U.S. COMMITMENTS ABROAD AND THE MILITARY PROCUREMENT AUTHORIZATION BILL

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 10
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 29, 2005
• Sequence Number: 46
• Publication Date: July 28, 1970
• Content Type: OPEN

V): C_
S 12258 Approved For Releamgt9ft/gAl6N9fk-RUyg99WsINT1fy110046-3
July 28, .1970
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR FANNIN TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, .I ask unanimous consent that to-
morrow, upon disposition of the read-
ing of the Journal, the distinguished
Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN) be
recognized for not to exced 20 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT TO 11
A.M. TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent that
when the Senate completes its business
today, it stand in adjournment until 11
o'clock tomorrow morning.
The PRESIDING 01.10ICER, Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN-
ATOR BYRD OF WEST VIRGINIA
ON THURSDAY NEXT
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I ask
unanimous consent that upon disposi-
tion of the reading of the Journal on
?Thursday next, July 30, 1970, that I be
recognized for not to exceed 1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT FROM
TOMORROW UNTIL THURSDAY,
JULY 30, 1970, AT 11 A.M.
Mr. BYRD'of West Virginia. Mr. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent that
when the Senate completes its business
on tomorrow, it stand in adjournment
until 11 a.m. on Thursday next.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
U.S. COMMITMENTS ABROAD AND
THE MILITARY PROCUREMENT
AUTHORIZATION BILL
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
nearly 18 months ago?on February 3,
1969?the chairman of the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee, Senator Fut.-
BRIGHT, announced on the Senate floor
the creation of a new subcommittee, the
job of which he said would be to "make
a detailed review of the international
military commitments of the United
States and their relationship to foreign
policy."
As the chairman said at that time, it
was hoped this subcommittee would de-
velop facts on the "relationship between
foreign policy commitments and the
military capacity to honor them."
Some months later a distinguished
member of the Senate Armed Services
Committee, Senator GOLDWATER, declared
on the Senate floor that factual informa-
tion from "an exhaustive investigation of
this Nation's treaty commitments around
the world was essential to our efforts to
reach any kind of sound judgment and
legislative conclusions regarding the pro-
jected level of our milita9, Txpenditures."
I agree with that stafkInent, for it focuses
on exactly wlvaf, the Poreign Relations
Committee 1,ad in mind in establishing
this ,ubcommittee.
On the eve of the debate on this fiscal
year 1971 military authorization billj
en-b?TOT?eTm as a ranking
member of the genati ArmeT-Services
Vi5ffirnittee and chairinan orthat VOhign
Relations -Slib-COMiiirt-te-e" on commit-
hiehTSJICOMT-Altz,..oltsers..a.tiths-odthe
investigation conducted_ by_khe
and its relatIonilitp_ to_ thoming
-Tii-the past year and one-half, our two-
man staff traveled to 23 countries for
on-the-scene investigation. We have
thereupon held 37 days of hearings, with
48 major witnesses covering U.S. military
forces, facilities, and security programs
in 13 countries, plus NATO.
As of today, our subcommittee has pub-
lished sanitized versions of hearings on
the Republic of the Philippines, Laos, and
Thailand; and last week on Taiwan.
With less than one-third of the tran-
scripts released, the published record
already has run over 1,000 pages.
The press, both here and abroad, and
also officials of our Government as well
as those of other countries have taken
notice?perhaps they have learned some-
thing?from the factual material devel-
oped in the published records.
I regret that apparently there...._are
some?even within the Senate?who do
not consider ours a serious study? I
rekTet also that others have ccinplainect
we-have gone tdo far. We will let our
published transcripts, along with our re-
port?which will be made public within
-a- f ew months?speak for themselves.
_ _
Today, however, I would direct thyself
to some immediate points, particularly
those raised by the chairman of the Sen-
ate Armed Services Committee in his
interesting statement on defense require-
ments that he delivered on the floor of
the Senate a week ago last Thursday.
Senator Stennis said, in part:
We are committed to more than 40 nations
by solemn, formal treaties or other formal
agreements.
He also observed that:
Congress should be well aware that Our
defense requirements are based in part on the
need to be prepared to help defend other na-
tions with whom we have mutual defense
agreements approved by the Congress or
whose defense is vital to our own national
security interests. -
Mr. President, one needs only to look
at the situation in Laos where every year
we are spending hundreds of millions of
American dollars and?more important=
the lives of our men fighting a war in
the north?far from the Ho Chi Minh
Trail?on behalf of a foreign country
with whom we have no treaty of any kind
whatsoever; with whom in fact the State
Department has actually testified that
we have no commitment.
Prior to these subcommittee heal?ii_las
of the Foreign Relations Committee, the
war in north Laos was actually_a tightly
held secret from most of the Congress.
We on the Foreign Relations Committee
were nacinformeTof the pertinent facts.
Ige on the Armed Services, COMMittee
were not informed of the pertinent facts.
P OM to The publication of our transcript,
this war in and over northern Laos was
a seciet from almost all of the American
The continuing attempts currently be-
ing =Ade to keep much of this informa-
tion secret are now a matter of public
record.
In line with the thoughts of the Sen-
ator from Mississippi before we authorize
more military spending in Laos; before
iwe appropriate money to send more of
our flyers to fight and die over that coun-
try, the American_people deserve to know
lin more detail the truth about that war
and the direction in which it is going, For
as President Nixon told a nationwide au-
dience last November:
The American people cannot and should
I not be asked to support a policy which in-
3 volves the overriding issues Of war and peace
unless they know the tPuth about that p01-
Icy.
There are various other countries
where Congress has never endorsed any
military commitment through a treaty,
but where?as our inquiry has estab-
lished?commitments do exist.
Senator STENNIS referred to some in
his statement?those with whom he said
we have bilateral agreements which im-
pose military obligations on our part to
come to their assistance in the face of
aggression. There are additional ones,
however, as our published records will
show.
These records also show that the level
of commitment varies even among na-
tions with whom we have solemn treaties.
With some countries, our word alone
is sufficient to insure that we will come
to their assistance. With others, our com-
mitment requires extensive military as-
sistance. With others, not only our as-
sistance, but also the physical presence
of our own forces and bases are required.
With others, joint military operations
have secretly been agreed upon and are
actually undertaken.
With_stia others, relations are deep-
ened through clandestine agreements
that permit us to store nuclear weapons
on the land of the country in question,
a policy which greatly increases chances
for nuclear war.
As the subcommittee tries first to find
out just what are our commitments, and
then seeks to reassess them, our studies
have demonstrated conclusively that not
only the basic treaties or and agreements
need review, but also the level of military
cooperation which has stemmed from
those basic commitments. The latter
should be examined in detail.
Senator STENNIS noted in his Senate
address:
When we look at the military arsenal
which we must build and maintain, we can-
not afford to think only of defending our
own shores but we have to think of what is
needed in order to give some reasonable as-
surance that we will be able to meet the ex-
tensive commitments we have assumed so
freely.
Now a few words of caution with re-
gard to that statement.
There are commitments which we the
Congress, the executive, and the Ameri-
can people have not "assumed so freely";
and the significance of that observation
is the fact that the Congress cannot
tailor the defense budget to commit-
ments about which it knows nothing.
Is it not a proper question to ask?
how can the Congress limit or end com-
mitments at the same time the executive
branch, either openly or in secrecy,
creates new commitments on its own?
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
July 28, 1970
ApPrc"EV8Meragn9NalitifelAID03371:2.000400110046-612257
where sellcsals-are-oompleteelatted,t,
ax t?hakcterm is defined in the Civil Rights
Act of I304, because, after all, it is to the
executive otkpartment that we must look for
the carrying:put, and the Federal courts to
support, theseNprovisions which are Set out
aixive and which,appear in the conference
report of the bill aking education appro-
priations.
Any reading of tlikke provisions would
clearly show that they akp completely sound
mid I feel will be followedy this adminis-
tration not only because o commitments
but because the system of edu t. on is essen-
Lel to any organized society; an unless we
return again to putting educatio firFt, aS
these amendments would do. soon w ill go
(lown the drain as have other socie In
)cars past.
Mr. Chairman, I thought it well to can.
1:aese facts to the attention 01 the Members
of the House at this time.
these amendments will be carried out if
they become law and that they will help
the situation and be a path in the future.
Someday, the country outside the South
will want to find its way through this
jungle of readjustment, and they can
look back to this law as one that lit the
path, and with its help they will find
their way.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I sug-
gest 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. Pres-
ident, I ask unanimous consent that the
a order for the quorum call be rescinded.
Na The PRESIDINCI OFFICER (Mr.
Case). Without objection, it is so
orde
The stion is on agreeing to the con-
ference
On this uestion the yeas and nays
have been o ed, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The bill clerk lied the roll.
Mr. KENNED I announce that the
Senator from Com ticut (Mr. Dom),
the Senator from M curl (Mr. EAGLE-
Tow). the Senator from ennessee (Mr.
