JOURNAL - OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL TUESDAY 26 OCTOBER 1971

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: C
• Document Page Count: 57
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 11, 2001
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: October 26, 1971
• Content Type: NOTES

Approved For Release 2001/11/15 CIA-RDP 3B00296R000400120011-3
Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 3
Tuesday - 26 October 1971
10. (Confidential - JMM) Met with Bill Woodruff, Counsel, Senate
Appropriations Committee, who said that he saw little chance of defeating
the amendments to the Foreign Aid bill which concerned us on the floor
of the Senate, and felt the best bet would be to amend them in conference
with the House.
11. (Confidential - JMM) Called Ed Braswell, Chief Counsel, Senate
Armed Services Committee, to say there was confusion over whether the
Chairman wanted to see the Director tomorrow afternoon to discuss amend-
ments to the Foreign Aid bill. We agreed that we would bring over to
Braswell our suggestions for Senator Stennis' use in this connection by
around noon tomorrow, at which time Braswell might be able to clarify
the Senator's wishes regarding a meeting with the Director.
12. (Confidential - JGO) Talked to Mr. Ralph Preston, House
Appropriations Committee staff, who told me that he will be engaged
full time in the next several days in the mark-up of the Defense Appro-
priation bill and requested that delivery of the safe be delayed for a
week or so.
13. (Internal Use Only - JGO) Talked to Lynn Harris, in the office
of Representative William Minshall (R. , Ohio), who told me that the Speaker's
office was unable to confirm the Speaker's dining room for Thursday but
that they should know in the morning. As a backup, House Appropriations
Committee room will be available in the event the Speaker's dining room
should cancel out.
14.. (Confidential- GLC) Dorothy Fosdick, Staff Director, Subcom-
mittee on National Security and International Operations, called to say Senator
Jackson had asked that she and Charles E. Horner (a recent addition to the
Subcommittee staff) get a briefing on the India/Pakistan situation. I checked
with OCI, and made arrangements for us to meet with the
staff on Thursday, 28 October, at 3:00 p.m. Miss Fosdick said Horner has
DOD top secret clearance (which I confirmed) and we agreed the briefing would
not go higher than that level.
r9 1;
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11162 Approved For Relea( r 1 1w1QL44jM 02"8Q 0012001 vember 17, 1971
Kuykendall
Mikva
Stanton,
Landgrebe
O'Hara
James V.
Lent
Pelly
Steed
Link
Roberts
Steele
McClure
Rosenthal
Teague, Calif.
McDade
Runnel&
Thompson, N.J.
McKevitt
Scheuer
Widnall
Mathias, Calif.
Schwengel
The SPEAKER. On this rolleall 369
Members have answered to their names,
a quorum.
By unanimous consent, further pro-
ceedings under the call were dispensed
with.
CORRECTION OF THE RECORD
Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I
herewith ask unanimous consent that my
remarks appearing on page El 0688 of the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of October 12,
1971, be deleted from the permanent
RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mass-
achusetts?
There was no objection.
REFUSAL OF UNITED STATES TO
SELL PHANTOM JETS TO ISRAEL
(Mr. GUDE asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1
minute, to revise and extend his remarks
and include extraneous matter.)
Mr. GUDE. Mr. Speaker, the recent
statement by Secretary Rogers that the
United States will not sell Israel any
more Phantom jets at this time is most
disturbing. The assertion by the Secre-
tary that Soviet shipments of arms to
Egypt have been moderate, does not
square with the bellicose language that
has been coming out of Cario lately.
The intend of the administration
should not be to pressure Israel into ac-
cepting the interim settlement laid down
by the Department of State last month.
Instead the United States should con-
tinue to encourage a negotiated settle-
ment between the Arabs and Israel. No
agreement that has been imposed by
the big powers will be respected. No
peace that has come about through pres-
sure rather than the voluntary settle-
ment of differences will ever last.
The United States has a commitment
to Israel-a -commitment that has the
full support of both the House and the
Senate. Our military assistance to Israel
should be designed to guarantee them
security so that both -Israel and the
Egyptians will realize that a voluntary
agreement is the only possible answer to
the Middle East dilemma. We should
stop using our assistance to force Israel
into concessions that we feel are appro-
priate, but which could hurt one of our
very best friends in the community of
nations.
REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO FILE
CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE
JOINT RESOLUTION 946, FURTHER
CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS,
1972
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that the managers may
have until midnight tomorrow to file
a conference report on House Joint
Resolution 946, making further continu-
ing appropriations for the fiscal year
1972, and for other purposes.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving
the right to object, I understand this is
the continuing resolution?
Mr. MAHON. This is the continuing
resolution which was sent to conference
last night.
Mr. GROSS. Has there been any agree-
ment reached by the conferees?
Mr. MAHON. There have been infor-
mal discussions but no formal meeting of
the conferees.
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, under those
circumstances, I object.
The SPEAKER. Objection is heard.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS, 1972
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Com-
mittee of the Whole House on the State
of the Union for the further considera-
tion of the bill (H.R. 11731) making ap-
propriations for the Department of De-
fense for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, and for other purposes.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
motion offered by the gentleman from
Texas.
The motion was agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The Chair requests
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
PICKLE) temporarily assume the chair.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further
consideration of the bill (H.R. 11731),
with Mr. PICKLE (Chairman pro em-
pore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When
the committee rose on yesterday the
Clerk had read through line 9, page 22
of the bill. If there are no amendments
to be proposed, the Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows :
RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND
EVALUATION, NAVY
For expenses necessary for basic and ap-
plied scientific research, development, test,
and evaluation, including maintenance, re-
habilitation, lease, and operation of facilities
and equipment, as authorized by law; $2,358,-
319,000, and in addition, $20,000,000 to be
derived by transfer from "Research, Develop-
ment, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, 1971/
1972", to remain available for obligation
until June 30, 1973.
Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
I wish to take exception to the dele-
tion of $2.1 million pertaining to the im-
proved CH-53 for the U.S. Navy and U.S.
Marine Corps.
There is, I presume, some misunder-
standing on this matter because of previ-
ous communications from the chairman
of this committee and the Under Secre-
tary of Defense, as set forth in the hear-
ings on page 81.
I have researched this matter and it
is clear to me that the triservice heavy
lift helicopter still is the program sup-
ported by all the services, including the
U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy and the U.S.
Marine Corps amphibious operations. For
their land operations when this helicop-
ter becomes available in 1980. This heli-
copter will be too large for operation
from most of the vessels used to support
Marine Corps amphibious operations.
For this reason, the Navy and Marine
Corps require increased helicopter capa-
bility for tactical use in amphibious war-
fare. This is the purpose of their request
for the improved CH-53.
The improved CH-53 is to be an ad-
vanced version of the present CH-53 now
in the Navy/Marine Corps inventory. If
developed it would be the largest helicop-
ter, with a payload of 16 tons, that could
be operated from ships utilized for am-
phibious landings.
The improved CH-53 does not repre-
sent a technological risk, since most of
the components are derivatives of the
CH-53 now in operation with the U.S.
Marine Corps. May I add that the CH-53
has an excellent record in Vietnam and
is used by the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps.,
and U.S. Air Force.
There should be no question about de-
veloping a three-engine version of the
CH-53 since the aircraft was originally
designed for growth in this manner. Si-
korsky helped develop the three-engine
Super Frelon built in France and this
three-engined aircraft has held the
world's speed record for 8 years.
Mr. Chairman, on page 111 of the re-
port the committee deletes the prior year
funds available for this program.
I quote from the language of the
committee :
The committee feels that it was misled in
this affair and wants to very carefully review
any Other heavy lift helicopter efforts be-
fore placing funds in this area.
I would hope that the committee would
keep an open mind on this problem,
which in my opinion can still be re-
solved. The fact is I do not believe the
Department of Defense misled the com-
mittee. It came in here some years ago
saying it could develop one heavy lift
helicopter to do all the. functions. It sub-
sequently developed that the heavy lift
helicopter, to be designed and built some
time around 1980, can do all the func-
tions for all the services, including many
of the functions which the Navy will
need, but it cannot be operated from
assault ships for Navy and Marine as-
sault-type operations.
It cannot be operated from assault
ships for Navy or Marine assault opera-
tions. I think it is to the credit of the
services that they wrote to the commit-
tee in time and explained the problem to
the committee and informed it that for
these limited assault-shipboard services
the Navy needs a smaller helicopter
which can be stored on board. By doing
this, in my opinion, the services have
avoided the pitfalls of a promise such as
was made some years ago which led to
the great fight over the TFX or the F-
111. A promise of a weapons system
which was originally designed to per-
form services for all of the branches of
the Armed Forces and was, subsequently,
not capable of performing them at all.
I submit that the Navy feels very
strong about this program, and I be-
lieve it can make an excellent case. I
would ask the subcommittee and the
chairman of the committee, the gentle-
man from Texas (Mr. MAHON) if they
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, 197ApprovedCON Release UDNAL1146(('6 RDflppR296R000400120011-3 H 11161
others who might find themselves in the
same position.
To Mrs. Pickett, nothing could better
demonstrate democracy in action than
the passage of this bill.
I insert in the RECORD the last letter
which Mrs. Picket received from her
son:
DEAR MOM: I joined the army because I
believed in America. The Army tried to put
me in Clerk school, but I told them I wanted
to be in the infantry. Then I volunteered
for jump school. They asked me to join the
pathfinders but at the same time, they told
me it meant Vietnam. Knowing this, I again
volunteered because I thought I was really
doing something for my country. I figured
it was better than burning down my school.
I will tell you, this being with your friend
alive one minute and dead the next takes all
the gung-ho-ness out of a person. I've seen
some of the guys get sick. and throw up when
they hear that they have to go out.
I know and they know the war is still on.
The tax payers worry about being sure that
we only shoot so many rounds per month.
Let's fight this war or get the hell out.
We're tired of fighting a war with rules, no
weapons and a limit in ammo. I feel like
the war is something people talk about but
never get off their behinds to do anything
about it. I think it is time for the silent
majority to make some noise. I'm sure if you
were crawling through the brush and you
couldn't see 5 feet in front of you and you
were being shot at, you would make noise
in a hurry.
I volunteered to go into the middle of
two battalions of NVA along with five other
guys to get a body from a crashed helicopter.
I'm no hero but all the guys here are the
same way, we have a job to do.
Mom, my new job, if you want to know,
I did volunteer for it. Someone has to do it.
I am the hunter of a hunter killer team
and I ride in or pilot a very small helicopter
at tree top level until the enemy fires at us
then the larger gunships behind us come in
to wipe out the enemy. I feel I am doing
something for the war effort and maybe
hurting some of those people that have hurt
my friends.
JANUARY 22
My luck ended on Jan. 22 when my ship
was badly shot up. I saw the VC's rifle leaning
against a tree and he got to it before I could
get to my machine gun but we made it back
to base.
FEBRUARY 10
This was another bad day-my luck was
pretty good though. We were shot down by
mistake by the South Vietnamese and not
a scratch.
FEBRUARY 18
DEAR MOM: I feel that I will make it home.
I only have 97 days of flying left. Mom, if the
army ever comes to tell you I'm missing in
action, it only means one thing, I'm-dead-
they can't find my body. Mom, please don't
worry about me because I'm not worried
about me. I'll do my best to stay alive but
I'm not afraid to die. If I die, I'll be doing it
for my country, friends and family so that
my brother or friends never have to come
over here to see what I've seen-I've seen so
much dying. Right now I have a feeling of
emptiness like I've never had before without
purpose and feel I need something but I
don't know what that somthing Is. In other
words, I'm a very mixed up kid.
Your loving son,
MARCH 1.
DEAR Mom: I have 135 days left before
you see me walk through the door. My time
is getting short. I haven't much to say. I love
you all and miss you very much.
Love,
BOB.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Ar-
kansas?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the bill, as follows:
H.R. 10604
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the
second sentence of section 202(1) Of the So-
cial Security Act Is amended (a) by striking
out "or" at the end of clause (2), renumber-
ing clause (3) as clause (4), and adding
after clause (2) the following new clause (3) :
"(3) if the body of such insured individ-
ual is not available for burial, to any person
or persons. equitably entitled thereto, to the
extent and in the proportions that he or they
shall have paid expenses of a burial or me-
morial service or both and related expenses
for such individual (and the Secretary shall
by regulations prescribe the criteria for de-
termining when and whether an insured in-
dividual has died if, at the time such indi-
vidual is alleged to have died, such individ-
ual was serving as a member of the Armed
Forces of the United States and if the body
of such Individual has not been recovered
or"; and
(b) By striking out in the renumbered
clause (4) "clauses (1) and (2)" and insert-
ing in lieu thereof "clauses (1), (2), and
(3) ".
SEC. 2. The amendments made by the first
section of this Act shall be effective only in
the case of lump-sum death payments under
title II of the Social Security Act made with
respect to deaths which occur after Decem-
ber 31, 1970.
With the following committee amend-
ment:
Strike out all after the enacting clause
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
That (a) the second sentence of section
202(i) of the Social Security Act is amended
by striking out "or" at the end of clause (2),
by renumbering clause (3) as clause (4), and
.by inserting after clause (2) the following
new clause:
"(3) if the body of such Insured individual
is not available for burial but expenses were
incurred with respect to such individual in
connection with a memorial service, a me-
morial marker, a site for the marker, or any
other item of a kind for which expenses are
customarily incurred in connection with a
death and such expenses have been paid, to
any person Or persons, equitably entitled
thereto to the extent and in the proportions
that he or they shall have paid such ex-
penses; - or".
(b) The second sentence of section 202(i)
of such Act is further amended by striking
out "clauses (1) and (2)" in the clause re-
numbered as clause?(4) by subsection (a) and
inserting in lieu thereof "clauses (1), (2),
and (3)".
SEc. 2. The amendments made by the first
section of this Act shall be effective only in
the case of lump-sum death payments under
title II of the Social Security Act made with
respect to deaths which occur after Decem-
ber 31, 1970.
Mr. MILLS of Arkansas (during the
reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent to dispense with further reading
of the committee amendment and that
it be printed in the RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The bill, was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, was read the third
time, and passed, and a motion to recon-
sider was laid on the table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MILLS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my own remarks in connection
with the bills just passed, and I ask
unanimous consent that the authors of
the bills may be permitted to extend their
remarks.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas?
There was no objection.
PERMISSION FOR CLERK TO COR-
RECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN
ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 6065
Mr. MILLS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker,
I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk
may correct a typographical error, in the
engrossment of H.R. 6065, just passed.
The SPEAKER. Is -there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Arkansas'.)
There was no objection.
CORRECTION OF ENGROSSMENT
OF H.R. 10729, TO AMEND THE
FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGI-
CIDE, AND ' RODENTICIDE ACT
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a
resolution (H. Res. 709) and ask unani-
mous consent for its immediate consid-
eration.
The Clerk read the resolution as
follows: -
H. REs. 709
Resolved, That the Senate be requested to
return to the House the bill (H.R. 10729).
To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act, and for other purposes,
and that the Clerk be authorized to reengross
said bill with the following correction:
On page 58, of the engrossed bill, following
line 19, insert the text of Sections 3 and 4 as
they were passed by the House as part of the
bill on November 9, 1971.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts?
There was no objection.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
CALL OF THE HOUSE
Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, I make
the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is
not present.
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I move a
call of the House.
A call of the House was ordered.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names :
Abbitt
Alexander
Anderson,
Tenn.
Ashley
Badillo
Betts
Blackburn
Blatnik
Boggs
Celler
Chappell
Chisholm
Clark
[Roll No. 396]
Clausen, Fish
Don H. Fisher
Clay Foley
Conyers Ford,
Cotter William D.
Dellums Forsythe
Derwinski Fraser
Diggs Gallagher
Dowdy Goodling
Downing Griffiths
Dulski Halpern
Edmondson Hillis
Edwards, Calif. Hosmer
Edwards, La. Kee
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, roved Fob'WaUtWN4 5RWJ P9`9Qb 6R000400120011-3 H 11163
would keep an open mind in this area and
allow the Navy to present their case in a
convincing fashion, If so, we could pro-
ceed with this program.
Mr. MAHON. Will the gentleman
yield?
Mr. GIAIMO. I am happy to yield to
my chairman.
Mr. MAHON. The Defense Depart-
ment came before the committee last fall
and convinced the committee that a
single heavy-lift helicopter for all of the
services would be in order. This seemed
like a very attractive idea and funds were
appropriated based on this understand-
ing. Subsequently, they had a competi-
tion for an all-purpose heavy-lift heli-
copter. A contractor was selected for that
job and only then was the committee
told that that helicopter was not suit-
able for all uses. The gentleman has
demonstrated a very deep understanding
of the problem confronting the commit-
tee.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
gentleman has expired.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, it is suggested that we
ought to have an open mind with regard
to the Navy requirements, and I think
the position of the gentleman from Con-
necticut is valid. I think we must keep
an open mind in regard to this matter.
No one I know of is set in concrete
in connection with what decision should
eventually be made in this matter. We
recognize that conditions and concepts
change.
I know the gentleman from Connecti-
cut, a member of the Committee on Ap-
propriations himself, is quite aware of
the various problems involved here, and
I am sure there will be some solution to
the problem.
I thank the gentleman for raising the
issue here.
Mr. GIAIMO. I thank the gentleman.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOORHEAD
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I
offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. MOORHEAD:
Page 23, line 20 immediately after '12,358,-
319,000" strike out the comma, and insert in
lieu thereof the following: "(of which $10,-
000,000 shall be available only for initiating
the development of two prototype, light air
superiority aircraft, one of which shall not
be procured from contractors engaged sub-
stantially in either the F-14 or F-15 pro-
grams) ,".
.(Mr. MOORHEAD asked and was giv-
en permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, the
amendment I am offering is a promili-
tary, pro-Navy amendment. If adopted
it means that the Congress is -telling the
Navy to plan to consider buying a
light air - superiority aircraft-some-
thing which they do not have and some-
thing better than they now have.
The amendment at the same time,
however, is critical of the miltary. Quite
frankly, it does not stop the F-14 but it
questions the advisability of proceeding
much further with the acquisiton of the
F-14 airplane.
I am not an aerospace engineer nor a
cost accountant but I have a keen sense
of smell.
The F-14 has a C-5A odor-the smell
of cost overruns and performance under-
runs.
When I smelled this in the C-5A pro-
gram I tried to defeat that wasteful pro-
gram by a direct frontal attack, but I
relearned the truth of the political axiom
that you can not beat something with
nothing.
I think the overly costly and potential-
ly under performing F-14 program
should be terminated before more of the
taxpayers' valuable dollars are spent on
this new military boondoggle.
However, Mr. Chairman, we do not
now have. an alternative to the Navy's
undoubted need for an up-to-date light-
air superiority aircraft.
My amendment would set aside $10
million of the amount appropriated for
two prototypes of a light-air superiority
aircraft from a very hungry aerospace in-
dustry, as an alternative to the very
questionable F-14-an alternative which
the Armed Services Committees, the Ap-
propriations Committees, and the Con-
gress can consider before we irrevocably
commit ourselves to this dubious $2:5 bil-
lion F-14 venture.
Why the necessity for an alternative?
Because even if-and that is a very big
if-even if the F-14 should come close
to meeting its specifications, it still will
be no match for the Soviet's current
Mig-23 in either speed, altitude, or
maneuverability.
Mig-23's are now flying over Israel
with impunity because they can not be
reached by our F-4's. Our F-14's or F-
15's which have not even been deployed
yet, are slower, lower altitude airplanes
even if they meet specifications.
To those of my friends, who as I do,
support the best for the military, I ask
you to vote for the amendment so that
we may have an alternative to buying an
airplane already inferior in many re-
spects to those the Soviets have already
deployed.
To those of my friends, who as I do, op-
pose waste in military spending, I ask
you to vote for this amendment so that
next year we can have a reasonable and
responsible alternative to this overly-
costly and definitely inferior aircraft.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
(Mr. MAHON asked and was given
permisison to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The gentleman raises a good point, of
course, in that we do need to try to de-
velop some lightweight fighter, aircraft,
less expensive aircraft, and it is for that
reason that we have in this bill funds
for the development of such a plane. That
task has been assigned to the Air Force.
Mr. Chairman, the amount contained
in the bill for the prototype development
of a lightweight fighter is $6 million.
There has been no request from the
Department of the Navyor the Depart-
ment of Defense or from the Office of
Budget and Management for funds for
the development by the Navy of an ad-
ditional lightweight aircraft.
As we proceed a little further along
with the Air Force, prototype effort, we
would hope that the aircraft develop-
ment will be successful as to performance
and low cost, and that the plane could be
made compatible for both the services
at minimal additional cost. Of course, it
is too early to know that. It seems to me
that a single prototype development ef-
fort for a lightweight fighter which is
proposed in this bill is enough for us to
do at this time. This should also be a
more economical approach than initiat-
ing two separate and competing Navy
and Air Force programs for the develop-
ment of lightweight fighters.
So, I would respectfully request that
the amendment be defeated. I realize the
intent of the amendment is in recog-
nition of the fact that we do need lighter
weight, less expensive fighters.
We believe we have taken the neces-
sary steps to achieve this goal. It does
not seem to me that the inclusion of ad-
ditional funds, as proposed here, to initi-
ate another lightweight fighter proto-
type development program is warranted.
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gen-
tleman yield?
Mr. MAHON, I yield to the gentleman
from New York. .
Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
The thing that concerns me about this
is the language in the amendment which
says that they shall not be procured from
contractors engaged substantially in
either the F-14 or F-15 programs.
Frankly, almost every major contrac-
tor engaged in building planes in America
today is engaged in these programs to
some degree, and if we are going to get
planes built by somebody else who is not
in the aircraft building business I cannot
think of it more wasteful way to proceed.
I just do not understand what "substan-
tially engaged" means. It seems to me
that the language as set up in this
amendment would say that you have to
go, if you are going to get a plane devel-
oped, to a company that has not been in-
volved in the manufacturing of planes,
and I think this would be a very wasteful
way to proceed.
Mr. MAHON. I too believe we should
not proscribe any contractor. Language
to prohibit any contractor from partici-
pating in a program would be contrary
to usual practice and very dangerous. I
would think that the Navy itself, if it had
the funds and desired to go forward with
this kind of a program, would select con-
tractors who were objective and who did
not have conflicting interests. But re-
gardless of that, I think it would be a
very bad policy indeed to have this sort
of amendment adopted by the House.
I oppose the amendment under all the
circumstances, irrespective of the fact
that I share the views of the gentleman
from New York that a prohibition against
certain contractors who might be con-
sidered for the contract is not good legis-
lation.
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to my distin-
guished friend, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania.
Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
My objective was not to proscribe the
contractors for the F-14 and F-15, but
the desire to carry on with the prototype
because a major part of their work would
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11164 Approved For Jk&F3B99a00040012ffloldefi2ber 17. 1971
of course be with those planes. However,
if I could secure the support of the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations, I would certainly ac-
cept an amendment deleting that part of
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word, and I rise
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with
everything the chairman of the full Com-
mittee on Appropriations has said in op-
position to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennnsylvania (Mr.
MOORHEAD) and I hope that the House
will see fit to reject the amendment..
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD).
The amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 713. (a) During the current fiscal year,
the President may exempt appropriations,
funds, and contract authorizations, available
for military functions under the Department
of Defense, from the provisions of subsection
(c) of section 3679 of the Revised Statutes,, as
amended, whenever he deems such action to
be necessary in the interests of national de-
fense.
(b) Upon determination by the President
that such action is necessary, the Secretary
of Defense is authorized to provide for the
cost of an airborne alert as an expected ex-
pense in accordance with the provisions of
Revised Statutes 3732 (41 U.S.C. 11).
(c) Upon determination by the President
that it is necessary to increase the number
of military personnel on active duty beyond
the number for which funds are provided in
this Act, the Secretary of Defense is author-
ized to provide for the cost of such increased
military personnel, as an excepted expense
in accordance with the provisions of Revised
Statutes 3732 (41 U.S.C. 11).
(d) The Secretary of Defense shall immedi-
ately advise Congress of the exercise of any
authority granted in this section, and shall
report monthly on the estimated obligations
incurred pursuant to subsections (b) and
(c).
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. YATES
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I make the
point of order that a quorum is not pres-
ent.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count.
Eighty-seven Members are present, not
a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll.
The Clerk called the roll, and the fol-
lowing Members failed to answer to their
names:
[Roll No. 3971
Abbitt
Derwinski
Kee
Alexander
Diggs
Kuykendall
Archer
Dingell
Landgrebe
Ashley
Dowdy
Link
Bell
Downing
McClure
Betts
Dulski
McDade
Blackburn
Edmondson
McKevitt
Blatnik
Edwards, Ala.
Mathias, Calif.
Boggs
Edwards, La.
Mikva
Brasco
Erlenborn
Murphy, N.Y.
Carey, N.Y.
Fish
Purcell
Celler
Ford, Gerald R. Rallsback
Chappell
Forsythe
Rangel
Clark
Frey
Rees
Clausen,
Goodling
Roberts
Don H.
Gray
Rooney, Pa.
Clay
Halpern
Rosenthal
Corman
Harsha
Runnels
Cotter
HSbert
Ruth
Daniel, Va.
Hosmer
Scheuer
Danielson
Hungate
Steed
Steele Tiernan Wolff
Stokes Wilson,
Teague, Tex. Charles H.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee, having had under considera-
tion the bill, H.R. 11731, and finding itself
without a quorum, he had directed the
roll to be called, when 362 Members re-
sponded to their names, a quorum, and
he submitted herewith the names of the
absentees to be spread upon the Journal.
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. When the Commit-
tee rose, the Clerk was about to read the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. YATES).
The Clerk will report the amendment.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, a parlia-
mentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state his parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, had not
the Clerk read the amendment, and had I
not been recognized when the Committee
rose?
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. RosTENKOw-
sKI). The Chair will state, in response to
the inquiry c,f the gentleman from Illi-
nois, that the Clerk had not read the
amendment.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. YATES
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. YATES: On page
34, line 16, strike the comma and insert, the
following words: "for a period of 60 days"
and reinsert the comma.
And on line 18, change the period to a
comma and insert the following words: "and
there shall be no further expenditures for
said purpose beyond said period without first
obtaining the approval of the Congress" and
reinsert the period.
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, this bill came to the
House under a rule for several reasons,
particularly because the authorization
bill had not been signed by the President.
The section involved here relates to the
emergency powers of the President to call
up reserve forces and to pay them, and
for the Defense Department to provide
support. This has been the law in this
bill for 10 or 12 years.
This provision has been used by the
President on one occasion, and that was
in connection with the Berlin crisis in
1961, and that is the only time this pro-
vision of law has been utilized.
The gentleman from Illinois says that
in the case of a special emergency action
which is supported by the Defense De-
partment, that within 60 days after the
special action is taken, then Congress
would have to meet and approve the ac-
tion of the executive, or else the privi-
lege of the Department of Defense to
support the men called up would be with-
drawn.
So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is
very legislative in character and involves
a major policy issue relating to our mili-
tary forces and our foreign policy and it
certainly should not be modified under
these circumstances.
It is, of course, legislation on an ac'-'-
propriation bill and for that reason is
subject to a point of order, as I see it.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. YATES)
on the point of order.
Mr. YATES. My amendment is purely
a limitation. The purpose of this section
of the appropriation bill is to eliminate
the need for appropriations for the action
that may be taken by the President in
calling for troops over and above the
amounts that are authorized to be funded
under legislation passed by the Armed
Services Committees of both the House
and Senate and appropriations approved
by the Appropriations Committees of
both the House and Senate.
This section says that the President
need not have to come to the Congress
for appropriations for the troops that he
calls up. My amendment is a limitation
on that waiver and, therefore, as a limi-
tation on the waiver of appropriations, it
is in order.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI).
The Chair is ready to rule on the point
of order.
The Chair first points out that the rule
under which this bill is being considered
waives points of order against the lan-
guage in the bill. It is well established
that where legislation in a general appro-
priation bill is permitted to remain, as
here, under a waiver of points of order,
it may be perfected by germane amend-
ments provided they do not add further
legislation.
The question, Does this add further
legislation?
In the opinion of the Chair, the
amendment is germane and does not add
additional legislation since it restricts or
narrows the legislative impact of the
legislation already in the bill.
The Chair, therefore, overrules the
point of order made by the gentleman
from Texas.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, am I rec-
ognized?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, a fur-
ther point of order.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I under-
stand the point of order has been over-
ruled.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has over-
ruled the point of order of the gentleman
from Texas, but the gentleman from
Illinois has not yet begun his remarks.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, a parlia-
mentary inquiry, is not a further point
of order in order?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear
the gentleman from Arizona on the par-
liamentary inquiry.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thought
I had been recognized. .
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, a parlia-
mentary inquiry is whether or not a fur-
ther point of order can be made at this
time?
POINT OF ORDER
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear
the point of order.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, the point
of order refers to the fact that this is
legislation on an appropriation and not
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, 1 Approved Fc~r~I~BQ?1~1EG1f$f3R7~1GIQSH6R000400120011-3 ;111165
as to whether it is germane to the bill.
Obviously, it is legislation on an appro-
priation because I asked the Chair to
consider the fact that on page 34 of the
bill which is before the committee, there
is a referral to an act of Congress; to
wit, the Revised Statutes 3732 (41 U.S.C.
11),
Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the
gentleman from Illinois would amend
this act of Congress in that it would pro-
vide a provision, or would add a provi-
sion, to a law which is not now in
existence.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state,
in the opinion of the Chair, the amend-
ment offered by the gentleman from
Illinois perfects, in a germane manner,
legislation which is already in the bill
and, therefore, overrules the point of
order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. YATES) to speak on his
amendment.
Mr. YATES. I thank the Chair. Mr.
Chairman, frankly I am very much sur-
prised that the Committee on Appropria-
tions should have approved this section
and inserted it in the bill because it sur-
renders to the President the power of
Congress to establish troop levels of our
armed services and to pay for them.
The Armed Services Committees of the
House and Senate go through hearings
for months and establish troop levels for
the Army, Navy, the Marine Corps, and
for the Air Force. The Appropriation
Committees of the House sit for months
and decide what amount of money should
be appropriated to support the troop
levels that have been established. This
section gives the President the right to
supersede their action by his own.
In this section of the bill, the Presi-
dent is given authority without any fur-
ther action of the Congress to increase
the number of military personnel on ac-
tive duty beyond the numbers for which
funds are appropriated in the act, and the
Secretary of Defense is authorized to
waive the requirement for appropriations
in support of the President's actions. Un-
der this section the President's action
must be upheld by the Congress. The
Congress waives its oversight role over
the purse strings.
If that is not the delivery of awesome
power to the President I do not know
what is. No president, be he Republican
or Democrat, should have the power, free
from' congressional check, that this lan-
guage gives him.
It is argued, yes, that the President
needs flexibility; he needs the authority
to act in a hurry. This may be true. But
my amendment does not restrict that
power. It asserts the congressional power
to participate as well.
The President ought not to have such
power. It asserts the congressional power
not to have that power indefinitely. If
he believes that he needs the extra troops
he has activated beyond 60 days, he
should be required to come to the Con-
gress and justify the need for the addi-
tional troops. He can act to meet a situa-
tion that requires extraordinary action.
Under my amendment he must justify
continuation of his action to Congress.
What is wrong with that? Why should
not the Congress be a partner, and be
called upon to pass upon these awesome
questions of war and peace? The Con-
gress has a concurrent responsibility in
this field. Much too frequently in the
past the Congress has deferred in its
judgment to that of the executive
branch. Unfortunately, the President has
come to believe that the Congress has
no powers in the field of foreign policy.
Look what happened-how many of
those, who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin
resolution would like to have their votes
back? Almost all of them.
Under this provision the President
would not even be required to come to
the Congress for a resolution like the
Gulf of Tonkin resolution. He could just
act arbitrarily. He could just act un-
reasonably. He could do this without any
power in the Congress to check him, ex-
cept perhaps, by legislation that was
initiated by one of the legislative com-
mittees of the House.
The purpose of my amendment is to
bring the Congress into the picture be-
fore we are so overcommitted by the
President that it is impossible to extri-
cate ourselves. In this day and age when
wars can break out anywhere on the face
of the globe, in this day and age when
the Armed Forces of the United States
may be sent to any part of the globe
because the President decides that this
should be done in the exercise of our
foreign policy, I say that Congress
should be given a part in that decision,
and at the end of 60 days the President
should come in here and ask for the
approval of Congress for that kind of
action,
Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman
from Colorado.
Mr. EVANS of Colorado. I want to as=
sociate myself with the gentleman's
amendment and state my approval of
what the gentleman has said in support
of it. I do not think we in the Congress
can defer our responsibilities, and I do
not think we should even if we could. If
the President deems it necessary to in-
crease the levels of our manpower beyond
those fixed by law, for any reason what-
soever, I think he has that responsibil-
ity and he must exercise it as he sees
fit. But I think we have the responsibil-
ity, and we should exercise it, not to
simply defer to the President without
our having passed our judgment on such
a decision.
So I associate myself with the remarks
of the gentleman and I hope the Com-
mittee will adopt this very reasonable
amendment.
Mr. YATES. I thank the gentleman for
his remarks.
As Senator Vandenburg said, "it is fine
that Congress was in at the launching of
an initiative instead of the crash land-
ing."
There will be an amendment offered
later today in an effort to change the
course of this Nation's action in Viet-
nam. My amendment proposes to see
that Congress is in at the beginning. Let
Congress be consulted at the beginning.
I urge approval of my amendment.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
from California is recognized.
Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment and com-
mend the gentleman from Illinois for
offering it. I do not profess to be a par-
liamentarian, but it strikes me that the
entire section (c) is legislation on an
appropriation bill and is subject to a
point of order. I presume that the gentle-
man from Illinois did not make the point
of order because he wanted to make it
possible for the President to augment
forces and to have those forces paid for
for a period of 60 days so that Congress,
which has the responsibility of setting
the force level, could reconvene, if we
were out of session, and act In the na-
tional interest.
This appropriation bill has a line item
limitation of expenditures for payments
to military personnel. But section (c)
makes what should be a limitation an
open ended appropriation. This negates
the function of an appropriation bill.
If the President calls Reserves and in
order to pay them he must exceed the
spending limitations contained in the
bill, then Congress should change the
limitation by positive action through a
supplemental or deficiency appropria-
tions bill.
The gentleman has wisely put in a 60-
day provision here to provide for a na-
tional emergency. We will probably be
here anyway, and if we are not, it is
certainly feasible that within 60 days
Congress can be called back into session.
I voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolu-
tion, and if I had the benefit of 20-20
hindsight and were asked again to vote
on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which
conveyed authority to the executive
branch that I did not contemplate, I
would not vote for it today. I think it is
about time that we took a good look at
the powers which we transfer down to
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue-and I do not
care whether it is Richard. Nixon or a
Democratic President.
Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote
for the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this
amendment at some length with the dis-
tinguished gentleman from Illinois, be-
cause of my interest in our troop ceil-
ings as a member of the Committee on
Armed Services. The basic question that
I think was in the gentleman's mind was
whether this section (c) on page 34 con-
fers any new authority on the President
to call up additional troops beyond the
established ceilings in present law. Of
course all that the section specifically
says is that it authorizes the President
to pay any additional troops that may be
called up.
But in order to clarify my own mind,
I went to the basic law, which is con-
tained in title III on page 14 of the con-
ference report on the draft. We voted
that into law in September. It says in
the basic law that it establishes the troop
ceilings for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1971, but, first of all, it makes
it clear that these figures are "average"
active duty straight personnel ceilings.
That means the Army can go above
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11166
Approved For CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 3BHOUSE00040012vember 17, 1971
974,309 men at one point during the fiscal
year provided they bring the number
down below that figure later on, so that
it averages out at the specific ceiling fig-
ure. This is, of course, what we gave in
the basic law to the President so that he
would have some necessary flexibility. A
sizable majority of the House voted for
that measure.
Second, the basic law provides in ad-
dition to these established ceilings-
which can be exceeded temporarily, and
somebody is authorized to find money to
pay the extra troops on those particu-
lar dates-the law specifically exempts
from these specified ceilings "members
of the Ready Reserve of any armed force
ordered into active duty under provision
of section 673, title 10, United States
Code, members of the Army National
Guard or Air National Guard called into
active duty," and so on.
It also provides that the President
shall, beginning with the second quarter
of the fiscal year "immediately following
the quarter in which the first units are
ordered to active duty," the filing of re-
ports to the Congress regarding the
necessity for such unit or units being or-
dered into active duty.
So the only legal authority that exists
is this authority which allows the services
to go above the ceiling temporarily if they
will also go below the ceiling later on,
plus the flexibility we also gave the Com-
mander in Chief in the authority to call
up our Reserves.
Many Members have been fautling the
Department of Defense for not having
called up the Reserves. Well this is the
only authority the President has to call
up the Reserves, and he must report to
the Congress in 60 days as to what units
he has called up and where they are to be
used.
But I do not think we ought to add any
additional language here that would re-
quire that he has got to come back to
Congress for a new resolution when only
last September this Congress told the
President he could call up the Reserves if
he felt an emergency required it.
As I read the appropriation bill, it sim-
ply provides the money for paying these
additional Reserves who might have been
called up by the President in some emer-
gency pursuant to the legislation we
passed earlier this year in this Congress.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentle-
man's argument totally ignores the lan-
guage on page 34 to which my amend-
ment was directed.
For the gentleman's information, I re-
viewed with the staff of the committee the
language to determine its scope. We con-
cluded this language permits the Presi-
dent to go above the limits that were es-
tablished in the basic law to which the
gentleman refers.
And the troop levels established for the
Reserves are not the limitations under
this amendment.
Mr. STRATTON. These staff experts
could not repeal a law Congress enacted
last September, and this legislation could
hardly imply that the President had such
authority.
Mr. YATES. Why not?
Mr. STRATTON. Because all that the
legislation provides for, as the gentleman
well knows, is a means of paying, when
statutory levels are temporarily exceeded,
for those who are called up pursuant to
the authority contained in the language
of the Draft Act of 1971, in excess of the
statutory limits contained in that bill.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the gentle-
man from Arizona.
Mir. RHODES. Does not this point up
the folly of trying to rewrite a provision
of law which is so important and so vital
to the welfare of the country and the
conduct of foreign relations on the floor?
If it is to be rewritten, it should be done
after the committee on which the gentle-
man serves has had ample opportunity
to study it.
Mr. STRATTON. I agree with the
gentleman and believe it also shows that
our committee has done a good job in
setting current troop ceilings.
I thank the gentleman for his con-
tribution.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
.Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. The gentleman from New
York indicated that this language does
not change the basic law. If this section
is enacted into law it will change the
basic law which establishes mandatory
troop ceilings.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mn OBEY. I should like to make my
statement first, and then if I have time
remaining I will be happy to yield.
Mr. STRATTON. The gentleman
yielded his time to let the gentleman
from Illinois reply to me.
M:r. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I decline to
yield[ at this time.
I believe this amendment is more im-
portant than the Boland amendment,
which we will be voting on today. The
Boland amendment attempts to correct
a mistake after the fact. I am very grate-
ful to the gentleman from Massachusetts
for giving us that opportunity.
But this amendment before us now is
to prevent future evasions of congres-
sional policy and future erosions of con-
gressional power. It says, really, that the
President can do anything he wants re-
lating to the number of men under arms
so long as he comes back to the Congress
within 60 days and gets approval for it.
This is an attempt to keep to ourselves
the power which our forefathers gave to
the Congress, which unfortunately we
have seemed to be hellbent on throwing
away over the past 5 years.
It also relates to something else which
I believe anyone interested in a volun-
teer army ought to consider. I have heard
a great many people on this floor talk
about the necessity of establishing a
volunteer army because of their belief
that if we had a volunteer army it would
be more difficult in the future to get this
country involved in conflicts in which we
have no business being involved.
I do not feel that will work at all un-
less it is tied to the idea suggested by the
gentleman from Illinois in this amend-
ment; namely, the idea of very strict
congressional controls over military
manpower. That is all the gentleman
from Illinois is trying to do. That is the
key, in my judgment, to the eventual
success, at least in my mind, of the
volunteer army concept.
Whether or not we will be able to
maintain in congressional hands strict
control over manpower levels is the key.
If we do not do that we might as well
give the President full authority to do
anything he wants to do in international
affairs.
The argument is going to be made,
against this amendment I suppose that
we are really putting ourselves in a very
dangerous situation if an emergency
comes up internationally. I believe every-
one in this House knows full well that 90
times out of 100 the President is going to
get exactly what he wants from the Con-
gress. I do not believe there is an inclina-
tion in either the Senate or the House,
despite all the noise being made right
now about Vietnam, to deny the Presi-
dent what he wants in the area of f or-
eign affairs.
But it will give us that one chance in
ten, in that one case in ten that requires
it for Congress to stand on its own feet.
It will give us that chance to exercise
some degree of control over the use of
our men internationally. We ought at
least do that. We can by adopting this
amendment.
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. STRATTON. I appreciate the gen-
tleman's yielding.
I do not mind arguing substantial is-
sues here on the House floor. Some of us
support the military and some of us do
not. But this amendment presents a
phantom issue. The Congress has already
established clear-cut ceilings for the
armed services, just last September. The
President is not allowed to go over those
ceilings except under the conditions
which the House itself spelled out clearly
only 6 weeks ago.
That is the law. This wording in sec-
tion C does not repeal that. I defy any-
body to come in here with any kind of
reliable legal opinion and say that the
language beginning on line 12, page 34,
of the bill repeals Public Law 92-129. It
does not. Obviously it does not.
So to talk here today about how we
have to have the Congress set ceilings
and not allow the President to go over
them is nonsense. We have already set
those ceilings. We have told him under
what conditions he may exceed them. Let
us not do it twice.
Mr. OBEY. Let me respond to the gen-
tleman. I do not agree with him that this
has anything whatsoever to do with
whether you support the military or not.
I happen to represent the district form-
erly represented by the present Secretary
of Defense. I think my people support the
military. But I think they also want this
amendment.
Mr. YATES. Will the gentleman yield
to me?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman.
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, 19Approved F( ?iRoOIZOMAL1LUC@9R2BPV?996R000400120011-3 H 11167
Mr. YATES. The gentleman from New priations pointed out, it was under this
York completely overlooks the language section that the President went above
of this bill. Let me read it. This bill would the ceilings established by the Congress
be enacted subsequent to the act estab- in 1961. According to the staff of the
lishing the troop ceilings. Committee on Appropriations this bill
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- funds the armed services up to the levels
tleman has expired. that have been authorized under the
en
t th -
of Mr. YATES, Mr. OBEY was allowed to
proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. YATES. Will the gentleman yield
to me?
Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. YATES. Let me just read this
section-I ask the House to note how
blanket it is:
Upon determination by the President that
it is necessary to increase the number of
military personnel on active duty beyond
the number for which funds are provided in
this Act.
Beyond the number for which funds
are provided in this act-the Secretary
of Defense, and so forth. This is blanket
authority to the President to bring into
the services on active duty any number
that he wants. There is no restriction;
there is no limitation. I do not know what
could give him that authority if this
language did not do that. I say it would
change the law.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
I yield to the distinguished gentleman
from New York (Mr. STRATTON).
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
would just like to point out to the com-
mittee and also to the gentleman from
Illinois that he has not read this lan-
guage of the bill, very carefully. It
reads :
Upon determination by the President that
it is necessary to increase the number of
military personnel on active duty beyond the
number for which funds are provided in this
Act.
So the funds in this act are being pro-
vided for the ceilings already established
by law, the numerical ceilings estab-
lished, as I have said, by the draft act
passed in September. If the President
were for a couple of months to go over
these average ceilings, in July and Au-
gust, let us say, then additional funds
would be required. This language simply
provides the manner for paying the addi-
tional people. And when the President
then drops the troop totals down in
October and November, below that ceil-
ing, the DOD picks up some additional
money.
Moreover, if the President decides in
an emergency to call up the Reserves,
which we gave him just last Sep-
tember, the explicit authority to do un-
der the law and within the limitations of
this law, then this language today pro-
vides the money to pay those extra
Reserves. Do we want the reservists
from our home districts, whom we made
vulnerable to call in September, to serve
without pay?
This section certainly does not repeal
the draft act, and it is ridiculous to sug-
gest that it does, it seems to me.
Mr. YATES. Will the gentleman yield
to me?
Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman
frorn Illinois.
Mr. YATES As the distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Appro-
military authorization bill Lai a g
tleman from New York spoke about. If
this section becomes operative at all, the
number of troops will be above the levels
established, and I refer to the average
levels. Therefore, the President will be
exceeding the levels that the gentleman
speaks of.
Mr. STRATTON. If the gentleman
from Florida will yield to me, the gen-
tleman from Illinois still does not seem
to understand that these are average
figures.
Mr. YATES. I said average levels.
Mr. STRATTON. You can go above
those averages temporarily. But how can
the Committee on Appropriations deter-
mine today exactly how many men will
be on active duty in May, June, and
July? I know this is a distinguished and
very capable committee, but they do not
have a crystal ball. If they are going to
pay 974,000 men in the Army, why, we
may find ourselves over that figure for
a few weeks, and that is all this section
provides.
Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I yield to the distinguished
ranking minority member on the com-
mittee.
Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I
should like to commend my friend, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. STRAT-
TON), for the comments which he has
made.
My friend, the gentleman} from Illinois
(Mr. YATES), confuses what the basic
law, Public Law 92-129, does and what
the appropriation does under the basic
law. This gives the President the au-
thority to call up the troops.
Mr. YATES. That is right.
Mr. MINSHALL. All this does, at page
34 of the bill, is to give him authority to
pay those troops.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. I read the language of the
bill, Mr. Chairman. The bill is subse-
quent to the act to which the gentleman
from New York referred. It reads as
follows :
Upon determination by the President that
it is necessary to increase the number of
military personnel on active duty beyond the
number for which funds are provided in this
Act, the Secretary of Defense is authorized
to provide for the cost of such increased mili-
tary personnel, as an accepted expense in
accordance with the provisions of Revised
Statutes 372.
