EMERGENCY SECURITY ASSISTANCE ACT OF 1973

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000400010050-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 37
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 2, 2005
• Sequence Number: 50
• Publication Date: December 11, 1973
• Content Type: OPEN

?cember 11, 1973
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : COolf1614403r700040001.0050-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE 11? 11 11075
ugee assistance in the United States.
:le IV provides for emergency security
-istance for Israel in the amount of
200,000,000.
this is the appropriation bill for the
thorization funded in the same amount
Israel which was presented in the
avious bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very meritorious
propriation bill which is very much
Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of House
solution 739 in order that we may dis-
ss and debate HR. 11771.
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Speaker, will the gen-
man yield?
Mr. PEPPER. I am glad to yield to the
atleman.
'fr. WYLIE. I thank the gentleman
yielding.
Dn line 4 of House Resolution 739 it
-s "and for other purposes, all points
order against said bill are hereby
aved." Do I understand the gentle-
.11 to say the authorization bill has not
m passed and that the reason for this
-use in House Resolution 739 waives
E. rule which prohibits an appropria-
:a before the passage of authorizing
islation?
Jr. PEPPER. The reasons why the
annittee on Rules waived points of
:er against H.R. /1771 are because:
_st, it contains legislation on an appro-
ation bill; second, reappropriations of
tam n funds; and third, because S. 1443,
Leh is the foreign assistance author-
Lion conference report, has not yet
-n signed into law.
Ar. WYLIE. I would just make the
ervation, why do we bother to adopt
as of procedure for the House if we
atin.ue to pass resolutions which waive
rules?
Ar. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield
self as much time as I may consume.
Mr. QUILLEN asked and was given
mission to revise and extend his
-larks.)
Ar. QUILLEN. Mr. Speaker, House
solution 739 is the rule which provides
the consideration of H.R. 11771, the
-eign Assistance Appropriations bill.
is rule waives all points of order be-
se there are several items in the bill
ich had not been authorized at the
_e the Rules Committee held its
:he Foreign Aid Authorization Con-
mce report has not yet been signed
3 law. It provides the necessary au-
sization for most of the items con-
:red in titles I and II and also for the
an Development Bank contained in
? III of the appropriations bill.
=he authorizing legislation for the
ated Nations Environment Fund, also
_tained in title I of the bill, has been
ced to in conference and the confer-
e report has been agreed to by both
ases. The other major authorizing
_slation outstanding at this time is for
ergency Security Assistance for Israel
II. Disaster Relief Assistance which are
_tained in title IV of the bill.
-Ir. Speaker, I have no objection to the
? in order that the House may begin
ate on this legislation.
tr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, I move the
vious question on the resolution.
-he previous question was ordered.
The resolution was agreed to.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
EMERGENCY SECURITY A SI
ANCE ACT OF 1973
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the consideration
of the bill (HR. 11088) to provide emer-
gency security assistance authorizations
for Israel and Cambodia.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the consid-
eration of the bill H.R. 11088 with Mr.
MURPHY of New York in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOR-
GAN) will be recognized for 30 minutes,
and the gentleman from California, (Mr.
MAILLIARD) will be recognized for 30 min-
utes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. MORGAN) .
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. MORGAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, the
House has before it today a major bill
which I believe to be in the highest na-
tional interest.
The purpose of H.R. 11088, the Emer-
gency Security Assistance Act of 1973, is
to help maintain a military balance
necessary for the achievement of peace
in the Middle East.
The bill would do this through author-
izing $2,200 million in emergency secu-
rity assistance appropriations to Israel
in fiscal 1974.
As Members know, an appropriations
bill containing this amount will be com-
ing up shortly and tbere will be more
debate on this same subject. So I will
keep my remarks short.
PRESIDENTIAL REQUEST
First, I will recall for you the Presi-
dent's request for this emergency meas-
ure in a message to the Congress dated
October 19, during the Middle East crisis.
The President asked for $2,200 million
in emergency security assistance for
Israel and $200 million for Cambodia in
fiscal 1974.
The President said:
This request is necessary to permit the
United States to follow a responsible course
of action in two areas where stability is vital
if we are to build a global structure of peace.
COMMITTEE ACTION
The Committee on Foreign Affairs, to
whom the legislation requested by the
President was referred, received brief-
ings on the Middle East situation from
the Secretary of State, the Honorable
Henry A. Kissinger, on October 29 and
again on November 28.
The committee received testimony in
open session on November 30 from the
Honorable Kenneth Rush, Deputy Secre-
tary of State; the Honorable William P.
Clements, Jr., Deputy Secretary of De-
fense; and Adm. Thomas M. Moorer,
Qhairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The committee heard further testi-
mony and received classified material in
executive session on December 3.
The committee then marked up the
bill in open session and ordered it fav-
orably reported, with amendments, on
December 4.
The committee vote for the bill was 33
to 1.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS
The committee approved three amend"-
ments.
First, the committee deleted the pro-
posed $200 million for Cambodia.
This action was taken in view of the
conference report on S. 1443, the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1973, which the House
and Senate passed last week. S. 1443
provided authority under which the
President could draw down up to $200
million from U.S. defense stocks for
emergency military assistance for Cam-
bodia in fiscal 1974.
Because of this, it was unnecessary to
include the amount for Cambodia in the
bill before us today.
The committee also required that of
the $2,200,000,000 authorized for Israel,
any amounts above $1,500,000,000 can be
obligated by the President only after he
makes a determination that this is in
the national interest.
The President must report any such
determination to Congress at least 20
days before he commits the money, with
a justification for what he is doing.
The second committee amendment
directs the Secretary of Defense to con-
duct a study relating to the effectiveness
of the military assistance program as it
relates to the Middle East conflict.
Congress appropriates a lot of money
for foreign military assistance programs
around the world every year. This bill
serves the same purpose, except that it
is just for Israel.
So we ought to know what we get for
our money?and this is a good chance to
see what our foreign assistance weapons
do compared with the weapons the So-
viet Union is providing to the Arabs.
The third and final committee amend.-
ment authorizes the President to pay
for the United States share of the costs
of the United Nations Emergency Force
in the Middle East.
The executive branch had requested a
separate authorization for this, but the
committee included it in this bill since
the Middle gast Peace Force is part of
the overall Middle East peace effort sup-
ported by this bill.
This bill seeks to promote conditions
for a peaceful settlement in the Middle
East and to protect Israel's security. The
U.N. Emergency Force also helps toward
these objectives.
The U.S. payment for the United Na-
tions Emergency Force would come out
of the $2,200 million. The U.S. share is
estimated to be $17.3 million over the
first year?about 29 percent of the total
peace force cost.
NECESSITY FOR THIS BILL
Mr. Chairman, I believe Members can
easily understand why we must help
Israel at this critical time when peace
hangs in the balance in the Middle East.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : QIA-RDP75B00380R000400010050-6
H 11076
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 !bCIA-RDP751300380R000400010050-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE December 11, 1973
Serious discussions are underway
which could lead to a durable settlement.
But to negotiate a peace, Israel must
have security. And the Arab States and
the Soviet Union must be served notice
that the United States will support
Israel's defense, so they will not try more
war instead of negotiation.
To maintain the military balance and
her security, Israel needs our help.
The Soviet Union has been delivering
massive amounts of modern weapons to
the Arabs. Obviously the question of
payments has not stopped the Soviet
flow.
Israel can get equal weapons only
from us. And so far, she has paid in cash
or credit for all her American arms.
But Israel has suffered large war
losses. Her. economy has been dealt a
heavy blow.
Israel already has bought nearly $1 bil-
lion worth of military equipment from
us since October 6, the outbreak of the
war.
These American shipments of replace-
ment arms have restored Israel's rela-
tive military strength to about the same
as it was October 6, the committee has
been told. But Soviet deliveries to the
Arabs are continuing.
The Defense Department estimates
that Israel may need further arms total-
ing somewhat more than $1 billion, in
addition to those we have -already sent,
This is more than Israel can afford.
What H.R. 11088 would do?in effect?
would be to authorize payment for the
$1 billion worth already sent and for
those additional shipments which prove
to be absolutely necessary for Israel's se-
curity.
The committee approved the Presi-
dent's request for flexibility in deciding
.how much of the $2 billion should be
in grants and how much in sales credits.
He needs this leeway in the changing
Middle East situation. There is precedent
for such authority for the President in
past aid programs.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the For-
eign Affairs Committee believes there
would be great reward to the United
States, to the nations of the Middle East,
and to the world, if permanent peace
comes to this area.
For more than a quarter of a century,
the Middle East has been a, potential
source for world conflict.
We do not want to have Soviet domi-
nance-over this strategic area.
We have an abiding special friendship
for Israel.
It is in our interest to assure Israel's
security?and thus to help bring about
conditions for an enduring Middle East
settlement.
To this end, I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. MORGAN) , the chair-
man of the committee has explained the
bill and what we did to amend it in the
committee and there is certainly no point
in my being repetitious.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly support pas-
sage of the Emergency Security Assist-
ance Act of 1973.
This legislation is needed, not only
to provide urgently needed support for
Israel, but to promote conditions for
negotiations leading to a durable peace
in the Middle East. In my opinion, a
military balance between Israel and her
adversaries is a prerequisite to success-
ful peace negotiations.
The amount requested by the President
and recommended by the committee is
$2.2 billion. However, the arms requests
by Israel are being carefully reviewed,
and the committee has placed restric-
tions on the use of assistance in excess
of $1.5 billion. Sums in excess of that
amount may be used only if the President
determines it to be important to our na-
tional interest and reports to Congress
each such determination. While we hope
the full amount will not be used, the
committee believes it should be author-
ized in case it is needed.
Recognizing the importance of main-
taining the cease-fire, this legislation as
amended in committee would authorize
the use of funds to pay the U.S. share
of expenses of the United Nations Emer-
gency Force in the Middle East. The U.N.
Emergency Force is essential if we are
to prevent the renewal of hostilities, so
that the adversaries can move ahead
with peace negotiations.
I might add that the United States has
a rather large stake in the success of
the negotiations.
I urge approval of this legislation.
(Mr. MAILLIARD asked and was
given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
5 minutes to the gentleman from Wis-
consin (Mr. ZABLOCKI).
(Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in support of this legislation. However,
I do so with certain qualifying reserva-
tions.
The bill H.R. 11088 authorizes $2.2
billion. Of this amount, $1 billion of this
measure providing for the defense of
Israel is justified to the extent that it
will replace lost equipment and maintain
the military power balance in the area.
I hasten to add, however, that it is with
Intention that the balance of power thus
provided will hopefully make possible
negotiations for peace?not further
hostilities.
As for the remaining $1.2 billion this
legislation makes available on the con-
ditional basis of possible future need, I
do not find any similar justification. I
believe it is in our country's national in-
terest to support and assist in the defense
of our allies. At no point, however, was
It demonstrated in the hearings that
there exists any long-range requirement
to use more than. $1.5 billion of these
funds for additional arms. My sincere
hope, therefore, is that the entire $2.2
billion will not be needed.
As author of the amendment in the
Foreign Affairs Committee to establish
a limitation of $1.5 billion and give to
the President limited discretionary power
over any additional expenditure, my pur-
pose was to give the President a neces-
sary diplomatic flexibility in this deli-
cate situation.
Nevertheless, inherent in the extension
of that discretionary authority to the
President were certain specific implica-
tions and guidelines.
First, that he would exercise it with
extreme discretion as a means of main-
taining stability in the area?not in any
way which would result in renewed
hostilities.
Second, from a diplomatic standpoint,
that this "blank check" discretionary
authority would not be exercised or in-
terpreted as an advance commitment
from the United States for any future
hostilities in the area?started acci-
dentally or otherwise.
These two guidelines regarding the
$1.2 billion discretionary authority to the
President are absolutely crucial. Over-
riding these, however, is another even
more important consideration which
motivated my authorship of this amend-
ment.
I refer to the urgent social and eco-
nomic needs of the entire Mideast area.
These tragic conditions of poverty and
ignorance have been too long over-
shadowed by repeated hostilities. Indeed,
economic and social conditions have
worsened as already scarce resources are
spent on armaments.
It is for this reason that this amend-
ment was associated to a recommenda-
tion for the formation of a Mideast Re-
gional Development Bank. Briefly, the
purpose is that at an appropriate time
the executive branch will consider re-
questing Congress for authorization of a
portion of the unused $1.2 billion to
stimulate the creation of such a bank.
This view is expressed on p. 7 in the
report accompanying H.R. 11088.
Mr. Chairman, I was greatly en-
couraged by Secretary of State Kis-
singer's positive reaction to the proposal
when he appeared before the Foreign Af-
fairs Committee on November 28.
The short and long-range benefits of
such a bank seem obvious: governments
would be energized; resources would be
better utilized; and constructive human
contacts would be made.
In would, in short, represent a positive,
reasonable, and promising approach to
promoting the social and economic de-
velopment of the entire area, thereby
creating a climate for true 'and lasting
peace.
Mr. MAZZOLI. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Kentucky.
Mr. MAZZOLI. The gentleman in the
well is the chief sponsor and the prime
mover of one of the great pieces of legis-
lation this House has passed and that is
the war powers bill. The gentleman initi-
ated ft and is probably more familiar
with the philosophy of the War Powers
Act than any man in this Congress.
I would ask the gentleman two ques-
tions. First, does it concern the gentle-
man that in this case we are asked to
pick up the pieces, hi effect, to ratify
action already taken by the Chief
Executive?
Second, I would ask the gentleman,
Is there any possibility that the Presi-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000400010a50
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE H 11-077
ant could commit troops to the Middle
ast with or without the sanction of the
ar powers bill?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
eman has expired.
(At the request of Mr. MORGAN and
y unanimous consent, Mr. ZAK.00KI was
Lowed to proceed for 1 additional mi-
te.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. At the outset I want
thank the gentleman for his counsel
si and support of the War Powers Act
aid for his kind remarks. Those are very
erious questions. I would say to the first
-uestion that I believe that the author- -
ffotion in the bill before us indeed is
eeking to legitimize the Unilateral action
lie President took to resupply military.
-iaterials to Israel. However, it does not
_egate the war powers bill passed earlier.
.iter all, ' we have stated in the war
owers bill that whenever it is in our
_ational security interest, the President
-ould, indeed, react. In no way was he
anastrung in U.S. diplomatic actions,
-ven using our military forces short of
ommitting our Armed Forces to combat
n. order to promote diplomatic efforts.
Further, in no way does the war powers
mill authorize-the President to involve our
roops in any part of the world, in-
:ludirig the Middle East,
Mr. MAZZOLL If the gentleman will
wield further, does he believe that on
)ctober 6 that the situation in the Mid-
-ast was the kind of emergency that
would have triggered the President's
mbility to deploy American troops under
;he war powers bill?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. He did not on October
3 deploy troops.
