CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE RE: MILITARY PROCUREMENT AUTHORIZATIONS, 1972

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 12
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 19, 2002
• Sequence Number: 84
• Publication Date: October 5, 1971
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Oi:tobr 5, 1971
winding down this war when, since the
administration has taken office, it has
sustained one-third of all the casualties
in this war-one-third.
That is winding down the war?
I can only think of the statement
made--and I salute my colleague from
Vermont for underscoring the crassness
of it-that if the President does end the
war he has still promised to pull the rug
out from under the doves after July 1,
because that will be a political ploy as-
sociated with his reelection.
How terrible to make a statement-if
Members want to defend this person
making the statement, they can-but
how terrible it must be to realize the full
import of a statement that says, in April
1971, "I will pull the rug out, some time
in 1972, from under the doves."
What happens is that, in the mean-
time, we are maiming and crippling so
many human beings, until it is conven-
ient or advantageous to pull out that rug.
To my mind, that is the greatest im-
morality that can be perpetrated. I think
we would have greater honesty and
greater justice if, as the Senator from
South Carolina alluded, we took an H-
bomb-one could not do it because we
have already dropped more bombs on
Southeast Asia than three, four, or five
H-bombs-but if we took an H-bomb and
laid Indochina waste completely, then
we are sure that we would win, sure that
we would be giving those people freedom
and democracy although there would not
be anyone there to enjoy it. That is, of
course, exactly what we are doing now.
The reason why we cannot use H-
bombs to annihilate these people is that
it would be morally incomprehensible to
us. It would find no moral approbation
anywhere in the world. In fact, it would
place upon us a blot of unbelievable pro-
portions.
So what do we do? We do not use H-
bombs, because that 'would be doing it
too quickly, too efficiently, and too intel-
ligently. So over a period of time we drop
conventional bombs--bombs of a sort
that when we realize the quantity of
them, we can-appreciate it.
During the Second World War we
dropped over 2 million tons of bombs.
During the Korean war, 600,000 tons. We
have already amply surpassed that in
Indochina. We have amply surpassed our
bombing record of World War II and the
Korean war.
Upon this little country we have
dropped several equivalent hydrogen
bombs in terms of destructive energy.
Yet no one stands up and rails about it.
Why? Because the bombing of Laos was
concealed from the American people;
350,000 sorties were concealed from the
American people and basically from
Congress until March of 1970. In the past
12 years we have doubled our efforts at
bombing Laos.
People have the gall to stand on the
floor and say that we are winding down
the war. The only reason we do not use
our intelligence to do this efficiently is
because we cannot find the moral appro-
bation. I submit that moral approbation
is not there either when we do it on a
piecemeal, surgical basis. That moral ap-
probation will not be there, 5, 10, 50 or
1,000 years from now, because this part
of American history will stand out as our
darkest hour.
Mr. President, I yield the. floor and
yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. President, have the yeas and nays
been ordered?
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I request
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES). Is there a sufficient second?
There is not a sufficient second.
Mr. STENNIS. W. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has been yielded back. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. GRAVEL. 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. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Is there
a sufficient second? There is a sufficient
second. The yeas and nays are ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment (No. 433) of the Senator
from Alaska. 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 Virginia
(Mr. BYRD), the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. CANNON), the Senator from Okla-
homa (Mr. HARRIS), the Senator from
South Carolina (Mr. HOLLINGS), the Sen-
ator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG), the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Me-
GOVERN), the Senator from New Hamp-
shire (Mr. MCINTYRE), the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA), and the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WIL-
LIAMS) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. WILLIAMS) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS),
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CURTis),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN),
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 Maryland (Mr.
BEALL) and the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. GOLDWATER) are detained on offi-
cial business.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Maryland (Mr. BEALL), the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. BOGGS), the Senator from
Nebraska IMr. CURTIS), the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. FANNIN), and the Senator
from Texas (Mr. TowER) would each
vote "nay."
The result was announced-yeas 19,
nays 64, as follows:
I No. 250 Leg.I
YEAS-19
Bayh
Hatfield
Moss
Brooke
Hughes
Nelson
Cranston
Inouye
Pell
Eagleton
Kennedy
Proxmire
Fulbright
Mansfield
8chweiker
Gravel
Mathlas
Hartke
Metcalf
NAYS- -G4
Aiken
Ervin
'e Cy
Allen
Fong
adolph
Allott
Gambrell
-t; .,)coff
Anderson
Griffin
t+ ..h
Baker
Gurney
r ?c be
Bennett
Hansen
>tt
Bentsen
Hart
-,r 47th
Bible
Hruska
?,) irkman
Brock
Humphr)'y
tir ong
Buckley
Jackson
?i) Lftord
Burdick
Javits
i Innis
Byrd, W. Va.
Jordan, N.C.
3 evens
Case
Jordan, Idaho
- evenson
Chiles
Magnuson
mington
Church
McClellan
t oft
Cook
McGee
I ?imadge
Cooper
Miller
I 'urmond
Cotton
Mondale
I coney
Dole
Muskie
V Picker
Dominick
Packwood
S 'ung
Eastland
Pastore
Ellender
Pearson
NOT VOTING
r
Beall
Fannin
I' cIntyre
BelImon
Goldwater
tontoya
Boggs
Harris
^ , undt
Byrd, Va.
Hollings
ewer
Cannon
Long
dliams
Curtis
McGovern
So Mr. GRAVEL'S amend nont (No. 433)
was rejected.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. Pry ;i tent, I move
to reconsider the vote -.vhereby the
amendment was not agr. =e.i to..
Mr. THURMOND. M President, I
move to lay that motion ,r the table.
The motion to lay or tie table wasi
agreed to.
REFERRAL OF A BILL 70, COMMIT-
TEE ON THE JU A?.;IARY
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr, i': esident, I ask
unanimous consent that 1 ,ill introduced
today by the Senator . rI in West Vir-
ginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) Cl mitting com-
mercial banks to under r.te water and
sewer revenue bonds be referred to the
Committee on the Judi ?i: ry. I think I
have cleared this matte, a.I around, and
I make that request.
The PRESIDING )k F'ICER (Mr.
HUGHES). Is there objet ;o n? The Chair
hears none, and it is s . )rdered.
MILITARY PROC it ',EMENT
AUTHORIZAT!, S, 1972
The Senate continuer with the con-
sideration of the bill (1 L. 8687) to au-
thorize appropriations i 1 ring the fiscal
year 1972 for procure) aeoit of aircraft,
missiles, naval vessels, t acked combat
vehicles, torpedoes, an ether weapons,
and research, develo) meent, test and
evaluation for the Ar m d Forces, and
to prescribe the aut< )) !red personnel
strength of the Selecte;?.eserve of each
Reserve component of ? if Armed Forces,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING 0 p [CER. Accord-
ing to the previous ord -, the Senate will
now proceed to cons :t( r amendments
Nos. 447, 448, and 449 b' tie Senator from
New York (Mr. BucxL Y ; .
What is the please- of the Senator
from New York?
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. iD esident, I yield
to the Senator from 1V )I tana.
AMENDMENT 0 447
The PRESIDING Ol F CER. The clerk
will read the amendmf - l
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. r nsident, may we
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 S 15874
Approved For eW
g96ffi0L1 Rffl WW73ft" V0003000800 "- 5, 1971
Fiscal
1972
Cut
Program
spend-
ing
(bil-
lions)
below
level
(per-
cent)
Hold at
level
(per-
cent)
Increase
level
(per-
cent)
1. National defense--
76.0
57.0
36.0
7.0
2. Foreign aid -------
4.1
81.6
16.4
2.0
3.Space ------ -----
3.3
57.4
34.6
8.0
4. Farm -------------
9.6
39.0
47.8
13.2
5. Public works
2.3
14.2
54.7
31. 1
6. Housing and
urban develop-
ment-----------
3.7
16.7
38.1
45.2
7. Education--------
5.2
13.2
46.4
40.4
8. Health___________
3.1
5.0
40.1
54.9
9. Social security_..__
4.3
5.0
43.0
52.0
10. Welfare----------
11.4
48.4
35.2-
16.4
11. Veterans---------
10.7
9.0
59.4
31.6
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
time fixed for the transaction of routine
morning business has expired.
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 bill (H.R. 10880) to amend title
38 of the United States Code to provide
improved medical care to veterans; to
provide hospital and medical care to cer-
tain dependents and survivors of vet-
erans; to improve recruitment and reten-
tion of career personnel in the Depart-
ment of Medicine and Surgery, in which
it requested the concurrence of the
Senate.
MILITARY PROCUREMENT
AUTHORIZATIONS, 1972
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under
the previous order, the Chair lays before
the Senate the unfinished business, which
the clerk will state.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 8687) to authorize appropria-
tions during the fiscal year 1972 for procure-
ment of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels,
tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other
weapons, and research, development, test, and
evaluation for the Armed Forces and to pre-
scribe the authorized personnel strength of
the Selected Reserve of each Reserve com-
ponent of the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 433
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
pending question is on the amendment
of the Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL).
There is a time limitation of 2 hours on
the amendment.
Without objection, the text of the
pending amendment will be printed in
the RECORD.
The amendment (No. 433) is as
follows:
TITLE VI-CESSATION OF BOMBING IN
INDOCHINA
SEC. 601. (a) No funds authorized or appro-
priated under this or any other law may be
expended after the date of enactment of this
Act to bomb, rocket, napalm, oy otherwise
attack by air, any target whatsoever within
the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Kingdom of
Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Viet-
nam, and the Kingdom of Laos.
(b) No funds authorized or appropriated
under this or any other law may be expended
after the date of enactment of this Act to
bomb, rocket, napalm, or otherwise attack by
air, any target whatsoever within the Repub-
lic of Vietnam unless the President deter-
mines any such air operation to be necessary
to provide for the safety of United States
Armed Forces during their withdrawal from
Indochina.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
I ask unanimous consent that the time
1)e equally charged against both sides.
-The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, while we
deliberate today in this Chamber Amer-
ican planes will ease into the sky over
Southeast Asia. They will drop tons of
explosives, guided to the flesh of hu-
man beings by the most elaborate and
impersonal technology.
Hovering over Laotian rice fields, the
A-119 Stinger gunship can put a piece
of shrapnel into every square foot of an
area the size of a football field.
On the ground are 3 million Laotians,
the heaviest bombed people in the his-
tory of warfare. They will huddle in their
caves and field trenches, and some will
die. Many will not see the sun for months,
fear keeping them in their covered bunk-
ers during daylight hours.
In the name of America the planes
come.
Over the past 10 years 700,000 Laotians
have been made refugees, tens of thou-
sands have been killed or wounded, and
hundreds of thousands forced to live
much of the time in caves and trenches.
The bombing raids also come in the
name of the U.S. Senate, until we legis-
late otherwise.
The war is not winding down for the
peoples of Indochina. Since the much
heralded bombing halt over North Viet-
nam, the planes have not come home.
They have simply shifted their targets
into Laos and Cambodia.
The bombing has continued at 100
tons an hour, 2,400 tons a day. The rate
of civilian casualties and refugee genera-
tion, indicative of the overall level of
violence, has if anything increased dur-
ing the last 2 years.
Recent hearings before the Senate
Subcommittee on Refugees reveal that
since the invasion of Cambodia nearly
one quarter of that country's popula-
tion-1,500,000 people-have become re-
fugees. In the last few months in South
Vietnam more refugees have been
created than at any time since the 1968
Tet offensive.