This can only refer to exceeding those
troop levels under the military authoriza-
tion bill and, under this language the
President can go as high as he wants to
go. The sky is the limit, and under the
provisions of this bill the Congress would
lose its constitutional authority to set the
funds for the services.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. MAHON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, there
seems to be considerable misunderstand-
ing as to, the amendment which is pend-
ing.
This provision on page 34 has been the
law for 10 years or more. It enables the
President to pay the people who are
called into service as the result of an
emergency. And, why should they not
be paid. Why should they not be paid as
long as they are serving?
We just provide here that they shall be
paid. The language is easy to under-
stand if you read it with care-
Upon determination by the President that
it is necessary-
This does not say he has the author-
ity. It just says:
Upon determination by the President that
it is necessary to increase the number of
military personnel on active duty beyond the
number for which funds are provided in
this Act, the Secretary of Defense is au-
thorized to provide for the cost of such in-
creased military personnel-
In other words, if the Congress has
authorized the Department of Defense to
have 2 million men in the service, and the
President calls up some additional men,
then they can be paid. That is what this
provides for here.
We have talked about the Berlin crisis.
The President did not have to have any
authority with respect to calling up the
number of men. The callup was not
the problem. The men were called up
under existing authority.
The language in the appropriation bill
simply provided that the Secretary of
Defense could pay those people even
though the appropriation for that year
was not sufficient to pay them.
The language of the bill makes it pos-
sible for him to do that today.
If the President calls men up, this lan-
guage provides that they can be paid.
Mr. Chairman, I regret to see a basic
change of our law made upon such short
notice.
It has been said that if someone had
known what the implications were on the
Tonkin Gulf resolution, he would not
have voted for it, because it was not thor-
oughly explored and examined. This is
exactly what is happening here now.
The amendment offered provides that
if the President has the authority and
does call up people, he can pay them,
but he cannot pay them beyond 60 days.
'Mr. Chairman, this is not the way to
decide the great policy question as to the
power of the President to use the Armed
Forces of the United States. If we want
to settle that issue, we ought to have
extensive hearings. The Committee on
Armed Services should bring forward
legislation and let us debate it in detail,
if we are going to try to restrict the
President.
What this bill provides is that if men
are called up-and they cannot be
called up unless it is according to law-
they can be paid.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield? .
Mr. MAHON. I will yield in a moment
if I have the time.
So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11168 Approved For Relate( A(~I~Rf5 Q04q@ p4001200 o ember 17, 1971
this is a condition that should be thor- Too many people in this country have . coequal reponsibility on these very vital'.
oughly explored by the legislative com- the idea that Congress is an adjunct of and important issues.
mitees and then, if need be, legislation the executive branch of the Government. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I
could be brought up. There is reason for that belief. We in move to strike out the last word.
If Congress wants to deny the Presi- Congress pass bills that are completely Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate my-
dent the authority to call up additional rewritten when the executive branch gets self with the remarks of the gentleman
men in an emergency, let them do it in through with them with their guidelines from Illinois.
the proper way. That is not the issue and their interpretation. You are seeing If you go back to the origin of modern
here. this happen now in th i
e
r
d
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Florida.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, the portion
of this amendment which particularly
disturbs me is the 60-day limitation. It
is only in rare instances that Congress
works that fast. We might not even be in
session. I think it would be difficult and
it might be impossible to operate under a
60-day limitation during an emergency
situation.
Mr. MAHON. If Congress were in ses-
sion we still could not deny paying peo-
ple who have been called into service. The
Congress might deny the President cer-
tain emergency powers, but it certainly
could not deny the pay for the people
who have been called up, And that is
what we are dealing with here. This is
an appropriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amend-
ment be voted down.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Texas has expired.
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words,
and I rise in support of the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois
(Mr. YATES).
Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. YATES) that contra-
dicts anything that has been said by the
distinguished chairman of the Committee
on .Appropriations. The chairman says
that the President ought to have a free
hand to increase the authorized strength
of - our troops and if such increase is
made, the bill provides funds to pay these
extra troops. Of course the extra troops
have to be paid and this amendment
does not prohibit this. It merely provides
that if the President decides to keep these
extra troops on active duty for more
than 60 days, he must seek approval from
Congress.
The gentleman from New York would
have you believe that the problems of ex-
tra troops is one of these little bookkeep-
ing things that happens every now and
then because you cannot precisely pre-
dict how many men you will have in the
service at any given time, and when they
go over the limitation those men ought
to be paid. Nobody quarrels with that, nor
does this amendment quarrel with that
in any way.
p
ce an
rent parliamentary institutions in the 17th
freeze. If you look at the Price Stabiliza- century, the power of parliament was es-
tion Act, there is no authority for many tablished because of its power over the
of the things that are being ordered by purse. I think the gentleman from Illinois
this administration. The order of ignor- has put his finger on the key to this
ing legislative intent has become a hall- whole problem of stopping the erosion of
mark of the administration and that congressional power toward the ex
when I believe we must write limitations ecutive.
into this bill or suffer the prospect of If we do not preserve the power of
more Vietnams. Congress to control the executive in the
I agree with the gentleman from Wis- expenditure of money, we have given up
consin that this is an extremely impor- the substance of our power.
tant amendment. I have listened to distinguished law-
Mr. Chairman, I remember when our yers, the gentleman from Texas and the
distinguished Speaker made his inau- gentleman from New York, make some
gural speech when he took office as the very persuasive arguments that all this
Speaker. He called upon Members to help does is to give money in case the Presi-
him restore to the Congress its rightful dent decides to go above the limits set
role as a coequal branch of the Govern- by law on the size of the armed forces.
ment; not a rubber stamp or an adjunct But that is the very point, gentleman
of the executive branch of the Govern- every time we give up any of Congress
ment, but its constitutional role as a co- power to control the expenditure of
equal branch of Government. I think that money, we give up some more of the basic
a vote for this amendment will give us an power of Congress.
opportunity to reassert the coequal status I did not come to this House to aban-
of the Congress of the United States on don more of Congress power to the
these vital issues. executive, but to try to help bring back
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the power to this institution. I think the
gentleman yield? people of this country want us to do that.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the gentle- We have an obligation to do so if we are
man from Illinois. going to discharge our responsibility un-
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I agree der the Constitution. I am happy to as-
with the statement by the distinguished sociate myself with what I consider to
chairman of the Committee on Appro- be one of the most important amend-
priations when he said the President does ments that has been offered since I have
have the power to call up these troops, been a Member of this House.
Point; what the Committee on Appro- Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5
priations is doing in this situation is minutes, but I want to make one point
is the constitutional role of Congress and First. This provision of the law refers
ought not be surrendered. only to the calling up of Reserves and
According to the argument made by uayment of the Reserves who are called
tile gentleman from Texas, if the Presi- Second. When you look at the record-
dent calls up the troops under this see- no war, no police action ever started with
tion, he would be authorized to call them the calling up of Reserves. There has not
for this fiscal year, without having to been any such occurrence in the his-
come to Congress on payment for them. tory of the United States. If the gentle-
Mr. amendment says if the President man from Illinois is looking for a pan-
does it that the troops are going to be acea to stop wars, and I wish him luck,
paid for 60 days. If the President wants he has zeroed in on the wrong target.
the troops to be paid beyond that time, Third. The President of the United
he must come to Congress and tell the States, whoever he may be, should have
Congress why he thinks the troops should the authority to call the Reserves in the
be kept on beyond that date, let the Con- event war threatens. Sometimes just
gress decide whether or not they ought having this authority allows a President
to be paid beyond that point. to deter war.
What this amendment says is that if Mr. - PUCINSKI. May I remind the I take you back to the days of 1961
the President decides to keep these extra House that the last strength we have as when President Kennedy had the au-
men more than 60 days he will have to a coequal branch of Government is the thority and did call up the Reserves in
come before the Congress and ask for power of pursestrings. Do not deal that the Berlin situation. I do not have much
that permission. power away. I believe the amendment doubt in my mind that the ability of the
There is nothing in this amendment the gentleman offered here in no way President at that -time to do what he did
that in any way disturbs the President's disturbs the executive branch's power. had more to do with stopping the possi-
constitutional rights as Commander in Mr. Chairman, I would make the same bility of war in Germany than anything
Chief. All it says, if you are going to keep argument if there were a Democrat in else. -
these men in for a period beyond 60 days the White House. This has nothing to do Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to
you have to come to the Congress to get with partisan politics. What this does is tamper with legislation that has had as
the authority. to try to establish in the Congress its important a history as has this proviso,
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, 19 Proved Fe ggs$MI4I1/ A-BDPTM=296R000400120011-3 H 11169
which has been, in the law for 10 years.
The time to change this legislation, if
it is to be changed, is when the Com-
mittee on Armed Services of the House
which has the legislative authority has
had a chance to have hearings and then
to act intelligently in this matter.
I certainly hope we will not play games
with the defense of our country by vot-
ing for this kind of amendment. I ask
that the amendment be voted down.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike out the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment,
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle-
man from Illinois (Mr. YATES).
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, as the gen-
tleman from Arizona said, I have taken a
great deal of time on this amendment,
rightly so, I believe because I am con-
vinced of its importance.
The gentleman is entirely wrong when
he says that this amendment applies only
to the Reserves. The gentleman has ob-
viously failed to look at the language of
this section. It could not be more clear.
Section (c) states:
Upon determination by the President that
it is necessary to increase the number of
military personnel on active duty .. .
The President could take them from
the Reserves, yes, but he also can take
them from the drafted men just as well.
He can increase the size of the draft
and take draftees. He does not have to
go to the Reserves in this kind of situa-
tion any more than the President did
when he went into Vietnam. At that time
he did not caul the Reserves.
If there is a trouble spot somewhere in
the world to which the President thinks
the Armed Forces should be sent in an
emergency situation, he can increase the
number of draftees or call up the Re-
serves or do both. Under this section the
power of Congress to supervise the num-
ber of military personnel would be waived
indefinitely.
My amendment says, Mr. Chairman,
"Mr. President, you can do it for 60 days,
but beyond that you have got to come
to Congress and have your action re-
viewed if you want your funds."
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman, does
the gentleman from Texas wish me to
yield?
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield to me for a unanimous-
consent request?
Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Texas.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
the pending amendment and all amend-
ments thereto close at the conclusion of
the address of the gentleman who is now
addressing the House.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Arizona.
Mr. RHODES. The words "active duty"
on line 14 of page 34 are controlling. You
do not recall draftees to active duty. They
are either on active duty or they are out
of the service. Obviously this provision
does not refer to draftees. It refers only
to members of the armed services, either
in the Reserves or the Regular Forces.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. YATES. I have the impression that
there are many draftees who are on ac-
tive duty, having been drafted into the
Army of the United States. They are on
active duty and they can be used.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Maryland.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. I rise in sup-
port of the amendment and would like
to make the point that if there is a really
important emergency, there is no reason
the Congress cannot act to appropriate
the necessary money within 60 days.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the Chair-
man of the committee.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I propose
to offer a motion that all debate close, but
I do not want to take the gentleman off
his feet. When he has concluded, I shall
address the Chair.
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the amendment and en-
dorse the many cogent arguments that
have been made in support of it. I do not
think we are fulfilling our constitutional
responsibility unless we do follow the
gentleman from Illinois, and I urge the
committee to support, his amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. YATES).
The question was taken; and the Chair-
man announced that the noes appeared
to have it.
TELLER VOTE WITH CLERKS
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I demand
tellers.
Tellers were ordered.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand tellers with Clerks.
Tellers with Clerks were ordered; and
the Chairman appointed as tellers Messrs.
YATES, MINSHALL, MAHON, and GUBSER.
The Committee divided, and the tellers
reported that there were-ayes 183,
noes 210, not voting 38, as follows:
[Roll No. 398]
[Recorded Teller Vote]
AYES-183
Abourezk
Brasco
Dllums
e
Abzug
Broomfield
D
enholm
Adams
Brown, Idich.
Dennis
Addabbo
Brown, Ohio
Dingell
Anderson,
Broyhill, N.C.
Donohue
Calif.
Burke, Mass.
Dow
Anderson,
Burton
Drinan
Tenn.
Carey, N.Y.
du Pont
Aspin
Carney
Dwyer
Badillo
Chisholm
Eckhardt
Baring
Clay
Edwards, Calif.
Barrett
Collier
Eilberg
Begich
Collins, Ill.
Each
Bennett
Conte
Evans, Colo.
Bergland
Corman
Foley
Biaggi
Crane
Ford,
Bieater
Culver
William D.
Bingham
Daniels, N.J.
Forsythe
Blanton
Danielson
Fraser
Boland
Davis, S.C.
Fulton, Tenn.
Brademas
de la Garza
Fuqua
Galiflanakis
McCloskey
Rosenthal
Gaydos
McCormack
Rostenkowski
Gibbons
McDonald,
Roush
Gonzalez
Mich.
Rousselot
Grasso
McKay
Roy
Gray
McKinney
Roybal
Green, Oreg.
Macdonald,
Ruppe
Green, Pa.
Mass.
Ryan
Gross
Matsunaga
St Germain
Gubser
Mazzola
Sarbanes
Gude
Melcher
Schauer
Haley
Metcalfe
Schmitz
Hall
Miller, Ohio
Schwengel
Hamilton
Minish
Scott
Hammer-
Mink
Seiberling
schmidt
Mitchell
Shipley
Hanna
Moorhead
Smith, N.Y.
Harrington
Moss
Snyder
Hathaway
Murphy, Ill.
Stanton,
Hawkins
Nedzi
J. William
Hechler, W. Va. Obey
Stanton,
Heckler, Mass.
O'Hara
James V.
Helstoski
O'Konskl
Steele
Hicks, Mass.
O'Neill
Steiger, Wis.
Hicks, Wash.
Patten
Stokes
Horton
Pepper
Symington
Howard
Pike
Thompson, N.J.
Hungate
Podell
Tiernan
Hutchinson
Preyer, N.C.
Udall
Ichord
Pryor, Ark.
Ullman
Jacobs
Pucinski
Van Deerlin
Jones, N.C.
Quie
Vander Jagt
Karth
Randall
Vanik
Kastenmeler
Rangel
Waldie
Kazen
Rees
Whalen
Keith
Reid, N.Y.
Wilson,
Kemp
Reuss
Charles H.
Kluczynski
Riegle
Wolff
Koch
Robison, N.Y.
Wydler
Kyl
Rodino
Wyman
Kyros
Roe
Yates
Leggett
Roncalio
Yatron
Long, Md.
Rooney, Pa.
Zwach
NOES-210
Abernethy
Fisher
Mathis, Ga.
Albert
Flood
Meeds
Anderson, Ill.
Flowers
Michel
Andrews, Ala.
Flynt
Miller, Calif.
Andrews,
Ford, Gerald R. Mills, Ark.
N. Dak.
Fountain
Mills, Md.
Annunzio
Frelinghuysen
Minshall
Archer
Frenzel
Mizell
Arends
Frey
Mollohan
Ashbrook
Gallagher
Monagan
Aspinall
Garmatz
Montgomery
Baker
Gettys
Morgan
Bell -
Giaimo
Morse
Bevill
Goldwater
Murphy, N.Y.
Bolling
Griffin
Myers
Bow
Griffiths
Natcher
Bray
Grover
Nelsefi
Brinkley
Hagan
Nichols
Brooks
Hanley
Nix
Brotzman
Hansen, Idaho
Pasaman
Broyhill, Va.
Hansen, Wash.
Patman
Buchanan
Harsha
Pelly
Burke, Fla.
Harvey
Perkins
Burleson, Tex.
Hastings
Pettis
Burleson, Mo.
Hays
Peyser
Byrne, Pa.
Heinz
Pickle
Byrnes, Wis.
Henderson
Pirnie
Byron
Hillis
Poage
Cabell
Hogan
Poff
Caffery
Hollfleld
Powell
Camp
Hosmer
Price, Ill.
Carter
Hull
Price, Tex.
Casey, Tex.
Hunt
Purcell
Cederberg
Jarman
Quillen
Chamberlain
Johnson, Calif. Railsback
Clancy
Johnson, Pa.
ilarick
Clark
Jonas
Rhodes
Clawson, Del
Jones, Ala.
Robinson, Va.
Cleveland
Jones, Tenn.
Rogers
Collins, Tex.
Keating
Rooney, N.Y.
Colmer
King
Ruth
Conable
Kuykendall
Sandman
Coughlin
Landrum
Satterfield
Daniel, Va.
Latta
Saylor
Davis, Ga.
Lennon
Scherle
Davis, Wis.
Lent
Schneebelt
Delaney
Lloyd
Sebelius
Dellenback
Long, La.
Shoup
Dent
Lujan
Shriver
Devine
McClory
Sikes
Dickinson
McCollister
Sisk
Dorn
McCulloch
Skubitz
Duncan
McEwen
Slack
Edwards, Ala.
McFall
Smith, Calif.
Erlenborn
McMillan
Smith, Iowa
Eshleman
Mahon
Spence
Evins, Tenn.
Mailliard
Springer
Fasten
Mann
Staggers
Findley
Martin
Steiger, Ariz.
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11170
Approved For Rec ~~ES~16NlT. AECQRD3BO af?JO0400120November 17, 1971
Stephens
Thone
Williams
Stratton
Veysey
Wilson, Bob
Stubblefield
Vigorito
Winn
Stuckey
Waggonner
Wright
Sullivan
Wampler
Wyatt
Talcott
Ware
Wylie
Taylor
Whalley
Young, Fla.
Teague, Calif.
White
Young, Tex.
Teague, Tex.
Whitehurst
Zablocki
Terry
Whitten
Zion
Thompson, Ga.
Widnall
Thomson, Wis.
Wiggins
NOT VOTING-38
Abbitt
Cotter
Landgrebe
Alexander
Derwinski
Link
Ashley
Diggs
McClure
Belcher
Dowdy
McDade
Betts
Downing
McKevitt
Blackburn
Dulski
Madden
Blatnik
Edmondson
Mathias, Calif.
Boggs
Edwards, La.
Mayne
Celler
Fish
Mikva
Chappell
Goodling
Mosher
Clausen,
Halpern
Roberts
Don H.
Hebert
Runnels
Conyers
Kee
Steed
So the amendment was rejected.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BARING
changed his vote from "not" to "aye".)
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
(Mr. WRIGHT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of this appropriation bill. The
committee is to be congratulated for
having brought to us a well-balanced
program for the necessary level of na-
tional defense.
Particularly do I wish to congratulate
the committee for having included suffi-
cient funds for continued production of
the F-iii fighter-bomber. The amounts
included in the bill will permit the con-
tinued acquisition of this vitally im-
portant arcraft at the rate of 12 per
year and keep the production line open.
Since certain comments were made on
the floor yesterday which reflect an un-
informed view of this extremely im-
portant program, I take this time
primarily to set the record straight with
respect to cetain significant facts.
First, of course, is the question of the
safety record of the F-111. Contrary to
misconception shared by some of the
press and incredibly, by even some few
in this body, the F-111 is the safest mili-
tary aircraft we have built in this country
since the early 1950's.
Let me repeat that statement: The
F-111 is not only one of the safest, but
is the very safest military aircraft we
There were 25 F-4's destroyed.
'.There were 28 F-102's destroyed.
There were 31 F-101's destroyed.
There were 40 F-105's destroyed,
There were 40 A-7's destroyed.
There were 18 F-106's destroyed,
There were 18 F-ill's destroyed.
We are talking here of equal opera-
tions, noncombatant in character, and it
can be seen clearly that the F-111 on
balance is as safe or safer than any other
military aircraft we have developed in
the recent past.
Something was said yesterday-per-
haps of a facetious intent-to the effect
that these planes do not fly. The state-
ment was made, though I cannot believe
that it was seriously made, that most of
them are grounded. This is absolutely
untrue.
The Air Force has accepted 375 of
these aircraft and of that number at
least 350 are operational and in flight
today. These include some in the 20th
Tactical Fighter Wing at Upper Heyford,
England.
The pilots and commanders of that
wing are high in their praise of the per-
formance of the F-111. There is certainly
a continued requirement for this air-
craft, since it is the only long-range,
high-speed, penetrator in production in
the free world.
The Soviets are increasingly improving
their position vis-a-vis the United States
in. strike force capability.
Of course, we hope to have the B-1 in
production and operational numbers
perhaps by 1980. But what about the in-
terim? The F-111 is the only hedge
against technical, political, or cost prob-
lems that might cause an unforeseeable
delay in getting the B-1 in operational
numbers.
For all of these reasons, the commit-
tee is to be thoroughly congratulated for
having demonstrated the vision to insist
upon continued production of the F-111,
and it is clear that the Congress supports
this decision.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEc. 744. None of the funds in this Act
shall be available for the induction or enlist-
ment of any individual into the military
services under a mandatory quota based on
n iital categories.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOLAND
We~
? BOLAND
M
Ch
i
I
ff
.
r.
a
rman,
er an
o
have built in the past 20 years. ,'
Let me give you this comparison oil, amendment.
the number of major accidents suffered The Clerk read as follows:
by each of the following aircraft at Amendment offered by Mr. BOLAND' On
125,000 hours of actual flight. page 48, immediately following line 7, add
the following new section under title VII:
The F
100 had 108 majo
a
id
t
-
r
cc
s.
en
The F-104 had 90 major accidents.
The F-4 had 60 major accidents.
The F-102 had 59 major accidents.
The F-101 had 59 major accidents.
The F-105 had 58 major accidents.
The A-7 had 42 major accidents.
The F-106 had 39 major accidents.
The F-111 had 22 major accidents at
125,000 hours of flight-the safest of al.
In the number of aircraft destroy
flight, the story is very much the as
There were 52 F-100's destroyed.
There were 62 F-104's destroyed.
SEc. 745. In line with Title VI of the
1971. Military Procurement Act calling for
termination of all U.S. military operations in
Indochina at the earliest practicable date
and for the prompt and orderly withdrawal
of all U.S. military forces at a date certain,
subject to the release of all American pris-
oners and an accounting for all Americans
missing in action, and notwithstanding any
other provisions in this Act, one of the funds
appropriated by this Act shall be used to
finance any military combat or military sup-
port operations by U.S. forces in or over
South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos, or
Cambodia, after June 1, 1972.
lip
{:' of
(Mr. BOLAND aske and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent to proceed for 5 addi-
tional minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Massachusetts?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, reserving
the right to object, I suggest that the
gentleman make that request at the end
of his first 5 minutes.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I with-
draw the unanimous-consent request.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
Massachusetts is recognized for 5 min-
utes in support of his amendment.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, there
are many in the Chamber who will say
that "We have been here before." Not
quite. This is a totally different amend-
ment than has been offered to any bill
in the years that I have been here since
we have been engaged in Vietnam. It is
the toughest and the hardest amend-
ment and probably one of the most diffi-
cult ones to vote for on the part of all
Members in this body. But, this is a hard
and a tough war and it requires some
hard and some tough answers and some
hard and some tough action.
Mr. Chairman, in opening the debate
on this bill yesterday, the distinguished
gentleman from Texas, my beloved
chairman of the full Committee on Ap-
propriations, stated:
It seems that we are in somewhat of a
frenzy to withdraw.
The simple fact, Mr. Chairman, is that
the majority of the American people
want us to withdraw and want a termi-
nal date. There is nothing frenetic about
their desires.
Mr. Chairman, for most of the past
decade they have believed our leaders to
the effect that the end was in sight; that
just a little bit more pressure and a lot
more bombing would bring about an end
to this tragic war. It has not happened
and the support and the patience of the
American people continues to erode un-
til now today 75 percent of the Amer-
ican people are opposed to the war in
Vietnam and want a termination date.
The Chairman yesterday compared
the war in Vietnam to World War I,
World War IT, and the Korean war.
He said that we did not withdraw in
these wars, and he contended that a pre-
cipitous withdrawal from Vietnam could
create a vacuum.
I simply respond, Mr. Chairman, by
paraphrasing a favorite line of our be-
loved colleague, the gentleman from New
York (Mr. CELLER) that World War I,
World War II, and even the Korean war,
are as different from the Vietnam war as
a horse chestnut is from a chestnut horse,
and as night is from day, and as water
is from fire.
With regard to Korea, he said, "We
kept our fighting forces at their posts
so that we would not lose the fruits of
victory."
That is what he said. Well, if he really
believes that there are or will be any
fruits of victory in Vietnam he surely
must stand almost alone in this opinion.
11'
Approved For Release 2001/11/15~`'~IIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, 14broved Foo~tN&A W I 1 6 P7 ?96R000400120011-3 H 11171
Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have
introduced provides that funds shall not
be used to finance any military or sup-
port operations by U.S. forces in or over
Indochina after June 1 of 1972. Its pur-
pose is twofold. First, it offers a real
chance, the first real chance, to bring
this conflict to a close after almost a
decade, after almost 10 years of U.S.
involvement in Southeast Asia.
Second, it seeks to obtain within the
next 6 months the release of all Ameri-
can prisoners, and an accounting for
those men missing in action.
My amendment is designed to imple-
merit and to carry forward the provisions
of the compromise Mansfield amendment
now found in title VI of the Military
Procurement Act, which was passed just
a short while ago. That amendment sets
forth as national policy-and let me em-
phasize, that amendment, the Mansfield
amendment to the Military Procurement
Act, which was passed, and I think signed
by the President just a couple of hours
ago, establishes as national policy the
termination of all U.S. military opera-
tions in Indochina at the earliest prac-
tical date, and the prompt and orderly
withdrawal of all U.S. military forces at a
date certain, subject-subject-to the
release of all American prisoners and an
accounting for the Americans missing in
action.
As we all know, the most critical as-
pect of the Mansfield amendment, the
6 -months withdrawal deadline, was
dropped in conference. My amendment
serves to restore this vital termination
date to provide the basic means for-im-
plementing that provision.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(On request of Mr. YATES, and by
unanimous consent, Mr. BOLAND was al-
lowed to proceed for 5 additional min-
utes.)
Mr. BOLAND. I thank my friend from
Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the amendment
is subject to the legislative limitations set
forth in title VI of the Military Pro-
curement Act which conditions our total
military withdrawal on the result of the
prisoners and the missing in action
issues.
Some people will argue that Congress
has no business legislating a mandate to
terminate our military role in the Indo-
china war. I cannot agree. Throughout
the history of this conflict, Congress has
fully shared with the President the re-
sponsibility for the U.S. conduct in Indo-
china. This fact is made all the more
clear by the recent court rulings such
as the Federal Circuit Court for the
District of Massachusetts in the case of
Laird against Massachusetts, U.S. Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit, in which
it found that Congress in annually ap-
propriating funds. to carry out the war
has repeatedly provided the war with
legislative sanction. We have clearly
shared the responsibility for the exist-
ence of this war, this body has, this
Congress has. And as elected Representa-
tives of a Nation that today overwhelm-
ingly supports an end to our military
participation in Indochina, we have the
duty and the obligation to share the re-
sponsibility for bringing this war to a
close.
Last week President Nixon announced
the projected troop withdrawals totaling
45,000 men for the next 2 months.
With these reductions, the President
will have brought the number of U.S.
ground troops in Indochina from 540,000
men down to 139,000 during his term of
office. No one-no one can deny that
President Nixon has significantly altered
our posture in Indochina. He deserves
great credit from all of the American
people and from those who are in this
House for that substantial reduction of
troops and the corresponding substantial
reduction in U.S. casualties.
Nevertheless, certain hard facts still
face us. Our military involvement in In-
dochina remains open ended with no
foreseeable termination date in sight.
Our prisoners continue to remain in the
hands of North Vietnam and its allies
and our citizens, reduced as the casual-
ties may be, are still dying in the war
every week.
Our air missions constituting the
greatest bombing effort in the history of
warfare continue at extremely high
levels.
The President last week offered no en-
couragement on the prisoner-of-war
issue.
The President offered no encourage-
ment about ending U.S. troop involve-
ment in Indochina and offered no encour-
agement about ending our bombing role.
Our military rple in Indochina must be
brought to a close and our prisoners' re-
lease must be obtained.
The way to accomplish all of these
roles, I submit, is to set a deadline for
U.S. military involvement in this war.
I would like to quote from a part of a
letter I received from the Prisoners of
War and Missing in Action Families for
immediate release. This is an organiza-
tion of prisoners of war and missing in
action families who believe that positive
steps must be taken to resolve these
issues.
I quote :
We want our sons and our husbands and
our fathers and our brothers returned now.
We want our missing in action accounted
for now. We are not prepared to see them
play second fiddle one day longer to an un-
democratic Saigon regime.
Many talk about the great sacrifices that
our men have made. We have lived those
sacrifices. We fully recognize that prisoners
are not going to be released nor our missing
in action accounted for until a termination
date has been established for our role in
Indo China.
We therefore would like to offer our sup-
port for your eff orts which we believe will
carry out this goal. '
Failure to commit ourselves, Mr. Chair-
man, to a dateline for total withdrawal
and to talk instead of residual forces
and not only prolongs our role in a war
that we should conclude but also endan-
gers the troops remaining in Indochina
and, moreover, endangers the prospects
of obtaining the release of prisoners.
We have sacrificed 55,000 American
lives and $150 billion of American re-
sources in this war.
We have endowed the South Vietnam-
ese with one of the largest and best
equipped armed forces in the world. We
have done enough. We have gone too far.
The time has come to get out and this
amendment takes us out.
Mr. Chairman, I include with my re-
marks title VI-termination of hostilities
in Indochina-of the Military Procure-
ment Act and a letter from prisoners of
war and missing in action families for
immediate release.
TITLE VI-TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES IN
INDOCHINA
SEC. 601. (a) It is hereby declared to be the
policy of the United States to terminate at
the earliest practicable date all military op-
erations of the United States in Indochina,
and to provide for the prompt and orderly
withdrawal of all United States military
forces at a date certain, subject to the release
of all American prisoners of war held by the
Government of North Vietnam and forces
allied with such Government and an ac-
counting for all Americans missing in action
who have been held by or known to such
Government or such forces. The Congress
hereby urges and requests the President to
implement the above-expressed policy by ini-
tiating immediately the following actions:
(1) Establishing a final date for the with-
drawal from Indochina of all military forces
of the United States contingent upon the re-
lease of all American prisoners of war held
ley the Government of North Vietnam and
forces allied with such Government and an
accounting for all Americans missing in ac-
tion who have been held by or known to such
Government or such forces.
(2) Negotiate with the Government of
North Vietnam for an immediate cease-fire
by all parties to the hostilities in Indochina.
(3) Negotiate with the Government of
North Vietnam for an agreement which
would provide for a series of phased and rapid
withdrawals of United States military forces
from Indochina in exchange for a corre-
sponding series of phased releases of Ameri-
can prisoners of war, and for the release of
any remaining American prisoners of war
concurrently with the withdrawal of all re=
maining military forces of the United States
by not later than the date established by the
President pursuant to paragraph (1) hereof
or by such earlier date as may be agreed upon
by the negotiating parties.
POW/MIA FAMILIES FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE,
November 14, 1971.
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BOLAND: It is our un-
derstanding you will offer an amendment to
the Defense Appropriations Bill to establish
June 1, 1972 as a termination date for all
U.S. military operations in Indochina. It is
also our understanding that the June 1, 1972
deadline is subject to the provision of the
Mansfield Amendment to the Military Pro-
curement Act which -conditions our with-
drawal of forces from Indochina on the re-
turn of all American prisoners and an ac-
counting of missing in action.
In our Statement of Purpose established
in July, 1971, we state the following: We
feel our government's obligation to the
American prisoners now should take prece-
dence over its obligation to the government
of South Vietnam. We shall work, therefore,
toward the formulation and implementation
of policy which will bring about the most
rapid release and repatriation of our prison-
ers of war and for the return of our armed
forces currently serving in Southeast Asia.
In accordance with this, we have been
working for the establishment of a termina-
tion date for U.S. military operations in In-
dochina in conjunction with the return of
Approved For Release 2001/11115 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11172 Approved For Re M28&A(IMALC MB0.Q 0400120W3t4mber 17, 1971
all prisoners and an accounting of the miss-
ing in action by that date. We believe that
it is only in this manner that the POW/MIA
issue can be satisfactorily resolved. We want
our sons and our husbands and our fathers
and our brothers returned, now. We want
our missing in action accounted for, rune.
We are not prepared to see them play sec-
ond choice one day longer to an undemo-
cratic, corrupt Saigon regime.
Many have talked about the great sacri-
fices our men have made. We have lived those
sacrifices.
We' fully recognize that the prisoners are
not going to be released nor our missing in
action accounted for until a termination
date has been established for our role in
Indochina. We therefore would like to offer
our support to your efforts which we believe
will carry out this goal.
POW/MIA FAMILIES FOR IMMEDIATE RE-
LEASE,
SHIRLEY CULBERTSON,
JANE DUDLEY,
Washington Coordinators.
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
(Mr. WYMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts a couple of questions about the
gentleman's amendment.
I ask the gentleman from Massachu-
setts: Does your amendment regiiire
prior release, of all of our prisoners?
Mr. BOLAND. In my judgment, it does
indeed. If the prisoners of war are not
released and if the missing in action are
not accounted for, then - the effect of
this amendment is null and void.
Mr. WYMAN. I would respectfully dif-
fer with the gentleman as to the word-
ing of the amendment because as I look
at his amendment I find these words:
"subject to the release of all American
prisoners and an accounting for all
Americans missing in action." But the
phrase "subject to the release of all
American prisoners" in the gentleman's
amendment are not a condition prece-
dent, they are merely connected with the
declaration of the U.S. policy set forth
in title VI of the 1971 military procure-
ment act. And I read further:
That notwithstanding any other provision
of this Act-
This is from the gentleman's amend-
ment-
none of the funds appropriated by this Act
shall be used-
And so forth-
to finance any of these operations after
June 1, 1972.
I would ask the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts, how can the adoption of an
amendment such as this by the Congress
and the enactment of it into law get our
prisoners back?
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WYMAN. I yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. BOLAND. That part of the amend-
ment that states "no funds appropriated"
and cuts off the appropriation as of June
1, 1972, is tied directly into the Military
Procurement Act, specifically title VI,
which is the watered-down Mansfield
amendment. Specifically, it calls for the
release of the American prisoners of -war
and for an accounting of those missing
in action. My amendment is tied directly
to that and, so far as I am concerned
arid you may differ with it-but so far as
I am concerned, if there has not been
any resolution of the matter of the re-
lease of the prisoners of war and an ac-
counting of those missing in action, then
the cutoff would not occur.
Mr. WYMAN. I simply observe to the
gentleman, and the gentleman will ac-
knowledge, that his amendment does not
say "subject to the prior release of Ameri-
can prisoners" as a condition to the tak-
ing effect of the cutoff date of June 1,
1972. Does the gentleman contend that
a contemporaneous or prior release of
American prisoners is required?
Then we are going to stop all our sup-
port, we are going to stop all pay for
our men, for their supplies, their arms,
all our money, all our air cover-we are
going to stop fighting over there on June
1, 1972, whether or not we have the
prisoners back?
Mr. BOLAND. That is not so at all.
Mr. WYMAN. Your amendment does
not provide otherwise.
Mr. BOLAND. It is not the intent of
the amendment at all. In my judgment,
the amendment provides for a move on
the part of the North Vietnamese, to re-
lease the prisoners of war and to account
for those missing in action. I have said
that a dozen times. That is my conten-
tion. The gentleman from New Hamp-
shire apparently does not agree with
that, but that is my intention and that
is my interpretation of the language of
the amendment.
Mr. WYMAN. I submit, despite the
gentleman's protestations as to what the
amendment means, it does not call for
what he claims it calls for, and I think
it should be debated and considered in
the light of what it actually provides. I
submit that the amendment does not re-
quire the prior release of American pris-
oners. This amendment, if adopted,
would be dangerous to the lives of the
American troops remaining in Vietnam
for it prohibits not only their arms and
ammunition but it cuts off provision for
arms for the South Vietnamese to-cover
them in withdrawal. -
It is absolutely ridiculous for Congress
to call off all support for Americans over
there when the President of the United
States is disengaging our troops just as
fast as the protective defense forces can
be trained in Vietnam to take over their
own defense. The pending amendment
would even stop the training of the South
Vietnamese to use the equipment we have
provided them for their own defense.
The amendment would deny all sup-
Port-arms, food, and air cover-to sup-
port our troops and those of our allies
in Vietnam, even as they defend them-
selves in withdrawal.
The pending amendment would im-
peril the lives of Americans in Vietnam.,
be they advisers, troops or otherwise. By
its author's own admission it would mean
that we would cut off everything even if
the enemy should continue to attack and
kill Americans.
1[ want no part of such a proposal.
11 am confident a majority of this
House will not vote to endanger our
troops and deny our President the lever-
age to continue to negotiate for the re-
lease of our prisoners.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment should
be rejected out of hand.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. WYMAN. I yield to the gentleman
from California.
Mr. ROUSSELOT. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding. I think the gentleman
from New Hampshire has raised an im-
portant point. Unfortunately, I do, not
believe, that the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts was responsive to his question.
The whole issue of the American prison-
ers of war and the point the gentleman
has made about clear priority of action
must be debated on this floor. I think it
would be tremendously damaging to our
American prisoners now held by the
enemy if we should adopt this improperly
drawn amendment.
Mr. WYMAN. I would say in response
to the gentleman that whatever the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts claims to be
the intent of his amendment, of course,
is interesting in the sense of what he
intends. But it does not control the plain
language of the amendment. The amend-
ment speaks for itself. An examination of
the amendment by Members of the
House, particularly its attorneys-and
there are many distinguished attorneys
in the House-will show that there is no
condition precedent in the amendment
before us requiring either the prior re-
lease of our prisoners or even their con-
temporaneous release. Had the gentle-
man from Massachusetts wished to spe-
cifically establish the requirement of
prior release his amendment could easily
have been so worded. He has neither
done this nor does he offer a perfecting
amendment to do this at this time. In-
stead he allows his reference to prison-
ers to remain in a general introductory
clause referring to title VI of the Mili-
tary Procurement Act of 1971 that itself
contains no cutoff date nor any date
whatever.
The pending amendment is fatally de-
fective as to prisoner release and this
should be understood by all Members be-
fore they vote.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment, and move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, the Presi-
dent has today signed H.R. 8687, the
Military Procurement Authorization Act,
into law, notwithstanding the Mansfield
amendment. But here is what he said
in the conclusion of his statement about
that action:
I would add regretfully that legislative
actions such as this hinder rather than assist
in the sarch for a negotiated settlement.
That was in reference to the Mans-
field amendment, a much milder version
than the Boland amendment now be-
fore us.
Aside from the President's comment,
there is not the slightest reason to believe
that the act of specifying a date for U.S.
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 :-CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, 19A6proved F6A WYA]t/fW1 tBP U6 96R000400120011-3 H 11173
withdrawal would influence North Viet-
namese policies toward the prisoners of
war or toward the conduct of the war
itself. The chances are that having
gained a date for the end of U.S. par-
ticipation, they would simply demand
further concessions-like handing over
the Saigon government to the Com-
munists. There is not a scintilla, of evi-
dence from any reliable source to show
any positive commitment by any North
Vietnamese official that we can rely upon.
No, Mr. Chairman, this amendment
can serve no usful purpose for the United
States or the prisoners of war. It can
only tie the hands of a President who has
done a remarkably good job in extricat-
ing U.S. Forces from the difficult and
complicated controversy in Southeast
Asia. The American military has all but
ceased ground combat, but we cannot
instantaneously write off Vietnam and
Southeast Asia and forget them. It is
still a very important part of the world to
the United States and to the free world.
Of course, America wants the war
ended, but we cannot stop a war on a
fixed date by congressional resolution.
If we adopt the amendment that is pro-
posed? we tie the President's hands, we
free the Communists to take advantage
of many alternatives which are now
closed to them. The President must have
flexibility to carry on to a successful
and a responsible conclusion our objec-
tives in Vietnam.
Remember-remember this-the North
Vietnamese. negotiators in Paris can end
all of the uncertainty, they can bring
about assurance of peace and the return
of the prisoners of war on any day
they wish by a simple statement of in-
tent. And yet, in all the years of wasted
effort by our negotiators in Paris, the
North Vietnamese have not in a single
instance showed good faith or good in-
tentions. Everything has been unilateral
on our part, and this action, now ex-
emplified by the amendment before us,
can produce no certainty, can offer no
hope of any positive result.
Let us not play the game of the North
Vietnamese here today in the U.S. House
of Representatives.
Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of the Boland amendment. It
is important to note that this amendment
is consistent with previous legislation
adopted by the House of Representatives.
Title VI of the Military Procurement Act
passed by this body and which I sup-
ported calls for withdrawal conditoned
upon the release of U.S. prisoners of war.
The amednment now before the House
also ties the termination of U.S. military
activities in Indochina to the release of
prisoners by North Vietnam.
This very point was recently recog-
nized by the POW/MIA Families for
Immediate Release. In a letter addressed
to our colleague from Massachusetts, Mr.
BOLAND, that organization said:
We feel our government's obligation to the
American prisoners now should take prec-
edence over its obligation to the government
of South. Vietnam.
That committee also emphasized the
realities of the situation by stating that:
We fully recognize that the prisoners are
not going to be released nor our missing in
action accounted for until a termination date
has been established for our role in Indo-
china.
As I stated in this Chamber a few
weeks ago, and during general debate on
this bill, I believe the time has finally
come when all the frustrations and all
the rhetoric about the pursuit of peace
must end. By the House approval of this
amendment we must stand up and say
once and for all "end the War."
Mr. Chairman, my position on the
Vietnam war and our involvement in
Indochina has been known for some time.
As a member of the House Appropria-
tion Committee, I have voiced concern
over the expansion of the war, and the
extent of our role in Southeast Asia.
It has been said that to set a specific
date to end all operations in that area
gives solace to the enemy. This cannot
give any more aid or comfort than the
President's Vietnamization policy or the
President's announcement of further
pullouts. After 10 years, after all our
dead and wounded, after dropping over
4 million tons of bombs, twice as much
as we dropped during World War II, in-
cluding Korea, after 40 percent of our
troops starting to use drugs, it is time to
put a stop to this carnage and let the
South Vietnamese know that they must
take over the responsibilities in the field.
I believe we must give them an ulti-
matum, a definite date beyond which the
United States will not continue to provide
further military assistance.
The President has pledged to end the
war. Let us lend our support to his com-
mittee by passage of this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, for purposes of clari-
fication, I wish to read again the amend-
ment which was offered by the gentle-
man from Massachusetts:
On page 48, immediately following line 7,
add the following new Section under Title
VII: SEC 745. In line with Title VI of the
1971 Military Procurement Act calling for
termination of all U.S. military operations
in Indochina at the earliest practicable date
and for the prompt and orderly withdrawal
of all U.S. military forces at a date certain,
subject to the release of all American prison-
ers and an accounting for all Americans
missing in action, and notwithstanding any
other provisions in this Act, none of the
funds appropriated by this Act shall be used
to finance any military combat or military
support operations by U.S. forces in or over
South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos or
Cambodia, after June 1, 1972.
Mr. Chairman, this is in accordance
with the bill passed by the House almost
unanimously and signed by the Presi-
dent.
(Mr. ADDABBO asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ADDABBO. I yield to the gentle-
man from Massachusetts.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, as the
gentleman from New Fork has indicated,
and as the amendment clearly indi-
cates, this is tied in with the national
policy as delineated in title VI of the
1971 Military Procurement Act. Let me
read the pertinent paragraph in that
title. ,
Establish a final date for withdrawal from
Indochina of all military forces of the United
States contingent upon release of all Amer-
Scan prisoners of war held by the Govern-
ment of North Vietnam and forces under
such control and accounting for all Ameri-
cans missing in action who have been held
by or known to such government or such
forces .. .
Now, the national policy as established
under the Military Procurement Act is
this described policy. I am disturbed
that upon the signing of the Military
Procurement Act today by the President,
sometime around noon, that he did say
that he would ignore one of the provi-
sions of that act.
He would ignore the Mansfield amend-
ment. I believe it is indefensible for the
President of the United States to ignore
the national policy that has been passed
upon by the Members of this body, by the
Members of the other body, and signed
byhimself.
That is one of the reasons why we have
this amendment. I believe it is high time
we do establish policy in this body. We
have been traveling along too easily, too
much, too often.
I have been here now for a few years,
and I have heard constantly and con-
sistently the argument that we should
not tie the hands of the Executive,
whether it be President Nixon, President
Johnson, or President Kennedy. I have
heard it now over the past three ad-
ministrations. And I have seldom, if ever,
done it. But it appears to me we have to
do it now. This is the only way we are
going to stop this war.
Say what you want, the President's
press conference last week clearly in-
dicated we are going to have 'a residual
force there of 30,000 to 55,000 men. I do
not know how we are going to protect a
residual force without some sort of mili-
tary establishment to back it up.
That is my concern. I am sure it is the
concern of all Members here, as it is the
concern of the vast majority of the
American people.
Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment. For months I have heard
many persuasive men argue against this
amendment, but I have heard very few
well reasoned persuasive arguments
against it.
I become impatient with headlines
such as we saw in this morning's Post,
"Beat Amendment Selling Viet Pullout,
Nixon Urges 'Congress." I grow weary of
the argument that we must continue this
war because the President needs a free
hand in the conduct of our foreign af-
fairs.
For'almost a decade we have given our
Presidents a free hand and for almost a
decade we have seen the war continue.
It is a national tragedy to know that
the leadership of this great deliberating
body is willing to abdicate its power and
authority to the executive branch. They
are asking this. Congress to be the Presi-
dent's puppet, jumping when he says
jump, to tuck ourselves away in the closet
when he says he does not want to hear
from us. I suggest that on this great issue
that we speak out, that we correct the
course the Nation is taking and in so
doing reestablish the Congress as an
equal branch of this Government. -
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11174 Approved For Redg ?,Q f A]L C 3B EM0040012a t? nber 17, 1971
I cannot believe it is enough to say that
we are withdrawing 45,000 troops by the
end of November or that we have reduced
troop strength in Vietnam to less than
200,000 men when, in fact, it is our inten-
tion to keep a residual force of perhaps
50,000 men there. Nor can we believe the
statement that the American combat role
is over when we continue to drop thou-
sands of tons of bombs each week in Viet-
nam. How can the nations of the world
or how can the citizens of this country
believe our combat role is over when this
is happening?