Mr. MAZZOLL No. I say, does the gen-
:lemon believe that situation was one
that could have provided the President
:he right to deploy American troops?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. No. It would not.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentle-
man from Colorado.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Does the
gentleman find any inconstitency with
what he said to what we find under chap-
ter 2 of the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961, under which we are granting this
aid?
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has again expired.
(At the request of Mr. MORGAN and
l)y unanimous consent, Mr. aunocai was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional
minute.)
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the gentleman.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Section
503(d) provides:
(d) assigning or detailing members of the
Armed Forces of the United States and other
personnel of the Department of Defense to
perform duties of a noncombatant nature, in-
.cluding those related to training or advice.
In this case, to send them to Israel on
a noncombatant status. So the President
under this situation will be given author-
ity to send troops to the area, is that
true?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The war powers bill
provides that the President may not send
troops to an area of combat or to areas
where hostilities appear to be imminent.
Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1973
what the gentleman says is true. Under
the general authority provision of chap-
ter 2?military assistance?the President
may ,send training forces and noncom-
batant forces to any friendly country
when the President determines such as-
sistance will strengthen the security of
the United States and promote world
peace.
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. The bill
provides for sending the Armed Forces
of the United States to perform duties of
a noncombatant nature, including those
related to training or advice. Obviously
a man is not a combatant until he gets
into a combat situation. I am afraid that
our noncombatants may become com-
batants in the future. We have not
learned anything from our mistakes in
Vietnam and we are repeating them here.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Indeed, the gentle-
man must know that in the recent con-
flict when the United States had shipped
replacements for military equipment and
materiel to Israel, U.S. noncambatant
forces were needed and involved in Israel
for logistic purposes. .
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. GILMAN).
(Mr. GILMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, in con-
sidering this measure before us today,
the Emergency Security Assistance Act
of 1973, there are several thoughts that
we should bear in mind. In our quest
for peace in the Middle East, it is es-
sential that we assure Israel's ability to
bargain for peace from a posture of
strength, just as we have always main-
tained a strong defensive posture for
. our own Nation in order to guarantee
world peace. Anything less than a totally
secure military force will severely re-
strict and hamper Israel's negotiating
power in the forthcoming Geneva peace
talks.
Mr. Chairman, I call to the attention
of my colleagues that Israel's initial re-
quest for military equipment was some
$3.2 billion, and of that total our Na-
tion's military experts have already
pared down some $1 billion of that re-
quest. Our Nation has already supplied
approximately $1 billion of equipment
during the October 1973 hostilities. Our
Nation's aid in providing military equip-
ment was an important factor in Israel's
ability to resist aggression from all Sides.
Accordingly, in considering this meas-
ure today, let us bear in mind that the
proposed assistance has already been
whittled down by $1 billion, that $1 bil-
lion has already been supplied and that
in providing the $1.2 billion that is now
being sought, we are helping Israel meet
its essential military needs so that it can
maintain a stable defense and so that
it can negotiate in a spirit of independ-
ence.?
It has been estimated that close to $9
billion of military equipment was poured
into the Arab States by the Soviet Union
before and during the October 1973
Middle East conflict. Those estimates
serve to further emphasize the need for
additional U.S. assistance, if any sem-
blance of balance is to be maintained in
the Middle East.
Of further significance, as we consider
this authorization, is the fact that this is
the first time that Israel has sought out-
right grant assistance for military equip-
ment purchases from our Nation. Over
the past 25 years, that proud nation has
purchased military equipment through
our military sales program. However, the
exorbitant costs of this recent conflict,
which cost was equal to Israel's entire
annual gross national product, neces-
sitates its seeking grant assistance at this
time.
Since Israel's birth as a nation, over 25
years ago, the United States has re-
mained a firm supporter of this indepen- ?
dent democratic state. These are difficult
times for our ally in the Middle East,
This measure is critical to Israel's very
existence.
Mr. Chairman, I am proud of our Na-
tion's staunch support of this small bas-
tion of freedom. Despite the attempts of
some nations to use oil as a political
weapon in influencing our foreign policy
and in the interest of securing peace in
the Middle East and in the interests of
Israel's very survival, I urge my col-
leagues to support this Emergency Secu-
rity Assistance Act, H.R. 11088.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Illinois (MT. FINDLEY).
(Mr. FINDLEY asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, to the
best of my knowledge the Congress has
not enacted a bill of any sort since 1958
which could reasonably, be interpreted as
setting congressional policy towards the
Middle East. The 1958 Middle East reso-
lution is still on the statute books, but
the administration has stated publicly
that it no longer considers this resolution
operative.
The 1958 act was a balanced resolu-
tion. To the best of my knowledge, it did
not mention any State in the Middle East
but, instead, set forth a declaration to
support the territorial integrity and the
independence of any State in the Middle
East that may be threatened.
This bill will be viewed as a major
policy statement by the Congress on the
Middle East.
Now, what does it say? I would like to
ask any Member in the Chamber now to
define what an outsider might draw from
the language of this bill as representing
congressional policy toward the Middle
East.
It mentions only one State. It deals
only with military solutions to the prob-
lem. There is no reference whatever to
some very laudable and, I believe, rea-
sonably balanced and structured dec-
larations by the United Nations, dec-
larations to which our Government has
lent support.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I am glad to yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
H 11078
Approved For Release 2005/06/09': CIA-RDP75600380R0100400010050-6
CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD HOUSE Decemoer 1973
man, the gentleman has suggested that
there is no broad policy statement in this
bill with respect to our position in the
Middle East.
I would think it self-evident that our
policy position is that we want to see
peace in the Middle East, that we do not
consider we have enemies there, and
that we feel strongly that the best way
to bring peace is to see that the State of
Israel has enaugh strength to engage in
negotiations with a reasonable degree of
confidence, as the gentleman from New
York has suggested.
I assume the gentleman is leading up
to an argument that at this stage we
should be attempting to establish policy
by incorporating into the bill a reference
to U.N. Security Council Resolution 242.
That language was offered in commit-
tee. I think that amendment would be
a senseless exercise, if I may differ with
the gentleman. k
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me
ask the gentleman a question.
Does the gentleman support the term
of U.N. Resolution 242, a resolution
which was advanced first under Presi-
dent Johnson and more recently sup-
ported by the Nixon administration?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Is the gentle-
man asking me for my opinion?
Mr. FINDLEY. Yes, I am.
Mr. FRELINGYIUYSEN. Of course, I
do, and I would assume this country
continues to support that position.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, let me
make a statement in reference to that.
The administration has clearly stated
its support for Resolution 242. But the
point I was trying to make is that the
Congress until this day has not only
restrained itself from any declaration
of support for Resolution 242, but is now
considering a totally one-sided piece of
legislation, one that could be misinter-
preted by other nations.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Alabama (Mr. BUCHANAN).
(Mr. BUCHANAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise
only to point up the fact that in addition
to the assistance for Israel that is in-
volved in this legislation, there are also
provisions to handle the funding for the
emergency force formed by the United
Nations to help establish and maintain
the peace in the Middle East.
It was my privilege to handle this mat-
ter in the United Nations as a part of our
delegation there on the Committee on
Administration and Budget. We were
able to obtain a broad-based agreement
to which many countries became parties,
in which the Soviets will participate for
the first time in the funding, and in
which Arabs, Israelis, East and West,
are all participating and paying for this
force. All permanent Security Council
members will be asked to pay for this
purpose at a rate 15 percent above their
regular assessment rate for next year.
Our share is only $16.8 million.
Hence, Mr. Chairman, this is a mat-
ter of a few million dollars. I think it is
a great bargain when we consider the bil-
lions of dollars we would have had to
?
spend had the war continued. I am glad
that the committee saw fit to report this
item and urge its approval by the House.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN) .
(Mr. FRELINGHTJYSEN asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in strong support of this legis-
lation.
I would like simply to say that I think
the legislative history should indicate
that there is no justification for consid-
ering this legislation as one sided.
The fact that it gives aid to Israel,
that it authorizes aid to Israel, should
not be interpreted as a slap at the Arab
States. It is purely a continuation of a
consistent policy of trying to maintain
a reasonable military balance in order to
prevent a conflagration.
The fact that there have been several
outbreaks of hostilities already shows we
have no alternative, in my opinion, but
to keep a reasonable degree of strength
in the hands of Israel so that she can
negotiate. It is not an indication that we
do not think there should be meaningful
negotiations. Of course, we feel there
should be negotiations soon. Passage of
this bill does not mean that there should
not be substantial concessions by both
sides. Of course, there must be territorial
concessions by Israel with respect to the
occupied lands which she has held since
1967.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this
country has made very plain what we
feel should be done. We have supported
this position in the United Nations, and
I assume we should not read into passage
of this bill, and giving military assist-
ance, that in some way we are repudi-
ating the position of our own country.
I am sorry that time has not per-
mitted a better exposition of the position
in the United States, but this bill does
not attempt to enunciate an up-to-date
policy position with respect to the whole
Middle East. Nor 510 I think it fair to
suggest that in some way it commits us
on a different basis to the defense of
Israel, or that we are not recognizing
the interests of the Arab countries. Of
course, we are sympathetic to them and,
of course, we want to see a just settle-
ment. There will not be a lasting settle-
ment unless it is just, and in order for it
to be just it must be just in the eyes of
the participating countries.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
? yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. DENNIS).
(Mr. DENNIS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, this is
not only a very important measure, but
it is one which is, of course, exceedingly
close to the hearts of many people, hi-
eluding many of my colleagues. I- fully
recognize that fact.
I think for that reason, perhaps, it is
all the more incumbent on those of us
who have some reservations to mention
them now before it is, perhaps, too late
to do so. I say that very seriously, be-
cause, of course, what we are doing here,
whatever our motives, whether we think
it should be done or not, is really com-
mitting an act of war. I say that because
we are financing one of two belligerents
and giving them the money to buy the
guns and bullets to shoot the other. That
is a very risky proposition.
A lot of my friends have told me that
we have another Vietnam here, but we
are not really talking about another
Vietnam. This is a war which could be
World War III. So I think it is a very
serious thing that we approach. How do
you justify this measure, if you do?
I say the amendment which Mr. FIND-
LEY, as I understand it, is going to offer,
which says that we do this not only to
maintain a military balance but also in
support of resolution 242 of the United
Nations which looks, in the .end, to an
evenhanded decision and a retreat to
recognized and respected boundaries, is
essential. It- is the only thing, in my
judgment, which could possibly justify
our support of this measure.
You cannot support it on a financial
basis, God knows. We cannot afford vot-
ing for it on any financial basis; not an-
other $2,200 million outside the budget.
It does not help our military situation,
because we are using up our own equip-
ment. We do not have any treaty ob-
ligation. If we are going to take sides
in this situation, it seems to me the
very least we can do is to say, at the
same time, that we recognize that there
are a lot of rights and wrongs on both
sides in this situation; that territory is
being held which obviously sometime?at
least some of it?has to be released; that
there are people who have been homeless
for a quarter of a century. Some of these
things have to be adjusted and in main-
taining a military balance in the Near
East in the cause of peace, which is the
justification for this bill, we are surely
doing so not only to :effectuate a military
solution, which in the end can be no
solution at all, but, in the long run, to
effectuate a solution which will be per-
manent because it is based on justice.
I do not think I can support this bill,
but if I could do so it would have to be
only with the Findley amendment, as a,
matter of simple conscience.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from Florida (Mr. LEHMAN).
(Mr. LEHMAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of emergency security assist-
ance for the State of Israel. This legisla-
tion carries out the clear intent of the
recent House and Senate resolutions in
support of Israel which have been co-
sponsored by 339 Congressmen and Sen-
ators from 48 States.
THE MIDEAST WAR AND AMERICAN FOREIGN
POLICY
The recent Mideast war represents our
first confrontation with Russian expan-
sionism since the Cuban missile crisis.
There would have been no war in the
Middle East with the intervention of
Soviet arms. Russia has poured huge
quantities of weapons into Egypt and
Syria. Within the last year alone, it is
estimated that weapons valued at more
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75B00380R00040001005_0_-6
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE 11 11079
than $3 billion have been delivered to
the Arab States.
Russia is using the Middle East as an
arena for testing its most sophisticated
weapons and tactics, not unlike the Nazi's
during the Spanish Civil War. Captured
documents prove the Russians planned
In detail the Arab attack.
The Soviet Union blocked a cease-fire
when the Arab armies appeared to be
winning. Then they negotiated with the
United States for the imposition of a
cease-fire On the Israelis when the tide
of battle had turned in their favor.
Suppose the Soviet-backed Arabs had
won? Russia would gain clear dominance
over the Eastern Mediterranean and -
over the major source of oil for Western
Europe and Japan. They would also open
the Suez Canal and gain easy access to
the Indian Ocean for the Soviet Navy.
Israel's defeat would have meant the
subjugation of an independent state due
to the application of Soviet power. The
Impact of such escalating Soviet power
Would be devastating to the free world.
Security is based not only on the might
of the opposing forces but on the percep-
tion each nation has of the might of its
adversaries and its friends.
We have an understanding of sorts
now with the Russians based on our mu-
tual perception of each other's strength.
When the Russians feel that we are no
longer equal in strength, the understand-
ing between us may well disappear.
This emergency security legislation is
a part of America's own defense to meet
the thrusts and moves of the Soviets.
Peaceful coexistence can be based only
on Russian realization of America's will
to defend its world interests.
ISRAEL PATS BACK THE UNITED STATES
As we consider this legislation to pro
vide military assistance to Israel, we
should stop for a moment and consider
the valuable military assistance which
Israel has provided to the United States.
It is no secret that Israel has provided
the United States with the latest Soviet
military equipment captured from the
Arabs.
Even before this latest fighting, the
Israelis provided our Nation with valu-
able information about Soviet military
technology. Only a few years ago, the
Israelis captured an entire radar station
which provided us with important infor-
mation on how to locate, counteract and
destroy Soviet radar and to protect our
aircraft.
From this new Mideast war, the
Israelis have provided the United States
with a number of new Soviet weapons.
The value to our own military defense of
having these weapons in hand is -incal-
culable.
Let us take the capture and transfer
to the United States of the Soviet SAM-
6 surface-to-air missile as an example:
During the months of July and Au-
gust of 1968, when the United States was
involved in some of its heaviest bomb-
ing over North Vietnam, the United
States lost 30 planes in 27,000 sorties or
a rate of 20 planes per 18,000 sorties.
This figure is comparable to the loss
rate of Israel during the six-day War
of 1967. In both situations, ground fire
and SAM-2's and 3's were the most so-
phisticated weapons faced.
With the introduction of the SAM-6
In the latest Mideast War, Israel's 'losses
went up to 120 aircraft in 18,000 sorties.
Eighty of those losses were directly at-
tributable to the SAM-6, while many of
the others were brought down during
evasive action taken because of the
SAM-6.