The bombing of North Vietnam has
been resumed. As recently as September
21 an armada of 250 U.S. planes attacked
targets in the North, and this raid was
followed on successive days by two more
so-called protective react a strikes. At
present the bombing of o th Vietnam
has reached an average
every 4 days, and actor
Vietnamese reports 106 v
tion to missile sites hav
The Meatgrinder in Vietr
taken 325,000 civilian live
more than a million sin'
whirling. As the Sout
Minister of Information
1968, South Vietnam has 1
by an alien air force tha
with the very land of Vi
The amendment I
straightforward. Let us s
ing, not just partially ov
nam but in all Indochit
those strikes inside Sout.
monstrably related to the
withdrawing troops. Is it i
of the Senate to contini
those planes?
An Orwellian transform
place in our military polic
Due to public pressure ,
are slowly coming -home
leaving an automated war
is every danger, as Noam
warned, that we intend tc
of Vietnam into an auto
machine. Computer tech
small number of troops
craft and artillery are c
destructive presence that
hover over Southeast Asi
come. In the midst of thi
confused, pacified by ti
troop levels, yet vaguely ti
tinuing reports of devasta
Eluding recognition, I
techno-euphemisms of n-,
is the reality of our poi
ordnance"-a rather dull
sounding term until one r(
the use of napalm against
"Harrassment and i1
rather light-hearted term
derstands that it represen
hurling of destruction int
These antiseptic words
ror-filled realities, and ti-
vent public judgment.
strike"-one pictures a d
benevolently removed frog
side. But the cancer is thr
World War II the cancer
and the operation was ti
tion." In the name of
many executions are taki
the air in Indochina
It is the enormity of oil
clouds it. If we were wroi
we were. Nothing will br
who have died, or the lost
eyes and ears. But I.et ur
selves at least to stop ti
those who remain.
How the people of Lhis c
people, industrious people
people, could have come tc
struction on another nat
to comprehend. Orwell in 1
"1984" depicts such earn:
suit of technology gone
from common experience.
to surrealistic nightmares.
intervened in Indochina
able reasons-even that is
but at some time the macs
control and we could not
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
late of once
J- g to North
11 >es in addi-
aeen struck.
=.r t, which has
t nd wounded
1965, is still
Vietnamese
c :nmented in
?e'1 devastated
.,:'erns at war
E am.
f r is quite
o' the bomb-
r North Viet-
a--except for
,'ietnam de-
e urity of our
?a ly the desire
to send out
it on is taking
i t Indochina.
.n,erican boys
1'it they are
o"hind. There
C homsky has
t tin the land
a.ted murder
.( "logy and a
-x anning air-
:;ting a U.S.
r my literally
or years to
he public is
diminishing
'uoled by con-
ic!)..
sdten in the
Ii ary speech,
"Selective
Lind technical
tl_zes it masks
it man beings.
e -diction"-a
u ttil one un-
s the random
angle areas.
~b uscate hor-
r 'by circum-
4 urgical air
'eased cancer
> tie country-
p,asantry. In
w is the Jews,
`final solu-
U terica, how
g place from
iistake that
now wrong
.? back those
'r:rls and legs,
commit our-
bombing of
u ^try, a good
a id generous
v sit such de-
al is difficult
s masterpiece
as the re-
tu d, removed
s ving reality
JA a may have
of commend-
Li'stionable-
Ir a got out of
u:?n it off.
 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
S 15882 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Oct, ) i' 5, 1971
winding down this war when, since the
administration has taken office, it has
sustained one-third of all the casualties
in this war--one-third,.
That is winding down the war?
I can only think of the statement
made-and I salute my colleague from
Vermont for underscoring the crassness
of it-that if the President does end the
war he has still promised to pull the rug
out from under the doves after July 1,
because that will be a political ploy as-
sociated with his reelection.
How terrible to make a statement-if
Members want to defend this person
making the statement, they can-but
how terrible it must be to realize the full
import of a statement that says, in April
1971, "I will pull the rug out, some time
in 1972, from under the doves."
What happens is that, in the mean-
time, we are maiming and crippling so
many human beings, until it is conven-
ient or advantageous to pull out that rug.
To my mind, that is the greatest im-
morality that can be perpetrated. I think
we would have greater honesty and
greater justice if, as the Senator from
South Carolina alluded, we took an H-
bomb-one could not do it because we
have already dropped more bombs on
Southeast Asia than three, four, or five
H-bombs-but if we took an H-bomb and
laid Indochina waste completely, then
we are sure that we would win, sure that
we would be giving those people freedom
and democracy although there would not
be anyone there to enjoy it. That is, of
course, exactly what we are doing now.
The reason why we cannot use H-
bombs to annihilate these people is that
it would be morally incomprehensible to
us. It would find no moral approbation
anywhere in the world. In fact, it would
place upon us .a blot of unbelievable pro-
portions.
So what do we do? We do not use H-
bombs, because that would be doing it
too quickly, too efficiently, and too intel-
ligently. So over a period of time we drop
conventional bombs-bombs of a sort
that when we realize the quantity of
them, we can appreciate it.
During the Second World War we
dropped over 2 million tons of bombs.
During the Korean war, 600,000 tons. We
have already amply surpassed that in
Indochina. We have amply surpassed our
bombing record of World War II and the
Korean war.
Upon this little country we have
dropped several equivalent hydrogen
bombs in terms of destructive energy.
Yet no one stands up and rails about it.
Why? Because the bombing of Laos was
concealed from the American people;
350,000 sorties were concealed from the
American people and basically from
Congress until March of 1970. In the past
12 years we have doubled our efforts at
bombing Laos.
People have the gall to stand on the
floor and say that we are winding down
the war. The only reason we do not use
our intelligence to do this efficiently is
because we cannot find the moral appro-
bation. I submit that moral approbation
is not there either when we do it on a
piecemeal, surgical basis. That moral ap-
probation will not be there, 5, 10, 50 or
1,000 years from now, because this part
of American history will stand out as our
darkest hour.
Mr. President, I yield the, floor and
yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. President. have the yeas and nays
been ordered?
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I request
the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HUGHES). Is there a sufficient second?
There is not. a sufficient second.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has been yielded back. The clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. GRAVEL. 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. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
a sufficient second? There is a sufficient
second. The year and nays are ordered.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment (No. 433) of the Senator
from Alaska. 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 Virginia
(Mr. BYRD), the Senator from Nevada
(Mr. CANNON), the Senator from Okla-
homa (Mr. HARRIS). the Senator from
South Carolina (Mr. HOLLINGS), the Sen-
ator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG), the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Me-
GOVERN), the Senator from New Hamp-
shire (Mr. MCINTYRE). the Senator from
New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA), and the
Senator from New Jersey (Mr. WIL-
LIAMs) are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from New Jersey
(Mr. WILLIAMS) would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON),
the Senator from Delaware (Mr. BOGGS),
the Senator from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS),
the Senator from Arizona (Mr. FANNIN) ,
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 Maryland (Mr.
BEALL) and the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. GOLDWATER) are detained on offi-
cial business.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Maryland (Mr. BEALL), the Senator from
Delaware (Mr. BOGGS), the Senator from
Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS), the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. FANNIN), and the Senator
from Texas (Mr. TowER) would each
vote "nay."
The result was announced-yeas 19,
slays 64, as follows:
l No. 250 Leg.]
YEAS---19
Bayh
Hatfield
Moss
Brooke
Hughes
Nelson
Cranston
Inouye
Pell
Eagleton
Kennedy
Proxmire
Fulbright
Mansfield
Schweiker
Gravel
Mathias
Hartke
Metcalf
NAYS--S':
Aiken
Ervin
'ercy
Allen
Fong
'Zandolph
Allott
Gambrell
f.ibicoff
Anderson
Griffin
Moth
Baker
Gurney
axbe
Bennett
Hansen
Scott
Bentsen
Hart
math
Bible
Hruske
iparkman
Brock
Humphrey
Spong
Buckley
Jackson
'Stafford
Burdick
Javits
Stennis
Byrd, W. Va.
Jordan, N.C.
Stevens
Case
Jordan,Idah'
Stevenson
Chiles
Magnuson
Symington
Church
McClellan
raft
Cook
McGee
Talmadge
Cooper
Miller
Thurmond
Cotton
Mondale
I'unney
Dole
Muskie
_Neicker
Dominick
Packwood
ti oung
Eastland
Pastore
Ellender
Pearson
NOT VOTING
- 7
Beall
Fannin
vlcIntyre
Bellmon
Goldwater
svIontoya
Boggs
Harris
vlundt
Byrd, Va.
Hollin{-:s
Cower
Cannon
Long
Nilliains
Curtis
McGovern
So Mr. GRAVEL'S amen( .r ent (No. 433)
was rejected.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. Pi -s dent, I move
to reconsider the vot+ -whereby the
amendment was not agi --e?1 to..
Mr. THURMOND. 141 President, I
move to lay that motion -)I the table.
The motion to lay or *: le table was
agreed to.
REFERRAL OF A BILL T J COMMIT-
TEE ON THE JU. >I?2IARY
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. 'i esident, I ask
unanimous consent that I ill introduced
today by the Senator f 'oan West Vir-
ginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) t .,r:hitting com-
mercial banks to under r; to water and
sewer revenue bonds be re "'erred to the
Committee on the Judi(.a.y. I think I
have cleared this matter tt around, and
I make that request.
The PRESIDING C 'ICER (Mr.
HUGHES). Is there object o_? The Chair
hears none, and it is so o'dered.
MILITARY PROCL I,iMENT
AUTHORIZATIO w:. 1972
The Senate continued v ith the con-
sideration of the bill (H. 8687) to au-
thorize appropriations d r ng the fiscal
year 1972 for procurem n of aircraft,
missiles, naval vessels, 1 racked combat
vehicles, torpedoes, and t ier weapons,
and research, developn el t, test and
evaluation for the Arm d Forces, and
to prescribe the autho, z ?d personnel
strength of the Selected .e-verve of each
Reserve component of th, t rmed Forces,
and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OF! 1 ER. ER. Accord-
ing to the previous order. -l e Senate will
now proceed to consid( amendments
Nos. 447, 448, and 449 by ti .e Senator from
New York (Mr. BUCKLEY .
What is the pleasure f the Senator
from New York?
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. Pl.ns.dent, I yield
to the Senator from Mon a la.
AMENDMENT NO 9,1
The PRESIDING OFF] ] R. The clerk
will read the amendment.
Mr, STENNIS. Mr. Pre cent, may we
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
o ctobei- 5, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
'iacnen destroyed 85 percent. Dresden,
Germany, was destroyed 98 percent with
sir power. The German people were
warned ahead of time and innocent citi-
zens left these cities prior to the satura-
tion bombing. I know what air power can
do. We could have laid North Vietnam
bare, if necessary. Instead of that, we
lia: ve been fighting with one hand behind
our back while American soldiers are
'being _iilled. 45,000 ground troops have
besn killed.
Mr. GRAVEL. We have dropped more
bombs in Indochina than we dropped in
the Second World War. The Senator is
right--in destroying Aachen, they
destroyed the factories- that made the
guns. if we want to destroy the factories,
we have to go to the Soviet Union and
China. That is where they are being
ina de.
