(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000400170032-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 25
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 7, 2000
• Sequence Number: 32
• Publication Date: February 4, 1972
• Content Type: OPEN

ILLEGIB
AlftERPNAWAPAc4i6111000400170032-5 S 1213
IC SAFETY PROGRAM
IGHT. Mr. President, I of-
ent which I send to the
hat it be stated.
IDING ateriCER. The
ill be stated.
'ye clerk read as follows:
etween lines 8 and 9, insert
of the funds appropriated or
pursuant to this Act to carry
the Foreign Assistance Act
used for continuing public
of the Agency for Interna-
eat.
IGHT. Mr. President, on
t, I ask for the yeas and
d nays were ordered.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
yield myself 10 minutes.
In its illustrative 1972 budget, the
Agency for International Development
requested $29,423,000 for carrying out
public safety programs in more than 25
countries of the world. Of that $5,455,000
was to be from technical assistance, $20,-
573,000 from supporting assistance, and
$3,400,000 from ' supporting assistance
loans.
The proposed program and the detail
of its financing are set forth in the table
which I ask unanimous consent to have
printed at this point in the REcOab.
There being no objection, the table was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
Countries and regions
Supporting
assistance
?
Technical
assistance
-Supporting
assistance
loans
Countries and regions
Supporting
assistance
Technical
assistance
Supporting
assistance
loans
Southeast Asia:
South Vietnam
Laos
Thailand
Philippines
Africa:
Regional
Congo (Kinshasa)
Ghana
Liberia
Nigeria
Tunisia
Near East and South Asia: Pakistan
Latin America:
Bolivia
Brazil
Colombia
$11, 148,000
425, 000
9, 000, 000
$800, 000
100,000
1, 016, 000
106, 000
203,000
125, 000
250, 000
115, 000
174, 000
340, 000
$3, 400, 000
Costa Rica
Dominican Republic
Ecuador
El Salvador
Guatemala
Guyana
Honduras
Jamaica
Nicaragua
Panama
Uruguay
Venezuela
Total
Grand total
$198, 000
370, 000
135, 000
56, 000
377, 000
99, 000
171, 000
96,009
91,000
203,000
225, 000
200, 000
$20, 573, 000
5, 450, 000
63, 400, 000
29, 423, 000
PULBRIGHT. Mr. President, over
the years, I have come to realize that
U.S. participation in the highly sen-
sitive area of public safety and police
training unavoidably opens the door to
those who seek to identify the United
States with every act of local police
brutality or oppression in any country
in which this program operates. It mat-
ters little whether the charges can be
substantiated; they are made almost
daily; they are widely circulated; they
obtain credibility in some quarters; and
they inevitably stigmatize the total
U.S. aid effort.
I believe that in undeveloped areas of
the world, the costs of public safety pro-
grams are better left to be under-
written from local resources and the U.S.
assistance effort directed toward less
sensitive and better justified areas
of concern. As a move in this direction,
my amendment would eliminate all pub-
lic safety programs funded from techni-
cal assistance grants and development
loans. This action would not, however,
bar public safety programs in Southeast
Asia, for which $20,573,000 in support-
ing assistance funds is requested, and
concerning which I will not comment at
this time.
That program has been widely pub-
licized in a different connection.
While I question the need for continu-
ing this highly controversial program,
the Agency for International Develop-
ment has testified in strong support of
these activities which involve the opera-
tion of the International Policy Academy
and the stationing of 335 public safety
advisers abroad. Having achieved the
limited objectives for which they were
established, public safety programs in 23
countries have been terminated since
1962.
Public safety programs in Chile and
Jordan were terminated in fiscal year
1971 and ongoing programs in Brazil and
Korea will be concluded by the end of
fiscal 1972. In trying to justify this pro-
gram's continuance, an AID official has
made the following observation which
should be considered in passing judg-
ment on the program:
Violence has been a common factor .in
many or the world's societies and one which
frustrates the effort of the people to realize
their aspirations and also of governments
in attempting to govern. Violence has been
chosen by special interest groups, political
factions and elements at both extremes of
the political spectrum. Based on th6 recent
experience of the 1960s, it is clear that dur-
ing the decade of the '705 the task of govern-
ments M these societies will be much more
important during this period. This im-
portance lies not only in the civil security
forces' ability to protect the lives, property
and basic human rights of the citizens, but
in their ability to create a climate for orderly
change. Violence perpetrated by any group
in society should be prevented and sup-
pressed.
In several countries, which have requested
and are receiving Public Safety assistance,
there are reports and allegations that some
members of the police forces engage in illegal
activity in the conduct of their business. We
do not condone and do deplore this kind of
behavior which is antithetical to the objec-
tives of the Public Safety program and to
the modern concept of law enforcement
which the program attempts to inculcate at
all levels in police forces it aids. The best
chance for overcoming this lack of profes-
sionalism Is the conduct of police operations
is through technical assistance and training
provided by the Public Safety program.
U.S. Public Safety assistance is a low cost,
low profile activity. Given adequate resources,
It can be effective in influencing police lead-
ership toward the professional and humane
use of their resources and it can assist in the
development of police abilities to prevent
serious threats to internal order.
Unfortunately, there is a difference
between can and is. I question the effec-
tiveness of these programs in light of
the adverse effects that result from our
being so closely ? associated with local
police brutality and consider further in-
volvement in these programs to be
against the best interests of the United
States.
We have troubles enough with police/
community relations in our own society.
I suggest that our Government's efforts
would be better directed to this, and our
own crime problem, rather than to try-
ing to teach foreigners how to run their
police departments.
Mr. President, the overall effect of this,
together with other aspects of our pro-
gram, is to identify this Nation with the
preservation of the status quo in all
respects in all the developing countries,
in which there are many people who be-
lieve that some changes in their economic
or political systems are warranted. The
United States is identified in nearly every
respect with the preservation of the
status quo in any effort to improve the
lot of the people in those countries.
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FITLBRIGHT. I yield.
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
Approved For RacORA9SIOA14 RetiR_DpE7A314)296R000i4stp4799-q02
rROXMIRE. This amendinent
Was , rohglit to the attention of the fill
comMittee, and We 4reeZt that, 'betalise
eOntroversial With many People; it
d
brought up on he fibor lather
put in l)y the' c-omnilttee:
I i1nIc it is nece&-art7. for Us to stop
'Our'.01.ct-p-1?:public Safety prOgiams be-
-444% gilitproo-, froth Arkansas fias
tad - lag only dO they become' clearly
e4led -With tuppreSsion of human
gh ,tnit also with the most reactionary
jailUtary regimes.
It:1S true, as the Senator from Arkansas
aldtliat they may _Serve a useful ptir-
.Poe' hilt, what the Senator from Arkan-
oind iko in his amendment *ouldhe
1de-that public safety prograins
an he police 'forces of those 'thitintries
n 'with local tax hinds In Etieddfd,
anCe?With the Way the local goVerninehts
Wait to set Priorities.
I know ? what resistance there wohld
be .fia this ,tonntry to tvitid- a' Federal
_Patine force. People woUd retist such
ta010. r know some people say the MI
that. Ian not think -so. Thave great
- respect for. the 'FBI._ I think' it' has done
4 z vTot job. But if we had a Federal
Ude forte supported With Pederal
, we -Would be coneeined with all
eat that woid have"On. The Civil
let OtAe people of our Country.
vfliat We are sayi_ngla that V.S. Am
shOuld be lisecl to 'help colni-
WilthtUt hecOlnitim thiolVed With
police for?ese ''have Vio-
niunan rights-tirrieatidtline again
-nioSt- bitter' at4 tragic way's-
1 Istthg_niost donssitriOns elcarnple.
6 LtAn yeEisoi,
hY. the trifted States
djzneessar1ul he-iaotifted?ag the
ry wiitch istupp717Irig- the police
tuft). older
11/0.1rt. filiank` 'the 'Sena-
, s, ?MT!,
to _ ato? - 4,1115.. i*:kt 'the. 'Sein,
4
: Once. eosin I aik the Senator from
if, he wilt conti-or the time In
n to %fie aineriftnierit.
rrr. 'T. appreciate the
41Uo the Senittoi: -
;11/471r. President, I yield my-
4elrauCh t ink need.
is bitiOilositioh to the ainendrnent.
)t. rnairt" thrust - of these funds, under
th public safetysafety programs', IS to have all
civil" security "fbrce"in the Coun-
t. are, just : developing.' Many of
countries do'".not"have an eftiillerit
f e and thtt need to 'have
trainedmen to stop the nc tion of riots
_ ,? ? .
the inCeptiOn Of Other criminal
,
ac-
tiv1tie,
1 54 the United States has pro-
ss ,stance
,/
?atance to police organization
e world thrOugh the foreign
rite- asststance prograrn. We must
re er4bet that we have only 4 or 5 more
ptht 1 t of fiscalyear '1072 and that
IA, t en operating on a continuing
re on to take Care of the
"grams
axe now IX existence.
y t ' ust. of this program
b ty too dceivvnelopeecturthetyinsftiotrcutesiontoal
m ntain peace and order so that eco-
nomic and social development can 'pro-
ceed and the affairs of government can
be conducted within a constitutional
framework.
? y providing this assistance', civlTpO.
Hee capabilities have been improved, thus
pelmitting recipient governments to cope
with internal disorders in their earliest
phases rather than having to use mill-
- taly force wheri such disorders reach an
unmanageable revel.
Some - Mine' aCtions have been de-
slbed"abi1.1tI. IVIally police forces in
or oWri CbtultrY, likewise, have been ac-
cdsed of police brutality. But the main
trust of-thig program is to see that the
rtelpient --countries haVe efficient police
farces so they clan nip insipient disorders
id the bud, so they denot have to resort
15 military forde later.
This program has been working-very
Well, and It hasteen Phasing out. During
this same Period' the progranl level for
atsistance to 30 countries outside South-
east Asia has been reduced from $7.98
Millien in 1967 to $5.45 million in fiscal
*72.
'Mr. President, we ate talking about a
very insignificant sum of money?$5.45
Million to 23 countries.
'Which Conntries and what amounts
ale we talking about? For example, for
the Conge, $1 taillion;- for Ghana, $106,-
01)0; for Liberia, $203,000; for Tunisia,
$125,000.
- Certainly these countries need to up-
glade their police forces.
--Likewige, we are appropriating for
Jordan, $65,000. For Pakistan, $280,000.
For Bolivia, $115,000. For Brazil, $174,-
1100.
So it can be seen that the amounts
ifppropriated for these countries are
Modest.
? To abruptly terminate all assistance to
enlmtries other than those in Southeast
Asia at this time would be very unwise
Feld could waste a large part of the lira-
rred Investment already made in those
tinimtries.
The expenditure of this amount of
inoney is-for equipment, for training, for
bringing their-people-over to take a look
At our pollee 'forces so they may learn
?tom in, and -for sending our technical
Advisers to these countries. So Senators
ihni gee that most of the money appro-
priated under this program is for expen-
ltitures for our technicians, and for for-
Tigifers to come to our country to learn
What is happening here.
This is particularly true in terms of
the major effort now being mounted to
',attack the worldwide problem of inter-
inational narcotics control. AID's public
-itafety program will play a key role in the
-total U.S. Government effort. It is im-
perative that civil police institutions be
litrengthEned In order that individual
country narcotic control laws can be en-
forced effectively. Specific plans for as-
cistEmee-to various countries are now be-
ing formed in coordination with the Bu-
reau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs
land the Bureau of Customs. Fourteen of
these eotintries are now receiving some
type of -public safety assistance through
'AID. -
Latin Ai-aerie= is also rapidly becom-
ing a inafor -conduit for international
liarcoties &eine Into- the "United States.
-six countries:all in Central America and
"the Calif:A*0i area 'and which are now
'receiving public safet3r assistance, may
'also require Eissistante in narcotics controL
-
In 'additon, the'Congress has now en-
acted legislation?section 481 of the For-
eign Assistanct Act?which authorizes
the President to conclude, drug control
agreements with other countries and to
furnish assistance to any country or in-
ternational organization for drug control
purposes.
Mr. President, the significant impact
of this restriction would be to force the
closing of eight international police
academies, where nearly 90 percent of
the students expected during fiscal 1972
Will come from 23 countries. It will result
In the abandonment of public safety ef-
forts to work with any but three coun-
tries in Indochina. Such assistance must
be authorized in the Foreign Assistance
Act and appropriated in part I of the
Foreign Assistance and Related Programs
Appropriations Act. Therefore, any effort
to eliminate public safety activities out-
side Southeast Asia is contrary to a con-
gressional view expressed so recently.
Opportunities for preventing further
spread of international narcotics traffic
and growth of related law enforcement
problems ? cannot be disregarded. Al-
though the United States cannot enforce
the narcotics laws of another nation we
do have a responsibility to assist in an
area of national urgency through train-
ing and improved organization under the
public safety program.
Mr. President, I think we would be do-
ing a very sad thing if we were to dis-
allow the use of this money for public
safety programs. It would be most tragic
because the main thrust of this program
is to really give to the developing coun- ?
tries a good civil police security force in
order to hold down the trafficking in
narcotics, to nip subversive elements in
the bud, and to protect constitutionally
developed and elected governments.
So I oppose the amendment very vigor-
ously, Mr. President.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Arkansas yield me 2 min-
utes?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield 2 minutes to
the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, from
year to year I have been a very strong
supporter of our foreign aid program. I
have done so because I have always be-
lieved that the effort was made in the
spirit of brotherhood, and not in a self-
seeking way to promote the prestige or
enlarge the image of America through-
out the world. We have spent billions of
dollars in order to accomplish that.
But I dare say the program that we
are talking about now, that has been
outlined by the Senator from Hawaii,
has been counterproductive. We are
talking about a civil police force?First
of all, this is a national concern. It is a
matter of the sovereignty of the particu-
lar nation involved. Those people should
furnish their own police forces. They
should train their own policemen.
No one is advocating here that they
do away with their policemen. All we
are saying is, it is not the business of the
United States of America to create a po-
lice force in any nation to guarantee the
tenure of any specific dictator or any
particular government. Frankly, in many
Instances, as the Senator from Arkansas
has pointed out, we have been identified
Approved For Release 2000/09/11: CIA-RDP73B00296R000400170032-5
-
FArAPPrevg#17f0r ReleawaRRAgigh.LstitmuagpRicire000400170032-5 S 1215
as being against a sound reform move-
ment that might be salutary in that par-
ticular Country.
We have said time and time again that
America should not be the policeman of
the world, and yet we are policemen by
proxy here. I\ do not see why the United
States of America should maintain an
International police school. For what
purpose? The first thing any nation does
to protect its own security is to build
up a good, formidable police force. To
say that if we withhold this aid these
police forces will go out of existence is
something I just cannot believe at all.
I say very frankly I think this is one part
of the foreign aid bill that does irrepara-
ble harm to the foreign aid program as
a whole.
We have seen instances time and time
again where these civil police forces, as
they are called here, have really become
stormtroopers. We have had our experi-
ence with Hitler, who, piecemeal, wanted
to suppress this and suppress that. Fi-
nally he wound up as a dictator and
brought us into World War II.
I say if we are going to cut this for-
eign aid bill at all, this is the one best
place to cut it, and I shall vote for the
cut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I yield my-
self 1 minute.