If the United States had faced the
SAM-6 over North Vietnam, at the same
ratio we would have lost at least four
times as many aircraft. At least four
times as many American pilots would
have been killed and captured. In addi-
tion, many more American planes would
have been made vulnerable to ground
fire.
Considering the effectiveness of the
SAM-6 against American-made aircraft
In the Middle East war, it is clearly nec-
essary for our Defense Department to
develop countermeasures against the
SAM-6.
The standard method is to create a
prototype of the SAM-6 and then to ex-
periment with possible countermeasures
against it. The cost of creating a proto-
type of the SAM-6 has been estimated
by one well-informed source to be $150
million and at best its capabilities would
only be an approximation of those of
an actual SAM-6.
..T.Israeli capture of the SAM-6 will
provehereidire7Wh-e-a enormous vela
to America's defense posture, both in the
development of a SAM-6 prototype and
more importantly in the prevention of
fatureAmsi_ ,?4.a_ne losses.
Another selphistleaFed-Russian anti-
aircraft weation cap-ft-ired by the Israelis
'is the SAM-7. The capture of the SAM-7
has Or e iine, r a
'makeup of the special radar filter which
controls this weapon.
Also amon the weapons captured by
the Israelis were cer
men iay an impor-
tant rele in Soviet an 'aircraft strategy.
Now, because of Israeli assistance and
cooperation, the United States can learn
t75-rake tnose steps necessary to success-
fury- counter theEflWallIirriesTol?grof
UWE deadly weanona?weanons_vinigh
we-Fe-de-Signed to shoot down American
In addition to antiaircraft weaponry,
itedSta.- if ?? ? is 5-
sion the Russian T-62 tank. The T-62 is
Rtmgin-Inost- sopmsticate d-14111- it
operatestn a new 115 mrli "SrucRitir
bore gun.
The Russians certainly know the value
of U.S. possession of these Soviet weap-
ons. They know that over the years Israel
has destroyed or captured many billions
of dollars in war equipment which could
someday have been used against the
United States. Perhaps the Russians will
Someday decide that the military cost of
their support for the Arabs is too high.
The first echelon of the Russian mili-
tary machine is in Egypt. The first
echelon of defense against Russian ag-
gression is Israel. Because of the superior
quality of Israel's military manpower,
they have traditionally needed to match
the Soviet-made Arab ground equipment
only on a one to three basis?one Ameri-
can-made Israeli tank is a match for
three Russian-made Arab tanks. And one
Israeli Phantom jet is equal to five
Egyptian or Syrian Migs. When it comes
to countering the power of Soviet
weaponry, this is the best such bargain
the free world will ever have.
Israel pays the United States back
for its military assistance in many con-
crete ways. One of the most important
ways is the direct military assistance
Israel give to the United States by both
destroying and capturing Soviet military
equipment.
NATIONAL PRIORITIES AND AID TO ISRAEL
I have spoken before about the need
to reorder our national priorities, to re-
duce military spending and to improve
the quality of life in America. My belief
in the necessity of a reordering of prior-
ities stems from a review of every facit
of Federal spending.
I have weighed the level and type of
military spending against the social
needs of this country and I continue to
find that imbalances remain.
In the past I have specified three areas
of defense spendihg where our level of
expenditures can no longer be justified
In the face of our national needs: First,
the stationing of large numbers of Ameri-
can troops abroad; second, the proposed
acquisition of certain major new weap-
pns systems which would add little to
our overall defense, and; third, the size
of the civilian bureaucracy supporting
the military. I continue to believe that
reductions can and must be made in each
of these areas to bring about a more
equitable allocations of our Nation's re-
sources to meet our country's total needs
and requirements.
My belief in reducing military spend-
ing in these three specific areas can in
no way be taken as a blanket attack on
our military and on the need for a strong
national defense.
Our first priority is and should always
be the interestand welfare of the United
States. It just happens that, to use the
worn out phrase, "at this point in time,"
It is vital to our national defense to
block with aid to Israel the attempts by
the Soviet Union to achieve total domi-
nation over the oil-rich and strategically
located Middle East.
IN coNcrArsiox
Much of Israel's military losses were
Incurred when Israel held its forces back
from launching a preemptive first strike
in order to maintain American support
and good will.
Recent reports now indicate that the
Soviet Union has completely replaced
Arab equipment losses and that Israel is
again facing a fully-equipped Arab force.
Pressures are mounting onitIsrael to
pull back from captured territories with-
out any firm evidence that the Arabs are
yet willing to recognize Israel's right to
exist. Without such evidence, Israel must
have boundaries which help to protect
it from future attack.
Only when the Arabs publicly agree to
recognize the right of Israel to exist and
to renounce future War, will Israel be
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
},{ 11080 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE necember 11, 1973
able to withdraw in safety from terri-
tories occupied in recent fighting.
enstly, let us recognize that our in-
vement in support of Israel is funda-
mentally different from our involvement
in Vietnam. Vietnam will survive regard-
less of the outcome of the fighting in
:Southeast Asia. If Israel loses a war, it
would be the end of the Israeli nation.
Me. Chairman, for the many reasons I
h ave mentioned here today, it is vital
Wei we approve this measure to provide
emergency security -assistance to the
FAate of Israel. In light of our respon-
sibility to ourselves, our Nation and all
free men throughout the world, we can
do no less.
MI. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. HAMIL-
TON
1. Mr. HAMILTON asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman, I rise
in s:upport of H.R. 11088, the supplemen-
tal aid bill for Israel introduced at the
administration's request. I support this
bill because 1 believe it is important at
this Lime for the United States to main-
tain Israel's deterrent strength and to re-
place equipment destroyed and damaged
during the October Middle East war.
Ties United States must tak:e seriously
its support of Israel's integrity at a time
when Israel is suffering from the shocks
O..: the recent war and from the extreme
and increasing isolation it faces in the
w orl d community.
I support this legislation, however,
with several reservations about its pre-
cise purpose, magnitude and the impact
it may be conveying about U.S. policy in
the Middle East. With the strong sup-
port for this bill in the House, I am sure
many of my colleagues will state the co-
gent reasons for passage of the bill. It
may also be appropriate for me to state
several reservations that several of us
feel about it, even as we vote for it.
POOR JUSTIFICATION OF REQUEST
1V; major problem with this bill is the
gap between a $2.2 billion request and
the administration's justification of that
large figure.
Cansider the following facts which the
administration witnesses gave the House
Foreign Affairs Committee in testimony:
Fitst, the military balance which ex-
isted on October 5, before the war, has
airs:so:1y been restored by our resupply
effort, which cost about $1 billion.
:Second, Inc additional $1.2 biLion
above the already committed $1 billion
was lustified on political grounds for
asesonderabl es ."
Tierd, although the tonnage of our re-
supply effort to Israel and the tonnage
of tile afaviet resupply effort in Iraq,
Syria and Egypt are roughly equal, the
heavy equipment losses in the recent
war, that is. planes and tanks, were
four to one in Israel's favor.
coai CICAL INTA KGIELES ,
Tr mg view the administration, for
one reason or another, offered insuffi-
cient evidence to our committee for the
need of 81.2 billion over and above the $1
billion to pay for the war's immediate
effect on Israel's armed strength.
When justification for the additional
$1.2 billion could not be made on mili-
tary grounds alone, testimony was given
that having made a $2.2 billion request,
it would be detrimental politically to the
United States to cut the figure. The ad-
ministration seemed to be saying that a
lesser appropriation, say $1.7 billion, in-
stead of $2.2 billion, would indicate to
Israel a lessening of our commitment to
it or that such an appropriation might
cause havoc if the United States had to
request another special appropriation
during peace talks which will hopefully
start December 18, in Geneva.
I disagree that a reduction in an un-
justified appropriation request will show
wavering support of Israel. Neither do I
think :that just because the administra-
tion requested $2.2 billion for arms for
Israel at the height of the war, when the
duration and intensity of the war could
not be gaged, that the Congress, much
later and with the fighting stopped and
a peace conference beginning, should
feel compelled to support the adminis-
tration's request.
I likewise disagree that another ap-
propriation for military equipment next
year could adversely affect peace nego-
tiations because if there is another spe-
cial aid request, it will be because peace
talks have failed and hostilities have
resumed.
As the Near East and South Asia Sub-
committee has noted before, our aid to
Israel should not be fitful and erratic.
Our aid should not be based on what
Arabs might think of it, but rather on
our assessment of Israel's needs.
The $2.2 billion request is so large, so
poorly justified, so militantly defended
by some that it frankly makes it very
difficult to vote for the rea-aest even if
Members, like myself, want to support
Israel and assure its deterrent strength.
The administration and Israel's strong-
est supporters should try to appreciate
that most Members of Congress are
committed to and want to support the
reasonable defense needs of Israel. but
that performances like those surround-
ing this request may polarize positions
and produce undesirable and unde-
serving opposition.
PERMISSION
A second reservation I have with this
legislation is the pessimism it conveys.
The.$2.2 billion request presumably rep-
resents a paring down of an initial Is-
raeli shopping list of about $3.2 billion.
This list was prepared in mid-October
at the height of the fighting,
imponderables did then exist. How
long would the fighting last? How much
would the Soviet Union continue to re-
supply? How much further could the
Egyptians advance? How extensive are
Israel's losses?
trl this context, a $2.2 billion request
had merit. It told the Soviets that we
mean business if its resupply effort con-
tinues to be large. It told the Arabs we
remain prepared to support Israel with
arms if aggressed against. It told Israel,
at a time of hardship and trial, of our
commitment to its integrity.
But the reauest's pessimism. its mili-
tary emphasis, its size were based on the
assumption that hostilities might con-
tinue, indefinitely, that this was no
6-day war.
Our officials, indeed all Americans, now
seek to view Middle East efforts more
optimistically. The Congress should do
the same. Secretary of State Kissinger
and President Nixon talk of the best
chance for peace in 25 years. Their cau-
tious optimism that peace talks can
start, that parties can disengage, that
the United States and the Soviet Union,
despite many differences, can agree on
the broad outlines of reducing tensions
in the Middle East?these factors are
part of a different political environment
than the $2.2 billion request might sug-
gest.
TOTAL IMPACT OF WHAT CONGRESS IR GOING
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I am quite wor-
ried about the total message Congress
is signaling these days. It is true that,
the United States has probably already
seen the full damage this bill will cause
in our relations with the Arab world:
namely, the Arab oil embargo imposed
only a few days after the $2.2 billion re-
quest was made, and, according to Arab
spokesmen, triggered by it. But this ac-
tion, coupled with other recent actions
Congress is considering these days, raises
questions about whether we are taking
the steps we should to create a climate
conductive to successful peace negotia-
tions.
Nor do these actions show a clear un-
derstanding that we have definite in-
terests on both sides of the Middle East
conflict, that we want to play a use-
ful and important mediating role in
helping get negotiations between the
parties on track and that we want to
work with the Soviet Union in reducing
arms and the levels of tensions through-
out the region.
Only last Tuesday, we approved the
conference report on S. 1443. Foreign
Assistance Act of 1973 which contained
an earmarking of $300 million in for-
eign military credit sales for Israel. and
a $50 million security supporting assist-
ance item, again earmarked for Israel.
This week we will approve a. foreign
assistance appropriation bill of close to
$5.3 billion, over $2.55 billion of which
is for Israel?including the special emer-
gency appropriation bill of $2.2 billion
aid the earmarked foreign assistance
items?and roughly $130 million is for
the Arab world. And this week we will
consider the trade bill, where efforts to
deny l'OEFN status and certain credits to
oiountries ,which prohibit free emigra-
tion have the overwhelming support of
this body. These efforts naturally have
the strong support of all Israelis, and
many others, as well, who want all So-
viet Jews to have the right of free emi-
gration.
T,,,,rn.A/,CE OF PEACE
Mr. Chairman, the United States has
the best opportunity for peace in the
Middle East in many years. The recent
history of the Middle East can be written
in terms of missed opportunities for
peace. We do not want to miss again.
This Congress, I know, does not want to
fake any action which will exacerbate the
situation. I sincerely hope the actions we
are now taking will not send any wrong
signals to any party in the Middle East
or in the Soviet Union.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
.?cember 11,1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
Moving toward peace in the region will
wolve the implementation of U.N. Res-
ition 338, firming up the ceasefires,
-d later of U.N. Resolution 242, which
Ls out the only agreed upon broad out-
es of a peace settlement. While the
wiguage of both resolutions is vague
id ambiguous, their acceptance as doe-
cents by Israel and the Arab States
mains clear and unequivocal. We
_ould support their implementation.
ad an expression of such support now
Duld serve as an important signal to
_e parties that we want peace. I am
Jt convinced that other actions taken
- to be taken by this body give a simi-
-r signal.
We have heard a great deal recently
*out the deplorable Arab oil embargo
the 'United States; certainly, the quick
minval of that boycott should be a prime
Jplomatic objective now. U.S. relations
gainst Arab oil States, through eco-
_omic or military means, will likely not
work because practically no nation will
import us. Our only sure way to restore
-ur access to Persian Gulf oil will be
.c) demonstrate our commitment to peace
-with evidence that we are moving to-
yard a just and lasting settlement of
? problem that has caused 'Intoned hu-
man misery for so long.
Mr. Chairman, helping bring peace to
..he Middle East is the only policy we
2an pursue now that will guarantee both
Israel's integrity, and our access to oil.
The price for not moving forward is an
ugly equation of Israel or oil?a non-
starter of incomparables. H.R. 11088, in
the absence of a strong commitment to
a just and lasting peace, serves only a
small part of our Middle East policy.
a hope we in the Congress realize that
Jact and put this legislation in its im-
portant broader context of what we
should be doing, and I think are trying
to do, in the Middle East.
Mr, MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
1 minute to the gentleman from Massa-
chusetts (Mr. Drumm).
(Mr. DRINAN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DM-NAN. Mr. Chairman, this bill
has two objectives: It will allow Israel
to negotiate from strength and stability
and, second, it will be a signal to Rus-
sia and to the world that the United
States will abide by its commitments to
protect Israel from its enemies.
It is overwhelmingly significant that
In the years 1946 to 1972, according to
the AID, the United States gave $55 bil-
lion for military assistance to all the na-
tions of the earth, and not a single dollar
of that went to Israel.
Because of the disastrous military
losses on two fronts in the 3-week war,
Israel has estimated its needs at some
$3 billion.
Since 1970 the Soviet Union has en-
gaged in the Middle East in one of the
largest military buildups in the entire
history of Russia. This bill is designed to
make Israel militarily invulnerable. This
grant, Mr. Chairman, is intended to
make the Day' of Atonement war in 1973
the war that will end war forever in the
Middle East.
I urge an "aye" vote.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. WHALEN) .