Goer), the Senator fro Minneapolis
(Mr. McCerrow), the Sena er from Ar-
kansas (Mr. MeCtemaN) , e Senator
Imp West Virginia (Mr. RAND PH1, the
Senator from Georgia (Mr. Ru la) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if prese and
voting, the Senator from West Vi i
(Me RANDOLPH) would vole "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that
Senator from New York (Mr. GOODELL)
and the Senator from California (Mr.
MURPHY) are necessarily absent.
The Senator from Idaho (Mr. JORDAN)
is absent on official business.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
Moroni.) and the Senator from Maine
(Mrs. Sorra) are absent because of ill-
ness.
If present and voting, the Senator from
New York (Mr. G000roa), the Senator
from Idaho (Mr. JORDAN), the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT), the
Senator from California (Mr. MITRPITY)
and the Senator from Maine (Mrs.
SMITH) would each vote "yea."
The result was announced?yeas 88,
nays 0, as follows:
IN?. 250 Leg
YEAS-88
Aiken Elleinler atinsfield
Allen Ervin Mithias
Allott Fannin McGee
Anderson Pon( McGovern
Baker Fulbright McIntyre
Hayti Gold water Metcalf
Bellrnon Gravel 51111er
Beni.ett Griflin Mondale
Bible Gurney Montoya
Boars Hansen Muss
Brooke Harris Muskie
Burdick Hart Nelaon
Byrd, Va. Henke Pack wood
Byrd. W. Va. Hatfield Pastore
cannon Hol land Pearson
Case Hollings Pell
Fr& HrliSka Percy
CooX Tou cir
I
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President. with ref-
erence to this amendment?itis reported
dn amendment No. 38 in the report of the
managers on the part of the House?this
matter came up as a part of the $150
million which was in the Senate amend-
ment to the bill. We had the Jonas
amendment and the two Whitten amend-
ments in the House bill. This matter was
t:ettled in the conference. They agreed to
drop the Jonas amendment and we
agreed that they would keep the Whit-
ten amendments, and the amount of
money was split as a matter of adjust-
ment, in conference, wholly within the
meaning of the conference concept.
There is no diminution or understanding
or anything else about what they meant.
They speak for themselves, of course.
Mr. President, here is a part of the rub.
This amendment will do a great deal of
good. The educators, the trustees, the
parents who are trying to keep our pub-
lic schools in operation and keep the
doors open, who are trying to deal with
court orders and HEW orders, have no
hope for the future. It is an overbearing
situation. They are not just integrating
the schools. They are demanding racial
balance of the faculty and the students.
They do not deny it. Every judge knows
it is true. Every HEW employee knows it
is true. These court decrees are based on
racial balance. In effect, they say, "Down
with education. Our goal is to have racial
balance." That is what is killing the
spirit of this entire endeavor. You will
never get education back to the foremost
objective until some kind of reality is
brought about, and these amendments
will bring it. You cannot be withholding
money and you cannot be busing children
all over the district, from county side to
county side, in order to bring about
theoretical racial balance. It has never
been required by the Supreme Court. It
has never oeen required by Congress in
the Civil Rights Act. It is only required
in the minds and the practice of those
who are trying not only to integrate the
schools and the fac " but also to bal-
ance them off ' on some of racial
proportion.
This amendment is designed t---(iklfaaaaz.ny,
things short of going that far?not to
fry to defeat the law, but to carry out
the real purpose and spirit of the law
in the beginning.
I thank everybody for their confed-
eration of this serious problem, all the
way down the line. I am confident that
Spong
Stennis
Stevens
Symington
Talmadge
Dodd
Eagleton
Goodell
Gore
Thurmond
Tower
Tydings
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
NAYS-0
NOT VOTING-12
Jordan, Idaho Murphy
McCarthy Randolph
McClellan Russell
Mundt Smith, Maine
Yarborough
Young. N. Dak..
Young, Ohio
So the report on H.R. 16916 was
agreed to.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, firs';,
I tun very grateful, on behalf of the
committee, for the vote of confidence o a
this conference report, with no "nay"
votes and 88 "yea" votes. I do not know
when this has happened on an appre-
priation bill of this magnitude, but the
Senator from New Hampshire and I ai e
pleased.
Mr. COTTON. Mr. President, I join in
those sentiments.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, be-
fore I make a motion, I am sure the Sen-
ator from New Hampshire, as well as
the members of the subcommittee and
the full committee will join me, in com-
mending the staff for the splendid work
done on this very complicated bill. For
the long, hard work that was done on
the bill, in the hearings, during tie
mark-up, the floor action, and the coa-
ference by Mr. Harley Dirks of the com-
mittee staff and Mr. Bill Kennedy, on the
minority side of the staff.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendments in disagreement will be
stated.
The legislative clerk read as follova:
Resolved, That the House recede from its
disagreement to the amendment of the San-
te numbered 3 to the aforesaid bill, tad
flour therein with an amendment as (ol-
io In lieu of the matter stricken and in-
sert by said amendment, insert the
folio ng:
"Th this appropriation shall not be
avalabh to pay local educational agen.;ies
pursuant ? the provisions of any other fe-c-
non of tlt I until payment has been rattle
of 00 per c'turn of the amounts to which
such agenci are entitled pursuant to :ec-
tion 3(a) of id title and 100 per cent um
of the amoun payable under section 0 of
said title: Prov d further, That $8,800,000
of this appropria on shall be available to
pay full entitlem t under section 3tal of
said title to a local ucational agency w.aere
the number of chit en eligible under said
section 3(a) represent 5 per centum or more
of the total number ? children attending
school at such local eau tlonal agency (lur-
ing the preceding year."
Resolved, That the Ho recede front its
disagreement to the amen'eat of the Sen-
ate numbered 38 to the a said bill, and
concur therein with an a endment as
follows:
Strike the sum of $150,000,00 named in
said amendment, and insert in 1 u thereof
175,000,000."
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. Presi
move the Senate concur in the a
menta of the House to the amendme
01 the Senate numbered 3 and 38.
rie PRESIDING OFFICER. The e ues-
&ion is on agreeing to the motion of the
C Jackson Senator' from Washington that the Sen-
Cranston Jayne
kre-reocaar. jjv the amendments of the
otton
Curtis Sante
Jordan. N.C. Ncliwwlker House to the i.. menta of the &mate
Dole
L
Kennedy numbered 3 and 38,
Dominick
ong smith,
EIW land MAgnueon Owl= sa The motion was agreed t?.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
July 28, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE S 12259
These are but a few of the thoughts I
believe we should be considering incident
to the taking up of this defense legisla-
tion.
An additional question comes to mind:
Will the Congress?and hopefully the
executive branch?realize that the pri-
mary commitment is to the American
people; and that to honor some of these
executive agreements?and even trea-
ties?in the manner considered appro-
priate in recent years would bankrupt
the Nation; and in the end, therefore, do
irreparable harm to our own national
security?
Surely there must be limits to what
this Nation can do for other countries,
particularly those nations which seem to
want to do so little for themselves.
I believe that for this reason, if for
no other, the Senate should face up to
its responsibility in working with the ex-
ecutive branch to establish those limits.
Is this not a legitimate and responsible
role for the Senate?
In any case, it is a responsibility the
Foreign Relations Committee has under-
taken with the commitments resolution;
and this action was followed last Decem-
ber, with administration support, by a bi-
partisan group of Senators first drafting
and then passing into law the Laos-
Thailand amendment.
It was a responsibility which was again
recognized by Senators COOPER and
CHURCH in their Cambodian amendment
to the Military Sales Act; and it is in
that role I see the recent Armed Services
Committee amendment to limit free
world force equipment to the sanctuary
area?lacking new authority?rather
than in support of the Cambodian Gov-
ernment.
The Senate need not look to any future
'decision to meet, head on, the difficult
question of what this Nation should do
iwith its increasingly limited manpower,
tresources and assets. That has already
begun, and my hope is that it will con-
tinue.
? I believe it will continue if the respon-
sible committees of the Congress' obtain
ithe same type and character of informa-
tion about our worldwide military corn-
mitments that has been demanded, and
in most cases thereupon obtained by the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The political, military, and economic
!positions in which the taxpayers of this
!Nation now find themselves demand no
;less.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator yield, and if "so to whom?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
yield to the distinguished chairman of
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
_ Mr. _FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
commend the. Senator for this statement.
It is a very succinct and significant state-
ment, in my opinion, and deserves a little
elaboration.
First, I wish to say that the Senator,
as chairman of his subcommittee has
done a remarkable job. He has been very
thorough and his subcommittee has a
most able staff. Much of the information
which he has developed was certaiii13,
nnt known hy me, and I do not think It
was known by the other members of the
Committee on Foreign Relations or. the
Sei-i--aTe--aS a whole, as the Senator has so
I wanted to ask the Senator about one
or two specifics in his statement. On page
3, the Senator says:
The continuing attempts currently being
made to keep much of this information secret
are now a matter of public record.