As I have stated, the amounts of
money here are used for the purpose of
securing equipment, of sending advisers
overseas to teach police work, and to
have the students of recipient countries
come over and learn some of our police
techniques. We are not trying to set up
police states in these countries. We are
just teaching them advanced methods
of civil security and public safety, and
that is all we are doing for them.
This work is being phased out. We
have operated under the continuing res-
olution now for approximately 7 months,
and we have only 5 months to go. The
program outside of Southeast Asia in-
volves around $5 million. It is being
phased out, and this is no time for us
to cut it.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will thp
Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FONG. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. The Senator uses the
expression that this is for "civil security
protection" reasons. What do we mean
by that? It certainly is not protection
against an invader. It is an internal af-
fair.
Mr. FONG. It is an internal affair.
Mr. PASTORE. Is it our business to get
mixed up in it?
Mr. FONG. Many of our programs in-
volve internal affairs. We have gotten
into the matter of helping people who
are starving and who are sick?
Mr. PASTORE. Oh, but that is a dif-
ferent matter. We want to put food in
empty stomachs. I just voted against the
Fulbright amendment that would affect?
the award of money to feed the starving
people in Bangladesh. But there is no
analogy between food and police.
Mr. FONG. We have sent our advisers
over there, and we have brought their
people over here, to study educational
methods. This is nothing but a question
of education.
Mr. PASTORE. That is not the way I
have heard it. I have been with this pro-
gram for a long time, and this is one ele-
ment of the program with which I have
become very weary. I think it is wrong
to support this type of program. All that
these security guards have been able to
do is protect the bastion of authority in
their particular State. Any time anyone
speaks out against that authority, he
goes to jail, sometimes without trial, and
America is being blamed for it in many
instances.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, I yield 2
minutes to the distinguished Senator
from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, as I re-
call the days and the hours and hours
spent in the Foreign Relations Commit-
tee
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, if the Sena-
tor will yield, I ask for the yeas and nays
on the amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. COOPER. During all the time we
put in on this measure in the Foreign
Relations Committee, to the best of my
recollection this subject was not men-
tioned. I may be in error, but I do not
recall it.
I know that this has been referred to
as a program which might prevent police
brutality. I would like to say it is purely
an educational program, in the same way
that ?the FBI trains people, and in the
same way as this Congress has appro-
priated money to assist in training local
police. There is evidence of police bru-
tality all over the world, and I am sure it
exists in this country. But I think that
countries which have systems such as
ours, and the more advanced countries
in Europe, would be more likely to edu-
cate and train these people in ways which
would prevent police brutality. I think
that is correct.
Also, we are engaged now in a great
program throughout the world to try to
bring narcotics and drug traffic under
control, and this will be one element of
the training which will be undertaken. I
think many subjects have been discussed
here which might be of much more im-
portance, but this is important.
I do not go on the assumption that all
our police are brutal. I would think it
would be better to train these forces in
the use of more humane methods. It is
basically an educational program.
I hope the amendment will be defeated.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator has 5 minutes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield myself 2
minutes.
Mr. President, I agree with the senti-
ments of the Senator from Rhpde Is-
land. It reminded me of a rather sym-
bolic experience.
I think one of our first involvements
in South Vietnam was a thorough public
safety project in which we employed
Michigan State University. I believe it
is the same university of which the pres-
ent Administrator of AID was president.
We were engaged in teaching them police
organization. Mr. Fishel of that school
became very friendly with Mr. Diem.
One thing led to another. Diem spent
time in the Maryknoll Seminary in New
York State and became acquainted with
some important figures in this country.
He went back and we helped make him
president and gave him a police force,
and we are still there protecting his
people.
It is rather interesting that out of
this kind of program grew that very long
and intimate connection with South
Vietnam.
It is a very important program. It in-
volves us in the internal affairs of many
countries. But, for the life of me, I do
not understand why the Senator from
Hawaii feels that we should become in-
vqlved in the creation of the local police
forces of these countries. I think it now
involves 25 countries. It is no small
matter.
We already train army officers in more
countries than that. We become iden-
tified with their police forces and what-
ever people think of their police forces.
We know in this country how popular
police forces are. I support our police
forces. But we know that in many parts
of this country the police are very con-
troversial. I think it is most unfortunate,
but that happens to be human nature.
We also have become identified with
foreign army officers. We bring thou-
sands?and we have brought? tens of
thousands?of army officers to this coun-
try, to train them.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's time has expired.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield myself 1 ad-
ditional minute. We bring them here to
teach them our most modern methods
of how to stifle any kind of disorder of
insurrection. That, in its proper context,
Is an essential part of an organized so-
ciety.
I agree with and I underscore what the
Senator from Rhode Island has said. Es-
sential as these activities are to orga-
nized society, they are essentially local,
and a big country like ours should not in-
ject itself into those activities. We are be-
ing accused by our enemies all over the
world of being of an imperialistic nature,
seeking new and more subtle ways than,
say, the British to control every part of
the world we can by investments, by
training of their military people, by
training of their policemen, and other
means.
So I think it is against our interests to
keep this program in operation. It is not
just a matter of money or saving money.
It is against our interest.
I want to correct a misapprehension
that I think was implicit in a comment
just made, that my amendment to the
amendment of the Senator from Illinois
reduced the amount for the suffering or
starving, or what have you, of people. MY
amendment did not reduce the amount.
It only provided that the amount pro-
vided should come out of the overall
amount in the bill. There was flexibility
for the administration to take that
amount from Other less important activi-
ties. I did not want the record to show
that I reduced the amount.
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
Approved For Release 2000/1 ? MEDPRAW96R0004M7R92spn"
S 1216 CONGRESSIO VA gE ?
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. PASTORE. It is a question of how
one construes the flexibility. My belief
was that it might have to be taken out
of a more essential program, and I con-
sidered it a limitation in that respect.
But I do not pretend for one moment
that my heart is any bigger than that
of the Senator 'from Arkansas. I hope he
understands that.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Sena-
tor.
SEVERAL SENATORS. Vote! Vote!
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. FONG. I yield back the remainder
of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the amendment has been yielded
back.
The question is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Arkan-
sas. On this question the yeas and nays
have been ordered, and the clerk will
call the roll.
The assistant legisative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. GAMBRELL), the Senator from Alas-
ka (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from In-
diana (Mr. HARTKE), the Senator from
California (Mr. CRANSTON), the Senator
from Iowa (Mr. HUGHES), the Senator
from Washington (Mr. JACKSON) , the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. JOR-
DAN), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
MCCLELLAN), the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. McGovsaN) , the Senator
from New Hampshire (Mr. MCINTYRE),
the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss) , the
Senator from Maine (Mr. Music's), the
Senator from West Virginia (Mr. RAN-
DOLPH), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr.
ELLENDER), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH), and the Senator from Wash-
ington (Mr. MAGNUSON) are necessarily
absent.
I further announce that the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. McGss) and the
Senator from Nevada (Mr. CANNON) are
on official business.
On this vote, the Senator from Loui-
siana (Mr. ELLENDER) is paired with the
Senator from Washington (Mr. JACK-
SON) .
If present and voting, the Senator from
Louisiana would vote "yea" and the Sen-
ator from Washington would vote "nay."
On this vote, the Senator from West
Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH) is paired with
the Senator from Washington (Mr. MAG-
NUSON) .
If present and voting, the Senator from
West Virginia would vote "yea" and the
Senator from Washington would vote
"nay."
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Arkansas (Mr.
MCCLELLAN) and the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. McGovsaN) would vote
"yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT),
the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BAKER),
the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELL-
Mole), the Senator from Oregon (Mr.
HATFIELD), the Senator from Nebraska
(Mr. HRUSKA), the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. JORDAN) , the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. SAXBE), the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
TAFT), the Senator from Texas (Mr.
TOWER) , and the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. You've) are necessarily ab-
sent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
On this vote, the Senator from Oregon
(Mr. HATFIELD) is paired with the Sena-
tor from Texas (Mr. Towsa) . If present
and voting, the Senator from Oregon
would: vote "yea" and the Senator from
Texas would vote "nay."
The result was announced?yeas 37,
nays 34, as follows:
[No. 34 Leg.]
YEAS-87
Fulbright
Harris
Hollings
Humphrey
Allen
Anderson
Bayh
Bentsen
Bible Inouye
Brooke Javits
Burdick ?..e Kennedy
Byrd, Va. Mansfield
Byrd, W. Va. Metcalf
Chiles Mondale
Cotton Montoya
Eagleton Nelson
Ervin Pastore
NAYS-34
Eastland
Fannin
Fong
Goldwater
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Hart
Long
Mathias
Miller
Packwood
Aiken
Beall
Bennett
Boggs
Brock
Buckley
Case
Cook
Cooper
Curtis
Bole
Dominick
Allott
Baker
Bellmon
Cannon
Church
Cranston
Ellender
Gambrell
Gravel
Hartke
Pell
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Spong
Stennis
Stevenson
Symington
Talmadge
Turney
Weicker
Williams
Pearson
Percy
Roth
Schweiker
Scott
Smith
Sparkman
Stafford
Stevens
Thurmond
NOT VOTING-29
Hatfield
Hruska
Hughes
Jackson
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
Magnuson
McClellan
McGee
McGovern
McIntyre
Moss
Mundt
Muckle
Randolph
Saxbe
Taft
Tower
Young
So Mr. Fumnacirr's amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I move to lay that motion on the
table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from .the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Berry, one of its lead-
ing clerks, announced that the House
had passed the bill (S. 2097) to estab-
lish a Special Action Office for Drug
Abuse Prevention and to concentrate the
resources of the Nation against the prob-
lem of drug abuse, with an amendment,
in which it requested the concurrence
of the Senate.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RE-
LATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIA-
TIONS, 1972
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 12067) mak-
ing appropriations for foreign assistance
and related programs for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1972, and for other pur-
poses.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
send to the desk an amendment and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OITICER (Mr.
WEIGHER). The clerk will report the
amendment.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
The Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Fut-
BRIGHT) proposes an amendment:
On page 2, line 6, strike out "6165,000,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "6140,000,-
000",
On page 4, lines 11 and 12, strike out
"6150,000,000" and insert in lieu thereof
"6100,000,000".
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT?TIME LIM.
TTATION
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. MANSFuLD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the time on the
pending amendment be limited to 20
minutes, the time to be equally divided
between the sponsor of the amendment
and the ranking minority member.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
yield myself 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Arkansas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, al-
though the bill reported by the Appro-
priations Committee is a far better bill
than that passed by the House, it did
not reduce the total enough. And now
even the committee's modest cuts have
been partially offset by the Senate's vote
to add $100 million for the Alliance for
Progress.
I offer an amendment to reduce the
amount for worldwide development loans
by $50 million, from $150 to $100 million,
and that for worldwide technical assist-
ance by $25 million, from $165 to $140
million.
My amendment would reduce the total
'n this bill for the regular foreign aid
nd military sales items, titles I and II,
rom $2.339 billion to $2.264 billion. This.
is still $375 million more than Congress
appropriated for these same programs
in the 1970 fiscal year. I remind my col-
leagues that in fiscal year 1970 we had
a budget deficit of only $13 billion. The
official estimate for the administrative
budget deficit this fiscal year is $45 bil-
lion, and, judging from past experience,
likely to go much higher. My amendment
will reduce that massive deficit by $75
million.
The new money appropriated by this
bill is, by no means, all that will be avail-
able for development lending and tech-
nical assistance. Repayments on past
loans, carryovers and funds from other
sources which will be available for new
loans under terms of this bill total $281
million, which, when added to the $100
million in new money allowed under my
amendment, will make a total of $381
million for loans outside of Latin Amer-
ica. There will also be $15 million more
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
--.Fribrcialit4,W.f$041s,72000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
Daily Digest
HIGHLIGHTS
Senate passed foreign aid appropriations bill.
See Congressional Program Ahead.
Senate
Chamber Action
Routine Proceedings, pages S 1167?S 1203
Bills Introduced: Eight bills and three resolutions were
introduced as follows: S. 3123-3130; S.J. Res. 196; and
S. Con. Res. 57 and 58. Pages S 1175, S 1178-5 1180
Bill Reported: Report was made as follows:
H.R. 7987, to provide for the striking of medals in
commemoration of the Bicentennial of American Inde-
pendence (S. Rept. 92-603). Page S 1174
Measures Passed:
Appropriations?foreign aid: By 45 yeas to 23 nays,
Senate passed H.R. 12067, making appropriations for
foreign aid programs for fiscal year 1972, after taking
action on additional proposed amendments thereto as
follows:
Adopted:
(I) Modified Stevenson amendment increasing from
$175 million to $250 million funds for relief in Pakistan,
with proviso that funds shall not be available for obliga-
tion in excess of .o ? ercent of all contributions for such
rom any source; an
(2) By 37 yeas to 34 nays, Fulbright amendment bar-
ring the use of funds for continuing public safety pro-
grams of the Agency for International Development ?
March io until March 28, 1972, the date the Joint Eco-
nomic Committee may file its report on the President's
econornic report. Page S 1222
Bill Indefinitely Postponed: Senate indefinitely post-
poned further action on S. Con. Res. 21, calling for
suspension of military assistance to Pakistan.
Page S 1167
Equal Employment Opportunity: Senate resumed
consideration of S. 2515, to further promote equal em-
ployment opportunities for American workers, pending
amendment to which is Ervin amendment No. 813, to
provide that coverage of title VII include employers
of 25 or more persons, and labor organizations with 25
or more members, instead of eight persons or members,
as called for in the bill. Page S 1223
President's Message?American Bicentennial: Sen-
ate received a message from the President transmitting
outline of proposed plan for Federal partnership in the
District of Columbia's bicentennial observance?referred
to Committee on the District of Columbia.
Pages S 1204-5 1207
nations?Unanimous-Consent Agreement: By
mous consent, it was agreed that when the Senate
eeds to the consideration (probably on Monday,
ebruary 7) of the nominations of John Eugene Shee-
han, of Kentucky, to be a member of the Board of Gov-
ernors of the Federal Reserve System; George H. Boldt,
of Washington, to be Chairman of the Pay Board; and
C. Jackson Grayson, Jr., of Texas, to be Chairman of the
Price Commission, debate on each will be limited to
hour. Pages S 1225-5 1226
Nominations: Senate received the following nomina-
tions to be members of the General Advisory Committee
on the United States Arms Control and Disarmament
Agency: Robert Ellsworth, of Maryland; John A. Mc-
Cone, of California; Earle Gilmore Wheeler, of West
Virginia; and David Packard, of California.
(1) By 24 yeas to 45 nays, Fulbright amendment (to
Stevenson amendment No. 865), to provide that moneys
for Pakistan relief be taken from other programs under
title I of the bill; and
(2) By 29 yeas to 41 nays, Fulbright amendment de-
creasing from $165 million to $140 million funds for
worldwide technical assistance, and' from $15o million
to $100 million funds for development loans.
Senate insisted on its amendments, requested confer-
ence with the House, and appointed as conferees Sena-
tors Proxmire, McGee, Ellender, McClellan, Magnuson,
Fong, Brooke, and Young.