(Mr. WHALEN asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WHALEN. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Chairman, I take this time to pose
a question to the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
MORGAN).
As the gentleman knows, during the
past several months the administration
has impounded approximately $12 to $15
billion in funds which have been au-
thorized and appropriated for various
health, education, manpower training,
housing and environmental programs.
This was done ostensibly to combat in-
flation. Many of the Members of this
body are concerned that if we increase
total authorizations and appropriations
by $2.2 billion there will be further im-
pounding of domestic programs by the
administration to keep total spending
levels the same as before enactment of
those authorizations and appropriations.
I wonder if the distinguished chairman
of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr.
MORGAN) has received any assurances
from the Office of Management and
Budget that passage of this legislation
and the subsequent appropriations bill
will not involve any further impound-
ment of funds for domestic programs?
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. WHALEN I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I re-
member very well that the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. WHALEN) was disturbed
about this during the hearings, and he
asked the Deputy Secretary of State,
Kenneth Rush, the very question, and
Mr. Rush answered the gentleman. But I
requested a further statement from the
?Mae of Management and Budget, and
it appears in the hearings on page 29:
The Office of Management and Budget has
advised us that the entire $2.4 billion re-
quested in this legislation can be fitted into
the President's fiscal year 1974 budget ceil-
ing. OMB estimates that the net cost to the
U.S. Government of this $2.4 billion author-
ization in fiscal year 1974 will he approxi-
mately $600 million.
OMB has advised us that this legisla-
tion will not?I want to emphasize?will
not force the executive branch to reduce
or impound any funds previously re-
quested under other Federal programs.
Mr. WHALEN. I thank the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
yield such time as he may consume to
the gentleman from Colorado (Mr.
JOHNSON).
(Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. JOHNSON of Colorado. Mr.
Chairman, trying to make an objective
appraisal of the Middle East situation
and our policies there is the most frus-
H 11081
trating situation I have encountered
since coming to Washington. Emotions
run so high among Americans that com-
munication on the subject is impossible
for some. If it is that way with us, it is
no wonder the Arabs and the Jews can-
not communicate with one another. Be-
fore commenting on the bill that is pend-
ing, I must state that I recognize the
right of Israel to be an independent na-
tion and that the United States, through
several administrations, commencing
with Harry Truman and coming down
to the present Nixon administration,
have indicated their "commitment" to
the State of Israel. It must also be
pointed out that the extent of the so-
called commitment has never been
spelled out.
I dd not object to the recognition of
the fact that we have unique ties with
Israel. I do object to the inflammatory
rhetoric, the open-ended flexible policy
which leaves to a President, either this
one or one in the future, the sole deter-
mination of whether or not we shall go
to war in Israel. If is my belief that
whatever U.S. policy should be must be
made clear to the world. If troops ever
are to be sent, in my opinion, they must
only be sent pursuant to congressional
approval. And if that is required in ad-
vance, then the treaty making process
should be gone through. We must not
allow ourselves to be brought into a
shooting war through a step-by-step mis-
calculation which we seem so prone to
do.
Now to an analysis of H.R. 11688. There
is so much obfuscation on the part of
the administration with respect to the
situation in the Mideast that one finds
it difficult to even comment. The posi-
tions which the administration takes are
conflicting, inconsistent, and misleading.
It is impossible to tell what our policy
really is, and it is impossitle to predict
what our future course of action will be.
This leaves us in exactly the kind of
position of which I am the most afraid?
that is, with unlimited authority in the
executive branch to involve us, or not, at
its discretion.
Let me give you just a few examples
of the infuriating cloud of nonfacts with
which we are supposed to deal and to
make critical decisions with.
It is clear that the United States de-
livered approximately $1 billion worth of
material from our Defense Department
inventories to Israel since October 6,
1973, the date the war started. This
equipment was delivered under the For-
eign Military Sales Act, which requires
payment within 120 days after delivery.
But it is also clear from the statements of
William B. Clements, Deputy Secretary
of Defense, that it is the judgment of the
Defense Department that they cannot
pay us in 120 days. That is the reason for
the bill, H.R. 11088, which will leave to
the President whether or not the funds
authorized will be used to provide grants
or credits. The weapons have been deliv-
ered, and more shall be delivered, pursu-
ant to an act which requires that they be
sales, but our evaluation of the Israeli
economy is that they cannot afford to
make the payments now. They may never
be able to afford to make the payments,
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
110?-;2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOT ISE December 11, 19',
end therefore, Congress is beirtg asked
61 provide authority to retroactively
-slake the deliveries in the form of grants
necessary.
Now this is done because the Defense
oepartment must be repaid for delivery
ehat it can replenish its inventory,
which has been depleted. But it is going
L o cost more than the $1 billien to re-
plenish the inventory since we are re-
lacing old equipment with new equip-
tent. Mr. Clements refused to give an
exact amotuat. but used the figure of
e250 million between what the equip-
eient cost to T.srael versus what it is
ening to cost us to put it back in our
,_.efense inventory.
Let me eummanne to this point. Israel
,esked for a total of $3 billion. The admin-
ietration comes to the Congress for $2.2
billion--$1 billion of which has already
been delivered, pursuant to an act which
eettuires cash payment within 120 days,
eaten the Defense Department acknowl-
edges is a burden on the Israeli Govern-
, sett which it cannot in all probability
eteet. We do not knew what the ultimate
rest will he, and we do not know what
,he ultimate requirement will. be.
We say we are done this to maintain
ten balance of military power in the area,
but the net assessments of the losses are
tlot finished, and we do not know exactly
bow much we need to send in. We say we
emit to maintain a balance which will
7nevent the Soviet Union :from moving
Ines the area, but by adopting a policy
o unlimited resupply of Israel, are we
driving the Arab States into the 'So-
viet Bloc? As Mr. ZABLOCHT. said at the
litiy concern is that the presentation today
Cues not really give lis the necessary sub-
stantive Information vtlth which we can
igently consider the proposal and report
tint bill to the Floor of the House and defend
Pa request.
Rush said at the hearings that we
en:Isnot allow the Soviet Union to take
ovt:r the Middle East by our refusing to
aeeist Israel to have a balance of military
power with those countries supplied by
'the Soviet Union. But by continuing to
eeeely Israel without limit, we foece the
countries to turn to the Soviet
'Moon and once again, our policy results
eecomplishing exactly the opposite of
what we say we want to do.
airael's per capita debt is probably the
hi7.-ile4 in the world, Their economy is
:te a that, they cannot sustain a pro-
-tree Led war. Are we doing them any
(a),,,frs when we provide them with
erne igh arm; to continue to bold the
ground obtained during the 1967 war,
Wheel was the direct cause of this latest
war? At the time of the hearings, we did
nui, know the capability of the Egyptian
anti Syrian armies after the Russian re-
supply. We specifically did not know
tehteher it was equal to or beyond the
cap:4bilities of October 6, 1973 when the
was somm.enced. But nevertheless, we are
eektel to give the President a blank check
with which to do as he pleases. Why are
we not given the information so that we
can roa,ke the decision?
know that for every ton of material
delivered to Israel, it costs us 3 t tons
of fuel. That means that if we have de-
livered approximately 100,000 tons of
material to Israel, it has cost us 350,000
tons of fuel. How much fuel will be burn-
ed under the authority granted to the
President by this act? We do not know.
Congressman FINDLEY stated at the
hearings,
I would like to know how much energy
approximately was required to manufacture
what was supplied, how lunch will be re-
quired to manufacture and deliver the items
that are contemplated in this authorisation.
This is a $2 billion bill and there surely are
some yardsticks that can be used to deter-
mine what the price tag is so that we will go
Into this with our eyes open and be able to
answer questions on the Floor.
The information was furnished but it
was classified so it is not available to the
public.
The Office of Management and Budget
has repeatedly said this year that any
additional expenditure beyond the Presi-
dent's original budget request in January
would result in busting the budget. In re-
sponse to a question from Congressman
WHALEN, we got this response.
OMB has also advised us that this legisla-
tion will not force the Executive Branch to
reauce or impound any funds previously re-
quested for other Federal programs.
Why not, when every other request IS
regarded ae a budget buster?
In response to a question about the
potential of whether or not our troops,
will be involved, the answer was deferred
to executive session and so there is no
assurance on the record that American
troops will not be involved. We do know
that American troops were placed on the
alert during the latest crisis and this
just 2 or 3 days after assurances that they
would not be sent into the Mideast.
Mr. Chairman, once again I want to
reiterate that the rhetoric being used to
justify this is totally irresponsible and
langerous. Let vs define our commit-
ment to Israel in terms which the whole
world will know and recognize. If it is the
decision of the Congress to send in
troops, let it be known in advance exactly
what the conditions are that will result
in American troops being sent in. If we
are to give unlimited supplies of aid to
Israel to help them in the fight against
our friends, the Arabs, let 11$ let that be
known also. If there to be any strings
attached to the aid we give to Israel, let
that be known.
do not believe any one person has a
solution or an answer to this problem.
Obviously, there are inequities on both
sides. The Palestinians must be pacified,
if possible. Jerusalem must be made 'an
open city so that all can go and worship,
and Israel must be recognized as a nation
which has a right to have secure bound-
aries and which is not facing extermi-
nation. The Arab nations have come a
long way in acknowledging the latter
fact.
Mr. Chairman, we will make a grave
mistake if we continue to alienate the
Arabs and drive them into the Soviet
bloc and continue to provide aid to Israel
under terms which inevitably can lead
us to a commitment of our forces. I am
willing to abide by the collective wisdom
of Congress if a true debate is held after
serious consideration is given by the
Membership of the Congress. Even a ci
sory examination of the hearings e
show that the Foreign Affairs Comm
tee did not give adequate attention to t
legislation. There were limited numb
of witnesses and they all urged the a
ministration positon?the blank chel
options open, flexible negotiation, at
tude which has cost us so dearly in t
recent past in Southeast Asia.
Mr. Chairman, I am begging the Mer
bers of this Congress to act on their Os
rather than follow blindly the path
potential catastrophe.
Mr. IVIAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman,
have no further requests for time. I r
serve the balance of my time.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yie
2 minutes to the gentleman from Ne
York (Mr. STRATTON),
(Mr. STRATTON asked and was givE
permission to revise and extend his n
marks.)
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman. I tali
this time because I had the privilege
couple of weeks ago of being the chaii
man of a 22-member Special Subeom
mittee of the Committee on Armed Seri;
ices that visited both the Israeli and th
Egyptian sides of this war, and is now i
the process of filing a report on our find
ings, both a classified one and a non
classified one.
We came back with the primary im
pression, I think, that there is a real op
portunity for peace in the Middle East
after talking with both Prime Ministe:
Meir and President Sadat. We concurrec
with Secretary of State Kissinger tha"
the opportunities for a genuine settle.
ment in the Middle East are better toda3
than they have been at any time in the
past 20 years.
Some people had raised the question as
to whether this legislation, if they sup-
port it, is going to upset that peace agree-
ment. I do not think it is, for a very plain
and simple reason. First of all, people
have said this bill would be a war-sup-
ply bill. But let me point out, half of the
$2.2 billion has already been supplied to
Israel. This measure is primarily de-
signed just to pay for the weapons that
were furnished to them at a very criti-
cal time in the fighting.
Secondly, as has already been said,
this bill will make peace more possible
simply because it is designed to reestab-
lish a military balance between the com-
peting forces in the Middle East.
The reason we have a d?nte today?
whether the Members like it or not?
with the Soviet Union is that we have
previously reached a military and a nu-
'clear kind of stalemate with them, and
we have to maintain that stalemate if
we are also going to maintain the d?
tente. The same is true in the Middle
East; and we have got to make sure that
the supplies we send match the supplies
that have already gone to the other side.
When we achieve a real balance, those
supplies will not need to be used; they
will instead deter a new conflict, we
hope.
Finally, we have to remember, as has
also been said earlier during this debate,
that to get a peace settlement, there is
going to have to be some territorial ad-
justment on the part of Israel, There are
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
lecember 11, .1973
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE 1111083
>ing to have to be territorial conces-
ons. And surely if as a result of such
settlement some of the "buffer zone" is
)mg to be taken away from Israel, do
pt we have to be even more concerned
Lat she has enough of the weapons
:eded to deter attack Or defend herself
such an attack should come?
I believe this bill will be a positive con-
ibution to a just and lasting peace in
ke Middle East, and I believe it deserves
be adopted on that account.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
eman has expired.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
minutes to the gentleman from New
ark (Mr. WOLFF).
(Mr. WOLFF asked and was given per-
ission to revise and extend his re-
arks.)
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I rise to
iterate my support for the $2.2 billion
emergency assistance to Israel. As a
amber of the Foreign Affairs Commit-
a, I have heard a wealth of testimony,
rticularly from our own State Depart-
ant officials, which confirms my con-
tion that this support for Israel is es-
atial in terms of our own security as a
-tion. Deputy Secretary of State Ken-
th Rush told us that the $2.2 billion is
_deafly needed "to counterbalance the
avy flow of sophisticated Soviet weap-
to the Arab world." Captured docu-
Tnts brought to our attention not only
-ifirm the massive influx of Soviet as-
lance, but indicate that the Soviets
:ually mapped out the Arab offensive,
Dplying the fire plans, the plans for
?ssing the canal and those for deter-
'ling which fields would be mined. It
:known that the Soviets began their
lift to the Arabs the day before the
a- started?further indication of Rus-
's involvement in the Arab offensive.
he Soviet Union has encouraged other
ab nations to support the Egyptian-
:den aggression and has served to ag-
_Nate hostilities in the Middle East
ne the 1950's. It is known that since
-ly 1971, the Soviets have directed the
7ptian and Syrian armies and air
:?-?e, have trained Arab pilots and ?It-
s and have provided the sophisticated
hnology and material necessary to ad-
ice Arab military strategy. It is esti-
led that the Soviet Union has 1,000
itary and other technicians in Egypt
? 2,000 so-called technicians in Syria.
short, quoting from the official
wptian daily, Al-Ahram, "The Soviet
on has proved until the last moment
-t she is a loyal friend?to the Arab
-Id"; the question we must ask our-
-es today is what does this loyalty and
amitment on the part of the Soviet
on mean, not so much in terms of the
irit3r of Israel, for the answer to that
byious, but rather, in terms of our own
Ronal security.
very move made by the Soviet Union
aate in the Middle East corroborates
fence that the Soviets strongly desire
-e a controlling influence in this stra-
cally important area of the world.
sia wants control over the Suez Canal
to allow Soviet naval might to be
wessed in the Indian Ocean. This
id upset the balance in the subcon-
sit and place the Soviets in a posi-
tion to bully the subcontinent nations
Into agreement with Soviet policy. It
would turn the Mediterranean Sea and
the Persian Gulf into Russian lakes
wherein U.S. influence and security
would be seriously undermined. Admiral
Moorer in a meeting with the Foreign
Affairs Committee made this point. In
the early 1950's, the U.N. Security Coun-
cil passed a resolution declaring Israel's
right to free passage in the Suez Canal.