There are compelling reasons why this
amendment should be adopted. Let us
remind ourselves of the economic havoc
it has brought. Over a hundred billion
dollars have been wasted. One of our
most grievous economic problems-and
I refer to inflation-has been nurtured
and fed by the expenditure of funds to
carry on the war in Vietnam. Each time I
have heard the President speak of infla-
tion he stresses the cutting of Govern-
ment expenditures as part of the solu-
tion and yet he refused to call an end
to our activities in that far place.
Then there is another consideration of
which we do not often speak but which
is very real. Each day this involvement
continues we contribute to the weakening
of our general defenses. By pouring our
military strength into Vietnam we weak-
en our overall military strength. We
neglect our research and development,
the building of our fleet, the moderniza-
tion of our Air Force, and the defenses
here in this country. We deprive military
men of decent housing and necessary
equipment. And can anyone deny that
we are, slowly permitting the deteriora-
tion of that most important ingredient
of all to a strong military force, the mo-
rale of our men in uniform.
The political problems which this war
has created are horrendous. We have lost
friends throughout the world. Our cred-
ibility as a peace-loving nation is
doubted. Our motives have been suspect.
Our actions and interference condemned.
And the result? At a critical time in the
history of the United Nations we could
not even muster a simple majority to
keep Taiwan in the United Nations.
And then there are the humane and
human reasons for us to stop this war
and to get out of Vietnam. Killing, maim-
ing, and destroying at that place can no
longer withstand the forces of reason
which say that they must stop. Are we
pot mindful of the millions of lives which
have been affected by the misery and
tragedy of that war? When I consider
my own experience as the father of a son
who fought in Vietnam, I know that my
fear, my apprehension, my sleepless
nights could be no less than that of
countless others, including the parents of
sons who fought on both sides of this
conflict. Have you ever put your arias
around a son-who is suddenly a man-
said goodbye and then watch him get
onto a plane knowing that in a short
span of time he will be in the jungles
fighting a war which none of us under-
stand? Each day for that year you pray
for his safety, dreading every telegram
you receive and watch for his letters. Mr. WYMAN. Will the gentleman yield
And in these letters read his inquiries as to me?
to why we are fighting there. You cannot Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman.
answer those inquiries. You cannot an- Mr. WYMAN. I would like to inquire of
swer the question "Why?" the gentleman in the well whether or
My infantry sergeant son came home. not he maintains after that colloquy with
He had done his bit and how proud I am the gentleman from Massachusetts that
of him. He earned the hard way as only after June 1, 1972, the moneys will con-
an infantry man can understand, his tinue to be available for financing either
decorations, citations, and commenda- combat or support operations if the pris-
tions. But something was lacking that oners are not returned?
da;y when he stepped off that plane. No Mr. ECKHARDT. The money would be
one, no one could explain why he had available as I understand the provisions
gone in the first place. of the act.
Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to Mr. WYMAN. Not the provisions of the
strike the requisite number of words. act, if I may say, but the provisions of
Mr. Chairman, I think the American the Boland amendment.
People. charge the Congress with its full Mr. ECKHARDT. I would say this,
share of responsibility for involving us that the limitation itself contains a limi-
in this war. They expect the Congress to tation. The limitation provides that no
exercise its full responsibility in at last funds shall be expended, but that itself
extricating us from that war. The Boland is conditioned upon the conditions of
amendment will do just that. title VI going into effect. Therefore a
If for no other reason, I urge it be limit on the expenditure of funds after
adopted. that date is itself conditioned upon the
Mr. ECKHARDT. Will the gentleman release of the prisoners as contained in
yield? positive law passed by this Congress and
Mr. OBEY. I am glad to yield to the signed a few hours ago by the President
gentleman from Texas. of the United States.
Mr. ECKHARDT. I would like to rise Mr. WYMAN. There is no date in title
to point out why, as a legal proposition, VI. Where is a date in title VI? Is there
the statement of the gentleman from any June 1, 1972 in title VI?
New Hampshire (Mr. WYMAN) is not cor- Mr. ECKHARDT. I believe the gentle-
rect. That is, the amendment is in truth man from New Hampshire does not un-
limited to the withdrawal of troops. - derstand the point I am making here.
I think we need to establish a little Perhaps, I have not made it clear. The
legislative history on that point. As I un- only thing that can be done in an appro-
derstand it-and I would like to address priation bill is to limit the appropriation
this question, of course, through the and that is done. The limitation in the
Member who has the floor, to the author appropriation bill may not establish
of the amendment-the amendment is a other conditions, but it may be subject
limitation on the appropriation bill to other conditions of existing law. Fur-
which provides for a cutoff of funds at ther, the author of the amendment has
a specific time, but expressly states that pointed out that he intends not to affect
such condition is itself conditioned on positive policy provisions of title VI of
established policy contained in title VI the existing law, and it seems to me that
of the 1971 Military Procurement Act. this provision is clearly limited to those
Is that correct? conditions set out in title VI of he Mili-
Mr. BOLAND. The gentleman states it tary Procurement Act and this takes no
exactly as I intended it .and exactly as effect unless those conditions are put into
it is. effect.,
Mr. ECKHARDT. Now, since this is a Mr. WYMAN. If the gentleman will
limitation on an appropriation bill, it yield further for one further observation,
may not itself establish general legisla- the Boland amendment certainly has
tive policy and it does not purport to do limited it. It has limited the Appropria-
se, but it may be limited to and be con- tions Committee when it states that none
fined within policy established under ex- of the funds appropriated by this act
isting law. That existing policy is con- shall be used to finance any military
tamed under title VI of the 1971 Military combat or military support operations by
Procurement Act, as I understand it. U.S. Forces in or over South Vietnam,
Mr. BOLAND. The gentleman is cor- North Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia, after
rect. June 1, 1972.
Mr. ECKHARDT. And in that provi- The words "subject to release of all
sion it is stated as clearly as language American prisoners" are not a condition
can be written that it is a policy of the precedent in Mr. Boland's amendment as
United States to withdraw but only in the it is worded and the gentleman's re-
event that the prisoners are released and marks are entirely beside the point.
the other conditions provided in that act Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, I move
take place. Is that correct?
Mr. BOLAND. That is correct. to strike the requisite number of words.
.
Mr. ECKHARDT. And is it not the pur- (Mr. RHODES asked and was given
pose of the author in stating it is in line permission to revise and extend his re-
with title VI, to make it absolutely clear marks.)
that this provision in no wise reduces Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, I am
that commitment as a prerequisite to sure that the House is tired of the law-
withdrawal? yers arguing over this, but I think it is
Mr. BOLAND. The gentleman is cor- such an important point that we need to
rect, spell out exactly what is meant by the
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17,A?p '4ved For Igg1i/AE: ,t B7iQM?F000400120011-3
H 11175
amendment which has been offered by To adopt this amendment would be States from the very beginning and I
the gentleman from Massachusetts. disastrous, and ask that it be voted stand here again today and repeat that
As one lawyer, I will tell you how it down. commitment-I am not going to cut his
looks to me. Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I move legs from under him when he is doing
The first proviso of section 745, as it is to strike the requisite number of words. the best job anybody can do. He should
offered by the gentleman, is merely the be applauded instead of condemned for
explanation of the contents of the 1971 (Mr. HEBERT asked and was given what he is doing. This is not a partisan
Military Procurement Act, title VI there- permission to revise and extend his re- issue with me. There is not an individual
of. There is no language in the part which marks.) in this House who wants those men
carries that explanation-as to any pro- Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman and brought back home any more quickly
vino which effects that which comes lat- Members of the House, it is with great than I do, but who is so simple as to think
er. This explanation is not a condition hesitation that I again take the well of that we can accomplish something by
precedent because there are no condi- this House to explore this matter. One declaring to the world that we do not
tioning words or limiting words which of our Members has said he has become back our Commander in Chief and Pres-
definitely refer to the last clause. Neither weary of hearing this argument con- ident. Are we going to tell the world we
is there anything in, the last clause which tinuously. I want to say to him-and I have no confidence in him-that we pro-
incorporates by reference any of the as- am sure many Members of this House claim to those who are willing to hear,
sertions made earlier. share his same feeling-that I too am and there ate many, that we are a polar-
Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that weary. I am downright tired of having ized nation going in many directions.
the limitation proposed by the gentle- to debate something that we have de- This is no time to dilly dally with the
nian from Massachusetts has only one bated and debated and debated and re- lives of individuals.
effect, and that is to cut off all funds for debated and redebated, from the begin- I was very moved by the gentleman
Americans in Southeast Asia after June ning of this Congress: the so-called talking about his son. I can understand
1, 1972, unconditionally, without regard Mansfield amendment, which of course what he means-not having a son-but
to whether or not the prisoners of war this is, in albeit a different form. I am certainly having a family and a daughter.
are released. weary of, after sitting for weeks on end I know the torture and the anguish that
If the gentleman from Massachu- in discussions with the other body, to these parents must go through. But each
setts-and he is a good lawyer-wanted bring out a compromise on a particular one of those who suffer this anguish and
to make it very clear that we intended amendment in the draft bill, this House this agony must realize that there are
this cutoff to be subject to the provisions reacted and did accept a modified amend- others who went before them and whose
of the Military Procurement Act of 1971, ment of the so-called Mansfield amend- sons did not come back-whose sons died
tible VI, he could have done so ending ment in which it discussed it as being in other wars in order that we may con-
his amendment like this: "After June 1, the consensus of the Congress. We go tinue the type of government and the
1972, subject to the terms, the conditions back again. We again are confronted kind of freedom that we have here.
and limitations, including the return of with the same thing. We are at logger- This is not time for emotionalism. This
prisoners as set forth, in title VI of the heads, and have long discussions again, is a time for looking at the facts and
Military Procurement Act of 1971." and in order to bring forward a bill that looking the individuals in the eye. This
That is the way to limit a limitation. you could act upon in some confidence, is the time not to divide America, my
The gentleman from Massachusetts we reluctantly agreed to language mak- God-no-let us stand together-let us
knows this, and had he really wanted to ing this "the policy of the United States." unite-let us present a solid front and
limit his limitation, he would have known Your House conferees made this con- let us support the President ofthe United
how to do so. cession so as to bring back something States.
With all due respect to my dear friend that this House could act upon. The Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to
from Massachusetts, for whom I have House did act and approved the action strike out the last word.
the, highest regard, he is not doing what of its conferees on H.R. 8687. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
he says he intends to do. This makes it The criticism has been leveled at those boland amendment. I have supported this
obvious in my opinion that we should not of us, who have been fighting this fight position for almost a year, since Decem-
try to write legislation like this on the for so long and one that we are all weary ber of 1970 when I arrived at a decision
floor of the House. Any limitation on of, that we never allowed a direct vote to which I should have reached 7 years be-
the power of the President to negotiate come on the Mansfield amendment. Un- fore-that the Vietnam war is the most
peace and the release of prisoners should der a rule which was brought out to the tragic mistake, in my judgment, that this
be made only after prayerful considera- House under the Military Procurement country has ever made. It has caused the
tion, not in an atmosphere of passion and Conference Report, a direct vote was per- downgrading of every single element of
debate. mitted. And when the Speaker put the our defense establishment because we
This is really tampering with the wel- question not one voice in this body was have been denying to the Navy and the
fare of the people of the United States raised to ask for that direct vote. Under Army and the Air Force and the Marines
in general, and of the prisoners of war the rule, any individual Member could any Coast Guard needed funds and
in particular. have gotten a direct vote at that time on needed new and modern equipment in-
The President of the United States has the so-called Mansfield amendment. eluding naval vessels which we do not
said time after time he cannot negotiate However, none was demanded. have and we cannot buy because of the
with the Government of North which unless he has something with which to The conference report then had hardly billions upon billions and billions of dol-
negotiate. If this l mendment is adopted been adopted by the House, and we Lars that are being poured down the rat
and willy-nilly the troops of the United again hear the winds blowing from the hole of Southeast Asia today.
States of America must withdraw from other body that the Mansfield amend- Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gen-
Vietnam on June 1, 1972, then you have ment has been tied in to the foreign aid tleman from Louisiana in just a moment,
cut the ground out from under the Presi- bill. We come here today, and it is pro- if I have any time.
dent of the United States completely. posed that the Mansfield amendment be Yesterday morning while driving to
You have in my opinion condemned the tacked on to an appropriations bill. work, I heard a radio news statement
prisoners of war and the people who are When are we going to stop this tactic attributes: to the President:
missing in action to be released at some in dilution of a responsible and estab- General Abrams will have to get along with
possible time in the future, but only lished House position arrived at on two less than 90,000 troops, perhaps as few as
when North Vietnam decides that it separate occasions? 65,000 troops by next July.
might want to release them. I join in the statement made by the I assume that means July 1972. That is
I have not noticed any indication on gentleman from Arizona-we can have the end of the quotation I heard.
the part of North Vietnam which indi- only one President--one Commander- Since the President is reported to have
?cates that they possess any of the milk whether you like him or not and announced by that date General Abrams
of human kindness whatsoever for any- whether you agree with him or not. I, for will be reduced in troop strength to 90,-
body, and certainly not for the prisoners one, have insisted I shall not tie the '000 or perhaps as few as 65,000, in my
of war of the United States of America. hands of the President of the United judgment he has destroyed any basis
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11176 Approved For : j Z M?F0004001 t "er 17, 1971
which he might have to negotiate for the man from Georgia would answer the Vietnamese. I am not a bit impressed by
release of our prisoners of war and an question: As I understand, the gentleman the public pronouncements on the other
accounting for our men who are missing made the statement that because of the side in Paris. One presidential aspirant
in action. money being poured down the rathole of already has learned how quickly they
While this may be an oversimplification our military effort in Vietnam, our mill- shift positions when they undercut him
of a long and complex subject, as far as tary people are not getting the hardware completely on assurance he said they had
the issue of the release of American pris- necessary to carry on their responsibil- given him regarding the return of our
oners of war is concerned, in my judg- ities. I would like the gentleman to name prisoners of war.
ment the President already has a reliable one penny that has not been devoted to If adopted, the Boland amendment
agreement that they will be released or the acquisition of military hardware in might well spell failure for the delicate
else.he is denigrating any chance he has supP.ly of the military of this country and negotiations the President plans on a
to negotiate for their release. In either in the protection of the security of this personal level with leaders in Peking and
event, I feel that he might as well stop country because of the Vietnam situation. Moscow.
the war as soon as he possibly can and Just name one. And, I ask this committee, are the
bring the United States troops home. Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Chairman, will the sponsors and supporters of the Boland
We hear a great deal about this resid- gentleman-yield tone? amendment prepared to take the conse-
ual force. Mr. MINSHALL. I yield to the gentle- quences of their action, a complete cut-
Mr. Chairman, what would be the pur- man from Georgia. off next June 1 of the fewer than 50,000
pose of such a residual force? Would it be Mr. FLYNT. If the gentleman from troops we will have in Vietnam at that
for the purpose of maintaining the dic- Louisiana, the able and distinguished timesupport troops, not combat troops?
tator, Thieu, as the United States- chairman of the Committee on Armed Do' the supporters of this amendment
appointed "President" of South Vietnam? Services, would go to some of the bases seriously mean to cut off from these men
If this be the case, I will never again vote and take a look at what is actually going the means to defend themselves from
for an authorization or an appropriation on, look at the equipment, look at our enemy attack, to cut off even their food
bill which has funds to be used to main- naval vessels, 80 percent of which are 20 and maintenance supplies?
tain or to perpetuate in office in a foreign years old or older, at a time when 80 per- Adoption of the Boland amendment
country a dictator who will not permit cent of Russian naval vessels are 10 years could well mark the first time the Con-
the name of an opposing candidate on old or younger, then I think the gentle- gress of the United States deliberately
the ballot. In 1971 there were two major man from Louisiana might say that the set out to create an Alamo.
potential candidates for the presidency American Armed Forces are deteriorat- There is a great deal of infighting go-
in South Vietnam, General Minh and ing, and they are deteriorating because ing on, showing a complete disregard for
General Ky, each of whom had and has of useless expenditures in Vietnam. Presidential leadership and authority in
a substantial following among the people Mir. HEBERT. The age of naval ves- foreign affairs. It is an ugly picture.
of South Vietnam, possibly as great or sels increased long before our action in The CHAIRMAN. The time of the
greater than President Thieu would have Vietnam. This has nothing to do with gentleman from Ohio has expired.
had without the military support of the Vietnam. The gentleman has not answer- - (By unanimous consent, Mr. MINSHALL
United States. If either of them had re- ed my question. He has not told me where was allowed to proceed for 5 additional
mained a candidate and dared to go one penny has been denied our military minutes.)
down to the wire in a campaign for forces in the protection of the security of Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, as
president against Thieu, he or they prob- this country. I say, it is an ugly pcture. Opponents of
ably would have suffered the same fate Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, as the the President's policies need. only look at
as the last candidate who made a bona his record since he has been in office, and
fide effort to run against Thieu in a tee on distinguished
Armed Services ervices has the Commit- out, they must-they must acknowledge the
presidential election. So far as I know, he tee pointed out,
we have covered this route before. This success he is having in fulfilling his
is still in prison like a common criminal. is another in what has been it series of promises to withdraw from Southeast
A great deal has been said to the effect amendments to come before the House Asia. He has kept every one of them since
that we are in Vietnam at the request of he took office two and a half years ago.
our allies. Mr. Chairman, I think that and/or the Senate demanding in effect
that we get out of Southeast Asia on a Richard Nixon is not the villian in
torians that may as one of come o the known most to futa damnable fichis- - date certain. Each time Congress has the tragedy of Vietnam. He has saved
one wrestled with its conscience over the and is saving American lives. He has
bons of all time. The reason are in taken American men out of the jungles,
Vietnam today is in support of our self- issue. Each time prudence and support of out of combat, and he has returned there
a, unpopular, puppet rulers of our President have won over whatever to their homes. He is continuing to do
that Southeastern Southeastern Asiann country, and I transient political popularity might be this. He will bring our men home, and
think, Mr. Chairman, the time has come given it. this includes our prisoners of` war.
for us to face up to the mistake that we I do not question the sincerity of any and time again the President has
have made and try to correct the mistake Member of this house or of the other Time
itim his policy regarding d with-
year-out ainstead of compounding it year-in and body or. of the public sector in desiring reiterated his It co uld for God knows how long we peace. I do think, however, that there are drawal heade from
mis pouthe t a uld no-
t
may be there. some who cannot stand the success of be ated made more o settlement, clear, The Asia. eThe g withdrawal ll It
as foreign
Mr. Chairman, the time is now and the the Nixon administration in its successful forces, release of all prisoners of war, and
forum is here for those who think that phasing out of the Vietnam conflict.
that if Indochiochinaa. s He stated such e
the war in Vietnam ought to be termi- What I am about to say I want to be a a has cease-fire repeatedly throughout
nated and to do so by the adoption of very clearly understood and not to be tlement cannot be reached, withdrawal
the Boland amendment. misconstrued as impugning the patriot-
ism of anyone who supports the end of of our forces will be determined by the
Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise war amendments, but it is al3parent that level of enemy activity, progress of Viet-
in opposition to the amendment. there are some who not only want to be- namization, and our success in obtaining
(Mr. MINSHALL asked and was given latedly climb on the Nixon bandwagon as the release of prisoners of war.
permission to revise and extend his re- it heads toward peace, but who are also I appeal to this House not to, tie the
marks.) frantically for what could be politically hands of the President. Just remember
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the motivated trying to run ahead of it. No that he has brought home 80 percent of
gentleman yield? matter how well intentioned, their ef- our troops, or will have in the next 2 or
Mr. MINSHALL. I am glad to yield to forts could completely derail our drive 3 months, committed by the previous ad-
the distinguished chairman of the House toward that objective. ministration at the peak of its escalation
Committee on Armed Services. The Boland amendment is a chimera. of the war.
Mr. HEBERT. I had hoped the gentle- We have every reason to believe that This is a time for cheering the Nixon
man from Georgia would give me an op- similar proposals have been made by the administration, not to be undercutting it
safe return of drive toward all American men.
ton.. I rwould appreciate it if the gentle- they haves been l refused bys the North the its
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, ~_ppjoved Fort & ggAyl5Ri&?BP73 ?fR000400120011-3 H 11177
I urge the Members to reject the Bo- nam. Well, my son went to Vietnam. He tion Families for Immediate Release sup-
land amendment as a threat and a detri- fought for a solid year in the 101st Air- porting the Boland amendment. I have a
ment to the continuing and growing suc- borne. He was wounded twice. In the last letter written to the chairman of the
cess of our President's efforts, battle only two men in his platoon were Committee on Appropriations (Mr. MA-
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. not killed or wounded. I very nearly lost HON). This letter came to him yesterday.
Chairman, will the gentleman yield? my son in Vietnam. I have a copy of the letter. It is from
Mr. MINSHALL. I yield to the gentle- How many hours I have asked myself. the National League of Families of Amer-
man from Alabama. "Why did you encourage your son to go ican Prisoners and Missing in Southeast
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I want to Vietnam? Why did you give him the Asia. It says:
to commend the gentleman for the state- impression that the people up there, all NOVEMBER 16, 1971.
ment he has made and to associate my- the generals and Defense Secretaries and Congressman GEORGE H. MAHON,
self with his remarks, and I should like admirals and so on, knew best." When Chairman, House Appropriations Committee,
to ask the gentleman a question, you read the Pentagon papers and ex- Rayburn House Office Building, Wash-
Mr. MINSHALL. I am glad to yield to amine the rest of the record, the very -DEAR ingt CO D.C.
the gentleman. SSMo meri The National
kindest conclusion you can come to is our League of f Families of American Prisoners and
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. What President and generals and advisers Missing In Southeast Asia, the first organiza-
would be the situation if the first of did not know what they were talking tion formed by family members, has a mem-
July 1972, arrived and the prisoners of about, did not have the foggiest idea of bership far greater than any other group,
war had not been returned? what was going on or what we should do. including the POW/MIA Families for Im-
Mr..MINSHALL. Does the gentleman If they did know, then you have to credit mediate Release. The League of Families is
mean the first of June? them with evil intentions, and I hate to not in agreement with Congressman Boland
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama.. Whatever do that, although the Pentagon papers Yes nor we ntaouri pri
the amendment says, if it is the first of possible ant our priswant home cn
make it look as though our leaders were ly as poand we want an accounting
g
June 1972. Let us assume we reach a pretty byzantine crowd. I think it is of our missing men but when we leave the
June 1, 1972, and the prisoners-have not pretty clear that the President does not entire process of negotiations rest with the
been returned? know best. He has no monopoly on infor- North Vietnamese, which in essence this
Mr. MINSHALL. It would be a tragic mation or wisdom. People around him amendment permits, we sincerely doubt that
situation, as has been repeatedly tell him what he wants to hear, and they we will gain any satisfactory conclusion to
painted out. Our hands would be tied. have been doing that for years and years. the MIA/POW dilemma.
We would not be able to do a darned It is time for the Congress to reassert strongly we, the maturity r flly co memthis
thing about it, urge you to carefully consider this
its responsibility. You are asked to au- amendment for we have faith in our govern-
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Does the thorize these appropriations, you are ment that our men, missing and prisoners
gentleman thick the. Vietcong and the asked to appropriate the money, you are are not and will not become second rate
North Vietnamese will ever return those asked to draft the thousands of boys who issues.
prisoners unless we make them do it? did not have the foggiest idea,, of what Sincerely,
Mr. MINSHALL. I certainly hope they this was all about. You have had to com- National oo rrdinn,
will .. I only hope they will keep future fort the mothers and fathers who came (Similar letter written onal to Cooator.
promises better than they have kept past nongressan
to you. Now you are told, having done all G. V. MONTGOMERY who has been very close-
ones' that and having gone along and having ly associated with the POW-MIA situation.)
Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair- been good children, that you should not
man, I move to strike the requisite num- have anything to do with getting those Mr ahmr orit this letter lies ofete
bar of words. boys back out of Vietnam. the great majority of the not like the the
ethey do not like the Bo-
Bo-
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the A lot of this opposition to the Boland 1 d amendment.
Boland amendment. Much has been amendment comes from those who land made of the prisoners of war in Vietnam, want the President to get the full credit Mr. Chairman, the North
eal Vietnamese
the ot
and those of us who know the families for getting us out of Vietnam. i-along and the Vietcong are veriy fought, most
of those prisoners have some sense of with you-have had to take my share of shou ld enemy a have ever n andWhy
what agony they are going through and the responsibility and the blame. Now I should we set a date certain and hope desperately they want to get their want to be able to take some of the credit. that the yne that act in good byith the
sons and husbands back. I want to be able to tell my constituents- an enemy that never abided by the
But men are now today dying in Viet- and my own son-that I had something Geneva Accords, an enemy that has shot
down Americans over Laos, and where
ream. If this war keeps on for another to do with getting us out of Vietnam.
6 months or a year, as many additional I yield back the balance of my time. those never we did not rescue we have
men will die in Vietnam as there are now Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, never heard from.
prisoners in Vietnam, and those men who I move to strike the requisite number of I might say that the State Department
are still on the battlefield and who may words. reports that in the 6 months period of
yet die deserve as much consideration as Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to March to October 1970, 1,300 letters were
the men who are there prisoners. the Boland amendment. received from POW's by American fami-
I believe the opposition to this amend- I am no expert on Vietnam or South- lies in the States. In the same period now,
ment comes from those who want us to east Asia, but, Mr. Chairman, I have 1971, only 170 letters have been received
believe that "Poppa knows best" and that been in Vietnam a number of times. I from the POW's. Can anyone explain
children should not interfere. Congress was over there only last August. I believe this?
has too long proceeded on this theory I have some knowledge of the situation. What are you going to do in the Boland
that the President knows best, that he I am opposed to the Boland amend- amendment is take away the negotiating
knows what he is doing and can be ment because, in the first place, it is not power of our Government and give all of
counted on to do the right thing and necessary. The President is withdrawing the trump cards to the North Vietnamese.
that we should give him the money and Americans from Indochina in large num- Mr. Chairman, as Admiral Moorer,
the manpower he wants. bers and the withdrawal is going on in an Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
For 9 years that we have been in Viet- orderly fashion. I saw it with my own said:
nam I have served in the Congress. How eyes only last August. It takes time to If you take the route of the Mansfield and
many hours I have sat and listened in withdraw men and equipment, and a time Boland amendments, there is a possibility we
committee to generals, Secretaries of De- certain will not accomplish anything. will not get all of the Americans back.
fense, and Secretaries of State. I have Mr. Chairman, I guess what concerns Mr. Chairman, the amendment is based
been. to the White House and I have me most about the Boland amendment on the release of American prisoners of
listened to the President and all his glam- is the weakening of our position as to war and does not consider-and this is a
orous advisers who claim to have all the the prisoners of war and as to the miss- point that has not been mentioned to-
inside information. And I, just as you, ing in action. I know my colleague, Mr. day-does not consider the release of
have voted for the money, BOLAND-and I hope he is here on the Australian prisoners of war, New Zealand
The gentleman from Indiana has floor-sent each Member a letter from prisoners of war, and the South Korean
pointed out how his son went to Viet- the Prisoners of War, Missing in Ac- prisoners of war who had been our
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 Approved ForCONGRESSIONAL? k~I -W73W 9 0004001i ,1 er 17, 1971
friends for many years fighting in South ignores the request of this Nation and the turn of our prisoners, I believe we can end
Vietnam as well as our other allies. This national policy of this Nation as set by the war in 30 days.
amendment leaves our Allies to get their the Congress, he flouts the language of The Boland amendment merely imple-
prisoners back the best way they can; I the law he himself has signed. Let me ments the request we have already made
ask, Is this fair? read in part that law which was signed and makes mandatory of the President
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, will the by the President himself when we passed that which we have already requested
gentleman yield? the amendments to the Selective Service that he do, that we change our negoti-
Mr. MONTGOMERY.. I yield to the Act of 1967: ating posture at Paris.
gentleman from Arizona. The Congress hereby urges and requests Mr. Chairman, I hope the House will
M. RHODES. I want congratulate the
policy bn implement immediately the adopt DOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to
the gentleman on the statement t he he has pressed P Y Y i
made and particularly upon the activi- following actions: strike the requisite number of words.
a for the establishing of a final date (Mr. DOW asked and was given per-
ties of the gentleman in furtherance of Vietnam Negotiate
the welfare of our fighting men in Viet- for the withdrawal from Indochina of all mission to revise and extend his re-
nam, not only the men who are now military forces of the United states con- marks.)
fighting, but the prisoners of war and tingent upon the release at a date certain of Mr. DOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in sup-
the missing in action. The gentleman's all American prisoners of war held by the port of the Boland amendment. The hour
activities have been Over a longer period Government of North Vietnam and forces is late, but there is still a chance that
of time more fruitful than those of any allied with such government. Congress can assert itself finally on the
other Member of the House and I con- Mr. Chairman, that was a single condi- Indochina issue, and assume the leader-
gratulate the gentleman. tion passed by the Congress and enacted ship necessary to bring us out of that
Mr. DOW. Mr. Chairman, will the gen- into ]law, a request only, but still a request entanglement. Clearly the executive is
tleman yield? by the Congress of the United States that not-in the foreseeable future-going to
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the makes the laws of this Nation. do it.
gentleman from New York. Mir. Chairman, there is a clear consti- At present there is no writ, declara-
Mr. DOW. At one time the United tutional issue here. The Congress makes tion or pronouncement to warrant U.S.
States had 550,000 men in Vietnam. I the law and the President is charged with intervention in Indochina. That irres-
think the gentleman will have to agree faithfully executing those laws. Even as olute document, the Gulf of Tonkin res-
that the presence of those men was of Commander in Chief, his powers are de- olution, was nullified by this Congress at
no effect in securing the release of our fined and limited by the Congress under the end of 1970. The appeal in that paper
to the SEATO treaty was consequently
prsoners of war. the is westablished by the Supreme abandoned. No authority remains.
How does the gentleman suppose, This was a We are in Indochina for no declared
when we have reduced our forces down Court of the United States over 160 there because declared
possibly to a figure of less than 100,000 years ago, about the same time that Mar- purpareose ose. in
We are just a f there. It is clear, tthat, after we
shortly, that with that small number of bury v. Madison established the right of have gone, the clear, too, and the after we
men we will have any leverage to get the Court to review the acts of the Con- American and all. conclu-
those prisoners out by force or threat of gress. sion will a not the
week after we go, or a month,
force? As the chairman of the Armed Services it takes a decade, the solution will
h
Mr. MONTGOMERY. I will say to the Committee has said, "We have only one or a solution. And that they
gentleman from New York that we will President." But that President is bound be a year a Vietnaormeg ago, if the that hey
have a holding force in Vietnam which to execute the laws we enact. could have had se lonca e, t ceto interfere.
U
will be around 50,000 men plus a strong We have told the President in clear and States The had commitment Eat chosen of ere-
them striking force. We will not be leaving unmistakable language: sources, the lt of so much h of o blood
them by themselves over there. and we Mr. President, there is only one condition in Vietnam, must
are not turning the negotiations over to we ask for our withdrawal: the return of our for laid notndefined undefined s p pturposes the door of the ust
the North t does. Vietnamese, which the Boland prisoners. ecutive, but also at the door of this Con-
Mr. R E does. That power does the President have to gress which stood listlessly by, all the
strikMr. the requisite of wordsI move to decide that he will impose a second con- time that the executive went busily
strike the requisite e and was dition? The survival of a government about his futile work.
(Mo. RIEGLE asked and wegiven per- which is clearly a police state-which Through 7 years of warfare in Indo-
mission to revise and extend his re- pursues denial of due process, torture, china, the Congress and the leaders of
marks.) repression of dissent on a daily basis? the responsible committees have culti-
Mr. Mr. RIEGLE. Boland Chmr dm I rise in And when the President imposes that vated legislative inaction like a flower.
support d the the from fro and I condition, what does it do for our prison- They have accepted a policy of congres-
now yield to the gentleman Cal- ers of war? We continue to withdraw our sional abdication and constitutional tor-MCCLOSKEY) ifornia (Mr. OSICE . M. troops. Obviously the people have over- por.
Mr. Mto speak to Mr. Chairman, e whelmingly demanded this withdrawal. They have not even required from the
Bo like to speak tthe one aspect of the What possible help does it give to our Executive an accounting of the cost of
Bollan and amendment, the question ion of the prisoners to continue to withdraw and yet this adventure. For a time in the previous
prPrev o l war. demand that the war be won? Does not administration we received a total figure
Previously, the Congress a the earliest has requested our negotiating posture diminish as time in the budget that was the annual cost
the practicable to on osingle goes by? of Vietnam. Yet the present administra-
If we continue to insist on winning the tion has discontinued any such figure.
and d
be accounted for a condition,
that prisoners s one
e prisoners
returned. war through Vietnarnization, how can we The fault is no more his than ours, con-
The President, however, has insisted ask for our prisoners back? Clearly the sidering our woeful failure to insist upon
upon a second condition-that the North North Vietnamese know and understand it.
Vietnamese and the Vietcong cease their that this holding of our pirsoners of war Two years- ago the record showed ex-
attempts to overthrow the government of is their most important bargaining penditure of $5 million in Cambodia. Now
South Vietnam. He has said that we will weapon. They have no reason to return Congress is settling for figures in the
continue the bombing in Laos, Cambodia the prisoners if we insist on remaining in hundreds of millions of dollars. When I
and Vietnam until there is a reasonable Vietnam until the South Vietnamese went to Laos in 1967, our Ambassador
chance that the Thieu-Ky government Government is secure. showed me a cost estimate of our annual
survives. The President's policy, in my judg- costs there that was approximating $55
Secretary of Defense Laird has said ment, condemns our prisoners to indefi- million. Today, truer figures have come
that this bombing may be required for nice captivity. If the President would to light showing totals for Laos, like
10 years. comply with the suggestion Congress has. Cambodia, running to hundreds of mil-
Mr. Chairman, when the President already made, that our negotiators be lions of dollars.
adds this second condition for our with- instructed to reduce our demand to the To the stupefying recital of our mis-
drawal from Southeast Asia, he not only single demand, the condition of the re- takes, losses, and wastes in Indochina, we
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, A" roved Fot ' "%S2MYAi tt 6fB 7 R6R000400120011-3 H 11179
must add the dismal failure of this Con- concurrent demands that are being made
gress to assume responsibility. Chloro- and that have been made and it certainly
formed by the slogan that the President does not provide us with any assurance
is Commander in Chief, we have been that if a deadline is established, the pris-
willing to allow that this permits him to oners will be returned.
invade any land, expend our sons and I certainly must challenge the credi-
drain our resources, without a warrant or bility of anyone who asserts that once a
leave from this Congress-and without deadline has been set, then the prisoners
any accounting of the cost. will be returned.
When will there be a reassertion of So here we have the inconsistency of
the congressional prerogative as a co- the sponsors of this amendment on the
ordinate branch of this Government? one hand telling us that a deadline is
When will we become legislators again contingent upon a prior release. In other
on foreign issues? words-no release-no deadline.
The time is now. Let us end not only the On the other hand, we are told that
monstrous calamities that we have visited this nonexistent deadline will assure the
upon Indochina, but also the executive release of the prisoners. I believe this
department's heedlessness of Congress amendment will condemn our prisoners
which has been tolerated in this sleep- and not help them. I strongly oppose it,
ing body for nearly 7 years. and I hope we will not mislead those
Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will who yearn for the return of the Ameri-
the gentleman yield? can prisoners of war by giving them a
Mr. DOW. I yield to the gentleman. guarantee which is no guarantee at all.
Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman from Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, will the
Mississippi mentioned prisoners of war gentleman yield?
from other.countries such as Australia Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I am happy
and the Philippines. - to yield to the gentleman from New York.
I 'am under the impression that those Mr. KEMP. I would like to commend
countries have long ago withdrawn all the gentleman for his remarks. I would
of their troops from Vietnam. like to address the attention of the House
I wish some member of the Committee to point 1 of the seven-point demands
on Armed Services would inform us if made by Hanoi which sheds light on what
that is correct. they really want. The quotation is this:
Mr. DOW. I cannot answer the gentle- The United States Government must put
man whether the Australian or Korean an end to its war of aggression in Vietnam,
forces have been withdrawn or not, but stop the policy of "Vietnamization" of the
I do say this prisoner of war issue is being war, withdraw from South Vietnam all
blown up and exploded into an immense troops, military personnel, weapons, and war
issue which is offered to fog the main materiels of the United States and of other
question-and that is the direction of our mantle foreign countries in the U.S. camp, and dis-
n Vietnam,
national policy overall in Vietnam. without posing U.S. g any y condition os iwhatsoever.
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike out the last word Mr. Chairman, it is clear that this is
and rise in opposition to the amendment. a call for the unconditional and uni-
(Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin asked and lateral surrender of the United States.
was given permission to revise and ex- This amendment should be defeated and
tend his remarks.) I commend the gentleman for his re-
Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- marks and his leadership on this issue.
man, as I read this amendment, within Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. It certainly
the four corners of the paragraph, I must puts the lie to any intended assurance
interpret it as an unconditional deadline that once we set a deadline, that that is
for the use of any funds for the support all that is required to assure the return
of Americans in Vietnam. of our prisoners.
Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, will the
any ambiguity which would permit any- gentleman yield further?
one to read that amendment and come Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the
to a different conclusion. If that is so, it gentleman from New York.
strikes a cruel blow at those who have Mr. KEMP. I thank the gentleman for
fought and who are fighting, and to those yielding. It is a great disservice I think
who are prisoners of war in that part of to the people of this country and, to those
the world. who are watching and listening to this
But, if we say there is ambiguity which debate, to mislead them into thinking
negates it as being unconditional, as the that this is a way to end war. The House
author of the amendment said when of Representatives, by voting for this
pressed and when he said, "Oh, no, this Boland-Mansfield. amendment, is not
condition does not apply at all unless going to end war. It has been said that
there has been a prior release of our you can elect who you want to be your
prisoners." leader but you cannot elect not to have
Then, I submit this represents a cruel a leader. We have an elected leader and
hoax upon our prisoners, upon their fam- he is bringing about more progress to-
ilies and upon the American people. ward ending this war and given more
We are told in the statement of the hope for the kind of peace we want, than
additional views that it has been stated all of this rhetoric and I might add our
by the negotiators in Paris that the pris- desire is not just for peace now but peace
oners are not going to be returned until for the future, and I suggest that we
a deadline for our military involvement give our serious consideration to voting
has been established. down this pernicious amendment. The
If we accept that at face value, it still way to help end this war is to shout loud
Reaves open the question about other and clear to Hanoi by this vote that we
want an honorable end to this war and
an immediate return of our POW's and
MIA's.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the last word.
(Mr. KOCH asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I have lis-
tened to the debate and I was struck by
the remarks of the distinguished Chair-
man of the Armed Services Committee
(Mr. HtsERT) who opened his remarks by
saying, "I am weary." My thought at that
moment was, this country is weary. This
country wants the war ended.
Then Chairman HESERT said:
When are we going to stop debating the
Mansfield amendment?
My thought at that moment was that
we are going to stop debating the Mans-
field amendment when we adopt that
amendment, and not before.
Three gentlemen, at least three, took
the floor in opposition to the Boland
amendment, advancing as their argu-
ments, that it does not do what the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
BOLAND) says it will. They say they find
the language imprecise and that it does
not specifically insure the prior or simul-
taneous release of our prisoners of war
on the setting of the withdrawal date.
The gentleman from Massachusetts tried
to assure them that that was the intent.
He felt that the language was adequate.
The legislative history of the debate here
would show that, but I ask those three
men who took the floor if the language
were all that you wanted with respect to
insuring the return of our prisoners of
war, which we all want, would you vote
for it? Would you vote for it?
Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KOCH. I am delighted to yield to
the gentleman from Arizona.
Mr. RHODES. The Military Procure-
ment Act of 1971 contained language
which indicated very strongly that it is
the policy of the Congress that we want
to get out of the war in Vietnam. I voted
for it, but I do not have to do so every
day to prove that I mean it.
Mr. KOCH. Let me respond to that by
saying this: I believe it is important that
this Congress-if it has the authority, the -
power, the desire, and the will to do so-
debate this issue every day until those
men are brought home and the war is
ended.
Members have risen to commend the
President because he is, they say, "wind-
ing down the war." Who will say to the
fathers and the mothers of the 5 or 8
young American men who last week were
killed in Vietnam that the war has been
wound down? Or to those who may yet
die before, in fact, the war is ended? To
them it is not a question of winding down.
It is a question of the deaths of their sons.
That is why I say we should use every
opportunity and amendment offered in
this House to debate this war until it is
concluded, not tomorrow, but today; not
6 months from now, but today. -
And if the best vehicle presented to
us today is that amendment offered by
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R00040012(11-3
H 11180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 17, 1971
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
BOLAND) whom I applaud for leading us
today and for having spoken so elo-
quently, I am going to support it. And if
it is offered tomorrow on some other bill,
I am going to speak and vote for it, as I
will on every occasion when I can rise
in opposition to that dirty and immoral
war.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. KOCH. I yield to the gentleman
from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I was very
much impressed with the gentleman
from Indiana and the gentleman from
Maryland, who told of their sons in the
war. I, too, have had a boy in Vietnam,
a "grunt," a marine platoon leader, and
he spent 13 months on the DMZ and won
the Bronze Star in action.
I rise in support of the Boland amend
ment. I wonder whether or not any of
those who have riser} in opposition to
the amendment have also suffered the
anguish of a family who had a boy in
Vietnam.
Mr. O'KONSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the necessary number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, by way of background,
I would like to go into a little personal
history.- I have always been a man of
peace. I have been opposed to war when
it was unpopular to be so. I was opposed,
along with old Bob LaFollette, to our en-
try into World War I for which we were
called traitors. It is different now. The
biggest racket we have in the country
today is the peace racket. There is more
money collected in the name of peace
and unaccounted for than any other
racket in the country. But I am talking
about a time when it was unpopular to
be for peace and against war.
In the middle of World War II, in 1944,
I was here and I introduced a resolution
that we withdraw our troops from Eu-
rope then, because we could have had a
separate peace with Germany, and we
could have saved a great many people
who were burned in gas chambers. We
could have saved many of the people
whose lives were lost at Anzio Beach
and Omaha Beach and other places. We
did not need to kill 135,000 women and
children in Dresden, Germany, with
bombs. We could have had peace before
then.
The war in Vietnam, the Members will
remember, had the first $2 billion ap-
propriation in 1954. I opposed it, and
warned against our involvement there.
I think we have had no business in Viet -
nam in the first place, and I think the
sooner we get out of there, the better. We
cannot get out of there too soon as far
as I am concerned. In 1957, 1961, 1963,
1964, 1965-67 I opposed the war in Viet-
nam. Please heed my advice. The worst
thing we could do in my judgment is to
pass the Mansfield-Boland amendment.
I will tell the Members why. Suppose the
Mansfield-Boland amendment were in
existence in 1954 when the French got
defeated in Dienbienphu. Suppose the
French had it tied withdrawal to the
prisoners of war and an accounting for
all the missing in action? The French
would still be in Vietnam now, 17 years
later.
Suppose we had tied the condition of have now grown to adulthood. They have
the ending of World War II in Europe reached the age of 18, and we are still in-
to the accounting for every single pris- v ved in Vietnam.
one:r of war and missing in action? I T recall years ago when I took the floor
know of 10,000 allied officers still unac- many times in favor of the war. It was
counted for in World War II in Europe. with feeling that I rose in support of the
We would still have 5 million troops in war. And it is with feeling I rise at this
Europe if we had tied it down to the ac- time. I know how the distinguished gen-
counting of missing-in-actions and the tleman from New Orleans feels. So many
release of prisoners of war. times I had gone to the area schools of
Suppose the Mansfield amendment my district supporting the administra-
were in existence in 1969 when President tion's policy in Vietnam, until it occurred
Nixon took office. We would still have
550,000 troops in Vietnam, because it
would have been tied to the releasing of
the prisoners of war and the accounting
for all of the missing in action.
How can you be so naive? If we are
going to tie withdrawal to the prisoners
of war and those missing in action we
will be in Vietnam for another 10 years.
One gentleman said it very bluntly when
he said we had 550,000 men in Vietnam,
and we could not negotiate on the pris-
oners of war, so how in the world are we
going to do it when we have only a resid-
ual force of 45,000 men and have served
notice that we are going to be out of
there completely as soon as possible.
If Members want to continue the war
for the next 5 or 10 years-vote for the
Mansfield-Boland ~ amendment. Who is
so naive as not to know the Communists
use the prisoners of war in a completely,
different fashion from all civilized na-
tions in the past. The Communists use
prisoners for propaganda ptlrposes. They
are not concerned with our getting back
our prisoners of war and getting them
out of Vietnam. Mark you and mark you
well we are going to have to pay a heavy
ransom for the prisoners of war we have
in Vietnam, and it is going to amount to
billions of dollars, and it is going to take
us 3 or 4 or 5 or maybe 10 years to
negotiate it. Under the Mansfield-Boland
amendment we will be compelled to keep
troops in Vietnam during all that time.
I want out now-not 5 or 10 years from
now.
If you pass the Boland-Mansfield
amendment conditioning our withdrawal
of troops from Vietnam on the release
of prisoners of war and the accounting
for all MIA's you are voting to prolong
the war in Vietnam for another 5, 10,
or 15 years, and it is on your heads that
you are prolonging the war.