The Senator has reference, I presume,
to the deletions from some of the hear-
ings of his committee, does he not?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Yes; that is cor-
rect; and in addition, as the Senator
knows as chairman of the committee for
the first time in the history of the For-
eign Relaions Committee, an ambassa-
deFifas refused to testify, on instructions
of the State Department, unless all sten-
okra-ale tapes incident to his testimony
were burned, and the only printed record
would be -kept by the State Department,
with no record retained by the com-
mittee.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is the first
time this has happened. I would remind
the Senator that, in addition to that, on
two other occasions ambassadors were
told not to discuss certain questions with
the committee, particularly as to nuclear
weapons and some other areas.
Mn SYMINGTON. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. However, they re-
considered the matter concerning the
question of the pay to the Thai troops,
and so on, and we finally got that infor-
mation. But there has been a disposition
to refuse to make public, or even to di-
vulge in executive session, a good deal of
very pertinent and important informa-
tion.
With regard to publication of the sub-
committee records of sworn testimony
taken in executive session, the adminis-
tration insisted on deleting a great deal
of that information, did they not?
Mr. SYMINGTON. That is right.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. It took about 6
months to clear some of the testimony
because of the difficulty in getting agree-
ment on what was to be published; is
that not correct?
Mr. SYMINGTON. That is correct.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Taiwan hear-
ings, which have just been published,
were held how long ago?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Last November, a
good many months ago.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That brings me up
to the pending issue, which is the S an-
-iihr_bases_agreemerit. The first time this
matter was gone into was by the Sen-
ator's subcommittee last year. There have
been two agreements, an agreement in
1953 with an extension in 1963, and then
last year they were considering a further
extension, originally, I believe, of 5 years,
and then it was compromised?largely
because of the work of the Senator's
subcommittee?to a brief period, I think,
of 18 months. Those were executive
agreements.
The executive branch is now negotiat-
ing another agreement which we had a
hearing about last week. We urged the
Department of State and the administra-
tion to submit this new agreement as a
treaty, so that the Senate would have
an opportunity to pass upon it.
What does the Senator think about
that? Should it be a treaty, or should
it be an executive agreement?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, un-
fortunately I was not here when the
latest executive hearing on the Spanish
bases, and the proposed agreement with
Spain, was held; but I do not see how
formal arrangements which involve
money, troops, and very possibly the lives
of Americans can be agreed upon with-
out any knowledge on the part of the
proper committees of Congress, this in
order that they can be voted on under the
advice and consent clause, which gives
the Senate authority to approve treaties.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. They have not posi-
tively decided on the proposal, I believe.
Mr. Alexis Johnson, the Under Secretary,
appeared before the committee and I
urged him and other members of the de-
partment submit this as a treaty, to
give the committee and the Senate as
a whole the opportunity to study and to
develop the meaning of this agreement,
and then to approve or disapprove it.
It seems to me that is the only proper
way to meet the suggestion that has
been made by the Senator from Mis-
sissippi and the Senator from Arizona.
These Senators talk about tailoring our
commitments to our necessities and to
our capacities to pay for them. If the ad-
ministration executes it as an executive
agreement, then we will be confronted
with a situation in which they will say,
"We have made the agreement, we have
promised to pay all of this, now we call
upon you to pay it. If you do not, you
will renege upon an agreement made by
our President and the administration."
This would be a wholly intolerable
procedure, and certainly inconsistent
with the views expressed by the Senator
from Arizona and the Senator from Mis-
Wssippi; would the Senator not agree
iwith that?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I would agree. I
do not see how we can appropriate
money?authorize it first and then ap-
propriate it?for honoringsommitrnents
when we do not know what those corn-
Mr. FULBRIGHT. FULBRIGHT. Even if the execu-
tive agreement is published in the news-
paper?assuming that is done?then we
have a situation in which the meaning of
this agreement?the commitment, in ef-
fect?has not been developed in hearings
in the normal way and in debate on the
Senate floor.
I use this as a current example of what
we have been talking about. This execu-
tive agreement with Spain, which I have
seen?the administration has submitted
it to the committee to look at; not for its
approval, but simply bemuse- we-
quested it?is very ambiguous, I would
say. There is some language in it which
I have never seen in any executive agree-
ment or treaty. What it means is very
unclear.
The Under Secretary may interpret it
one way today. He says that when the
document uses language to the effect that
we will support each other Defense Es-
tablishment it does not amount to a se-
curity commitment. I submit that rea-
sonable men could have different views
on this. I would interpret the language,
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
S12260 Approveitpgarmani/Onethfilp?RRERW37R000400111016-328,
1970
plus the actual disposition of troops, as
a commitment in the nature of a security
treaty. If we station several thousand
men there, with quantities of airplanes
and other equipment, and we have a joint
planning staff?all the usual arrange-
ments which go with a security treaty?
then I would say it is clearly in the nature
of a security treaty.
So there is perhaps a basis for a rea-
sonable difference of opinion about it.
But this is exactly a classic case. What it
actually means and what the nature of
the commitment is. ought to be developed
in hearings and in debate on the floor of
the Senate and the agreement passed on
by the Senate. I submit to the Senator
that here is an example of trying to tailor
our commitments with our capacities
hearing in mind the needs of the country.
We should do this now while the com-
mitment is under consideration and not
2 or 3 years or several years later, when
a commitment such as this has already
been undertaken.
I would hope that the Senator would
agree and that the Senate would agree
that this kind of agreement should be
submitted for the Senate's approval I
believe it is the only possible way in
which the Senate can regain some con-
trol over the worldwide commitments
which this country has undertaken in
the past 20 or 25 years.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I appreciate the re-
marks of the able Senator.
As everyone knows, Spain is not a mem-
ber of NATO: therefore, we have no
treaty with Spain under NATO. It has
been our policy to maintain airfields,
naval bases and thousands of troops in
Spain. I do not necessarily object to this;
but, on the other hand, as the able Sen-
ator knows, we have been paying a tre-
mendous amount of money. in effect, to
defend Spain. It seems to me that if we
are going to be there at all, it ought to
be on a mutual basis: because everybody
knows about the problems in the economy
of the United States. In addition, any
agreement with respect to the Spanish
bases ought to be in the form of a treaty
and not an Executive agreement. As the
Senator will recall, at one time it was
strictly a military agreement which was
expanded upon later by people in the
State Department.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the RECORD an editorial published in to-
day's New York Times entitled "Vague
Pledge to Franco," which discusses this
matter.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
VAGUE PLEDGE TO FRANC?
Alter the long and divisive debates about
!.lie legal and constitutional bases for united
military actions in Indochina, the last
iiing the Nixon Administration ought to be
nieriug is another vague overseas defense
mmitment. It appears ready, however, to
a pledge to "support the defense system"
!min in return for continued use tit air
aval bases there.
nie members of the Senate 10..reign Re-
us Committee say they are not clear,
after briefings from high-ranking state
fci Defense Department officials, just what
omd be involved in such a obnunitinent.
Neither are we. Nor is It clear exactly What
is meant by the pledge that "both Govern-
ments will Make compatible their defense
policies"?more language from the draft
agreement expected to be signed In a few
week
On one Interpretation, the pledge of sup-
port Mr Spain's defense system could be con-
sidered stronger than the statement in all
Spanish-American military agreements since
1953 that an attack on either country would
be "a matter of common concern." In any
case, before the agreement is signed, the
Foreign Relations Committee ought to Insist
on clarification of its meaning and consider
whether such a commitment should not be
made in the form of a treaty. subject to Sen-
ate approval.
In Inc:L. Congress should go further and
raise the question whether the long-run In-
teres:s of the United States are served by
any renewal of military arrangements with
the regime of Generalissimo Franco, now 7/
and facing increasing opposition. A group of
120 members; of this opposition argued in a
petition to Secretary of State Rogers in May
that it was unwise for this country to sign
this kind of agreement with a regime that
made such decisions without consulting its
people.
Many among these opponents may be In-
fluential in future Spanish governments.
Congress should weigh their arguments
against the short-run military advantages of
the bases in Spain while there Is still time
to re,onsider the agreement with the Franco
regime.
NI:. FULBRICW T. I say to the Senator
that I think his remarks are especially
aimropriate to debate on the bill which
is under consideration. I do hope the
Senate will take seriously what he has
said and also the findings of his sub-
committee in this field.
Tees is entirely in line with the sense
of the Senate as expressed in the com-
mitments resolution. If we do not take
action now on the current measure as
well as the proposed agreement with
Soa.n. I think it will be extremely diffi-
cult for us ever to regain control of the
appropriating process of our Govern-
ment.
One further remark: Ine the course of
the Senator's hearings, there also have
been other secret agreements, some of
them verbal, which obligate us in coma-
tieesa- other than Spain. I think the.se
agreements should be submitted as trea-
ties .and. thus give the Senate an oppor-
tunity, to pass upon their wisdom and
to.rie.cide whether or not we should un-
dertake_the responsibilities of paying
rather large sums of money to other
Countries.
I congratulate the Senator on his
stat ement.
l'Jr. SYMINGTON. I thank the chair-
man for his observations.
tes far back as 1965. I became very
worried, about the nature and degree of
our commitments all over the world.
which even today, counting Europe and
all the other parts of the world, are
costing the American taxpayers some
$100 million a day.
