authoriza-
tion. Furthermore, there is no dollar lim-
itation on the quantity of arms which
can be transferred under this program.
While the Defense Department does re-
port its various surplus arms transactions
when it comes before Congress request-
ing its annual military assistance appro-
priation, there is nothing to prevent a
report being submitted after the fact of
transfer?well after some transaction
that can be both embarrassing and even
dangerous. And under present lam, there
is little Congress can do to regulate
such transactions even if we were fully
informed in advance of what the Penta-
gon planned to do.
The lack of congressional power to
control this program is in sharp con-
trast to other types of military assistance
programs. For example, direct military
grant assistance under the traditional
foreign aid program requires annual au-
thorizations and appropriations by Con-
gress. Thus. Congress can limit the
amount of military aid available to for-
eign governments under this program.
Another method of transferring arms
to foreign governments is under the mil-
itary sales program.
It was not too long ago that the Pen-
tagon had complete latitude with respect
to military sales. In the summer of 1967,
it was revealed that the Export-Import
Bank was opening lines of credit by
which the Pentagon was able to sell arms
to countries without revealing the names
of these countries to the Bank. This un-
business like way of doing things was
nevertheless quite acceptable to the Ex-
Port-Import Bank, because its so-called
country loans were guaranteed by the
Pentagon up to 25 percent through a
revolving fund maintained for that pur-
pose. Over $600 million worth of arms
loans were made to underdeveloped
countries through this program.
This "country X" program was not a
secret, but it was not exactly a household
word. Once it surfaced, however, there
was fast action. The Pentagon's loan
guarantee program was abolished, and
the Export-Import Bank was forbidden
to make any more loans to finance arms
purchases. The Defense Department can
still sell arms on credit, but it must first
obtain congressional authorization; and
Congress sets an annual ceiling on the
amount of such sales.
In addition, Congress has forbidden the
use of military aid to furnish sophisti-
cated weapons systems to underdevel-
oped countries. It has imposed restric-
tions on military aid to Latin American
and to Africa. It has stipulated that the
sale of military equipment to less devel-
oped countries shall be cut off if those
countries divert either economic assist-
ance of Public Law 480 assistance to mil-
itary expenditures, or if they divert their
own resources to unnecessary military
expenditures,
All of these restrictions were imposed
with one end in view?congressional con-
trol of U.S. military assistance. All were
designed to plug any leak in the dike and
to make the policies of the Congress per-
fectly clear to the Executive.
Yet despite the beat efforts of the
House and the Senate, we now find an-
other leak in the dike?the disposal of
military hardware and equipment that
has been declared in excess of U.S. needs.
And it. is a leak which is becoming larger
every day.
Several weeks ago, the State Depart-
ment disclosed that. surplus U.S. military
equipment originally casting $3.4 billion
had been given to foreign governments
under this program over the past 19
years. But the important point is that
within the last 2 years, the Pentagon has
begun to rely on this program to a much
greater extent than in the past. Since
other types of military assistance have
been brought under congressional control
and thereby reduced in scope, the Penta-
gon views the surplus arms program as
the primary means of getting back into
the business of military assistance on a
grand scale.
The best example of this trend was re-
vealed by the probing of Representative
Swim Coen, a member of the House
Appropriations Committee. His investi-
gation disclosed some interesting and
unknown facts about the transfer of arms
to Nationalist China?the same country
which caused such a great controversy
during the debate over the fiscal year
1970 foreign aid appropriations bill.
This bill was blocked during the last
session of Congress because the Senate
conferees would not agree to providing
$54.5 million for an extra Phantom jet
fighter squadron for Nationalist China.
When that item was finally deleted, the
appropriations bill went through, with
Nationalist China receiving approxi-
mately $25 million in direct military as-
sistance.
Yet, while all this was going on, Con-
gressman CONTE obtained information
from the Defense Department which
revealed that the Pentagon had secretly
supplied the Nationalist Chinese with
some $157 million worth of weapons and
equipment under this excess disposal
program?over six times the amount ap-
proved by Congress in direct military as-
sistance to that country. Included in this
little package were four 20-year-old de-
stroyers, equipment for a Mike-Hercules
battery, more than 35 F-100 Super Sabre
jets, more than 20 F-104 Starfighters,
more than 30 C-119 Flying Boxcars,
some 50 medium tanks, about 120 howit-
zers, and thousands of M-14 rifles. While
the Pentagon declined to confirm or
deny the truth of this story, the State
Department confirmed it the very next
day.
According to John Finney's story in
the New York Times of March 29, 1970,
the State Department described the
transaction "as part of a general pro-
gram of using surplus arms to bolster
the defenses of such 'forward defense'
countries as South Korea, Turkey. and
Taiwan." It was noted that in recent
months, the Defense Department has
transferred under this program some
790.000 used rifles, carbines, and subma-
chineguns to South Korea.
It has also been disclosed that about
73 percent of all surplus equipment is
now going to Taiwan, Turkey, South Ko-
rea, and Greece. While aid to Greece
has apparently consisted only of trucks,
,ammunition, and small arms because of
the embargo of heavy military supplies
Imposed against that country after the
military coup in 1967, the question can
be raised as to whether Congress would
have approved any military aid to Greece
during this period. Because of the com-
plete Executive discretion under this pro-
gram, Congress never had the oppor-
tunity to approve or disapprove.
It is interesting that the State De-
partment was willing to confirm Con-
gressman CONTE'S report about the re-
cent arms transfer to Nationalist China,
while the Defense Department remained
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400080065-6