Stripped of all its niceties the, Mans-
field-Boland amendment. is another
Tonkin Bay resolution in disguise. Do
we want a repetition of that catas-
trophe? Think, listen, and learn; is not
one Tonkin Bay resolution enough in our
time? I think one is too much. Let us get
out of Vietnam now-not 5 or 10 years
from now, which is the real meaning of direct and indirect negotiations. These
the Mansfield-Boland amendment. negotiations will continue regardless of
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment, just as the troops will
to strike the requisite number of words. continue to be withdrawn regardless of
(Mr. O'NEILL asked and was given this amendment.
permission to revise and extend his re- What is the question that we are argu-
marks.) ing? We have come to a divided line in
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Chairman, as the American history, and this is the ques-
gentleman from Wisconsin just said, it tion: Should we continue to live with the
has been 18 years since we authorized war in Vietnam as we have for the past
and appropriated $2 billion and sent it 18 years? Do you want a continuing
over to Bao Dai and the French. It has presence in Vietnam of American troops
been 18 years now that we have been in- for many years to come a reality? Or do
velved in Indochina. you want the troops home by June 1 of
Children, who were babies at that time, 1972?
to me to check the other side of the issue.
Could we justify our involvement in
Vietnam? As I stand here in this well to-
day, I cannot justify morally, politically,
or strategically in terms of the defense
of this Nation any reason for being in
Vietnam.
I truly have been moved by some of the
speeches made in this House today, espe-
cially that one by my good friend ED
RovsH, when he told about his son's
experience in Vietnam.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
I live with EDDIE BOLAND. I know his
thoughts and feelings and the work he
has put into this amendment.
Under the Constitution the Congress
has the right to declare war.
Under the powers of the Constitution,
the Congress has control over the purse,
and has the power to appropriate and
authorize funds for the conduct of this
war.
Under the powers of the Constitution,
the Congress has the right to terminate
the authorization and appropriation of
funds for the conduct of this war.
Through this constitutional power of
the purse, the end product is that the
Congress has the right to terminate a
war by setting a deadline for funding
for the conduct of a war.
I am not standing here to criticize
President Nixon's feelings and actions
with regard to the war.
This amendment is not designed to tie
the hands of President Nixon on the
withdrawal of troops; nor does it tie his
hands on negotiations over the release
of prisoners of war. The amendment says
nothing,about the withdrawal of troops
at the continued pace which the Presi-
dent has set forth. It does not affect his
withdrawal program.
It does not affect negotiations, because
the amendment is contingent on the re-
lease of prisoners of war. If the prison-
ers of war are not released by June 1,
1972, the amendment as offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr.
BOLAND) is not valid. The release of pris-
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, -oved Fore (t /J5R - P73IYa( 6R000400120011-3 H 11181
I, for one, want the troops home by card that he could use in the negotiations The decision in Massachusetts against
June 1, 1972. I would have them home for the release of the prisoners of war Laird by the highest Federal court yet
tomorrow if it were possible. and for the recovery of the missing in to rule on the war's constitutionality,
I believe the Boland amendment is an action and for the total termination of removes any question of the appropriate-
excellent amendment, and I urge Mem- our military conflict in Vietnam. ness of the Boland amendment. It can
bers to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members no longer be argued that the appropri-
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chairman, of this body as strongly as I can that any ation process can be separated from the
I move to strike the requisite number of amendment with restraints of this kind legitimacy of the war. If we fail today
words. will jeopardize the opportunities for the to pass this amendment we will ex-
Mr. Chairman, those of us who have President to get our prisoners of war out plicitly be ratifying the continuation of
known our friend from Massachusetts, and end this military conflict. a policy which we know to be a catas-
EDDIE BOLAND, for a long time know that I say in conclusion we have on the trophe.
among his many fine characteristics and statute books now not one but two statu- This amendment would not improp-
attributes he is always ;frank, he is al- tory provisions that say we must get our erly restrict the President with respect
ways candid; and, typical of those char- prisoners of war back and withdraw all of to any attempts which he may be mak-
acteristics, today he was frank and can- our forces. I just do not know how many ing to secure the release of prisoners of
did with us in making two comments, times you have to pile on the statute war. The amendment would not take ef-
among others, in support of his amend- books another piece of legislation of the feet unless our prisoners of war were re-
ment. same kind. turned. Moreover, based on the sum total
First he said that this is the toughest, I say to you this is bad legislation and of evidence from all sides on this ques-
hardest amendment of this kind that this it ought to be defeated. If you want the tion, I do not believe that we can real-
Congress has had on its doorstep. Sec- prisoners of war back, beat the Boland istically expect to obtain the return of
ond, the gentleman from Massachusetts amendment. our prisoners of war in the forseeable
gave credit to President Nixon for the Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in future unless we pass this amendment
program of Vietnamization which has re- support of the amendment by my col- today. The official organization of the
sulted in a reduction of our manpower in league from Massachusetts, Congress- families of our prisoners of war and
Vietnam from 540,000 plus down to man BOLAND, to the Department of De- missing in action has endorsed the Bo-
roughly 180,000 at the present time and fense appropriations bill for fiscal year land amendment.
the prospect of a further reduction to 1972. The amendment would prohibit the I will not insult the intelligence and
139,000 come January 31, 1972. use of funds "to finance any military concern of my colleagues by again re-
These are honest, frank statements combat or military support operations by citing the tragic consequences of the
which all of us ought to appreciate and U.S. forces in or over South Vietnam, Vietnam debacle. Now that every theo-
understand, and I, for one, especially ap- North Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia after retical underpinning of this holocaust
preciate the gentleman from Massachu- June 1, 1972," subject to the release of have been proved wrong-including the
setts candid comments. American prisoners of war. so-called domino theory and the ridicu-
Let me ask this question, recognizing This amendment, the latest and most lous charade which resulted in the ascen-
that those were honest and frank state- promising in a series of attempts to as- sion to power of Thieu-we must act.
mernts by the gentleman from Massa- sert the will of the overwhelming ma- Every day we sanction the sacrifice of an-
chusetts: At a time when the war is being jority of the American people with re- other life of another Asian or another
ended, is it wise to approve the toughest, spect to our Indochina policy, rises in an American on the altar of the South Viet-
hardest amendment that the House of unparalleled political, constitutional, and namese dictatorship we are perpetuating
Representatives has faced on this issue? historical context. an injustice of ghastly proportions.
In my judgment, the reverse should Politically, this amendment represents Mr. Chairman, I have recently com-
be true. If the ? President were not suc- the last clear chance for the Members pleted a comprehensive review of the nine
ceeding, if he had not accomplished a of this House to vote their consciences volumes of hearings of our Appropria-
great deal, then I could understand some- on the Vietnam war. Some of our col- tions Committee on this bill. If any one
body saying in frustration that the House leagues have previously declined to sup- theme emerged from those hearings, it
of Representatives and the Congress of Port such an amendment on the ground was, I regret to state, that we have not
the United States ought to take tough that the President would soon declare a learned the lesson which the excruciat-
action. But here is the President, with- definite withdrawal date. Those well- ing evidence of our policies in Southeast
out the help of any such amendment fix- intentioned expectations have, trag- Asia should have taught us. Even as the
Ing a date for withdrawal or imposing ically, not been realized. In the absence committee today recommends a defense
other arbitrary conditions, who has re- of Executive willingness to establish a appropriation of $71.05 billion-an in-
duced America's manpower commitment deadline, Congress has a greater respon- crease of $1.47 billion above the amount
from 540,000 plus to 180,000. That sibility to do so in light of the over- appropriated last year-we continue to
achievement has been done without such whelming expressed desire on the part be mired in the rhetoric of the 1950's and
an amendment. Why under these cir- of the citizens of our country for such a 1960's. I deplore this increase in appro-
cumstances should we seek to impose deadline. priations, and I believe the military
upon the President the hardest, the In a constitutional sense, this amend- budget is grossly disproportionate to our
toughest amendment that has come be- ment is historic because it arises in the national security needs.
fore the Congress? wake of the recent decision by the U.S. Buried in the ninth volume of the Ap-
It is my honest opinion that if the Con- Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in propriations Committee's hearings, in
gress approves this amendment with a the case of Massachusetts against Laird. small print, is a statement-by the distin-
deadline, it will destroy the potential for In that case, the Commonwealth of Mas- guished former Senator from Pennsyl-
any further withdrawals. As a matter of sachusetts had challenged the legitimacy vania, Joseph S. Clark. I associate myself
fact, I think approval of this amendment of the war in Vietnam on the ground with Senator Clark's statement and
would in effect stop withdrawals under that -Congress has never voted a declara- commend it to the attention of my col-
the plan of Vietnamization that the Pres- tion of war. The court rejected the claim, leagues.
ideni; has implemented . ' It is my judg- stating that Congress has constitu- Among other things, Senator Clark
ment that if this amendment is approved, tionally sanctioned the war by voting states :
it will in effect end any negotiations that appropriations for it. In its opinion, the That we could safely cut the President's
would be meaningful. It would take away court stated: $76 billion budget to no more than $60 bil-
from the President, regardless of some In a situation of prolonged but undeclared lion. In coming to this conclusion we be-
of the comments made earlier, a trump hostilities where the Executive continues to lieve:
card of the President for his negotiations, act not only in the absence of any conglct- Our military policy is obsolete in the light
whether they are in Paris, whether they ing claim of authority but with steady Con- of our overall foreign relations today. The
are in Peking, or whether they are in gressionai support, the Constitution has not administration has proposed a bill for of-
Moscow. If the Boland amendment is been breached. The war in Vietnam is a fence rather than defense. It is not isolation-
approved. The President would product of the President's supportive action ism to suggest that we pull in all over the
go to of the two branches to whom the congeries world our conventional forces, eliminate
those negotiations with one less trump of the war powers have been committed, many of our bases and confine our strategic
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 Approved For Release 2001/11/15: CIA-RDP73B00296R0004001 o01I - er 17, 1971
1111182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE
power to eliminating overkill and assuring (f) The 22 tactical air wings are far too to abandon our position of leadership in
that no enemy would dare stage a first strike many. We could eliminate at least five and the world, and if we are to serve notice
against our country. still have plenty for conventional warfare that we will not help anyone who fights
These excessive military expenditures are purposes. Communist aggression.
teasing the country apartr-both our ecan- Mr. Chairman, I hope that for all we have solemn treaty obligations. I
omy and our relationships with each other.
Our needs home to feed the foregoing reasons, a majority of am not saying that they are right or
to to to
clear the Members of this House will support wrong, but we have them. In my judg-
clear our air r and water o of fd pollution, the hungry,
build our'cities, should have a higher prior- the Boland amendment and will also sup- ment, we should either honor'those ob-
Ity than the ever-increasing demands of the port prudent and essential reductions in ligations, or we should abandon them-
military. our military budget, including the reduc- all of them, not just the one affecting
These excessive military expenditures are tions which our distinguished colleagues South Vietnam.
g the principal reason for the ng infix- from Wisconsin and Michigan, Congress- I have been amused to hear on the floor
tion from which we have been suffering, for man AsPIN and Congressman RIEGLE, that one reason for the Boland amend-
deficit we the ra budget for this nd he facing in the ment is that there were no free elections
Federal budget for the and deficit the in our next inne fiscal propose.
year, for the incredible ter- I, for one, shall continue to seize every in South Vietnam this year. I would ask
national balance of payments which goes on opportunity to reassert the proper social those who hold to that position, how
and on without check. In short, we are run- role of those who design and execute many free elections are there in Africa,
ning out of money. our military policy. in South America, in other Asian coun-
Mr. Chairman, I also specifically en- Mr. COTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in tries? The advocates of that position do
dorse the following recommendations support of the amendment offered by my not suggest that we abandon our obliga-
for defense budget cuts made by Sena- good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. tions to those nations-they single out
tor Clark in the course of his testimony: BOLP,ND). This amendment, as is well only South Vietnam.
(1) Stop appropriating money for the de- known, will cut off funds for Indochina I have also heard it said on the floor
velopment and deployment of. the ABM. It pending only the release of prisoners of that we sthe hould get out of there has C Asia
won't work. In view of the President's state- war.
meat of May 20, we should certainly freeze This amendment restores the critically ruption in it. What about the New York
ABM deployment and R. & D. appropriations important specific end date that was re- City Police Department? Should we
pending the results of the SALT talks. moved in the conference versions of the abandon every aid to New York City?
(2) Abandon development and production Department of Defense authorization Mr. Chairman, we have to put first
of the B-1 strategic bomber. It is obsolete bills. I believe, as I have stated in the things first. The honor and glory of my
before it gets off the drawing boards. The past, that the Congress continues to have country comes first with me.
B-52 m any st a is coombin adequate for n the future
sub- the responsibility for legislating an end Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr.
marine ic u nuclear mbingn threatda. Between tsub-
me threat and intercontinental to this war. I know there are many Mem- Chairman, I rise in support of the
ballistic missiles we do not need a third of- bers who believe that total discretion in Boland amendment to H.R. 11731, which
fensive nuclear system. The Russians have this matter should be vested in the Pres- would establish June 1, 1972, as the ter-
stopped spending money on their intercon- ident. I cannot disagree more strongly. mination date for all U.S. military oper-
tinentai strategic bomber. The time factor All of my actions on Vietnam during. ations in Indochina, subject to a return
alone makes nuclear bombers obsolete. this, my first term, have been to place of all American prisoners and an ac-
(s) Freeze all strategic weapons
over kill their more responsibility on the Congress in counting of those missing in action. en- Chin,
or this area of foreign policy. For example, Why should a person support this
ogh, an ty tim m. es our over, to present deter Russian Rusissian or
a
Chinese attack. one of my first legislative actions was to amendment? There are many reasons:
(4) Deploy no more MIRV's and encourage cosponsor the Vietnam Disengagement First, to stop the death and destruc-
our negotiators at SALT to work to eliminate Act. A short time later, I signed a letter tion. I have heard people say, "Why, only
multiple warheads as part of an arms con- of intent-the O'Neill letter-to vote for five Americans were killed last week."
trol agreement. all amendments which would end the Mr. Chairman, that is five too many.
(5) Cut back the authorization for mill- war' by congressional action. I voted for One more life, one more amputee, one
tart' manpower to 2 million or less. As we from Indochina to the Nedzi-Whalen and the Mansfield more prisoner of war is far too large a
withdraw have no more purpose no Vietnams, , general eral purpose amendments in their original form which price to continue to prop up the Thieu
forces of 2 million are quite adequate to specified a specific time to end the war. regime.
defend U.S. territory against attack and to Mr. Chairman, I submit that we have Second, to return our American pris-
participate on an appropriate basis with honored our obligations in Indochina. oners of war and to account for those
other states through the United Nations Fifty thousand U.S. casualties, innum- missing in action. Mr. Chairman, as each
or otherwise in peacekeeping and peace- erable deaths of Southeast Asian peoples, day passes, as more and more service
(making efforts in the Middle East, Europe, and over $250 billion in U.S. military men return from Indochina, our power to
Asia, and elsewhere. supplies dictate that the Congress act bargain with the North Vietnamese and
(6) There are a number of obsolete and
obsolescent weapons systems on which no responsibly and effectively in legislating the Vietcong is gradually eroded. As each
more money should be spent. Among these an end to this tragic war. day passes, we have less and less to offer
are: I urge all Members to cast their totes the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong
(a) SAGE and AWACS. Air defense 7 in favor of this amendment. in order to gain the release of our men.
ridiculous in the modern strategic military Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise The President has announced plans
world. in opposition to the Boland amendment. to withdraw, but he insists upon a re-
(b) Another nuclear aircraft carrier. It Just at every other Member of this body, sidual force remaining in South Viet-
must be remembered that the surface navy and every citizen in our country, I hope nam. Next year, when we have this re-
of all nations is vulnerable to destruction and pray for an early conclusion of the sidual force in South Vietnam, will this
in the event of war. Either torpedo boats or conflict in Southeast Asia. I know of no release our men?
submarines can destroy not only aircraft one who wants war, except Communists I believe that, today, when we have
the e guns rat(A in that area. the most power, is the best time to nego-
tacks ers launched out nched out of surface range of vessels
tac
the surface navy. Similarly, an aircraft can I do not think this amendment is the tiate a release of our prisoners. Tomor-
wreak the same havoc. proper way to end the conflict there. If row, or next month, or next year, may be
(c) Further purchase of C-5A troop car- we are going to pull out of Southeast too late-our power may have weakened
rier airplanes. We have enough now to sup- Asia, and turn our back on a long and to the extent that we have nothing to
port legitimate foreign policy objectives. rich history of honor and integrity, we offer the North Vietnamese, and Viet-
(d) Antisubmarine warfare expenditures. should do it in the proper way. The cong in exchange for our prisoners of
As in other areas of modern warfare the proper way would be for Us to renege on war.
offense is so far ahead of any conceivable every treaty obligation we have around In addition, Mr. Chairman, on July 1,
defense that ASW is obsolete. the world. _ 1971, the Vietcong presented a new
(e) Chemical and biological warfare ex- We should cancel treaty arrangements "seven-point peace plan" to the talks in
services es. This be phased department of ethe xcept armed
should be phasout xc for tr tries, and all others, NATO, we are determined an offer to release U.S.t
prisoners defensive ers of war
measures.
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, lAoroved FoCONORE AtlMl A P-7-3 QO R000400120011-3 H 11183
in return for a withdrawal deadline. Prior
to this commitment, they had merely
offered to "discuss" release of prisoners.
Mr. Chairman, the POW/MIA Fami-
lies for Immediate Release, a nonpartisan
organization composed of parents, sisters,
wives, and children of prisoners of war
and missing. in action, stated in July:
We fell our government's obligation to
the American prisoners now should take
precedence over its obligation to the gov-
ernment of South Vietnam.
And they go on-
In accordance with this, we have been
working ilor the establishment of a termina-
tion date for U.S. military operations in
Indochina In conjunction with the return
of all prisoners and an accounting of the
missing in action by the date.
Mr. Chairman, I agree.
Third, U.S. prestige. _How can we con-
tinue to advocate freedom and liberty
on the one-hand, while, with the other,
we prop up the regime of a man who, by
hook or by crook, kept all other con-
tenders off the ballot in the recent elec-
tion?
Fourth, to heal our divided country and
put our resources to work in this country.
The alienation, the hate, the divisiveness,
that we have seen-we must, once more,
direct our efforts, in a united campaign,
to accomplish the goals that we seek here
at home: Better housing, improved
education, pollution control, social jus-
tice, a stable economy.
Mr. Chairman, this Nation is great, our
people are good-we want to work for a
purpose, but surely not for those pur-
poses which have led to over 360,000
American deaths and causalties in Viet-
nam, surely not for an uncontested, one-
man referendum, that is paraded under
the label of democracy.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that we must end
the war, bring out troops and prisoners
home, and account for the missing in
action.
Mr. Chairman, I vote for the Boland
amendment.
Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise In op-
position to the Boland amendment to
arbitrarily set a date of June 1, 1972, for
the termination of all American air,
ground, and sea power in Southeast Asia.
It is not in the interest of peace and a
final settlement with honor of this un-
fortunate conflict. I know of nothing
which would please the Communist ag-
gressor more than to have a definite date
this far in advance toward which they
could make their sinister and diabolical
plans. This amendment would tie the
President's hands and place him in an
impossible position to negotiate success-
fully in Peking.
We must maintain some bargaining
power and room for discussion and
maneuver. Complete abandonment of our
every single endeavor on a given date
could contribute to aggression and war
in some other theater.
The Red China delegation at the
United Nations is already demanding
total and abrupt U.S. withdrawal from
South Korea and Taiwan, as well as
Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and South
Vietnam.
President Nixon is withdrawing our
troops from South Vietnam ahead of
schedule. He is becoming disentangled
from this conflict as rapidly as possible.
I urge the House to take no action today
which would threaten the President's
Vietnamization program and endanger
the lives not only of American prisoners
but of our men as they withdraw.
Mr. Chairman, I respect and admire
the distinguished gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts (Mr. BOLAND). I know that he
is sincere and feels very deeply about this
war and I know of his concern for the
prisoners. But I urge this House, in the
interest of long-range peace plans and
long-range security, to reject the gen-
tleman's amendment. I will vote against
the Boland amendment and urge my col-
leagues to reject this amendment.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move to
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. MAHON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I am in
complete opposition to the Boland
amendment because I am in complete
support of effective efforts to bring the
war to an early and honorable end and to
secure the release of Americans held as
prisoners of war.
In my opinion the Boland amendment
will not serve the best interests of peace
or the prisoners of war. I have the great-
est respect for the author, the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. BOLAND) but I
feel the proposal represents an unsound
approach to the problem.
Mr. Chairman, some are speaking' as
though there had been no change in the
situation in Southeast Asia. But by the
end of January about 80 percent of our
Forces will have been withdrawn. Yet
some talk as though there has been no
change. This does not square with the
facts of the situation.
To impose an arbitrary withdrawal date
on the President and assume the fright-
ful responsibility of failure or disaster
when it is clear from the President's
statements and actions that American
involvement in the war is moving toward
termination, could have disastrous con-
sequences, and I think we all know it. To
cut off funds arbitrarily when the objec-
tives we have established-South Viet-
namese capability to handle its own se-
curity-appears to be possible of reali-
zation would be to risk grave conse-
quences.
The American people have indeed
made a massive investment in lives and
in our efforts in Southeast Asia. There
are those who are willing to throw that
aside and seek to receive no benefit on
the part of the greatest Nation on earth
from this tremendous sacrifice. This is
difficult to understand.
Mr. Chairman, the cost in lives to the
South Vietnamese, of course, has been
much greater. This is not the time to ask
whether the effort should have been
undertaken.
The war has proceeded with the sup-
port of the Congress and now is not the
time to argue about whether we should
have gone into Vietnam.
The war is ending. It will be ended. The
only question is how and when we com-
plete our American military involvement.
Will we seek to follow through toward a
reasonably acceptable conclusion-at
least a semisuccessful conclusion-or do
we wish to court disaster.
Our objective in this conflict is a South
Vietnam that can stand alone, and this
cannot be accomplished in 6 months. And
no one can guarantee that this objec-
tive will, be fully achieved. But we are
virtually certain to lose that objective
if we end all American involvement at a
fixed date 6 months from now. Are we
going to accept the proposition that our
losses and our sacrifices have been in
vain? I do not think so.
To adopt the Boland proposal would
involve trading a very good chance of
success for almost certain failure. We
have stayed together In this Congress
over a long and arduous course. We
should not, in one final moment of dis-
appointment near the end, forego all
prospects for a favorable. outcome. It is
unthinkable that any Member would
want an unfavorable outcome.
We did not do it in Korea. We pro-
tected our investment. We made sure
that we capitalized on the sacrifices we
had made.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are near the
end. American combat deaths, as high
as 500 per week 3 years ago, have
been less than 10 in each of the past 5
weeks. None of us will be content so long
as there is even one. Let us not lose sight
of how far we have come.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unan-
imous consent that the gentleman from
Texas may proceed for an additional 5
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Flor-
a .
Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. YATES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAsIoN).
Mr. MAHON. I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
The Boland amendment would tie the
President's hands at an extremely criti-
cal time, and would-undoubtedly-tend
to cripple and undermine the efforts of
the South Vietnamese.
Mr. Chairman, the Vietnamization pro-
gram has gained momentum and we hope
it will succeed. It can succeed if the prob-
lem is handled wisely by this country and
South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese,
with our help, are rapidly improving
their armed forces. Their readiness to
successfully defend themselves without
U.S. support or assistance cannot be
made to coincide with a predetermined
and arbitrary timetable.
Vietnamization is designed to permit
our total withdrawal from direct mili-
tary operations without jeopardizing the
departing U.S. troops.
The President must have sufficient
flexibility to continue support for the
South Vietnamese forces. We should not
abrogate our responsibility to continue to
provide materiel and maintenance sup
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11184
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 17, 1971
port through a military advisory mis- Mr. YATES. I was under the impres-
sion of some sort. sion that the gentleman said that the
We must make sure that we have a war is being won, however, I will accept
shield to protect our withdrawing forces. the gentleman's statement that the war
Continuing U.S. air support is critical is being wound down.
while the Vietnamese increasingly as- That winding down process has taken
sume responsibility for their own defense.
The safe withdrawal of U.S. forces de-
pends upon the availability of adequate
air support.
The readiness and capability of South
Vietnamese Armed Forces is dependent
upon the phased transfer of equipment,
ground operations, and air support in
terms of South Vietnamese capability to
increase their forces and readiness. While
impressive progress has been made, it
would be impossible to accomplish all
aspects of Vietnamization by June 1,
1972, in a manner that would give maxi-
mum assurance of the integrity of the
South Vietnamese forces.
In short, Mr. Chairman, what does an
arbitrary deadline at this moment gain
us? It could result chaos in South Viet-
nam with the North Vietnamese coming
on strong against off-balanced South
Vietnamese forces with the Americans in
the process of pulling out precipitously
caught in between.
Why should we voluntarily relinquish
a prime position of power which we now
possess in our determination to regain
our prisoners? Why should we relinquish
a position of power in dealing with the
Communists which could permit us to
end the conflict in Indochina under con-
ditions reasonable men would call hon-
orable?
The President is planning to visit
China and Russia in 1972. Obviously he
has a negotiating plan. We should not
deprive him of negotiating power and
options by fixing a total unilateral with-
drawal date from South Vietnam. It
would be cruel indeed to pull the rug
out from under the President of the
United States when he as President of
this great country. meets officials in Pe-
king and Moscow.
The efforts which we will yet be re-
quired to make in connection with the
conflict in Southeast Asia are small in-
deed compared to what we have done in
the recent past. Yet this last small in-
crement of effort-this exercise of pru-
dence-is crucial to a maximum chance
of realizing the objectives we sought.
This amendment would minimize if not
eliminate our chances. This is not the
way to make foreign policy. The amend-
ment should be soundly defeated in the
interest of the prisoners of war and in
the interest of peace.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I should
now like to speak in my own right, if I
may.
Mr. Chairman, I yielded to the gentle-
man from Texas because I consider him
to be one of the most respected and dis-
tinguished Members of the House. When
he speaks the House must listen. As it
happens, I do not agree with his views
on this subject, but GEORGE MAixON is
entitled to be heard.
The gentleman has said that the war
an enormously long time, and will go
on and on unless the Congress acts.
That point was assured by the Presi-
dent's statement today on the Mansfield
amendment. He said when he signed the
military authorization bill that even
though the Mansfield amendment is the
law he does not agree with it and will
not follow it.
Yes, troops have been withdrawn from
time to time. There have been reductions
in the number of troops in Vietnam. Yet,
the Secretary of Defense said the other
day to the press that he envisioned that
there would be a residual force in Viet-
nam for some time to come-that the
Air Force would continue to stay in
Vietnam.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
(/ff. YATES asked and was given per-
mission to proceed for 2 additional min-
utes.)
Mr.
ments
clear.
YATES. The President's state-
and his goals are certainly not
The distinguished gentleman from.
Ohio (Mr. MrNSHALL)' used the phrase,
in describing President Nixon's goals that
we have heard over the last 10 years. I
remember President Johnson saying the
same thing-that our goal in Vietnam is
to make sure that all foreign troops get
out. This was the goal, too, of President
Eisenhower and of the Kennedy admin-
istration as well.
The thing I am very concerned about
is that this might be the goal of the next
administration, also as the distinguished
whip mentioned-we, have come to a
fork in the road. We must make our
choice. The issue is clear. We must decide
whether we shall say the war must end
on June 1, 1972, or whether we shall
continue on the same path indefinitely
we have followed for years in the vague
hope that some day we will get out of
Vietnam.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose
does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr.
ANDREWS) a member of the committee
rise?
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that
the gentleman from Illinois graciously
yielded most of his time to our chairman,
I yield to my friend, the gentleman from
Illinois.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the point I wanted to
make was it is essential that we, in the
Congress, take action today. This is the
first real opportunity that we have had
for a vote on the question of cutting off
funds.
Is being won; that the war- The gentleman from Michigan, the
Mr. MAHON. I said that the war is distinguished minority leader, talks of
being wound down. I did not say the war voting for the Mansfield amendment time
was being won but I hope it is being and again. That may be true, but this is
brought to an honorable conclusion. the first opportunity we have had to im-
plement the Mansfield amendment by
using the recognized congressional power.
The Congress has the authority to end
this war by its control over the funds.
Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for the Bo-
land amendment and urge my colleagues
to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentle-
man from Alabama for yielding.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, the statement has been
made, I believe, by my good friend, the
gentleman from Illinois, that we do not
know the goals of the President in South-
east Asia. Well, let me help to clarify
that picture-here 'are the goals of the
President set forth in his own words in
the statement he made today at the time
he signed the Military Procurement Au-
thorization Act.
Here are the goals of the President, and
I quote:
Our goal and my hope is a negotiated set-
tlement providing for the total withdrawal
of all foreign forces including our own and
for the release of all prisoners and for a cease
fire throughout Indo China. In the absence of
such a settlement or until such a settlement
is reached, the rate of withdrawal of United
States forces will be determined by three fac-
tors-by the level of enemy activity, by the
progress of our program of Vietnamization
and by the progress toward obtaining the
release of all of our prisoners wherever they
are in Southeast Asia and toward obtaining
a cease fire for all of Southeast Asia.
It could not be stated any more clearly
and I hope that answers all questions
about the President's goals in Southeast
Asia.
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to
the gentleman.
Mr. PUCINSKI. I wonder if the gen-
tleman from Florida would not care to
tell us if those same goals were not the
identical goals of President Eisenhower,
President Kennedy, and President John-
son ever since we have been there.
So what is changed in this manifesto
that the gentleman just read?
Mr. SIKES. If the gentleman from
Alabama will yield further, I think per-
haps the fact that 80 percent of the
troops have been brought home or will
be at a specified time, should answer the
gentleman's question about the new and
positive efforts being made by President
Nixon to bring the conflict to an end at
the earliest possible date.
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr.
Chairman, I am supporting the Presi-
dent in his effort in this program of
Vietnamization.
I am concerned about the future and
the fate of our unfortunate prisoners of
war. I would like to hear from some
person who is near the President as to
what the President has in mind and
what he plans to do. We cannot negotiate.
They will not negotiate with us.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD, Mr. Chairman,
will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to
the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Let me re-
spond by simply saying that I know the
President is personally doing all he can
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 :=CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, Qppfoved Fore e8 9?&RL5 f&&gP73fiNRJR000400120011-3
through every avenue and through all
sources to achieve a negotiated settle-
ment. I do not think it would be wise for
him to tell me or anyone in similar cir-
cumstances the precise places and peo-
ple. I do not think it would be wise for
him to tell that to others in comparable
positions or otherwise in the Congress.
But knowing the President, as I think I
do-I have for 23 years-and having
asked him much the same question the
gentleman has asked me, and getting
him to respond, I say, to the greatest
possible degree, both as to time and as
to place, he is seeking to end the war by
negotiation. I believe him, and ,1 think
in the meantime, as we negotiate, we are
accomplishing the end of the war in a
way that will achieve to a degree the
ends which we desire.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 30 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that all debate on
this amendment and all amendments
thereto close in 45 minutes.
Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ob-
j ect.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on this amendment and
all amendments thereto close in 45
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Texas.
The motion was agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair-
man, a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will
state it.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair-
man, I was not standing at the time so
my name should not be included in the
list, and I also want to ask a question.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's
name will be stricken from the list.
Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair-
man, I want to ask this question. Are
those who have already had 5 minutes
under the 5-minute rule entitled to speak
again?
The CHAIRMAN. They are.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Connecticut (Mr. MONAGAN).
(Mr. MONAGAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have
supported the Nedzi-Whalen amend-
ment and the various modifications of
the Mansfield amendment which have
placed the Congress on record as favor-
ing a definite end to the war in Vietnam
and I yield to no one in the firmness of
my belief that such a prompt termination
is one of the essentials for bringing about
the necessary reconciliation of various
elements in our society.
At the same time, I feel that the Bo-
land amendment goes too far. It would
make impossible the spending of one
penny by the President after June 1,
1972, in Laos, Cambodia, or-Vietnam re-
gardless of how meritorious the expendi-
ture might be and in my judgment with-
out regard to whether or not it related
to the withdrawal of troops or the carry-
ing on of other defensive and protective
measures.
It seems to me important to note that
the general situation has changed re-
markably over the period of the last year.
The President has not only announced
but he has carried out a program of
withdrawal of combat troops from Viet-
nam. This program has gone so far that
it is beyond the point of no return and
with each withdrawal the credibility of
the President's statements is increased.
At the same time, whether a specific date
has been announced, an approximate
date is being established by implication
from the facts of the situation. The Presi-
dent has also stated that another an-
nouncement would be forthcoming Feb-
ruary 1, 1972.
The question is whether the Congress
should undertake at this point when fu-
ture developments and problems are nec-
essarily unpredictable that not one dollar
shall be available to the President after
the first of June next year. I do not wish
to take the position that the President
might find himself needing money for a
desirable and necessary activity general-
ly related to withdrawal and reduction of
force but be unable to find the necessary
funds because of a vote of the Congress.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Wisconsin,
(Mr. - ZABLOCKI).
(Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
(By unanimous consent, Mr. DAVIS of
Wisconsin yielded his time to Mr.
ZABLOCKI.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I
thank my friend, the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. DAVIS), for yielding his
time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to
the Mansfield-Boland amendment, but
before speaking on that subject, I desire
to share with the Chairman and the
Committee Members a matter of consid-
erable importance involving Government
printed documents, a development which
has recently been brought to my atten-
tion.
It is, I believe, a question which should
be of concern to the Members of the Con-
gress as a whole, and especially to the
Joint Committee on Printing.
As the Members know, the Subcommit-
tee on National Security Policy and
Scientific Development of the House For-
eign Affairs Committee has been con-
ducting hearings for some time on the
issue of POW's and MIA's in Southeast
Asia.
Throughout the course of those hear-
ings, the subcommittee has conscien-
tiously abided by the principle of fair-
ness and balance. Recognizing the broad
range of views on the issue, the subcom-
mittee invited and heard witnesses ex-
pounding all sides of the U.S. POW-MIA
question and problem.
$ 11185
The published proceedings of those
hearings amply reflect the impartial and
balanced nature of the hearings.
Therefore, I was shocked and dismayed
when a bastardized and deceptive version
of one set of hearings published by the
subcommittee was called to my attention.
Photographically reproduced by a New
York organization known as Clergy and
Laymen Concerned, the hybrid version
to which I refer has selectively culled
only those statements and portions of
the original document which generally
expound an anti-Vietnam position. It is,
in short, slanted, biased, and unbalanced,
and yet purports to be an official repro-
duction.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. RHODES
yielded his time to Mr. ZABLOCKI.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I
thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
RHODES) for yielding his time.
Since Government documents are
printed with appropriated funds-the
tax dollars of the American public-
there is much to commend the policy of
allowing Government materials such as
hearings and reports to fall within the
public domain. They belong to the people,
all the people. To allow wider distribu-
tion, the reproduction of Government
documents is laudable.
However, I do feel that this recent ex-
perience suggests the desirability of
amending the rules and regulations re-
garding Government printing so that
slanted reprints of congressional hear-
ings and reports will be prevented.
I would therefore recommend to my
distinguished colleagues on the joint
Committee on Printing a review of this
entire question. More specifically, the
committee may consider, for example,
a revision in the rules and regulations
requiring reprinting of documents in full,
except with the specific written author-
ization of the chairman whose committee
print may be involved.
My purpose is certainly not to stifle
or in any other way impair the dissemi-
nation of valuable information frequent-
ly found in Government documents.
Rather-and most emphatically-it is a
matter of assuring the very fairness and
balance the American people have come
to expect and deserve.
Further, I would of course be pleased
to discuss the question in greater detail
with the Joint Committee on Printing
and share with them the material in
question.
Mr. Chairman, this biased and ex-
cerpted reproduction is available for 95
cents per copy from Clergy and Laymen
Concerned About Vietnam located at 475
Riverside Drive, New York, N.Y. It is my
understanding the organization sent
their perverted version to families of
POW's/MIA's. Obviously to misinform
the recipients. Rev. Richard R. Fer-
nandez, director of Clergy and Laymen
Concerned About Vietnam was listed as
a member of the steering committee-
the committee of liaison. Other mem-
bers of the steering committee include
Mrs. Cora Weiss of Women Strike for
Peace; Mr. David Dellinger of Libera-
tion magazine; Mr. Richard Barnet, co-
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11186 Approved For :Rqfflg731n9f0004001YoTe!rriber 17, 1971
director of the Institute for Policy Study;
Mr. Richard Falk, professor of interna-
tional law at Princeton University; Mrs.
Anne Bennett, Women Strike for Peace;
Mr. Rennie Davis, peace activist; Mrs.
Ethel Taylor, Women's Strike for Peace
of Philadelphia; and Mr. Stuart Mee-
cliam, peace education secretary of the
American Friends Service Committee.
All are reported in support of setting
a deadline date thereby insisting on the
early release of our prisoners of war.
Mr. Chairman, during the debate on
the Defense appropriation bill and in re-
cent months repeatedly it is stated that
if the United States would only withdraw
the troops from South Vietnam the
POW's would be released and the MIA
accounted for. The truth of the matter is
that Mme, Nguyen Thi Binh, Minister of
the provisional government of South
Vietnam and other spokesmen for Hanoi
have reported: In case the U.S. Govern-
ment declares it will withdraw from
South Vietnam and those of its allies-
the people's liberation armed forces
will refrain from attacking the with-
drawing troops; and the parties will en-
gage at once in discussions on, first,
insuring safety for the total withdrawal
and second, the question of releasing cap-
tured military men.
Mr. Chairman, it is clear if the United
States will announce the unilateral with-
drawal of U.S. troops at.best the Viet
Cong and Hanoi will then begin to dis-
cuss the POW/MIA issue. Certainly
field-Boland amendment to name a date
should our country, our President be
compelled by the provisions of the Mans-
field-Boland amendment to name a date
certain, June 1, 1972, as the date all U.S.
troops will be withdrawn would negate
every effort to stabilize the situation in
South Vietnam and-what is more im-
portant-such action will seal the doom
of our POW's/MIA's.
The veracity and trustworthiness of
the harbingers of solutions from Hanoi
and Paris must indeed be questioned,
particularly if these same characters
have demonstrated their sensitivity for
truth and fact as evidenced by the
POW's/MIA's hearing reprints they
disseminated.
Mr. Chairman, in behalf of national
security and interest, the safe return
of our servicemen in Vietnam, the early
release of our prisoners of war, the ac-
counting for our servicemen missing in
action, and for the-interest of continued
stability in South Vietnam, I urge that
the Boland amendment be defeated.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec-
ognizes the gentleman from Massachu-
setts (Mr. BURKE).
(Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts asked
and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr.
Chairman, I rise in support of the
amendment offered by my distinguished
colleague and good friend from Mas-
sachusetts, Congressman EDWARD P.
BOLAND. The amendment would only ac-
complish what we have been trying to
do in the House for the past year now
and that is to establish a date certain.
Having established a commitment to a
date certain as a matter of record, with
the inclusion of the modified Mansfield
amendment in the recent conference
report on the military procurement bill
accepted by both Houses of Congress, it
is now time that we go on record with a
specific date.
The newspapers have been filled with
reports the past few days that U.S. mili-
tary operations will have been termi-
nated in Indochina by the end of June
next year. This only confirms what many
of us have been saying for some time,
that in view of the strong feelings in this
country against the war, in view of every
poll taken on the subject, the adminis-
tration could not possibly go into the
next election without having terminated
U.S. involvement in southeast Asia. If
this is the case and all we are doing here
is recognizing reality then why the op-
position to this amendment?
Before the opponents reply by asking
me the question if these reports are
true, why is this amendment necessary?",
let me reply by saying that I think it is
necessary to show we mean business
through the historical means at our dis-
posal; namely, through the exercise of
Congress' control of the pursestrings.
The amendment would also assure that
we would not still be involved in hos-
tilities in Vietnam through the device of
residual forces which all of the press
reports just referred to seem to indicate
is part of the administration's thinking
at this moment.
The amendment also would serve
notice to the North Vietnamese that they
have a chance to perform and honor
their promises to release all American
prisoners and give an accounting of
Americans missing in action, once this
Government announces its intention to
terminate action in Vietnam by a date
certain. In other words, in voting for
this amendment, I find no difficulty in
reconciling this vote with my long stand-
ing position that we have a moral re-
sponsibility to see to it that we gain the
release of all American prisoners of war.
It is time in fact, that we lived up to
our promises to the distraught relatives
of these men by honestly exploring every
avenue to secure their release. This is the
one avenue that, as yet, is unexplored..
I can think of no better reason for vot-
ing for this amendment than the re-
moval of the prisoners of war and miss-
ing in action issue from the controversy
surrounding the war. This could extricate
these men not only from their prisons
but from their involvement in all the
controversy over the war. Hopefully, the
issue would no longer be the political
football it has been until now.
In short,- the amendment will be evi-
dence that Congress is no longer sup-
porting a war which has gone on far too
long--as the courts claim we have until
now. This date certain still gives the
administration plenty of time to prepare
for an orderly withdrawal-far too long
when you come right down - to it. Each
day any more lives are lost in this war
is a tragic - indictment of a bankrupt
policy. It is time to start saving lives
instead of saving face. My only regret is
that the date certain is June 1, 1972, in-
stead of June 30, 1971, as provided in
House Resolution 1013, of which I was
one of the original cosponsors back in
May of 1970.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BINGIiAM
yielded his time to Mr. BURKE of Massa-
chusetts.)
Mr. CAREY of New York: Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. I yield
to the gentleman from New York (Mr.
CAREY).
(Mr. CAREY of New York asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. CAREY of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of the Boland
amendment to the defense appropria-
tions bill.
The Boland amendment would pro-
hibit the use of funds to finance any
military combat or military support op-
erations by U.S. forces in or over South
Vietnam, North Vietnam. Laos, or Cam-
bodia, after June 1, 1971, subject to the
release of all American prisoners of war.
The Boland amendment is in complete
accord with U.S. policy as provided
in title VI-the compromised Mansfield
amendment-of the Military Procure-
ment Act of 1971 since it terminates our
participation in the war contingent only
upon the return of our POW's. Of course
the most significant section of the Mans-
field amendment-the 6 months with-
drawal deadline-was dropped in con-
ference. The Boland amendment will re-
establish this critical termination date
and furnish the basic means for the im-
plementation of that provision.
We in Congress can no longer main-
tain that the appropriations process
should be separated from the legitimacy
of the war. In a recent first circuit court
decision, Laird against Massachusetts,
the court found that the Congress has
a clear responsibility for the Vietnam
war by virtue of the annual appropria-
tions of funds to implement the Presi-
dent's policy. The court opinion states, in
part:
All we hold here is that in a situation of
prolonged but undeclared hostilities, where
the Executive continues to act not only in
the absence of any conflicting Congressional
claim of authority, but with steady Con-
gressional support, the Constitution has not
been breached. The War in Vietnam is a
product of jointly supportive actions of the
two branches to whom the congeries of war
powers have ben committed.
In view of the overwhelming desire of
the people of this Nation to terminate
the fighting in Southeast Asia, Congress
has an urgent duty to approve the Boland
amendment.
I strongly urge all Members to support
this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs.
Aezue).
(Mrs. ABZUG asked and was given
permission to revise and extend her re-
marks.) -
Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, in the
time I have been in this Congress, I have
grown to have great sympathy for the
Members of this House who were forced
to support this war under false assump-
tions. I want to congratulate the Mem-
bers of this House for' taking one step,
and that is to state their policy directing
the President to negotiate a withdrawal
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, 19 ?roved Fo&I S Q(7NAL1 EftWP7 26R000400120011-3 H 11187
upon the condition of the release 'of our executive to cut off this war we will cut are going to lose 111,000 men. There is
prisoners. That is what we did in the off the funds. Support for the Boland no possibility that we are going to nego-
Military Selective Act and in the Military amendment asserts that we have the tiate peace with this much war going on
Procurement Act. power to do so. around us. I think we have to recog-
The gentleman from Massachusetts The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes nize-
(Mr. BOLAND), whom I especially wish to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
congratulate today, comes here to say, DENNIS). tleman has expired.
"Now that we have taken that one step, Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, when (By unanimous consent, Mr. WOLFF
let us really use the power of this House. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was a Mem- was allowed to yield his time to Mr.
Let us really do what we are required to ber of this body he was an outspoken LEGGETT.)
do under the Constitution, and are man- opponent of the Mexican War, but he (Mr. WOLFF asked and was given per-
dated to do by three-fourths of the never at any time voted to cut off the mission to revise and extend his re-
American people, all of our constituents. appropriations for the ongoing opera- marks.)
Let us set a date to cut off funds for this tions of our troops in the field. Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I would
war-after June 1 if the President does We lack Mr. Lincoln's stature and wis- like to express my wholehearted support
not. " dom but, Mr. Chairman, I trust we retain for the Boland amendment which would Many of you who do not vote against enough wisdom and responsibility to vote prohibit funds for the war after June 1,
the war do so in defiance of the wishes of against this ill-considered amendment. 1972, subject to release of all U.S. POW's
the majority of your own constituents. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- and full disclosure of information with
The statistics and the polls have proved nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. respect to MIA's, and I strongly encour-
that. WALDIE). age my colleagues to join me in support
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, it has of this important and necessary meas-
tlewoman from New York has expired. been suggested today that there Is no ure.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. BADILLO answer to give those veterans who re- The war in Vietnam has been pro-
yielded his time to Mrs. ABZUG). turn from Vietnam and ask "why are we longed for months and years now, partly
Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, we are there". as a result of the failure of both sides
being asked by the gentleman from Mas- There is an answer. We are there be- to resolve the prisoner of war question. I
sachusetts (Mr. BOLAND) to use the power cause of Presidents who lacked wisdom vehemently objected to shallow attempts
we have, the power of appropriations, to and Congresses that lacked courage. last year to turn this issue into a political
cut off the funds by a date certain if we We can change both defleiences. volleyball, to be batted back and forth to
do not withdraw our troops from Viet- (By unanimous consent, Mr. YATES no avail. When the North Vietnamese
nam. yielded his time to Mr. BOLAND.) . delegation to the Paris peace talks set
The fact is the President will go to The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- forth their proposal early this summer,
Moscow and Peking, but not to Paris, nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. offerfng to settle this question, I again
to negotiate the Vietnamese proposal to DELLVMS). urged that the POW issue be resolved
release all prisoners if we would but set Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise with haste.
a date certain to withdraw our troops. in support of the Boland amendment, but Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the
The fact is the President tells us that the question I would raise is, how can lives of human beings, who have every
there will be a residual force of at least one engage in meaningful debate on such right to expect that the United States
45,000 or 50,000 remaining in Vietnam. an important issue in 45 seconds? I think will act in their best interests to secure
We must assert our congressional that is a travesty. We stayed here until their release. We have before us, in the
power to prevent that residual force from 2:30 in the morning debating racist anti- Boland amendment to the Defense Ap-
continuing that war in Indochina, as we busing amendment to the higher educa- propriations bill an excellent opportunity
now intend to do. tion bill. Yet, on a matter of life and to assert our intent to act in their behalf.