If we build a house or a road or a hos-
pital or a school in this country, whether
it is right or wrong, at least work would
be created. Oile of the sad things that
liae developed recently in our country,
incident, to trying to pay for all these
foreign adventures, is the high interest
rates, along with the inflation, plus rising
unemployment, due in part to the ex-
porting of jobs.
Mr. HART. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to the distinguished Senator from Miithi-
gan.
Mr. HART. First, may I thank the
Senator from Missouri for again at-
tempting to bring to our conscience the
obligation that rests on us to be informed
before we act, whether it is on milisary
procurement, commitments in defense of
other nations, or the adequacy of our
school lunch program. In all these pro-
grams, he has given us this leadership.
May I ask a question which indicates
that I got an impression from the Sen-
ator's remarks that I would not want to
labor under if I were wrong.
Qfne theeSienaetor from Missouri sug-
gest that the Senate, as of tocial.,,cannot
intelligently act upon the military pro-
ctifetrTera bill that is now pending, for
the reason, among others, that the ex-
tent' of ourcommitments is not yet
known?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I believe that we do
not have the information before the
Senate that, any board of directors of
anyThusiness?and I say this as a former
husiiiiiian?would have before, in the
interest of the stockholders?in this case,
the American people?they, would. fete
they had the right to approve or request
funds to be epent, by the manegemens.
I 'know that some particular things
.cannot be discussed in the Senate be-
cause they involve the security of the
United States. As one who spent many
years in the Defense Department I un-
derstand that. But what we are talking
'about are the hundreds of millions of
:dollars?in leen the billions of dollars?
that we have been expending around the
,world under the guise of military -au-
thorizations and appropriations?some
for wars that we have been fighting in
'countries like Laos, which not only were
not approved by tile Senate, but also, to
the best of my knowledge, nobody in the
Senate knew about in any detail.
Mr. HART. As a businessman, would
not the Senator from Missouri agree that
stockholders recognize the sensitivity of
certain corporate information because,
if treated too casually, it could wreak
havoc with the company by feeding in-
formation to the company's competitors?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Yes, indeed. For ex-
ample, a secret formula that made a
product.
Mr. HART, Exactly. But, notwith-
standing that problem, corporate law
holds the director responsible for ex-
penditures of money if all effort short of
disclosing to the competitor has not been
made before he makes the decision.
So that the suggestion of the Senator
from Missouri in his remarks today is
that until, perhaps ill executive session,
this board of directors?the Senate?
knows more fully the extent of our com-
mitments, this board of directors--the
Senate?should not act to authorize or
expend moneys?
Mae SYMINGTON. That question is
pr-erti ffrect-TEareare m any_peonte who.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
July 28, ideffroved For Relem2n05/.0.7/13 ? CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
tintSSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 12261
believe, and have so stated, that before
_w_e_Aote_on this bill, we should have an
executive session just as we had arTfWirx
on one component of the bill.
I would not criticize that suggestion
and see many reasons to praise it; be-
cause, having been in business for many
years, I know that the chance of making
the right decision, especially when us-
ing other people's money, is almost in-
variably directly in proportion to one's
knowledge of the facts.
Mr. HART. I thank the Senator from
Missouri very much.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank my able
colleague from Michigan.
Mt PliaXMIRX, Mr. President, I join
in the general commendation of the
Senator from Missouri on a most impor-
tant and helpful speech.
However, I was especially depressed at
the fact that although the Senator's sub-
committee has held extremely com-
prehensive hearings, and his team in-
vestigated and visited 23 countries and
held hearings on our responsibilities with
regard to 13 of them, I am sure he would
agree that this just scratches the sur-
face in view of the commitments we have
already made, so that a great deal more
will need to be done before we can even
investigate, let alone ascertain or deter-
mine the degree of our commitments.
Furthermore, the Senator from Mis-
souri has told us that we have a big
operation costing hundreds of millions of
dollars with many lives having been lost
in Laos, with no agreement at all. Is that
not correct?
Mr. SYMINGTON. We have no formal
treaty with Laos nor?the State Depart-
ment tells us?do we have any commit-
ments with Laos; yet, we have spent bil-
lions of dollars in Laos and many Ameri-
chn boys have died fighting in and over
Laos.
' Mr. PROXMIRE. So that it appears
we have a situation which is about as
open-ended as anyone can imagine, which
can cost us literally billions of dollars
' to meet the specific commitments im-
plied, or even where there is lack of com-
mitments but situations which some
President may construe necessary to help
a country east, north, south, or west of
another country with which we may have
commitments.
. Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator is cor-
rect; these commitments and "noncom-
mitments" are not only costing us money,
,
1 but perhaps can draw us into a far
i greater war.
Take the case of the Philippines. The
(impression I had as a member of the
Armed Services Committee and the For-
eign Relations Committee, was that the
Philippine Government was anxious to
support us in South Vietnam.
However, as a result of the hearings
of the subcommittee, we found that the
Philippine Government did not want to
send any of its troops to Vietnam but fi-
nally agreed to do so under two condi-
tions: the first one was that they would
not have to fight as our boys fight there;
the second was that they would be heavily
raid in addition to their normal salaries.
Then it turned out that the money for
noncombatant soldiers who went from
the Philippines to Vietnam apparently
was never received by them. This matter
was therefore turned over to the Gen-
eral Accounting Office and after exten-
sive investigation they finally found the
checks which showed that the money
had been delivered to the Secretary of
Defense of the Philippines, although ap-
parently it never reached the Philippine
soldiers for whom it was intended.
As a result of the disclosures of the
subcommittee, open hearings were held
in the Philippines about this matter, so
that the Philippine people?as is the
case so many times in other countries?
today know so much more about what
the United States was doing in their
country than the people here know about
what is going on in those countries.
We have waited many months in the
hope of clearing up this matter after the
revelations by the General Accounting
Office, but we are now told by the State
Department that they will not agree to
have anyone appear before the Foreign
Relations Committee, except in executive
session. Thus, I think it is fair to say
that?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BELLMON). The time of the Senator from
Missouri has expired.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent that I may pro-
ceed for such additional time as I may
require.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, is is so ordered.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I think it is fair to
say that the people of the Philippines
find out this information in public ses-
sion of their Senate, but the people of
the United States, unless State's policy is
changed, will never know what happened
to the money.
Mr. PROXMIRE. What I am trying to
get at is, What do we do about the sit-
uation the Senator so well described in
his speech? How do we meet it? The in-
vestigations by the Senator from Mis-
souri have been enormously helpful, of
course, and I hope that they will con-
tinue. I am sure that they can give us
the kind of intelligence and understand-
ing which will enable us to make better
decisions in the future. But, meanwhile,
we have a bill before us and a military
budget this year asking us to commit $72
billion, overall $75 billion, for defense.
How do we know how much to commit?
I say to the Senator from Missouri
that if we try to do this on a basis of
attempting to meet our obligations, and
the Senator from Mississippi tells us we
have commitments to 40 countries, for
whatever kind of military costs that may
involve-50, 60, 70?any number of coun-
tries, in terms of what secret agreements
we do not know about, perhaps, or other
commitments involved, as we did via
South Vietnam, an obligation that
spread into Laos. It is endless. There-
fore, I would hope that the Senate would
seriously consider?and I think that the
Senator's speech goes quite a way to
support this position?putting a limit on
the amount of funds that will be made
available.
It seems to me to return to the analogy
of a board of directors, that when they
feel the officers of a company are being
extravagant and wasteful, not knowing
what their obligations are and their
limits, and are spending the funds they
have in a Way that the board of direc-
tors feel is ncit fully responsible, then
they tell the officers of the company
to cut the amount they can spend.
We in the Senate have this within
our power. It is our responsibility to
do it.
I would like to say to the Senator,
furthermore, that in the event we took
the administration seriously on its asser-
tion that it will now proceed on a 1-plus
war strategy and give it all the funds they
say this needs?for strategic considera-
tions, including the ABM, phase 1 and
2, the B-1 bomber, including $100 million
which is more than the committee asked,
and all the other weapons systems like
MIRV, the Minuteman, and. so forth, and
give the Defense Department all of
that, and assume that we have no reduc-
tion in the Vietnam level of activity
below that planned by the Nixon admin-
istration,"but if we would cut off funds on
a general purpose basis that the Senator
is talking about; that is simply conform
general purpose to the 1 force-plus war
strategy plans ,we can save $9 billion.
In other words, the cost of the gen-
eral-purpose program will go down from
$43 to $34 billion, and the cost of the
overall budget will go down from $72 to
$63 billion. This is pertinent and germane
to what the Senator has been talking
about. Because I do not know how long
we can keep up the situation where we
are committing ourselves to fighting all
over the world, sometimes simul-
taneously.
One way to stop this effectively would
be to say that we, as public officials,
charged under the Constitution with the
responsibility of spending money, will
spend only so much and that is it.