The resolution was ignored by Egypt with
Soviet support Similarly, Egypt ignored
the understanding negotiated by Sec-
retary General Dag Hammarskjold that
Israel would haire free access to the
Straits of Tiran, as a condition upon
Israel's withdrawal from Sharm El-
Sheikh in 1957. In 1967, President Nas-
sar, again with Soviet backing, pro--
claimed a blockade of the straits, one of
the factors which led to the outbreak of
hostilities in 1967. The recently passed
U.N. Resolution 242 again affirms Is-
rael's right to free passage through in-
ternational waterways; and the resolu-
tion has been virtually ignored by the
Soviet-Arab alliance.
Russia also seeks to use the Middle
East as a steppingstone to achieve dom-
ination over Africa with its vast supply
of critically needed natural resources.
Most important, the Soviets would like to
gain further control over Arab oil policy.
If Russia's hand were on the oil spigot,
according to Secretary Sisco, "such con-
trol would serve to restructure the care-
fully established balance of power in
the world" and leave the United States
and its European allies in a measurably
disadvantaged strategic position. Such a
situation could also lead, as a matter of
course, to a breakdown of the Atlantic
Alliance which, for the last three dec-
ades, has been the key to the security of
the free world. We have already begun
to see the beginnings of such a break-
down in the face of the Soviet-influenced
Arab oil boycott.
If the Soviet Union were truly inter-
ested in d?nte with the United States,
they would be exercising their influence
to join, rather than impede, efforts to
calm the situation in the Middle East. In-
stead, they have been fomenting in-
stability and using the Arab States as
a testing ground for their most advanced
military weapons, providing to Egypt and
Syria weaponry not available to their
most trusted satellites of Poland and
Czechoslovakia.
If the Soviets were interested in peace,
they would be seeking to foster negotia-
tions that would lead to a durable peace
in the Middle East. Instead, we note their
callous attitude toward UN resolution
242, the stated goal of which is the es-
tablishment of a just and lasting peace
in which every state in the area can live
in security. The resolution, which Israel
has agreed to, as have all nations in the
UN, calls upon Israel to relinquish cer-
tain territories tut recognizes the im-
portance of "secure and recognized boun-
daries" for Israel's survival. The Soviet
_Union has tried repeatedly to pressure
Israel into relinquishing all territories, a
demand which both the UN Security
Council and the General Assembly have
rejected as asking the impossible.
We might also note the double stand-
ard inherent in the Soviet demands upon
Israel. They call upon Israel to relinquish
all territories because the Soviets sup-
posedly support the principle that the ac-
quisition of territory by war is inadmis-
sible. Yet, the Soviet Union, I must re-
mind, holds a substantial amount of ter-
ritory acquired in recent times by war
from Poland, Finland, Rumania, Japan,
and other states.
In 1967, the UN attempted to avert
a conflict in the Middle East after Nassar,
with Soviet support, moved substantial
Egyptian forces into the Sinai, reoccu-
pied the strategic and previously demili-
tarized Sharm El-Sheikh and blockaded
the Straits of Tiran. The UN attempt
failed because of the Soviet Union, which
seemingly would rather embrace war
than risk losing any of its growing in-
fluence in the Middle East. When war did
break out on June 5, 1967, the Soviet
Union again blocked attempts by the UN
to permit a cease-fire on the first day of
war. Instead, the Soviets tried repeatedly
to get through a resolution proclaiming
Israel as the aggressor in that war. Each
time they failed.
If the Soviets were interested in ex-
panding relations with the United States,
if they were truly committed to the
avowed detente, they would not now be
encouraging the Arab oil producing states
in hostile, improper acts of blackmail
against the United States. If we suc-
comb to Soviet pressure tactics in this
Instance, if we renege ori or weaken our
support for Israel, we ultimately place
our own national security in serious jeop-
ardy. We also leave ourselves vulnerable
to hostile tactics that can be used by any
other nation which has the ability to
withhold from us essential materials, and
the repeated use of illegal pressure tactics
by the Soviet-Arab alliance.
Now that we have ascertained the ex-
tent and intensity of Soviet involvement
in the Middle East, the question may
arise as to whether the full $2.2 billion
is necessary to insure Israel's security
and defense against the powerful Soviet-
Arab bloc, and thus insure our own secu-
rity against further Soviet expansion in
and control over the Middle East. In Sep-
tember 1973, our State Department's
Bureau of Intelligence and Research
brought to our attention the extent, in
dollar figures, of Soviet assistance to the
Arab world. During an 8-year period, be-
tween 1964 and 1972, Egypt and Syria
received in excess of $6 billion from the
Soviet-Communist alliance. From June
1967 to October 5, 1973, the Soviets sup-
plied the Arabs with 3,900 tanks, includ-
ing 1,000 tanks just 1 month prior to
the outbreak of the current conflict. In
the midst of the war, between October 16
and November 8, the Soviets supplied an
additional 1,500 tanks. They have re-
placed all Egyptian and Syrian losses
which includes over 1,000 tanks in this
resupply count. By contrast, the U.S. has
supplied Israel with 200 to 250 tanks. In
addition, the major portion of the $1
billion already sent to Israel was for so-
called "expendable" items?ammunition
that has already been exhausted. In fact,
it has been said that during the heavy
fighting, ammunition received by Israel
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
11084 CONGRESSIONAI RECORD ? HOUSE
lehe morning would be comp etely used
e later that same evening.
The $2.e billion we are considering
to-
' Ls deeaerately needed,- not only for
:eolacing the expendable items like am-
:ennition, but for essential heavy equip-
(Lent like tanks wit ch were extensively
L ed. We nave been told in the past that
ear in the Middle East could change the
eencept u modern day warfare, that
round weaponry like tanks would no
esiger be useful. yet, etrangely enough,
sound weapons, tanks and the like,
:'-oved the deciding factor in the current
eonflict. As an example, back in 1970, the
siviets emplaced the most advanced type
oi missiler y beside Lite Suez Canal--a fact
ehich, by the way. it took oar intelli-
etnce at-Lena tune a very long 10 days to
"scognize, As a result of the emplace-
tent of hese missiles, the Israeli Air
free was neutralized and crossing of the
eanal by the Egyptians was rendered
possible. The Israelis have successfully
employed two methods for knocking out
tease one, by Kamikaze-type
eir :attacks and twa, the method which
eels found to be the most effective against
eround to air missiles, attack by ground
iseapoj is. namely, tanks.
The Slate Department's intelligence
sisport oil the financial resources avail-
hie to tlee Arab world ended on the note:
The fig,Ires in the magnitime ch billions
y.vailable the Arabs indicate how slight
comparison are the minions of dollars ...
; aid in sraelh development.
Along with the administration I again
-.tress the importance of the $2.2 billion
:is security and deiense aga,mst ,die con-
stetted build-up of power by the Soviet
enon in this strategically vital area of
ne world, a build-up which i nave at-
'.erripted to outline above only in its
"mallest dimensioia.
Our policy in Me Middle _East has
wisely recognized the importance of
l:sraces eecurity in relation to our own
ultimate national security. The $2.2
bil-
'iou we s.re considering today is in keep-
ing with that policy of maintaining the
"balance' that has existed in the Middle
Nast_ I erge my co:leagues to support the
mei-ie:.cy Security Assistance Act in the
Interests of the security oi the United
;tate.s.
IVIr. MORGAN. Mr Chairrnan, i yield
,tuch time as he may consume to the gen-
tleman from Pennsylvania tear. Nix) .
lMr. NIX asked and was given permis-
eicn to revise anti extend his remarks.)
Mr.. NIX. Mr, Chairman, e rise in
strong support of" H.R. 11088.
1Mr. NIX further addressed the Com-
mittee. His remarks will appear here-
after in the Extensions oi:Reinairks.]
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
to the :,:entlemar. -from New York (Mr.
Besse? such time as he may consume.
(Mr. BRASCO asked and was given
permiselon to revise anu extend his
remarks.)
Mr. eleAScO. Mr. Chairman, 1 rise m
support of HR. 11088. In recent weeks
a seimei of thought has emerged in the
United States whien seeks to abrogate
or water down America's commitment
to Israel. They would have America act
toward, that little democracy as liranee
and Britain behaved toward Czechoslo-
vakia in the late 1930's. If these elements
in American life succeed, we will be doing
the same kind of harm to ourselves now
as those other two nations did to them-
selves 35 years ago.
Above and beyond moral obligations
and longstanding policies, we have a
strategic requirement demanding Ameri-
can resupply and rearming of Israel as
swiftly and generously as possible.
H.R. 11088 presently before the House
provides emergency security assistance
authorizations for Israel. The amount
sought is $2.2 billion in either emergency
military assistance or foreign military
sales credits. I endorse this measure
Wholeheartedly and urgently, fervently
hoping the overwhelming majority of
Members of Congress will feel and act
similarly.
From the first momenti. a her exist-
ence as a free nation, Israel has been
under military assault, or has had that
threat hovering over her entire span of
national life. To the credit of her people,
this has not led to a garrison state men-
tality. Instead, Israel's devotion to demo-
cratic priaciples and individual rights
has thrived and grown despite an under-
standable temptation to erode such a
commitment. How many nations, includ-
ing those sworn to destroy her and their
allies, can make such a clam?
For this very underlying reason, Israel
has been in tune with America-n ideals,
and has grown stronger because of our
own commitment. Her people fight be-
cause of a desire to be free, rather than
on behalf of a desire to conquer and
subject others.
As a result, she poses a danger to to-
talitarian regimes and their client states
everywhere. The "third world," torn by
strife and evolving before our eyes, can
see in Israel a choice between dictator-
ship and socialist-oriented democracy.
The Arab States, unwilling to tolerate
a free Israel in their midst, have found
a willing patron in Russia, which has
other goals in mind in that vital area
of the world. Here is where America's
geopolitical necessity comes into play. If
We ignore or misinterpret Israel's role
and goals, we will injure our own best
:interests by shortchanging the Israelis
in. a time of crisis.
The Communist rulers of Russia are
inheritors of foreign policies of the Rom-
=off czars. Among goals they have in
common down through history has been
a desire to obtain warm water ports and
to dominate narrow strategic gateways
controlling so much of the world's com-
merce.
Control of such narrow straits and
geopolitical linchpins brings with it mil-
itary dominance as well The Dardanel-
les, Suez Canal, Straits of Gibraltar,
Bab-el-Mfandeb, and the Straits of Tiran
are perfect examples of such locations.
Much of the Middle East (imbroglio re-
volves around who shall control a short
passage to Asia from the Mediterranean.
Russia is now a first nite naval power,
seeking to use her sea arm to extend her
reach around the world. In order to be
militarily effective, that growing fleet
must be able to move to critical areas
swiftly. This means either control of or
December .11, 19';
easy access to such strategic geograpiiii
linchpins of the world. Russia seeks to
able to move her Black Sea and Meditc
ranean fleets through the Suez Canal
the Indian Ocean in order to present
overwhelming military presence in a
around the entire periphery of the I
dim Ocean. This is why Brezhnev
recently in India, again salvaging the I
than economy' with more Russian aid,
Soviet Russia's rulers envision, a
perhaps correctly so, an eventual and i
evitable confrontation with an incret
ingly powerful China. Already their lo
mutual land frontier bristles with arm
ments, front-line troops and the fa
odor of physical clashes. Russia seeks
dominate the subcontinent, outflanki
Communist China, a situation the Cl
nese rulers anticipate and view clear
In this way, the Kremlin's masters 1
lieve they will seize China in a crushi
military vice from which she cannot (
cape. This was one reason China w
corned our attempts at rapprocheme:
Russia must obtain control of the Si
Canal, or at least have a complaisant a
cooperative regime astraddle of ti
waterway. Egypt, indebted to Moscow I
military aid against Israel, fills such
bill amply.
Simultaneously, Russia still se(
eventual world domination. She remit
me of a paroled burglar, proclaiming
conversion and reform, strolling dowt
hotel corridor turning every door kn
to see if any rooms are accessible. Wh
her motives are complex, a present a
primary one is control over Middle E:
oil, to deny or control access to it to I
West and to guarantee it for her cr
eventual use.
If the present Soviet diplomatic a
military drive succeeds, we shall be sl
out of that entire area of the world.
Israel is rendered impotent in a geoPoi
teal sense, there will be no effective cot
terweight to Russian influence. Once
Kremlin becomes master of Suez
Middle East oil, the world strategic h
ance, tips decisively against the Uni
States, setting the stage for drains
Soviet adventurism which will only Ii
to further. and certainly more dang
ous confrontations.
Appeasement of the Arabs and tl
Soviet patrons would be as useless
sterile a policy as was a similar attei
in another era.
Have we learned nothing? Has
siren song of "detente"?that pernic
word, so sapped our capacity to ma:
that it will allow us to guarantee our
destruction? Do we really believe
Russians nave, like Paul on the mai
Damascus. had a blinding vision and
companying change of heart? Nati
could be more of an exercise in E.
delusion. The nations betraying Cz(
oslovakia to Hitler made themselves
lieve Germany- would be satisfied I
just that much and no more. We al]
call the drama played out in Prt
under Alexander Dubcek. How then
we delude ourselves today?
If further proof were required. exar
the entrails of the recent Middle
war. Russia knew about the Arab si
attack well ahead of time. Her rem
effort by sea was keyed to start arri
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, 1973 RAppronsVaftERM6RHO.5/06/EcoR092,D HOUSE
CIRDP75B00380R000400010059.:6
H 11085
two nights after the Arabs attacked.
The very quality and quantity of ma-
teriel supplied should tell us something.
Turning aside talk of d?nte and rap-
proachement with the West, the Soviet
Union plunged all out into the latest
Arab attempt to destroy Israel. She even
indicated a desire to insert her own mili-
tary forces into the struggle. Mention
has even been made of nuclear weapons
being brought from Russia to Egypt.
Even if that is untrue, the recklessness
of such a total policy is both preath-
taking and appalling.
Western Europe, guarded by American
military might and inexplicably incap-
able of learning from the past, has
totally capitulated to the Arab boycott.
To them, with the exception of the
Dutch, all honor to them, oil is more
important than principle, morality, com-
passion and elementary decency. Lead-
ing the pack are those two familiar be-
trayers of the Czechs, France and Eng-
land. Daladier and Chamberlain would
feel right at home with Pompidou and
Hearth
These people possess a coterie of sym-
pathizers in this country, echoing their
cry that we must support a sellout of the
Israelis because they have such a nasty
habit of defending themselves against
those sworn to destroy them. It is just
not done in our crowd, Reggie, old boy.