Mr. THURMOND. We could have
stopped those guns from coming in by
bombing the ports or by placing an em-
bargo there, or we could have stopped
those guns by controlling the importation
from the Soviet Union. We did not have
to o to the Soviet Union.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. THURMOND. Furthermore, many
of the bombs dropped in Vietnam were
dropped in forests and on other insig-
nificant targets.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
GRAVEL AMENDMENT
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I wish to
state my position on the amendment
proposed by the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. GRAVEL). I have decided to vote
against the amendment, because, on bal-
ance, I think it would be a mistake to
single out this one aspect of U.S. military
activity in Indochina. For some years
now I have been working as hard as I can
to bring an end to all U.S. combat in-
volvement in Indochina. So far, those of
us of this persuasion have not been able
to make our view prevail in law, or in
the councils of the executive branch.
Until we can succeed in stopping this
whole war-this tragic, misconceived,
wasting war which is eating at the vitals
of our Nation-I cannot in good con-
science tell the President and our mili-
tary commanders that one particular
aspect of the war is what is bothering us
and must cease first. I think this bomb-
ing program probably falls in the cate-
gory of the kind of military decision
which the Commander in Chief and his
professional commanders have a claim
to deciding from their own perspective.
It is their responsibility to make the tac-
tical and strategic decision about the
actual fighting of the war. It is the Con-
ggress' duty and prerogative to make the
broader, overriding policy decision. of
whether or not to authorize war.
Yor this reason, Mr. President, I want
to make it clear that my decision to vote
ute in the President. I have no con-
fidence in the President of the United
States on this issue. I think what is being
done here is immoral to a magnitude not
yet approached in the history of man. It
will go down in history as an act com-
parable to the "final solution" in Ger-
man,. I think this is something that v-e
will hang our heads in shame about for a
long time.
I could understand the false patriotism
associated with ground troops, or patrio-
tism cissociated with the immediacy >f
our boys' lives. But when we talk about a
war, a surgical kind of war at a distance,
where we can hold ourselves not respon-
sible for the annihilation and eradica-
tion of human beings and the destruc-
tion of great countries, then I think vee
have fallen to a low ebb.
I have no confidence in the President
because he comes forward with the fal-
lacious and weak argument that they
need it militarily. when any literate per-
son who reads the facts in the Penta-
gon papers, the facts in the studies,
knows that there is no logical, intelli-
gent base for military action of this sot~.
It has no military benefit. So, if it has
no military benefit, one should at lea.: C
have the brains not to do it-at lea~e
save the money.
The cost of destroying a truck on the
Ho Chi Minh Trail is $100,000. That is the
cost of destroying a single vehicle th it
probably, in reality, cost only $3,000. I
submit that is a "great" situation to b ,e
in, to let the enemy produce a truck whieli
costs S3,000 and then we place a burden
on our gross national product to the tw:e
of $100,000 matched against it.
Any fool can see that over a period of
time we would lose that war.
We talk about bombing being needed
to crush the enemy. How ridiculous. In-
tcrviews. not by mysef, but interviews by
the military on the scene, demonstrate
that prior to the bombing of Laos, volun-
tarism there was 30 percent, but after the
bombing, voluntarism was 100 percent.
Obviously, any fool cari realize that if lie
is going to get killed sitting at home, or
is going to get killed fighting the enemy,
he might as well fight the enemy.
Why sit there and let yourself get shot.
So, of course they al i volunteer. That is
something which has been conclusively
proved in the Pentagon Papers; that is,
the more we escalate the bombing, the
more we develop the resolve of these peo-
ple to fight on against us. That is not
something psychologically unusual. It
was made abundantly clear to us in the
Second 'World War when the British, at
the time of the Battle of Britain were
being annihilated by the Nazis. Did- the
British capitulate? Of course not. The
bombing of England brought the British
people to their finest hour. It is doing the
same thing to the people in Indochina
today, and history will record this as their
finest hour. It will also record this as our
bleakest hour.
Then we find ourselves in Nurembuxg
where we pontificated and said that civil-
ian destruction with very little military
value was immoral and wrong and should
be condemned.
But that is exactl- what we are doing
today in Laos. The words of Telford Tay-
lor, the American chief prosecutor in
Nuremburg, are long ago and far away.
It is not convenient morally to apply the
same standard we did to Herman Goer-
ing, Albert Speer, an I Rudolf Hess. That
was the standard for them, but we have
a different standard for ourselves.
That, I submit, is human-part of hu-
man nature.
How :interesting, how ridiculous, how
stupid to think the t the $162 million
asked for in this budget to be appropri-
ated to bomb Laos is greater than the
gross national product of the country of
Laos.
That tells the story about the size of
this Nation of ours, the power of this
Nation with respect to a small nation,
that we can, out of hand, without even
thinking: about it, appropriate enough
money for bombs greater than the total
productive capacity of all the human
beings in Laos.
Now, Mr. President, let me address my-
self to one area in which many Members
in this Chamber take shelter: Supporting
the President because it is patriotic and
we have to do it to end the war, because
the war is being wotnd down.
He is not doing that one bit. What he
is doing is changing the character of the
war. What he is doing is changing it
from a ground war, where we are in-
volved with our bloody hands, and taking
it and making it an air war where we do
not see the blood, where we can pontifi-
cate about our ideology. Of course, it does
not strike anyone as intelligent or
proper--what is the difference in fight-
ing communism in Southeast Asia or
fighting it in Moscow or fighting it in
Chile or in Cuba? We are caught in our
our dichotomous idiocy. Containing com-
munism today is bankrupt. We have no
choice but to coexist To think that in-
telligent people really believe that we are
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 S 15880 Approved For MMIJOR 73 16 00030008008(5.P
t( .(,, 5, 1971
Ho Chi Minh Trail, is not susceptible to
quantifiable subdivision between that which
is necessary to the safety of US troops (with-
drawing or not) and that which might serve
some other immediate purpose. The enemy
supplies and men moving southward on the
Ho Chi Minh Trail are all threats to the
safety of US troops in South Vietnam. Hence,
it is unreasonable to authorize bombing for
the protection of US forces in South Vietnam
but not elsewhere.
US air operations in Cambodia are intended
primarily to interdict the flow of supplies to
be used against US and allied troops In South
Vietnam. These operations are strongly en-
couraged by the Cambodian government
which receives a secondary benefit from the
air strikes. Since the closure of Sihanoukville,
the North Vietnamese have been forced to
rely on the supply routes in Northeastern
Cambodia to support their aggression in
southern South Vietnam and Cambodia.
While these routes are not directly threatened
by allied ground forces, they are open to air
attacks which significantly impede the flow
of munitions and weapons. If this proposed
amendment were to become law, the South
Vietnamese and our withdrawing forces
would again be affectively faced with a large
communist sanctuary in Cambodia.
The proposed amendment would intrude
into matters properly within the constitu-
tional authority of the President, as Com-
mander-in-Chief, to direct US military oper-
ations in Southeast Asia. Certainly the co-
ordinated use of our forces is a well estab-
lished principle of the Commander-in-Chief
powers. The proposal to proscribe one arm
of the military from functioning, leaving the
others to operate as cripples, is a direct attack
on the President's authority.
This proposed legislation would severely
limit our ability to implement effectively the
Nixon Doctrine that calls for sufficient flex-
ibility to meet changes in the local military
situation with an adequate response. As he
indicated about Indochina in his 25 February
1971 foreign policy report:: "A negotiated set-
tlement for all Indochina remains our highest
priority., But if the other sides leaves us no
choice, we will follow the alternative route to
peace-phasing out our involvement while
giving the region's friendly countries the time
and means to defend themselves."
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. 11 am pleased to
yield.
Mr. GRAVEL. May 1: ask the Senator
where the President gets the authority
to bomb, as Chief Executive, if he chooses
to bomb?
Mr. THURMOND. I cannot hear the
distinguished Senator.
Mr. GRAVEL. Where does the Presi-
dent of the United States get the power
to go bomb? We had no troops in Laos,
and all of a sudden he decided to go
bomb. Where does the President of the
United States get that kind of power?
Mr. THURMOND. The Communists
were in Laos, in Cambodia, and in Thai-
land. They carried the war to these coun-
tries. As has been stated, this Is not a war
just confined to South Vietnam and
North Vietnam.
The Communists took this war to Viet-
nam, The Communists took this war to
Laos. The Communists have been pene-
trating Thailand. Therefore, when they
see fit to carry this -war to other coun-
tries, we have to go where the fighting is,
in order to protect our own men and to
protect our national Interest.
Mr. GRAVEL. By that logic, would it
not be logical that we at least bomb the
areas where the factories are that pro-
duce the guns that are used to kill Ameri-
can boys? Should we not do that?
Mr. THURMOND_ Mr. President, it is
my judgment that this war could have
been brought to an end long, long ago.
I think we should have bombed the fac-
tories in North Vietnam that are pro-
ducing arms to kill American men. I
think we should have closed the sanctu-
aries long, long ago. I think we should
have closed the ports long, long ago. I
think we should have closed the Ho Chi
Minh Trail long. Iona ago.
I will say now that I have not ap-
proved the manner in which this war has
been fought. I have not approved of
fighting with one hand tied behind our
backs. I have been one who takes the
position that America should not go into
a war until we have to: but once Amer-
ica gets into a war, we should have the
backing of every patriotic American. Fur-
thermore, we should use our full force-
Army, Navy, Air Force; all the power we
have-to win the war quickly, to crush
the enemy.and bring the American boys
home.
I realize that this has not been done.
I realize that is the reason why many
young people have become disheartened
about this war and have turned their
backs, so to speak, on this war. I think
the way this war has been fought has
been a great mistake. But Mr. Nixon in-
herited this ',var. When did the war start?
It started back under President Ken-
nedy. It was carried on under President
Johnson, who at one time had between
500,000 and 600,000 fighting men over
there.
President Nixon has been trying to
bring the war to a close. I am not trying
to defend him. I would condemn him just
as much as anyone else if I felt it were
justified, because our country must come
first, regardless of party and partisan
reasons. it is my firm belief that this war
should have been ended years and years
ago, and we would not have lost all these
lives over there. We have lost more than
45,000 men in ground fighting. We have
lost approximately 1.400 in the Navy. We
have lost approximately 1,000 in the Air
Force. If this war had been fought the
way we fought World War II, there is no
question in my mind that most of these
lives could have been saved.
I repeat: we should not go into a war
until we go into it to win and to put into
it the power we have, and we have not
done that in Vietnam. Mr. Nixon is trying
to wind it down. He is winding it down.
He has brought more than 300,000 fight-
ing men home, and he is bringing them
home on schedule.
But why would the Senator from Alas-
ka handicap him, if the President feels
the need and Mr. Laird feels the need and
the Chiefs of Staff of the Army, Navy, Air
Force, and Marine Corps feel the need
to bomb in a certain place to save Ameri-
can lives? Why would the Senator want
a law passed. by Congress saying that he
cannot do it? He is the commander in
chief, and he must be given the flexibility.
In the first place, I do not think you
have the constitutional authority to do
it. Second, if you did ha .. ,he constitu-
tional authority, I do not i nk you ought
to handicap the Presid ?r , the Com-
mander in Chief, and hai I lap the mili-
tary men in taking the t! its necessary
to protect our men as we c withdrawing
from South Vietnam,
Mr. GRAVEL. I shoui( I ke to pursue
the logic of the Senator v h respect to
the constitutional uowei a ad authority
to bomb. I could buy the 3-gic, that we
have to protect our boys a ,c therefore we
have to bomb. The Sen.. ' c went on to
say that we should lust a . , ell bomb the
factories. The arm, for i , Pathet Lao
and for the North Viet : a nese do not
come from Cambodia or i :us or, for that
matter, from North Vietr su a. They come
from the Soviet Union a a . China.