Pages S 1203-5 1204, S 1207?S 1222
Joint Economic Committee report: Senate took
from the desk and passed S.J. Res. 196, extending from
D72
Page S 1226
Record Votes: Four record votes were taken today.
Pages $1212, S 1216, $1217, 5 1222
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
Feb ruar yA43 OVA d RiSKIVEISESST0240C(0/890131RDGIABRDR7413tCY029/E400 040 0 1 7 0 0 32 -t 862
boss of Croatia from the end of the war
until he was summoned to Belgrade in 1969,
categorically told two West European jour-
nalists in December that such rumors, and
especially those alleging army pressure, were
false and "a lie spread by Croatian national-
ists,"
CHALLENGE TO PROCESS
Tito acted, Bakaric contended, when he be-
came convinced that nationalist forces in
Croatia were attempting to turn to their
own political purposes the process, which
Tito himself had begun, of building genuine
national equality among Yugoslavia's
jealously competing ethnic groups.
Croatian politicians who opposed the na-
tionalist course of the now ousted leaders
were about to act on their own when Tito
moved, Bakaric said in another interview.
Bakarie, who was the leader of this pro-
Yugoslav or "unitarist" opposition within
Croatia, was threatened, with political extinc-
tion on the eve of the purge.
Revelations in recent weeks about such
pre-purge infighting at the top of the Croa-
tian party have exposed a far more complex
political situation than most interpretations,
in Yugoslavia or abroad, have recognized.
While roles and motives involved in the
drama of the past weeks remain obscure,
the picture of what was happening before
the purge is becoming clear.
YOUNGER LEADERS
A group of younger, "progressive" Com-
munist leaders came to power in Croatia in
the late 1960s, as Bakaric's proteges, on a
platform of decentralization, democratiza-
tion and economic liberalism.
Such a platform was seen and welcomed
as consistent with Croatia's long-term aspi-
rations for a fairer deal in a Yugoslav federa-
tion in which Croats had, with some justice,
felt exploited and oppressed by a centralized
system in which their More numerous but
poorer ethnic rivals, the Serbs, enjoyed pre-
ponderant influence.
In office and iii alliance with like-minded
comrades in other region, the new Croatian
leadership therefore continued the battle
against the power of centralist and authori-
tarian party bureaucracies and financial mon-
opolies in Belgrade, which is not only the
federal capital but also the capital of Serbia.
In seeking wider support in this political
struggle for decentralized power, the Croa-
tian new guard began to play with Croatian
national sentiment, historically the easiest
and surest way of arousing mass enthusiasm
while also frightening one's negotiating part-
ners with the implicit threat that nation-
alist forces may get out of hand if one's de-
mands are not met.
DEMANDS ESCALATE
More extreme Croatian nationalists, in and
outside the party, appeared with escalating
demands.
Their activities centered around the Matica
Hrvatska, which became again the aggres-
sive defender of Croatian national interests
that it had been in the late years of the
Habsburg Monarchy. To many, the Matica
began to look increasingly like the nucleus of
a new, nationalist political party outside
Communist control and a challenge to it.
This development, combined with the "pro-
gressive" party leadership's toleration of na-
tionalist ."excesses" (which frightened non-
Croatian minorities in multinational Croa-
tia), and increasingly rigid negotiating po-
sitions in disputes with the federal center,
frightened Croatia's allies in other regions.
The consequent isolation of the Croatian
leadership forced it into greater dependence
on mass popularity inside Croatia--a pop-
ularity based on nationalism.
The process was exaggerated further by
splits within the Croatian leadership.
Bikaric and some members of the progres-
sive new leadership, such as Josip Vrhovec
and Jure Bilic, argued that the opening to
the masses was proving an opening to chau-
vinism and separatism. They were accused
of pro-Serbian "unitarisni" and anti-demo-
cratic conservatism.
In fighting this internal Croatian battle, it
is now said, the leaders whose platform had
been liberal nationalist communism became
more nationalist and less liberal, using every
means to eliminate their "unitarist" oppo-
nents from political life and creating an at-
mosphere now described by many in the
Croatian party as "intellectual terror."
It was this situation, in which it seemed
to men in power everywhere except in Zagreb
that the Croatian nationalist tail was wag-
ging the Orotian Communist dog and moving
in the direction of separatism or racism, that
led to the crisis.
WELL-ORGANIZED STRIKE
The crisis was precipitated when students
at Zagreb University, under partly non-Com-
munist and strongly pro-nationalist leader-
ship, went on a well-organizpd strike at the
end of November and then refused to listen
to the pleas of the belatedly alarmed party
leadership that they go back to class.
The student revolt against party leader's
who had claimed that nationalism was not
dangerous and could be harnessed persuaded
Tito that the party in Croatia had lost con-
trol of the situation and that those who were
responsible must go.
But as the charges of "separatism" and
"counterrevolution" grew and the purge con-
tinued, Yugoslays here in the Croatian capi-
tal as well as in Belgrade have begun asking
three basic questions:
1. Is it true, as the official line now main-
tains, that the situation in Croatia had be-
come so threatening to the unity of the
country, to peace among its nationalities
(President Tito and others have spoken of
the risk of a Serb-Croat civil war), or to
Titoist socialism that drastic action was un-
avoidable?
2. Even if the answer is yes, are the actions
now being taken the most appropriate ones?
Or by including charges of "counter-revolu-
tion." do they contain what one observer
called a dangerous dose of "ideological over-
kill" that will lead to an excessively wide-
spread purge with criminal trials inevitable?
And will this generate even more genuine
separatists?prepared, perhaps, to support
terrorism?among a disbelieving and embit-
tered Croatian nation?
3. Will a widespread use of purge and po-
lice, backed by Tito's repeated demands for
a strengthened Communist party, more cen-
tral control and an end of "democracy for
the enemies of our socialist democracy,"
carry Yugoslavia back toward the centralized
party dictatorship of a few years ago?
The official line is that the Croatian lead-
ership now being purged either deliberately
or stupidly had permitted Croatian national-
ists to organize a dangerously powerful sepa-
ratist and anti-social movement, and that
the nationalists' political methods were un-
democratic and even Stalinist.
Thus desperate and even "undemocratic"
measures were required. Nothing less than
the current massive "cleansing" would have
done the job.
At the other extreme are those who feel
that the ousted but still popular Croatian
leaders were merely trying to create the gen-
uine, mass-supported socialist democracy
that is Titoism's proclaimed goal.
Their flirtation with nationalism, it is
argued, was not only a harmless positive con-
tribution to mass popularity for the party
and socialism, but also the best way to cut
the ground from under the real nationalists
and separatists who would appear and com-
pete for popularity in a genuinely demo-
cratized atmosphere.
Another view, more widespread in Zagreb
than many Serbs are prepared to believe,
holds that the answer to the first basic ques-
tion is regrettably yes, but the answer to the
second is that the remedy now being applied
is almost as deadly as the disease it is meant
to cure. ??
Some people find particular alarming
President Tito's statement, in his strongest
post-purge speech, that the rot had started
with the 1952 Congress of the Yugoslav Com-
munist party, and that he personally had
never liked that Congress.
For the "progressive" Communists who
have dominated the party established since
1966 to call in question the 1952 Congress is
to call in question most of the things thst
distinguish Yugoslav from Soviet commu
nism.
So far, there are at most only margin
signs, like the recent flurry of arrests
Zagreb and elsewhere and pressures agah
"liberal" Communist leaders in the Serbi
_Macedonian and Slovene parties, that f
kind of alarm is justified.
It is discounted by those who are ,
vinced?perhaps a little anxiously?thaf
litical and economic forces with a veste
terest in the level of pluralism and cle-cen.....
tralization already achieved are now too nu-
merous and too powerful for the clock to be
turned back more than an hour or two, even
by Tito.
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
si7Approved For Releaft
to know the President's rationale for con-
tinuing or cutting off aid to a country,
and also to facilitate an independent ap-
praisal of the President's actions by Con-
gress.
My amendment would also require the
President to report any action taken pur-
suant to paragraph (3) of subsection 620
(v). That provision allows the President
to continue or resume aid to countries
which either first, take appropriate meas-
ures to halt drug trafficking after an
earlier determination by the President
that such measures have not been taken
by such countries, or second, require as-
sistance from the United States because
of "overriding national interest," even
though appropriate steps to combat drug
trafficking have not been taken.
In my opinion the overriding national
interest must be grave indeed to excuse
a country from taking steps to eliminate
drug traffic to the United States or its
citizens, and I would expect the fullest
Justification for any presidential deter-
mination to continue aid which is based
on overriding national interest.
Except for the absence of a Presidential
reporting requirement, I am, I repeat,
pleased with the international drug con-
trol provisions included in H.R. 9910 by
the Committee on Foreign Relations. I
hope that the chairman and members
of that committee support this amend-
ment, and that the Senate accept it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I have discussed
this matter with the Senator from West
Virginia. The substantive provision re--
lating to drug traffic, as he rightly says,
Is in the bill. As far as I know, it is non-
controversial and no one is against it.
I think he is thoughtful and wise in pro-
viding that the President report to the
Congress. I certainly would accept the
amendment. I think the President cer-
tainly would have no objection, and
probably would welcome this opportu-
nity to report to Congress.
I accept the amendment.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I am grateful to the
chairman of the commitee.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, New York
is having probably the biggest problem in
the country in this area?not only that,
but drug traffic is probably the greatest
problem New York has ever had?I am
very anxious to work at this end to try
to damp the flow. There are three ele-
ments to damping the flow: First, the
Illegality of the crime in pushing and
wholesaling drugs; second, rehabilitat-
ing drug addicts and trying to eliminate
the problem; and third, keeping the ad-
dict from engaging in crime.
I am glad the chairman of the com-
mittee has accepted the amendment. I
think the Senator has rendered us all
a service in keeping the administration's
feet to the fire in a proposition as crit-
ical as this one.
Mr. RANDOLPH. I appreciate the
comments of the Senator from New
York. I know he has given much atten-
tion to the problem and has intense in-
terest in stopping the illegal traffic in
drugs.
OftaattlfACIARDST-38302961R0004001V01132429, 1971
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield
back the remainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
on the amendment having been yielded
back, the question is on agreeing to the
amendment.
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I understood the
Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) to
say he expected the Senator from Mis-
souri to proceed. Or am I in error about
that?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Go ahead.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
r from Missouri is recognized.
1.1Mr.8YMINGTON. Mr. President? my
perfecting amendment, as printed and
as it appears in the RECORD, contains a
printing error which I would correct at
this time.
The amount to be inserted in lieu of
$250 million in lines 14 and 20 of page
44 should be $341 million in each in-
stance.
I send a corrected copy of the amend-
ment to the desk, and ask that it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment, as modified, will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
On page 44, line 14, strike out "$250,000,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "$341,000,000".
On page 44, line 20, strike out "$250,000,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof $341,000,000".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
will state that there are 9 minutes re-
maining to each side on this amend-
ment. Who yields time?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
ask for the yeas and nays on my per-
fecting amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. How much time re-
mains on the perfecting amendment of
the Senator from Missouri?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Nine min-
utes on each side. Who yields time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, a par-
liamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. GRIFFIN. To whom is the time
allotted?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. To the
Senator from Missouri and the Senator
from Arkansas. Who yields time?
Mr. MANSFIELD. Time is running on
both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If no one
yields time, time will run against both
sides.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
yield myself 3 minutes for the purpose
of an inquiry. The Senator from Missouri
Is now offering a perfecting amendment
to increase the amount of the ceiling
for money to Cambodia from $250 mil-
lion to what figure?
Mr. SYMINGTON. The sum of $341
million is the amount requested by the
administration.
' Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is correct. I
have already stated that I think this is
much too much money, and there is no
point in my reiterating it.
It was my understanding?and the
Only excuse I can offer why the Senator
from Alaska is not here is that there has
been a change of signals?that the
Allott-Church amendment was coming
up. Now the Senator from Alaska wishes
to present a substitute. I believe, or an
amendment to the amendment of the
Senator from Missouri, and I understand
it would be in order. He wishes, I believe,
to strike it out?to strike out aid to
Cambodia. I believe it has been at the
desk. I think he ought to have an oppor-
tunity to present it, but there is a change
of signals here at the last minute. I did
not know it was _going to come up just
now, because I thought the Church-
Allott amendment would be next in line.
But I wonder if the Senator from Mis-
souri would be willing, if he has any
further remarks to make, to make those
remarks now. If not, I am perfectly
willing, after a reasonable opportunity to
reach the Senator from Alaska, to pro-
ceed to a vote.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to the able Senator.
Mr. AIKEN. I support the move of the
Senator from Missouri for increasing the
available amount for Cambodia, because
I feel that we have a very great respon-
sibility for the pathetic condition of that
country today. And while I would not
want to see this money spent for raising
an army and putting men to war against
their neighbors, I feel that if this amount
of $341 million is agreed to at this time,
It undoubtedly will not survive the con-
ference at that full amount, though it
might, but I doubt in any case if it
would survive in the Appropriations
Committee; so we are not spending this
$341 million, we are simply making it
available to repair much of the damage
which we have in part caused over there.
Mr. SYMINGTON. May I say to the
Senator from Vermont that the reason
for my amendment has much-to do with
the McGee amendment which yesterday
was defeated. The McGee amendment
would have taken away any ceiling on the
amount of money that was being re-
quested by the administration for use
in Cambodia. My amendment agrees
with all the money that was requested
by the administration, but says that be-
fore they spend additional money, they
should come to Congress for authoriza-
tion. That is the amendment that we
are discussing now.
Mr. President, I am prepared to yield
back the remainder of my time.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, first will
the Senator yield to me for a question?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to the Senator from Mississippi on my
time.
'Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, this is
largely a matter of legislative history,
and I wish to ask the Senator some ques-
tions after I make a very brief state-
ment.
This pertains, now, to the money that
can be spent in Cambodia. When we had
the procurement bill up, we had a similar
amendment with reference to how much
could be spent in Laos. We excepted the
bombing in both areas, and agreed on a
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
499F9ved For lifigtkeRinfr1R1EeeyeR_RWAIN0296R0004001700M69
October 2
Ervin
Fannin
Fong
Goldwater
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Honing,*
Jordan, C.
Long
Aiken
Brooke
Burdick
Case
Church
Cook
Cranston
Eagleton
Fulbright
Hart
Hartke
McClellan
Montoya
Packwood
Pastore
Percy
Randolph
Roth
Saxbe
Schweiker
Scott
NAYS-31
Hatfield
ughes
umphrey
Jrits
Ma nuson
Man eld
McIn re
Metcal
Mondale
Moss
Nelson
Smith
Sparkman
Stafford
Stennis
Stevens
Talmadge
Weicker
Young
Pearson
Pell
Proxmire
Ribicoff
Spong
Stevenson
Symington
Tunney
Williams
PRESENT AND GIVING A IVE PAIR, AS
PREVIOUSLY RECO ED-1
Mathias, against.
NOT VOTING-19
Bayh Inouye
Curtis Jackson
Ellender Jordan, Idaho
Gambrell Kennedy
Gravel McGee
Harris McGovern
Hruska Miller
Mund
Muskie
Taft
Thurman
Tower
So Mr. ALLEN'S amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the amend-
ment was agreed to.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Several Senators addressed the chair.