The Defense Department is going to
get along on the basis of obligations that
will be limited and will involve one plus
man maximum.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, that
is a very interesting idea. I would not
say that I agree with it at this time; I
would like to study it carefully.
I do think that we have to take steps
today that a business takes before it gets
into a situation such as the Penn Central
did.
The man who knew more about in-
spiring the American people than any
other person was Mr. Bernard Baruch.
He was very proud of a nickname that
had been given to him?"Mr. Facts."
I think that we need more facts. I
think that Mr. Laird has done a con-
structive job in reducing defense expen-
ditures. But the main point was made
in the speech of the Senator from Ari-
zona (Mr. GOLDWATER) and again by the
Senator from Mississippi (Mr. STEN-
NIS)?that we tailor the Defense budget
to our commitments.
It is essential, therefore, to find out
what those commitments are. As the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT)
just pointed out, no one in the Congress
knows what all these commitments ac-
tually are. And I have found eases in the
executive branch where people whom we
would think, on the basis of trying to do
their jobs, would know the commit-
ments, did not know them.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
S 12962
ApprovedaTaingkROA0M4W-5TERACip- R37R00040011o9iy,8, 1,170
Me primary purpose in having this
discussion this afternoon was to point
out that before we proceed to spend tens
of billions of dollars of the taxpayers
money, we should do our best to get all
tee facts possible with respect to our
commitments.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President. I
congratulate the distinguished Senator
from Missouri. Although I am very hope-
fel that in the next few weeks we can
eei this information, on our commit-
ments I am very doubtful that we can.
would appreciate any alternative
stigeestions that the Senator might have.
I do not necessarily think that we should
propose a $9 billion cut in the overall
defense budget. That may or may not be
realistic. However, this issue of the cost
of our international commitments outht
to be one of the questions that ought to
go into the determination of how much
money we permit the Defense Depart-
ment to spend. We will have to make
some kind of a decision based on very
imperfect, limited, and unsatisfactory
knowledge. Under the circumstances, it
would seem to me that now is the time
for a sharp, decisive reduction,
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, the
senator from Wisconsin, in his work on
the Joint Economic Committee, is in-
terested in the problem of waste. There
Is not a Member of the Senate who is
more anxious to see that whatever money
is necessary to spend for the security of
the United States should be spent and
that we should be taxed in order to do
o. However, waste is another matter.
Waste has destroyed some of the greatest
of all corporations. Waste could destroy
the United States.
In this connection I pay tribute to
the Senator from Wisconsin who through
his committee could well be the person
who saves more money for the taxpayers
of the country than any other Member
of Congress.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President. will the
!senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr, President. I first com-
pliment the chairman of the subcom-
mittee on which I have the honor to
serve. He has been indefatigable in his
work and has been tremendously useful
to our country in making this inquiry.
I ask the Senator whether the problem
we face is not a very deep, fundamental
issue of Government which the people
must help us to decide.
Mr. SYMINGTON. There is no ques-
tion about that.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, we are
being told that for the health and se-
curity ca our democracy, many of these
things should be secret.
Tndeed, the supposition is that we who
pry into this matter are busybodies an_d
that we would bebetter otf as a nation if
we did not pry into these matters?the
matter of the Spanish bases or the war
in Laos which is an undeclared war.
Do we not need the support of the
people? We are adult enough so that we
will make an agreement even. with
Franco if we think it is in the interest of
our Nation. We do not need any govern-
ment to tell us about it or to spare us the
trouble because they do not think we will
consider the matter or are not interested
enough or sophisticated enough to do
it.
I ask the Senator whetherieeeageepeet
think there should, be an eopealsto the
people of the countty so that Cerueresee
and the people of tele_tarsitelleatatesee_as
a stattle?Wiltelee .elite.111 0.0 1ie eetion.
And, of course, if we do not think some-
thieg should be done, it will not be done.
Mr. SYMINGTON. There is no ques-
tion. A few years ago in an open hearing
the Secretary of Defense testified that
we had over 7,000 nuclear warheads in
Europe. Yet for some reason, informa-
tion with respect to country-by-country
location of all U.S. nuclear weapons over-
seas is highly classified.
Everyone knows that the more nuclear
weapons are spread around, the greater
the danger of nuclear war. Jr anyone has
I any doubt about such danger they ought
to look at the pictures in Life magazine
this week of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
They should then recognize that we have
hundreds of weapons that are 50 times
more powerful than that.
I believe there is more protection of
the world through disclosure in this field
than less. Certainly the other superpower
does not want to see a nuclear confronta-
tion which they know would destroy
them.
I hope the administration follewaselae
thinking of the Senator from New Yea
rand reirlizes that In a democracy it IS
IcitTen better to tell the People etkeetatbille
iless.
JAvrrs Mr. President, I point out
that the Russians are also faced with a
crisis in the Mideast as well as on the
border of Red China.
. Is it not a correct. answer to the perti-
nent question of the Senator from Wis-
consin to state that we would have a
!right to say to the executive branch, "We
will give you money for everything You
ihave disclosed. We are satisfied and will
ladeidge the amount. We will give you
Inioney for everything you have not dis-
!closed if you give good reason for not
having disclosed it. It is a fact that
!democracies may have to have some se-
cret.s. But we will not give you money
In a very selective way for what you have
;not. disclosed and for what you cannot
give us good reason for not having dis-
elosed."
Is that not a good rule in accord with
Senate Resolution 85, the commitments
resolution and the first in this whole di-
rection adopted by the Senate?
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator from
New York is one of the most able par-
liamentarians and debaters it has ever
been my experience to be associated
with.
He is in effect asking me the same
question that the senior Senator from
Wisconsin asked me but in a different
way.
Mr. JAVITS. That Is exactly right.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I would rather not
answer that question immediately. I
would rather answer it as a member of
the board of directors of a corporation.
I would like to get as many facts as
possible with respect to what I was go-
ing to do with stockholders' mones be-
fore I agreed the money should be put up
for the management to spend.
Mr. JAVITS. I think the Senator is cor-
rect, but I do think the Senator could
answer me. I do not think I asked the
same question that has already been
asked, and I think the Senator could
answer. I shall rephrase my question.
We are perfectly willing to appropriate
money for what we know. There are
many things the administration sass we
cannot know. I say if they give us a good
reason why we should not know, then
we ehould appropriate the money, but we
have the right to judge if that reason is
valid. Therefore, the only weapon avail-
able to us is to say no if they do not
disclose to us or give us a good reason.
Mr. SYMINGTON. We have a right to
esk. In certain fields I am not sure that
they do not have the right to refuse and
I am not completely sure that if they
refuse we should, in turn, refuse to give
them the money. But those cases would
be very minute, and less than one-half
of one percent of what we are talking
about in the budget.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank the Senator.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am delighted to
yield to the distinguished Senator from
Idaho.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I rise to
commend the Senator for the very able
address he has given.
The most basic question the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations faces is the
one to which the Senator has adcbessed
himself today.
Ever since the end of the Second
World War, we have regarded the world
as our oyster. No country in history has
formally undertaken to defend more for-
eign governments than the United
States. No major power since Pearl Har-
bor has engaged in more active warfare
than the United States. No country to-
day has as many troops stationed in for-
eign lands than the United States.
In the face of this situation ard the
calamity which has befallen our own
policy in Southeast Asia, it is the respon-
sibility of the Committee on Foreign Re-
lations to review our commitments
abroad to ascertain whether they are or
are not vital to the interests of the
United States. Also, we must fird out
whether we can afford them. These twin
objectives have been very much in the
mind of the distinguished senior Senator
from Missouri; his subcommittee has
given not only great attention to these
two central questions, but has under-
taken the most thorough and probing ex-
amination of American involvement
abroad that any committee of Congress
in either House has given to this funda-
mental question since the conclusion of
World War H.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sen-
ator for his kind remarks.
Mr. CHURCH. I hope the Senater con-
tinues to pursue the examination of this
question until all aspects have been
probed and until all committee reports
have been released. I hope the Senator
continues to insist on the maximum dis-
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
July 28, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 12263
closure of information by the admin-
istration; I hope he persists in his de-
termination to see to it that the Ameri-
can people are fully informed. If he does
that, as I am sure he intends to do, we
shall have strengthened our democratic
institutions and we shall have formed
the basis for appropriate legislative ac-
tion.
The Senate has already taken the first
step by repealing the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution. Hopefully, the House of Rep-
resentatives will see fit to repeal that
resolution as well. There are many other
resolutions, passed in haste by Congress
conferring carte blanch authority to the
President to conduct our foreign affairs,
that need to be reviewed and possibly
repealed.
In fact, some of our formal treaties
should be reviewed in light of current
circumstances. SEATO is such a treaty,
honored more in the breach than in the
observance by major signatories such as
the United Kingdom, France, and Paki-
stan.
SEATO no longer reflects the power
structure that now exists in Southeast
Asia. Indeed, it has been rendered obso-
lete by the events of recent years. It is
our responsibility, therefore, to raise the
question whether or not such treaty ob-
ligations, undertaken in years past, are
of continuing pertinence.