The PRESIDING OFF C R. The time
of the Senator from Sou `i Carolina has
expired.
Mr. STENNIS. I y ,eld 2 c itional min-
utes to the Senator.
Mr. GRAVEL. So if tli - 'resident has
the power to go into a a ,tral country
such as Laos and bomb ii the interest of
saving the lives of our b+ :n why can he
not bomb the Soviet Uni a because they
are manufacturing the gt. Ai that are kill-
ing our boys? Why can h, i At do that, or
should he do it?
Mr. THURMOND. Thi 1 s an entirely
different question. The f :t'ps as neces-
sary. If the government i Laos and the
government of Cambodia 1-id the power
to protect themselves ap ii at the Com-
munist troops coming in t fey probably
would have done that. Bi. i fey evidently
did not do it. If they dii j., they would'
open themselves to the u uonsibility of
allowing this fighting to o an there. The
Communist troops in t c e countries,
who are stationed there a id are fight-
ing our men and doing :1 they can to
kill our soldiers, have no is lit to protec-
tion and no right to cI< in, they are in
a neutral country. Thee Gent there as
trespassers. They went t e e, I am sure,
against the will of tho, ii countries. If
they had the permission he countries,
that makes it even worse.
With respect to bombii he factories,
there are gun factories .r?1 war plants
in North Vietnam, and ti e, should have
been bombed. I agree w ii the Senator
.on that, if he favors tha r osition. They
should have been bombe ;-ing ago. The
concrete plants and tl a powerplants
should have been bomb( continuously.
The gun plants shoo d have been
bombed continuously. Ei r-, warmaking
industry in North Vietni in should have
been destroyed.
I was in World War I. and I saw
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 October 5, 1971Approved Fo~ I S~Qa?N/OABLOhEE&-FP7 %2?f R000300080084-9 S 15879
because he says he needs it. We just go
along on that basis.
I do not understand what insanity be-
sets this body if we can do that so read-
ily, because this body is made up of good
people, kind people, generous people,
great Americans; but, by some quirk of
fate, because of some psychological aber-
ration, we sit here party to a bombing
process that is annihilating thousands
and thousands upon thousands, even mil-
lions of Asians far away from our shores.
I do not understand this. I think we can
only leave it to the study of sociologists in
future decades to elicit what happened to
our moral sensibilities, what happened to
our humaneness, what happened to our
ability to even see and discern right from
wrong-something that apparently this
body is unable to do.
Mr. President. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum on my
time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. STENNIS. 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. STENNIS. Mr. President, I yield
10 minutes to the Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, the
pending amendment, No. 433, offered by
the distinguished Senator from Alaska
(Mr, GRAVEL), would deny funding under
the pending bill or any other law to con-
duct aerial warfare in Cambodia, Laos,
Thailand, North or South Vietnam, ex-
cept in South Vietnam to insure the safe
withdrawal of American troops.
This amendment, if passed, would se-
riously damage U.S. efforts to impede
communism in Indochina until our allies
Mere are able to handle the job alone.
At present military forces of North
Vietnam have invaded and are trying to
overthrow the governments of South
Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Local
forces in each of those countries are try-
ing to defeat the North Vietnamese.
U_S. air operations are essential in
Laos if the flow of Communist soldiers
down the Ho Chi Minh Trail is to be
held in check. U.S. air operations are
essential in Cambodia if the Cambodians
are to be given sufficient time to build up
military forces to repel the North Viet-
namese invaders. U.S. air operations are
essential along the borders of North Viet-
nam if intelligence indicates military
moves are developing which would en-.
danger the safe withdrawal of U.S.
troops.
Mr. President, besides these obvious
military reasons for defeating this
amendment, there is the constitutional
question. Does the Congress have the
right to tie the hands of the Commander
in Chief so that one arm of our military
forces, the ground element, is denied
the aid of another arm, the air element?
I think not.
This amendment should be soundly
defeated, so that the coordinated use of
our forces may be applied in a zone
where American soldiers are stir'
deployed.
The Senate should also consider that
with the present U.S. withdrawal of
U.S. forces nearly two-thirds complete
the advantage in Indochina is shifting
toward the aggressor.
As this Nation continues to bring U.S.
troops down to minimum levels in 1972,
the dangers to our remaining forces in-
crease, Even with a planned timetable
of withdrawal, the President is assum-
ing greater risks each day. He, there-
fore, needs the maximum flexibility in
transferring the entire combat responsi-
bility to our allies in Indochina.
Mr. President, this amendment could
insure the eventual victory of North
Vietnam over South Vietnam, Cambodia.
and Laos. I urge every Senator to weigh
carefully the effects of the amendment.
In my judgment, it is one of the most:
dangerous amendments yet offered in
the Senate concerning the war it
Indochina.
As we step out of the war in Indochina
we must not turn our backs on our own
men or the soldiers of our allies. I urge
the Senate to reject this amendment.
There is no question but that the De
fense Department strongly opposes thi,y
amendment. I ask unanimous consent
that the DOD position on the Gravel
amendment be printed in the RECORD
following my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Withou c
objection, it is so ordered.
(Sec exhibit 1.)
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, a
just want to say in closing that I canno-,
understand why anyone, any Member of
this body, would offer this type of amend-
ment. If we have any confidence at all
in President Nixon, if we have confi-
dence in his-sincerity, his patriotism, and
his judgment, which is based on the ad-
vice of military experts; if we have con-
fidence in Mr. Laird and the Secretarie.
of the services; why would anyone offer
this type of amendment to say "You can-
not bomb," if President Nixon, Mr. Laird,
and the Chiefs of Staff of the armed
services say "we need to bomb at thi i
time and at this place to save Americani
lives?"
To me, the amendment is ridiculous. .1
hope the Senate will kill it promptly.
iEXFIIBIT I
(Adding Section 601 to FIR 8687, an Act to
authorize appropriations during FY 72 fo-
procurement, etc., for the Armed Forces.
EFFECT OF THE AMENDMENT
The proposed amendment would demo
funding "under this or any other law" to
conduct aerial warfare in Cambodia, Laos,
Thailand, the Democratic Peoples Republi.,
of Vietnam, or the Republic of Vietnam ex-
cept that such warfare may continue in RVN
if the President determines it necessary to
safe withdrawal of U.S. troops from Indo-
china.
000 POSITION
DOD strongly opposes the amendment, the
objective of which is to legislate the end Of
U.S. participation in the resistance of North
Vietnamese aggression in Indochina by the
elimination of crucial air support for U.S.
and friendly forces there.
U.S. support for the legitimate governmen :
of Laos, Cambodia and the Republic of Viet-
nam h as been expressed in part by the provi -
sion of operational military support in order
to counter the aggression from North Viet-
nam. The direct military support has been
accompan,ed by public pronouncements of
our objective of frustraing the takeover of
its neighbors by North Vietnam. Precipitate
termination of our air efforts would raise
doubts about our adherence not only to this
objective but to others which might test our
determination, even touching our more
formal commitments as *well.
An action by the Senate such as this
would impact severely on the governments
concerned. While the Government of Thai-
land would not be endangered, nor for that
me.tter are we bombing; there, it would be
compelled to consider a new and less friendly
diplomatic: alighment. The will of the Royal
Lao Government to defend itself, already
undermined by years cf strife against the
more numerous and well-equipped North
Vietnamese invaders, would be gravely af-
fected. Cambodia's brave! and determined
resistance to this same North Vietnamese
Invader would be less effective with the weak-
ened and uncertain U.S. support implied In
this amendment. Finally in South Viet-
nam, where the President has long since
me. de clear the essential U.S. objective in
South Vietnamese people to determine their
own politiical future without outside inter-
ference," the ability to achieve our objective
would be damaged. The objective has been
incorporated in various policy statements
directed toward achieving a peaceful solu-
tion in Vietnam and Indochina, a peace in
which the peoples of the region can devote
themselves to development of their own so-
cieties. While the proposed amendment does
not attack this objective, rather simply im-
posing obstacles to its achievement, one
result of the amendment would surely be
to weaken Vietnamese determination.
'We must consider there the outcome, surely
adverse, for our Southeast Asian friends and
allies. Our long sought objective of restor-
in?; the arrangements envisioned in the
1962 Geneva Agreements for Laos would not
be attainable if we were abruptly to cease
aerial warfare. North Vietnam would have
a greatly reduced incentive to settle along
these lines and the Royal Lao Government
would be without leverage. The meager,Lao
forces cannot alone defend against the North
Vietnamese invasion, and. must depend on
the U.S. for the direct effects of the assist-
ance and the diplomatic advantage as well
The proscription against US bombing sup-
port for the Cambodians exposes the develop-
ing Cambodian Army to a risk of major
losses by opposing superior forces without
adequate supporting weapons. The Cam-
bodians have no heavy bombing capability of
their own-only 16 T-38 aircraft used for
close air support, and a limited number of
artillery pieces. Our military support is es-
sential to the GKR's resistance of the North
Vietnamese and the preservation of their
neutrality. In Vietnam it is the Defense view
that Vietnamization is progressing satis-
factorily.:[t should be noted that the RVNAF
has made great strides i.n assuming increas-
ing responsibility for conducting combat op-
erations even while the US has deployed ap-
proximately one-third million (332,800)
military personnel. As the RVNAF steadily
achieve a greater capability and self-reliance,
it is considered extremely disadvantageous to
submit the Administration's Vietnamization
programs to an arbitrary curtailment of air
support. In the wider conitext, disengagement
of US forces together with the winding down
of war-related violence in South Vietnam is
being steadily achieved. The furtherance of
these objectives is dependent on a rational
policy which places US national interests In-
volving realistic solutions ahead of chimeri-
cal. panaceas. Vietnamization is a rational
policy leading to the successful achievement
of essential US objectives.
The overwhelming proportion of US bomb-
ing, and certainly all directed against the
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 15878 Approved For F~7ik ~~ Rtqg,~MZ313 W6f0030008008 Ptc r 5, 1971
judgment. Let us make clear we are not
dealing with nuclear weapons. We are
dealing with conventional weapons.
Mr. GRAVEL. What is the difference
in these millions of tons of bombs and
using a few hydrogen bombs?
Mr. STENNIS. I think the Senator has
a military question there. We are in this
war, and we are trying to get out. If we
withdraw our weapons they can continue
with their actions unless we are going to
have an abject surrender and desert
these people over there that we have
been helping. With great deference to the
Senator, that is the best answer I can
give.
Would the Senator yield to me for a
minute?
Mr. GRAVEL. I yield.
Mr. STENNIS. I am compelled to leave
the Chamber briefly. I ask unanimous
consent that when the Senator concludes
I may yield to the Senator from Illinois,
or yield to him now, who will speak in
opposition to the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Illinois is recognized.
Mr. PERCY. Mr. President, I have lis-
tened with great interest to the debate
this morning. I intend to vote against the
amendment of my distinguished col-
league from Alaska. I would not presume
to be a military expert in this war. I did
serve as a gunnery officer in the Naval
Air Corps in World War II. I have been
in Vietnam several times and in Vien-
tiane.
I have accepted highly classified brief-
ings on this war, and none of those brief-
ings has convinced me at all that we
should ever have gone into this war in
the first place. I think :it is a tragic mis-
take that we did so. But we are there and
this is what this administration faced.