They bleat on about refugees, ignor-
ing Arab treatment of Jews in Arab lands
and cynical exploitation of Palestinians
by their brother Arabs. To them, the dis-
credited, one-sided United Nations is the
answer. Actually, it is the chosen instru-
ment to deal Israel further blows.
International promises are as worthless
as international organizations. Noble in
-concept they may be, but incapable of
-execution in time of crisis they also cer-
tainly are. Israel needs more tangible
means of insuring her survival. And she
must survive. Why?
Because she is a counterweight to Rus-
zian influence in the entire Middle East.
Because she helps create a balance, along
-with Iran and other non-Communist re-
gimes, to radical, pro-soviet Arab govern-
ments, whose instability is matched only
by their propensity for violence. For ex-
ample, let us reflect upon treatment of
Jews in Arab countries, violent anti-Sem-
itism of King Faisal and the incredibly
brutal and barbarous butchery of Is-
rael prisoners of war by the Syrians.
Israel is a beacon, an alternative, and
refuge for Third World elements seeking
a choice. She is a staunch friend of the
United States, and a dependable one in
an area of the world where stability is at
a premium. She is an ace in the game for
strategic domination of -that crucially
mportant part of the world; a deadly
game we must maintain a viable presence
_n or lose out entirely.
_ For these as well as humanitarian rea-
sons, we must act favorably regarding the
i'2.2 billion. Can there by any doubt of
the eventual fate of Israel's people if she
.ver really lost a war? How many of us
would wish to share in the responsibility
Df the aftermath of such a situation.
Does this not occur to Arab apologists
-Jere? Evidently not.
Israel must have the full $2.2 billion
In American weapons aid, and she must
have it all soon. We have it in our power
to grant that urgent request. We must act
with dispatch.
In closing, let me return once again to
Czechoslovakia and those who betrayed
her sovereignty to Adolph Hitler. To this
day, that group remains an abomination
in the eyes and memories of decent
people everywhere and the deed they per-
petrated stands as a hallmark for deceit,
ignobility, cowardice, and betrayal. It
need not have been thus. They had a
choice; so do we.
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Chairman,
over the years, like other Americans, I
have supported both the creation of the
State of Israel and her aspirations for
peace and recognition of her right to
exist. Clearly, we must all be pleased that
real progress is now being made to se-
cure a permanent resolution to the Mid-
dle East conflict. However, I do not
believe that the legislation currently be-
fore the House serves the interests of
peace in the Middle East. Rather, in my
view, the effect of this legislation is to
provide more fuel to fan the flames of
war.
The Emergency Security Assistance
Act operates on the premise that the
only way Israel can know security is
by literally building a bristling fortress
surrounded by the hostility of the Arab
people. We have seen the Arab nations
turn to the Soviet Union as the source
of their own military security. The Mid-
dle East provides testimony to the fact
that providing absolute military security
for one nation in turn fosters absolute
Insecurity for its neighbors. The arms
race perpetuated by the United States
and Russia in the Middle East, including
increasingly more sophisticated and dev-
astating weaponry, can only result as
the recent war has shown, in continued
tensions and, ultimately, in more death
and destruction.
Mr. Chairman, Secretary of State
Henry Kissinger expressed a hope which
I share when he said:
We hope that Israel, as well as the Arab
countries, will recognize that one of the clear
consequences of the recent events IS that a
purely military solution to the problems of
the Middle East is impossible.
Yet, this legislation recognizes only
military needs, and seems to contem-
plate only military solutions.
I have long felt that the United States
ought not to encourage the perpetuation
of war, with the accompanying death and
destruction, by sending arms and other
military assistance to foreign countries,
whether it be to Israel, the Arab nations,
or Southeast Asia, and my voting record
has been consistent on this issue. I can-
not, therefore, in good conscience, sup-
port this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe that it
Is in the best interest of Israel, the Arab
countries, and the United States, for us
to devote our major energies to finding
a permanent solution to the Middle East
problem so that the people in that part of
the world will finally be able to live in
peace. The founding father of the State
of Israel, David Ben-Gurion, made the
observation some time ago that?
Real peace with our Arab neighborsmu-
tual trust and friendship?that is the only,
true security.
This is the goal all concerned parties
must strive for. This is the goal not
served by this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like at this
point to include with my remarks an
article by Arthur Waskow which ap-
peared recently in the New York Times.
Mr. Waskow has made a compelling
argument for finally coming to terms in
the Middle East, and I commend his
comments to the attention of my
colleagues:
[From the New York Times, Nov. 24, 19731
A TIME FOR TERMS IN THE MIDEAST
(By Arthur Waskow)
WASHINGTON.?It IS time for the Israeli
Government and the American Jewish estab-
lishment to pay attention to some of us
Jererniahs.
Since 1967, a small band of American and
Israeli Jews have been warning that the Meir
Government was trundling down a road to
disaster, endangering Israeli security by see-
ing that security in the narrowest military
terms. We saw the Israelis' arrogance, born
out of victory, and the Arabs' hysteria, born
from defeat, reinforcing each other; no jus-
tice offered from either side, no security won
on either side.
Sometimes, full of hope, we preached jus-
tice?arguing that Israel and the Palestin-
ians owed each other the fraternal recogni-
tion of another oppressed nationality and
the political recognition of a self-determin-
ing Palestine alongside Israel. Sometimes,
full of foreboding, we have warned Arabs that
Israel could strike at them still more harshly,
and have warned Israel that incompetence,
self-glorification and self-deception would
not forever dominate the Arab governments;
that world:wide popular and diplomatic sup-
port for Israel's military outlook were erod-
ing; and that Israel's deepening internal so-
cial divisions could only be dealt with if a
stable peace were achieved. In both modes,
the call for justice and the warning of disas-
ter, we said that Israeli arrogance?expressed
in the holding and slow incorporation of
Sinai and the West Bank?was wasting time
that could be used to secure a stable peace;
and that Arab hysteria was preventing evolu-
tion within Israel.
Slowly?much too slowly?the Arabs have
grown out of their hysteria. (The danger now
is that they will fall over into arrogance.)
But the Israeli and American Jewish, estab-
lishments have been even slower to change.
When we preached justice, they dismissed us
as soft-minded relics of the old "galut" men-
tality, self-hating Jews devoid of pride in the
new Israeli power. And when we warned of
the long-term security "problems" facing
Israel, they dismissed us as harebrained ana-
lysts who did not understand the power of
modern technology and organization to win
round after round of war.
In truth, it was the Israeli Government
that was harebrained. It thought of the Arabs
as tortoises, and would not heed our re-
minders that the tortoise sometimes wins the
race if the hare gets arrogant.
Now, like Jeremiah we can only mourn at
how correct we were. Look at the situation
now: Arab oil boycotts bearing down On a
Western Europe, America, and Japan already
frightened by the "energy crisis." American
power distracted by an internal agony over
national identity and purpose that began
In the sixties and is simply continuing in
Watergate, and will not end there. Hostility
between Western and Russian immigrants
and Oriental immigrants to Israel?hostility
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
1.10845
CONGRESSIONAL
housing and public services, and over
;-.crimunal dimity, that cannot be eased so
as 40 per cent of Israel's gross national
por.iiicit is spent on the military. The aro..
^ of non-Jewish support for Israel SS the
r;ui dant of the holocaust, amid gpywing
of the justice of a permanent occu-
p.-1, on of tne Palestinian west dank and
Gi,?;a and of the Egyptian Sinal. The ziegin-
is of articulate criticism among young
ATierican Jews of blind financial and p0-
llai for an arthritic Israeli bureau-
and policy?even as these same young
ELlerican Jews create sronger and stronger
is to real five people and coinnainiiiies iii
I he Meir Government's policy ns led
into this moment of danger. But it can
eeoc a time of oppoAunity, if Israel will
se- it as a moment 3017 making the claims
Mstice and security .00nicide. At this mo-
? iii is Still militarily superior, tnough
triumphant; still has strong support
Aineriian Jews and the 1.1.8. Govern-
1,- t; still faces moderate politics among the
w,..st bank Palestinians and weakness in
F' ,h; still has not descended into a do-
ti iSo kulturkampf. Prom now on, delay
11 weaken Israel.
awl, is, delay will weaken Israel unless
Arab governments and particularly the
P.i,--p.stiniam. nationalist leadership txmlinue
to pose unjust demands. If they do. Israel
w. IL In desperation coil itself even tighter,
tkia-er, ooranktted to strike first at any clan-
gzr and to rule the Middle East, regardless
i.he consequences to freedom and justice.
I. this is the moment. maybe the last
en both sides can offer decent terms. For
Omple, the Palestinian leadership and the
states should recognize Israel within
'the 1967 pre-war boundaries as a iully legiti-
n-:!;Le state, and extend to it such normal
? as lee access to the buez Canal;
rnel should offer to return to those bound-
a-es on two conditions: the demilitarization
i.der effective international inspection and
? trol, the territories Israel occupied
1967 tiff the 1971 war: and an ..sraeli-
Piiltiniart condominium over Lite old city
ii. Jerusalem. Israel and the Arab states
jointly sponsor and guarantee an
lopenclent, neutral, and demilitarized Pal-
rte on tue west bank and in Gaza. Israel
the Arab states should agree to accept
? military aid or advisers from any of the
rritat powers, and the powers should agree tio
them none.
Mr. ,DELL'UNIS. Mr. Chairman, we
Pave today a question to decide that I
ooroach with the greatest reluctance.
A vote can be a cruel thing: You can-
),,t vote -'yes. but" or "no, however."
'5nere are only two lists of names, and
lie of them is "yea" and the other is
-nay." There may be principles and
,unterprinciples, pressures and conn-
roreSSurCS, and whichever way you
you may see more unfortunate con-
auences than fortunate ones, but the
immie still comes when you have to choose.
have chosen to vote against this legis-
1-,tion?a painful decision but I believe
a. necessary one.
r am faced with two principles that
to same people to be in open con-
adiction. First, I came to Congress ut-
.orly committed to peace, and if I am not
toing that, I should not be here As an
nnerican and a human being, I want
is country to stand for the possibilities
- life and freedom, not power and death.
also wa,i It Israel to survive, to flourish,
tad to The in security and peace with
neighbors. This is not in contradiction
the first principle; it is a consequence
,C it. Israel's only finure lays in peace.
RECORD-- HOUSE December 11, 1973
The basic fact is, these two principles
are in contradiction only A we make
them so. Only if we consider that the
only way to help Israel and the people
within its borders is through more and
more weapons, through reliance on
force?only if we turn our back on a
positive policy of economic assistance for
the entire area that would remove the
causes of war--only then do we set up
an opposition between peace and Israel.
Only if we take over the Nis on adminis-
tration's automatic assumption that the
only alternatives are war or abandon-
ment ?does the willingness to vote for
arms become the ultimate test of fidelity
to Israel.
But these are not the only choices,
and my vote today is a protest against
reducing the issue to just those barren
and nonproductive terms. I vote today
to break the cycle, to move discussion
up to a creative strategy that will help
the Middle East, not just to a higher
Level of armed instability, but to a situ-
ation where the capacities of all the
peoples in the Middle East can be used
for something else besides this insane
war.
There will be many, I fear, who will
interpret this vote as indicating some
lack of concern for Israel. This is un-
fortunate. Nothing is further from the
truth. If this were the only act of my
congressional career that had to do with
Israel, perhaps such an .interpretation
might be justified. But I know that there
are other ways to help Israel other
than?ever-increasing grants of military
aid--I have worked for them in the past
and I will continue to work for them in
the future. It is my profound conviction
that I am working for them today, by
rejecting an illusion that our- only duty
to Israel is just to send off a shipment
of arms so that the Israelis and the
Arabs can kill each other more el:fi-
de ntly.
1 have studied the actual situation in
the Middle East. and I have come to a
conclusion that to claim that Israel's
survival depends on these arms alone
and this vote alone is not tact. There is
the same balance of weaponry now as
existed before the war. Even if the cur-
rent level were not enough, I feel assured
that the Defense Department and the
President would find a way to get Israel
more weapons?with or witnout congres-
sional authorization.
If I was ever convinced that Israel's
survival depended on an immediate
shipment of arms, or upon a single vote,
I would fight for it strongly. I do think
that Israel's long-term survival does de-
pend on vigorous economic assistance,
coupled with a realistiC diplomatic
strategy that will lay the groundwork
for lasting security and lasting peace.
Because of my belief in the impor-
tance of our responsibilities in this area,
I intend to visit both Israel and the Arab
countries next month, to learn as much
as et can firsthand about the situation.
I hope to come up with some suggestions
that will substantiate my profound con-
viction that there exists creative solu-
tions to the Middle East dilemma that;
can break the deadlock of security
through mutual terror, instead of
tightening it.
What is really needed in the MicidiE
East now is significant economic assist-
ance for the entire area, coupled witl
international guarantees for the preser-
vation of Israel and a multinationa
commitment to end the suffering of tin
Palestinian refugees. This is the oppor-
tunity we now have to remove the cause:
of war.
The Nation and the Congress must re-
ject the political manipulation of in-
ternational crises that the Nixon admin-
istration too often substitutes for foreigr
Policy;
This is a time for long-term realities
a time to step back froth. the pressure:
of the moment to consider the conse-
quences of our acts, not just in terms o.
our own debate and rhetoric, but out ix
the real world of blood and suffering
When I consider those consequences witl
the greatest seriousness I have withim
me, I cannot regret this vote today.
Mr. TAYLOR of North Carolina. Mr
Chairman, I rise to express support fo:
H.R. 11088. Pronipt, equitable compro-
mise of Israel/Arab differences is abso-
lutely imperative if peace is to b:
achieved in the Middle East. This con-
flict, producing four wars in 25 years, ha:
created a danger of nuclear war, sepa.
rated America from her NATO allies
and brought about a worldwide enerw
shortage. Even though Russia has re-
supplied Egypt and Syria with war mate-
rials destroyed in fighting last October
there now exists the best opportunity LI
25 years for a negotiated peace.
This peace is in the highest U.S. inter.
est. The oil crisis which followed the Oc.
tober war shows the disturbing effec
that war there has on the rest of till
world and the importance of the peaci
negotiations which soon begin.
Maintaining a military balance be
tween Israel and her Arab neighbors i
essential to providing a proper settin
for successful peace negotiations. Neithe
party should be put into a position of ne
gotiating from weakness. An imbalanc
of power will tempt the stronger party t
rely on force, not reason, at the nego
tiating table. A settlement not based a
fairness and reason will likely not b
permanent.