Mr. SYMINGTON. If the Senator will
yield at that point, the Senator could
not be more right because under the
SEATO treaty, and the able Senator
knows because he is an authority on
these treaties, no country is required to
act unless it decides at the moment of
the "crunch" to do so is in its national
interest. In previous administrations,
however, the Secretary of State justified
going into South Vietnam on the basis
of the SEATO treaty and not a single
other signatory of the SEATO treaty
agreed he Was right and not a single
other signatory of the SEATO treaty
provided help proportionate to ours.
Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct.
The United Kingdom, France, Pakistan,
and others, including the United States,
are signatories to SEATO; the time has
come to ask if this treaty is or is not
excess baggage.
Mr. SYMINGTON. We paid heavily to
get the support of some of those signa-
tories.
Mr. CHURCH. I agree. The amount we
paid and the arrangements we made
would not have come to light, in my
judgment, but for the persistence of the
press and the investigation the senior
Senator from Missouri has undertaken in
his subcommittee.
The time has come for us to remind
the Senate and the country as a whole
that we are at work in the Committee
on Foreign Relations on the basic ques-
tion, what role shall we play in the world
at large. When the final record is writ-
ten regarding this important matter,
great credit will be given to the senior
Senator from Missouri. I again commend
him on his address this afternoon, and I
join him in the position he has taken.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Idaho. There Is
no one from whom I would -rather have
such tribute.
I Would like to give credit to the rela-
tively small staff I have had on this sub-
committee: Mr. Walter Pincus and Mr.
Roland Paul, of the Committee on For-
eign Relations. They did not sit home
and read the cables and listen to the dis-
cussions. They went out for weeks and
months in these countries and talked to
people high up and people not nearly so
high up. They came back fortified with
the facts. I would like to state for the
RECORD, in all sincerity, that if it had not
been for the superb work they did in
preparing for the hearings we have held
in executive session, and some of which
we have been able to release to the pub-
lic, it would not have been possible to
get the information I think is so impor-
tant before making decisions incident to
national policy.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to the able Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PELL. I, too, would like to con-
gratulate the senior Senator from Mis-
souri not only on his speech but on all
the excellent work that has been done by
the Subcommittee on National Commit-
ments. I have been privileged to sit in
for a short time at some of those hear-
ings.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator is al-
ways welcome.
Mr_EgkL. I thank the Senator. One
of the points he made today concerning
secrecy struck me particularly. I hap-
pened to be out of town when there was
an executive hearing of the Foreign Re-
lations Committee. Later, I wanted a
record of exactly what had occurred at
that meeting. I asked the staff for a copy
of the record, and I was told that it was
so secret that the executive branch of the
Government had declined even to permit
a stenographic record to be made of
the hearing. Senators' memories are no
different than those of other people, and
if we are not at i committee meeting, we
should have a record at which to look to
refresh our memories and, particularly,
to examine in the event we could not be
there.
I think the tendency of the executive
branch to overclassify is a very real one,
and I think the Senator from Missouri
has done a real job in Pointing it out.
One other thought: I am wondering
if the Senator would agree that there is
a sort of chicken-and-egg relationship
between military potentials and military
commitments. There are some countries,
like Israel and Portugal, whose military
potential is not up to what they judge
is their national needs, in one case for
their self-defense and in the other case
for the carrying out of their objectives in
Africa. On the other hand, there are
countries like the Soviet Union and the
United States with tremendous military
potentials, and there we find that the
commitments start to catch up to
those potentials.
I think we must bear in mind that in
Egypt, one of the reasons why the Rus-
sians are there is that the Egyptians have
been inviting them in with open arms.
They have not forced themselves on the
Egyptians. One of the reasons we _have
our commitments is that we had such
similar potentials, there was a vacuum
area, and we filled up the vacuum in the
days of the Dulles treaties. Those areas
were filled in to the point where right
now our national commitments and our
military potentials are out of balance,
In fact the commitments may have
passed our potentials.
Mr. SYMINGTON. That is a difficult
question to answer "yes" or "no." From
the standpoint of the fiscal, economic
stability of the United States, it worries
me that this Nation, with all its prob-
lems at home, and with the increasing
strength of the other superpower, has
the tremendous expense of 374 major
military bases abroad and over 3,000
minor installations, along with thousands
of nuclear warheads placed in other
countries. I think this is one of the rea-
sons why it is important for the Foreign
Relations Committee, as has been sug-
gested by the chairman of the Senate
Armed Services Committee, and for all
committees involved in this matter to
find out just. what these commitments
are, because we are having very serious
troubles throughout the world today. We
are spending a great deal of money and,
what is far more important, we are losing
many of the best young men we have.
Mr. PELL. In other words, the Sena-
tor believes that there is a very real rela-
tionship between, first, a nation's wealth,
second, its military commitments abroad,
and, third, its military potentials. And,
when that balance gets out of line, the
country starts to get in trouble?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I would think so.
If it does not get in physical trouble, it
certainly gets in economic trouble.
_
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives by Mr. Berry, one of its read-
ing clerks, announced that the House
had .passed a joint resolution (H.J. Res.
1328) making further continuing appro-
priations for the fiscal year 1971, and for
other purposes, in which it requested the
concurrence of the Senate.
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION
REFERRED
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 1328)
making further continuing appropria-
tions for the fiscal year 1971, and for
other purposes, was read twice by its title
and referred to the Committee on Ap-
propriations.
APPOINTMENT BY THE VICE
PRESIDENT
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BELLmox). The Chair, on behalf of the
Vice President, appoints the following
Senators to attend the 14th session, Gen-
eral Conference of International Atomic
Energy Agency, to be held at Vienna,
Austria, September 22-29, 1970: PASTORE
and BENNETT.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
12164
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R00040011Q046-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECOR SEN ATE July 28, 1970
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-
TIONS FOR MILITARY PROCUREMENT AND OTHER PUR.POSLS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
lays before the Senate the tmlinished
business, which will be stated by title.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (H.R.
17123' to authorize appropriations dur-
ing the fiscal year 1971 for procurement
of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and
tracked combat vehicles, and other
weapons. and research, development,
test, and evaluation for the Armed
Forces. and to prescribe the authorized
personnel s Lrength of the Selected Re-
eerve of each Reserve component of the
Armed Forces, and for other purposes.
U.S. COMMITMENTS ABROAD AND
THE MILITARY PROCURHSAIENT
AUTHORIZATION BILL
"The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from Arkansas for a
question. I understand he has a time
commitment.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
hall not detain the Senate. I wanted to
ask a question relative to what I was
sayine a moment ago. Has the commit-
tee had an opportunity to consider the
proposed agreement with the Spanish
Government?
Mr. STENNIS. No; we have not. I
know. in a general way, about it, but we
have not had.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. In that connection,
does not ilie Senator believe it is very
difficult to tailor our military appro-
priations if the Senate, and especially
the Senator's committee and the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee, have
never had an opportunity to ask ques-
tions about it and discuss it and develop
what it really means?
Mr. STENNIS. I know, in a general
way, about the substance of it, but we
have never had hearings on it or taken
any formal action on it. I do not think
there is any commitment there, frankly,
as I understand It, that is of any shock-
ing consequence one way or another,
and it, is not expected to involve a great
deal of commitment on our part.
We have a continuing operation of
bases, and we will have some consider-
ation. I do not, think it is a major mat-
[rankly.
Mr. PULBRIGHT. The Senator does
not think it is a major matter?
Mr. STENNIS. No; I do not.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. If it were a major
matter, does not the Senator believe the
committee on Foreign Relations and the
Senate ought to approve of it, if it were
a major matter?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes; that would suit
me fine. But there is no doubt or sus-
picion, now, to be thrown on this bill
that is before the Senate, just because
the Committee on Foreign Relations has
not gone into the Spanish agreement.
Mr. FL1LBRIGHT. Well, they have not I
submitted it to the Senate for approval.
That is the point.
Mr. STENNI8. It is up to the Senator
and his committee to assert themselves
on that. I do not think it has any sub-
santial bearing on the military procure-
ment bill.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am soliciting the
..upport of the Senator from Mississippi.
If we make commitments. If Spain is a
commitment, then they should be sub-
mitted to the committee and the Senate
for approval. The support of the Senator
from Mississippi for this principle would
be very important.
Mr STENNIS. I am depending on the
Senator from Arkansas to go into that.
I am certainly not going to pass on the
matter prematurely. I think the Sena-
tor's committee has jurisdiction over IL
and has an interest in it, the way it
looks to me.
FuLBRIGHT. I thank the Sena-
tor.
Mr STENNIS. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator from Missouri and I have sat side
by side on the committee for a good num-
ber of years. and no one has profited
any more than I heve from his advice
and counsel and association. The as-
sociation has been very pleasant in a
personal way, and his counsel and ad-
vice have been very pleasant and also
very helpful in an official way. So my
kind feeling toward him is constant and
steady.