Mr. HANSEN. Mr. President, may we
have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
The Senator from West Virginia is
recognized.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk and ask that
it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The amendment was read, as follows:
On page 27, after line 24, insert the fol-
lowing:
55(7) The President shall, within ninety
days after the determinations made by him
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsec-
tion, report to the Congress such determina-
tions, together with a full explanation of the
reasons therefor. The President shall also re-
port to the Congress any action taken
pursuant to paragraph (3) of this sub-
section."
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I
yield to the Senator from North Caro-
lina.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from North Carolina is recognized.
REFERRAL OF CONCURRENT
RESOLUTION 47
Mr. JORDAN of North Carolina. Mr.
President, Senate Concurrent Resolution
47, referring to the parking of vehicles on
Capitol grounds was referred to the
Committee on Rules and Administration.
I ask unanimous consent that the Com-
mittee on Rules and Administration be
discharged from the further considera-
tion of the concurrent resolution and
that it be referred to the Committee on
Public Works where it properly belongs.
The Subcommittee on Public Buildings
and Grounds of that committee should
handle the concurrent resolution.
The PRESIDING Or.FICER (Mr.
TUNNEY) . Without objection, it is so
ordered.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1971
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 9910) to
amend the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, and for other purposes. '
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield me 1 minute?
Mr. RANDOLPH. I yield to the distin-
guished majority leader.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, be-
cause of circumstances which have de-
veloped, it is my understanding that,
following the disposition of the Randolph
amendment, the Church-Allott amend-
ment will be called up, and following
that, the Brock amendment.
I ask unanimous consent that at 3
o'clock, or approximately 3 o'clock, the
distinguished Senator from Idaho (Mr.
imam) may be recognized to make
s remarks which he would otherwise
ma e during the course of the considera-
tion the amendment which will be the
pencil business shortly.
Mr. ' SMINICK. Mr. President, re-
serving t right to object, I have two
amendmen that I want to propose for
myself. The are many others. If Sen-
ators are go to make speeches, we
will never have chance to bring those
amendments up.
Mr. STENNIS. President, reserving
the right to objec
The PRESIDING Orto.LCER. Who
yields time?
Mr. RANDOLPH. President, I
yield 2 minutes to the n.ator from
Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. Presid it, I just
want to make an inquiry. I do ot want
to delay this bill for 1 minute, b t, as I
had understood, a Senator was p ar-
ing an amendment with reference to ec-
ton 513. I learn now, at the last min e,
that he is not going to do that. It is
opinion that section 513 is a contradic-
tion of what we have already done in the
Military procurement bill, and I shall be
compelled to offer an amendment to it.
It might involve a little time, but we need
to dial with it.
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is all right.
Mr. STENNIS. I have another matter
that I think the Senator from Arkansas
and I can agree on without an amend-
ment. It has to do with the fiscal years.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think we can agree
on that.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator for yielding to me. I thought
I would mention that.
Mr RANDOLPH. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from Michigan (Mr.
GRIFFIN) .
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I cer-
tainly am not going to object, but I think
it might be for the benefit of the Senate
to know that there is a reception sched-
uled for 3 o'clock for the head of a for-
eign government. Most Senators are in-
vited to go, so it would not be a con-
venient time for Senators to be present.
Mr. CHURCH. That is why I am going
to give my speech at that time.
Mr. MANSleiELD. I think we could
hold up the amendments at that time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the unanimous consent re-
quest? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, if the
Senator will yield further, it is my un-
derstanding that after this amendment is
disposed of, the Symington amendment
will be called up, and following that, the
Brock amendment.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, may we have order? Will the
Chair ask Senators to take our seats?
The PRESIDING OrriCER. Senators
will please take their seats so we can lis-
ten to the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. RANDOLPH. Mr. President I am
gratified that the Committee on Foreign
Relations under the able leadership of
its chairman, the Senator from Arkansas
(Mr. FuLsarenr), has incorporated in the
foreign assistance bill, H.R. 9910, many of
the provisions contained in a measure I
introduced in July, S. 2344 in which I
was joined by the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. CHURCH) .
I introduced S. 2344 with the cospon-
sorship of the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH) , in an attempt to establish
sanctions with respect to any country
which does not do its best to eliminate
international traffic in narcotics and
other dangerous drugs, and to encourage,
through foreign assistance, positive ef-
forts by countries who assist in ridding
the world of this insidious menace. As
my colleagues know, not 1 ounce of
heroin used in the United States is either
grown or processed here.
The bill we now consider, H.R. 9910,
takes a number of important steps
toward combating international drug
traffic. It requires the President to termi-
nate any and all aid to countries which
he determines are not cooperating in
this effort. It authorizes the President
to provide financial assistance, with a
minimum expenditure of $25 million for
this purpose.
The amendment I now propose is a
provision which is contained in S. 2344,
ut which is not incorporated in the
nding legislation. I believe it is a de-
m ble addition to H.R. 9910. It would
imp e on the President a requirement to
repor to the Congress within 90 days
after e annual determination made
pursuant to paragraph 1 of, new sub-
section 6 (v) of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 961. Under that paragraph
the President ust assess, on a country-
by-country b whether each such
country "has ta n appropriates meas-
ures to prevent d s, partially or com-
pletely processed ? produced in or
transported through ch country, from
unlawfully entering the nited States or
from being unlawfully s plied to citi-
zens of the United States.
Within 90 days after this otuitry-by-
country determination the President
would, under my amendment, b equired
to provide a detailed assessment of the
effort made by each country so that Con-
gress might have some means by which
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
OctobAPPIpvedi For ReleamtattanfilMiLQWW1151-3gMtiR000400170032-5 S 17171
$350 million figure, which was the budg-
et request, and I agreed to the amend-
ment on that basis.
The amendment would actually,
though, put that as an annual ceiling, a
legislative ceiling, which I thought was
all right; you can hardly argue against
it.
I said to the Senator from Missouri, as
he related yesterday in my absence, that
I would support a similar situation as to
Cambodia, to take the budget figure, as
we did before.
He has now amended his amendment,
as I understand it, to $341 million, which
is the amount of the budget request.
We do carry the idea in the bill, though,
that this is a legislative ceiling for one
year.
Mr. SYMINGTON. That is correct.
Mr. STENNIS. All right. I think that is
sound.
Now, there is some language in the bill
that uses the word "expenditures." This
is technical language that I think ought
to be cleared up. It could be cleared up
In conference. The question about expen-
ditures or authorizations or commit-
ments?I do not know what all the terms
are, but what I wanted to make clear is
that this amendment will have no limi-
tations on the spending, if they see fit, of
up to some $341 million; is that correct?
Mr. SYMINGTON. That is my under-
standing.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes. And the Senator
does not intend to limit, after agreeing to
this $341 million, in any way the expen-
diture of it for purposes in Cambodia?
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator is cor-
rect.
Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator will yield
further, what is an expenditure in this
field sometimes requires a definition or an
understanding, and I will illustrate.
Some of these goods are used jeeps, we
will say, that we would send over into
Cambodia. I am just illustrating.
That is a used item, and there has to be
some ground rule on how it is going to
be evaluated in money figures. It is not
an expenditure of new money; it is just
the sending over of war material.
Does the Senator understand it that
way, and would he be amenable, in con-
ference, if this amendment passes, to
having ground rules established, the ones
that are used now?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
want to be careful not to say something
at variance with the language of the bill.
The bill provides:
For the purpose of this subsection, 'value'
means the fair market value of any goods,
supplies, materials, or equipment provided
to, for, or on behalf of Cambodia but in no
case less than 331/3 per centum of the amount
the United States paid at the time such
goods, supplies, materials, or equipment were
acquired by the United States.
That sounds fair and proper to me.
Mr. STENNIS. That language indicates
the principle that I am maintaining for.
I am not certain about that 331/3 percent.
I understand that is a reasonable ground
rule.
Mr. SYMINGTON. There is no use in
passing any legislation limiting the
amount of money but then having the
Defense Department or one of the ad-
ministration's adjacent departments first
declare something useless and then give
it away to the Cambodians. We do not
want to waste time in the Senate by in
effect setting a ceiling which is the
amount they request then have them go
millions beyond the ceiling by declaring
worthless a lot of equipment they later
put to use in Cambodia. I believe this
clause is constructive as written in the
bill.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, we are
trying to make legislative history and
are not particularly arguing the bill. I
have tentatively agreed to this figure,
but it was with the understanding that
we were not going to be left in the dark
as to interpretations. I think the 331/3
percent figure is a reasonable amount,
but I do not want any unknown restric-
tions in this language, and the Senator
does not, either.
Mr. SYMINGTON. No. That is right.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, with the
understanding about this language and
with what clarification may be neces-
sary as to the word "expenditure" in con-
ference, I can support the amendment.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sena-
tor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
of the Senator from Missouri has expired.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, how
much time do I have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Six
minutes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
think this is a very inconsistent policy;
this amendment rapidly escalates our
expenditures in Cambodia.
The Senator from Missouri, I know,
was committed to amend his amendment
from $25 million to $341 million, be-
cause he recognized the fact of life that
the influence of the Armed Services Com-
mittee is dominant in this body. But he
wanted an expression of a principle, that
Congress still has a slight, remote func-
tion to play in the foreign policy field.
If the Senator from Missouri had offered
an amount $1 under what the Pentagon
wanted, it would have the opposition of
the Armed Services Committee, and the
amendment would fail.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I will yield in a
moment.
I will not trade on any such basis. It
is not the money that is bothering me,
although I think we are in bad shape
and cannot afford it. It is the principle
of now starting to construct an enormous
military machine, using foreign bodies
backed by American money and guns.
The Joint Chiefs have been very can-
did in the newspaper?I do not know
whether they intended to be or not--
but they are intending to build an army
of more than 300,000 Cambodians.
I assume they are doing the same in
Laos, because they have asked for a
similar vast increase in Laos; and, of
course, Thailand is our bastion country,
into which we have poured billions of
dollars and will continue to do so.
I do not know why it is not legitimate
for the Senate to take the responsibility:
Do we want to go down that road again?
This is the same questions that came to
us in the form of the Gulf of Tonkin res-
olution. At that time, we were misled by
lies about what had happened, and our
emotions were appealed to?we were told
we had been attacked on the open seas
In an unprovoked manner, and I and ev-
erybody else except two Members of the
Senate fell for it.
There is no excuse now for a similar
mistake. Our eyes are open. We know
what is going on. We know the greatest
tragedy and loss to this country since
the civil war is going on in Asia. Why do
we wish to go down this road again in
Cambodia and in Laos?
We are headed in this direction be-
cause of the dominant influence of the
military committee and the military es-
tablishment in this country. I know of no
reason for it other than they want to do
it. No good reason has been given to me
as to why we want to organize and pay
for an enormous army in Cambodia. I
am against it.
I realize that the votes are here; and
if I am the only one who votes against it,
I will, because at issue is whether we are
going to construct an enormous army of
Cambodians. We have already approved
one in Laos and, of course, Thailand has
enormous amounts of money in here for
the maintenance and construction of an
enoromus army. When I say "enormous,"
I am referring to the fact that it is far
beyond the capacity of these little coun-
tries to support the military establish-
ments we encourage on them. Cambodia
had approximately 35,000 in her army
when Sihanouk left the country. We have
already built that up to 185,000, and
there are reports to the effect that by
1975 or 1976 they will have 300,000. We
pay all the bills. Here is a limit of $341
million. Next year it will by $500 million,
and the next year it probably will be
$700 million. That is the road we are
headed down.
If we had been attacked, or were about
to be destroyed, nobody would hesitate
to respond. There is that difference be-
tween Tonkin Gulf and this. There we
had been told, erroneously, that we had
been attacked, and we fell for it. There
is no similar excuse in this case. We are
deliberately undertaking obligations far
beyond the needs and against the inter-
ests of Cambodia. The people of Cam-
bodia are going to be the victims here,
just as the people of Vietnam have been
the victims of that situation. The people
of Cambodia do not want this to happen
to them. They would like us to go home
and leave them alone.
Somebody said that we are not going
in there. The newspapers said the other
day that they have doubled the amount
of military advisers in Pnompenh. The
Senator from New Jersey has been trying
to get a personnel limit. I support his
efforts.
I just want to make my position clear.
I am not arguing about $15 million or
$20 million. I am arguing about the
policy of this country in undertaking an
endless operation in Southeast Asia to
build up huge military forces there.
I think it is against the President's
announced policy, of going to Peking,
and I think it is against the interests of
this country.
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
S 17172 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE October 29, 1971
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I will yield for a
question.
Mr. President, how much time do I
have remaining?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
do not know when this unanimous-
consent agreement was entered into, and
ask unanimous consent for an additional
10 minutes.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
must object, because the time was avail-
able this morning, and that is when part
of the time was lost. But I would sug-
gest that 10 minutes be taken out of the
bill.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield 5 minutes
from the bill to the Senator from
Missouri.
Does the Senator from New Jersey
wish some time?
Mr. CASE. I would like 2 minutes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, how
much time do I have on the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. One
minute.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield that minute
Plus 5 minutes on the bill to the Senator
from Missouri.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, I
would not want the Senate to misunder-
stand the basic purpose of this perfect-
ing amendment.
What we want to do is establish con-
trol of the vast amounts of money being
spent in the Far East. I think it fair to
say Congress has lost control of the ex-
penditure of that money. This amend-
ment would now give the administration
all the money they say they needed in
Cambodia for next year; but before they
spend any additional money, it will be
necessary for them to come back and ob-
tain additional authoilzation.
If anyone believes this amount is too
much, that can be brought up when the
matter comes to the Senate for appro-
priation approval, or, prior to that, for
same when it comes before the Appro-
priations Committee.
In my opinion the Chairman of the
Committee on Armed Services has been
quite fair with respect to this proposed
legislation. It is probable that we would
not be able to adopt this amendment if
he had not agreed we should establish
control if the administration wants ad-
ditional money.
Therefore, and with the premise that
we will have a chance to get into this
matter at the time the Senate approves
appropriations, I will vote for the per-
fecting amendment which I have sent to
the desk.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator from Arkansas yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield 3 minutes to
the Senator from New Jersey.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from New Jersey is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, although I
have worked with the Senator from Mis-
souri on this amendment, on which we
are cosponsors, and I fully respect his
honor in fulfilling the commitment to
those who he assured would be given a
chance to vote for the pending amend-
ment, I am under no such obligation. I
made no such commitment. I fully sup-
port the action of the committee on this
particular matter which is to support
adoption of the Symington committee
amendment for the $250 million ceiling
for the fiscal year and a 200 personnel
limitation in the same amendment The
$250 million represents roughly the cur-
rent rate of American assistance. On the
same premise as that just now urged by
the Senator from Missouri, I urge that
we keep it at the present rate while we
are considering the whole question of our
obligation and the depth of our commit-
ment in this new area. It has only been
a year and a half since we have gotten
into this particular situation. We got into
it without congressional approval, wholly
on the basis of the discretionary funds
used by the administration. It was later
approved, it is true, when we considered
the supplemental appropriation bill last
year, but it was approved on the basis of
a much smaller amount than this year,
an amount adequate to take care of the
current level operation which I think is,
if anything, excessive?$250 million.