Mr. BAUIVIAN. Mr. Chairman. I ris
in support of HR. 11088, an emergenc
authorization for assistance to Israe
While there is little doubt in my mind c
in the minds of most of the Men-them
that this authorization is justified, them
are several implications of approving
sum so large which we must not ignori
Throughout its history, Israel has ha
one principal ally?one nation that he
come to her assistance whenever it we
necessary. During the most recent Aral
Israel war, the United States once agai
stood alone as the only nation willing 1
stand behind the state of Israel and h(
right to exist. Few of us take exceptic
to this policy, a policy which I believe 1
be sound, both morally and politicall
particularly in view of the continuE
Russian intervention in :the Middle Eas
This authorization, of some $2.2 billio
is unusually large, but it is necessar
The vast amount of resupply which v
carried out during the war was cost
Indeed, and Israel, with the highest pi
capita debt of any nation in the wor
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE H 11087
ven before the war, simply cannot bear
his cost alone.
But $2.2 billion is a lot of money, even
ri a budget which this year totals more
han $265 billion. We are operating in
he red, and this will push us quite a bit
-urther into the red, a situation which
we cannot afford to ignore. To fully d.is-
harge our responsibility to the Ameri-
an public which elected us, we should
oe looking for a way to finance this ap-
oropriation by cutting spending else-
where. The habit of spending money
without concern over where it will come
Tom is what has gotten us into deep
rouble before. It provided the motiva-
5.on for the Budget Control Act which
we passed last week. To spend this money
Jithout providing the revenue from
_ditch it must come or by curtailing other
pending would be irresponsible.
We should note that the supply of
sraeli armed forces with American
anks, planes, and other equipment was
.t the expense of our own stockpiles,
.nd in some cases, at the expense of the
nventories maintained by our active and
-eserve units. This equipment must be
^ placed if the United States is to main-
min the necessary level of military pre-
oaredness.
Thus, I hope we hear no anguished
ries when the Pentagon approaches us
n the near future for money to replace
-quipment which was shipped to Israel
ast October. We should also keep in
nind that the cost of new equipment will
nevitably be higher than the equipment
-n hand which we sent overseas during
he Arab-Israeli war, thus further in-
reasing the amount which will be neces-
ary to replace it.
In short, let us keep in mind that our
-enerosity to our, allies must come at a
*rice. Our willingness to provide this aid
nust be matched with a willingness to
lay for it.
Mr. PODELL. Mr. Chairman, there is
. monument to the fallen in northern
aalilee with the inscription:
In blood and lire Judah fell, in blood and
_re Judah will arise.
In 1948 many of us felt we had seen
-ulfillment of that prophecy. A free and
ndependent Jewish state rose from the
.shes of war to take her place proudly
.mong the nations of the world. Now, 25
-ears later while the pride of accomplish-
tient is still strong, the struggle for in-
lependence goes on, the fire is still
aging.
Every conflict ends with a cease-fire,
oever a permanent peace settlement;
orief years of prosperity alternate with
lerrifying wars, and any moment a new
hooting war may begin. As the fighting
ontinues, the human needs of millions
.f Jews and Arabs are neglected. We can
-nly pray that the negotiations soon to
oegin in Geneva will signal a new process
of peace, compromise, and mutual
espect.
Yet with bitter irony as Israel works
or peace, she prepares for war. Years of
iistrust endanger the negotiations and
they fail the only option will be a
trong defense. As in the days of Nehe-
miah the people of Israel must build up
he land carrying swords in their hands
as they work. For the past 25 years those
swords have been provided by the United
States. As Americans, we have committed
ourselves for both moral and strategic
reasons to the aid of Israel.
Today we can either reaffirm that com-
mitment or we can yield to Arab black-
mail. The recent war proved beyond any
doubt that Israel cannot fight solely on
guts and will. Cash and extremely sophis-
ticated weapons are necessary elements
in any hope of victory. The costs to the
Israeli forces exacted by the SA-6
ground-to-air missiles alone were so
great as to jeopardize the entire war
effort. These missiles have been poured
into Egypt and Syria as a small part of
the stream of military hardware.
This Russian challenge can only be
countered by the United States. It was
the massive airlift wisely authorized by
President Nixon which assured Israel's
security during the recent fighting. With-
out the knowledge that American sup-
plies would be forthcoming, Israel could
not have committed her forces so strong-
ly in battle.
However, the airlift was only the first
stage in the supply effort. The second
stage must be to rebuild and strengthen
a war torn army still facing a foe with
limitless equipment. The decision on the
amount of equipment which the United
States provides for the rebuilding effort
and the method of financing it properly
rest with Congress. Today we will make
that decision.
The bill before us, H.R. 11088, author-
izes $2.2 billion in emergency security as-
sistance for Israel in some combination of
aid and credits as the President deter-
mines to be proper. At a time when our
own budget is so severely strained, the
allocation of such massive grants to any
country must be closely questioned. A
careful consideration of this legislation,
however, forces the conclusion that large
military grants are unavoidable. Though
in the past, Israel has always paid for
American equipment, today the Israeli
economy, quite simply, cannot afford it.
On top of the billions upon billions of war
related costs, the Israeli Government re-
cently announced that full mobilization
would remain in effect for at least three
more months,
That means the economy must con-
tinue to manage with a critically de-
pleted labor force. Crops will go unharv-
ested, exports needed for foreign ex-
change will pile up on the docks, and
the trucks and buses which form the
heart of the transportation industry will
remain commandeered for military pur-
poses. Given these extreme pressures a
new arrangement on military supplies
between the United States and Israel is
clearly dictated.
Essentially the issue of providing grants
is the same as that raised by the Arab
oil boycott. We will stand firm militarily -
but allow economic pressures to subvert
our policy, and Israel's safety? A pro- ,
tracted war of attrition, requiring full
mobilization of Israeli reserves will tax
Israel much more severely than it will
the heavily populated, oil rich Arabs.
Surely, the effect of the oil boycott has
taught us how potent economic weapons
can be and we must treat them as se-
riously as we would military provoca-
tions.
In short, without these grants we will
be crippling Israel's economy just as ef-
fectively as the Arab oil boycott is crip-
pling our economy, and ftr Israel that
would be total disaster.
Nor is there any where else Israel may
turn for help. Her traditional friends
around the world are deserting her as
Arab pressure grows. Japan, Britain,
West Germany, Ethiopia, and dozens of
other countries have prostituted them-
selves for Arab oil. If the United States
joins their ranks, Israel will be truly
alone.
Mr. Chairman, all sides in the Middle
East must make compromises if peace is
to come but the incentive to compromise
will disappear if one side is disarmed.
Mr. COTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
strong support of HR. 11088, a bill which
authorizes $2.2 billion In emergency se-
curity assistance to Israel. As is well
known by my colleagues in the House
today, the brave Nation of Israel fought
a war on two fronts that resulted in
tremendous losses of Israeli lighting men
and women. The war also took a horrible
toll in airplanes and tanks which were so
essential in stemming the tide of this un-
provoked attack by Egypt and Syria.
As I mentioned in a statement on
October 10, there could be no question
who started this war. But this is not the
time to enter into mutual recriminations
and name calling. Rather, we must work
to maintain a military and diplomatic
atmosphere that will result in a lasting
peace in this war-torn area of the world.
In large measure the hope for a lasting
peace will depend not only on the good
will of the negotiators, but also on
Israel's ability to maintain a viable mili-
tary posture. A weakened Israel, an Israel
without adequate weapons, will encour-
age further warfare. Without a balance
of conventional weapons, this arms in-
stability could lead to renewed fighting
with the possibility of a nuclear confron-
tation which could ultimately involve
both the United States and the 'U.S.S.R.
This bill provides that the Defense De-
partment conduct a thorough study of
the effectiveness of the military assist-
ance program as it relates to the 1973
Arab-Israeli war. The bill further au-
thorizes payment of the 'U.S. share of
United Nations Emergency Forces in the
Middle East but, of course, does not pro-
vide that U.S. troops would be used in
these United Nations Forces. Finally, the
bill authorizes military aid and/or mili-
tary sales credits for Israel.
Mr. Chairman, I support this bill be-
cause the massive Soviet resupply of Arab
forces is contributing directly to the
present and future instability in the Mid-
dle East. Since October 6, Israel has pur-
chased over $1 billion of U.S. arms to re-
place the war losses. But even this effort
was overwhelmed by the massive Soviet
resupply effort. Therefore, I think that
this $2.2 billion emergency assistance
program, prudently administered, will
contribute to stability in the Middle East.
I know that some people believe that
we should abandon Israel in order to se-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
11 11088 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE December 11. 197,5
cure Arab oil. I cannot agree. To give in
to Arab oil blackmail will decrease our.
aaility to prevent future types of black-
mail, wholly apart from the question of
aaandonment of our moral and diplo-
fltA.i,ic commitment to Israel.
m the other hand, I believe that the
horror of the October 6 war has in-
creased the mutual respect between the
A rlb and Israeli armies. This mutual re-
spect, I am hopeful, will be the basis for
a hating peace, but if Israel is aban-
doned, the forces of aggression in the
i7ualb world will be strengthened, the
forces of moderation crushed, and the
flames of war will again be ignited.
T believe that our Nation which con-
;Muted directly to the founding of Israel
in 1948 has a serious and binding moral
oaligation to contribute to Israel's ability
to maintain itself as a free and vibrant
Nation. I urge my colleagues to support
teas bill.
TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I am
voting for this authorization bill to pro-
lade $2.2 billion for Israel. I do so with
inductance. I am perfectly willing to help
Israel defend its national security but I
question the adequacy of the justifica-
tion for this huge sum of money.
There has been insufficient proof of
war losses. No one has seen an accurate
"al-topping list." Israel has not proved its
need for this sum. Neither the State De-
aartment nor the committee has de-
aianded justification.
it has been said that $2.2 billion is
eaessary to replace Israeli war losses.
No accounting of Israeli war losses has
barn made. The excuse that the "con-
tasion of war" precludes obtaining ac-
caaate estimates of the losses is not suf-
iieient excuse for the Congress when au-
thorizing the expenditure a U.S. funds.
or one example. tank losses are said
Cu be a larger portion of this demand.
fail, "tank losses" have not even been
ea5ned, let alone proved or accounted
for ,
When is a tank lost? When it is totally
iaa-troyed by a direciii missile hit? When
"throws" a track? When it inns out
or fuel? When it sustains minor damage?
When it can be returned to operation in
5 ,bays or 30 days?
;Aany of the tanks claimed to have
lost are probably now' back in op-
The Israelis captured several hundred
ri.b tanks which could be refitted With
1:si-aeli arms. Is this "net gain" of tanks
irom the Israel shopping list?
think we should know.
if there is a true, justifiable need for
a, billion to save Israel from annihila-
t7in, of course, U.S. taxpayers would be
bling to foot the bill, but we are en-
to better justification of such de-
mands. We demand better justification
:-asn our own departments and agencies.
Also we should inquire about Israeli
a ails and munitions which they manu-
facture or refit and sell to other nations.
"hould we be furnishing arms and war
imiterials to Israel while they are selling
m'"is and war materials to other Na-
,arts?
.VIr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman. I rise in
strong support of the bill H.R. 11088,
providing emergency security assistance
for Israel. This legislation is urgently
needed if we are to succeed in achieving
a viable and lasting peace in the war-
torn Middle East.
In the last 2'5 years, since Israel's con-
ception, the Middle East has been a
flashpoint for potential world conflict.
In the last 6 years alone, there have
been two major outbreaks of war be-
tween the Arabs and Israelies which
flirted dangerously with bringing about
a full-scale confrontation between the
Soviet Union and the United States.
Throughout these troubled years, the
United States has attempted to carry
out a policy with Israel designed to
achieve the combined objective of main-
taining a balance of military capabili-
ties; as well as promoting overall
stability in this area.
Yet, in recent years, the costs involved
in carrying out this policy have increased
dramatically. In the October 6 war alone,
we have provided Israel with nearly $1
billion worth of arms to compensate for
a massive Soviet buildup of Arab na-
tions. This resulted in restoring Israel's
military strength to at least prewar
levels, thus preventing her defeat.
However. despite the peace which pre-
cariously prevails today in the Middle
East, the Soviet Union is continuing to
rearm and resupply the Arab armies. It
is in light of these continued reckless and
dangerous actions on the part of the
Soviet Union that the President was
forced to ask for this $2.2 billion pack-
age to assist Israel, which we are con-
sidering today.
The beleaguered, yet courageous, na-
tion of Israel has been beseiged with
adversities throughout its entire history.
And despite the efforts of many inter-
national leaders to bring peace to this
area, it is now conceded that the only
peace which can last here will be based
on the maintaining of a military balance
between Israel and her Arab enemies.
This bill would help her accomplish this
by allowing the Israelies to keep peace
with the massive Arab reinforcements
supplied by the Russians. It is only When
the Arab nations realize that Israel will
be equally equipped will there be a basis
for peace here.
Mr. Chairman, let us serve nottce not
only on the Arab nations but on the
Soviet Union as well, that the defense
and safety of Israel will continue to be
our foremast international concern. We
eannot afford to delay another day in
granting this assistance. The need is
now, and we must respond to it. I urge
the overwhelming passage of this bill by
my colleagues today.
Mr. BINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I com-
mend the chairman and my colleagues on.
the House Foreign Affairs Committee for
developing a proposal for emergency
military assistance to Israel which won
practically unanimous bipartisan sup-
port within the committee.
"The central purpose of H.R. 11088 as
amended by the committee is to guar-
antee the security of Israel and thus
maintain the balance of power in the
Middle East. As administration repre-
sentatives in the hearings and in private
discussions with committee member:
have pointed out, the Arab States, as wel
as the Israelis, must be made to realiz:
that they have nothing to gain by con.
tinuing the fighting and everything t:
gain by negotiating. As Deputy Secretar
of State Kenneth Rush testified:
This legislation will provide firm evideno
of American suppott against (Arab) aggres
sion and of our willingness to help create
situation in which negotiations leading to
lasting peace can take place.
Historical forces have placed a hear
responsibility on the United States fa
creating a climate of peace in the Middli
East. We have the difficult job of off
setting the massive Soviet assistance ti
the Arabs so that negotiations can pro
ceed under favorable conditions. For till
first time in 25 years the Arabs feel con
fident enough politically to go to the con
ference table. Israel's leaders have sough
reconciliation through negotiations wit]
their Arab neighbors ever since the cre
ation of this tiny democracy, but th
Arabs have consistently refused. In thei
weakened and disorganized condition, th
Arabs apparently felt unable to negotiat
directly with Israel. Their humiliatioi
in the 1967 war was so great that th
Arab leaders believed they must restor
their prestige before they would talk. Nm
with huge arms shipments from th
Communists, improved Arab unity an
morale, and use of the weapon of oi
blackmail, the Arab nations seem con
fldent that they can force significan
concessions from Israel at the negotiat
ing table.