I know also that he has done a lot of
hard work and he has done a lot of fine
work as chairman of this subcommit-
tee. He has worked on it and deserves
credit, that is the way I look at it.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, I yield Lo the Sen-
ator.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I fully reciprocate
with my respect and regard, for the dis-
tinguished Senator from Mississippi.
Ida, STENNIS. I thank the Senator
for his very fine and generous words. I
value his statement.
T would just say this: This is a matter
that I am interested in and concerned
about, and it, is a matter, if the Senator
will remember, that we got into a little
once, and started some hearings, several
years ago, and had Secretary of State
Rusk before us for two appearances, that
rcrall.
The war worsened about that time, and
we did not get into it further. I men-
tion that just as an expression of interest
in this broad subject matter.
But at the same time,_ now, ,I diQflp.t
war.t the-Senator's concern?and he 18
eMcere-In lt,:aand the concern of the
jitr from Wisconsin about waste,
and theSenator from Idaho mentioned
.1Iast; (IQ not want there to be.buSit
lap here an _atmosphere that will ob-
scure anything about the merits of thie
military Procurement bill. This is an im-
Potat_Matter. /t is a bill that we have
to pass: and, RS I said today in the pres-
epee of some Senators, wish it were two
rals, one for this military nsocurement
icto_ le so _important, and the_ ether
iliOut the war in Southeast Asleartaat is
liEP-Offant, _too. But I think realli_theY
loug_ht to be handled separately, and if
II have anything to do with it next year,
rikrn g.9_4*. o 1.oflm1f[ tat:we-bring
ft in in the form of two bills.
_ _
? But now back to the main point. As to
the discussion, here, about waste, I am
sure there is some, but everything does
not always come out just right in run-
ning a railroad, or running, a business,
or running a military department, par-
ticularly with an important weapon viva
has to be created from the mind of some-
one on into a perfected instrument.
There are going to be stops and starts
and backs and fillings, and disappoint-
ments, and it is going to cost a lot of
money. It is going to cost more and more
money. If we are not going to have those
weapons until we are certain there is not
going to be any waste, we just will not
have the weapons.
But I wish to address myself aprioci-
1)044 here to the idea that the _people are
entitled to know. That is a good sound-
ing santence, and generally speakine, it
is good logic and commonsense.
But I think the people, for who Lave
!thought about this matter, there roe a
'lot of things they do not want to koow.
!They want it taken care of here, the best
;we can, so as to be effective, and they
'are willing to not be told all these mat-
ters. I am going to give an illustration.
? j'n my humble opinion. .,of all the things
iwe have had_ea.ye us the most money
since / have the, Armed Services
table the most important is the U-2. I
'El**. the U-2 saved us billions of, cical:-
; tars_ I shall not go into details on that,
:but if 537 Members of Congress had been
:told all about that instrument from the
'date it was started until, as time went
: on, it was almost shut down, there would
not have been a chance for it to have
been so effective, to have brought us so
much information that, just in terms of
money, was worth literally, as I see it,
billions of dollars.
That is a mild illustration. I am not
one who is possessed of a great deal of
knowledge. What is in my mind is not
more important than what is in anyone
else's. I do not have a great many things
In my mind- that the average Senator
does not know about. But it is feat e par.;
of the commonsense situation that some-
body has to know about some of these
secret matters, and I never have turned
down any Senator, to tell him, if we were
talking head to head, what I know about
some' teematters that have not ac-
crued.
But that is alteeether a different situ-
telling a roomful of men. In
: sitting down, as I see it. and talking to
a person, and confiding with him about
some plans that the military or any other
department has, that you think are
valuable?and many of them are?he will
understand a whole lot better the serious-
ness of it, than to have a hearing of some
kind, with people coming in arid leav-
ing the room, and having to have some
staff members around. Some thing; just
have to be kept quiet for a while. That is
my attitude toward it. I shall be glad to
surrender what special obligation I have
In this connection. It is not something
I solicit nor particularly like, but I know
that we have to keep some of these things
on the quieL
think lU wbat the_pet2P1e _want
to do. I think they think we talk too
much, rather than too little. I think
sometanis what t need is more ludi:ment
to pass on the facts I already have. than
Approved For Release 2005/07/13: CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
July 28, 1970 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 12265
just to be accumulating more and more.
facts. What we need to do is make the
best judgment we can and then, when
it comes our turn, we can make another
judgment on what it before us.
It seems as though there is a sugges-
tion that somebody is doing something
wrong, that they are witholding mat-
ters.
Who are these malefactors? Who are
these wrongdoers? Mr. Johnson was
President of the United States for 5
years. Mr. Nixon has been President a
year and a half. Mr. Laird has been over
the Pentagon a year and a half, and Mr.
McNamara was there before. We could
name a great number. What is the source
of these wrongdoings?
I know Senators are not accusing them
of being traitorous, or anything like that.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am not accusing
anyone of anything. The Senator from
Mississippi mentioned the fact that he
thinks we talk too much., Sometimes the
American people think we spend too
much.
Mr. STENNIS. Well, that is correct,
too. I think myself I vote too many dol-
lars sometimes.
But this bill is here, based on the best
knowledge that we know anything about,
and I think even though they do wear
military uniforms, as the Department of
Defense, it pretty well represents the
best they can do; and we all know Mr.
Laird, we knew Mr. McNamara, and we
knew these Presidents.
I think it represents a lot of hard work
and a lot of hard effort, and is the best
they could do under the circumstances.
I disagree with them myself on some
points, but that is just a part of life
here. The bill is a must to pass, I mean,
and we have to make a start on it.
We will have a good debate, but I just
do not want it to be beaten to death here
on the grounds of just a difference of
opinion about a weapon. The Senator
from Missouri knows more about weap-
ons than I do.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The reason for my
talk this afternoon is that the able Sen-
ator from Mississippi delivered an ad-
dress before the Senate last week in
which he said that the military budget
was tailored to our foreign commitments.
In that speech he suggested?in the orig-
inal copy I received?that the Committee
on Foreign Relations look into these
commitments. Iviasmuch as I am chair-
man of a subcommittee that has been
looking into this matter for a year and
a half, I appreciated the fact that later
when he delivered the statement on the
Senate floor he said we have to look into
it more than we already are.
Let me assure the Senator that in no
way am I criticizing any action on his
part. I would not have made this talk
this afternoon if he had not gone into
great detail as to the nature and char-
acter of the treaties we have and the im-
portance of looking into the commit-
merits arising from them.
Inasmuch as he, himself, advanced the
idea of tailoring our defense budget to
our commitments and inasmuch as ap-
parently he was unaware of the extent
of the efforts that had been made, I felt
it was advisable to set the record
straight about the work that has already
been done.
Mr. STENNIS. I think the Senator's
speech was relevant and very fine. I was
addressing my remarks to the questions
that were built up here to cast a doubt
about the solidarity of this bill.
I understand that the Senator from
Wisconsin would like me to yield. I yield
to the Senator.
Mr?,ER_OQII,E,E. I am not sure that I
understand what the Senator from Mis-
sissippi is saying. He is such a logical
and thoughtful and considerate man,
that I want to be sure that I do not mis-
understand him.
The Senator from Mississippi seems te,
be saying that the American people do
n?t wa_Pt to know some of this informa-
tion. I assume he is not saying that tlie
-American people do not expect their
U.S. Senators and Representatives,
when they vote on expending money, do
not know fully the reason why they cast
that vote, why it is necessary for us tb-
spend over $19 billion in this procure-
ment bill and, overall, more than $70
billion for the Defense Department,
when a very vital reason for our spend-
ing so much as the Senator from Missis-
sippi pointed out in the speech he made
the other day, is that we have obliga-
tions not only on our own shores but all
over the world as well.
Is it the position of the Senator from
Mississippi that the American people do
not want Congress to know fully about
what these obligations are and the exz?
tent to which they require us to appro-
priate more funds to produce more
weapons?
Mr. STENNIS. No. I did not make any
statement to that effect. I said that
sometimes the people want us to use our
judgment and do the best we can on the
facts we have; and I believe we have a
good bill here, and we want to move on.
The people know. They get plenty of
this. The news media do a very good job.
We have access to most of what we need
here, I believe, as their representatives,
and we must keep it that way.
Mr. PROXMIRE. __I_was _disturbed by
the reference the Senator from Missouri
made to the Laotian situation, when he
said that members of the Committee on
Armed Services were not informed,ancl
members of the Committee on Foreign
Relations were not informed of the per-
tinent facts, although we are spending
hundreds of millions of dollars in Laos.
This information had not been dia-,
clbiTcror-revealeel. This is the kind of in-
formation, it seems to me, that we, as
U.S. Senators, have an obligation to insist
on if we are going to appropriate funds.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator certainly
can get that information, too, I think.
There are some matters which by their
nature have to be handled by some com-
mittees. Some matters about which he
Is talking were not handled by the
Armed Services Committee but some
were.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The tor from
Mississippi would understand?and per-
haus Ile ..1.Y.0.1114,IttrOlig1Y disagree?that
some Members of the Benate might feel
thatiallise_eXteAt they are not given in-
formation, under those circumstances
they have a right and a duty not to ap-
propriate the full funds that are yea
0.11e_ate d ?