They could not reverse the decision which
involved over a half million of our men
being there when the President took of-
fice.
The President is Commander in Chief
of our Army, Navy, and Air Force. He an-
nounced his avowed policy to remove our
forces, and he is staying exactly on
schedule. Every single commitment the
President made to withdraw our forces
he has kept or exceeded. It is my sincere
hope and my prayer that when the Pres-
ident announces late in October or No-
vember the next schedule of with-
drawal, we can step up the rate consider-
ably. But as long as we have American
forces in Vietnam, and we have over
200,000 men there, I would not want to
tie the hands of the Commander in Chief
and I would not want to tie the hands
of the man who has the avowed policy
of taking our men out of Vietnam at the
soonest possible time consistent with
their safety.
I feel that the bombing provides an
element of safety to those men and con-
tinues to insure the highest rate of with-
drawal. Without it I do not see how we
could stem the flow of forces coming in
from the North, and I do not see how we
could stem the flow of their supplies. I
do not see how we could keep the initia-
tive and not relinquish the initiative to
them
Therefore, despite the fact that I dis-
like this war as intensely as any Member
of the Senate and have consistently op-
posed any escalation of the war, and have
supported every possible deescalation, I
back and support the President's overall
program of getting out. I commend him
for what he has done. I am not going to
tie his hands in any way and take away
any support he can provide for the safety
of those forces as they withdraw because
I want to give him the possibility of with-
drawing at a faster rate than we are.
For those reasons I intend to vote
against the amendment of my colleague
from Alaska.
I yield the floor.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. AL-
LEN). The Senator has 26 minutes re-
maining.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I yield
myself as much time as I may require.
The PRF'~T^?"= OFFICER. The Sen-
recognized.
think the President is doing the best he
can. Second. I think our presence there
continues to e immora takes 3
years Or I uvm down this wax
I just cannot buy it. I cannot abdicate
my responsibility as a human being and
wash my hands of it like Pilate, and say
the President is leading us and I have to
agree with him. I do not agree with him.
Since the President took office and ini-
tiated his plan of winding down the war
we have suffered one-third of our casual-
ties. So I cannot quite buy that theory
that we are doing the best possible.
I do not see how stopping the bombing
will increase the flow of troops. In fact,
the truth. a; evidenced by the Pentagon
papers and independent studies, shows
that the more bombing of the people, the
more increase there is in troops that they
send down to fight us. Why would it not
be more intelligent for them to volunteer
in Laos to fight Americans rather than to
stay where they are, to be bombed. If
we want to stop the flow of troops, the
best way would be to stop the bombing.
They do not want; to get their heads shot
off.
Why should they get pressed into serv-
ice if they could live in safety in Laos and
Vietnam? So the theory that this will de-
crease the flow of troops is bankrupt, it
always has been bankrupt, and always
will be bankrupt, as was proven in the
Battle of Britain. The more the people
are bombed, the more they are forced to
fight. This is a wrong course of action,
but we should realize also when we do it
that we condemn millions of people, mil-
lions of innocent peasants, who offer no
threat to us, either as a nation because of
their large numbers. or as a fighting
force.
The tools of war do not come from
Laos, Cambodia. North Vietnam; they
come from China, and the Soviet Union.
So if we really wanted to follow an in-
telligent approach to fighting this war,
we should at least save the money and
attack the source. But that is not the
case. This is an intricately woven situa-
tion in which we find ourselves. First, we
find umbrage for our immorality in the
intricacies of the situation.
I say immorality, bec it there is not
a person on this floor v.u can give me
proof, who can give m .n argument,
why we should bomb the ._ )eople. If it is
to protect our troops, i u . amendment
provides the ability to pr ,t, ct our troops.
The President can bomb iur troops are
immediately involved in 3-utheast Asia.
Since we have no Am( ii an troops in
Cambodia and Laos, ob, o isly there are
no American troops to p r ect. But if we
are involved in the test c loading our
troops on planes and sl p to get them
out, obviously we do nc lave to bomb
these other places.
Obviously we do not ? is ve to go for
3 or 4 years bombing th, o other places.
But that is not what is i ig on in Viet-
nam today. Eventually tie American
people will appreciate w 21 is going on.
We take some troops out - c we can mini-
mize the casualties of An i can boys and
so we can escalate the ar ,o mt of casual-
ties of Asians. That is wr_ t, aas happened
in the bombing of Laos ii t to last 2 years
by the 100-percent incrf a ,,a in bombing
activity.
I cannot find any res a , any ration-
ale, why anybody in this hcdy would ab-
dicate his moral respon. b lity to some-
body else when it comes life, and that
is what we are talking .)~ ut in South-
east Asia and Indochina c lay. The mil-
itary experts, the Secret vs i of Defense,
the chief of the Marine v )rps, psycho-
logical studies of ?he p o le who have
been bombed, prove, by :L, . possible in-
dications, that bombing ineffective as
a military tool, totally a ?fective as a
military tool, and that i really does
nothing but annihilate i? broad civil-
ian population. That th evould be the
case, and that in the ft c;c of this logic
we would put aside thh, l ?oof and put
aside this logical argume t, Lion and say,
"Well, the Chief Executi e Df this coun-
try feels that he needs ti e bombing and
that this is a good polic nd he stated
publicly that, regardles )f what the
troop levels are going tc b . he has the
right to bomb," is difncul t understand,
and yet we go along wit' i 1,-at.
It is interesting that o, i iquiry by the
Senator from Missouri (I jr SYMINGTON)
and his subcommittee we a ve an Ameri-
can Ambassador, M_?. Sul, is n, who, when
asked under what cir' u stances the
United States could bot ;b these coun-
tries, answered that it :v.,s under the
President's authority tr r)ake foreign
policy. What an intere ,1 ig reflection
upon a democracy-a d 'mocracy in
which the President or ti e '~;hief Execu-
tive, on a whim, can ord .? -.he killing of
thousands and thousand.? o people. And
the Congress can condo? it by saying,
"He is the Chief Execute e. and this is a
part of his way'to condi. at that foreign
policy."
What a total cop-out \Jhat a total
moral cop-out on the pa ?t of this body
and on the part of the ingress to sit
back and find umbrage u d-ir the simple
fact that he can do it. l:L )rdering the
bombing we rub salve c er our minds
and say, "Well, he says e needs it for
military reasons." But, of ;o .arse, we have
proof readily available tc u that it has
no military purpose. Wei _f (long simply
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 Approved For Release OUQ~/OTC -BDPR?46R000300080084-9 S 15877
October 5, 1971 CONGRESS
solution." I see no difference in the type
of bombing we have going on today. That
this Senate could stand here and call for
the water to wash our hands, means in
this very instance that we are party to
the killing of human beings. I just can-
not buy that argument, because if we
have a criminal who is President of the
United States, we should at least have
the moral quality to recognize it, point
to it, and ask for its correction.
Perhaps the Senator from Mississippi
could give me some other technical rea-
son why we are doing this. However, I
cannot see it at this point in time. The
Senator has no argument for the bomb-
ing other than that they want to bomb.
That is not moral when human life is
at stake,
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, we start
with the fact that we are at war and
have been at war there for years. We are
now in the process of withdrawing as
rapidly as we can within reason and
commonsense.
I am assuming that will continue. It
has been successful so far. There are
many problems that go with it. That is
obvious. Right on top of that policy, if
this amendment is agreed to, we would
be saying in the hard, cold letter of the
law that no funds authorized or appro-
priated under this or any other law may
be expended after the date of enactment
of this act to bomb, rocket, napalm, or
otherwise attack by air, any target what-
soever within the Republic of Vietnam
unless the President determines any such
air operation to be necessary to provide
for the safety of U.S. Armed Forces dur-
ing their withdrawal from Indochina.
That would be an abandonment of our
policy of trying to hold down the trans-
portation of supplies over the Ho Chi
Minh Trail. It would be an abandonment
o all of these policies that go to pro-
tect our forces.
With all due deference to the Senator,
I think it would be contradictory. If we
are going to do this, I would then say
that we should throw in the towel and
get out before nightfall if possible.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, we are
not supposed to have any troops in Cam-
bodia. We are not supposed to have any
troops in Laos. We are not supposed to
have any troops in North Vietnam. The
only place we are supposed to have troops
is in South Vietnam. And that is the
place where I make the provision that if
the President thinks it is necessary he
can bomb.
Would the Senator tell me why we are
bombing these poor people in Laos and
Cambodia off the face of the earth? What
reason do we have for doing it?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I was
alluding in my remarks to South Viet-
nam. of course. I have already pointed
out the reasons that it is done in these
other areas. It is because of supplies. I
think that perhaps they have an occa-
sional raid in North Vietnam. As long as
we are over there, already engaged in
battle, it is pretty obvious that it is likely
to happen. We have told them all the
time that we were not promising not
to bomb under any circumstances. There
was a question about the understanding
of our right of surveillance, and so forth,
going back to 1966.
It is corect, I think, that there were The Senator now has changed that
those conditions. There was an under- theory an says a TF"Pf om
standing that we would have the right of ?m. r a rn ogle, 7177
surveillance, we no om rle? a nit
"--
I would not want the Chief Executive bomb Cuba
to say that as long as we are engaged " -6"UIS. Mr. President, the
over there we will never bomb North
Vietnam under any circumstances. Cer-
tainly we ought not to tie his hand.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I hope
that the Senator from Mississippi does
not mean to leave the impression that we
are on_y bombing there slightly.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator means
North Vietnam?
Mr. GRAVEL. Yes. I think the record
shows that every 4 days we have been
striking North Vietnam. And the record
shows that under this administration we
have doubled the amount of bombing in
the little country of Laos. As we are with-
drawing troops, we are turning up the
rheostat of this immoral bombing.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I do not
apologize for any new raids. There are
facts that they are based upon. How-
ever, if the Senator will get the North
Vietnamese troops out of there and no
longer let them be a menace to our boys
and our departure, if he can get them out
of there in some way, I would be willing
to join him in his amendment.
However, they are there, and they are
going to stay there. I do not remember
whether it is classified as to how many
are there. Two divisions are there as a
minimum. That much is not classified.
Mr. GRAVEL. Does the Senator mean
two American divisions?
Mr. STENNIS. No. I mean two North
Vietnamese divisions. What are we going
to do, just pat them on the heads and
say it is all right? We have to do some-
thing to keep them on the defensive a
much as we can. We are paying the bil
to -keep them on the defensi.ve,. to keep
them Lied up. And they are keeping our
allies tied up. That is why we have to
have the potential there that I have been
referring to.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, perhaps
if the Senator from Mississippi will not
join me on the basis of moral commit-
ment, he might join me on the basis of
logic and intelligent action. We have
been bombing in Laos for 7 years. The
greater part of Laos is now controller.
by the Pathet Lao. The more we bomis
them, the less successful we are. Per-
haps we should change our tactics. Per-
haps if we change our tactics, we might:
be more successful.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Sen-
ator is proposing that we get out and stole
all activity there. I think they would
double their forces there within a few
weeks if we just stated, "We will leave
you alone."
That is the situation. If we stop fight-
ing them, they will be heading for Thai-
land ard all of that area within 15 min-
roc h domino tt ieory anTca i e' off rwt
'aFey ou Real;
with fire s a omen "
believing in the domino theory. I have not
only not believed in it, but - I- have also
said that I would not subscribe to it. If
that theory were correct, we would all
be lost and not know it.