However, it should remain the same and
I urge the Senate to turn down this pro-
Posed increase of $91 million in this area.
The PRE,SIDING OFFICER (Mr. BYRD
of Virginia). All time has now expired.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I send
an amendment to the desk in the nature
of a substitute to the pending amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 44, lines 13 and 14, strike out the
words "in excess of $150 million.".
On page 44, beginning with "In" on line
20, strike out everything down through and
Including "any" on line 23, and insert in lieu
thereof "No".
On page 44, line 24, insert immediately
after "equipment" the words "shall be".
On page 44, line 25, strike out "such" and
insert immediately after "year" the date
1972".
On page 45, strike Out everything on lines
1 through 6 and everything on lines IS
through 19.
On pages 45 and 46 redesignate paragraphs
(e), (f), and (g) as paragraphs (d), (e), and
(f), respectively.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BYRD of Virginia). The Chair will say
that the amendment offered by the Sena-
tor from Alaska is not in order, that it
is not a valid substitute, and does not
amend the same place in the bill as the
amendment offered by the Senator from
Missouri.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I suggest
the absence of a quorum for a brief
moment?I withdraw that request, Mr.
President.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
yield myself 2 minutes on the bill to
clarify-the situation.
Mr. President, I was told by the Sena-
tor from Alaska that all he wished to do
was to change the amount in the amend-
ment of the Senator from Missouri from
the $341 million to $150 million. It is as
simple as that. So that I do not under-
stand why it is not in order. It was sent
to the desk. That is the way it was told
to me, that the Senator from Alaska was
intending to offer it, simply to change
the amount in the amendment of the
Senator from Missouri from $341 to $150
million. The Senator from Alaska has
a right to do that, and, of course, from
my point of view, I shall support it be-
cause I do not approve of an increase
in the amount as offered in the amend-
ment of the Senator from Missouri.
The Senator from Alaska told me what
he wanted to do, that he wanted to
change the amount to $150 million. I do
not understand why it is not in order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BYRD of Virginia). The Chair will say
that the amendment offered by the Sen-
ator from Missouri affects two places in
the bill. The amendment offered by the
Senator from Alaska affects five different
places, including a different page of the
bill.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I have
sent another copy of a perfecting amend-
ment to the desk which I would ask the
Parliamentarian to rule on its accepta-
bility to the amendment of the Senator
from Missouri.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will report the perfecting amend-
ment.
The legislative clerk read as. follows:
On page 44, lines 13 and 14, strike out the
words "in excess of $250 million" and insert
"$150 million."
The PRESIDING OreICER. The
amendment is in order.
Who yields time?
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President--
The PRESIDING OCEIt. How
much times does the Senator require?
Mr. GRAVEL. As much time as I may
need to make my introductory remarks,
and then I will be happy to yiel I to other
Senators who may wish to address them-
selves to this same issue.
The PRESIDING OFF'ICER. The Sen-
ator from Alaska may proceed.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, my orig-
inal amendment was to eliminate all
money for Cambodia. This is not new. I
offered a similar one last year, along with
several of my colleagues; but we were
not successful last year.
I am totally distressed over the fact
that this body chooses to escalate our in-
volvement?and I use the word "esca-
late" because I have heard it mentioned
here that we are treading water and
keeping the same commitment we had
last year. That is not the case. Members
should be on notice that we are escalat-
ing, that we are not treading water.
It seems unlikely that we could garner
enough support from the membership to
secure passage of my original amend-
ment, SO 9,t the request of the Senator
? from Arkansas I an happy to modify my
amendment to leave out the bombing
provision and to permit a modicum
amount for cleanup operations. We could
try at least to rehabilitate the country
and leave it in a semblance of the state
in which we found it. That is the reason
I have gone along with the $150 million.
The $150 million is still treading
water, but not the $250 million.
As I recall the incidents last year, we
went into Cambodia on a unilateral de-
cision, without the permission of Con-
gress, and spent money to the tune of
$100 million, taking that money from aid
that would have gone to other countries.
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
0o#41100240/Fpf Release atiNilattfloralg-BRI74BOUNEN0400170032-5
What came before this body last De-
cember was a piece of legislation to put
back the money the President had spent
unilaterally, robbing various aid pro-
grams to do so. The amount was first $100
million. Then the request was for $150
million; so, thus far, what has been spent
in Cambodia, in excess of 1 year, has been
$250 million.
What was agreed to, before the fact,
was $150 million. Now we are asked to
agree, before the fact, to $250 million.
If that is not escalation, then ob-
viously?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, if
the Senator from Alaska will yield on
that point, the Senator from Missouri's
perfecting amendment makes it $341 mil-
lion. Actually, the $250 million is what
the committee bill provides and then yes-
terday the McGee amendment was sug-
gested and voted clown, which would have
lifted any ceiling at all. The Senator from
Missouri, as he has stated, had the un-
derstanding of the Senator from Mis-
sissippi (Mr. STENNIS) that we would
change this amount today to $341 mil-
lion. The Senator from Alaska would be
cutting-the $341 million back to $150
million.
Mr. GRAVEL. That is right.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The issue is sim-
ple: Do we want to increase the amount
of money to Cambodia to build up a large
army, which we will have to support, or
do we wish to stabilize at a lower level?
These amounts are simply a symbol of
a policy. I would hope the Senate would
not go on record as saying it is in favor
of, in effect, of letting the administration
do whatever it deems proper in Cam-
bodia and in Laos. I do not understand
how this can be interpreted as a re-
straint. It is for 1 year. Next year they
will say, "We want $550 million." And
the year after they will want $800 mil-
lion, and we will have to have a ceiling
of $800 million.
The Senator from Alaska is trying to
cut back by about $200 million, when
judged against the $341 million being of-
fered by the Senator from Missouri. I
think that is a very simple proposition.
The substitute amendment of the Sena-
tor from Alaska draws attention not only
to money, but also to policy.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I ask that
the amendment be modified as identified
by the Parliamentarian.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment is accordingly modified.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. GRAVEL. I yield.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
again I hope that the Senate does not
get the wrong impression about the basic
thrust of the position some of us are
taking on this measure. It did not make
any real difference what the figure is
that was approved by the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee or passed by the Senate
in the past, the administration has spent
the money the way they wanted and to
the amount they desired. Let me repeat,
the basic thrust of this amendment is to
get some control.
One time a man told his attorney,
"When I die, I will leave my wife $1
million."
His lawyer said "You haven't $1
million."
The man said, "I know, but it will look
great in the papers."
That is the type and character of op-
eration we have been conducting around
here. It has been going on for years. It
ought to stop. Our limitations of money
may have looked great in the papers, but
at times they have no practical meaning.
Whatever the Congress authorizes is
all of the money that should be spent by
the administration.
For those who think that this is too
much money?and I am one of them?
there will be a full chance to analyze the
matter in coming days and weeks as to
how much should be reduced.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I would
hope that the Senator would join me in
my amendment. If he feels that the
money being spent is too much, let us
say that it is too much and not go any
further.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, the
Senator and I have discussed this matter.
He has come in with a heavy reduction.
If we get control, later we can determine
the amount of money. Without control,
we are talking to the winds.
Mr. GRAVEL. How would that give us
control? If we say $500 million, what
will stop them from spending $500
million?
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator ap-
parently has not read the amendment,
or the bill as it came from the Foreign
Relations Committee.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, would
the Senator yield me 5 minutes of his
time so that I might discuss the matter?
Mr. MANSFIRIT.TI Mr. President, I had
asked the distinguished ranking minor-
ity member of the committee to yield
me 3 minutes for the same purpose.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I would be
glad to yield time to the Senator from
Montana. However, first I would like to
clear up any misunderstanding that may
exist. The State Department is in favor
of the Symington proposal to increase
funds to $341 million. I am sure of that.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, would
the Senator from Vermont yield me 5
minutes after he has yielded time to the
Senator from Montana?
Mr. AIK:EN. Yes. Mr. President, I yield
3 minutes to the Senator from Montana.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Montana is recognized for 3
minutes.
Mr. MANSFIELD'. Mr. President, when
President Nixon recognized the govern-
ment of Prince Norodom Sihanouk, he
dispatched two men to the embassy?it
was not a legation at the time?to repre-
sent us. In the interim, when Sihanouk
was overthrown, there were nine mem-
bers of our military?I do not believe
they were attached to the military mis-
sion in Phnom Penh. Today there are in
excess of 150 civilian and military per-
sonnel, with the military in the prepond-
erance. ,
Not so many days ago, there appeared
In the public prints an outline of a 5-
year aid plan for Cambodia, I think esti-
mating in 1975 or 1976 an increase in
the military from $35,000 at the time
of the overthrow of Sihanouk to, I be-
S 17173
lieve $700,000, which is a higher figure
than mentioned by the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and at the
same time increasing the cost of the par-
ticipation to us.
I did not vote for the Case-Symington
amendment in committee. I have not
voted for an amendment on the floor,
that I recall. And the reason I have not
voted, and will not vote, for either the
Gravel amendment, the substitute, or
the Symington amendment, is because to
do so in my opinion would be to place a
stamp of approval on our participation
in what we are doing in Cambodia not
only now, but also in the years ahead if
the programed outline bears any sem-
blance to the truth. That I will not join
in doing.
So, I want the RECORD to be clear. If it
were a clearcut, outright doing away with
all funds, I would vote for it. However, to
me $150 million is just the same as $341
million.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I yield 5
minutes to the Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the
Senator and I have discussed this prob-
lem. This is the problem we had also in
the Laotian amendment. We settled that,
and I think we will get it sustained in
conference.
This is almost identical. Let us move
back a little. About 15 months ago we
were fighting in Cambodia. Our men were
fighting there and were getting killed.
The President of the United States or-
dered them in there. No one except a
foolish man?and he is certainly not a
foolish man?would have sent our men
there if he thought it was not necessary
In order to maintain our position and
protect our men.
This is altogether a different policy.
Our men are out of there now. Whoever
the men are that are fighting there, they
are not our boys. However, this country
is in jeopardy. They are having to fight
for their lives. It is still a question of
whether they will be able to survive.
So, what is this aid? Here it is broken
down. We have a breakdown of these
other countries.
This will be an absolute control. They
cannot spend more.
Of the $341 million, $240 million is for
military assistance. About two-thirds of
it goes for ammunition and spare parts
and about one-third of it goes for various
other equipment.
My guess is that about half of that
equipment, at least, is secondhand equip-
ment, something that we have already
used. It is valued according to the formu-
la to which the Senator referred.
The next item is economic aid, $110
million. That is an item in this amend-
ment. That is big AID, $10 million, eco-
nomic aid. There is no military and no
Department of Defense. The Senator
from Arkansas gets excited about that
sometimes.
This is a program that comes from the
Foreign Relations Committee. Public Law
480, food for peace, $20 million.
Excess defense articles, that is some
extra articles, $11 million.
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400170032-5
ce
Approved For Release 2000/09/11_: CIA-RDP731300296R0Q04001700321_5
S 17174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE October 1Y71
The total is $341 million. That is the
estimate of about what would be needed.
I have already explained about the
ammunition and the spare parts. I think
at this stage We have no valid choice
except to affirm these figures, as the Sen-
ator from Missouri who is well versed in
this matter has proposed, and we will
let this matter ride on with an actual
ceiling on it. They cannot spend any more
than that and in that way we have es-
tablished legislative control on how
much will be spent in this country for
all purposes, including this used military
equipment. So it is on that basis we are
trying to get this as a practical matter.
I commend the Senator for his willing-
ness to settle this on a reasonable, prac-
tical basis. We follow next year from this
starting point and we will have control
on it.
Mr. President, I hope the amendment
of the Senator from Alaksa is rejected
and that the amendment of the Senator
from Missouri is agreed to.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. GRAVEL. Mr. President, how
much time remains on each side?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Alaska has 3 minutes remain-
ing.
Mr. GRAVEL. How much time is re-
maining to the Senator from Arkansas?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Arkansas has 5 minutes re-
maining.
Who yields time?
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished chairman of the Armed Serv-
ices Committee has made the case very
well. However, I cannot allow the REC-
ORD to stand with out answering a re-
mark made by the distinguished chair-
man of the Committee on Foreign Re-
lations to the effect that assitance for
Cambodia in line with the budget re-
quest would actually go against the pol-
icy of the administration or the Presi-
dent.
The President's policy is to withdraw
American troops is rapidly as practicable
from that part of the world. His policy
is that U.S. troops should not be used
to defend every threatened country; his
policy is to encourage such other coun-
tries to bear the primary responsibility
for defending themselves.
But the Nixon doctrine does not mean
that we have abandoned all our friends in
the world or that we have abandoned all
non-Communist nations that want to re-
sist aggression. There are two main parts
of the doctrine. One important part is
that we will help our friends defend
themselves.
There is no question that what is go-
ing on in Cambodia is not a civil war.
There has been some argument about
whether the war in South Vietnam is a
civil war. In Cambodia it is out and out
aggression by North Vietnam. In Cam-
bodia the Cambodians want to defend
themselves and they are defending them-
selves Our policy is to help them, but
without providing any of our troops to
do the fighting.
The distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations has
pointed to the fact that there may be
some relaxation of tensions, attributable
in part to the President's forthcoming
visit to Moscow and Peking, and he has
referred to the fact that the situation is
better in South Vietnam. The situation
is better in South Vietnam, but the situa-
tion is better, because we helped the
South Vietnamese build up an army ca-
pable of defending itself while we have
been withdrawing. The situation has not
improved, because of any change in at-
titude on the part of the North Viet-
namese.
If we help the Cambodians defend
themselves, we are acting in our own in-
terest, particularly if we recall that we
have .sofhe treaty obligations to such
countries as Thailand.
The distinguished majority leader
spoke in terms of Sihanouk being "over-
thrown." I do not know what he means
by the word "overthrown," but I am sure
he did not mean to leave the impression
that Sihanouk was not replaced in the
regular manner. In fact, Lon Nol was put
in power in the same way that Sihanouk
came to power, arid as I understand it,
the very people Sihanouk appointed re-
placed Sihanouk and put Lon Nol in.
That does not mean that I necessarily
agree with the form or composition of
the government there as now constituted.
But that is really not the question.
Mr. President, I urge that the Gravel
amendment be rejected and that the
Symington amendment be approved.
Mr. BROOKE. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Alaska yield for a ques-
tion?
Mr. GRAVEL. I have only a few min-
utes remaining. Will the Senator from
Arkansas yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Vermont is yielding time on
the bill.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, how much
time do we have remaining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. There
are 2 minutes remaining to the Senator
from Arkansas who has the opposition
time on the amendment, and 3 min-
utes remaining to the Senator from
Alaska.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does the Senator
from Massachusetts wish me to yield 2
minutes?
Mr. BROOKE. Yes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. BROOKE. I wish to ask if the
Senator from Alaska broke down the
amount of money into items he would
recover by the $150 million he proposes
to reduce it to?
Mr. GRAVEL. No, I have no break-
down.
Mr. BROOKE. The Senator cut the
total sum and it is not broken down, as
the Senator from Mississippi indicated.
Mr. GRAVEL. No.
Mr. BROOKE. It puts a ceiling on the
total amount and reduces it to $150 Mil-
lion without regard to how it shall be
spent.