Mr. STENNIS. I have never discour-
aged them. There are many things I
cannot say on the floor, for publication
to our adversaries, weaponwise. But I
said before that I have never refused to
talk to a Senator in full about any mat-
ter about which he inquired; and I say
that here again to the Senator.
Mr. PROXMIRE. I thank the Senator
from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator is entitled
to anything I know.
Mr. PROXMIRE. The problem is that
none of us really seems to have the an-
swers on the extent of our obligations
overseas to the many countries, which
could involve the expenditure of billions
of dollars. We do not have that informa-
tion. It does not seem to be available.
That is why I think the Senator from
Missouri's speech was valuable today in
delineating how vast our ignorance is.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield to the Senator
from Colorado.
Mr. DOMINICK. I have been listening
rto this colloquy with r,-.-eat interest, and
? have read the statement of the distin-
guished Senator from Missouri.
- I was struck particularly by the refer-
ence to Laos, to which Senator PROXMIRE
has just made reference. I recall that the
Members of the Senate, as a whole, were
briefed on this subject by President John-
son during his tenure in office. I also re-
call that a number of Senators went to
Southeast Asia and received briefings
there on what was going on in Laos. In
fact, some of them, including the Sena-
tor from Missouri, as I recall, actually
went into Laos during that period.
I also know that some Senators have
rpftieSfeil briefing-s-on this subjeet befoie
and have always received them. So far as
I know, no briefings have been turned
down_either by our committee or by mem-
bers a tile_DpfenwDepArtment or other
agencies.
_I do notainsierjatand why, simply Jae:-
there_ are inferenceS WhiCh are _unsaid,
come inte_play_in thisLbill and probably
S.-dilator has saicb_if, seems to me that
Da they,areTnferehees fii.ph7 should not
public?which migkercalle_ had
verse
ag-
verse effect on national relationships
to be culpable in the_public ey_e, As the
canae. this jnformation was not made
mind the wOrld7---.seM.e.hOW it is deemed
.cu
should not come into play at all, unless
we are arguing about a whole change in
foreign policy and a different bill. In that
case, I think it is legitimate.
Mr. SYMINGTON In reply to the able
Senator from Colorado, let me say that
in 1965 I requested approval to go to
Laos. I have had a good many briefings
in this town; some of them provided a
great deal of information; some not
very much.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
S 12266
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE July 28, 1970
- It was reeuested by a representative of
the State Department that I not go into
Laos; so I went up to Udorn, in northern
:Thailand, and met the Ambassador.
As a result, the next year I was deter-
;mined to go into Laos, and did arrange
Ito go in, despite the fact that further ob-
jections were raised.
I can say to the Senator from Colo-
rado. that some of the information Is to
lest what we were doing in Lam I do
not learn until we had witnesses under
oath before our subcommittee of the
Ptereign Relations Committee. Perhaps I
would not even have received that, infor-
mation if it had not been for informa-
tion obtained by the staff when they
went to Laos some time after I had been
there.
, Once attain, it is important, as I see it.
to go out in the field and get the facts
,hi a case of this character.
would be glad to talk to the Senator
on the record about the details 01 what
I never knew, even though I spent a great
deal of time in Laos. particularly north-
ern Laos.
Mr. DOMINICK. I shall be brief. This
has been an interesting colloquy. It does
one thing, if nothing else. it points out
the results and the problems that the
military and the Armed Services Com-
mittee have in trying to perform their
functions when commitments have been
made by other people elsewhere.
SYMINGTON. I could not agree
I ore.
Mr. DOMINICK_ Yee, all,, over the
country we hear criticism of the military
when, in fact. it has been in large part
due to the civilians who have made the
commitments which we have asked the
military to fulfill.
Mr. SYMINGTON. There is no question
about that. I fully agree with the Senator
on that observation.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President. I shall
conclude my remarks quite quickly now,
it I may. The Senator 1 rom Missouri
, mentioned the Philippines and the Phil-
ippine Government and their soldiers in
South Vietnam. We were also talking
about Laos. I tell you, Mr. President, that
' the attitude of all of us has been to get
all the help we can in this war in South-
(stet Asia. We have lamented the fact
sitar we could not get very much help
anywhere. I asked everyone in Western
eel rope that I talked to there in an official
'say about this thing Years ago, and as
'eta as 2 years ago. We were also trying
t o get people in the Asian part of the.
aurid to come in and help us and bring in
men or send in men. I thought everyone
knew that we were paying some soldiers
, from the Philippines. I did not know that
! that was secret. However. I did know a
segid deal about Laos.
Mr. SYMINGTON. We put the money
out for the Philippine soldiers, that was
be sworn testimony of the Acting Am-
bassador. But the General Accounting
Yttice investigation cannot prove it and
the Philippine Government says that the
,e:Sdiers did not get it.
; sTENNIS. My point is. we were
ete to set all the help we could. I was
eeeeed that they were there. We were
tits to set the situation in Laos favor-
might have been there was not
[any more said about it, and maybe some
lof those governments did not want any
imore said about it. That question is all
Imixed up in it, but we have not been suc-
iceseful in getting any help over there?
let least any appreciable help. We do ap-
preciate the help we did get, so that per-
haps, what money we did spend, even if it.
.did not reach all of its destination, was
' worth something to us.
I want to be sure that the Senator un-
derstands this. I have paid my respects
to the hard work of the Senator from
Missouri. He never stops. He is after
things that are important and things
that count. I am glad that he is working
on this subcommittee. However, I do not
believe that we can create foreign policy
here in opposition to a military bill, or
even in support for it, so much. These
problems are already on us. those that
are in the bill. We have to move forward.
I want to revise our foreign policy. I said
so in the speech to which the Senator
from Missouri referred. I have said that
before. It is something that I think is the
most serious matter now before the
country outside of the war in Southeast
Asia.
I hope that teis will continue, but, we
have got to create a foreign Polley that
is based on foreign policy and not just
on a few weapons here and there. Thus,
I hope that this debate can proceed. The
Senator has made a great contribution.
I hope that we can get down to some
amendments and I expect good debate
on them
Mr President, those are my remarks
and observations on this subject, and I
am glad now to yield the floor.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am certain that
all Members of the Senate and the
'American people know of the dedicated
work of the distinguished Senator from
Mississippi As the Senator from Colo-
ratio Mr. Dossusick 1 points out, when
we get into military matters, we auto-
matically seem to get into matters of
fotrien policy and vice versa. As a result
I think, inasmuch as the able Senator
Mississippi has been so 'gracious
this at ternoun. and in pointing out last
week that the military budget is based
on our foreign commitments, that the
analyeis and ties details of these foreign
commitments ill be. in the long run.
of great service to the American people.
I think it is clear the security of the
Nation depends not only on our physical
capacity to destroy an enemy, but also
on a viable economy and the faith of the
people in their government.
Let me assure the chairman of the
committee, that nothing I have said this
afternoon is in any way critical of the
fine work he does in the interest of the
armed services.
Mm'. STENNIS. I thank the Senator
and I fully understand his remarks and
the spirit in which he made them. I
believe he does mine as well. Again, his
speech was relevant and pertinent and
very helpful.
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR SPONG TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, following the remarks of the able
Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN ) on
tomorrow, I ask unanimous consent that
the able Senator from Virginia (Mr.
SPONG) be recognized for not to exceed
30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR THE TRANSAL.itON
OF ROUTINE MORNING BUSI-
NESS AND CONSIDERATION OF
UNFINISHED BUSINESS TOMOR-
ROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that, fol-
lowing the orders under which speeches
by Senator FANNIN and Senator SPONG
will be made tomorrow, there be a period
for the transaction of routine morning
business, with statements therein lim-
ited to 3 minutes: and that, upon com-
pletion of the transaction of routine
morning business, the unfinished busi-
ness be then laid before the Senate
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it, is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF
SENATOR CANNON TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent. I ask unanimous consent that,
when the unfinished business has been
laid before the Senate on tomorrow, the
able Senator from Nevada 1Mr. Csileims)
be, at that time, recognized for not to
exceed I hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN-
ATOR McINTYRE TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent. I ask unanimous consent that, fol-
lowing the statement by the Senator from
Nevada i Mr. CANNON On tomorrow, the
Senator from New Hampshire (Mr Mc-
INTYRE) be recognized for not to exceed
1 hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection. it is so ordered.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that the
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER FOR RECOGNITION OF SEN-
ATOR GOLDWATER TOMORROW
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent that on
tomorrow, following the remarks of the
able Senator from New Hampshire (Mr.
McINTYRE, , the able Senator from Art
--
Vella (Mr. GOLDWATER) be recognized for
not to exceed 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OlstaCER (Mr. Bets-
etco4 . Without objection, it is so ordered.
Approved For Release 2005/07/13 : CIA-RDP72-00337R000400110046-3