What the President and the Secretary death to the young-the ones required In essence, this amendment would do
of Defense are going to do is to continue to fight and die in this absurd war-of no more than implement what Presi-
in the air the war we have had on the this country, we see fit to parade people dent Nixon has declared our policy to
ground. There is a recent study, the down in front of this microphone and be-that U.S. participation in the war
Cornell study, which proves that what allow them 45 seconds to debate. I hope would terminate upon release of all
is intended is to continue an automated that the young of this country remember American POW's. Enactment of the Bol-
war instead of a ground war, for which the mockery of how we dealt with the and measure would assert the will of the
we need only 45,000 or 50,000 troops. serious question of life and death in Congress, which I might add, has for too
I support the Boland amendment. We Southeast Asia. In these remaining few long been dormant on this issue, declar-
must cut off the funds if this Congress is seconds, I urge my colleagues to assume ing our intention to withdraw from active
to assert its rightful power. some responsibility for ending this ad- participation in the war, contingent upon
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the venturism-support the Boland amend- the
would, I our men.
serve Stwo uch va declprr-
pur-
Airedpentlewoman from New York has ex- ment,
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- poses.
pired.
(By unanimous consent, Mrs. CHIS- nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. First, we would be serving notice to
HOLM yielded her time to Mrs. ABZUG.) LEGGETT). President Thieu and the South Vietnam-
Mrs. ABZUG. Gentlemen, I am asking (Mr. LEGGETT asked and was given ese Government that they must prepare
you to vote to reflect the will of the permission to revise and extend his re- to assume the full burden of the war
American people but, more than that, to marks.) without further delay. I can see nothing
reflect our obligation in this House. Not Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the harmful in providing this impetus to the
once since I have been here have we used chairman of the full committee, Mr. South Vietnamese, who, I am afraid, have
our power over appropriations to make MAHON, indicated that he is still working learned to become far too dependent on
it clear that there is a separation of toward a semisuccessful conclusion for this country.
power between the executive branch and the war in Southeast Asia. Second, passage of this amendment
the legislative branch of our Govern- I think we are behind that. I think the would serve to assert the responsibility
ment. American people want to get out of this that the Congress bears, not only for
. I do not think it is in any way a reflec- war, and I think we are suffering from a waging this tragic, ill-conceived conflict,
tion upon our loyalty or our respect for false delusion if we think that we are but more important, for bringing the war
the executive branch. Quite to the con- really ending the war. If you think cas- to a speedy end.
trary, we are saying to the President ualties running at the rate of five, two, Rather than to tie the hands of the
that we, as an independent branch which and three a week are representative of President, as some have mistakenly con-
represents the people-we, as the House what is going on over there, you have to tended, the intent of this amendment
of the people-have an obligation to keep in mind that the South Vietnamese would be to join President Nixon in as-
make sure that what the President is say- this year will lose 23,0000 men. Last year serting our support for a policy of with-
ing comes true and, if the President does they lost 23,000 men also. The enemy last drawal. For surely we have nothing to
not act in exercising the power of the year lost 103,000 men. This year they lose in making this peace initiative, for
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11188
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 17, 1971
should Hanoi decline to return our
POW's or. provide information on our
MIA's we would then simply delay our
troop withdrawal until such time as our
terms were met. And, we have everything
to gain should they respond to our over-
ture for peace.
Mr. Chairman, if we are going to make
our POW's an issue in this war, then let
us make them an issue for them to end
the war, and bring them home. If we fail
to extend this vital initiative toward end-
ing America's role in Vietnam, then we
in the Congress will be just guilty of pro-
longing the war. With the lives of Ameri-
can citizens at stake, we cannot afford
to let political expediency get in our way.
Again, I urge my colleagues to join me
in support of this vital measure. They
have nothing to lose by doing so, except
the lives of countless American soldiers
who suffer the agonies of hell being held
captive even one day longer in. North
Vietnam.
Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I think
we have to recognize the great secret
solution of Richard Nixon to end this
war cost us 19,000 lives and innumerable
wounded. What was the great secret
solution to end the war: Apparently to
deescalate more or less as we escalated.
That means every 6 months to tell the
American people about where you are
going.
I say this: We were confused in get-
ting into this war by my administration
and by previous administrations, and we
will be confused in geting out of it un-
less we give some direction to the Pres-
ident of the United States and to the
people of the United States.
I yield to the gentleman
York (Mr. BIACCI).
(Mr. BIAGGI asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bo-
LAND) that will help bring all American
troops and prisoners of war back to the
United States by June 30, 1972.
Over the past 4 years, I have sup-
ported the President's withdrawal pro-
gram, his negotiating efforts in Paris, and
his private diplomacy aimed at a release
of our prisoners of war. However, I do
not feel his withdrawals have been fast
enough. I would remind him that he
promised an end to the war in the cam-
paign of 1968 and point out that events
in South Vietnam indicate that the
country is in a good position to defend
themselves and to determine their own
future.
Let it be clear that the amendment
before us today is closely tied to the
prisoner of war issue. Under no circum-
stances will I support any withdrawal
amendment unless it means the return
of all American soldiers, both those in
the field and those in prison camps. Col-
loquy has established that this amend-
ment will be null and void If the prison-
ers are not released. On the other hand,
if they are, all troops and prisoners
would be returned home by next sum-
mer.
This'plan is very close to the Presi-
dent's own plan. Speculatitn has set the
troop levels for next summer at less than
50,01)0. The difference in terms of de-
fense of South Vietnam is negligible.
Thus the real issue is the return of the
prisoners.
Moreover, our efforts in that country
over the last decade have helped build
the 'South Vietnamese army into the best
trained and equipped army in that
region. Our mastery of the air war has
been. transferred to a strong and efficient
Vietnamese Air Force.
Additionally, our objectives of self-
dete:rmination for the people of South
Vietnam has been realized now that two
general presidential elections have taken
place. Further efforts could be con-
sidered questionable involvement in the
internal affairs of another nation..
However, as I have pointed out, while
these goals have been accomplished and
the war is over for all practical purposes,
our involvement there cannot be con-
sidered ended until every soldier in the
field and every prisoner is returned
home.
The North Vietnamese and the Viet-
cong have indicated that once a date
is set for total withdrawal they will be-
gin to release the prisoners. The families
of the POW's and MIA's have urged pas
sage of such set withdrawal date legisla-
tion in an effort to bring their sons or
husbands or brothers home.
If the North Vietnamese and the Viet-
cong are not true to their word, then
we can stop the withdrawal and re-
escalate if necessary to assure the free-
dom of American prisoners. This amend-
ment provides for that. If we are com-
mitted to exploring every possibility to
end the war and free our prisoners of
war then this amendment deserves pas-
sage.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from South Caro-
lina (Mr. SPENCE).
(Mr. SPENCE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, there
may be some of you sitting in this body
who are thinking of voting for this
amendment, in an effort to gain favor
with those who want to set a deadline
for withdrawal from Vietnam. At the
same time, you may be thinking that the
amendment will not pass, in any event,
and therefore you won't have to stand
trial for being guilty of prolonging the
war and complicating the release of our
of the elements in the latest Communist
peace proposal, the seven-point demands
of July 1, 1971, I think demonstrates that
it is a complete illusion to believe only
some single unilateral U.S. act of re-
nunciation stands in the way of peace.
Instead it can-be seen that the Commu-
nists are continuing to present a series
of demands which, though sugar coated,
represent nothing less than a demand
for total allied surrender to all of the
other side's conditions and acquiescence
to their desire to take over South Viet-
nam as well as a demand that the United
States be held responsible for the com-
plete rebuilding of North Vietnam after
we quit.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to address myself to the question of
Hanoi's position on the negotiations
which heretofore has not been discussed
in this debate. I think it will shed some
perspective on the question of whether or
not the Boland-Mansfield amendment
will accomplish our goals by simply set-
ting a date.
THE VIETNAM NEGOTIATIONS AND THE NLF'S
SEVEN POINTS
The seven points announced by the
national liberation front-NLF--on July
1, 1971, while at first glance appearing to
show some signs of flexibility, in fact
constitute a set of preconditions and ex-
ceptionally hardline unilateral demands.
In sum, the seven points do not
soften the previous Communist demands,
do not permit any Allied assistance to
the South. Vietnamese Government, do
not pledge the release of American
POW's, do not propose a general cease-
fire, do not accept the Government of
Vietnam as a party to negotiations, and
do not accept the principle of effective
international verification. They reflect
no reciprocity by the Communist side in
exchange for Allied submission to these
demands or for the extensive proposals
and steps toward peace already taken by
the Allies.
1. THE SEVEN POINTS IN THE CONTEXT OF
ALLIED PEACE PROPOSALS AND THE NEGOTIATIONS
The NLF's seven point demands of
July 1, 1971 must be viewed in the con-
text of the negotiation record of the last
2 to 3 years. This record includes com-
prehensive U.S. and South Vietnamese
peace offers, unilateral Allied conces-
sions, and a series of broken promises by
Hanoi:
POW's. Just remember, with your help, U.S. PEACE PROPOSALS
the amendment may pass, then where Building upon his earlier peace pro-
will you be when the deadline arrives, we posal of May 14, 1969, President Nixon
have lost our bargaining position, we have on October 7, 1970, offered a compre-
weakened our forces too much, the en- hensive proposal for a just peace in In-
emy attacks in force and takes over dochina calling for:
South Vietnam. I think now of your an- An immediate, and internationally
swer, to the families of the POW/MIA supervised cease-fire in place throughout
people who oppose this amendment. Indochina;
What will your answer be to those who The establishment of an Indochina
thought you wanted to end the war, af- Peace Conference;
feet the release of our POW's, and assure Negotiation of an agreed timetable for
that those who died to help a small na- complete withdrawal of all non-South
tion remain free, did not die in vain? Vietnamese forces from south Vietnam;
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes A fair political settlement reflecting
the gentleman from New York (Mr. the will of the South Vietnamese people
KEMP). and involving all of the political forces in
(Mr. KEMP asked and was given per- South Vietnam;
mission to revise and extend; his re- The immediate and unconditional re-
rnarks.) lease of all prisoners of war by all sides.
Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, an analysis In addition to the above proposals, the
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17,40ed for R@4PI9MY6Ki[: p00400120011-3 H 11189
United States has supported the Govern- on the DRV's.-Nortlh Vietnam-"four tary bases, an agreement could follow
ment of South Vietnam's proposals of point statement of April 1965. among various-unspecified-parties,
July 11, 1969, and October 8, 1970, calling The "seven points" are thus directly concerning the modalities of a partial
for free elections in which all people and linked to the NLF's anal Hanoi's earlier cease-fire and a POW release.
parties of South Vietnam, including the preconditions and demands. In some re- Specifically, point 1 says about the
NLF can participate, and for mixed elec- spects the "7 Points" take an even POW's that if all of the Communist de-
toral and supervisory commissions in harder position than earlier demands. mands are met:
which all parties, including the NLF, UNILATERAL DEADLINE DEMANDS 'The parties will at the same time
could be represented. Point 1 the Communists' agree on the modalities-of the release of
V.S. STEPS TOWARD PEACE repeats
set, of far-reaching demands, the totality of military men and of the
The U.S. Government has done vir- These demands are unilateral and un- civilians captured in the war-including
tually everything that various parties, conditional. Specifically: American pilots captured in North Viet-
including Hanoi's leaders and many The U.S. Government must put an end to nam".
American critics, said would kindle ne- its war of aggression in Vietnam, stop the In effect, this is a variation of previous
gotiations. These steps include: policy of Vietnamizatipn of the war, with- Communist proposals to "discuss" the
A halt, in 1968, to the bombing of North draw from South Vietnam all troops, military POW question if the United States met
Vietnam. This was done though North personnel, weapons, and war materiel of the the demands for a unilateral deadline
Vietnam supplies all of the weapons and United states and of other foreign countries for troop presence, assistance, and so
war materiel and almost all of the troops in the U.S. camp, and dismantle all U.S. bases forth. Obviously, discussions must pre-
in South Vietnam, without posing any condi- cede any agreement on modalities. But
and cadres for the wars it is directing tion whatsoever.
across its borders against South Vietnam, there are a number of uncertainties and
Laos and Cambodia; The deadline is set at December 31, far-reaching demands in the "seven
Agreement to let the NLF participate 1971. Points" statement which would make
at the Paris talks; Subsequent elaborating statements by such discussions extremely difficult and
Agreement on the principle of total official NLF and DRV spokesmen, have not likely to be productive of an agree-
U.S. troop withdrawals on the basis of made clear that these demands extend ment.
reciprocal North Vietnamese withdraw- to all fog of Allied military and eco- It is unclear which parties would be fin-
als; nomic assistance, specialists, funds, and volved or bound by any POW agreement.
Appointment of a new senior negotia- so forth. Point 2 indicates that the Government
tor in Paris; Since the Communists talked of a of Vietnam would not be a party accept-
Unilateral troop withdrawals totalling U.S. "wear of aggression" long before able to the NLF and could play no role
360,000 men by December 1971, or more U.S. combat troops were sent to Vietnam in the negotiations. Furthermore, point
than two-thirds of the,total of U.S. forces in 1965 in response to the prior inter- 2 does not mention North Vietnam as a
in Vietnam in January 1969 when Presi- vention of North Vietnam's regular party to the POW negotiations and thus
dent Nixon took office. army, this reference could mean that the Hanoi would not be bound by the NLF's
COMMUNIST INTRANSIGENCE South Vietnamese forces must unilat- "seven points" or by any resulting agree-
erally stop fighting. However, the "seven ment on POW's.
The above Allied proposals and steps points" stipulate the formation of a pro- Also left unclear is the fate of men
were made not only to reduce U.S. in- NLF coalition government as a precon- held prisoner or missing in Laos, Cam-
volvement but also to open the door to dition for a cease-fire with the South bodia, and South Vietnam. In contrast
serious negotiations. But although each Vietnamese forces. with the South Vietnamese and in viola-
of these actions was urged by the Com- It should be noted that the "seven tion of the internationally accepted
niunist side or by responsible third par- point" demands are unabashedly unila- Geneva Convention on POW's signed by
ties, all have been rejected and none have teral and are notably silent on the criti- North Vietnam, the North Vietnamese
generated any reciprocal movement by cal question of North Vietnam's role in and their Communist allies in South
Hanoi or the Front. leading and supporting the Communist Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, have re-
Regrettably the Communist leaders forces in South Vietnam. fused complete POW lists or to permit
have remained intransigent and have The "seven points" include no mention inspections by neutral observers for areas
continued to press their attacks on their or pledge concerning reciprocal troop under their control.
neighbors in violation of Accords signed withdrawals or termination of assistance The United States, third countries,
by the Hanoi regime. by North Vietnamese aimed forces fight- and media representatives have repeat-
They continued to demand a deadline ing in South Vietnam-90,000 troops- edly sought to obtain clarification on the
for total unilateral U.S. withdrawal, dis- and are silent on the related issues of above questions from NLF and DRV
mantling of bases, termination of all as- large North Vietnamese military forces spokesmen. The Communist side, how-
sistance, payment of reparations, prior in Cambodia-50,000 troops-and in ever, has refused to give any clarification.
removal of the Government of South Laos-90,000 troops. Furthermore, the Communist spokesmen
Vietnam and the imposition of a pro-NLF NO PLEDGE ON PRISONER OF WAR RELEASE have repudiated the speculations of a
government as preconditions for substan- The "seven points" do not pledge a re- ibility for the Communist pos t and flex-
tive discussions. lease of the prisoners of war held by the
At the same time the Communist side Communist side. In sum, after the United States had
has rejected a general cease-fire, com- Point 1 indicates that after the United publicly committed itself to a total, un-
monly accepted international standards States has committed itself to a December conditional, and unilateral withdrawal
of POW treatment, and any type of in- 31, 1971, terminal date for any form of date, terminating its troop. presence and
ternational verification. U.S. and allied troop presence and assist- any assistance, and so forth, it might well
It. THE "SEVEN POINTS" ante and to the dismantling of their mils- prove to be the case that no agreement
on POW release or the other vital issues
THE PREAMBLE *NOTE: Hanoi's 'four points" of April 1965 would in fact be reached during the dis-
The preamble to the "sevent points" included as point three the demand that: cussion of modalities. In that case, the
states that the NLF is "basing itself" on "The internal affairs of south Vietnam must Communists would have conceded abso-
its previous 110 point" statement of be settled ... in accordance with the pro- lutely nothing, but the United States
May 8, 1969, its "eight point" statement gin of the NFr V without any foreign would have fallen for a ransom demand
of September 17, 1970 and its "three interference." Further, the "Four Points" and would have unilaterally surrendered
point" statement of December 10, 1970. declared that: "any approach contrary to its major bargaining chip.
The-NLF's "ten point" statement in turn the above-mentioned stand is inappropriate,
any approach ch tending to secure a United CEASE-FIRE
explicitly bases itself on the NLF's "five Nations intervention is also inappropri- The Communist side has totally re-
point" statement of March 1965 and ate...." jetted the October 7, 1970, proposals of
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11190 Approved Foe (Mt ]QliI5 8 fBP7 R000400 UAr 17, .1971 '
the Governments of the United States drawal.s, cease-fires, POW releases, elec-
and South Vietnam calling for an imme- tions, reparations, and guarantees.
diate and internationally verified cease- It should be noted that the NLF has
fire in place throughout Indochina. described the chief element and "van-
The NLF's "seven points" provide-in guard core" of. its "front," as being the
point 1-not for a cease-fire, but only Peoples' Revolutionary Party-PRP-
for discussion of modalities. Further- a self-proclaimed hardline Marxist-
more, the NLF proposes to discuss only Leninist party formed in Hanoi in 1962.
a limited two-stage cease-fire in South The PRP forms the southern wing of
Vietnam, one not involving North Viet- North Vietnam's only political party, the
namese forces or International verifica- Lao Dong-Communist-Party.
tion. Interestingly, Hanoi describes its
Point 1 mentions as parties to a first- "peoples' dictatorship" In North Viet-
stage cease-fire-following a U.S. pledge nam as a "Lien Hiep" or "coalition" of
for unilateral withdrawal of its troops "national concord."
and assistance-only the troops of the To the Vietnamese nationalists, both
NLF and the United States, not those of Southern and Northern, the formation
either North or South Vietnam. of a "coalition" with the Communists is
Point 2 indicates that a cease-fire be- particularly odious. They well remem-
tween the NLF's forces and the South her how Ho Chi Minh's Communist Par-
Vietnamese forces would occur only after ty liquidated Vietnam's short-lived sev-
a new pro-NLF government was formed Nen-party orth Vietnam coalition
in the 1946 of dohow, es-
The in South Vietnam.
The "seven points" fails to mention tablished a Stalinist regime and killed
the presence or future role of the North and imprisoned the nationalists and
Vietnamese forces-90,000 troops-in neutralists in the Viet Minh "Front."
South Vietnam. They thus purposely CIVILIAN PRISONERS-CHOICE OF RESIDENCE
omit a factor of major importance to Unlike previous proposals, the "seven
Vietnam's future and to any negotiations. points"-in point 1-call for the Gov-
This relieves the North Vietnamese of ernment of Vietnam unilaterally to re-
any binding obligations vis-a-vis a cease- lease all civilian prisoners captured dur-
fire, troop withdrawals, guarantees, and ing the war.
so Vforth. By iet-
Via the preamble's link to Hanoi's cong politicalncadres treleasing ern or st all deso
"four points," the NLF's "seven points" forth,, the South Vietnamese would thus
firmly reject the notion of United Na- be required to provide massive reinforce-
tions' or similar verification of any case- ment to the Communist apparatus dur-
fire as "foreign interference." ing a critical period.
"PARTIES" TO THE AGREEMENT-A NEW The NLF's demand is unilateral. It
GOVERNMENT does not require any pledge to be given
The NLF continues to reject the July by those released and it is silent on urg-
11, 1969 proposals of the Government of ing releases from North Vietnam's ex-
Vietnam to enter negotiations for joint tensive prison system which, according
electoral commissions and general elec- to official North Vietnamese media, is
tions in South Vietnam to include the filled with "counterrevolutionaries,"
NLF, with modalities and verification "defeatists," and "romantics."
procedures to be worked out between In another new demand, the "seven
representatives of the NLF and the Gov- points"-in point 4-call for "a free
ernment of Vietnam. choice of residence" and for "free move-
Instead, the "seven point"-in point ment" vis-a-vis North and South Viet-
two-set as a precondition for discus- nam.
sions the prior overthrow of the leader- This demand appears aimed at pre-
ship of the Government of Vietnam- venting the forced repatriation to North
described as the "group headed by Ngu- Vietnam of the 8,000 North Vietnamese
yen Van Thieu-and demand the imposi- POW's held in South Vietnam. If re-
tion of a "three-segment" provisional leased and maintained in South Viet-
government of "national concord." nam, these troops would provide the
These "three-segments" have been of- equivalent of a division of readily avail-
ficially defined in the NLF's "eight point" able troop reinforcements for the Com-
proposal of September 17, 1970, and sub- munIsts.
sequently, as a "coalition" government Earlier this year the Government of
consisting of : First, members of the Vietnam and the International Red
NLF's own "Provisional Revolutionary Cross sought to return sick and wounded
Government," second, members of the North Vietnamese POW's to North Viet-
current Government of Vietnam "genu- nam on a voluntary basis. The POW's,
inely," standing for peace, neutrality, in- however, were threatened by their cadres
dependence and democracy" (as defined in the camps to resist and reject repa-
by the NLF), and third, other elements triation in part, no doubt, from fear of
meeting the NLF's criteria. retaliation on their families in North
in effect, the NLF proposes to nominate Vietnam.
one-third and to veto two-thirds of a Past experience indicates that the
new government. This new government Communists would under no ciroum-
would thus by definition be pro-NLF. stances actually tolerate the free move-
At the same time, the new, pro-NLF ment of civilians away from areas under
government would apparently constitute their control. According to thetestimony
the NLF-approved "party" mentioned in of members of the International Control
the other points. It is this new govern- Commission and other neutral observers,
ment which would represent South Viet- for example, the Hanoi regime in 1954
nam in any discussions and negotiations sought to block the southward flow of
on such critical Issues as troops with- refugees-800,000 escaped-and to cir-
cumscribe the access and activities of the
ICC. Furthermore, the Hanoi regime
tightly controls all travel In North Viet-
nam, via a system of internal passports
and cadre checkpoints.
The "free movement" provision is
probably aimed at legitimizing the move-
ment of additional Communist political
cadres and troops from North to South
Vietnam.
'REPARATIONS
Point 6 demands that the United
States assume the full and sole respon-
sibility for war damage in North Vietnam
and in South Vietnam.
This is tantamount to unilaterally
placing total responsibility for the war
on the United States.
This demand totally neglects the rec-
ord of North Vietnam's massive and il-
legal troop presence and terror attacks
across its internationally recognized
borders in the sovereign states of South
Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
FUTURE INTERNATIONAL STATUS AND
GUARANTEES
The "seven points" state-in points 3
to 7-that the "question of North Viet-
namese armed forces in South Vietnam"
and the issues of future reunification and
international status will be settled in a
spirit of "national concord" by "qualified
representatives of the Vietnamese people
in the two zones" on the basisof "mutual
interests and mutual assistance," and
"without foreign interference." These
carefully selected formulations in prac-
tice would clearly preclude any non-
Communist elements, options, or guar-
antees.
All references to agreements between
the two Vietnamese "zones" or "parties"
concerning cease-fires, troop dispositions,
prisoner releases, free movement, foreign
aid, reparations, and international guar-
antees are vitiated by such formulations
in the context of the full range of de-
mands in the "seven points" and the past
performance record of the Hanoi regime.
As indicated in point two, the pros-
pective South Vietnamese government
foreseen in the "seven points" is the
pro-NLF "three-segment" government.
In the presence of the North Vietnamese
cadres and army and via the Front's
"Peoples' Revolutionary Party," this new
government could readily be absorbed in-
to the regime of North Vietnam's Com-
munist Party.
The "seven points" vigorous rejection
of any "foreign interference" and the
preamble's connection with Hanoi's
"four points" formulation, specifically
excludes any United Nations or similar
international verification machinery and
in effect guarantees that the South Viet-
namese will be governed "in accordance
with the program" of the NLF as de-
manded in point 3 of Hanoi's "four
points."
III. CONCLUSION
It is apparent if one looks at the record
of what both sides have done to bring
about a responsible settlement, that the
comprehensive Allied proposals and the
important unilateral Allied steps toward
peace remain unmatched by the Commu-
nist side, which instead continues its at-
tacks and its unliteral demands.
An analysis of elements in the latest
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17,A.PPY10ved For F M 1d1WAj: f p1B73B V000400120011-3
H 11191'
Communist "seven point" demands of If the V.S. Government sets a terminal A. The reunification of Vietnam will be
July 1, 1971, demonstrates that it is an date for the withdrawal from South Vietnam achieved step by step by peaceful means, on
illusion to believe that only some single in 1971 of the totality of V.S. forces and the basis of discussions and agreements be-
unilateral U S. act of renunciation stands those of the other foreign countries in the tween the two zones, without constraint and
111 the way of peace, Instead it can be U.S. camp, the parties will at the same time annexation from either party, without for-
seenthat the C peace. Communists are it rani agree on the modalities: eign Interference.
continuing A. Of the withdrawal in safety from South Pending the reunification of the country,
to present a series of demands which, Vietnam of the totality of U.S. forces and the North and the South zones will reestab-
though sometimes sugar coated, repre- those of the other foreign countries in the lish normal relations, guarantee free move-
sent nothing less than a demand for to- U.S. camp. ment, free correspondence, free choice of
tal Allied surrender to all of the other B. Of the release of the totality of military residence, and maintain economic and cul-
side's conditions and acquiesence in men of all parties and the civilians captured tural relations on the principle of mutual
Hanoi's takeover of South Vietnam, as in the war (including American pilots interests and mutual assistance.
well as a demand that the United States captured in North Vietnam), so that they All questions concerning the two zones-
may all rapidly return to their homes. will be settled by qualified representatives of
be held responsible for rebuilding North Those two operations will begin on the the Vietnamese people in the two zones on
Vietnam. same date and will end on the same date, the basis of negotiations, without foreign
Acceptance of the Communists' de- A cease-fire will be observed between the interference.
nand for a unilateral and unconditional South Vietnam People's Liberation Armed B. In keeping with the provisions of the
date terminating U.S. troop presence and Forces and the armed forces of the United 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam, in the
U.S. asisbance in South Vietnam-and States and of the other foreign countries in present temporary partition of the country
Southe Asia-is .S. ss t anc in clearly not an -appro- arid the United States camp, as soon as the parties into two zones, the North and the South
U
reach agreement on the withdrawal from zones of Vietnam will refrain from joining
priate means to speed an end to the war south Vietnam of the totality of United any military alliance with foreign countries,
and is prejudicial to the delicate diplo- States forces and those of the other foreign from allowing any foreign country to have
matic situation resulting from the con- countries in the United States camp. military bases, troops, and military person-
tinuing U.S. reduction of its military role. 2. Regarding the question of power in nel on their soil, and from recognizing the
In this situation, no legislative solu- South Vietnam. protection of any country, of any military
tion can be sufficiently flexible to accom- The United States Government must really alliance or bloc.
modae range of diplomatic and mill- respect the South Vietnam people's right 5. Regarding the foreign policy of peace
m
tary od ate o the
and contingencies. diplomatic It would to self-determination, put an end to Its and neutrality of south Vietnam.
interference in the internal affairs of South South Vietnam will pursue a foreign
reward Communist intransigence and
would remove any inducement to the
other side to negotiate seriously. More-
over, such legislation poses serious prac-
tical and constitutional problems.
The United States continues to hope
that the Communist leaders will take
meaningful steps toward peace and will
recognize the desirability of concluding
the war through serious negotiations
based on reciprocity rather than pro-
longed combat.
The United States continues to believe
that the allied policy of seeking a re-
sponsible negotiated settlement and of
withdrawing U.S. forces as the South Vi-
etnamese become more capable of assum-
ing the burden of their own defense, to-
gether with the President's statement
that all U.S. forces will not be withdrawn
until all U.S. prisoners of war are .re-
leased, provides the best prospect of
bringing all our men, in prison or in the
field, out of Vietnam and in a way that
gives the South Vietnamese a reasonable
chance to defend themselves.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to direct the attention of my col-
leagues to an article in the New York
Times including the text of the so-callers
Vietcong peace proposal.
[From the New York Times, July 2, 1971]
THE "SEVEN POINTS"-TEXT OF THE VIETCONG
PEACE PROPOSAL
PARIS, July 1 (Reuters) -Following is the
text of the Vietcong's seven-point peace pro-
posal presented at today's session of the Viet-
nam peace talks:
1. Regarding the deadline for the total
withdrawal of U.S. forces.
The U.S. Government must put an end to
its war of aggression in Vietnam, stop the
policy of "Vietnamization" of the war, with-
draw from South Vietnam all troops, military
personnel, weapons, and- war materials of the
United States and of the other foreign coun-
tries in the U.S. camp, and dismantle all U.S.
bases in South. Vietnam, without posing any
condition whatsoever.
The U.S. Government must set a terminal
date for the withdrawal from South Viet-
J*n of the totality of U.S. forces and those
of the other foreign countries in the U.S.
headed by Nguyen Van Theiu, at present in lations with all countries regardless of their
office in Saigon, and stop all maneuvers, in- political and social regime, in accordance
cluding tricks on elections, aimed at main- with the five principles of peaceful coexist-
taining the puppet Nguyen Van Thieu. ence, maintain economic and cultural rela-
The political, social and religious forces in tions with all countries, accept the coopera-
South Vietnam aspiring to peace and na- tion and economic and cultural relations
tional concord will use various means to form with all countries, accept the cooperation of
in Saigon a new administration favoring foreigts countries in the exportation of the
peace, independence, neutrality and democ- resources of South Vietnam, accept from
racy. any country economic and technical aid
The Provisional Revolutionary Govern- without any political conditions attached,
ment of the Republic of South Vietnam will and participate in regional plans of eco-
immediately enter into talks with that ad- notate cooperation.
ministration in order to settle the following On the basis of these principles, after the
questions: end of the war, South Vietnam and the
A. To form a broad three-segment gov- United States will establish relations in the
ernment of national concord that will assume political, economic and cultural fields.
its functions during the period between the 6. Regarding the damages caused by the
restoration of peace and the holding of gen- United States to the Vietnamese people in
eral elections and organize general elections the two zones.
in South Vietnam. The U.S. Government must bear full re-
A cease-fire will be observed between the sponsibility for the losses and the destruc-
South Vietnam People's Liberation Armed tions it has caused to the Vietnamese peo-
Forces and the armed forces of the Saigon ple in the two zones.
administration as soon as the government 7. Regarding the respect and the Interns-
of national concord is formed. tional guarantee of the accords that will be
B. To take concrete measures with the concluded. -
required guarantees so as to prohibit all The parties will find agreement on the
acts of terror, reprisal and discrimination forms of respect and international guaran-
against persons having collaborated with tee of the accords that will be concluded.
one or the other party, to ensure every demo- The CHAIRMAN. The Chair Tecog-
cratic liberty to the South Vietnam people, nizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
to release all persons jailed for political rea-
sons, to dissolve all concentration camps and, PUCINSKi).
to liquidate all forms of constraint and co- (Mr. PUCINSKI asked and was given
ercion so as to permit the people to return to permission to revise and extend his re-
their native places in complete freedom and marks.)
to freely engage in their occupations. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this
To see that the people's conditions of
amendment ought to be known as the
living are stabilized and gradually improved, "put up or shut up amendment." Hanoi
to create conditions allowing everyone to con-
tribute his talents and efforts to heal the has said that if we fix a date certain for
war wounds and rebuild the country. our troop withdrawal they are willing to
D. To agree on measures to be taken to release our prisoners of war and agree
ensure the holding of genuinely free, demo- to a cease-fire.
cratic, and fair general elections In South This amendment does set that time
Vietnam. and if, indeed, our prisoners are not re-
3. Regarding the question of Vietnamese leased by June 1, all bets are off..
armed forces in South Vietnam.
The Vietnamese parties will together settle This amendment does give us for the
the question of Vietnamese armed forces in first time an opportunity to say to Hanoi:
South Vietnam in a spirit of national concord "put up or shut up." If our prisoners
equality, and mutual respect, without for- are not released by June 1, then we will
eign interference, in accordance with the take another course of action after June
postwar situation and- with a view to making
lighter the people's contributions.
4. Regarding the peaceful reunification of Mr. Chairman, I have listened to those
Vietnam and the relations between the North who have opposed this amendment in the
and South zones. past. This time let us do it our way
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11192
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R0004001 0011-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE ovember 17, 1971
and if we cannot bring this tragic war
to an end, we have nothing to lose in
trying to force Hanoi into a release of
our prisoners by adopting this amend-
ment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New York (Mr.
RYAN).
(Mr. RYAN asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, during the
7 years since President Johnson's first
supplemental appropriation bill to fi-
nance the war in Vietnam came to the
House on May 5, 1965, I have time and
again taken the floor of the House to
urge that the Congress assume its re-
sponsibilities and use the appropriation
process, by exercising its power over the
purse, to bring the death and destruction
in Southeast Asia to an end. Through
two administrations the Congress has
acquiesced in, and sanctioned, this un-
declared, dead end war by voting the ap-
propriations necessary to conduct it.
The American people have now re-
Jected the war and are looking to the
Congress to assume its responsibility and
set a final termination date since it is
obvious that the President has no inten-
tion of doing so.
The Boland amendment offers an op-
portunity for the House to set a fixed
date-June 1, 1972-by prohibiting use
of any funds in this defense appropria-
tion bill for fiscal year 1972, "to finance
any military combat or military support
operations by U.S. forces in or over
South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos or
Cambodia, after June 1, 1972," subject
to the release of all American prisoners
of war and an accounting of all Ameri-
cans missing in action.
As the Members of the House well
know, I do not believe the war should
continue for 1 minute more, and I
would prefer an immediate cutoff of
funds-an action which I have urged the
Congress to take for 7 long years. How-
ever, the least the House can do, if it is
to pay a modicum of respect to public
-opinion in this country, is to accept the
Mansfield amendment which the Senate
adopted as an amendment to the Mili-
tary Procurement Act but which was
modified in conference.
Title VI of the Military Procurement
Act signed into law today by President
Nixon establishes as national policy the
termination{ of all U.S. military opera-
tions in Indochina at the earliest prac-
ticable date, and the prompt and orderly
withdrawal of all U.S. military forces at
a date certain, subject to the release of
all American prisoners and an account-
ing for the Americans missing in action.
The Boland amendment would restore
the critically important specific dead-
line, which was deleted from the original
Mansfield amendment in conference. It
would provide the vehicle for implement-
ing what is now national policy by set-
ting the date certain as June 1, 1972. It
is essential that a termination date be
set by Congress, especially in view of
the reported declaration by the President
today that he will ignore the Mansfield
language in the Military Procurement
Act.
All the illusions of Vietnam have been
shattered. All that now remains are the
stark realities of a brutal and senseless
war.
For a decade this Nation has sent her
young men to die in Asia. The price from
this tragic venture has been incalcula-
bly high: in terms of lives lost and blood-
shed, in terms of opportunities missed
and treasure squandered, in terms of
the disaffection of our young, and the
polarization of our society.
The administration's vaunted Viet-
namiza:tion policy has not brought peace,
but continued death and destruction. It
contemplates South Vietnamese armed
forces pursuing a military victory sus-
tained by American air and logistical
support.
The President's announcement last
week that 45,000 troops would be with-
drawn during January and February did
not change anything. The distinguished
chairman of the Committee on Appro-
priations has stated that the President
obviously has a negotiating plan which
he should be free to follow. That is remi-
niscent of candidate Nixon's 1968 cam-
paign statement that he had a secret
plan to end the war. The President has
had 3 years to reveal- it, but the only
known element in it is the plan to main-
tain a U.S. residual force in Vietnam as
long as necessary to prop up the present
Saigon regime.
It has been argued that adoption of
the Boland amendment would force us
to "relinquish our prime position of
power," making it impossible to leave
Vietnam with honor. That refrain has
been heard too often over the past 7
years. How many more American and
Vietnamese lives are to be lost-how
many :more villages are to be destroyed-
how many more billions of dollars are to
be dissipated-while the administration
wages war in the name of peace with
honor?
The answer rests with the House of
Representatives today, for the Boland
amendment offers the Congress of the
United States the opportunity to live up
to its responsibility by exercising the
only power it has to end the war. It
offers us the opportunity to give peace a
chance. Let us seize it now.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. DEVINE).
(Mr. DEVINE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
(By unanimous consent, Mr. MYERS
yielded his time to Mr. DEViNE.)
Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Chairman, one gets
sick and aired of hearing the same old
political speeches, the same old retread
speeches and accusations about who is
responsible for the war in Vietnam. How-
ever, :( will say to the members of the
committee that President Nixon is the
only President of the last four to turns
this thing around. During Eisenhower's
administration there were some 750 ad-
visers, then during the administration of
the late President Kennedy he started a
multi-thousand-man buildup of Ameri-
can combat troops in Vietnam which
reached a crest when Mr. Johnson was
President. The number of U.S. troops in
Vietnam rose to over 540,000 during
L. B. J.'s administration. Yet, today,
under the Nixon plan and direction of
President Nixon, 80 percent or over
400,000 of our troops are out of there.
Casualties have been reduced from 300 a
week to less than 10 a week.
Mr. Chairman, the Vietnamization pol-
icies are working, the Nixon doctrine is
working and now all of these people
whom we have heard speak in support of
this amendment are scrambling to get
on the bandwagon in order to say that
they did it and that the war is over be-
cause they belatedly set a date of cut-
off. Ridiculous.
I . predict that in the 1972 campaign
Vietnam will not be an issue, because
Vietnamization is working and U.S.
troops are being withdrawn at a faster
rate than anticipated.
Mr. Chairman, I talked to the Presi-
dent as late as yesterday about the pris-
oners of war. He cannot reveal to every-
one-all negotiations that are being
made, through a number of avenues, but
he is making every effort to secure the
release of our prisoners of war, and that
is one of the crucial areas involved here.
He is constantly working on it and the
Vietnamization policy; and let us give
that policy an opportunity to work, with-
out tieing the hands of the President.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be
laughable to record the gyrations and re-
verse gymnastics of some of our col-
leagues who manage to place themselves
on both sides of an issue. Now that Presi-
dent Nixon has established the success
of his Vietnamization and is truly wind-
ing up the war, the boys are not only
scurrying to get on the bandwagon, but
are even trying to twist history around
in an effort to claim credit. If they estab-
lished a date certain, they would then
claim they forced the President to end
the war, which he already accomplished.
It is high time to forget politics and
demagogery and act responsibly in the
interest of our country and ultimately a
generation of peace. Let us defeat the
Boland amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
RANDALL).
Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I op-
pose the Boland amendment for good and
sufficient-reasons. This amendment is so
far reaching that every Member should
provide a clear explanation for his vote,
whether it be in support or opposition.
The first thing that must be made
clear beyond any doubt is that a vote
against the Boland amendment is not a
vote for the war, or a vote to prolong
the war. Twice, the House has approved
the so-called Mansfield amendment to
end the war in Southeast Asia at the
earliest practicable date. That amend-
ment permitted an orderly withdrawal.
The adoption of this amendment today
could even slow the rate of withdrawal.
Even worse than slowing orderly with-
drawal, this action could even stop the
present rate of withdrawal until our
military leadership could develop ade-
quate alternatives to the present schedule
in the knowledge there will no longer be
a shield for orderly withdrawal but an ir-
revocable and arbitrary date certain on
June 1, 1972.
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17,A?9r,jved For CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 3BHOUSE000400120011-3
Nearly all of us have come to realize
that either the war was wrong, or at least
we have fought this war in the wrong
way. But at this point in time what
should we do? What is the best course
left to take? In the debate someone de-
scribed this amendment as, the roughest
and hardest way of imposing the will of
the Congress on our President. If we rec-
ognize that the President is the Com-
mander in Chief of our military forces
and if he insists it is a wise course to
maintain a residual force, then this
amendment would not only cut off the
pay of our men in such residual forces,
it would cut off their logistics, including
food, and even -take away the transpor-
tation to bring them home after June 1,
1972. Abraham Lincoln, as a Member of
the House in the 30th Congress in 1847,
was an outspoken opponent of the Mexi-
can war but he refused to vote to cut off
money for our troops in the field.
The true facts are that the President
has reduced the troop level through the
process of Vietnamization from 540,000
to 180,000. As I read the amendment it
would become an obstacle to the success
of Vietnamization because the words,
"military support operations by the
United States forces in South Vietnam"
would include the training of South Viet-
namese forces in Vietnam. Does the au-
thor of this amendment propose that we
stop training the South Vietnamese to
take over the war and thus protect their
country against the forces of the North?
If the amendment prevails, the only way
we could train the South Vietnamese
allies would be to transport them to some
placeother than South Vietnam, such as
Laos or Cambodia for training. Does the
author suggest we go through the expen-
sive process of transporting our South
Vietnamese allies to Hawaii or the main-
land for training and then bear the ex-
pense of retuning them to their home-
land?
Anything that the Congress does at
this time should serve the best interest
of peace or to end the war. If we expect
to be fair we must agree that 90 percent
of our troops will have been out of Viet-
nan9 before the date imposed by the
amendment. But to cut off all funds at
an arbitrary date risks some grave con-
sequences. No doubt the time is long past
when we can achieve a military victory,
but somehow, some way, we must still try
for an honorable conclusion to the war.
At the very least we should not agree to
an amendment that will disregard all the
sacrifices of all those who have given
their lives or been wounded and agree
to a course that would completely aban-
don any effort for some kind of benefit
from all the sacrifices.
If we indulge in this precipitous ac-
tion today then all of our losses and sac-
rifices will have been in vain. It means
we are completely throwing away any
chance for an honorable settlement. If
this amendment should be adopted we
tie the President's hands at a most criti-
cal time. It means not only that his
power to negotiate with Hanoi is gone.
It means that hereafter he cannot speak
with any authority on his visit to either
Peking or Moscow. We have been pur-
suing a phased withdrawal. The war is
near an end. Casualties are down to a
minimum. Of couse, even four or five a
week are too many. But the hard fact is
if withdrawal is to continue there must
be some kind of a shield to permit that
withdrawal. The Boland amendment
would undercut the entire withdrawal
process. If the word goes out to the world
that this body joined by the other body
acts to cut off all funds on June 1, 1972,
it would mean immediate chaos in South
Vietnam. There no longer would be any
shield for withdrawal. All the past efforts
toward negotiations would be torpedoed
and sunk.
But if we defeat this amendment then
we retain our options. We do have some
alternatives left. There remains the
chance for the success of the visits to
Peking and Moscow. We should not fore-
close these chances by our action today.
If we proceed to approve this amendment
we tie the hands of our President.
For the Congress to try to stop the war
by this arbitrary precipitous action is
just not the way to handle foreign policy.
There are those who would say the rate
of withdrawal is too slow. By recent
pronouncement the President says with-
drawal will be determined by four fac-
tors: first, the level of enemy action;
second, the progress of Vietnamization;
third, the progress of release of our
prisoners of war and fourth, agreement
by the enemy to a cease fire in all of
Southeast Asia.
Mr. Chairman, I have read the word-
ing of the Boland amendment very care-
fully. The effective portion of the
amendment starts out with the words,
"subject to release of all American
prisoners and an accounting of all Amer-
icans missing in action." Iii other words
that portion of the amendment which
says none of the funds appropriated in
this act should be used after June 1,
1972, is all subject to release of our Amer-
ican prisoners and our Americans miss-
ing in action. In my judgment to say
these two categories will ever be accom-
plished is optimism that is not justified.
To the enemy our prisoners of war are
not regarded as we regard their prison-
ers. Our men are regarded as criminals.
In my opinion, if they are ever returned
it will be by ransom. But as I read it,
for this amendment to have any mean-
ing the enemy must account for all of
our missing in action. In my judgment
such a requirement makes the amend-
ment meaningless. We must either rely
upon their word-which up to now has
been worthless-or else insist upon a
really strict accounting for all the miss-
ing. If we demand this strict accounting
before the cut-off date can be effective
then a cut off date might never arrive.
For those who refuse to rely on the word
of the enemy, or for those who believe
the cut-off date is subject to a strict ac-
counting, there is only one course to take
and that is to vote against this amend-
ment as meaningless.
No, a vote against the Boland amend-
ment is not a vote to continue the war.
It is not a vote to prolong the war. All of
us want this war ended. Equally impor-
tant, we want to be sure that there can-
not be another Vietnam. We all want to
make it impossible to drift into such a
war again, step by step, as we did in
Southeast Asia.
Mr. Chairman, that is why a little
while ago I supported the so-called Yates
amendment which, under H.R. 11731,
would not permit the President to sub-
stantially increase troop levels or troop
strength. I supported the amendment of
the gentleman from Illinois because it
provides that after 60 days following an
acceleration of total troop strength, there
would be no further expenditures of ap-
propriations for such troop increases
without obtaining the approval of the
Congress. In different words, this means
that if there is any indication of any kind
that we are drifting into another Viet-
nam war, we will be able to face the issue
very early. This amendment would re-
quire the President to come. before the
Congress and explain his reasons for in-
creasing troop levels before any appro-
priations would be available. I supported
this amendment because it could prevent
an easy drift into another Vietnam. Al-
though it failed by a small margin on our
side of the Congress, I hope it may be
added to this defense appropriation bill
by the other body.