Mr. GRAVEL. That is correct. I want
to emphasize that the word "ceiling" in
my opinion is a misnomer.
Mr. BROOKE. I am sorry. I did not
understand the Senator.
Mr. GRAVEL. It is a misnomer. I do
not think it will work. I-have not seen
any ceiling in this body work.
If this body had some of the sharing
of responsibility we talk about we could
end this cottonpicking war. The infer-
ence was made that the invasion was by
North Vietnam. The invasion of Cam-
bodia took place by this country. I hope
that would be made clear.
When we hear a government that talks
of sterile. democracy which it is going
to put aside, and we see a program by
this administration to escalate, let us
go over the arithmetic again.
Last year the President, when we uni-
laterally invaded Cambodia, submitted
a figure of $100 million and all we did
was approve it. Along with that request,
to pay back Peter who had been robbed
by Paul, was another $150 million that
was approved by this body. Now, we are
asked by the administration, by the com-
mittee, for $250 million, which is an
escalation of $100 million more than we
approved last year, and we are asked
to go to $300 million carte blanche.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. GRAVEL. I yield.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I intend to
support the Senator on this amendment,
but I protest against the suggestion that
what we are doing here is an exercise in
futility. For the first time this will put
an absolute ceiling, not on appropriations
but on spending. For all purposes it over-
rides all provisions for discretionary
authority, transfers, or anything else;
and I do not want any legislative history
to be on the books which would give
the chance for any executive agency to
say this was not intended to be an ab-
solute ceiling on spending of all kinds.
Mr. GRAVEL. My colleague has been
here much longer than I, and I would
defer to his judgment, but I have been
disillusioned in my tenure here.
Mr. CASE. Of course, but we have done
this before and in supporting the Sen-
ator's amendment I want to be very clear
that we are not intending in any way
to leave any of those loopholes which
have existed still in effect.
Mr. GRAVEL. I realize that is the good
faith of my colleague.
Mr. CASE. Not only good faith, but
action by this body. We are not intend-
ing to leave any discretionary authority
to transfer from one fund to another
or anything of that sort, and I hope the
Senator will not leave the suggestion
that he intends it.
Mr. GRAVEL. No, not the slightest I
endorse my colleague's statement 110
Percent.
I have found as we close loopholes,
down the street they open them just as
fast. They prosecute the war regardless
of what we say, regardless of demon-
strated facts on our part.
I hope this will be a firm reduction and
that my amendment will be agreed to,
because it would do what Members of
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
S.
Octob eArit9roktti For Relesemnat/M111.qt1g~-7-341494MR000400170032-5s 17175
the Senate have said they want done:
Tread water. But to increase beyond $150
million is not treading water, and every
one should understand it is an escalation
of our activity in Cambodia.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. GRAVEL. I yield.
Mr. CASE. The point of my protest
before about use of the suggestion that
this is just an idle gesture, is given spe-
cial support by this newspaper report
which said that the Joint Chiefs of Staff
had proposed four ways to get around
any ceiling over spending?or any lim-
itation, rather, not a ceiling on spend-
ing?which is what we are doing?but
to get around any limitation on author-
ization in this bill. It is for that reason
that it is terribly important that we not
only have a limitation on authorizations,
which we have, but this ceiling, which
would be on the spending.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. GRAVEL. I yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
has expired on the amendment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
yield 1 minute on the bill.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I have
no doubt about it. This is an actual ceil-
ing. This is a limitation on expenditures.
It was our committee which dug in and
dug out to get the figures and required
the report. We know what the expendi-
tures are going to be. We know what the
program is. We know what are the used
goods and the evaluations put on them.
Have no doubt about it?this is an actual
ceiling and an actual limitation.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the perfecting
amendment of the Senator from Alaska
to the amendment of the Senator from
Missouri. The yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD (after having voted
In the negative). Mr. President, on this
vote I have a pair with the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER) U he were
present and voting, he would vote "yea."
If I were at liberty to vote, I would vote
"nay." Therefore, I withdraw MY vote.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. ELLENDER) , the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. GAMBRELL) , the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS), the Sen-
ator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE ) , the
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE) , the
Senator from Washington (Mr. JACK-
SON) , the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. KENNEDY) , the Senator from Wyo-
ming (Mr. McGEE), the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. McGovERN) , and the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MusiciE) are
necessarily absent.
further announce that if present and
voting, the Senator from Washington
(Mr. JACKSON) would vote "nay."
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Massachu-
setts (Mr. KENNEDY) and the Senator
from South Dakota (Mr. McGovERN)
would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senators from Nebraska (Mr. Cola's and
Mr. Thrum.), the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. JORDAN) , the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. MILLER), the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. TAFT) , and the Senator from Texas
(Mx. TOWER) are necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from South Carolina (Mr.
THURMOND) is absent on official business.
The Senator from Vermont (Mr. STAF-
FORD) , and the Senator from Connecticut
(Mr. WEICKER) axe detained on official
business.
If present and voting, the Senators
from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS and Mr.
HRusicA) , the Senator from Vermont (Mr.
STAFFORD), the Senator from Ohio (Mr.
TAFT), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. THURMOND) , and the Senator from
Texas (Mr. TOWER) would each vote
"nay."
The result was announced?yeas 26,
nays 53, as follows:
[No. 279 Leg.]
YEAS-26
Bayh
Brooke
Burdick
Byrd, W. Va.
Case
Church
Cotton
Cranston
Fulbright
Aiken
Allen
Allott
Anderson
Baker
Bean
Bellmon
Bennett
Bentsen
Bible
Boggs
Brock
Buckley
Byrd, Va.
Cannon
Chiles
Cook
Cooper
Gravel
Hart
Hatfield
Hughes
Mathias
Metcalf
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
NAYS-53
Dole
Dominick
Eagleton
Eastland
Ervin
Fannin
Fong
Goldwater
Griffin
Gurney
Hansen
Hollings
Humphrey
Javits
Jordan, N.C.
Long
Magnuson
McClellan
Nelson
Pell
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Schweiker
Tunney
Williams
McIntyre
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Percy
Roth
Saxbe
Scott
Smith
Sparkman
Spong
Stennis
Stevens
Stevenson
Symington
Talmadge
Young
PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED?I
Mansfield, against.
NOT VOTING-20
Curtis
Ellender
Gambrell
Harris
Hartke
Hruska
Inouye
Jackson
Jordan, Idaho
Kennedy
McGee
McGovern
Miller
Mundt
Muskie
Stafford
Taft
Thurmond
Tower
Weicker
So Mr. GRAVEL'S amendment was re-
jected.
The PRESIDING OEiiCER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the -amendment
offered by the Senator from Missouri. All
time on the amendment has expired.
The yeas and nays have been ordered,
and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. PASTORE (after having voted in
the affirmative) . On this vote I have a
live pair with the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. ELLENDER). If he were present and
voting, he would vote "nay." I have al-
ready voted "yea." I therefore withdraw
my vote, as an accommodation to the
Senator from Louisiana.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. ELLENDER) , the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. GAMBRELL) , the Senator
from Oklahoma (Mr. HARRIS) , the Sena-
tor from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE), the
Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INouyE) , the
Senator from Washington (Mr. JACK-
SON) , the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. KENNEDY) , the Senator from Wyo-
ming (Mr. McGEE), the Senator from
South Dakota (Mr. McGovERN), and the
Senator from Maine (Mr. MusKIE) are
necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Washington
(Mr. JAcicsoN) would vote "yea."
I further announce that if present and
voting, the Senator from Massachusetts
(Mr. KENNEDY) would vote "nay."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senators from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS and
Mr. HRUSKA) , the Senator from Idaho
(Mr. JORDAN), the Senator from Iowa
(Mr. MILLER), the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. TAFT), and the Senator from Texas
(Mr. TOWER) are necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. THURMOND) is absent on official
business.
If present and voting, the Senators
from Nebraska (Mr. CURTIS and Mr.
HRusicA) , the Senator from Ohio. (Mr.
TAFT), the Senator from South Carolina
(Mr. THURMOND), and the Senator from
Texas (Mr. TOWER) would each vote
"yea."
The result was announced?yeas 45,
nays 36, as follows:
[No. 280 Leg.i
YEAS-45
Aiken Dole Percy
Allott Dominick Randolph
Baker Eastland Roth
Beall Fannin Saxbe
Bellmon Fong Scott
Bennett Goldwater Smith
Bentsen Griffin Sparkman
Bible Gurney Spong
Boggs Hansen Stafford
Brock Hollings Stennis
Buckley Long Stevens
Byrd, Va. Magnuson Symington
Byrd, W. Va. McIntyre Talmadge
Cannon Packwood Tunney
Cook Pearson Young
NAYS-36
Allen Ervin Metcalf
Anderson Fulbright Mondale
Bayh Gravel Montoya
Brooke Hart Moss
Burdick Hatfield Nelson
Case Hughes Pell
Chiles Humphrey Proxmire
Church Javits Ribicoff
Cooper Jordan, N.C. Schweiker
Cotton Mansfield Stevenson
Cranston Mathias Weicker
Eagleton McClellan Williams
PRESENT AND GIVING A LIVE PAIR, AS
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED--i
Pastore, for.
NOT VOTING?I8
-
Curtis Inouye Miller
Ellender Jackson Mundt
Gambrell Jordan, Idaho Muskie
Harris Kennedy Taft
"Hartke McGee Thurmond
Hruska McGovern Tower
? So Mr. SYmINGTON'S amendment was
agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move
that the vote by which the amendment
was agreed to be reconsidered.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
S 17176 Approved For Relyiewminti IttakiRDIngliNg296R0004110t1/760032,-e 971
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE?
ENROLLED BILL AND JOINT RES-
OLUTION SIGNED
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Berry, one of its read-
ing clerks,?.announced that the Speaker
had affixed is signature to the follow-
ing enrolled ltl and joint resolution:
S. 137. An act t rovide for the conveyance
of certain public Inds in Wyoming to the
occupants of the lan ? and
S. J. Res. 167. Joint r olution to extend au-
thority conferred by thk Export Administra-
tion Act of 1969.
Subsequently the Actii President pro
tempore (Mr. BYRD of Wst Virginia)
signed the enrolled bill ank joint reso-
lution.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AC OF
1971
The Senate continued with the on-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 9910) to
amend the Foreign Assistance Act
1971, and for other purposes.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, on be-
half of the distinguished Senator from
Colorado (Mr. ALLorr) and myself I
send to the desk an amendment and ask
that it be stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BEALL) . The amendment will be stated.
The assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
On page 20, lines 19 and 20, strike out the
amount $425,000,000 and insert in lieu there-
of 9285,000,000.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Idaho yield to me so that I
may discuss a proposed unanimous-
consent request?
Mr. CHURCH. I am happy to yield to
the Senator for that purpose.
TEMPORARY AMENDMENT OF THE 2 0 -MINUTE
RULE ON ROLLCALL VOTES
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, to expe-
dite the work of the Senate, I proposed
to the assistant majority leader that we
consider at this time making a unani-
mous-consent request for the duration
of the pending bill only, and through
final passage, that the rule regarding
rollcall votes be amended so as to per-
mit the reduction of the time allotted
from 20 minutes to 15 minutes, with the
usual 5-minute warning being allowed
at the end of the first 10 minutes.
If that is satisfactory, the assistant
majority leader or I could propose the
amendment.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, the matter has been discussed with
and approved by the distinguished ma-
jority leader. I therefore speak in his
stead. At this moment there are no com-
mittees meeting this afternoon. Under
the previous order, the final vote is to
occur at not later than 7 o'clock. We have
amendments that remain to be acted,
upon by rollcall votes.
If all Senators are on notice?and we
will ask the cloakrooms to put out the
notice over the telephone?the leader-
ship on this side of the aisle would con-
cur with the suggestion and make the
request.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that on all remaining 'oilcan votes
on the pending bill, including final Pass-
age, there be 1 minutes allotted, with the
warning bell to be sounded 5 minutes
prior to the announcement of the vote
by the Chair.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, so that
the members of the Finance Committee
will be given appropriate credit, I point
out that a meeting is now being held.
However, the committee is meeting close
by and we can get here in a short time.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, it is meet-
ing so quietly that we did not know about
it.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I thank
the able assistant minority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, if the dis-
tinguished Senator would yield further,
I would like to make a comment. I know
that there are a number of Senators wilt
are anxious to keep speaking engage-
ments tonight and tomorrow. We have
done our best to accommodate them. I
would solicit and encourage all Senators
\irho have amendments to, if possible,
estrain an oratorical urge beyond the
p int of persuasion and to ask them-
se es whether or not loquacity is coun-
terikoductive atter a certain point. If
they ould be good enough to accommo-
date e. ch to the other, we might enable
some o our colleagues, including the
speaker, p make a speaking engagement
tonight.
Mr. BYR of West Virginia. I thank
the distingulhed minority leader.
Mr. CHtJR . Mr. President, in line
with the exhor tion of the distinguished
assistant majority leader for Senators
to be brief, I do ot intend to speak at
any length on this endment.
The purpose of the Church-Allott
amendment is to red ce from $425 mil-
lion to $285 million le amount auth-
orized in the bill for fte Development
Loan Fund. Although at rst glance this
looks like a hefty cut, the amendment's
adoption would actually ose only a
very modest reduction in t e Develop-
ment Loan Fund, as it is likel to emerge
from the Senate-House ci. erence,
where past practice has been to slit the
difference between the Senate an ouse
figures.
The House authorization for the D .F
is $400 million. If this amendment re
adopted, the difference between t
House and Senate figures would be $11
million. And if, as I have every reason
to anticipate, the general practice is fol-
lowed and the difference is split, that
would mean that the end result of the
adoption of this amendment would be
to effect a modest reduction of $57.5 mil-
lion in the Development Loan Fund. The
program could easily survive so modest a
reduction.
I know that the Development Loan
Fund carries with it certain favorable
connotations. For example, one thinks
of the funds as improving living stand-
ards abroad; some have said that this
feature of the aid program is the one
most directly related to long-term eco-
nomic gains.
At close examination, however, the
program has really become a public sub-
sidy for financing the export of Ameri-
can goods and services. Approximately
93 percent of the money is spent here in
the United States. As such, it is more
accurate to look upon the program as but
another of the Federal subsidy programs.
We must ask ourselves, then, whether
our priorities allow us to continue to sub-
sidize so much spending for export, in
the light of the dire need for more
spending here in our own country.
The Development Loan Fund is, in ef-
fect, a soft loan window for our Export-
Import Bank. Through the DLF, it is
possible for foreign countries to obtain
loans with which to purchase American
produced goods and services on terms
more favorable than otherwise available,
better than any commercial terms, bet-
ter than any terms directly available
through the Export-Import Bank.
Through the DLF soft window, foreign
countries can secure long-term loans,
with a grace period of 10 years during
which no repayment of capital is re-
quired, and at subsidized interest rates
far below the cost of money to the
U.S. Government.
With these subsidized loans, purchases
are made from American firms. Last
year, for example, some 4,000 American
firms in 50 States received $1.3 billion in
AID funds for products supplied as part
of the foreign aid program.