I think our situation over there now
is that with all of these North Vietnamese
troops in there, if we withdraw the only
effective way of opposing them, they
would double up their forces and they
would get all of the key areas of Laos.
They are already there. They already
have part of it. Part of Laos is already
in their hands.
We would not have to have any domino
theory for them to get the rest of Laos.
I think it is rather obvious that the
pattern is to get Thailand, too.
That is just the situation that exists.
I am not saying that we should aug-
ment the forces there and protect Thai.-
land and every other country. I under-
stand the Senator's amendment here in-
creases in a lot of ways the things that
our boys would have to do if we were to
stop all the bombing.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I would
like to find out what ,he increase would
be. The only task that I know that our
boys have is to wind down and get out.
Under the present administration, it has
taken 3 years so far. Perhaps the Sena-
tor from Mississippi could elaborate on
what increased tasks be American boys
would :have if we were to stop the bomb-
ing of Laos and Cambodia. I do not see
where there would be an increase in the
tasks.
:I would like to also put forth a ques-
tion, and the logic is very simple. My
friend, the Senator from. Mississippi, says
that troops are stationed in Laos. Our
studies indicate that for every military
casualty we get, we cause 50 civilian
casualties. If we pursue the same logic
which was followed at the Nuremberg
trial by our chief prosecutor, any act that
has extreme civilian consequences, re-
gardless of the amount of military bene-
fit.. is reprehensible. This is something
that we fly directly in the face of.
:I would like to address another point to
the Senator from Mississippi, and that is,
very simply, that any analysis of the
bombing, the effectiveness of the bomb-
ing, is tied to the destruction of the pro-
ductive capacity of as country to wage
war; otherwise, bornb_ng as we are pro-
secuting it in Southeast Asia is a policy
to annihilate the entire population. It
could be done in this way with a hydro-
ge:a bomb. The President may yet advo-
cate that. But if we want to go to the
source of the productive capacity, the
fighting strength these people have with
guns and arms, we would have to bomb
China and the Soviet ijnion because that
is where their supplies come from. Why
waste all the money there, at a cost of
$33 billion thus far, when we are doing
something very ineffective militarily?
I pose that as a question to my col.-
rya mr- "'?=r7Teas league.
would-go ommunis . Mr. STENNIS. That is
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 S 15876 Approved For 6Q00300080084j9
so-called gook rule which haunted the
Calley trial has far more profound impli-
cations for the air war.
On the afternoon that the U.S. helicop-
ters and attack planes accompanied the
South Vietnamese into Laos, the Presi-
dent issued a statement on our environ-
mental crisis. Within it, he quoted from
T. S. Eliot's "Murder in the Cathedral":
Clean the air, clean the sky, wash the
wind . . .
It would have been revealing for the
President to have quoted further:
The land is foul, the water-is foul, our
beasts and ourselves are defiled with blood.
A rain of blood has blinded my eyes . . .
Can I look again at the day and its common
things and see them all smeared with blood,
through a curtain of falling blood? We did
not wish anything to happen.
Let us stop the bombing, withdraw our
troops and begin to "take stone from
stone and wash them."
Mr. President, I yield, the floor.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who
yields time?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, what is
the pending order of business before the
Senate?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
amendment of the Senator from Alaska
(Mr. GRAVEL).
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, how
much time do I have in opposition to the
amendment?
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fifty-
seven minutes.
Mr. STENNIS. I yield myself 10
minutes.
Mr. President, I have read with the
utmost interest and concern the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Alaska.
I admire his fine interest in the subject
and his compassion. It is consistent with
his desire to end this war. However, I
think that the immediate realities of
the situation would compel Senators,
however much they might be in sym-
pathy with these objectives, to reject the
amendment.
An analysis of this amendment shows
that the military aid we supply to the
small nations mentioned in the amend-
ment would be cut off. We could not
supply them with money or military aid
if any of it was going to be used in this
bombing. In other words, Cambodia
would. be affected to some degree in using
our military aid in doing some bombing.
They would be cut off from doing any
bombing in defense of their own country,
so far as our military aid was concerned.
The same is true with respect to Laos.
We are giving them military aid, and
have been, and they, too, have some
capacity in the air. So under this amend-
ment, that would be precluded.
The amendment reads:
Sac. 601. (a) No funds authorized or ap-
propriated under this or any other law may
be expended after the date of enactment of
this Act to bomb, rocket, napalm, or other-
wise attack by air, any target whatsoever
within the Kingdom of Cambodia, the King-
dom of Thailand, the Democratic Republic
of Vietnam, and the Kingdom of Laos.
So, whether intended, or not, it gets
right ' into the heart of their military
programs which, under the conditions,
need to be augmented and thus relieve
us.
Another point is that the very atmos-
phere of this amendment runs contrary
to what we did here yesterday.
We had a very good debate of 5 hours
and most of that time was used discuss-
ing aid to Laos. the activities there, the
bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and
bombing in North Vietnam. After the
debate, all that money provided for the
purpose of the bombing was excluded
from the operation of the amendment.
The original form of the amendment ex-
cluded bombing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail,
but the last version adopted expressly
excluded from its limitations the bomb-
ing in North Vietnam. We do not like
to have to do those things but the situ-
ation over there demands it or they will
march right on through Laos and absorb
those people there.
By the way. in debate yesterday, I
meant to point out that the Kingdom
of Laos is over 1.000 miles from its north-
ern to its southern borders. That is just
about the distance from Chicago to New
Orleans-1,000 miles long. The popula-
tion of Laos is only 2.8 million. Yet they
have all that, borderline, all that terrain,
all that area to be protected. Of course,
they cannot protect themselves.
But anyway, back to the subject here,
we had this whole matter of the bomb-
ing generally by our own forces under
review yesterday, and then mlitary aid
to the Laotian Government, and all of
that was approved by an overwhelming
vote here yesterday afternoon, the full
budget amount requested for all those
activities and our military aid in that
whole nation of Laos. and also no limit
of any kind to be put upon the amount
that could be spent of our money on
bombing the Ho Chi Minh Trail, and
also in northern Laos.
So I think. Mr. President, that that is
the deciding factor, that if we come
along now and put on this limitation
through this amendment, it would be
totally inconsistent with what we did
yesterday. We would have two programs
going, one for bombing and one for not
bombing. We will be cutting off the one
here that is entirely in control of these
people that live in these countries and
one that they are carrying out with their
manpower. In other words, we would be
cutting off those who are doing some-
thing for themselves and putting the
burden, so far as the bombing is con-
cerned, on the shoulders of our own
pilots. I do not believe the Senate wants
to do that.
Let me conclude my remarks by saying
that I note here the Senator's amend-
ment was prepared prior to Septem-
ber 23, 1971, and it was introduced on
that day. Not knowing when it would
come up, or when the other amendments
would come up, the Senator did not have
the picture before him that we are faced
with today. So, very respectfully, I urge
the Senate not to adopt on 2 successive
days two contradictory programs and ex-
pect the conferees to be able to bring
back both of those from the conference.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I yield
myself such time as I may need. I do not
believe we will use all the time.
I should like to ask a simple, funda-
mental question: Why do we have to
bomb at all?
Mr. STENNIS. It is l
Senator. It was brough
yesterday that most of
northern Laos is what v
A great deal of it in port
cover for the men flghtin
It is really not bombing
sense.
Mr. GRAVEL. Let m
amendment would permi
Mr. STENNIS. It is si
bombing. It is mixed ii
bombing of the Ho Chi h
obvious what that is for
the soldiers trying to
within its limits. North
another trail further to ti
can travel on better: sc
trying to push us back
ders of Thailand. Thus,
there with our bombs, no'
the trail but also to prot
men there.
Mr. GRAVEL. It I c(
amendment, it is made a
that if it is to protect ti'
we would permit the be
that exclusion. But I do
it, in the face of statemi
Shoup, Mr. McNamara.
fgence accounts rely orte
ALML.Ll we are 'really i
war, as the Presid
the Senator from Mississ;
this body, why do we h
thousand miles avay fi
troops are? I just do not u
I do not understand wi
bomb over over there i,
getting out.
Mr. STENNIS. The
think, is that this is pi
even though it is in the i
wound down. If we with(
ing from all of this area
mentioned the Ho Chi h9
just say that we are not
but will stop it by law, ti
nam-with all our men,
South Vietnam-would b
our cause much worse.
vastating, if we are going
are going to withdraw ors
and say "Now you can hi
not going to hit back ar
way." I think that would
render. I want us to gc
the best way we can. but
tect our rear while we ax
Mr. GRAVEL. If I c,
again. I have a prol'ision
ment to protect our rear ,
to protect our troops. Th
fication-the only exce
amendment. But the only
get from the Senator froi
simply that because the f
United States has a polio
must go ahead and bomb.
ate must have no in'lepen
or no independent moral
in the form of a question
from Mississippi. I liken t
that which existed in I
where they had the chant
into power through the e;
as our President did. but
went on to commit. the
crimes in. history, includ
5, 1971
i, of the war.
z ut in debate
1e fighting in
call bombing.
'c rn Laos is air
c n the ground.
n the ordinary
ay that my
t at.
a ring. Some is
ogether. The
t h Trail-it is
Then we have
c id that trail
r;iitnam wants
vest, one they
tsat they are
v and the bor-
have to go in
o ily to destroy
our f
ighting
rill clarify my
u idantly clear
fighting men,
n wing. I make
-.(t understand
ii s by General
and the} `tel-
i i the ePa-
`tl Tr VOTaly
fig o e out
,n 3. tells us and
q i indicates to,
five to bomb a
r t where our
s erstand that.
v we want to
e are really
f?: t answer, I
t of the war,
c cess of being
a w the bomb-
s iw-we have
a i Trail-and
ung to bomb,
i North Viet-
=till there in
+ble to make
ould be de-
say that we
,inches now,
is but we are
nore in this
if partial sur-
aut of there
have to pro-
aving.
idd restate it
r my amend-
ce leave and
is the quali-
c rn in that
-r essage I can
.fississippi is
e ident of the
.o bomb, we
in the Sen-
]c-.lt judgment
. I say this
0 the Senator
situation to
a zi Germany
,I i? who came
.c ion process,
a chancellor
r ,fist heinous
i! the "final
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73WQg2kfP000300080084-9
October 5, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -
"icture the battlefield in Laos. Light
spotter planes at 2,000 feet; A-IE, A-26
sand I,-28 prop bombers, AC-47 and AC-
130 gunships. flare ships and rescue heli-
cotlte:rs at 5,000 feet, F-4, F-105 and B-
-r jet fighters and jet reconnaissance
aircraft at 10.000 feet; KG-135 super-
tai.kers at 20,000 feet; C-130's filled with
electronic gear designed to coordinate
lha bombing at 25,000 feet; B-52 bombers
at 30,000 feet; C-130's of Hillsboro con-
trol overseeing the entire.. operation at
35,000 feet and SR-71 reconnaissance
a rcraft at 70.000 feet.
And oil the ground is the Laotian
poosantry. Listen to their reactions and
thoughts as recorded in refugee inter-
vi ews..
'he planes came like birds and the\bombs
clike rain.
Another- <
There wasn"t any night when we thou ht
we'd live until morning ... never a morniifg
we thought we'd survive until night.
And another-
9:.just stayed in my cave. I didn't see the
sunlight for two years. What did I think
ahout? Oh, I used to repeat, please don't let
tlei planes come, please don't let the planes
come, please .. .