I hope there may not be any who vote
for this amendment but hope it will not
pass. That kind of thinking is a danger-
ous course because with a recorded teller
count it is most difficult to know the
course of a vote until the final tally is -
announced by the tellers. Someone said
this amendment should probably be tag-
ged the "put up or shut up" amendment.
Others have been less complimentary
and described it as the "bug out" amend-
ment. Without passing judgment on
which is more accurate, certainly this
amendment would-change the course of
orderly or phased withdrawal or a
"walkout" to the precipitous, arbitrary,
and shieldless kind of withdrawal that
could become a "run out."
I cannot subscribe to the argument of
those who say the withdrawal schedule
announced by the President is nothing
more than a holding action to get him
through the Peking visit. On the other
hand the passage of this amendment
would leave him with no bargaining
power at Peking. But if the President
should fail at Peking and if we defeat this
amendment our Chief Executive has the
remaining negotiating course to open our
own bilateral or private negotiations
with Hanoi in Paris.
All the foregoing or options are thrown
away if we pass the proposed amend-
ment today. In just a few words, the ap-
proval of this amendment means that
we hand to the enemy a victory that they
were never able to achieve on the battle-
field.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. RANDALL
yielded his remaining time to Mr. WAG-
GONNaR.)
(Mr. WAGGONNER asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman
and Members of the House, I think we
are all agreed on one point. That is, that
we want to get out of Vietnam as quick-
ly as we possibly can.
Further, I think we agree that in ret-
rospect especially in view of the fact that
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73QO0296R000400120011-3
 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 17, 1971
we have never tried to win, that it was a
mistake to get involved in Vietnam as
we have. However, where we differ is how
do we get out and over the long-period
of time serve the best interests of the
United States? This is the crux of the
matter we are discussing here today.
The gentleman from Georgia (Mr.
FLYNT) earlier said to you when he ad-
dressed the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union-and
I think I remember what he said-that
he believed that the President had al-
ready reached an agreement with regard
to the release of the prisoners of war.
My friends of the House, I do not believe
this is so.
I do not believe that he has any rea-
son to even speculate as to that whim,
because I do not believe that the Pres-
ident of the United States would per-
petrate such a hoax upon the people of
this country so as to withhold that in-
formation from those who have relatives
who are prisoners of war or on those
who have relatives who are missing in-
action.
Further, there .is something else that
we ought to consider that the gentleman
from Georgia (Mr. FLYNT) said. He
said that he would not support again any
appropriations for the military under
certain conditions, and he said he would
not support appropriations for the mili-
tary as long as we supported a regime
which allowed only one name on the
ballot. Who ever heard of a Communist
nation having two names an the ballot?
Big Minh and Ky could have run if'they
had chosen to, but they were afraid
they would get beaten. They insisted they
would only run in a three man race. To
my knowledge I cannot recall even a
ballot in Red China. But I agree it would
have been better if others had run from
an ideal point of view.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from California (Mr.
TALCOTT).
(Mr. TALCOTT asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have
listened to the very appealing and emo-
tional speeches of the gentleman from
Indiana, the gentleman from New York,
and the gentleman from Maryland, about
their sons who once served in Vietnam.
I think the sons should be permitted to
speak for themselves; their views may be
different from their father's. I would
not presume to speak for my son, but I
am willing to support any son in Viet-
nam, as I, and we, have supported their
sons while they were in Vietnam, so I
would hope that they would vote with me
to support my son, who is serving in Viet-
nam now along with 139,000 other sons
in Vietnam now.
This is not a "hard and tough" deci-
sion for us now. It would have been hard
and tough" in 1968 or 1969-when other
sons were in Vietnam-some involun-
tarily-but it is easy now if our objec-
tive is to get one-up on the President who
is systematically ending the war. It is
easy if our objective is to garner some of
the credit to which the President is en-
titled. It is "hard and tough"-even in-
credible-if our objective is to achieve
peace as soon as practicable and to se-
cure the release of all our POW's and ob-
tain an accounting of our MIA's. We owe
them and their families a great respon-
sibility. We must keep our commitments
to them. We should vote "no" on this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr.
HATHAWAY).
(Mr. HATHAWAY asked and was giv-
en permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman,
there has been a lot of talk here this
afternoon about whose responsibility the
termination of this war is, the execu-
tive's responsibility or the responsibility
of the Congress. I think it is crystal clear
under the Constitution it is our responsi-
bility, and I hope that this afternoon
we exercise that responsibility by adopt-
ing the Boland amendment.
The overconcentration of power in the
single office of the President has resulted
in a constitutional imbalance, with one
man holding nearly absolute power- in
matters of war and peace, life and death.
The time to reassert congressional pre-
rogatives and restore balanced constitu-
tional government is now.
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution
gives Congress the stated power to de-
clare war, to raise and support armies, to
provide and maintain a navy, to make
rules for the Government and regulation
of the Armed Forces, to provide for call-
ing forth the militia, and to make all
laws necessary and proper for executing
the foregoing powers. In contrast, article
7I, section 2 of the Constitution states
that the President shall be Commander
in Chief of the Army and Navy. In addi-
tion, the President may, with the advice
and consent of the Senate, make treaties
and appoint ambassadors.
It is clear from the language of the
Constitution that the war power is vested
almost entirely in the Congress. That
this was the intention of the framers
is quite clear from reading the proceed-
ings of the Constitutional Convention
and the subsequent writings of the
Founding Fathers. In a letter to James
Madison in 1789, Thomas Jefferson
wrote:
We have already given in example one ef-
fectual check to the Dog of War by trans-
ferxdng the power of letting him loose from
the Executive to the Legislative body, from
those who are to spend to those who are to
pay.
It is - important to note that the
Framers wrote with the benefit of con-
siderable hindsight regarding contests
between English kings and the Parlia-
ment over war powers. It is most rele-
vant that Parliament had successfully
employed its power of the purse to pre-
vent and halt royal adventures abroad.
In fact, a legislative forerunner of the
amendment before us today was passed in
1678, when Parliament specified that the
Army of Charles in Flanders be disband-
ed by a certain date. The Framers clearly
intended that the Congress should have
at least that much power, and they be-
stowed more power on this body by re-
quiring congressional action to initiate
war as well as providing for congressional
action to stop it.
Another manifestation of the Framers'
intention .that Congress exercise the
power of the purse with special care on
matters relating to military operations
can be seen in the constitutional provi-
sion-article I, section 8, item 12-bind-
ing us to review all funds for military
operations every 2 years. Although it is
our practice to appropriate every year for
all Government activities and programs,
there is nothing in the Constitution that
requires such a procedure except in the
case of funding for the Armed Forces, in
which case the requirement is for a bien-
nial review. Theoretically, we could ap-
propriate for all other programs every 10
or every 100 years, but the Framers sin-
gled out military appropriations for a
special 2-year limitation.
Alexander Hamilton described the
meaning of that limitation in Federalist
No. 26:
The legislature of the United States will
be obliged, by this provision, once at least in
every two years, to deliberate upon the pro-
priety of keeping a military force on foot;
to come to a new resolution on the point;
and to declare their sense on the matter, by
a formal vote in the face of their constit-
uencies.
The provision protects-and I think
was intended to protect-the Nation
against the indefinite commitment of
American Forces or American military
operations without systematic congres-
sional review at least once every 2 years.
We in the Congress have an express duty
to provide review and control, and there
is no way we can surrender that power
to the President or anyone else without
violating the Constitution.
It is time for the Congress to reassert
our constitutional authority and not al-
low the President to be chief of police,
district attorney, judge, and jury in for-
eign affairs. It is the purpose of our sys-
tem of separation of powers to bring -a
balanced judgement to the issues we face.
The American people deserve that; our
Constitution requires it.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
HALL).
(By unanimous consent, Mr. HALL
yielded his time to Mr. MINSHALL.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
SEIBERLING).
(Mr. SEIBERLING asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
(By unanimous consent, Mr. SEIBER-
LING yielded his remaining time to Mr.
BOLAND.) .
Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, we
like to call ourselves "the People's House."
Accordingly, I think it behooves us to
consider the people's wishes on this is-
sue. The Harris survey published in the
Washington Post on November 8
reported:
By nearly 3 to 1, the American people
favor "getting completely out" of Vietnam
by next May.
Asked if they favored or opposed the United
States "getting completely out of Vietnam
by May. Including all combat and noncom-
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, ~~ lroved For t g46.1~J5Rfft1BP73 9?JR000400120011-3 H 11195
bat troops," the vote was 62 percent in favor
and 21 percent opposed.
Between October 26 and October 31, a
cross section of 2,004 households was asked:
If it meant keeping the Communists from
taking over Vietnam, would you favor or
oppose the following?
[io percent]
Leaving 50,000 non-combat
U.S.troops there ---------
32
55 13
Continuing to use U.S.
bombers and helicopters
to support the South
Vietnamese army ---------
29
57 14
Continuing to send over
$1,000,000,000 a year in
military aid to the South
Vietnamese --------------
16
70 14
Even at the risk of a Communist take-
over, sizable majorities of the public want
the United States out completely from Viet-
nam.
Obviously the American people do not
favor a Communist takeover in Vietnam.
They are merely recognizing the bank-
ruptcy of the Government's policy in
Vietnam and -that we have given the
South Vietnamese Government more
than enough chance to, stand on its own
feet.
And they are recognizing something
else, as revealed by the Harris poll pub-
lished in the Post on November 11, as
follows :
The Vietnam issue simply will not go away
as a major concern for the public in this
country. A survey taken during the last
week of October shows that a record high
65 percent now believe that it is "morally
wrong" for the United States to be fighting
in Vietnam.
How can the Congress continue to
ignore the overwhelming and clearly
manifested desire of the American peo-
ple on an issue as basic as this? No issue
has been, more thoroughly debated and
argued in the country and in the Halls
of Congress. Unless we take prompt and
decisive action to carry out the people's
considered desires on this subject, how
can we continue to call ourselves "the
People's House?"
In the 2 years during which the Con-
gress has been wrestling with the ques-
tion of placing a specific cutoff date on
further American military operations in
Indochina, the President has indeed
reduced our presence in Vietnam. The
number of American troops remain-
ing in Vietnam is now so small that they
could all be evacuated in a few weeks
if it were decided to do so. Certainly a
deadline of June 1, 1972 imposes no
serious risk to the protection of our re-
maining troops in Vietnam.
The Boland amendment, providing for
such a deadline, is entirely reasonable,
completely within the policy already
adopted by the Congress, and creates no
obstacle to the withdrawal of American
POW's. In fact, since the withdrawal
would be contingent on the return of all
POW's, it gives the administration a
further bargaining lever for the POW's.
For all these reasons, I find it hard to
imagine why the House should not adopt
the Boland amendment by an over-
whelming majority.
If the House does not adopt the Boland
amendment, then I will vote against the
defense appropriations bill, in accord-
ance with my pledge not to vote for funds
to continue the war in Vietnam so long
as the Government has not adopted a
specific date for American withdrawal.
I do not oppose national defense and
will support any reasonable defense ap-
propriation bill that does not provide for
the indefinite continuation of our mili-
tary involvement in Vietnam. That in-
volvement has added nothing to our na-
tional security. It has taken over $100 bil-
lion away from other defense needs and
civilian needs. It has divided the country.
The people are demanding a complete
and early end to this misadventure. It is
time we heeded their demand.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. CAR-
TER).
(By unanimous consent, Mr. CARTER
yielded his time to Mr. MINSHALL.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
MICHEL).
Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, the gen-
tleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bo-
LAND), the author of the pending amend-
ment, has said he is tired of the argu-
ment that we are tying the President's
hands by passage of his amendment.
I would just like to say that a few years
ago I felt somewhat that way when Nas-
ser of Egypt was telling the United
States to go drink from the sea and ?I
offered an amendment to an agricultural
appropriation bill to prohibit the further
sale of surplus commodities to Egypt. I
was supported unanimously on our Re-
publican side of the aisle and joined by
71 Democrat Members. The amendment
carried but 10 days later on a motion to
instruct conferees on the very same sub-
ject 40 Democrats switched their votes
after President Johnson twisted some
arms and said he could not live with that
kind of restriction.
Let me jog your memory of two more
very relevant Presidential incidents. Re-
member when in October of 1962 Presi-
dent Kennedy issued the ultimatum to
the Russians to get their missiles out of
Cuba? Why do you suppose the Soviets
responded affirmatively? Certainly not
because of the President's good looks or
his persuasive oratory, but because of the
great military might of the United States
that backed up what he said.
Remember when President Eisenhow-
er was about to meet with Khrushchev in
Paris for some very delicate negotiations
and the whole conference blew up over
the U-2 incident?
Why do I mention these three inci-
dents? Because our President has said he
is going to Peking to try and break the
ice and open up a dialog with Chou En-
lai and possibly get some agreements
to guarantee us at least a generation of
peace.
Can you imagine the President sitting
down with the Chinese or Russians hob-
bled with this and other similar amend-
ments? It would be catastrophic. If per-
chance this amendment w_ere adopted by
the Congress I would think the President
would be justified in ooming before a
joint session of Congress and saying
"Gentlemen, as I understand the Con-
stitution we all have sworn to uphold,
I do have the power and authority to
conduct the foreign policy of this Gov-
ernment and negotiate agreements and
treaties subject to the confirmation of
the Senate. Unless I can negotiate from
a position of strength-unfettered and
without an albatross around my neck, I
feel constrained to cancel my proposed
trip to Peking."
Do you want that on your consciences?
I will tell you as a father of four teen-
agers, three of whom could very well be
serving in the Armed Forces within the
next few years that I do not want it on
mine.
Our President deserves our whole-
hearted support at this time not only for
the selfish interests of our Government,
but for all men who seek a peaceful
world. This amendment should be
defeated.
(Mr. MICHEL asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
(By unanimous consent, Mr. MICHEL
yielded his remaining time to- Mr. Mix-
SHALL.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
YOUNG).
(Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman,
for the past 52 years Americans have
celebrated November 11 as Armistice Day
and Veterans Day in honor of the men
and women who gave so much that
America might survive as a free na-
tion. If we pass the Boland amendment
today, the Communist nations will cele-
brate November 17 for the next 52 years
for on this day they will have won the
victory on the floor of this Congress that
they were unable to win on the battle-
fields of Southeast Asia.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Montana (Mr.
SHOUP).
(By unanimous consent, Mr. SHOUP
yielded his time to Mr. MINSHALL.)
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr.
HUNGATE).
(Mr. HUNGATE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr.-HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, some-
one said the President has turned this
war around. I think that is true. I think
he deserves credit for it. I am glad to
have the troops withdrawn.
But I think he has turned the world
around. We have Red China in the U.N.
and Taiwan has been kicked out. May I
say to those who argue that we have been
winning this war since 1965, they pur-
suaded me then that we should defeat
things like the Boland amendment and
support this proposition. We have been
winning this war since 1965, but every
year we have more casualties, more
MIA's, and more POW's. Our winning in
Vietnam is like the man who won first
prize-1 week in Philadelphia, while sec-
ond prize was 2 weeks in Philadelphia.
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
1111196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 17, 1971
This is said to be one of the toughest
resolutions we have ever had. I think it
is the toughest toasted marshmallow on
a plate of toasted marshmallows.
We do not declare war outright any
more. We just declare war on the install-
ment plan.
Let us just skip this payment and let
them repossess this war. I urge support
the Boland amendment.
[Mr. KEITH addressed the Committee.
His remarks will appear hereafter in the
Extensions of Remarks.]
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
WRIGHT).
Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I must
oppose this amendment because it would
simply say to the enemy that they do
not have to negotiate with us on any
matter whatever except release of pris-
oners. It would tell them in effect that
if they will just simply hold on a little
while longer, we will get out completely
and let them settle the substantive issues
of the future of Vietnam on their own
terms.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield
to my colleague, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. TEAGUE).
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Chairman,
I understand the question has been asked
whether anyone with sons serving in
Vietnam is against this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have two sons and
a son-in-law. My two sons each served
two tours of duty over there. The last
tour was voluntary. One was wounded
twice and one received the Silver Star
and one received the Bronze Star. My
son-in-law just came back, and he is a
captain in the Marine Corps, and they
all tell me that an amendment of this
kind is good for nobody except Hanoi.
The first four young ladies who went
to Paris, widows and wives of our serv-
icemen-those girls are not for this kind
of an amendment. Two of them have
sons-one a 7-year-old, who have never
seen their fathers and the other two have
never heard from their husbands.
Mr. Chairman, I am very much op-
posed to this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. BOLAND).
Mr. BOLAND-. Mr. Chairman, I want
to express my appreciation to the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Committee
on Appropriations, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. MAHON) and the ranking mi-
nority member, the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. MINSHALL) for their patience
and their courtesy all during this de-
bate.
It would seem to me that a simple
explanation of this bill amendment is
indeed a put-up or shut-up proposition
to Hanoi.
Hanoi has been telling the world that
it is willing to negotiate provided we
have a terminal date. The terminal date
is here. If it refuses to negotiate and if
there is no movement on the prisoners
of war and no movement on the missing
in action, then the amendment limita-
tion and the cutoff of funds in my judg-
ment does not prevail.
The President of the United States in
April[ of this year, I believe, attached two
conditions to the ending of the war in
Vietnam.
No. 1, the return of the prisoners of
war.
No. 2, the reasonable chance for South
Vietnam to survive.
If I heard the Secretary of Defense
last Sunday correctly, he indicated now
that South Vietnam has a reasonable
chance to survive-and he said that in
Saigon a week ago.
So one of the conditions has already
been met.
The President's press conference last
week presents a . problem. ] think the
position is changed from a reasonable
chance of survival to the assurance that
the '.Chieu regime will not be overcome
by the Communists. This is a deep and
serious change of position.
I would think that if the war is ended
within the next few months the possibil-
ity is that the Government of South Viet-
nam would survive. Nobody can say. Mr.
Chairman, this is the first opportunity
this Congress has had to limit funds for
the Vietnam war. We have a terminal
date. The funds would not be cut off un-
less we have some response from the
Government of North Vietnam with re-
spect to our prisoners of war and men
missing in action. That is precisely what
the amendment would accomplish. It
would call Hanoi's hand and in my
judgment, would get negotiations in
Paris that have been stalled for so long
to get into some meaningful and signif-
icant talks.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes
the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
MINSHALL).
Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, at the
outset I want to thank the other mem-
bers of this committee who have so gra-
ciously yielded to me their allocated few
seconds.
I would like to say that we have been
around the barn. We have plowed the
ground. We have been down the road
numerous times on this question, and I
do not think anything that I can say as
we conclude this debate is going to
change one vote one way or the other.
But ][ do completely agree with my col-
leagues on the need for a national com-
mitment to end rapidly our military in-
volvement in Indochina. But of what use
would the amendment under considera-
tion be? It essentially reiterates a com-
mitment that has already been made, not
only by the President, but also by this
Congress.
Not only are the objectives of this
amendment rapidly being realized, but
the means for achieving our objectives
might be seriously impaired if the amend-
ment were to be adopted. We could fail
to do what we are earnestly hoping he
will be able to do.
As I said under the 5-minute rule, at
the conclusion of my remarks, this is a
time to be cheering the Nixon adminis-
tration. At the same time I do not want
you to forget the important part that
Mel Laird has played in this adminis-
tration. Our former colleague has dis-
tinguished himself with his advice and
counsel to our Chief Executive. With-
out question he is the best Secretary of
Defense in recent history.
As has been frequently mentioned here
this afternoon, he appeared last Sunday
on the "Meet the Press" television pro-
gram. I think that any American who
saw his appearance cannot doubt for one
minute his great ability, his sincerity, his
devotion to duty, and his hopes that the
Vietnamization program is coming to a
good and honest conclusion. We all know
the program is succeeding.
So I say again that this is a time for
cheering the Nixon administration, not
undercutting it, and a time for encour-
aging it to continue its drive toward
peace and the safe return of all Amer-
ican men. I hope that all of you in your
good conscience will vote against the
Boland amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
MAHON) to close the debate.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I think
all has been said that needs to be said
in opposition to the pending amendment.
I have opposed this amendment because
I believe it would undercut the efforts
of our Nation to achieve peace and the
return of our prisoners of war. I am
afraid that this amendment would tend
to foreclose our chance of bringing this
conflict to an end that will reflect credit
on the men who gave their lives and those
who give their devotion and effort in the
service to this country. I earnestly hope
and I certainly believe that this House
will reject the amendment. I ask for a
vote.
The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The question is on the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Massachu-
setts (Mr. BOLAND).
TELLER VOTE WITH CLERKS
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand tellers.
Tellers were ordered.
Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand tellers with clerks.
Tellers with clerks were ordered; and
the Chairman appointed as tellers
Messrs. BOLAND, RHODES, MAHON, and
RIEGLE.
The Committee divided, and the tellers
reported that there were-ayes 163,
noes 238, not voting 30, as follows:
[Roll No. 399]
[Recorded Teller Vote]
AYES-163
Abourezk
Burton
Ellberg
Abzug
Carey, N.Y.
Each
Adams
Carney
Evans, Colo.
Addabbo
Chisholm
Fascell
Anderson,
Clay
Flynt
Calif.
Collins, Ill.
Ford,
Anderson,
Conte
William D.
Tenn.
Conyers
Fraser
Annunzio
Corman
Frenzel
Aspin
Coughlin
Fulton, Tenn.
Badillo
Culver
Galifanakis
Baring
Daniels, N.J.
Garmatz
Barrett
Danielson
Gaydos
Begich
Dellums
Glaimo
Bergland
Denholm
Gibbons
Biaggi
Dent
Grasso
Biester
Dingell
Gray
Bingham
Donohue
Green, Oreg.
Boland
Dow
Green, Pa.
Brademas
Drinan
Gude
Brasco
Dwyer
Hamilton
Burke, Mass.
Eckhardt
Hansen, Wash.
Burlison, Mo.
Edwards, Calif.
Harrington
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, P
roved Fir
Harvey
Mink
Ryan
Hathaway
Mitchell
St Germain
Hawkins
Moorhead
Sarbanes
Hechler, W. Va. Morse
Scheuer
Heckler, Mass.
Mosher
Schwengel
Heinz
Moss
Seiberling
Helstoski
Murphy, Ill.
Shipley
Hicks, Mass.
Nedzi
Slack
Hicks, Wash.
Nix
Smith, Iowa
Howard
Obey
Stanton,
Hungate
O'Hara
James V.
Jacobs
O'Neill
Steele
Jones, N.C.
Patten
Stokes
Karth
Pepper
Sullivan
Kastenmeier
Podell
Symington
Kluczynski
Preyer, N.C.
Taylor
Koch
Pryor, Ark.
Thompson, N.J.
Kyros
Pucinski
Tiernan
Landrum
Rangel
Udall
Leggett
Rees
Ullman
Long, Md.
Reid, N.Y.
Van Deerlin
McCloskey
Reuss
Vanik
McCormack
Riegle
Vigorito
McDade
Rodino
Waldie
McKinney
Roe
Whalen
Macdonald,
Rogers
W idnail
Mass.
Roncalio
Wilson,
Madden
Rooney, Pa.
Charles H.
Matsunaga
Rosenthal
Wolff
Mazzoli
Rostenkowski
Yates
Meeds
Roush
Yatron
Metcalfe
Roy
Zwach
Miller, Ohio
Z-~
Minish
Ru e
NOES-238
Abernethy
Mahon
Albert
Flood
Mailliard
Anderson, Ill.
Flowers
Mann
Andrews,- Ala.
Foley
Martin
Andrews,
Ford, Gerald R. Mathis, Ga.
N. Dak.
Forsythe
Mayne
Archer
Fountain
Melcher
Arends
Frelinghuysen
Michel
Ashbrook
Frey
Miller, Calif.
Ashley
Fuqua
Mills, Md.
Aspinall
Gallagher
Minshall
Baker
Gettys
Mizell
Belcher
Goldwater
Mollohan
Bell
Gonzalez
Monagan
Bennett
Goodling
Montgomery
BevilL
Griffin
Morgan
Blanton
Gross
Murphy, N.Y.
Bolling
Grover
Myers
Bow
Hagan
Natcher
Bray
Haley
Nelsen
Brinkley
Hall
Nichols
Brooks
Hammer-
O'Konski
Broomfield
schmidt
Passman
Brotzman
Hanley
Patman
Brown, Mich.
Hanna
Pelly
Brown, Ohio
Hansen, Idaho
Perkins
Broyhill, N.C.
Harsha
Pettis
Broyhill, Va.
Hastings
Peyser
Buchanan
Hays
Pickle
Burke, Fla.
Hebert
Pike
Burleson, Tex.
Henderson
Pirnie
Byrne, Pa.
Hillis
Poage
Byrnes, Wis.
Hogan
Poff
Byron
Holifield
Powell
Cabell
Horton
Price, Ill.
Caffery
Hosmer
Price, Tex.
Camp
Hull
Purcell
Carter
Hunt
Quie
Casey, Tex.
Hutchinson
Quillen
Cederberg
Ichord
Railsback
Chamberlain
Jarman
Randall
Clancy
Johnson, Calif.
Rarick
Clark
Johnson, Pa.
Rhodes
Clawson, Del
Jonas
Robinson, Va.
Cleveland
Jones, Ala.
Robison, N.Y.
Collier
Jones, Tenn.
Rooney, N.Y.
Collins, Tex.
Kazen
Rousselot
Colmer
Keating
Ruth
Conable
Keith
Sandman
Crane
Kemp
Satterfield
Daniel, Va.
King
Saylor
Davis, Ga.
Kuykendall
Scherle
Davis, S.C.
.Kyl
Schmitz
Davis, Wis.
Landgrebe
Schneebeli
de la Garza
Latta
Scott
Delaney
Lennon
Sebelius
Dellenback
Lent
Shoup
Dennis
Lloyd
Shriver
Devine'
Long, La.
Sikes
Dickinson
Lujan
Sisk
Dorn
McClory
Skubitz
Duncan
McCollister
Smith, Calif.
du Pont
McCulloch
Smith, N.Y.
Edwards, Ala.
McDonald,
Snyder
Erlenborn
Mich.
Spence
Eshleman
McEwen
Springer
Evins, Tenn,
McFall
Staggers
Findley
McKay
Stanton,
Fish
McMillan
J. William
, Mj4,1X11/1 fL]EQ{ p M6R000400120011-3 H 11197.
~,
Steiger, Ariz.
Thone
Wilson, Bob
Steiger, Wis.
Vander Jagt
Winn
Stephens
Veysey
Wright
Stratton
Waggonner
Wyatt
Stubblefield
Wampler
Wydler
Stuckey
Ware
Wylie
Talcott
Whalley
Wyman
Teague, Calif.
White
Young, Fla.
Teague, Tex.
Whitehurst
Young, Tex.
Terry
Whitten
Zablocki
Thompson, Ga. Wiggins
Zion
Thomson, Wis. Williams
NOT VOTING-30
Abbitt
Derwinski
Link
Alexander
Diggs
McClure
Betts
Dowdy
McKevitt
Blackburn
Downing
Mathias, Calif.
Blatnik
Dulski
Mikva
Boggs
Edmondson
Mills, Ark.
Celler
Edwards, La.
Roberts
Chappell
Griffiths
Runnels
Clausen,
Gubser
Steed
Don H.
Halpern
Cotter
Kee
So the amendment was rejected.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any fur-
ther amendments to this section?
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RIEGLE
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. RIEGLE: on page
48, between lines 7 and 8, insert the follow-
ing:
SEC. 745. Money. appropriated in this Act
shall be available for expenditure in the fis-
cal year ending June 30, 1972, only to the
extent that expenditure thereof shall not re-
sult in total aggregate net expenditures of
all agencies provided for herein beyond
ninety-five percent of the total aggregate net
expenditures estimated therefor in the budg-
et for 1972 (H. Doc. 15).
(Mr. RIEGLE asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman and col-
leagues, I am very much indebted to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow) for this
amendment, because this amendment has
historically been known as the "Bow ex-
penditure limitation amendment." How-
ever, it is the first time it has been of-
fered, to my knowledge, to a defense ap-
propriation bill.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment applies
directly to .the actual spending contem-
plated by the Department of Defense for
this fiscal year and, as such, in a signifi-
cant way, goes beyond the amount of
money contained in the appropriation
bill that is before the Committee today.
You will be interested to know, for ex-
ample, that nearly $18 billion of new
obligational authority in the appropria-
tion bill before us represents funds
which will not be spent this year but, in
fact, will be spent in some future year.
Mr. Chairman, what I am concerned
about, and what this specific amendment
goes to, is the actual amount of spending
by the Department of Defense this year.
If the members of the committee will
refer to the committee report before us,
they will find that there is budgeted $76
billion of fiscal year 1972 expenditures-
approximately $50 billion being new
money in this appropriation bill and
something like $20 billion being carry-
over authority from previous appropria-
tion bills of previous years.
Mr, Chairman, my amendment would
require the Department of Defense to
restrict its spending to only 95 percent
of that amount-95 percent of the $76
billion it anticipates spending this year-
which means it would have to absorb
within the Department of Defense, a.
5-percent reduction in its spending plans.
This would create a dollar savings-an
actual dollar savings, this fiscal year, of
some $3.8 billion.
I think this is a significant money sav-
ings that the Department of Defense
could be asked to absorb this year.
My friend, the gentleman from Wis-
consin (Mr. AsPIN) will later offer an
amendment that is very different.
His amendment would seek to reduce
the amount of new obligational authority
for the Defense Department. A reduction
of that kind might apply to this year or
might apply to some future year, and
while I may support the amendment of-
fered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. AsPIN) it does not make sure that
actual defense spending for this year will
be reduced by even $1. My amendment
will absolutely assure that the actual de-
fense spending will be reduced by some 5
percent.
Since 1964, including the planned
expenditures for this fiscal year, we will
have spent on defense in this country
just since 1964, over $600 billion-over
$600 billion. To anyone who wants to
suggest that 'we have been stingy with
the Defense Department, I would respond
that the facts just do not back up that
assertion.
Now, some people have objected to the
Bow amendment because it is not an
amendment that cuts the budget line
item by line item. I too have the same ob-
jection, and I would much prefer to make
a line item by line item reduction to this
bill, but that is almost impossible in a
bill that is the size of this one; one that
is in the $70 billion range.
The full Committee on Appropriations,
for your information, meets to consider
this bill in full committee for approxi-
mately 21/2 hours, and there is no way we
can carefully go through line item by line
item a bill of this size. This is no criticism
of the committee. It is just a fact of the
life we live with, and thus we must resort
to this type amendment as it is the only
way we can have a chance to effect any
kind of spending reduction in this fiscal
year.
The bill before us, which comes from
the Committee on Appropriations, re-
duces planned expenditures by just about
$1 billion. That is the figure they esti-
mate as the reduction of the spending
request that came in from the Defense
Department. My amendment would go
further than that; it would incorporate
the $1 billion reduction, and then go
beyond that to $3.8 billion.
With all due regard to the Secretary
of Defense; who is our friend, and a
former colleague of the Committee on
Appropriations, I do submit that there is
no Federal agency that can be run today
in the United States without considerable
bureaucracy, overlapping and waste. And
I think the Defense Department is in this
position, whether you want to talk about
airplanes that do not fly, or cost over-
runs, or any one of a number of other
things.
We are in an emergency condition. You
may not know it, but the chairman of the
Committee on Appropriations told the
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11198
Approved For Re ft ( y16f4;jiQ A W 3B~R00400120frAnber 17, 1971
Committee on Appropriations the other
day that his best estimate for the deficit
for this fiscal year is $40 billion-and
that comes on top of the deficit of last
year of $30 billion. If we are going to
reduce this deficit, then the Defense De-
partment, which is the biggest single
operation of this Government, certainly
can absorb a 5-percent reduction in light
of the emergency condition this country
is in. Otherwise, where are you going to
save any money? I think they can do, it.
I think it is a reasonable amount. I hope
that my colleagues in the House will sup-
port my amendment. I will say that I will
ask for a recorded teller vote on this
because this is the only chance we can
have to make a necessary reduction in
the Defense Department spending.
In my experience in other organiza-
tions outside of the Federal Government,
when they have been asked to absorb a
5-percent cut, it actually has helped
them, because it gives them the tool to
go inside the organization and to clean
up some of the sloppy operations and
wasteful methods.
So, Mr. Chairman, again I would ask
my colleagues to give support to my
amendment, which will be the only
chance they have to actually save money
in the Defense Department this year.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in op-
position to the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE).
I am glad to see that my friends on
the other side are interested, and still in-
terested in the Bow amendment, because
we may have it again before long, and
I appreciate the support it has had in the
past.
However, as the gentleman from
Michigan has said, this is the first time
that the so-called Bow amendment has
ever been offered on a defense bill. I
never did offer it on a defense bill, and
on the overall amendments we used to
have I always excepted the Defense
Department.
I do not believe we can afford to put
a limitation of this kind on the defense
bill, where the funds may be necessary
for the security of our country. Now,
there are other areas where we should---
and, as I say, it may come again, and
I will support it-but I never would sup-
port it on a defense bill. I think it would
be wrong to do it.
I sincerely hope that the committee
will reject this amendment.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike out the last word,
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Michigan indicated an inadequate con-
sideration of the pending measure.
The 11-member Subcommittee on De-
fense Appropriations had months of
hearings and there are nine printed vol-
umes of testimony here on this table. It
was well considered.
There has been no expenditure limita-
tion on any appropriation bill this year.
I do not know why this bill was singled
out for this purpose.
Congress basically controls spending
by controlling appropriations and other
obligational authority, not by controlling
expenditures.
The amendment proposes a meat-ax
cut. The bill before you provides a reduc-
tion in expenditures of about $1 billion
for the current fiscal year, and the gen-
tleman would increase that by about $2.5
billion, and would leave it completely to
the Executive as to where those reduc-
tions are to be made.
The appropriation cuts in this bill were
specified particularly, and they are well
described in the report.
The gentleman has not pointed out
where he wants to make a reduction.
This amendment proposes an abdica-
tion by the Congress of its money powers.
Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman
from Ohio in asking that the amendment
be voted down.
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman
from Massachusetts.
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to
thank my chairman.
is opposed this amendment in full com-
mittee. I said at that time, I opposed the
Bow amendments because I did not agree
with them. I do not believe an across-the-
board cut is the way to control expendi-
tures. We should have selective reduc-
tions. If there-are weaknesses in this bill,
let us go after the weak spots.
]: think the amendment is ill planned
and ill conceived and ill timed. After all,
we have gone through 6 months of this
fiscal year already and to have a 5-per-
cent across-the-board cut will certainly
be to the detriment of the whole defense
bill. Therefore, I oppose the amendment
and hope that it is defeated.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on the pending amend-
ment and all amendments thereto do
now close.
The "CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Texas.
The motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE).
The question was taken; and the Chair-
man announced that the noes appeared
to have it.
TELLER VOTE WITH CLERKS
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand tellers.
Tellers were ordered.
Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand
tellers with clerks.
Tellers with clerks were ordered; and
the Chairman appointed as tellers
Messrs. RIEGLE, BOW, MAHON, and ASPIN..
The Committee divided, and the tellers
reported that there were-ayes 74,
noes 307, not voting 50, as follows: -
[Roll No. 400]
[Recorded Teller Vote]
AYES-74
Abourezk
Conyers
Hall
Abzug
Delaney
Hanley
Aspin
Dellums
Harrington
Badillo
Denholm
Hathaway
Bergland
Dow
Hechler, W. Va.
Bingham
Drinan
Helstoski
Brademas
du Pont
Hungate
Brasco
Edwards, Calif.
Ichord
Bu^ton
Eilberg
Kastenmeler
Carey, N.Y.
Each
Koch
Carney
Fraser
Kyros
Chisholm
Gaydos
Lujan
Clay
Green, Pa.
McClory
Collins, Ill.
Gross
McCloskey
McDonald,
Pucinski-
Stokes
Mich.
Rangel
Thompson, N.J.
Macdonald.
Reid, N.Y.
Udall
Mass.
Riegle
Vanile
Melchor
Rosenthal
Waldie
Metcalfe
Roybal
Whalen
Mink
Ryan
Wolff
Mitchell
Sarbanes
Yates
Moorhead
Scheuer
Yatron
Mosher
Schwengel
Zwach
Nix
Seiberling
Pryor, Ark.
Snyder
NOES-307
Abernethy
Flood
Mazzoli
Adams
Flowers
Meeds
Addabbo
Flynt
Michel
Albert
Foley
Miller, Calif.
Anderson,
Ford, Gerald R. Miller, Ohio
Calif.
Ford,
Mills, Md.
Anderson, Ill.
William D.
Minish
Andrews, Ala.
Forsythe
Minshall
Andrews,
Fountain
Mizell
N. Dak.
Frelinghuysen
Mollohan
Annunzio
Frenzel
Monagan
Archer
Frey
Montgomery
Arends
Fulton, Tenn.
Morgan
Ashbrook
Fuqua
Moss
Ashley
Galiiianakis
Murphy, Ill.
Aspinall
Gallagher
Murphy, N.Y.
Baker
Garmatz
Myers
Baring
Gettys
Natcher
Begich
Giaimo
Nedzi
Belcher
Goldwater
Nelsen
Bell
Gonzalez
Nichols
Bennett
Goodling
Obey
Bevill
Grasso
O'Hara
Biaggi
Gray
O'Konski
Biester
Green, Oreg.
O'Neill
Blanton:
Griffin
Passman
Boland
Grover
Patman
Bolling
Gubser
Patten
Bow
Gude
Pelly
Bray
Hagan
Pepper
Brinkley
Haley
Perkins
Brooks
Hamilton
Pettis
Broomfield
Hammer-
Peyser
Brotzman
schmidt
Pickle
Brown, Mich.
Hansen, Idaho
Pike
Brown, Ohio
Hansen, Wash.
Pirnie
Broyhill, N.C.
Harsha
Poage
Broyhill, Va.
Harvey
Poff
Buchanan
Hastings
Powell
Burke, Fla.
Hays
Preyer, N.C.
Burleson, Tex.
Hebert
Price, 111.
Burlison, Mo.
Heinz
Price, Tex.
Byrne, Pa.
Henderson
Purcell
Byrnes, Wis.
Hicks, Mass.
Quie
Byron
Hicks, Wash.
Quillen
Cabell
Hillis
Railsback
Caffery
Hogan
Randall
Camp
Holifield
Rarick
Carter
Horton
Rees
Casey, Tex.
Hosmer
Rhodes
Cederberg
Howard
Robinson, Va.
Chamberlain
Hull
Robison, N.Y.
Clancy
Hunt
Rodino
Clark
Hutchinson
Roe
Clawson, Del
Jacobs
Rogers
Cleveland
Jarman
Roncalio
Collier
Johnson, Calif. Rooney, N.Y.
Collins, Tex.
Johnson, Pa.
Rooney, Pa.
Colmer
Jonas
Rostenkowski
Conable
Jones, N.C.
Roush
Conte
Jones, Tenn.
Rousselot
Carman
Karth
Roy
Coughlin
Kazen
Ruppe
Crane
Kemp
Ruth
Culver
King
St Germain
Daniel, Va.
Kluczynski
Sandman
Daniels, N.J.
Kuykendall
Satterfield
Danielson
Kyl
Saylor
Davis, Ga.
Landgrebe
Scherle
Davis, S.C.
Latta
Schmitz
Davis, Wis.
Lennon
Schneebell
Dellenback
Lent
Scott
Dennis
Lloyd
Sebelius
Dent
Long, La.
Shipley
Devine
Long, Md.
.Shoup
Dickinson
McCollister
Shriver
Dingell
McCormack
Sikes
Donohue
McCulloch
Skubitz
Dorn
McDade
Slack
Duncan
McEwen
Smith, Calif.
Dwyer
McKay
Smith, Iowa
Eckhardt
McKinney
Smith, N.Y.
Edwards, Ala.
McMillan
Spence
Erlenborn
Madden
Springer
Eshleman
Mahon
Staggers
Evans, Colo.
Mailliard
Stanton,
Evins, Tenn.
Mann
J. William
Fascell
Martin
Stanton,
Findley
Mathis, Ga.
James V.
Fish
Matsunaga
Steele
Fisher
Mayne
Steiger, Aria
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, proved For ( (tgof4l/X15RRF tBP13 ? j6 R000400120011-3 H 11199
Stephens
Tiernan
Wiggins
Stratton
Ullman
Williams
Stubblefield
Van Deerlin
Wilson, Bob
St lckey
Vander Jagt
Wilson,
Sullivan
Veysey
Charles H.
Symington
Vigorito
Wright
Talcott
Waggonner
Wyatt
Taylor
Wampler
Wylie
Teague, Calif.
Ware
Wyman
Teague, Tex.
Whalley
Young, Fla.
Terry
White
Young,. Tex.
Thompson, Ga. Whitehurst Zablocki
Thomson, Wis. Whitten Zion
Thone Widnall
NOT VOTING-50
Abbitt
Dowdy
McClure
Alexander
Downing
McFall
Anderson,
Dulski
McKevitt
Tenn.
Edmondson
Mathias, Calif.
Barrett
Edwards, La.
Mikva
Betts
Gibbons
Mills, Ark.
Blackburn
Griffiths
Morse
Blatnik
Halpern
Podell
Boggs
Hanna
Reuss
Burke, Mass.
Hawkins
Roberts
Celler
Heckler, Mass.
Runnels
Chappell
Jones, Ala.
Sisk
Clausen,
'Keating
Steed
Don H.
Kee
Steiger, Wis.
Cotter
Keith
Winn
de Is Garza
Landrum
Wydler
Derwinski
Leggett
Diggs
Link
So the amendment was rejected.
~S AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ASPIN
Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. AsriN: Page 48,
immediately after line 7, insfrt the follow-
ing:
TITLE IX
APPROPRIATION LIMITATION
SEC. 745. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Act, the total sums appro-
priated by this Act for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1972, for the military functions
administered by the Department of Defense,
and for other purposes, shall not exceed the
total sums appropriated to that Department
for such functions and purposes in Public
Law 91-668, approved January 11, 1971.
Mr. ASPIN. _Mr. Chairman, I do not
plan to take very long because this
amendment is simple to explain. What
the amendment does is to hold defense
spending to last year's level.
Last year we appropriated $69.5 bil-
lion. This year the bill we are talking
about is $71 billion. So that would mean
a cut of $1.5 billion.
Mr. Chairman, I am presenting this
amendment and raising the question
here because it has not been adequately
explained to me why this defense budget
is higher than the one we had last year.
It seems to me that is a very, very
difficult thing to explain. The cornmitte'e
report itself has trouble explaining it.
After all, we have a war which is be-
ing wound down. We have less defense
in the general purpose forces this year
than last year. Why is the defense budget
higher?
One reason given by the committee re-
port for this year's budget being higher
is inflation, and indeed inflation is a
factor. To buy last year's budget at this
year's prices will cost in money $2.4 bil-
lion more according to Mr. Moot, the
Comptroller. So that is one factor.
But, on the other hand, the war is
costing us less. According to the Secre-
tary of Defense the war this year is cost-
ing us $4 billion less than the war cost
us last year. So on balance, the inflation
and the war, we end up ahead, and the
budget overall should not be higher.
A second reason the committee gives
for the budget being higher this year is
because of unemployment in some places.
But this amendment, contrary to the
amendment offered by the gentleman
from Michigan, does nothing about
spending. All of it might be spent next
year, some of it this year, or some, some
other time. Even if this amendment is
passed, the amount of outlay we spend
this year might not change at all.
Another reason why this year's budget
is higher, offered by the chail'man of
the committee yesterday, is the volun-
teer army. We are spending more money
on pay for a volunteer army; therefore,
the budget is higher. But, as the discus-
sion yesterday revealed, there is no
money or very little money for the vol-
unteer army in this appropriation bill.
Some $250 million out of $1.5 billion is
in this bill. In fact, the amount of money
that Is going to be appropriated this
year for personnel is less than the
amount last year, so that cannot be the
reason.
Perhaps it is because we are buying
more defense, but certainly not in gen-
eral purpose forces are we buying more
defense.
This budget this year has one-third
of an Army division less than the budget
last year. It has one Navy air wing less
than the budget last year. It has two
Navy carriers less than the budget last
year.
So, Mr. Chairman, why is this budget
higher? Why are we appropriating $1.5
billion more this year for defense than
we did last year? I wound like to offer
several reasons for it, none of which I am
very happy about, which are all reasons
why we are getting a higher budget and
why we are spending more for defense
and getting less from it.
No. 1 is cost overruns. A .recent GAO
report pointed out that of 45 selected
programs, the cost overruns totaled $35.4
billion. Last year alone there were $8 bil-
lion in cost overruns.
The second reason why our budgets are
going up is too much support. We now
have in the Army more three- and four-
star generals and admirals than we had
at the peak of World War II. At the peak
of World War II there were 12 million
men under arms. Today there are 2.7 mil-
lion men under arms and we have more
generals and admirals than we had then.
It just does not make any sense.
The third reason is we have too much
overhead. We have too many bases and
too many civilians. For example, this
year's, budget cuts our military man-
power. It is cutting our military man-
power over last year by 7.5 percent. But
what are we doing about civilian man-
power? We are cutting it by less than 1
percent.
A fourth reason for the budget going
up is too much gold- plating. The F-4
cost less than $4 million apiece. The F-14
will cost $16 million apiece. There is no
indication whatever that the F-14 is
worth four times more or is four times
more effective than the F-4.
That is where our money is going and
that is why our defense costs are going
up.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unan-
imous consent to be allowed to proceed
for 1 additional minute.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Wisconsin?
Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I object.