Mr. President, the oft asserted lament
that our foreign aid program lacks a con-
stituency in the United States is another
one of those myths we hold so dear. In
fact, aid has a large and lively con-
stituency which asserts intense pressure
on the Government to keep these sub-
sidies alive. The real question we face,
then, is whether we are to continue so
large a public subsidy to finance the sale
of American goods and services in for-
eign lands, or whether we are going to
begin to cut back on foreign spending, in
order to free more money to apply here
at home on problems that continue to
plague our own people.
I recall all the pious assurances given
the American people about changing pri-
orities, about shifting more of our re-
sources to the solution of our own prob-
lems in the slums of our cities, in our
emptying countryside, and in the ghettos.
Think of the money so desperately
needed to deal with drug addiction, and
actually to come to grips with reducing
the pollution that so blights our own
environment. Yet, in the face of all that
talk, the truth is that Congress is in the
process of adopting a larger aid program
is year than we have had in the past.
are not cutting back on foreign
ding. In fact, this bill represents
no ng more than the tip of the ice-
berg, ess than 40 percent of the total
forei aid package this year; the pro-
gram ually exceeds $9 billion.
At the ame time, we are increasing,
rather th reducing, the size of the
military bu get. We will soon approve
military apP priations that will exceed
those at the height of our involvement in
Vietnam. It is incredible, but it is true.
So I see the Chnrch-Allott amendment
as a very modest step, cutting back on
the authorization Of the Development
Loan Fund from $445 million to $285
million which, as I hale explained, would
represent a reduction of even less, in the
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
S171Atibproved For Releavto2001VIMAC1eEtRW7ENaff00040017,0032
uctuue7.529, 1971
The result was announced?yeas
nays 52, as follows:
[No. 282 Leg.]
YEAS-28
Allen
Allott
Baker
Bennett
Bible
Brock
Buckley
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Va.
Cannon
Aiken
Anderson
Bayh
Beall
Bellmon
Bentsen
Boggs
Brooke
Burdick
Case
Chiles
Church
Cooper
Cranston
Fulbright
Griffin
Harris
Hart
Cotton
Curtis
Eagleton
Ellender
Gambrell
Goldwater
Gravel
Cook
Dole
Dominick
Eastland
Ervin
Fannin
Fong
Gurney
Hansen
Hollings
NAYS-52
Hatfield
Humphrey
Javits
Kennedy
Long
Magnuson
Mansfield
Mathias
McIntyre
Metcalf
Mondale
Montoya
Moss
Nelson
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
NOT VOTING-20
28,
Jordan, N.C.
Jordan, Idaho
McClellan
Smith
Stennis
Stevens
Talmadge
Young
Percy
Proxmire
Randolph
Ribicoff
Roth
Saxbe
Schweiker
?Scott
Sparkman
Spong
Stafford
Stevenson
Symington
Taft
Weicker
Williams
Hartke
Hruska
Hughes
Inouye
Jackson
McGee
McGovern
Miller
Mundt
Muskie
Thurmond
Tower
Tunney
So Mr. DOAIINICK'S amendment was re-
jected.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
move to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was rejected.
Mr. PASTORE. I move to lay that mo-
tion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I send
to the desk an amendment, and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 32, line 11, strike out "$565,000,-
000" and insert in lieu thereof "$452,000,000".
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr.
President, may we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, in order
to accommodate three Senators, the Sen-
ator from New Jersey (Mr. CASE), the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Funnuorr) ,
and the Senator from Mississippi (Mr.
STENNIS) , I have agreed to yield briefly,
with the consent of the Senate, provided
I do not lose my right to the floor.
[Disturbance in the galleries.]
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Gal-
leries will be in order. The Sergeant at
Arms will see that order in the galleries
is restored.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from
New Jersey.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, may
we have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
The Senator from New Jersey may
(owed.
r. CASE. Mr. President, I call up an
amendment affecting page 34 of the bill,
which is at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The legislative clerk proceeded to read
the amendment.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that further reading of the
amendment be dispensed with, and that
the amendment be printed in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered. And, without
objection, even though the amendment
of the Senator from Idaho is the pend-
ing business, the Senate will proceed to
consider the amendment of the Senator
from New Jersey.
Mr. CASE'S amendment is as follows:
r"
On page 34, lines 13 and 14, strike out
South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Thailand.
Cambodia, or Burma" and insert in lieu
thereof "North Vietnam, or Thailand".
Mr. CASE. I thank the Senator from
Idaho for his consideration, and, pursu-
ant to my assurance, I shall delay him
only slightly, I am sure there will be no
difficulty about this amendment.
Mr. President, on page 34 of the bill,
the committee added a provision to the
effect that no funds authorized or appro-
priated under any provision of law should
be made available by means of any offi-
cer, employee, or agency of the United
States to finance military operations by
foreign forces in six countries?Laos,
South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Thai-
land, Cambodia, or Burma? unless Con-
gress specifically authorizes the use of
such funds for that purpose, and desig-
nates the area where they will be used.
I have received from the chairman of
the Armed Services Committee an ex-
pression of concern about the breadth
of this amendment, and after discus-
sions with him, we have arrived at the
understanding that?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Chair maintain order? I think this is an
important matter, and the Senator ought
to be heard, in view of a possible agree-
ment on the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order. The Senator will
suspend his remarks until order has
been restored.
The Senator may proceed.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, the chair-
man of the Armed Services Committee,
the distinguished Senator from Missis-
sippi (Mr. STENNIS) and I have dis-
cussed this matter. His concern about
the number of countries affected by the
amendment as reported by our commit-
tee was one that I recognized with re-
spect. Pursuant to an understanding that
we have arrived at, I now offer this
amendment to eliminate from the effect
of the bill three of the six countries,
leaving in Laos, North Vietnam, and
Thailand. That is the whole amendment.
The Senator from Mississippi has been
gracious enough to say that while *he
wants to consider this matter further at
a later stage in the legislation, for the
purposes of the consideration of the bill
in the Senate at this time, such an
amendment is satisfactory.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. CASE. I am happy to yield.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, as I have
understood, now, the Senator proposes
that in section 513 on page 34 of the
bill, the words "South Vietnam, Cam-
bodia, and Burma" be stricken out of
lines 13 and 14, as they appear.
Mr. CASE. That is right.
Mr. STEN-NIS. That would leave, of
course, then, the words "Laos, North
Vietnam, and Thailand," as they appear
now in the bill.
Mr. President, the Senator from New
Jersey has correctly stated the under-
standing that we have had about this
legislation, and we have agreed, for the
purpose of this legislative step, that this
modification of section 513 will put the
section where it may stay in the bill in
that form, and we can move forward with
the bill without any further amendment
being filed or brought up by the Senator
from Mississippi.
I do make the point, as the Senator
has implied, that this is done without
prejudice to a full consideration of the
matter in conference, based on the facts
as they may exist at that time.
Is that the Senator's understanding?
Mr. CASE. The Senator has stated
correctly what his position is, and the
basis on which his agreement not to op-
pose this amendment or to offer another
amendment to this section is based.
Mr. STENNIS. I thank the Senator,
and I wish to make this further explana-
tion: I think leaving the word "Laos"
in here?
Mr. CASE. That is another section.
Mr. STENNIS. I beg the Senator's
pardon?
Mr. CASE. I thought the Senator was
talking about another section.
Mr. STENNIS. No, I am talking about
the same section. I think that leaving the
word "Laos" in the bill as now written is
perhaps a contradiction of a provision
on the same subject in the military pro-
curement bill we passed 21/2 weeks ago.
However, I think that to get all the real
facts on this matter before the Senate
now would require a closed session. There
is hardly time for that now, and I do not
think there is any mood for it, either. So,
as an original proposition, and without
prejudice, we agreed to let this matter go
as has already been outlined, and then
in conference there will be a chance to
really consider and discuss any facts
that might be relevant; and I would
rest on the decision that is made by the
?conferees.
Under those circumstances, I hope
that the modification will be acceptable
to the Senate. I have talked with some
Senators about supporting my position in
this matter, and I now withdraw the re-
quest because I believe this meets the
situation.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I yield to
the chairman, if he wishes to make com-
ment.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am in full agree-
ment with that.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield me 1 minute?
Mr. FULI3RIGHT. I yield.
Mr. STENNIS. I want the record to
show that I consider this an important
matter and that I am free to follow it
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
?
4pRr9ved For kREglim
illiFtGitoRD11741301)296 R0004001 70037215195
October 2
are doing, or does the record show that
our contributions have been rather
steady and that for several years have
declined and right now are up to about
the 1965 level and are strongly related
to what other countries are doing?
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, it is
very difficult to answer that question. It
varies so much. Vis,i\iier, mention was
made that last ye we paid 86.3 per-
cent of the WHO spec' 1 programs. This
year we will pay 28.6 pe ent. So, I think
we are putting in more ney. This is a
point I am making. We are utting more
money into the program, b other na-
tions are putting in a lot mo money.
So that our percentage, the tota mount
of money we put in, goes up.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ime
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President,
would like to get an additional 5 min
utes on the bill to take care of the time
I extended to the Senator from Minne-
sota.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I yield 5
minutes on the bill to the Senator from
Colorado.
The PRESIDING OrviCER. The Sen-
ator from Colorado is recognized for an
additional 5 minutes.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I
thank my friend, the Senator from Ver-
mont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I want
to repeat once again what I am trying
to do. Some Senators seem to have the
feeling that has been expressed here that
somehow or other we are out to gut the
United Nations. I am trying to do the
opposite. I am trying to make it effective
and have more participation in these
programs and show the world that al-
though we support the programs we will
not be Santa Claus for the rest of the
world.
It makes more sense to do it this way
than to chop program after program be-
cause it does not make any difference
which one is picked, someone will say
that that program is the most dramatic
program we have and it has to be main-
tained. So we would do it this way. It
gives the opportunity for programs to be
more effective and it gives the opportu-
nity for other nations to come in. It says
to the world that we are not going to be
Santa Claus for each of these programs.
It provides an opportunity for an in-
crease in contributions in many of these
programs beyond what we now have with
the authorization system we have devel-
oped in this bill.
Hopefully the Committee on Foreign
Relations will, as the Senator from Ala-
bama said, have a chance to go into each
one of these next year to determine if
we should raise our amounts on a pro-
gram-by-program basis or give the ap-
propriation to the State Department
to provide it in a way they think effec-
tive. Either way is all right as long as
they do not have more than one-third
for each. of the programs.
It seems to me this makes for a far
better approach than to try to do some-
thing else that other nations might think
is direct retribution. This is not retribu-
tion.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. President, how much time do I
have remaining?
The PRESIDING OrteiCER. The Sen-
ator has 2 minutes remaining on the
amendment and 2 minutes remaining on-
the bill.
Mr. DOMINICK. I reserve that time in
the event anyone wants to discuss the
amendment.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I
yield 2 minutes to the Senator from
Massachusetts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope
this amendment is defeated this after-
noon. I do not think this is the time or
the place for us to try to establish these
percentages in terms of the United Na-
tions. Those matters should be handled
the appropriate committees. This mat-
was not given the attention it should
hap, as the Senator from New York
pain d out. In the wave of recrimina-
tion at has taken place after the vote
on Mo ? ay night in the United Nations,
this cut ck would have extreme im-
plications on our commitment to the
United Nat ns.
Finally, I ave had intimate involve-
ment in som of these programs in the
United Nation as other Senators have
had. I have see the effectiveness of the
World Health Or anization in attempt-
ing to meet proble e of disease in many
developing countri including South-
east Asia. I have se the work of the
UNICEF program in dia and Pakistan.
I have seen the effect the U.N. relief
efforts, particularly the Biafran, East
Pakistan, and Peruvian sit ation.
These are perhaps the ost effective
programs in meeting human eeds.
The PRESIDING OFFICE The time
of the Senator has expired.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. Pr dent, I
yield the Senator 1 additional mi ute?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Th Sen-
ator from Massachusetts is reco ized
for I additional minute.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I t k
the record of these programs is a stron
record. They benefit people in the mos
dramatic way we could possibly imagine.
I hope this amendment which would,
In effect, cut the life and heart out of
these specialized programs of the United
Nations, will be defeated.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, An-
other agency that the Senator from
Massachusetts did not include is Food
and Agriculture, the FAO. He mentioned,
I believe, UNICEF, the children's pro-
gram. Mention has been made of the
fact that with the adoption of an amend-
ment to this bill giving us the right to
make annual authorizations we will have
the chance to examine these matters
item by item next year and not take this
haphazard way of making the cuts.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who
yields time? The Senator from Colorado
has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I will
take the remaining time to repeat once
again the purpose of the amendment. I
will be brief. I think most Senators
understand it.
If this amendment is agreed to, it is
probable that the total amount of the
cut?we cannot be sure what it will be?
should not be more than $25 million out
of $100 million. Certainly, that is not
gutting the bill.
Second, it is possible we will have to
have more money in a supplemental
rather than less money because of the
other countries coming into the program
and thereby cutting the total dollar
amount. That is a possibility in the
future.
Third, I would say the main thing
about the amendment which I think is
helpful is that it will increase the ef-
fectiveness of the United Nations. This
is so in every organization with which I
have been associated. The broader sweep
there is in an organization, the larger
participation there is in it, the more
likelihood there is of success in that
organization.
This is what I am trying to do in the
amendment.
The PRESIDING 0101010ER. All time
on the amendment has expired. The
question is on agreeing to the amendment
of the Senator from Colorado. On this
question, the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. EAGLEroN), the Senator from Loui-
siana (Mr. ELLENDER) , the Senator from
Georgia (Mr. GAMBRELL) , the Senator
Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL) , the Senator from
Iowa (Mr. HUGHES), the Senator from
Hawaii. (Mr. INotrrE) , the Senator from
Washington (Mr. JACKSON), the Sena-
tor from Wyoming (Mr. McGEE), the
Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Mc-
GOVERN) , the Senator from Maine (Mr.
Mum's), the Senator from California
(Mr. TUNNEY) , and the Senator from
Indiana (Mr. HARTKE) are necessarily
absent.
On this vote, the Senator from Loui-
siana (Mr. ELLENDER) is paired with the
Senator from Wyoming (Mr. McGEE).
If present and voting, the Senator from
Louisiana would "yea" and the Senator
from Wyoming would vote "nay."
I further announce that, if present and
oting, the Senator from Alaska (Mr.
RAVEL), the Senator from Washington
( r. JACKSON), and the Senator from
So h Dakota (Mr. MCGOVERN) would
each vote "nay."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Sena i from New Hampshire (Mr. COT-
TON)-, t Senators from Nebraska (Mr.
CURTIS a. d MY. HRUSKA) , the Senator
from Ari a (Mr. GOLDWATER) , the Sen-
ator from owa (Mr. MILLER), and the
Senator fre Texas (Mr. TOWER) are
necessarily e -ent.
The Senator rom South Carolina (Mr.
THURMOND) is a sent on official business.
The Senator f m South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent ecause of illness.
If present and Qting, the Senators
from Nebraska (Mr., CURTIS and Mr.
HRUSKA) , the SenatorIrom South Caro-
lina (Mr. THURMOND) , nd the Senator
from Texas (Mr. Towka) would each
vote "yea."