And another-
=3efore the village was beautiful and filled
with happiness and there was a large field
of fruit trees. But when I left my village all
I saw were the holes of the bombs and the
burning houses and the people who had died
so pitifully.
And another-
Our lives became like one of the animals
who search to escape the butcher.
And this continues every hour-200,-
000 pounds of bombs, every 9 days the
equivalent of one Hiroshima. From 1965
to 1969, 70 tons of bombs for every square
mile of North and South Vietnam were
dropped, 500 pounds for every man,
woman and child. In just the first 5
months of 1971 there were 780 million
pounds of bombs dropped over Southeast
Asia.
PART II
The airwar is not even militarily ef-
fective. Secretary of Defense McNamara
revealed in 1968 that it could at best re-
duce the flow of supplies along the Ho
Chi Minh trail by only 10 percent to 15
percent. At a cost of over $100,000 per
truck destroyed. Former Under Secre-.
Lary of Defense Townsend Hoopes hag
pointed out that in the history of bomb-
ing campaigns, only when the sources of
production are attacked can the logisti-
cal flow of supplies be effectively im-
paired. In this case that would-'involve
strikes against China and the Soviet
Union. A study of the hamlet evaluation
reports reveals that the number of vil-
lages under government control in South
Vietnam varied independently of the
level of the air campaign over the
2ierth.
On the ground the, bombing raises en-
emy morale and ! alienates civilians.
Pathet Lao defectors indicate that before
the heavy bombing in Laos they managed
only a 30-percent rate of voluntarism
alclong their forces. However, after the
massive attacks of late 1968 the figure
jumped to almost 100 percent. "Better
to die fighting than in a trench" was tie
feeling of one Pathet Lao recruit.
As I have indicated, the air war is
not isolated in any one country in Ind-
china. The Vietnam war has indeed be-
come the Indochina war. But informa-
tion concerning the extent of U.S. bomiW-
ing in Laos has been limited and con-
cealed by the executive branch, so t
would like to discuss in more detail the
situation in those skies.
Since 1964 the United States has been
engaged in an aerial campaign over as.
The bombing was seriously escalated in
late 1968 and early 1969 when restric-
tion; against civilian targeting were si i-
nificantly rel.xed. The air war has in-
volved in Laos alone an estimated cost
of to $7 billion, innumerable La-
otian casualties, and over 400 pilots
either dead, missing in action, or ca,-
tured.
E'ren tracers of these facts were o:.:ii-
cially kept from the public until March
1970. The same pattern of duplicity and
deception which the Pentagon papers
have shown to characterize our entry into
', rently P. strict grayout is imposed
on\U.S. operations there, with little -n -
forii ation besides official reports avail-
able the press. Reporters are not pr r-
mitte to accompany attack and spotter'
planes n their missions as they are in
Vietnam. Most pilots are apparently
under ins uclions not to talk with news-
men. The it attache in Vientienne is
similarly in ccessible. Recent requests
by Congress ` n McCLOSKEY for photo-
graphs of pr iously existing Lao ril-
lages to confi their continued well-
being have gone met by the Pentagon.
Military officials ave failed as well to
provide Congress 11 MCCLOSKEY with
a listing of all bo )ed civilian targets
in Lr.os.
But there are some unofficial sources
of information, These na rly unanimo.ls-
ly te'l one story-that di massive bom-
bardment of civilians un er Pathet Lao
concroi. Congressmen MCCLOSKEY and
WAT,nTE found, in a U.S. infd mation sar-
vey initially concealed from hem by the
Emoassy, that 75 percent of l+,he 190 re-
spondants from 96 villages ha had their
homes bombed. In addition 9 percent
had seen a bombing attack an 61 per-
cent had seen a-person killed. C gre:s-
men McCLOSKEY and WALDIE als con-
ducted their own interviews, and 11 16
refugees queried, from seven differen ?ril-
lages, testified to the aerial destruc ion
of every single dwelling in their hamli>ts.
A report by U.N. expert Georges Ch,
pelier in December 1970 stated that i
the Plainedes Jarres-
B?r 1969 the intensity of the bombings ,%as
such that no organized life was possible as
the villages.... Jet planes came daily and
destroyed all stationary structures. Nothing
was left standing. The villagers lived in
trenches and holes or in caves. The only
farmed at night. All of the interlocut :as
without exception had their villages cc n-
pletaly destroyed. In the last phase, bor p-
ings were aimed at the systematic destr.;c-
tion of the materials bases of the civilian
socir,t y .
At one time there were more than t 0,-
000 people living in the Plaine des Jarres.
There is virtually no life there now.
One village chief indicated that in 21
hamlet,. not one home was left standing.
In his own village, 45 percent of the 2,600
inhabitants never left their trenches.
A sample of 25 villages from the Plaine
des Jarres revealed casualty rates of 5 to
10 percent from the bombing. It is esti-
mated that 50 civilians are killed for
every Pathet-Lao casualty.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
time of the Senator has expired.
Mr. GRAVEL. I ;yield myself 3 addi-
tional minutes.
in 1968, Jacques Ilecornoy, the South-
east Asian desk editor for Le Monde,
traveled through Paithet Lao controlled
areas. According to his int views, 65 vil-
lages in the Sam Ne is dcilstrict alone had
been destroyed by U S. lr power. Travel-
ir.;; through the dev34ted areas, he de-
picts it as "a worlcY'vithout noise for the
:surrounding vill e 3 have disappeared.
The inhabitant%themselves living in the
mountains." /
Such testonony is, of course, contrary
to our Goyernment': official position that
"never 46f ore has su,-h care been taken to
spare givilians in bombing raids."
Tie picture burns into one's imagina-
tiori is that of hundreds of thousands of
Laotians desperately huddling in caves
and trenches as U.S. planes roar over-
head. Again, it is he enormity of the
suffering endured t y these poor people
which blinds us to our own policy. I will
rerun the picture, because we must break
through the psychic numbness we have
developed.
There are hundreds of thousands of
poor peasants, noncombatants, living un-
derground in fear oof U.S. air power in
.Asia. There are entire areas of former
civilization reduced to near caveman
standards by the most advanced Nation
in the history of the earth. For what? No
matter for what; it is indefensible.
At Nuremberg, Teleford Taylor, chief
U.S. Prosecutor, argued that where the
military profits of any policy are dwarfed
by the civilian casualties, such a policy is
indefensible. The massive air war by the
United States against the peoples of In-
dochina is indefensible. Every B-52 raid,
every A--119 K stinger drop, is criminal.
The situation in Laos is not appreciably
different from what is currently oc-
curring in Cambodia. As the Senate Sub-
committee on Refugees noted, the same
pattern of destruction is being repeated
relentlessly throughout "Indochina. It is
up to Congress to terminate it. The Presi-
dent has made it clear that he intends to
continue the bombi::ag, stating in Febru-
ary this year, "I wiT_ not place any limita-
tions on the use of air power."
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
time of the Senator has expired.
ecretary of Def,m.se Laird has indi-
cathi that we intend to maintain a naval
and fir presence in :southeast Asia indefi-
nitely\\llafter the last ground troops are
wlthdr,%wn. The Pentagon, which seems
to have statistics available for all cate-
gories a d contingencies, lacks even an
estimate f the likely civilian casualties
this prese a will cause. Such considera-
tons do not'seem to have a high priority
in current American decisionmaking. The
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 S 15874
3. Space___________
4. Farm ------------
5. Public works---_-
6. Housing and
urban develop-
went ________--
7. Education________
8. Health-----------
9 . Social security-___
10. Welfare__________
11. Veterans_________
X 00300080084(9ty 'r 5, 1971
Approved For MJ.MN1VAL: f1 &W3B P
Fiscal
1972 Cut
spend- below Hold at Increase
ing level level level
(bil- (per- (per- (per-
lions) cent) cent) cent)
76.0 57.0 36.0 7.0
4.1 81.6 16.4 2.0
3.3 57.4 34.6 8.0
9.6 39.0 47.8 13.2
2.3 14.2 54.7 31.1
3.7 16.7 38.1 45.2
5.2 13.2 46.4 40.4
3.1 5.0 40.1 54.9
4.3 5.0 43.0 52.0
11.4 48.4 35.2- 16.4
10.7 9.0 59.4 31.6
after the date of enactment of this Act to
bomb, rocket, napalm, or otherwise attack by
air, any target whatsoever within the Repub-
lic of Vietnam unless the President deter-
mines any such air operation to be necessary
to provide for the safety of United States
Armed Forces during their withdrawal from
Indochina.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
I ask unanimous consent that the time
tie equally charged against both sides.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered, and the
clerk will call the roll.
The second assistant legislative clerk
proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Who yields time?
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I yield
myself 10 minutes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, while we
deliberate today in this Chamber Amer-
ican planes will ease into the sky over
Southeast Asia. They will drop tons of
explosives, guided to the flesh of hu-
man beings by the most elaborate and
impersonal technology.
Hovering over Laotian rice fields, the
A-119 Stinger gunship can put a piece
of shrapnel into every square foot of an
area the size of a football field.
On the ground are 3 million Laotians,
the heaviest bombed people in the his-
tory of warfare. They will huddle in their
caves and field trenches, and some will
die. Many will not see the sun for months,
fear keeping them in their covered bunk-
ers during daylight hours.
In the name of America the planes
come.
Over the past 10 years 700,000 Laotians
have been made refugees, tens of thou-
sands have been killed or wounded, and
hundreds of thousands forced to live
much of the time in caves and trenches.
The bombing raids also come in the
name of the U.S. Senate, until we legis-
late otherwise.
The war is not winding down for the
peoples of Indochina. Since the much
heralded bombing halt over North Viet-
nam, the planes have not come home.
They have simply shifted their targets
into Laos and Cambodia.
The bombing has continued at 100
tons an how-, 2,400 tons a day. The rate
of civilian casualties and refugee genera-
tion, indicative of the overall level of
violence, has if anything increased dur-
ing the last 2 years.
Recent hearings before the Senate
Subcommittee on Refugees reveal that
since the invasion of Cambodia nearly
one quarter of that country's popula-
tion-1,500,000 people-have become re-
fugees. In the last few months in South
Vietnam more refugees have been
created than at any time since the 1968
Tet offensive.
The bombing of North Vietnam has
been resumed. As recently as September
21 an armada of 250 U.S. planes attacked
targets in the North. and this raid was
followed on successive days by two more
so-called protective rea ,i )n strikes. At
present the bombing of North Vietnam
has reached an a.veraf rate of once
every 4 days, and aoc( r( ing to North
Vietnamese reports 106 ii;ages in addi-
tion to missile sites hr c been struck.
The Meatgrinder in Vie, ai in, which has
taken 325,000 civilian lil and wounded
more than a million sit 1965, is still
whirling. As the So- 1.1 Vietnamese
Minister of Informatiol a ommented in
1968, South Vietnam has i) -en devastated
by an alien air force th t seems at war
with the very land of 1,e nam.
The amendment I 3 i-er is quite
straightforward. Let us t )p the bomb-
ing, not just partially c e- North Viet-
nam but in all Iiidoch n i,-except for
those strikes inside Sou h Vietnam de-
monstrably related to th - ccurity of our
withdrawing troops. Is it really the desire
of the Senate to contii ut to send out
those planes?
An Orwellian transfor tion is taking
place in our military poli -y in Indochina.