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment, and I yield
1 minute to the distinguished gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Mr. ASPIN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that with
the budgets going higher and the amount
of money we are getting for the budgets
less, it is appropriate for this Congress
and its Members to express their un-
happiness with this situation.
This amendment does not tell the
Pentagon what to cut, or where to cut
or how to cut, but it does put the House
on record as being opposed to buying less
defense and spending more for it.
I urge the adoption of the amendment.
(Mr. SIKES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, there is
within the reach of each Member a re-
port of 139 pages which tells clearly and
specifically why defense costs more now
than it has in previous years. I hope
you have read it. I urge that you keep it
for reference.
May I point this out to you, and please
listen to me. The Aspin amendment
would tie defense spending for fiscal year
1972 to the 1971 appropriations. That
figure was $66.6 billion. The Aspin
amendment does not call for an amount
of $1.5 billion below the 1971 appropria-
tion, but it calls for that much below the
1972 bill. Supplelnentals were approved
subsequent to the passing of the 1971 bill
in the amount of $66.6 billion. The sup-
plementals were $3 billion, almost alto-
gether for wages and salaries. The effect
of the amendment has not been thought
through.
Are you prepared to abolish the pay
raises? How would you specify the areas
of cuts, or is this a shotgun blast at all
defense? Under the terms of the Aspin
amendment, the total cut would be $4.5
billion below the committee's 1972 bill or
$7 billion below the administration's 1972
budget. This is not a 2-percent cut, my
friends. It would cut more deeply than
the amendment just proposed for a 5-
percent reduction and decisively de-
feated.
Now, this, of course, is wild blue yon-
der thinking. The House already has had
a good look at the defense picture, we
have spent 2 long days on the bill be-
fore us. Let me recapitulate. In constant
dollars defense spending is not higher.
Inflation and wages are running away
with all costs, including defense. The pro-
posed defense spending level means we
will have smaller forces, we will have too
little modernization, less total defense
than in previous years even though the
spending level is higher.
Mr. Chairman, it is a dangerous thing
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 H 11200 Approved For C V&$.iSSI6Nli : $738 M9g 200040012 ovember 17, 1971
to have less defense in the face of grow-
ing Russian strength. Modernization is
the key to national security. We need
new weapons in greater number. The So-
viets are ahead in size of forces, in num-
bers of modern weapons. They are build-
ing more nuclear-powered submarines
and major surface ships than we are.
The Russian Foxbat-listen to this--the
Russian Foxbat which is flying around
Israel is the most advanced aircraft of
its class in the world. We do not have
any. We need more tanks. -The Commu-
nists have three times as many tanks
as we and their tanks are newer than
ours. The soldier who fights on the
ground suffers most of the casualties.
In a European-type war the tank is es-
sential if our troops are to be success-
ful.
Mr. Chairman, I do not think. the
House wants to embark into an uncer-
tain prospect for national security by
adopting a 5-percent cut-not a 2-per-
cent cut-in appropriations for fiscal
year 1972 defense spending. The amend-
ment is an invitation to trouble-an in-
vitation to Communist aggression. It can
cripple our Nation's defenses and endan-
ger America's security. This is a type of
economy we cannot afford. I ask for a
vote in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. YATES, Mr. Chairman, the com-
mittee report on the fiscal year 1972 De-
partment of Defense appropriations bill
is a document which is extraordinary for
its candor. It is, I believe, a document
which argues convincingly for a cut in
military appropriations substantially be-
low the levels recommended in the bill.
Page 6 of the report states:
It has been the pattern of the United States
to sharply reduce our military forces after
the end of a major conflict, We did so after
World War II and again after the Korean
War. The war in Southeast Asia is not yet
over but active participation by United
States forces has greatly decreased. Even so,
the fiscal year 1972 budget, and the appro-
priations recommended in the accompanying
bill, represent increases over the previous
year, not decreases.
The decreases in military personnel in the
past year would lead the Congress to antici-
pate a budget decrease, not an increase. The
increase of $1.5 'billion is supported by a
number of factors. High costs due to eco-
nomic inflation have caused defense costs to
rise. The desire to continue ongoing pro-
grams and installations in order to provide
jobs and in order to avoid a further increase
in unemployment is probably a factor. Also,
the military services, as is not uncharacter-
istic of Government agencies generally, have
sought the opportunity to keep their budgets
at a high level and have included favored
programs in the Budget which could not be
funded when the war made heavier demands
on appropriations. The Committee believes
that this is an area which calls for close
Congressional scrutiny during this transition
period and has tried to screen new proposals
carefully.
The important element of that ex-
planation of the increases in defense
spending is that it makes almost no
reference to any military requirement for
a budget of more than $71 billion. Rather
it admits that "favored programs" and
the desire "to provide jobs" were in large
part responsible for the failure to reflect
the savings In the budget which we
should expect from the winding down of
the war in Southeast Asia. The military
establishment whose bill we are being
asked to approve today is roundly crit-
icized even by the committee-one has
only to read the report.
Though the Vietnam war will cost us
some $4 billion less this year than last,
and though military personnel costs are
nearly $5.5 billion less than last year,
the appropriations for defense have in-
creased by $1i/2 billion over fiscal year
1971. Rather than saving $5 billion, we
are spending more than last year. Why?
Inflation accounts for about one-half
of the increase, or about $2.75 billion, but
what about the other half? What has
happened to the "peace dividend"?
A large part of the increase over last
year comes in the procurement category,
which is $2,156,000,000 higher than last
year. There are "favored programs" men-
tioned in the report funded this year
regardless of their merit or the status
of their research and development. We
are asked to provide the money not
because the systems are good or even
necessary, but rather because the Penta-
gon bureaucracy is incapable of making
necessary changes, even when an ac-
cepted weapons system is almost with-
out question a turkey. The Pentagon
would rather have a C5-A with its wings
or engines falling off than have no plane
at all. This inflated budget reflects
nothing so much as the fact that the
Pentagon, despite all the new procure-
ment practices Mr. Packard speaks of
so often, still is the victim of the huge
cost overruns of the last few years.
For example, as is indicated in the
committee report, the F-14 Navy fighter
program can only be called a procure-
ment fiasco. After the Appropriations
Committee wisely suggested a slowdown
in the F-14 program in December 1969,
the Navy, "prevailed upon the commit-
tee to reverse its decision." Congressional
skepticism about the F-14 has given
way to Navy optimism ever since, and
this year there is more than $800 mil-
lion in the budget for procurement of
the F-14, which is admittedly obsolete
even before it is fully tested.
According to the committee report,
the F-14 is being procured because it
would be able to cope with the new Soviet
Mig-23 better than anything we now
have in the inventory. There is no hard
evidence, however, that the F-14 is even
marginally better than the F-4 would be
if it were modified to accommodate the
Phoenix missile, and the F-4 costs only
one-fourth as much as the F-14.
It is difficult to say anything with cer-
tainty about the performance of the
F-14, since it is still in the early stages
of its testing program. However, we do
know it will not compete with the Mig-
23. The bill includes $229 million for
research and testing of the F-14, a fig-
ure which must give pause to anyone
familiar with the waste which concur-
rent testing and procurement has pro-
duced in the past. The program has been
concurrent for 2 years now and the com-
mittee's continued support for the pro-
duction of such an untested plane is in
direct contradiction to its goal, stated In
the fiscal year 1970 report, of a "fly-
before-you-buy" policy. The contract is
a weird one. The report indicates a desire
by the committee to get out of the F-14
contract but has decided not to do so
because it points out it is cheaper to buy
the planes, however unwanted, than to
continue the contract.
The F-14, however, is only one of sev-
eral weapons systems that is being
funded this year in contradiction to les-
sons we should have learned during the
last few years of Pentagon weapons fail-
ures. The DD-963 destroyer program is
funded to the tune of nearly $600 mil-
lion, even though it is so heavily laden
with electronic gear that it may well
become a floating C-5A. The Senate
Armed Services Committee report on this
years procurement authorization bill
offers some sensible observations weap-
ons systems which become so technolog-
ically musclebound that they are unable
to perform their mission:
In a surprisingly large number of cases.
DOD policies over the last several years have
emphasized the development of platforms for
weapons without sufficient emphasis on the
weapons themselves. This is perhaps partially
a result of attempts to make a single weapon
system serve an inordinately large number
of missions. Whatever the cause, it is striking
that in many cases we have developed and produced aircraft of extraordinary capabili-
ties without demonstrably reliable and effec-
tive air-to-air munitions, bombers without
long range air-to-surface missiles, subma-
rines without reliable and effective torpedoes
or antiship missiles, and surface escorts
without any surface-to-surface missiles of
any kind. Moreover, simple and reliable mod-
ern weapons have often been neglected in the
pursuit of weapons of great technological'
complexity.
I strongly support the "efficiency
amendment" offered by Mr. ASPIN as a
moderate, sensible step toward enforcing
some restraint on Pentagon spending
policy. Its passage would be an unmis-
takable message to the Defense Depart-
ment that some major changes are re-
quired in the methods we use to develop
and procure military weapons systems.
Until those changes occur the Pentagon
will continue to drain the Treasury and
to make adequate funding of domestic
legislation an impossibility. The Con-
gress has been issuing polite reprimands
for too long. It is time now to put some
teeth In those reprimands by putting a
lid on the defense budget through the
Aspin amendment.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move
that all debate on this amendment and
all amendments thereto close immedi-
ately.
The motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Wisconsin (Mr. AspIN).
TELLER VOTE WITH CLERKS
Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand
tellers.
Tellers were ordered.
Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand
tellers with clerks.
Tellers with clerks were ordered; and
the Chairman appointed as -tellers
Messrs. AslIN, RHODES, RIEGLE, and
SixES.
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 Nczie`mber 17, ~97Tved For RC~ 'Wigg I /1~5 : ~- 73 ffl3000400120011-3
The Committee divided, and the tellers
reported that there were-ayes 114,
noes 278, not voting 39, as follows:
[Roll No. 401 ]
[Recorded Teller Vote]
AYES-114
Abourezk
Abzug
Anderson,
Calif.
Ashley
Aspin
Badillo
Barrett
Begich
Bergland
Biaggi
Biester
Bingham
Brademas
Brasco
Broyhill, N.C.
Burke, Mass.
Burton
Carey, N.Y.
Carney
Chisholm
Clay
Collins, Ill.
Conyers
Culver
Danielson
Dellenback
Dellums
Penholm
Donohue
Dow
Drinan
du Pont
Eckhardt
Edwards, Calif.
Eilberg
Esch
Ford,
William D.
Forsythe
Abernethy
Adams
Addabbo
Albert
Anderson, Ill.
Andrews, Ala.
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Annunzio
Archer
Arends
Ashbrook
Aspinall
Baker
Baring
Belcher
Bell
Bennett
Bevill
Blanton
Boland
Bolling
Bow
Bray
Brinkley
Brooks
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Mich.
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, Va.
Buchanan
Burke, Fla.
Burleson, Tex.
Burlison, Mo.
Byrne, Pa.
Byrnes, Wis.
Byron
Cabell
Caffery
Camp
Carter
Casey, Tex.
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Clancy
Clark
Clawson, Del
Cleveland
Collier
Collins, Tex.
Colmer
Conable
Conte
Gorman
Fraser
Frenzel
Gaydos
Gibbons
Green, Pa.
Gross
Gude
Hall
Hamilton
Hanley
Harrington
Hathaway
Hawkins
Hechler, W. Va.
Heckler, Mass.
Heinz
Helstoski
Hungate
Jacobs
Karth
Kastenmeier
Koch
Kyros
Leggett
Lujan
McClory
McCloskey
McDonald,
Mich.
McKinney
Madden
Mazzola
Melcher
Metcalfe
Mink
Mitchell
Moorhead
Morse
Mosher
Nedzi
NOES-278
Coughlin
-Crane
Daniel, Va.
Daniels, N.J.
Davis, Ga.
Davis, S.C.
Davis, Wis.
de la Garza
Delaney
Dennis
Dent
Devine
Dickinson
Dingell
Dorn
Duncan
Dwyer
Edwards, Ala.
Erlenborn
Eshleman
Evans, Colo.
Evans, Tenn.
Fascell
Findley
Fish
Fisher
Flood
Flowers
Flynt
Foley
Ford, Gerald R.
Fountain
Frelinghuysen
Frey
Fulton, Tenn.
Fuqua
Galifianakis
Gallagher
Garmatz
Gettys
Giaimo
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Goodling
Grasso
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Griffin
Grover
Gubser
Haley
Hammer-
schmidt
Hansen, Idaho
Hansen, Wash.
Obey
O'Konskt
Pryor, Ark.
Pucinski
Railsback
Rangel
Reid, N.Y.
Reuss
Riegle
Robison, N.Y.
.Roe
Roncalio
Rosenthal
Rousselot
Roy
Roybal
Ryan
Sarbanes
Scheuer
Schneebell
Schwengel
Sebelius
Seiberling
Snyder
Stanton,
James V.
Stokes
Thompson, N.J.
Udall
Vanik
Vigorito
Waldie
Whalen
Winn
Wolff
Yates
Yatron
Zwach
Harsha
Harvey
Hastings
Hays
Hebert
Henderson
Hicks, Mass.
Hicks, Wash.
Hillis
Hogan
Holifleld
Horton
Hosmer
Howard
Hull
Hunt
Hutchinson
Jarman
Johnson, Calif.
Johnson, Pa.
Jonas
Jones, Ala.
Jones, N.C.
Jones, Tenn,
Kazen
Keith
King ` L !1
Kluczygkl f 11
Kuykendall
Kyl
Landgrebe
Landrum
Latta
Lennon
Lent
L16yd
Long, La.
Long, Md.
McCollister
McCormack
McCulloch
McDade
McEwen
McFall
McKay
McMillan
Macdonald,
Mass.
Mahon
Mailliard
Mann
Martin
Mathis, Ga.
Matsunaga
Mayne
Quie
Stratton
Meeds
Quillen,
Stubblefield
Michel
Randall
Stuckey
Miller, Calif.
Rarick
Sullivan
Miller, Ohio
Rees
Symington
Mills, Md.
Rhodes
Talcott
Minish
Robinson, Va.
Taylor
Minshall
Rodino
Teague, Calif.
Mizell
Rogers
Terry
Mollohan
Rooney, N.Y.
Thompson, Ga.
Monagan
Rooney, Pa.
Thomson, Wis.
Montgomery
Rostenkowski
Thone
Morgan
Roush
Tiernan
Moss
Ruppe
Ullman
Murphy, Ill.
Ruth
Van Deerlin
Myers
St Germain
Vander Jagt
Natcher .
Sandman
Veysey
Nelsen
Satterfield
Waggoner
Nichols
Saylor
Wampler
Nix
Scherle
Ware
O'Hara
Schmitz
Whalley
O'Neill
Scott
White
Passman
Shipley
Whitehurst
Patman
Shoup
Whitten
Patten
Shriver
Widnall
Pelly
Sikes
Wiggins
Pepper
Skubitz
Williams
Perkins
Slack
Wilson, Bob
Pettis
Smith, Calif.
Wilson,
Peyser
Smith, Iowa
Charles H.
Pickle
Smith, N.Y.
Wright
Pike
Spence
Wyatt
Pirnie
Springer
Wylie
Poage
Staggers
Wyman
Poll
Stanton,
Young, Fla.
Powell
J. William
Young, Tex.
Preyer, N.C.
Steele
Zablocki
Price, Ill.
Steiger, Ariz.
Zion
Price, Tex.
Steiger, Wis.
Purcell
Stephens
NOT VOTING-39
Abbitt
Diggs
McClure
Alexander
Dowdy
McKevitt
Anderson,
Downing
Mathias, Calif.
Tenn.
Dulski
Mikva
Betts
Edmondson
Mills, Ark.
Blackburn
Edwards, La.
Murphy, N.Y.
Blatnik
Griffiths
Podell
Boggs
Hagan
Roberts
Celler
Halpern
Runnels
Chappell
Hanna
Sisk
Clausen,
Ichord
Steed
Don H.
Keating
Teague, Tex.
Cotter
Kee
Wydler
Derwinski
Link
(By unanimous consent, Mr. CULVER
changed his vote from "no" to "aye.")
So the amendment was rejected.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JACOBS
Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. JACOBS: On page
48, immediately following line 7, add the
SEC. 746. In line with Title VI of the 1971
Military Procurement Act calling for termi-
ina at the earliest practicable date and for
e prompt and orderly withdrawal of all U.S:
military forces at a date certain, subject to
the release of all American prisoners and an
accounting for all Americans missing in ac-
tion, and notwithstanding any other provi-
sions in this Act, none of the funds appro-
priated by this Act shall be used to finance
any military combat or military support op-
erations by U.S. forces in or over South Viet-
nam, North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, after
November 7, 1972, if all American prisoners
shall have first been released and all Ameri-
cans missing in action shall have been ac-
counted for.
Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I make a
point of order against the amendment
on two grounds:
First, very simply, the November 7,
1972, date goes beyond the fiscal year for
which this appropriation is being made;
Second, and I think most important, is
the final paragraph, which was also writ-
ten into the Boland amendment: "if all
American prisoners shall have first been
H 11201
released and all Americans missing in
action shall have been accounted for."
This provision places an additional
responsibility and duty upon someone,
but there is nothing in the amendment as
to who would have that responsibility
and duty. The amendment provides that
all prisoners must have been released or
accounted for. I repeat that this is an
additional responsibility in legislation in
this amendment. Therefore I urge my
point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from Indiana wish to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. JACOBS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I
would say, first of all, if the funds appro-
priated in this vehicle will end prior to
the time mentioned in the amendment,
then it would conform to the amendment
in any case. So far as the responsibility
is concerned, this is only a provision that
the amendment will take effect on the
happening of an event. That event may
or may not happen. It places no respon-
sibility on anyone.
If the prisoners are released before
the event has taken place, it places no
responsibility on anybody.
Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, further
on the point of order I should like to
point out, in response to the remarks of
the distinguished gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Bow), that there are funds pro-
vided in the bill for programs that go
beyond the end of the fiscal year.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. ROSTENKOW-
sKI). The Chair is ready to rule. The
Chair will point out, first, that there are
funds in the bill that do go beyond this
fiscal year, and therefore holds that the
termination date included in the amend-
ment of the gentleman from Indiana
does not render the amendment not ger-
mane.
Second, as to the point raised by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow), there
are no additional duties required by the
last clause of the amendment. Those
duties referred to by the gentleman from
Ohio, if any, are already anticipated by
title VI of the Military Procurement Act,
which is referred to in the amendment
and which was signed into law by the
President today.
For these reasons, the Chair over-
rules the point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. JACOBS) for 5 minutes
in support of his amendment.
Mr. JACOBS. I have spoken to very
few Americans who do not believe that
American military intervention in South-
east Asia will end by next election day.
I offer this amendment just Ito make sure.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON
Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate
on this amendment and all amendments
thereto do now close.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Texas.
The motion was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. JACOas).
The question was taken; and on a divi-
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
H 11202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 17191
~,,.4n .hn#~pp,ex~~cted.
Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chalitnan, I rise in
opposition to H.R. 11731, the Defense Ap-
propriations bill for 1972. In the context
in which we are functioning in the House
of Representatives, a vote for this bill
would be irrational.
First, I cannot with any shred of con-
science, vote $1; to say nothing of $71.05
billion, until we have set a date to end
the most hated and most expensive war
in American history. The $23 billion a
year that this war in Indochina has
cost us has been the least of the prices
we have paid. I count the suffering, the
deaths and the injuries, among the peo-
ple of Indochina as well as among our
own young, the deepening cynicism,
the alienation of our young people as
part of the increasingly intolerable costs
of this war. The President announces in
an offhand way, the reduction of Amer-
ican troops in South Vietnam. He ne-
glects to mention the increasing number
of bombs and air attacks, the increas-
ing number of refugees and civilian
casualties. South Vietnam, thanks to
moneys like those here before us today,
U.S. defense moneys, has the fourth larg-
est army in the world to "secure" a coun-
try the size of Texas with a population of
20 million. Thanks to moneys like these
here before us today, Indochina has the
most heavily bomb saturated terrain of
any area ever in the world.
And our constituents cry out for an
end: According to recent surveys more
than 75 percent of Americans want us out
of Vietnam now; some 55 percent do not
want even a residual force left behind;
and in the districts of the leaders of this
House the expressed views of a majority
of their constituents are not being repre-
sented by their Congressmen's continu-
ing support for this unending war.
We in the House of Representatives do
not reflect this agony. We act here to ap-
propriate $71.05 billion, an estimated
minimum of $10 billion of which will go
for men and materiel in Indochina. I sub-
mit that the only rational act, the only
representative act, we will do today is
vote "yes" on the amendment offered by
Mr. BOLAND to title VII to cut off funds
for this war after June 1, 1972. We now
have an opportunity to vote clearly on
this war-not merely as an expressed
wish of Congress, but in a most practical
way by cutting off funds. We have a
chance to undo the damage done by this
body's unquestioning support of the Gulf
of Tonkin resolution which resulted in
the enormous U.S. involvement in Indo-
china. The House voted to repeal the
resolution; we can vote today to termi-
nate its implications. Mr. HARRINGTON
suggests-and I wholeheartedly agree
with him-that to continue to support
the executive in. its undeclared war by
financing it amounts to a declaration of
war. I appeal to you to vote "yes" on Mr.
BOLAND's amendment.
Secondly, we act here, as the commit-
tee report accompanying this legislation
reminds us, in the name of "national se-
curity." Yet we refuse to do what is nec-
essary to make our country secure, to
bring home the thousands of young peo-
ple who have fled their country, the
countless who are dying and suffering in-
jury in a corner of the world whose im-
pact on our national security is at best
minimal and the prisoners of war who
have endured long enough.
We act here, with only 3 hours of de-
bate and a couple of amendments, to ap-
propriate an amount just under that we
have already appropriated this session
for a total of 14 other fiscal year 1972
programs: In other words, this single ap-
propriation is equal to the sum total of
every other program our country has in-
vested in for this period.
In title I of this bill, personnel, we
vote on a figure to pay the employees
of the defense establishment which,
even with its cut from last year's figure
at $21 billion, is still more than the big-
gest appropriation bill to come before
us this session-the total $20.8 billion
budget for the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare with its myriad
of programs for the benefit of the Ameri-
can people. In title III, operations and
maintenance, the committee recommends
$20.4 billion, a sum only slightly less
than the HEW appropriations and more
than the entire $18 billion appropriations
for HUD, the source of all Federal pro-
grams which attempt to ensure a "decent
home in a suitable living environment
for every American family." In title IV
procurement, we will vote on the com-
mittee recommendation of $18 billion
while the administration threatens to
veto the Comprehensive Child Develop-
ment Act which would authorize $100,000
for fiscal year 1972 to plan a program
which would cost $2 billion in fiscal year
1973. To say nothing of title VIII which
provides $93 million for ABM develop-
inent and construction-four times the
$17 million we appropriated over Mr.
Nixon.'s objections, for summer food pro-
grams for our children. In light of our
defense spending, the $1 billion we appro-
priated for the Emergency Employment
Act can be seen in its proper perspective,
and shows us for what we are-a country
that places military needs above human
needs.
The sum total sought in this legislation
which we may well dispose of in short
order, falls only slightly short of these
14 other bills on which we have spent at
least 50 hours of floor debate and fought
out countless amendments. And this in
the name of "national security." I. sub-
mit that it is precisely our national se-
curity we are jeopardizing by operating.
under the set of priorities that are re-
flected in our work this session of Con-
gress on appropriations measures. The
national security that we enjoy as a re-
sult of our frantic competitiveness in
arms races, in nuclear testings, in the de-
velopment of supersophisticated material
is beyond the point of surfeit; it is over-
kill, to use the military jargon. It is our
other national security, that of a loyal
citizenry, employed, decently housed, fed,
and educated, that we must turn our-
selves to protecting. Until our perspective
has righted itself, starting at the most
elemental-getting the U.S. troops out of
Vietnam-I cannot cast my vote for this
bill.
Mr. COTTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to
compliment the gentleman from Texas
and his committee for their oustanding
work on this most complicated bill.
I note with satisfaction that the com-
mittee report focuses on the so-called
"fly before you buy" procurement con-
cept that was heralded by DOD just a
few months ago. This new policy seems to
be mired in public relations with little
or no substantive action.
I want to point out to the distinguished
chairman that I have requested a "fly-
off" between the trouble-plagued Chey-
enne AH 56 helicopter and the Sikorsky
57 Blackhawk, because I am confident
that the Sikorsky helicopter is a superior
aircraft. I have not received a reply to
this request and I was wondering if the
gentleman could assure me that his com-
mittee will follow through on this and
other procurement programs which could
benefit from the "fly before you buy"
policy.
Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, in view of
the action of the House in defeating the
Boland amendment, I must vote against
the defense appropriation bill. The Bo-
land amendment was a very reasonable
proposal to terminate our involvement jr.
Southeast Asia on June 1, 1972, contin-
gent on the release of our prisoners of
war.
In view of the recent decision of the
U.S. Court of Appeals in Massachu-
setts, a continuation of unrestrained
defense spending in Southeast Asia con-
stitutes ratification by Congress of the
continuation of this tragic war.
For over 4 years I have stated by oppo-?
sition and cast my votes for proposals to
end this war. At the Democratic Conven-
tion of 1968, I supported the peace plank.
In this Congress I filed a discharge peti-
tion on legislation to end the war.
Until peace is achieved in Southeast
Asia, I fear that this legislation will be
used one way or another to continue the
conflict and our involvement. In good
conscience I cannot support the con-
tinuation of the slaughter and destruc-
tion in Southeast Asia which continues to
take a tremendous toll in human life.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, has the
Clerk concluded the reading of the bill?
The CHAIRMAN. Na. The Clerk has
not.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the
bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
Committee rises.
Accordingly the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union, reported that that
Committee having had under consider-
ation the bill (H.R. 11731) making ap-
propriations for the Department of De-
fense for the fiscal year ending June 30,
1972, and for other purposes, pursuant to
House Resolution 704, he reported the bill
back to the House.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
The question is on the engrossment
and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 17, 1971 roved Fo&J s9?8 4k~15WEft ~P7 ?26R000400120011-3
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
passage of the bill.
. The question was taken; and the
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
peared to have it.
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, on that I
demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The question was taken; and there
were-yeas 342, nays 51, answered
"present" 2, not voting 35, as follows:
Abernethy
Adams
Addabbo
Anderson,
Calif.
Anderson, 111.
Andrews, Ala,
Andrews,
N. Dak.
Annunzio
Archer
Arends
Ashbrook
Ashley
Aspinall
Baker
Baring
Begich
Belcher
Bell
Bennett
Bergland
Bevill
Biaggi
Biester
Blanton
Boland
Bolling
Bow
Brademas
Brasco
Bray
Brinkley
Brooks
Broomfleld
Brotzinan
Brown, Mich.
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Broyhill, Va.
Buchanan
Burke, Fla.
Burke, Mass.
Burleson, Tex.
Burlison,"Mo.
Byrne, Pa.
Byrnes, Wis.
Byron
Cabell
Caffery
Camp
Carney
Carter
Casey, Tex.
Cederberg
Chamberlain
Clancy
Clark
Clawson, Del
Cleveland
Collier
Collins, Tex.
CoLmer
Conable
Conte
Corman
Coughlin
Crane
Culver
Daniel, Va.
Daniels, N.J.
Danielson
Davis, Ga.
Davis, S.C.
Davis, Wis.
de la Garza
Delaney
Dellenback
Denholm
Dennis
Dent
Devine
Dickinson
Dingell
Donohue
Dorn
Duncan
[Roll No. 402]
YEAS-342
du Pont Kuykendall
Dwyer Kyl
Edwards, Ala. Kyros
Erlenborn Landgrebe
Esch Landrum
Eshleman Latta
Evans, Colo. Leggett
Evins, Tenn. Lennon
Fascell Lent
Findley Lloyd
Fish Long, La.
Fisher Long, Md.
Flood McClory
Flowers McCollister
Flynt McCormack
Foley McCulloch
Ford, Gerald R. McDade
Forsythe McDonald,
Fountain Mich.
Frelinghuysen McEwen
Frenzel McFall
Frey McKay
Fulton, Tenn. McKinney
Fuqua
Galiflanakis
Gallagher
Garmatz
Gaydos
Gettys
Glaimo
Gibbons
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Goodling
Grasso
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Griffin
Gross
Grover
Gubser
Gude
Hagan
Haley
Hall
Hamilton
Hammer-
schmidt
McMillan
Macdonald,
Mass.
Madden
Mahon
Mailliard
Mann
Martin
Mathis, Ga.
Mateunaga
Mayne
Mazzoli
Meeds
Melcher
Michel
Miller, Calif.
Miller, Ohio
Mills, Md.
Minish
Mink
Minshall
Mizell
Mollohan
Monagan
Montgomery
Hanley Moorhead
Hanna Morgan
Hansen, Idaho Morse
Hansen, Wash. Moss
Harsha Murphy, Ill.
Harvey Murphy, N.Y.
Hastings Myers
Hathaway Natcher
Hays Nelsen
Hebert Nichols
Heckler, Mass. O'Hara
Heinz O'Konski
Henderson O'Neill
Hicks, Mass. Passman `
Hicks, Wash. Patman
Hillis Patten
Hogan Pelly
Holifleld Pepper
Horton Perkins
Hosmer Pettis
Howard Peyser
Hull Pickle
Hunt Pike
Hutchinson Pirnie
Ichord Poage
Jacobs Poff
Jarman Powell
Johnson, Calif. Preyer. N.C.
Johnson, Pa. Price, Ill.
Jonas Price, Tex.
Jones, Ala. Pryor, Ark.
Jones, N.C. Pucinski
Jones, Tenn. Purcell
Karth Quie
Kazen Quillen
Keith Railsback
Kemp Randall
King Rarick
Kluczynskl Reid, N.Y.
Rhodes Skubitz Udall
Robinson, Va. Black Ullman
Robison, N.Y. Smith, Calif. Van Deerlin
Rodin Smith, Iowa Veysey
Roe Smith, N.Y. Vigorito
Rogers Snyder Waggonner
Roncalio Spence Wampler
Rooney, N.Y. Springer Ware
Rooney, Pa. Staggers Whalley
Rostenkowski Stanton, White
Roush J. William Whitehurst
Rousselot Stanton, Whitten
Roy James V. Widnall
Ruppe Steele Wiggins
Ruth Steiger, Ariz. Williams
St Germain Steiger, Wis. Wilson, Bob
Sandman Stephens Wilson,
Satterfield Stratton Charles H.
Saylor Stubblefield Winn
Scherle Stuckey Wright
Schmitz Sullivan Wyatt
Schneebeli Symington Wylie
Schwengel Talcott Wyman
Scott Taylor Yatron
Sebelius Teague, Calif. Young, Fla.
Shipley Teague, Tex. Young, Tex.
Shoup Terry Zablocki
Shriver Thomson, Wis. Zion
Sikes Thone Zwach
Sisk Tiernan
NAYS-51
Abourezk
Abzug
Aspin
Badillo
Barrett
Bingham
Burton
Carey, N.Y.
Chisholm
Clay
Collins, Ill.
Conyers
Dellums
Dow
Ford, Obey
William D. Rangel
Fraser Rees
Green, Pa. Reuss
Harrington Rosenthal
Hawkins Roybal
Hechler, W. Va. Ryan
Helatoski Scheuer
Hungate Seiberling
Kastenmeier Stokes
Koch Thompson, N.J.
Lujan Vanik
McCloskey Waldie
Metcalfe Whalen
Drinan Mitchell
Eckhardt Mosher
Edwards, Calif. Nedzi
Eilberg Nix
Wolff
Yates
Thompson, Ga.
NOT VOTING-35
Abbitt Derwinskl McKevitt
Alexander Diggs Mathias, Calif.
Anderson, Dowdy Mikva
. Tenn. Downing Mills, Ark.
Betts Dulski Podell
Blackburn Edmondson Roberts
Blatnik Edwards, La. Runnels
Boggs Griffiths Sarbanes
Celler Halpern Steed
Chappell Keating Vander Jagt
Clausen, Kee Wydler
Don H. Link
Cotter McClure
So the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs :
On this vote:
Mr. Thompson of Georgia for, with Mr.
Podell against.
Mrs. Griffiths for, with Mr. Mikva against.
Mr. Boggs for, with Mr. Diggs against.
Until further notice:
Mr. Steed with Mr. Betts.
Mr. Link with Mr. Keating.
Mr. Roberts with Mr. Blackburn.
Mr. Runnels with Mr. Don H.. Clausen.
Mr. Chappell with Mr. Derwinaki.
Mr. Celler with Mr. Halpern.
Mr. Alexander with Mr. McClure.
Mr. Downing with Mr. Vander Jagt.
Mr. Kee with Mr. McKevitt.
Mr. Dulaki with Mr. Wydler.
Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Mathias of Cali-
fornia.
Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Cotter.
Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Anderson of Ten-
nessee.
Mr. Mills of Arkansas with Mr. Dowdy.
Mr. THOMPSON of Georgia. Mr.
Speaker, I have a live pair with the gen-
tleman from New York (Mr. PODELL). If
1111203
he had been present he would have voted
"nay." I voted "yea." I withdraw my
vote and vote "present."
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani-
mous consent that all Members may have
5 legislative days in which to revise and
extend their remarks on the Defense ap-
propriation bill just passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Texas?
There was no objection.
REQUEST TO ADJOURN TO 11 A.M.
TOMORROW
Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan-
imous consent that when the House ad-
journs today that it adjourn to meet at
11 o'clock tomorrow morning.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Mas-
sachusetts?
Mr. CRANE. I object, Mr. Speaker.
FOREIGN AID AUTHORIZATION, 1972
Mr. COLMER, from the Committee on
Rules, reported the following privileged
resolution (H. Res. 710, Rept. No. 92-
674), which was referred to the House
Calendar and o be printed:
H. R..71
Resolved, That immediately upon the adop-
tion of this resolution and without the in-
tervention of any point of order the bills of
the Senate S. 2819 and S. 2820 are hereby
taken from the Speaker's table; that said
Senate bills are hereby amended by striking
out all after the enacting clause of each such
Senate bill and inserting in lieu thereof the
text of the bill H.R. 9910 as passed by the
House on August 3, 1971; that the said Sen-
ate bills as so amended shall be considered
as read a third time and passed; that the title
of each such Senate bill shall be amended by
striking out such title and inserting in lieu
thereof the title of H.R. 9910; that the House
insists upon its amendments to each such
Senate bill and requests conferences with the
Senate, and that the Speaker appoint man-
agers on the part of the House to attend
each such conference.
AMENDMENTS BY MR. THOMPSON
OF NEW JERSEY TO AMENDMENT
IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE
TO H.R. 11060, A BILL TO LIMIT
CANF-AIGN EXPENDITURES
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, at the appropriate time during
consideration of H.R. 11060, a bill to limit
campaign expenditures, I intend to offer
an amendment to the text of H.R. 11280
if the text of that bill is offered as an
amendment in the nature of a substitute
for H.R. 11060. I ask unanimous consent
to have the amendment printed in the
RECORD.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Jersey?
There was no objection.
The text is as follows:
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 10
11111204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 17, 19;-1
AMENDMENTS OFFERED DY MR. THOMFSON or "quired under the provisions of this title. the Senate. Of the members (other than the
NEW JERSEY TO AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE ' (b) It shall be the duty of the Board- Comptroller General) who first take office--
OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED TO H.R. 11060 (1) to direct the activities of the Registry "(1) one shall be appointed for a term of
(Page and line references to H.R. 11280.) to assure that it carries out the duties re- two years, beginning from the date of en-
Page 23, strikeout lines 19 and 20 and In- quiired of it under subsection (a) of this actment of this Act,
sert in lieu, thereof the following: section; "(2) one for a term of four years, begin-
(g) "Registry" means the Registry of Elec- "(2) to report apparent violations of law to ping from such date,
time Finance, established by section 310(a); the appropriate law enforcement authorities "(3) one for a term of six years, beginning
(h) "Board" means the Federal Elections and take appropriate action under subset- from such date,
Board, established under section 310 (b) ; tion (c) ; and "(4) one for a term of eight years, begin-
Page 23, line 21, strike out "(h) " and insert "(3) to prescribe such rules and regula- ning from such date,
In lieu thereof "(i) ". tions, and to take such other actions, as it "(5) one for a term of ten years, begin-
Page 23, line 24, strike out " (1) " and insert determines are necessary or appropriate to ping from such date, and
in lieu thereof " (j) ". carry out the provisions of this title. " (6) one for a term of twelve years, begin-
Page 25, line 21, strike out "Commission" "(c) (1) Any person who believes a viola- ping from such date,
and Insert in lieu thereof "Board". tion of this Act has occurred may file a as designated by the Comptroller General at
Page 26, beginning on line 9, strike out complaint with the Registry. If the Board the time such members take office; but their
"Federal Elections Commission" and insert determines there is substantial reason to be- successors shall be 'appointed for terms of
In lieu thereof "Registry of Election Fl- lieve such a violation has occurred, It shall twelve years each, except that a person chosen
nance". direct the Registry to expeditiously make an to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for
Page 26, line 13, strike out "Commission" investigation of the matter complained of, the unexpired term of the member whom he
and insert in lieu thereof "Registry". Whenever in the judgment of two-thirds of succeeds. No appointive member of the Board
Page 26, line 16, strike out "him" and in- the members of the Board, after affording may be a Member of Congress or an officer or
serf "the Registry", due notice and an Opportunity for a hearing, employee of the House or Senate. The Board
Page 27, line 6, strike out "Commission" any person has engaged or is about to engage shall designate one member to serve as
and insert in lieu thereof "Board". - in any acts or practices Whicb constitute or Chairman of the Board and one member to
Page 27, line 11, strike out "Commission" will constitute a violation of any provision serve as Vice Chairman, The Vice Chairman
and insert in lieu thereof "Registry", of this Act or any regulation or order issued shall act as Chairman in the absence or dis-
Page 27, beginning an line 17, strike out thereunder, the Board shall institute a civil ability of the Chairman or in the event of a
"Commission at such time as It prescribes" action for appropriate relief in the district vacancy in that office,
and insert in lieu thereof "Registry at such court of the United States for the district in "(c) A vacany on the Board shall not
time as the Board prescribes". which the person is found, resides, or trans- impair the right of the remaining members
Page 28, line 23, strike out "Commission" acts. business. Upon a proper showing that to exercise all the powers of the Board; ex-
and insert In lieu thereof "Board". such person has engaged or Is about to en- cept that four members thereof shall con-
Page 29, beginning on line 1, strike out gage in such acts or practices, a permanent stitute a quorum.
Commission" and insert in lieu thereof or preliminary injunction or temporary re- "(d) The Registry shall have an official
"Registry"? straining order may be granted without bond seal which shall be judicially noticed.
Page 29, line 7, strike out "Commission" by such court, but no temporary restraining "(e) The Board shall at the close of each
and insert in lieu thereof "Registry". order may be granted without hearing, fiscal year report to the Congress and to the
Page 29, line 12, strike out "Commission" "(2) In any action brought under Para- President concerning the actions it has
and insert in lieu thereof "Registry", graph (1) of this subsection, subpenas for taken; the names, salaries, and duties of
Page 29, line 13, strike out "it" and insert witnesses who are required to attend a all individuals in the Registry's employ and
in lieu thereof "the Board". United States district court may run into the money the Registry has disbursed; and
Page 29, line 18, strike out "C'ommission' any other district, shall make such further reports on the
and insert in lieu thereof "Board". "(3) The courts of appeals shall have juris- matters within the Board's- jurisdiction and
Page 32, line 7, strike out "Commission" diction of appeals from orders issued under such recommendations for further legis-
and insert in lieu thereof "Board". paragraph (1) in accordance with chapter 83 lation as may appear desirable.
Page 32, line 9, strike out "Commission" of title 28, United States Cbde." "(f) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), mem-
and insert in lieu thereof "Board". Page 39, line 11, strike out "Commission" bers of the Board shall, while serving on the
Page 32, line 12, strike out "Commission" and insert in lieu thereof "Registry", business of the Board, be entitled to receive
and insert in lieu thereof "Board"' Page 39, l16, strike out "Commission" compensation at a rate fixed by the Director
Page 33, line 1, strike out Commission" and insert line lieu thereof "Board". of the Office of Management and Budget, but
and insert in lieu thereof "Registry". not in excess of the daily equivalent of the
Page 33, line 15, strike out "Commission" Page 40, line 11, insert before the semi- annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade
and insert In lieu thereof "Board". colon the following: GS-18 of the General Schedule, for each day
Page 33, line 16, strike out "Commission" ": Provided that any information copied from (including travel time) during which they
and insert in lieu thereof "Board", such reports and statements shall not be are engaged in the actual performance of
Page 33, line 23, strike out "Commission" sold or utilized by any person for the purpose duties vested In the Board.
and insert in lieu thereof "Board", of soliciting contributions or for any com- "(2) Members of the Board who are full-
Page 34, line 23, strike out "Commission' mercial purpose" time officers or employees of the United
and insert in lieu thereof "Registry". Page 40, strike out line 15 and all that States shall receive no additional pay on ac-
Page 34, line 34, strike out "it" and insert follows down through line 20 on page 43 and count of their service on the Board.
in lieu thereof "the Board". - insert in lieu thereof the following: "(3) While away from their homes or reg-
Page 35, strike out lines 8 through 8 and g.istry of Election Finance and Federal ul'ar places of business in the performance "Re insert in lieu thereof the following: of services for the Board, members of the
"Duties of the Registry and Board Elections Board Board shall be allowed travel expenses, in-
"SEc. 310. (a) There is-hereby created in eluding per diem in lieu of subsistence, in
"Sac. 208. (a) It shall be the duty of the the General Accounting Office a Registry of the same manner as persons employed inter-
Registry- - Election Finance. mitteenltl in the Government service are al-
(1) to furnish such forms as the Board "`(b) In carrying out the duties prescribed lowed expenses under section 5703 b of title
may prescribe for the making of reports and ( )
statements required to be filed with the Reg- the hi Act the Registry shb be subject to 5, United States Code,
istry under this title to the person required thdirection of a Boa, to be c known as the "(g) (g) The principal office of the Columbia,
under this title to file such reports and state- Federal Elections Board, which shall be fame shall be or x near the District r Columbia,
rents," posed of f seven en members consisting of the but ut the Board may meet or exercise any of
Page 36, beginning on line 15, strike out it Comptroller General of the United States, its powers at any other place,
shall Page
and oroken down into" and and six appointive members who shall be ""(h) All officers, agents, attorneys, and
insert a lr thereof "then do shall deter- chosen from persons who, by reason of ma- employees of the Registry or the Board shall
mine for". turity experience, and public service have be subject to the provisions of sections 7323
Page r", line 21, strike out "it shall deter- attained a nationwide reputation for integ- and 7324 of title 5, United States Code (rela-
(rela-
mine and broken dtwn tout"and insert et deter- rity, impartiality, and good judgment, are ing to political activities - of Federal em-
lieu thereof "the Bdow shall determine t n qualified to carry out the duties of the Board, ployees), notwithstanding any exemption
Page of such appointive members (who may contained in either such section.
age 37, line 1, insert "as the Board directs" not both be members of the same political
before ""special "(i) The Board shall appoint an Eegard
Page 37, line 5, strike out "it" and insert peaty) shall be appointed by the President. tive Director of the Registry without regard
in lieu thereof "the Board". Two of such appointive members (who may to the provisions of title 5, United States
Page t line "insert "and" after the semi- not both be members of the same political Code, governing appointments in the com-
oolon party) shall be appointed by the Speaker of petitive service, to serve at the pleasure of
the House of Representatives. Two of such the Board. The Executive Director shall be
Page 37, strike out line 13 and all that appointive members (who may not both be responsible for the administrative opera-
follows down through line 23 on page 38, and members of the same political party) shall tions of the Registry and shall perform such
insert in lieu thereof the following: be appointed by the President pro tempore of other duties as may be delegated or assigned
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 2 ,,App79ved For 2 IMAEi :IGAG 7af Ig 00400120011-3 S 9617
gas if we will only take advantage of the
opportunity open to us.
The President called for a cooperative
program involving Government and in-
dustry to speed the development of an
economically acceptable gasification
process. Industry, through the American
Gas Association, responded by agreeing
to put up $10 million, or one-third of the
first-year cost of an accelerated program.
It is now up to the Congress to demon-
strate its good faith by putting up its
two-thirds share, or $10 million on top
of the $10 million appropriated earlier
this year for gasification research.
Within the last few weeks the Depart-
ment of the Interior, anticipating con-
gressional approval of the accelerated
gasification effort, signed a $24.8 million
contract with Bituminous Coal Research,
Inc., for the development of one promis-
ing commercial coal gasification process.
This, incidentally, was the largest con-
.tract ever awarded by Interior's Office
of Coal Research.
The contract calls for BCR, the re-
search affiliate of the National Coal As-
sociation, to build and operate a coal gas-
ification pilot plant at Homer City, Pa.,
near a plentiful source of bituminous coal.
The plant will use the BI-GAS process of
conversion which BCR, under the spon-
sorship of OCR, has been investigating
at a smaller scale level for the past 7
years. This pilot plant will be in addi-
tion to coal gasification pilot plants in
or near operation by other organiza-
tions which have Interior Department
funding.
I am informed, Mr. President, that the
reason for this multiplant effort is that
there are a number of potential ap-
proaches to gasifying coal, each with its
own technology, cost, and suitability for
various coal resources. All of these are
still to be proven in the critical pilot
plant stage. Gasification research and
development along a number of lines in-
creases the chances for the much needed
successful development of one or more
commercially viable coal gasification
processes. As OCR Director George
Fumich has said, "we do not have all our
eggs in one basket in an effort that is
vital to our future domestic gas supply."
The acceleration of Government-in-
dustry support of coal gasification rep-
resented by the OCR-BCR contract is
definitely needed despite plans an-
nounced by individual fuel companies to
build gasification plants using existing
technology. Of course, the basic technol-
ogy for coal gasification has been well
established for years. I am told that be-
fore BCR elected to develop its BI-GAS
process, it evaluated 65 different gasifi-
cation processes that have been conceived
or used here or abroad.