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
October'pied For Re1Areaftt,00111R.F-69RDPshtedor296R0004001700347197
up, as is the Senator from New Jersey, acting for the minority leader? Does the intention of the committee to usurp any
of course, or anyone else?the chairman minority leader yield back the remainder jurisdiction of the Armed Services Corn-
of the committee or anyone else?and get of his time on this amendment? mittee. This amendment clarifies the in-
the facts together and get it before the Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield back the remain- tention of the committee.
conference. der of the time. I yield back the remainder of my time:
Mr. CASE. The situation is that the The PRESIDING OFFICER. All Mr. STENNIS. I yield back the re-
matter will be in conference, because the time on the amendment has been yielded mainder of my time.
House bill does not contain any provi- back. The question is on agreeing to the The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
sion on thiS subject. amendment of the Senator from on the amendment has been yielded back.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield back the re- Arkansas. The question is on agreeing to the
mainder of my time. -*The amendment was agreed to. amendment of the Senator from Mis-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I sissippi.
On the amendment has been yielded back. have a technical amendment that does The amendment was agreed to.
The question is on agreeing to the not affect the bill at all, except to clear The PRESIDING OFFICER,. In ac-
amendment of the Senator from New up a typographical error. cordance with the previous order, the
Jersey. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Utah
...The amendment was agreed to. amendment will be stated. (Mr. Moss) .
Mr. CHURCH addressed the Chair. The legislative clerk read as follows:
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- On page 20, line 18, after "1969,, insert
ESTABLISHMENT OF ARCHES NA-
ator from Idaho, by unanimous consent, the following: "$350,000,000 for the fiscal
yielded to three Senators in order, the year 1970, and". TIONAL PARK, UTAH
first of those Senators being the Senator The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask the
from New Jersey. objection, the amendment is in order. Chair to lay before the Senate a message
? Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, un- ' Who yields time? us from the Hoe of Representatives on
der the agreement, I send an amend- Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield myself 1 S. 30.
ment to the desk. minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mr. President, this has no effect upon ALLEN) laid before the? Senate the
amendment will be stated. the bill at all. It is a mistake, a typo- amendment of the House of Representa-
'he legislative clerk read as follows:
On page 34, line 4, strike out the words
", Laos, or South Vietnam."
r
? graphical error, on the part of the staff tives to the bill (S. 30) to establish the
in preparing the bill. They did not make Arches National Park in the State of
many errors, but this is a hard bill to Utah, which was to strike out all after
' l'he PRESIDING OFFICER. Without keep straight. This amendment has no the enacting clause, and insert:
objection, the amendment will be in effect on anything substantive in the bill. That (a) subject to valid existing rights,
order. I yield back the remainder of my time,
the lands, waters, and interests therein with-
Who yields time? Mr. GRIFFIN. I yield back the time, in the boundary generally depicted on the
"
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield myself 2 The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time map entitled 'Boundary Map, Proposed
Arches National Park, Utah," numbered
minutes. on the amendment has been yielded back. BPSSC-138-20, 001E and dated September
Mr. President, this is exactly the same The question is on agreeing to the 1969, are hereby established as the Arches
circumstance as the previous one, by amendment of the Senator from Arkan- National Park, hereinafter referred to as the
agreement with the Senator from Mis- sas. "park"). Such map shall be on file and
sissippi. We have discussed this matter. The amendment was agreed to. available for public inspeotion in the offices
This involves the return to the Commit- AMENDMENT NO. 546 of the National Park Service, Department of
tee on Foreign Relations of jurisdiction Ak
the Interior.
w?Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I send to (b) The Arches National Monument is
over military assistance to Laos, South the desk an amendment on which we hereby abolished, and any funds available for
Vietnam and Thailand. have agreed. I do not think it will take purposes of the monument shall be avail-
We have agreed to strike out South more than a minute or minute and a able for purposes of the park. Federal lands,
Vietnam and Laos but to retain Thai-?
half, waters, and interests therein excluded from
land. The Senator from Mississippi does
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I have the monument by this Act shall be admin-
istered by the Secretary of the Interior not disagree, I may say, with the return no objection, on the basis of the same (here-
inafter referred to as the "Secretary") in
ultimately of the jurisdiction over Laos qualification, accordance with the laws applicable to the
and South Vietnam, but he thinks it is The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk public lands of the United States.
premature to put it in this bill at this will state the amendment. SEC. 2. The Secretary is authorized to ac-
time. Therefore, by mutual agreement, I The legislative clerk read as follows: quire by donation, purchase with donated or
have agreed to this modification. On page 57, line 7, after the word "respon- appropriated funds, transfer from any Fed-
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the sibilities" insert the following words: "with- oral agency, exchange or otherwise, the lands
Senator yield? in the jurisdiction of these committees", and and interests in lands described in the first
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield to the Sena- on line 11, after the word "information" in- section of this Act, except that lands or in-
tor from Mississippi. in-
sert the following words: "within the juris- terests therein owned by the State of Utah,
or any political subdivision thereof, may be
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, the Sen-
diction oT these committees",
ator from Arkansas has correctly stated The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without acquired only with the approval of suchState or political subdivision.
the matter. Thailand is left in the bill; objection, the amendment is in order. SEC. 3. Where any Federal lands included
and military assistance hereafter, if this Who yields time? within the park are legally occupied or util-
becomes law, will be handled by the Corn- Mr. STENNIS. I yield myself 1 min- ized on the date of approval of this Act for
mittee on Foreign Relations. I am willing ute. grazing purposes, pursuant to a lease, per-
that, in the future, jurisdiction with re- Mr. President, this is another amend-
mit, or license for a fixed term of years is-
spect to Southeast Asia be returned to ment on which we worked out an agree-
sued or authorized by any department, es-
the Committee on Foreign Relations. I ment with the Senator from Arkansas. It tablishment, or agency of the United States,
the Secretary of the Interior shall permit
think that while we are there and our relates to reports being made by the De- the persons holding such grazing privileges
men are there and the activities are go- partment of State to the Committee on or their heirs to continue in the exercise
Ing on, we ought to keep it where it is, Foreign Relations, and we are in favor thereof during the term of the lease, permit,
because they have to be considered to- of that. The language was so broad, how- or license, and one period of renewal there-
gether. I appreciate the Senator's ever, that we thought it would include after.
position, some items over which the Committee on SEC. 4. Nothing in this Act shall be con-
With that, I am satisfied with the sec- Armed Services has primary jurisdiction. strued as affecting in any way any rights of
tion as modified. These words merely correct and clarify owners and -operators of cattle and sheep
The PRESIDING OteriCER. Who that point, and I hope the amendment herds, existing on the date immediately prior
to the enactment of this Act, to trail their
yields time? will be adopted, herds on traditional courses used by them
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield back the re- Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I prior to such date of enactment, and to wa-
mainder of my time, wish the RECORD to show that that is ter their stock, notwithstanding the fact that
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who is exactly what we agreed. There was no the lands involving such trails and watering
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
S171984Proved For RelEm508.19WW1AIL:igeolagFiggrinit6R00040(47043225, -1971
are situated within the park: Provided, That
the Secretay, may designate driveways and
promulgate rekasonable regulations provid-
ing for the use,of such driveways.
SEC. 5. (a) Thck,National Park Service, un-
der the direction b: the Secretary, shall ad-
minister, protect. a1c develop the park, sub-
ject to the provisions the Act entitled "An
Act to establish a Nati al Park Service, and
for other purposes", a roved August 25,
1916 (39 Stat. 535).
(b) Within three years om the date of
enactment of this Act, the ecretary of the
Interior shall report to the Pisident, in ac,?
cordance with subsections 3(c) and 3(d) of
the Wilderness Act (78 Stat. 89 ? 16 U.S.C.
1132 (c) and (d) ), his reconuneit?tions as
the suitability or nonsuitability of ny area
within the park for preservation as wilder-
ness, and any designation of any sue h area
as a wilderness shall be in accordanc with
said Wilderness Act.
SEC. 6. (a) The Secretary, in consulta 'on
with appropriate Federal departments a d
appropriate agencies of the State and its
litical subdivisions shall conduct a study
proposed road alinements within and ad-
jacent to the park. Such study shall consider
what roads are appropriate and necessary
for full utilization of the area for the pur-
pose of this Act as well as to connect with
roads of ingress and egress to the area.
(b) A report of the findings and conclu-
sions of the Secretary shall be submitted to
the Congress within two years of the date of
enactment of this Act, including recommen-
dations for such further legislation as may
be necessary to implement the findings and
conclusions developed from the study.
SEC. 7. There are hereby authorized to be
appropriated such sums as may be necessary
to carry out the purposes of this Act, not to
exceed, however, $125,000 for the acquisition
of lands and interests in lands and not to
exceed $1,031,800 (April 1970 prices) POT de-
velopment, plus or minus such amounts, if
any, as may be justified by reasons of ordi-
nary fluctuations in construction costs as
indicated by engineering cost indices appli-
cable to the types of construction involved
herein. The sums authorized in this section
shall be available for acquisition and devel-
opment undertaken subsequent to the ap-
proval of this Act.
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, the purpose
of this bill is to establish Arches National
Park in the State of Utah, consisting of
some 73,154 acres, the greater part of
which are now in Federal ownership,
Arches National Park is carved out of a
larger area consisting of 82,952 acres
which is presently being administered as
Arches National Monument under Presi-
dential proclamation.
The House amended the Senate bill in
several particulars, and I would like to
describe briefly the difference between
the two bills.
The House deleted 160 acres from the
Senate version to perfect the boundary
In accordance with recommendations of
the National Park Service, Department
of the Interior.
Both bills recognize that abrupt termi-
nation of grazing rights within the area
of the new park could work undue hard-
ship on individuals who hold these graz-
ing rights. The Senate bill provides that
a grazing permit might be extended for
25 years from the date of enactment, or
even beyond under certain conditions.
The House version of the bill provides
that persons holding such grazing priv-
ileges now, or their heirs, may hold the
permit for the remainder of its term,
and one period of renewal thereafter.
The Senate bill allows owners and op-
erators of cattle and sheep herds to con-
tinue to trail these herds on traditional
courses used by them prior to enactment
of the bill. The House bill gives the Sec-
retary of the Interior the right to desig-
nate these driveways and to promulgate
reasonable regulations providing for the
use of such driveways.
The Senate bill directs the Secretary
of the Interior to study proposed wilder-6
ness areas within Arches National Park
and to submit recommendations to Con-
gress. The House bill provides that such
a study must be made but requires that
a report be submitted to Congress within
3 years.
The Senate bill provides for a study of
road alinements within and adjacent to
the national park, to be made by the
Secretaries of Interior and Transporta-
tion, in consultation with the other Fed-
eral departments involved, and with the
State of Utah. The House bill makes the
ecretary of Interior mainly responsible
r the study, eliminating the Depart-
mit of Transportation, and provides
tha not only the State of Utah but its
pont' al subdivisions shall be consulted.
An finally, the House wrote into the
Senatel,passed bill a limitation of $25,000
for fut e land acquisition costs and
$1,031,00 for development of Arches Na-
tional Pam. This is the amount in each
instance, e imated by the National Park
Service.
Mr. President, although I preferred
some parts of \the Senate version of the
bill, particularly with respect to the du-
ration of grazing privileges and the
trailing of herds Lk the park, I do not wish
to delay any fuYther this legislation
which will establish, a new national park
for Utah. MoreoveN welcome the in-
clusion of the counts for consultation
on roads.
Mr. President, I nye that the Sen-
ate agree to the amendments of the
House to S.30.
The PRESIDING OFFMER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the?motion of the
Senator from Utah.
The motion was agreed to.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AC OF 1971
The Senate continued with he con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 8810) to
amend the Foreign Assistance ct of
1961, and for other purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair recognizes the Senator from ?ho
(Mr. CHURCH).
Mr: CHURCH. My amendment reds
as follows:
On page 32, line 11, strike out "565,000,04"
and insert in lieu thereof "$452,000,000". \
yield myself such time as I may reA
quire.
Mr. President, this amendment would
reduce the authorization for military
grant aid from $565 million to $452 mil-
lion, a 20-percent reduction.
In the 1970 fiscal year, Congress ap-
propriated only $350 million for military
grant aid and the same ainotmt was au-
thorized for fiscal 1971. But late last year
the administration submitted a supple-
mental request which doubled the
amount Congress originally authorized?
making a total of $690 million for fiscal
1971. My amendment would authorize
$102 million more than Congress pro-
vided in fiscal 1970 and also in fiscal
1971, before the supplemental was
added on.
The amounts for military aid to be
authorized by this bill is only a fraction
of the total military aid proposed to be
provided to some 50 countries this year.
Actually, the grand total comes to some
$5 billion?my amendment amounts to
only one fiftieth of this and that does not
include the total?the Defense Depart-
ment's cash sales of arms or commercial
sales.
The generosity with which we dispense
arms around the world is illustrated by
the fact that in the supplemental last
year?in the House bill--4he United
States gave Lebanon $5 million which
they did not even ask for.
How many Senators in this Chamber
now would like to receive $5 million,
without having asked for it, for public
works or other projects in their States?
But, apparently, military aid to foreign
governments is conceived and adminis-
tered on a different basis.
I believe that the times call for trim-
ming our foreign aid sails?military and
economic. This amendment would reduce
the authorization for military grant aid
by $113 million.
The House bill, as contrasted with the
Senate bill, authorizes $705 million for
military grant aid, so that even if the
amendment is adopted, when the differ-
ence is split in conference, the reduction
will be very modest within a total pack-
age of $5 billion.
It seems to me that so modest a reduc-
tion could easily be absorbed, and on that
basis, I hope the Senate will adopt this
Church amendment.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, we
dealt with this matter in committee. I
voted to cut the item. I am in favor of the
Senator's amendment, and if there is
someone opposed to it, I would be pleased
to give them time if they require it.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Arkansas yield?
Mr. FULI3RIGHT. I am happy to yield.
How much time does the Senator wish?
Mr. JAVITS. Five minutes.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield 5 minutes to
the Senator from New York.
The PRESIDING 01.10.10ER (Mr.
ALLEN). The Senator from New York is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I under-
stand that this amendment appears?if
the author would advise me on what
page?
Mr. CHURCH. If the clerk will read the
amendment again.
, The PRESIDING 0.e ICER. The clerk
\ will read the amendment.
= The assistant legislative clerk read the
amendment as follows:
pn page 32, line 11, strike out "6565,000,-
000 and insert in lieu thereof "6452,000,000".
1V&,JAVITS. Mr. President, I believe--
and I will stand corrected if I am wrong
because I have got into this thing sud-
denly with the distinguished Senator_
from Vermont (Mr. AncEN) leaving the
Approved For Release 2000/09/11 : CIA-RDP73600296R000400170032-5
S 181 ''? proved For Releaggq?M?PNAICIFAMIDP7-3-13131N29E#R00040071)70032z5i 0, 1971
would vote "nay" and the Senator from
Washington would vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON)
is absent on official business.
The Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
Baocx), the Senator from Kentucky
(Mr. COOK), the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. GOLDWATER), the Senator from
South Carolina (Mr. THusmoND), and
the Senator from Ohio (Mr. TAFT) are
necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. COOK) would vote
"nay."
On this vote, the Senator from Ohio
(Mr. TAFT) is paired with the Senator
from South Carolina