Due to public pressure A,nerican boys
are slowly coming honi but they are
leaving an automated ws )ehind. There
is every danger, as Now , Chomsky has
warned, that we intend :) turn the land
of Vietnam into an aul ,r_ rated murder
machine. Computer ter aology and a
small number of troop: tianning air-
craft and artillery are -r eating a U.S.
destructive presence thy I, may literally
hover over Southeast A is for years to
come. In the midst of ti is the public is
confused, pacified by t 1e diminishing
troop levels, yet vaguely 1 c abled by con-
tinuing reports of devast , t on.
Eluding recognition, ii Aden in the
techno-euphemisms of i ,i itary speech,
is the reality of our py At V. "Selective
ordnance"-a rather dui :,nd technical
sounding term until one 1 !r lizes it masks
the use of napalm agains h uman beings.
"Harrassment and i l "rdiction"-a
rather light-hearted teri intil one un-
derstands that it represe t, the random
hurling of destruction in 3 iungle areas.
These antiseptic words o )fuscate hor-
ror-filled realities, and t )ereby circum-
vent public judgment. "Surgical air
strike"-one pictures a ts.rased cancer
benevolently removed frcn the country-
side. But the cancer is ti jeasantry. In
World War II the cane ? as the Jews,
and the operation was t 's< "final solu-
tion." In the name of A tnerica, how
many executions are tat is ; place from
the air in Indochina.
It is the enormity of o -r mistake that
clouds it. if we were wry nl . how wrong
we were. Nothing will b, ,r back those
who have died, or the los a,-ms and legs,
eyes and ears. But let t :commit our-
selves at least to :;top t ty bombing of
those who remain.
How the people of this o ,retry, a good
people, industrious peopl ,:red generous
people, could have comet 'isit such de-
struction on another na -ca is difficult
to comprehend. Orwell in -i . masterpiece
"1984" depicts such carr ,le as the re-
sult of technology gone i ad, removed
from common experienc( iving reality
to surrealistic nightmare. Ve may have
intervened in Indochina :(r commend-
able reasons-even that is qi testionable-
but at some time the mac ii ne got out of
control and we could not t trn it off.
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
time fixed for the transaction of routine
morning business has expired.
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 bill (H.R. 10880) to amend title
38 of the United States Code to provide
improved medical care to veterans; to
provide hospital and medical care to cer-
tain dependents and survivors of vet-
erans; to improve recruitment and reten-
tion of career personnel in the Depart-
ment of Medicine and Surgery, in which
it requested the concurrence of the
Senate.
MILITARY PROCUREMENT
AUTHORIZATIONS, 1972
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under
the previous order, the Chair lays before
the Senate the unfinished business, which
the clerk will state.
The second assistant legislative clerk
read as follows:
A bill (H.R. 8687) to authorize appropria-
tions during the fiscal year 1972 for procure-
ment of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels,
tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other
weapons, and research, development, test, and
evaluation for the Armed Forces and to pre-
scribe the authorized personnel strength of
the Selected Reserve of each Reserve com-
ponent of the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 433
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
pending question is on the amendment
of the Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL).
There is a time limitation of 2 hours on
the amendment.
Without objection, the text of the
pending amendment will be printed in
the RECORD.
The amendment
follows:
TITLE VI-CESSATION OF BOMBING IN
INDOCHINA
SEC. 601. (a) No funds authorized or appro-
priated under this or any other law may be
expended after the date of enactment of this
Act to bomb, rocket, napalm, or otherwise
attack by air, any target whatsoever within
the Kingdom of Cambodia, the Kingdom of
Thailand, the Democratic Republic of Viet-
nam, and the Kingdom of Laos.
(b) No funds authorized or appropriated
under this or any other law may be expended
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9
 Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00 9 000300080084-9
October 5, 1971 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SErv S15873
cattle feeding operations as we do it in the
high plains areas.
And most of all, they need a transporta-
tion system. 't'hey need--and must have-a
much improved farm to market road system
to Transport tractor fuel and fertilizer to
their farmsand grain and livestock and
poultry products to their population centers.
It might be well to invite not only Mat-
skevitch, Minlstet of Agriculture, but invite
the man who heads up their Highway De-
partment.
Matskevitch is an extremely competent in-
dividual. He would be at} influential person
in rile cabinet of any countU.
I nci.ose a picture taken ili March of 1959
-t'ith identification of the indlq(iduals on the
back because I thought you Night like a
aicture of him.
',cry respectfully yours, i~S~
16OSWELL CMRST.
DEPARTMENT OF STATE,
Washington, D.C., August 11, 1971
l.'ar.;AR Mn. GARST: The Secretary has aske
me to reply to your letter of July 27, 1971,
in which you propose that an invitation be
issued by the Secretary of Agriculture to
CViirtister Matskevich to visit the United
hates.
We appreciated receiving your suggestion
and have discussed it with the Department
of Agriculture. We understand that Matske-
vich has already been invited to make a
private trip to the United States this month.
In the event that he comes, the possibility
remains open, of course, that he might meet
with Secretary Hardin while here.
;Sincerely.
is. T. DAVIES,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for European
affairs.
AUGUST 13, 1971.
Mr. R. T. DAVIES,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for European
Affairs. Department of State, Washing-
tan, D.C.
DEAR MR.. DAVIES: Thanks for your letter
saying that you understood Minister of Agri-
culture Matskevich has been Invited to
make a private trip to the United States this
month.
I know aboutthat invitation-but I doubt
seriously if he will come without an official
invitation from Secretary Hardin, in spite of
the fact that he has been invited to speak
before a group of economists.
And from the State Department's own in-
terest, it seems to me an invitation to Mats-
kevich to come would be highly desirable.
Hardly anything could be more Innocent
than inviting him back for another look a5'
American agriculture after 15 years.
in 1950, we were eating 64.4 pounds of
beef per person. By 1960, it was up tcy 85.1
pounds per person. By 1970, it was/tip to
113.8 pounds per person. In 1950, Ave had
ab=ut 150 million people-in 1970Above 200
million.
It seems highly probable tha 'the U.S.S.R.
fiat; failed to keep pace-and/ is anxious to
learn how we have done so/well.
'4o I urge you to reconsider your decision
asut invite him. -
Sincerely yours.
ROSWELL GARST.
1TATOR PROXMIRE'S POLL OF
3E
WISCONSIN RESIDENTS
MJlr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, a poll
I have taken of Wisconsin residents
shows an overwhelming support for the
President's wage-price freeze and with
even more support expressed for con-
tinuation of some, wage-price controls
alter the freeze is ended.
Among the other interesting results
of the .poll, which was answered by some
18,000 Wisconsin residents, was the con-
tinuing desire of the voters to reduce
Federal spending in the area of defense.
foreign aid, and space.
The questions and tine results are de-
tailed in my October newsletter to my
constituents. I asked unanimous conser t
that it be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the newslet-
ter was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, follows:
WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT INFLATION, SCHOC L.
BUSLV ., RED CFCINA, AND FEDERAL SPENDING
Wisconsin voters continue a remarkabl,'
consistent and emphatic. opposition to in-
creased federal spending!
You call for cuts in spending for defens
foreign aid, and space.
Most of you support admission of Mainland
China to the United Nations.
You overwhelmingly oppose busing to de-
segregated schools.
The Administration's new wage-price cos -
ol program has your support ... so far.
LAST YEAR
If.
do your preferences ccmpare with
your attitude last year?
In 1u ust o1970. in response to a simi}aw
question ire, more of you favored bu$ge
cuts but a majority continue to support a
reduction i defense, foreign aid and'spa:e
expenditures. n fact, there is more suppor;
for reduced fo igr.L aid than there was la-*
year--a whoppirlp 81.6 percent of you fav 1r
The welfare pro am is also less popula -
Almost 50 percent o you favor a cutback u
On the other hand, a 'tajority of you fav,r
an increase in spending- or health as well is
a boost in social secutit, benefits. Last year
there was no majority su or-: for spending
Increases of any kind.
OUR CHINA POLINt
Where do you 'stand on Chhi a.?
More than your out of ever tive of ycra
support admitting Mainland Clna to t, e,
(NI of ee-
United Nations but not at the 't
On:y 20 percent of ycu would ad it R?:d
China if it meant barring Nationalis Chiba
ideitt's proposed trip to Peking as wel
more trade with Communist China.
THE WAGE-PRICE FREEZE
And the freeze in your wages and price-?
More than four out of every five of you
support the 90-day freeze on wages and
prices. You are willing, by and large, to pa.,s
up a wage increase as long as prices and rer cs
remain stable and you want some continu=d
controls after the freeze expires. A great ma y
of yoc (85.9 percent) feel the price freeze
should be extended to cover interest charg=s.
However, few of you are buying more goods
becai: e of the freeze.
SCHOOL BUSING
Sec:regation and school busing?
Although almost all of you are agair.:;t
busing, to end segregation no matter where
it exists, one out of every four who answered
the questionnaire would approve of busing
to end school segregation created by acts of
a stag government.
It it very clear. .however, that most of you
stror:.gly oppose busing under any circum-
stances.
Here's how von and your fellow Wisconsin
citizens answered my September questic a-
naire :
INFLATION
Dc ,ou support the current 90-day freeze
on wages, prices, rents?
. 'ercer. C
Yes --------------------------------- 84.7
No ----------------------------------- 15.3
Are you willing to forego an increase in
your wages as long as prices and rents are
held down also?
Percent
Yes --------------------------------- 86.2
No -------------------------------- 13.8
Do you expect to buy more clothing, furni-
ture, appliances, or other products now that
prices are frozen?
Percer,.t
yes ----------------- 22.4
-------------
No ----------------- - 77.6
Should the freeze Pb extended to cover in-
terest charges?
Percent
Yes ---------- 4---------------------- 85.9
No ~----------------------- 14. 1
Should same kind owage-price contra Is
be continued after Nov,miber 12, 1971?
Percent
Yes -------------------------------- 89.2
No ----------------------------------- 10 8
Do you. favor the President's plan to post-
pone the Family Assistance Plan (welfare
reform) ?
Percent
Yes --------------------- ------------- 51.7
No -----.- ------ _ 48 3
Do you favor postsanement of revenue
sharing with state an I local governments?
Percent
yes _.--------------- --------------- 27.2
No ------------------------------------ 72 8
CBI VA.
Do you support the President's decision to
go to Peking before next May?
Percent
'Yes -------------------------------- 71.5
No --------------------------------- 28.5
Would you favor opening up trade with
Mainland China provided strategic goods
were not traded?
Percent
Yes _.---------------- - 75.9
No ------------------------------------ 24.1
Would you favor admitting Mainland
China to the United Nations:
If Nationalist Chine, also kept its niein-
bership?
Percent
Yes ----------------------------------- 83.8
No ----------------------- 16.2
If Mainland China admission is condi-
tioned on expelling Nationalist China?
Percent
s 20
Do ou think busing should be used to
desegr ate schools that were segregated by
actions rf a state government?
Yes ---- ------------------------ 24.6
Ilo ------\------------------------- 75.4
Do you tk busing, should be used to
eliminate sag egation werever it erasts and
whatever its c uses?
Yes -------- 12 9
No -------------- ---- 8".1
SPENDING: NC 3EASE Oa CUT'
The ]?resident's c,dget called for $249
billion for the curre t, fiscal year. How, as a
U.S. Senator, would yo'a vote on the following
proposed (or already a;,3prored) major spend-
ing levels?
Percent
Yes --------------------------------- 5 i. 7
No --------------------------------- 48.3
Approved For Release 2002/08/01 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000300080084-9