The Nation's urgent need now, how-
ever, is for a coal gasification process
that will be economically viable in our
future fuel economy. The day will
will probably come when the Nation will
need a supplement for natural gas at any
-cost, but the principal objective of cur-
rent U.S. research and development is to
bring the cost of synthetic gas within
the competitive range of rising prices for
imports of such substitutes as liquefied
natural gas and gas made from imported
hydrocarbon liquids such as naphtha.
In any case, current coal gasification
processes to be tested in Government-
industry sponsored pilot plants offer
promise without technological duplica-
tion. In announcing the contract award
to- Bituminous Coal Research, Secretary
Morton said:
A key feature of the BI-GAS process is its
inherent straightforward simplicity.
The experts say that the advantages
of the BI-GAS process certainly qualify
it for accelerated development as a meth-
od of converting all ranks of coal-from
lignite to bituminous coal-to pipeline-
quality gas, which means the process gas
is pure enough and has the high heat
value necessary or interchangeability
with natural gas in the Nation's pipelines.
The yield from the BI-GAS process is a
clean-burning gas rich in methane-the
principal ingredient in natural gas itself.
But the other processes being pursued
by Government and industry also have
potential advantages. It is likely, I un-
derstand, that the final commercial
process may well be a combination of
several of the research processes.
I understand that the BI-GAS process
and others being researched also meet
the demand- for a nonpolluting fuel,
eliminating from the final gas product
such unwanted elements as sulfur com-
pounds. Selective purification systems re-
move the pollutant and pass it to a sepa-
rate unit for recovery of sulfur. Under
favorable market conditions, the re-
covered sulfur could be sold as a by-
product, giving the process an operating
credit against the cost of producing gas.
Although the BI-GAS pilot plant is
designed to consume only 120 tons of coal
per day and to produce a relatively small
amount of pipeline gas-about 2 to 3 mil-
lion cubic feet a day-it will provide the
necessary data to design a plant capable
of using 12,000 tons of coal and pro-
ducing 250 million cubic feet of gas a
day-the gas output considered neces-
sary for commercial success.
The capital investment in a coal gasi-
fication plant of that size has been esti-
mated at about $250 million-a far
greater sum than that called for in pilot
plant development and one that will be
borne by industry, not by Government.
Federal spending on coal gasification re-
search and development is now helping to
pay merely for the technological base
of the huge synthetic fuel structure that
industry will build to assure the Na-
tion's energy future.
Mr. President, we hear much these
days about the possibility of fuel short-
ages which could lead to brownouts or
blackouts. I do not want to be an alarm-
ist, but it seems to me that prudence and
commonsense tell us we must get along
with the program the President has rec-
ommended. I trust Congress will see fit to
act very soon on the supplemental money
requests he has made for the purpose of
assuring the Nation a plentiful supply
of clean energy. For if it does not, the
program envisioned by President Nixon
for accelerated research and for the
emergence of a synthetic fuel industry in
this decade will be jeopardized.
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
ing business is concluded.
A UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREE-
MENT-TIME FOR ROLLCALL
VOTES ON TREATIES AND PROTO-
COL ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29,
1971
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that this time not be
charged against either side.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order pro-
viding for the three rollcalls on the two
treaties and one protocol to begin at 11
o'clock Monday next be changed to 1
o'clock Monday next.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and it
is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it can
be anticipated, then, that the debate on
phase 2 will begin at the conclusion of
the morning business on Monday next.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
~-- APPROPRIATIONS, 1972
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, yester-
day, when the defense bill was passed,
I asked unanimous consent that certain
technical corrections be made in the
bill.
We find this morning that there was a
mistake made in addition of figures. I
therefore ask unanimous consent that
the Secretary of the Senate be author-
ized in the engrossment of Senate
amendments to H.R. 11731 to correct the
figure beginning on line 26 on page 23
and line 1 on page 24 to $2,352,319,000
and correct the figure in the amendment
by the Senator from Colorado from
$2,293,619,000 to $2,352,319,000.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
ALLEN). Without objection, it is so
ordered
CREDIT UNION SHARE INSURANCE
AMENDMENTS
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. In ac-
cordance with the previous order, the
Chair lays before the Senate the unfin-
ished business, which the clerk will re-
port. -
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
Calendar No. 438, H.R. 9961, a bill to pro-
vide Federal credit unions with 2 addi-
tional years to meet the requirements for
insurance, and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate
on the bill is controlled. Who yields
time? -
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield
myself 5 minutes on the bill.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Utah is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, just 13,
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 S 19618 Approved For Ai11,%MAMP-Z MAM000400 may. 24, 1971
months ago on October 19, 1970, a pro-
gram of Federal share insurance was
established. The law required that all
Federal credit unions apply for the in-
surance and authorized State-chartered
credit unions to apply. The law provided
that,
-The Administrator shall reject the appli-
cation of any credit union for insurance of
its member accounts if he finds that its
reserves are inadequate, that its financial
condition and policies are unsafe or un-
sound, that its management is unfit, that
insurance of its member accounts would
otherwise involve undue risk to the fund,
or that its powers and purposes are incon-
sistent with the promotion of thrift among
its members and the creation of a source of
credit for provident or productive purposes.
If the application of a Federal credit
union was rejected by the Administrator,
because it failed to meet the require-
ments for insurance, the credit union
was allowed a 1-year period in which to
correct any deficiencies and obtain in-
surance. If it was not insurable within
the year, the law required the Adminis-
trator to either suspend or revoke its
charter.
At the present time, there are just
under 1,300 active credit unions whose
shares have not been insured. Unless the
requirement of the present Credit Union
Act that the Administrator suspend or
revoke the charter of Federal credit
unions which do not become insured
within 1 year from the initial rejection
is amended, the liquidation of Federal
credit unions could begin in January of
1972.
Section 1 of H.R. 9961 would extend
the time period during which Federal
credit unions may qualify for share in-
surance for an additional 2 years, or a
total of 3 years. The Administrator of
the National Credit Union Administra-
tion has estimated that about half of the
initially rejected credit unions will be
qualified for insurance within the year
from the date of their initial rejection
and that, given additional time, all but
about 365 credit unions would become
insurable.
This is an estimate looking forward
for a 2-year period.
Section 2 of the bill provides that Fed-
eral share insurance may not be denied
to State credit unions which may accept
demand deposits under State law, if the
credit union otherwise meets the require-
ments for insurance established under
the act, provided however, that the de-
mand deposits are not covered by the
Federal share insurance and that the
demand deposit accounts are subordinate
to. share accounts in the event of the
liquidation of such an insured State
credit union. This provision was approved
by the committee in response to a situ-
ation existing in the State of Rhode Is-
land where the legislature enacted legis-
lation which permitted credit unions
chartered by the State to offer demand
deposits subject to certain conditions.
Section 2 of the committee bill does
not provide demand deposit authority
for federally chartered credit unions nor
is it intended in any way to either en-
courage or discourage demand deposit
Authority for credit unions which are
under State jurisdiction.
Section 3 of the bill provides the Ad-
ministrator of the National Credit Union
Administration with additional author-
ity in the liquidation of a credit union
or in assisting a credit union which may
be in financial difficulty. Under present
law, the Administrator is authorized to
merge a credit union under his jurisdic-
tion only with another insured credit
union. He is authorized to guarantee the
obligations of a credit union only to a
third party insured credit union. The
committee bill would authorize the Ad-
ministrator to make such appropriate
arrangements with any credit union, in-
dividual, partnership, corporation, trust,
estate, cooperative, association, govern-
ment or governmental subdivision or
agency, or other agency, for the purpose
of merger or for the purpose of improv-
ing the financial status of the Federal
Credit Union. -
Mr. President, the bill before us bears
the number H.R. 9961 and is, in effect,
identical with the bill passed by the
House.. During discussion in committee,
an amendment was presented which was
rejected, but I understand it will be pre-
sented on the Senator floor today.
With this brief explanation of the pur-
pose of the bill, I will yield the floor. I
expect to claim more time to discuss the
amendment if it is offered.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who
yields time?
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
yield myself 3 minutes.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The
Senator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I cer-
tainly support and concur in prompt leg-
islation that will prevent some Federal
credit unions from being forced into
liquidation.
The Senator from Utah is the Senator
who is entitled to the credit for bringing
share insurance into being. He advo-
cated it in the beginning, and this year
introduced the legislation we are con-
sidering today. So far as I know, there
is no controversy on the bill. We all agree
that the legislation should be enacted.
As has already been noted, last year
we enacted legislation providing Federal
credit unions with share insurance pro-
gram. In addition, we provided that
State chartered credit unions could ob-
tain share insurance if they wished to
do so and if they could meet the quali-
fication for share insurance contained in
the legislation.
The law establishing the share insur-
ance program provided that Federal
credit unions would have 1 year after
an application for share insurance had
been rejected to correct deficiencies-to
get their houses in order-to obtain in-
surance. The law further required that if
a Federal credit union did not meet the
standard within that year, the Adlninis-
trator of the National Credit Union Ad-
ministration could either suspend or re-
voke the union's charter.
Since enactment of last year's law,
some 111,400 or about 88 percent of all
Federal credit unions have been insured.
About 1,200 have not. It is estimated that
three-fourths of those that have not been
insured can and will qualify for insur-
ance. Certainly, Mr. President, I do not
and I dare say that no one in this body
wishes to cause any credit union to be
suspended from operation or have its
charter revoked because it cannot pres-
ently qualify for insurance.
Last year's legislation was an attempt
to provide security and insurance for
those who place their hard earned sav-
ings in credit unions. The legislation was
for the very purpose of protecting the
credit union saver. Failure now to enact
legislation extending the time to allow
credit union to qualify for insurance
would seem to me to nullify exactly what
we were trying to accomplish by provid-
ing the insurance program initially.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that Mr. Dudley L.
O'Neal, staff director of our committee,
and Mr. Reginald Barnes, may be per-
mitted on the Senate floor during the
debate on the bill.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Alabama yield me for 3
minutes on the bill?
Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield to the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, my
remarks on H.R. 9961 will be necessarily
brief because I believe the main contro-
versy is on my amendment to the bill,
and we will discuss that on separate
time.
I believe it is safe to say that all
members of the Committee on Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs agreed that
some immediate legislation is needed to
prevent the forced liquidation of over
1,300 Federal credit unions. H.R. 9961 as
reported by the committee provides a
limited solution to the problem. I believe
my amendment provides a far better
solution; however, if my amendment
should fail, I intend to support H.R. 9961
as reported.
In order to understand the need for
legislation, it is necessary to review the
legislative history of the credit union
share insurance program enacted last
year. Under this legislation, credit unions
were given the same type of deposit in-
surance available to commercial banks
and savings and loan associations. Each
account was insured for a maximum of
$20,000. The entire program operates on
insurance premiums collected from the
credit unions themselves, hence, there is
no involvement of the taxpayers' money.
I think that is very important, and I
will bring it up again when my amend-
ment is before the Senate.
Under the law, share insurance was
made optional for State-chartered credit
unions, but mandatory for federally
chartered credit unions. The adminis-
tration of the program was assigned to
the National Credit Union Administra-
tion. The Administrator of that agency
is directed to apply certain standards to
those credit unions applying for insur-
ance. Federal credit unions which fail to
meet these standards are given one ad-
ditional year from the time of their ini-
tial application to qualify. If at the end
of the 1-year period they still fail to
qualify, their Federal charter must be
revoked or suspended. Unless such a
credit union were able to obtain a State
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 23, 197Vproved tff1fd*pg 1 . RDgl 96R000400120011-3 S 19521
nay
The RESIDING OFFICER. Is there
a suf le nt second? There is a sufficient
second.
The ye and nays were ordered.
The PR IDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on a eeing to the amendment as
modified of a Senator from Colorado.
The, yeas a nays have been ordered,
The legislate clerk called the roll.
Mr. BYRD o West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the %enator from Indiana
Dakota (Mr. McGo RN), and the Sen-
a;or from Maine (Mr. usKIE) are nec-
essarily absent.
I further announce t t the Senator
f ,m Idaho (Mr. CHURCH is absent on
official business.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announ that the
Senator from Maryland (Mr. LL), the
Senator from New Hampsh (Mr.
COTTON), the Senator from Ne York
(Mr. JAVITS), and the Senator rom
Maine (Mrs. SMITH) are necess ly
absent.
The Senator from South Dakota
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY)
is detained on official business.
The Senator from Ohio (Mr. SAXBE) is
absent on official business.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Illinois (Mr. PERCY) and the Senator
from Maine (Mrs. SMITH) would each
vote "nay."
The result was announced-yeas 59,
nays 30, as follows:
[No. 393 Leg.]
YEAS-59
Aiken
Fannin
Nelson
Allen
Fong
Packwood
Allott
Gambrell
Pearson
Baker
Goldwater
Pell
Bayh
Griffin
Ribicoff
Bennett
Gurney
Schweiker
Bentsen
Hansen
Scott
Bible
Hollings
Sparkman
Boggs
Hruska
Spong
Brock
Hughes
Stafford
Brooke
Humphrey
Stevens
Buckley
Inouye
Stevenson
Case
Jackson
Taft
Cook
Jordan, Idaho,
Talmadge
Cooper
Kennedy
Thurmond
Cranston
Magnuson
Tower
Curtis
Mathias
Tunney
Dole
McGee
Weicker
Dominick
McIntyre
Williams
Ervin
Miller
NAYS-30
Anderson
Fulbright
Mondale
Bellmore
Gravel
Montoya
Burdick
Harris
Moss
/Byrd, Va.
Hart
Pastore
Byrd, W. Va.
Hatfield
Proxmire
Cannon
Jordan,N.C.
Randolph
Chiles
Long
Roth
Eagleton
Mansfield
Stennis
Eastland
McClellan
Symington
Ellender
Metcalf
Young
NOT VOTING-11
Beall
Javits
Percy
Church
McGovern
Saxbe
Cotton
Mundt
Smith
Hartke
Muskie
So Mr. DOMINICK'S amendment, as
modified, was agreed to.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GRAVEL). The Chair recognizes the Sen-
ator from Missouri.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Montana.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senate go
into executive session, to consider cer-
tain nominations at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
U.S. COURTS
The assistant legislative clerk read the
following nominations, which were fa-
vorably reported earlier today by the
Committee on the Judiciary:
James S. Holden, of Vermont, to be a
U.S. district judge for the district of
Vermont.
Ralph F. Scalera, of Pennsylvania, to
be a U.S. district judge for the western
district of Pennsylvania.
Clarence C. Newcomer, of Pennsyl-
nia, to be a U.S. district judge for the
e tern district of Pennsylvania.
arles M. Allen, of Kentucky, to be
a US. district judge for the western
dist t of Kentucky.
Alf d T. Goodwin, of Oregon, to be
a U.S. 'rcuit judge for the ninth circuit.
Levin . Campbell, of Massachusetts,
to be a NS. district judge for the dis-
Mr. M FIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous onsent that the nomina-
tions be con 'dered en bloc.
The PRES ING OFFICER. Without
objection, the nominations are consid-
Mr. MANS LD. Mr. President, I ask
that the Preside t be immediately noti-
fied of the confl ation of these nom-
inations.
The PRESID IN OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so rdered.
this evening Judge arles M. Allen of
Louisville, Ky., to b a U.S. district
judge for the western istrict of Ken-
tucky.
The nomination of J dge Allen by
President Nixon has rece ved wide ap-
proval in Kentucky. By rea on of educa-
tion, experience as a prat cing lawyer
and as an elected circuit urt judge,
a court of general jurisdic on in the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, dge Allen
has superior qualifications. He a man
of fine and respected family ba ground,
of the highest integrity, and he a held in
high regard by the bar, his co eagues
of the judiciary and by the pe ple of
Louisville and Jefferson County.
I am sure that Judge Allen will his
important office with great abilit and
honor.
LEGISLATIVE SESSION
turn to the consideration of legislatio:
business.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
APPROPRIATIONS, 1972
The Senate resumed the consideration
of the bill (H.R. 11731) making appro-
priations for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972,
and for other purposes.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, may
we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order. Senators will take
their seats, and attaches will leave the
Chamber.
Mr. SYMING'I Mr. President, a
premise to these observations, and the
amendment which I thereupon plan to
offer to this military appropriation bill,
mnnh In{:ArPstp(i in the anp .i n of the
overall structure and functionin 'of our
intelhQence apparatus as is s Ouse of
Representatives.
IFS. IDING OFFICER. Will the
Senator send his amendment to the desk,
so that it may be reported?
Mr. SYMINGTON. The amendment is
at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
On page 49, between lines 2 and 3, insert
the following:
SEC. 745. None of the funds appropriated
in this Act in excess of $4,000,000,000 may be
available for expenses by the Central Intel-
ligence Agency, the National Security Agency,
and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and for
intelligence work performed by or on behalf
of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, one
notes that earlier this month, in its re-
port to the House, the House Committee
on Appropriations ma a the o owing
o serve ons; and inasmuch as those ob-
servations confirm both our own think-
ing and our findings over recent years, I
will read them into the RECORD at this
point:
The Committee feels that the intelligence
operations of the Department of Defense
have grown beyond the actual needs of the
Department and are now receiving an inor-
irate share of the fiscal resources of the
epartment.
Redundancy is the watchword in many in-
elligence operations. The same information
sought and obtained by various means and
y various organizations.
Coordination is less effective than it should
e.
Material is collected which cannot be eval-
ated in a reasonable length of time and is
New intelligence means have become avail-
program without offsetting reductions in old
procedures.
As noted in this House report, their
conclusions were based on extensive
hearings-let us note also that last year
this House o=Fee help . e
hearings on intelh'genne annuities in the
Department of Defense, the bulk of
wh proce ings were included in the
public recor.
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 S 19522 Approved For Rele se af0 S 161N , 1JPQ&&00?R" 4001200 ovember 23, 1971
During these hearings, the then As-
sistant Secretary of Defense, now Secre-
tary of the Army, Secretary Froehike,
who had been directed by the Secretary
of Defense to review the intelligence pro-
grams, also testified that he was sur-
prised to find that there w
hensi inventory of DO intelligence
assets. He thereupon sae a he
concurred with the committee's expressed
concern about duplication in the intelli-
gence community.
In addition, this report states that
the committee expects to review the in-
telligence program in total during the
hearings on the fiscal year 1973 budget
request.
In reviewing the he 7-ingc arid renrsrts
of i>_tPrrPStar Rena.tpenmmj . 's_ we ca,n
fin no nom ark, lie interest on their part
with respect the b lions appropriated
annually for intelligence.
Back in 1966, as a member of both the
CIA Subcommittee of the Senate Armed
Services Committee and also the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee, I became
tor, was told by a staff member-who
obviously does know about it-that he
could not tell the Senator even the
amount or anything else about this,
seems to me a shocking and unprece-
dented situation. I have never heard of
this before, except from the executive
branch. I have never heard of a member
of a Senate staff telling a Senator that
he could not tell him what he knew about
the relevant business of any committee.
. Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sena-
tor for his contribution.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does the Senator
know of any precedent for this?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I do not.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Did the Senator
ever have this experience before?
Mr. SYMINGTON. No; I did not.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is what I
mean. This is the only time I have ever
heard of it.
Mr. SYMINGTON. This means that
these billions of dollars of the taxpayers'
money are being authorized and appro-
priated by the Senate with the knowledge
and later that day-Saturday-a mem-
ber of that organizatio elivered the
White House press release to my home,
stat> th6t the press. release was al .the
t gency . knew a . it a _ h . time.
It is clear to anyone familiar with the
executive branch that this reorganiza-
tion: First, could be turning over the
intelligence operation to the military
exactly what the National Defense Act.
of 1947 took careful steps to prevent-
and second, places policy control of intel-
ligence in a new committee in the White
House, headed by the Assistant to the
President for National Security Affairs,
Mr. Kissinger, on this committee sit
both the Attorney General and the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ss
well as the Deputy Secretaries of State
and Defense.
This gives Executive privilege to the
final policymakers, and therefore, except
for the power of the purse, enables said
policymakers to, in effect, take the entire
question of intelligence out of the hands
of Congress.
The fact that I do not think such a.
development is right or proper, Mr.
President, is the basic thrust of the
amendment that I am offering this eve-
ning.
I thereupon made a short talk on the
floor of the Senate delineating this ex-
traordinary development, and protesting
that such a major change incident to
our overall security should not be made
without the knowledge let alone the ap-
proval, of anybody in the Senate; and I
ask unanimous consent that this talk be
inserted at the end of these remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Chairman of
the newly formed White House Intel-
ligence Committee, Dr. Kissinger, there-
upon called me and said I was right, that
the change should have been discussed
with the proper committees of Congress,
that the reorganization details had been
handled by Mr. George Shultz, and that
the, Kissinger, would arrange for Mr.
hultz to come down and talk to me
about it.
I thanked him for his call, but said I
felt any such a briefing should be given
to the committees, not to an individual
Member. That is the last I have heard of
it.
In a recent article in the U.S. News &
World Report, written by the former Ex-
ecutive Assistan . to t:F P p t~'~71? i,ctor
01 , a very serious charge was
made-namely, that the present setup
gives "the military considerable power:
to shape intelligence estimates." The ar-
ticle went on:
Whenever you're working on a problem
that the military is deeply interested In-be-
cause it's affecting one of their programs,
or their war in Vietnam, or something-and
you're not saying what they want you to say,
the browbeating starts: the delaying tactics,
the pressure to get the report to read more
like they want it to read, in other words, in-
fluencing intelligence for the benefit of their
own operation or activity.
A former member of the CIA establish-
ment, in a reply to these statements pub-
lished in the same issue of that magazine,
stated:
concerned that, because of their lack of ,,,,and approval of just five of its Members.
knowledge of certain intelligence mat- i result. of their gslga=
ters bearing on foreign policy, members
of the Foreign Relations Committee were
not in a position to make intelligent
judgment of certain U.S. policies over-
seas. Accordingly, I presented this situ-
ation as I saw it to the then chairman of
Armed Services, the late Senator Russell.
January 1967, Chairman Russell in
$ three members or t
tion-1969-71-of our worldwide trea-
ties and commitment, both staff teams
of the Senate Subcommittee on U.S. Se-
c' ens and Commitments
j~pIT~Ll rn e r'or lgn r?piatinnc rQm_
inittee found heavy lication-there-
i: r wa- s--#e--off a taxpayer s' money, in
the intelligence fiel an ,per aps a en
'
ore important, they found many con-
~113n
11ditlons which were not known by those
on the Senate committees designated to
review our military and political policies
and position with other countries.
The cover story in a recent issue of
Newsweek magazine confirms this confu-
' on nad waste, and details general dis-
satisfaction with much of it. The arti-
cle states that President Nixon's "major
complaints are faulty intelligence, run-
rations Committee 'IA
Su ommi ee o rmed Services, which
committee also included members of the
Senate Appropriations Committee. This
arrangement presumably continues, but
the members of the Foreign Relations
Committee participate as a matter of
grace, not of right. I,say presumably be-
cause i an case said CIA Subcommittee
has not me o ice site year, antic lro3n
what un ers an oes no pan to meet.
During a markup lnst week of military
appropriations b7 the Senate Defense
4pproriat ons Subcommittee, "no .-n-
lar~ aprop a it on requests contained in
this1ll for momO le someenn "ili-
gence operating or/and adviso groups
in the executive liranc o~ this overn-
As an ex officio member of Appropria-
tions because of being the ranking mem-
ber of the Armed Services Committee,
after the subcommittee meeting I called
.the staff of Appropriations to ask ingcn-
aro, , l a`ni,f "15ga 2 PP -' i'- a-
tions? but I was told that, except for the
~fteR members en -
billionodollar intelligence appropriations,
even the other members o the Ap-
pr rations Committee
Mr. T. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for a question?
That is such a shocking statement that
I thought some attention should be
called to it.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to the able Senator.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The statement the
Senator just made, that he, as a Sena-
away budgets, and a disparity between
it glut of facts and a poverty of anal-
ysis."
Mr. President, several times today on
the floor, people have justified their posi-
tion on the grounds the President felt
this way, or felt that way. Now let me
repeat how the President feels about this
smatter, according to this article:
President Nixon's "major complaints are
faulty intelligence, runaway budgets and a
disparity between a glut of facts and a
poverty of analysis."
This article also asserts:
Bureaucracy has transformed what began
as an amateurish happy few into a sprawling
intelligence conglomerate encompassing more
than a dozen government agencies, 200,000
employees and a budget of some $6 billion a
year.
As one Member of the Senate, despite
my committee assignments, I do not
know whether those figures are accurate
or inaccurate, too large or too small.
Earlier this month the news media
began calling me one evening about a
:major reorganization in the intelligence
field that had just been announced by
this Government. I told them the truth-
that Iknew notlu&aa IT_
Ee press carried a story about this
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 23, 197pproved 1A1 ~ PjaDR? MJ96R000400120011-3 S 19523
in both the Senate and the House there are itional and often unnecessary dollars111ed-if pressures, combined subcommittees of both Appropriations and ,ad will be a ud et be- warren s ac7 fiat been char c-
Armed Services. In the Senate, members of cause bud e on lntelh rice to tic of au ntelliva^^? k"^ax'U~rlae and
the Foreign Relations Committee are invited . e ma es of the lans rogranis. andAhat-votmtry~- because our
to join briefings of the other subcommittees. pro uc on o t e 2ON[ le enemy and political and military actions were ap-
And then states: fnv estimates, rY proved by the Congress on the basis of
`'`I submit that there is no federal agency of I hay been higher than o the misinformation and a lack of informa-
our government whose activities receive civilians. tion.
closer scrutiny and "control" than the CIA. now edge-intelligence-about the in summary, therefore, I do not be-
Based on the facts presented above, the plans and programs of the possible lieve the Senate can meet its responsibili-
reverse of that statement is true in my enemy is generally considered to be at ties, or exercise its "constitutional pre-
opinion, and it is shameful for the Amer- least as important as any other factor rogative" if this bill is approved under
scan people to be so misled. There is no in the formulation of the defense budget. these circumstances; therefore, I offer
Federal agency of our Government whose As but one example of that importance, this amendment which has been read at
activities receive less scrutiny and control there follows a colloquy between the dis- the desk and which provides that the
than the CIA; and the same is true of tinguished present chairman of the Sen- Senate impose a ceiling on the amount of
ter intelligence agencies of the govern- ate Appropriations Committee and funds in this bill that can be expended
ent who reportedly receive billions of former Secretary of Defense McNamara, for intelligence activities during the fiscal
dollars more each year than does the CIA. during the defense appropriations hear- year in question.
I have the greatest respect for the five ings of 1967: Responsible news media continue to
members of the Senate Appropriations Senator ELLENDER. What part does the State assert to the American people that the
Committee who alone of all Senators Department take in making decisions that cost of intelligence to the American tax-
know the details of this multibillion-dol- have resulted in the programs you are pre- payer now runs to between $5 billion and
lar authorization and appropriation. But senting to us now? $6 billion. I do not believe that figure is
I do not believe that they, and they alone, Secretary MCNAMARA. That State Depart- necessarily correct, but if it is correct, it
should render final decision on both said ment is informed of, but does not affect my but confirms the many informed reports
recommendations as to what ought to be we have had about duplication and waste.
authorizations and appropriations with done.
out the knowledge, let alone the approval, Senator ELLENDEII. Are your recommenda- I now ask for the yeas and nays.
of any other Senators, including those on tions founded solely on what you get from The yeas and nays were ordered.
the Armed Services Committee who are the JCS? EXHIBIT 1
G~cretary MCNAMARA. No, sir; they are not.
not on this five-member Subcommittee of The JCS are, of course, the principal military CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF INTELLIGENCE
Appropriations, and all members of the advisers to the President by law, and of much ACTIVITIES
Senate Foreign Relations Committee. more importance they are actually his mill- ( Statement by Senator Stuart Symington)
The latter committees have fully as tary advisers because of their experience. But I that Friday the White House announced
much. interest in our military and polit- the national Intelligence estimates are t = n t that the President had ordered a reorganiza-
ical activities in foreign lands a s do mem- in m y rPnnmmen fins w e l l tion of the intelligence community. I ask
bers of this Appropriations Subcommit- as o er information. unanimous consent that their press release
tee; in fact, the heads of the CIA in for- Aga n, in that this year the CIA Sub- to this end be placed in the Record at the
eign countries operate under the super- conclusion these remarks.
vision of the Ambassador; and those Am- committee of the Armed Services Com- As raon eporta ed b by by the press, the Aaministra-
v bassadors report to the Secretary of mittee has not met once, it would appear tion's plan creates an "enhanced leadership
there is now even more secrecy in the role" for the Director of the Central Intelli-
State. handling of intelligence funds; and this Bence Agency, turns more of the operating
As a matter of fact, and as anybody at a time when there is a steadily rising responsibility for that Agency over to the
knows who has traveled around in these chorus among the people of this country Deputy Director, and creates or reconstitutes
foreign countries where we are at war of a variety of boards, committees and groups
in what might be called partial peace, the for less secrecy. who are charged with important responsi-
heads of the CIA in these countries oiler- Apparently some people believe that bilities within the intelligence community.
ate under the direct supervision of the the very word "intelligence," in itself, The reported aim of the reorganization is
ambassador, and those ambassadors re- requires that all these billions should to improve the "efficiency and effectiveness"
only be authorized and appropriated in of United States intelligence activities; and
port to the Secretary of State. such great secrecy. cress comments on this move inclfide ref-
Today we all know this Nation faces To me, this does not wash. We author- erences to alleged concern over the size and
serious fiscal and monetary problems. ize and appropriate, through the proper cost of intelligence operations; also to gen-
Our economy is in grave trouble and one congressional committees, tens of bil- eral unhappiness about various specific in-
of the chief reasons for this condition lions of dollars annually for the other telligence estimates. Such reports have been
has to do with our vast military expendi- parts of the military. officially denied, but it is acknowledged that
tures at home and abroad. component this reorganization is the result of "an ex-
There that premise, apprehension about There is nothing secret, for example, haustive study" of the United States intel-
With t be increased about about the constantly referred to cost of ligence activities.
this situation reorganization emi an only announced a nuclear aircraft carrier, or the cost of It could be that the reorganization an-
the s the be the C-5A, or the cost of the main battle nounced last week by the White House is a
earlier this month by the White House tank; but knowledge of these costs does constructive move. in recent years there
in turn increases the influence of the not mean that either the Congress or has been a growing belief that there was
military in e formulation o In a i- the American public have been informed, heavy duplication and therefore waste
the overall intelligence community.
ithi
n
P a was a ecre ar in in case of a war, how, along with our w
Tie$ art.- eri the --a- Unfortunately, however, it has been impos-
the Defense military personnel, it is planned to utilize sable for the public, or even concerned
In act I monl re a passage of at into war plans, something which should information onV thisV subject for informed
aitfor-Se are Patterson-and there- he studiously avoided. judgment,
the-, as unammous consent that aDDur now Lne varluua ul~cni c., ur- or to determine what will be their prac-
tniis wording be printed in the RECORD f on, or p an tical effect.
at the conclusion of my remarks. y should there be greater danger to one thing is clear, based on the manner
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. national security in making public overall in which the reorganization was handled
SPONG). Without objection, it is so or- intelligence costs than in making public and announced; namely, the Executive
other overall security costs? Branch does not consider either the orga-
tiered. nization, or the operation, of the intelli-
(See exhibit 2.) I am certain in my own mind that we gence community to be matters of concern
Mr, SYMINGTON. Mr. President, if wow iQ ne to the Congress. To my knowledge there was
this analysis is correct, many billlongo ' war-killing people and having our own no advance consultation whatever with the
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 Approved For Rel 2001 S`11I CIV8S73B00296R0004001200 -3
S 19524 GRES~ AL RECi3RD - SENATE 1Vovember 23, 1971
Congress regarding this reorganization, or
even any advance notice of what had been
decided.
In 1947 the Central Intelligence Agency
was established by act of Congress. Its powers
and duties are specified by law. Its Director
and Deputy Director are subject to con-
firmation by the Senate.
Last year the Congress appropriated an
amount estimated by the press to be be-
tween five and six billion dollars for the
activities of this agency and the other com-
ponent parts of the intelligence community.
As one member of the Senate, I will not
accept the proposition that the Congress'
role in organizing the intelligence commu-
nity ended twenty-four years ago with the
passage of the National Security Act, or
that our only current and continuing respon-
sibility Is to appropriate whatever number
of billions of dollars the Executive Branch
requests so as to handle this work.
Last Saturday, when I learned from the
press about this Intelligence reorganization,
as ranking member of the Senate Armed
Services Committee I wrote the Chairman
of that Committee, requesting hearings either
by the full Committee or by the CIA Sub-
committee, of which I have been a memt-,er
for some fifteen years. In that letter I pre-
sented the fact that this Subcommittee has
not met once this year.
This latest reorganization on the face of
it raises questions about past, present and
future performance of our multi-billion dol-
lar annually intelligence community; ques-
tions such as
If it has been inefficient, what and where
were its deficiencies?
In what sense does it need to be more
"responsive?"
What is implied about the past by the
reference in the press release to the objec-
tive of insuring "strengthened leadership"
in the future?
The White House announcement offers
neither answers to these questions, nor ex-
planations of the remedies which have now
been unilaterally decreed.
In order to understand properly said action
by the Executive Branch, Congress should
know the answers to such questions as the
following:
How is the leadership role of the Director
of the Central Intelligence Agency "en-
hanced" by the creation of a new and obvi-
ously more powerful supervisory committee
chaired by the Advisor to the President for
National Security Affairs, on which new
Board not only sits the Attorney General
but also the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff?
Has this new White House committee been
given authority or/and responsibility which
heretofore was the responsibility of the
CIA; and which the Congress, under the Na-
tional Security Act, vested in the Agency?
How can the integrity of the intelligence
product be assured when responsibility for
the most critical aspects of intelligence
analysis Is taken out of the hands of career
professionals and vested in a combination
of military professionals and the White House
staff?
ExmBrr 2
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
SEC. I02. (a) There is established under
the National Security Council a Central In-
telligence Agency with a Director of Central
Intelligence who shall be the head thereof,
and with a Deputy Director of Central In-
telligence who shall act for, and exercise the
powers of, the Director during his absence
or disability. The Director and the Deputy
Director shall be appointed by the President,
by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, from among the commissioned of-
ficers of the armed services, whether in an
active or retired status, or from among in-
dividuals in civilian life: Provided, however,
That at no time shall the two positions, of
the Director and Deputy Director be occupied
simultaneously by commissioned oWoers of
the armed services, whether in an active or
retired status.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, if
the Senator from Missouri will yield I do
not have a copy of the Senator's amend-
ment but I made a note as it was read.
It states:
The Central Intelligence Agency, the Na-
tional Security Agency, and the Defense In-
telligence Agency, and for intelligence work
performed by or on behalf of the Army, Navy,
and the Air Force.
Now would the Senator break that
down into, say, the intelligence that is
acquired by a photorecon flight, one, or
the intelligence-
Mr. SYMINGTON. May I ask the Sen-
ator if he is speaking on my time or on
the time of the opposition?
Mr. GOLDWATER. I am not sure that
I oppose it. I want merely to find out how
deep the Senator wants to go.
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield 5 minutes to
the Senator from Arizona..
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Arizona is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Sena-
tor from Louisiana for yielding me this
time.
What disturbs me, as the Senator
knows as well as anyone else in this
Chamber, the Army and Navy, the Air
Force and the Marine Corps are always,
constantly, engaged in obtaining battle-
field intelligence and information, some
of which applies to the kind of intelli-
gence we are discussing here and some
of which applies to intelligence needed
to conduct a battle. But the thing that
disturbs me is, is there any way to allo-
cate or to determine the cost of that kind
of intelligence?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I say to the Sena-
tor I do not know. No doubt millions of
Americans have seen the chart in News-
week magazine, however, a chart called
"The United States Intelligence Com-
rnunity." It does not give figures for that
agency which, to the best of my knowl-
edge, spent by far the most money, but
it does say in the chart that the Army
has 38,500 intelligence staffers and a
budget of $775 million; that the Navy
has 10,000. It does not give the Navy
money; that the Air Force has 60,000
staffers with a budget of $2.8 billion. It
says the Central Intelligence's budget is
$750 million. It says the Defense Intelli-
gence Agency has a budget of $100 mil-
lion and spends an added $700 million
through Armed Forces. Then it goes into
additional agencies-six of them, no fig-
ures.
I am a member-of Armed Services, an
ad hoc member of Appropriations, a
member of the CIA Subcommittee, and a
member of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, and I would like to know what
is going on in this vital field.
When we read that $6 billion is being
spent on intelligence, that may be bil-
lions of dollars too high, but I would like
to know something about it.
Mr. GOLDWATER. The thing ,I am
trying to satisfy in my own mind is how
we would go about the bookkeeping of
the very elementary type of intelligence-
gathering that involves a patrol sent out
for intelligence purposes?
Mr. SYMINGTON. The figure I state
in the amendment is too high, according
to some-$4 billion.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I am not arguing
with the Senator about that. I am in-
clined to agree with him, but I think
the amendment would be better-and
better understood-if we did not get down
to the nitty-gritty of 1 and 1 is 2, at
the sergeant or the private level, who
is sent out to undertake a photo recon-
flight.
I am speaking here to their problems
and their costs. The question I had is:
How far down the hole do we go before
we stop?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Let me answer my
able friend in this way. We had staff men
go in certain areas of the world and they
found great duplication. They found the
intelligence units of the CIA, the De-
partment of Defense, the Army, the
Navy, and the Air Force all directed
to particular intelligence, tremendous
duplication, therefore waste.
If it is clarification that the able Sen-
ator wants, that is what I want-namely,
what we are doing month after month
with these gigantic sums of money being
expended in the intelligence field.
If we are going to have a Congress that
means anything, prerogatives, the proper
Senate committees ought to be informed.
Mr. GOLDWATER. I am not arguing
with the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield
the Senator. from Arizona 1 additional
minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Arizona is recognized. for 1
additional minute.
Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, lack
of redundancy is the secret of what to
my opinion is the best intelligence of the
world, the British Intelligency Agency.
We have three separate groups that keep
piling in an input of redundancy, and
each of them becomes a problem of de-
termining which are the most valid.
I thank the Senator from Missouri.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
again the House Appropriations Com-
mittee, this month, said:
The committee feels that the intelligence
operation of the Defense Department is grow-
ing beyond the actual needs of the depart-
ment and are now costing an Inordinate share
of the fiscal resources of the department.
Redundancy is the watchword of any intelli-
gence operation. The same information
sought to be obtained by various members
and various organizations Is naturally lees
effective than it should be.
Naturally that stimulated my interest
in trying to get at the facts.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I want
to speak after the Senator from Louisi-
ana. However, will the Senator yield me
2 minutes for the purpose of asking a
question on that point?
Mr. ELLENDER. I yield 2 minutes to
the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I refer
to the same sentence that the Senator
referred to with respect to the intelli-
gence of the Army, the Navy, and the
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 November 23,A .ved For ~@II IONA 74l3R SA00400120011-3 S 195,25
Air Force. The Senator does not mean to Agency. Everyone knows what the this new reorganization, should it not b
that is done at the level of a battalion? newspapers. Why is it necessary? What Mr. SYMINGTON. That is what we are
fli
+i ve
1l,v
and patrol for the purpose of seeking example, on March 31, 1971, in the in the Committee on Armed Services
out and getting prisoners to try to get ~,,For
enate Armed Services Committee hear- that the Senator knows of?
intelligence about the enemy. g, I asked the question: Mr. SYMINGTON. No.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I would not want to On page 2 of the congressional data sheet Mr. FULBRIGHT. And the Commit-
Include the battlefield, but I do want to e lest item on the table of aircraft procure- tee on Armed Services does not author-
include all military operations of the ent program is "classified projects" $7- ize anything specifically for intelligence?
Central Intelligence Agency. The Sec- 0,000, requested for 72. This is almost one- Mr. SYMINGTON. There is no auretary of efense stated, in open session: th of the total aircraft procurement thorization in any way to pass upon in-
. _ est. Would you please tell us briefly what. . __.
in h
aj
l .w
u s _'-Y.
in Laos.
Armed Services. The able chairman of
I believe that is true because he said it.
"I'his means the Central Intelligence
Agency is running the war in Laos, and
if so, the Foreign Relations Committee
anc1 the Armed Services Committee
ought to know at least something about
it.
Mr. STENNIS. W. President, for one
illustration, the Senator's amendment
refers to whist are in the budget items
here for the Central Intelligence Agency,
the National Security Agency, and the
Defense Intelligence Agency. That is the
primary references and inclusions that
are in the Senator's amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield
1 additional minute to the Senator from
Mississippi.
Mr. SYMINGTON. No intelligence unit
should evade the purposes of my amend-
ment by delegating some of the work
they would normally do to the Army,
the Navy, or the Air Force.
Mr. STENNIS. I agree.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I feel that with-
out reservation because in this article
they state:
Bureaucracy has transformed what began
as an amateurish happy few into a sprawl-
ing intelligence conglomerate encompassing
more than a dozen government agencies,
200,000 employees and a budget of some $6
billion a year.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator. We will come back to that
point later. I know that the Senator from
Louisiana wants to speak now.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I will be glad to
yield on my own time to the Senator
from Arkansas.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
would like to say that the distinguished
Senator from Missouri has opened the
rovided in oral briefing. Mr. FULBRIGHT. How long has the
That exchange was declassified and Senator been a member of that commit-
then made a matter of public record. tee?
r, SYMINGTON. It will be standing
In the published hearings last year of 20 years next January.
the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. FULBRIGHT. Would not the Sen-
ProeWkg now Assistant Secretary Secretary of of the Army, ator have heard of such hearings if they
,
as plenty critical of the intelligence took place? se Mr. SYMINGTON. I would think so.
He He said the cost of all military intelli- Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator hears
of all hearings that take place in the
gence activities c - Committee on Foreign Relations. Is that
fig" teTfigenc e, was $2.8 billion; and that correct?
was pu s Mr. SYMINGTON. Yes.
I an se
1 Mr. FULBRIGHT. What is the motive
nut
are lye s trying r to do o do
ameetT counter what , or reason for keeping secret the amount
ry uin r' of money being spent, for example, by
a p- the National Security Agency, which I
DroDr & on Comes a ong_ we are told tha..t
the Russians are out-distancing us every- b''''i'eei, is inc largess operation? Why is
where. We are told this by the same Sen- the amount of money secret? I am not
ators. It is like the swallows coming back talking about who their spy is, if they
to Capistrano. And I wonder how that can have one. Why do they insist on secrecy
b
t
h
ou
t
e amounts?
be because a
psssic ~Pn lot more money Mr. SYMINGTON. I do not know.
than the Ruians seen _ We aV,p arvad
may be that we devote so much of the uu 11VL xuuw we nave the Na-
money in this bill to nonmilitary items tional Security Agency?
such as intelligence. That may be an ex- ever discovered SYMred was . The worst spy we
o
Na-
Agency, cy, a be probably in the wh
planation. It has always been a puzzle to anal Security was
me why we get so little in hardware for was our money. We are told that we are a h w leading a gay and double life, a spy
who, O' when caught,
io.
second-class power, that we do not have The point of f
my amendment himself
as
many airplanes or ships as the Rus- em-
on
sians. We hear this all the time. Armed Services we en the Committee on
Committee on
Either we are, or we are not, as strong F
oreign Relations and the not have ve anything
las we say. Certainly we spend plenty of like the the necessary facts to money. Are hearings held in the Commit- cats the increasingly limited resources eslof
tee on Armed Services on this issue? Has this country y between l internaatitiona a al l and
d
the Senator ever attended any hearings owee
domestic programs.
on the question of the activities of the Mr. FULBRIGHT. In this overall ques-
National Security Agency? tion the Senator spoke about secrets, and
..
Mr Q-m'TTTT/ 'iYThT We wer
b
i
f
a b
e
r
e
e
y
h
D
e
irect .L '1 the g - The Senator talks about battlefield
Agpnrv wise, e vel committee, la secrets. Nobody is asking how many men
January: and then a.Qa.in this mnrninv
b
.__
_. .
e
are
out
country and for the Congress. much as spent by the National~Secu- amou ry. we are t goes in the
The Senator is quite aware that he rity Agwency? for mou intelligence because money tha t it goes into this rte
has touched on a very sensitive nerve Mr. SYMINGTON. I asked but he did amount a very because billions of dollars of intelligence not know. . I have not t heard any
any legitimate reason, why that suggestion, amount
mount
funds are contained in this appropria- Mr. FULBRIGHT. He does not know? should be secret, other than one last sug-
tion. No one can tell where in this bill Mr. SYMINGTON. He does not know gestion. Is this just a way to cover up
those funds are. When they read a line about the others, only his own in any expenditures so there can be no account-
item and find that there is so much for detail. ing to the public or Congress?
aircraft, or for a carrier, those may or Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is he not the head Mr. SYMINGTON. There are no five
may not be the real amounts. of what is referred to as the intelligence gentlemen anywhere-
This practice gives rise to questions community? Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is not the
about every item in the appropriation. Mr. SYMINGTON. He is the chairman question.
I want to ask the Senator why he thinks of the National Security Council Intelli- Mr. SYMINGTON. Let finish my
it is necessary to keep secret the amount gence Committee. sentence.
of money to be allocated from this ap- Mr. FULBRIGHT. Then his role is that There are no five gentlemen, in the
propriation to the National Security f a coordinator. If anyone knows about Senate or anywhere else I respect more
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3
 S 19526
Approved Fort-fit ftity415R {,F& P.1 ")LW0004001VO094t$er 23, 1971
+hn , these four and one lady. But this executive session about the authoriza- funded from many different appropria-
pruuee4 Vl 1111Lic iJ cos-- -..v _
not the people involved. thi 1i a Bence ca ory. Mr. President, as I said, this is a rath-
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I hope that the Sen- 2C3T"C