As for Israel, the events since tie
reprehensible Yom Kippur attack hay
come as a shock. For the first time then
is doubt in the minds of her leaders tha
Israel can maintain her own sechrit
without outside help. Her financial con
dition has been drastically weakened la
massive expenditures for arms and on
going nonmilitary needs, while he
sources of foreign currency, principal':
exports and tourism, to pay for needel
imports have declined rapidly. Israel'
citizens already bear the burden of th
highest rate of taxation in the wort'
and her foreign debt per capita is mor
burdensome than that of any other na
tion. A large portion of Israel's debt i
to the United States, which up until noN
has provided her with arms only on 1
cash or credit basis. Prior to the out
break of fighting on October 6, Israe
owed the United States $1.2 billion fo
credit sales and $500 million for casl
sales. Since that time Israel has receive'
$1 billion worth of military equipmen
transferred to her by the U.S. Defens
Department on the basis that she woul'
pay cash for it in 120 days, that is la
February or March of 1974. Defense Dep
uty Secretary Clements testified befor
our committee that there is a real pos
sibility that Israel would have to de
fault on the $1 billion if she does no
receive U.S. financial aid. I personal;
doubt that Israel would do so?she ha
never yet defaulted on a loan--unlik
nations we aided during World War I
under our lend-lease program?but th
burden of making such payments woull
be almost catastrophic. Moreover, H.R
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 11089
11088 will assure that the Defense De-
partment will be promptly reimbursed
for the value of the materiel supplied
Israel since October 6.
Israel can no longer assume that, she
can defeat the Arabs over and over
again. And she realizes that, while the
Arabs .can afford many defeats, Israel
cannot afford one. The Arabs not only
have great superiority in numbers and
in sophisticated equipment supplied by
the Communists, but they have also
shown improved fighting ability. Many
Israeli leaders are beginning to accept
the hard facts that Israel can no longer
go it alone, and that, because of Arab
oil blackmail, the United States has be-
come Israel's only source of help. Her
representatives go to the conference
table in hopes of securing a negotiated
settlement for a.lasting peace, but they
must be mindful of the extremists ele-
ments in their constituency who still hold
on to the belief that the only solution
to the conflict is a military one.
H.R. 11088 will give the Government of
Israel a chance to seek a nonmilitary
solution; without it, the extremist ele-
ments on both sides may prevail. If Con-
gress wavers in its support for the kind
of flexible aid approach the administra-
tion has recommended, it may provide
aid and comfort to these extremist ele-
ments and jeopardize the climate for
peace.
How much of the $2.2 billion needs to
be grants and can be credits in order to
fulfill H.R. 11088's purpose cannot be
determined at this point. Israel is in the
process of a massive fund-raising effort
while assessing her losses in the October
war and her future military needs. Our
Government also is in the process of
completing an independent assessment of
Israel's military needs.
Turning now to the legitimate concerns
expressed by Members of Congress about
this highly flexible proposal, the commit-
tee has sought to add safeguards and
guidelines through amendments and the
legislative record to insure that the
money this bill authorizes will be used
wisely with the maximum participation
of Congress in the decisionmaking. The
executive has been put on notice that it
is to spend no more than necessary to
achieve a Middle'East power balance. To
insure some measure of congressional
responsibility in this regard, amounts of
aid in excess of $1.5 billion?the current
cash liability of Israel?have to be re-
ported to Congress together with their
justification 20 days before the date of
their obligation or expenditure. However,
the committee has wisely recommended
suspension of this 20-day reporting re-
quirement in the event of a renewal of
hostilities. In addition, to make sure that
Congress is kept fully informed about the
effectiveness of this emergency assistance
in maintaining the balance of power in
the Middle East, the Secretary of Defense
is directed to conduct a study of the 1973
Arab-Israeli conflict to assess the mili-
tary strength of each party to the conflict
including a comparison of U.S. weapons
supplied to Israel with the Communist
weapons delivered to the Arabs. The Sec-
retary is to report his conclusions from
this study to Congress as soon as possible
and no later than December 31, 1974.
In closing, I would like to reaffirm my
belief in the possibility of a permanent
peace in the Middle East through direct
negotiations, hopefully beginning this
month. If the United States helps to
maintain the balance of power, and re-
sists the temptation to seek to impose
terms for a settlement on Israel, there
can be realistic negotiations on the part
of both parties. I recognize that this is
not an easy course to follow, especially
when we are faced with hard domestic
choices forced upon us by Arab oil black-
mail. If our Middle East policy is suc-
Cessful the rewards will be great morally,
politically, and economically; if we waver
and fail, we face grave long-term conse-
quences, one of the most serious of which
will be the establishment of economic
blackmail as a successful political tool in
the hands of nations controlling needed
raw materials. The United States has a
unique chance to prevent such a dis-
astrous development.
I urge my colleagues in the House to
join me in reasserting U.S. control
over its own foreign policy, and our
faith in the possibility of a peaceful set-
tlement in the Middle East by voting for
passage of H.R. 11088, as amended.
Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in support of H.R. 11088
which authorizes $2.2 billion in emer-
gency security assistance for Israel in
fiscal 1974 and for the U.S. share
in the cost of maintaining the U.N.
emergency force in the Middle East.
think it is most important to point out in
considering this legislation that main-
taining a military balance in the Middle
East during this difficult cease-fire and
prenegotiation period is essential to get-
ting those negotiations on the track and
to promoting a lasting peace in that
troubled part of the world. We have no
interest in engaging in a runaway Mid-
dle East arms race with the Soviet Union
which might tempt either side to re-
initiate hostilities. I think the diplomatic
record of the United States makes it
quite clear that our primary objective is
to bring the parties directly involved in
the hostilities together for the purpose
of, achieving a permanent resolution of
their longstanding differences.
As the recent outbreak of hostilitieS so
clearly demonstrated, turbulence in the
Middle East can cause an adverse ripple
effect on countries around the world, and
poses the ultimate threat of engulfing
our entire globe in a nuclear tidal wave.
As the committee report points out:
For more than a quarter of a century, the
Middle East has been a potential tinderbox
for world conflict. Even without direct super-
power combat involvement, Middle East in-
stability and wars have been costly to the
people of that region, to the United States
and to other countries.
In addition to our own interest in
maintaining peace throughout the world,
this country has a longstanding moral
commitment to the sovereignty and sur-
vival of the democratic State of Israel.
We have supported that concept since
the birth of Israel and it has been our
position that the recognition of Israel's
sovereignty by other nations in the area,
coupled with a serious effort by the Arabs
and Israelis to negotiate a settlement of
their longstanding differences can lead
to a permanent peace in the Middle East.
Hopefully the most recent stalemate and
ceasefire can finally bring about the real-
ization of those goals.
The purpose of the bill before us today
Is not to rearm Israel for the purpose of
renewing hostilities, but rather to pro-
vide military material to replace combat
losses and thereby give Israel an equal
footing with its adversaries as it ap-
proaches negotiations and to insure the
type of military balance in the area
which is necessary to insure that those
negotiations go forward. Obviously, a
military imbalance will only provide a
disincentive to negotiations and a poten-
tial invitation to a renewal of fighting.
I think it is important to emphasize
that in the past Israel has obtained U.S.
arms by cash or credit, and not by grants.
However, the most recent Arab-Israeli
war has taken its heaviest toll on Israel's
economy. Last year one-fourth of Israel's
GNP was devoted to defense; her tax-
payers are reported to be paying the
highest rate in the world; her foreign
debt was around $4 billion; and at the
time of the outbreak of hostilities she
owed the United States approximately
$1.7 billion in past cash and credit pur-
chases of military equipment.
The most recent war has obviously
compounded Israel's economic plight
with one-quarter of her work force
mobilized for defense. This has greatly
impaired her production and ability to
earn foreign exchange. Without financial
assistance she is likely to default on the
$1 billion due to the United States next
February. For these reasons, this legisla-
tion is essential for it provides authority
for grant military assistance for Israel
as well as cash and credit sales.
Mr. Chairman, I think the committee is
to be commended on underscoring our
intention to promote Middle East peace
and stability through this legislation
incorporating a provision to insure that
the Executive will spend no more than
necessary to achieve a military balance.
That provision, contained in section 2
of the bill, would require that the Presi-
dent give 20-day prior notification to the
Congress if he finds it necessary to ex-
pend more than $1.5 billion for military
assistance and/or credit sales. The Pres-
ident's report must include the amount
in excess of $1.5 billion he intends to
expend, and the terms and justification
for the additional assistance.
I think the committee is also to be
commended on the innovative feature in
the committee report which proposes
that the portion of the $2.2 billion
authorization not used for military as-
sistance be used to stimulate the creation
of a Middle East Regional Development
Bank, to be funded by other countries as
well, for the purpose of assisting in
promoting the social and economic de-
velopment of the entire area, thus foster-
ing a climate for genuine peace and prog-
ress in the Middle East. While this is
not authorized in this bill and would
require a separate authorization, I think
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP7513Q0380R000400010050-6
1090
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000400010050-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? 11 OUSE December 11, 1973
is a most ineritorams proposal and one
ailieh should help induce the parties
ecilved to reach a. peaceful settlement.
.. addition, it is a multinational
.eieleta,nce approach which is in keening
with the new direction in foreign de-
velopment assistance we are s6ttemptina
prOnlae.
ANDERSON of Califon-ea. Mr_
I rise in support of H.R. 11088.
Ouch would authorize 82.2 billion in.
aniesgency security assistance for Israel.
On the holy day of Yom Kippur, the
etate of Israel wae attacked on two
:rents; the Syrians moved southwest
ever the Golan Heights and the Egiae-
liens moved northeast across the Suez
'anal into the Sinai Desert.
This offensive was countered by the
eiraeli Army at the cost of many lives.
(leetroyed wearions, and a perilous situa-
Lion in the already tense Middle East.
end today. while peace hangs by a
aead, the Arab nations are waking de-
woes upon both Israel and her allies
'aim stood with her during this brutal
, onilict,
esrael is being asked to move back to
pre-1967 borders, and the United
.etates is being asked to guarantee this
-hove, or lace a continued embargo on
Arab oil.
Ian Chairman, our commitment to the
iiii.ttinuation of the State of Israel is be-
ige' tested, and, perhaps, greater pres-
sures will come.
Ilut, stand beside Israel we must. The
iiesistance needed to defend her borders
necessary for peace; for the moment
ihat Israel is incapable of defending her-
eon', surely theArab threats to extinguish
-this solitary light of freedom will be f ul-
illed.
Israel 13 like a city under siege: Those
'within the walls can win many battles
without bringing true peace and the at-
tackers outside may lose many times
without losing entirely. But the defend-
ers?the Israelies?scan lose but once. No
eeatter how many wars are fought, no
clatter how many battles are won, the
enemy will still be there waiting for that
one victory which will spell disaster for
those within the city.
Thus, it is our duty to provide Israel
Jie strength for a stand-off, to equalize
Inc forces, so that the people of Israel
id the Arab nations may salve their
eroelems together at the peace table.
ltie bill betore us today would provide
ainds to help Israel defend sherseli, and
urge my colleagues to join with me in
eipporting this necessary measure. .
Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman. Providing
emergency military assistance to the
email nation of Israel is in the interest
of peace. This bill has my full support
And. / urge the House to approve it by
overwheiming margin.
Mr Chairman, the bill now before 'as
would help maintain the military hal-
time neeesary for peace in the Middle
st by authorizing $2.2 billion in emer-
-ley security assistance to Israel.. So-
L Russia eontinues to pour military
eerdware new the Arab States. Since
Yom Kipour war Israel has paid for
arly $1 billion in arms from the United
ielater.. Israel will need further arms to
nter the Russian arms influx but
simply cannot pay the bill without U.S.
help. If the military balance is disrupted
there would be no incentive for the Rus-
sians and the Arabs to negotiate.
This bill will serve notice on Russia,
and the Arab States that the United
States is determined to -maintain a bal-
ance of power. This bill will serve notice
to all nations that the only answer is a
negotiated peace and not further war.
Mr. BADILLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise ip
support of this legislation to authorize
$2.2 billion in emereency military aid
and foreign military sales credits to
Israel for the current fiscal year and
urge that; it be promptly enacted.
By Providing Egypt and Syria with
highly sophisticated planes and other
modern military equipment such as tanks
and missiles, the Soviet Union clearly
Precipitated the Arab invasion of Israel.
The only possible course open to main-
tain the military balance essential for
the eventual achievement of peace in the
Middle Fleet and to insure Israel's terri-
torial integrity is for the United States
th furnish Israel the arms and equip-
ment necessary to defend herself against
any future attacks by her Arab neigh-
bors. We must not only replace those
items lost during the actual fighting
with the Arab States but must also fur-
nish Israel the necessary financial aid
to maintain military strength for her de-
fense.
Shortly after the outbreak of the Mid-
dle East ;fighting I was pleased to join
in sponsoring a resolution calling upon
the administration to honor existing
commitments to supple aircraft to Israel_
Israel's traditional air superiority was
critical, in my judgment, to bring the
fighting to an end. Further, I was an
original cosponsor of House Resolution
613 which urged our Government to sup-
ply Israel with Phantom jet fighters and
other military equipment in sufficient
quantities to enable her to repel further
attacks and to offset the military equip-
ment and supplies furnished by the So-
viet Union.
By supplying the Arabs with vast
quantities of military hardware the
ies,S,R. has made a monkery of d?nte
with the United States and has sub-
verted any meaningful attempts to
achieve some sort of accornodation. In
tieht of this action the United States
has a special duty to guarantee Israel's
invulnerability to Arab attack. By con-
vincing Russia and her Arab pawns that
the United States is committed to Israel's
seeurity, I believe the way toward a sub-
stantive Middle East peace will be
opened.
Mr. Chairman, I strongly believe that
the measure before us this afternoon af-
fords the Congress an opportunity to take
ellirmative action to fulfill our moral and
leeal commitments to Israel and to make
clear our intention to continue our sup-
port for this lone bastion of democraey
in the Middle East. I- urge prompt and
favorable action on it.
Mr. O'N.EILL. Mr. Chairman. I rise in
strong support of this bill, H.R. 11088,
which authorizes emergency security as-
sistance for Israel.
This measure has been urgently re-
quested by the President and is sup-
ported by the leadership on both sides of
the aisle. For, we not only have assur-
ances that the administration will not
spend any more funds than are absolute-
ly necessary. but we also have a provision
In the bill requiring the President to re-
port and justify his expenditure to the
Congress.
The purpose of this bill is to promote
the goal of American foreign policy in
the Middle East?that is, to help achieve
an enduring peace in an area of such
dangerous volatile potentiality, that it
could explode into worldwide consequen-
ces and repercussions.
It is because of this explosive poten-
tiality that we need this bill.
We need this bill to support Israel, to
assure her of the security she must have
in order to negotiate a truly lasting set-
tlement.
We need this bill to serve notice to the
Arab States and to the Soviet Union, that
the United States will provide Israel with
the weapons she needs for her defense,
indeed for her survival as a nation.
We need this bill, therfore, to encour-
age the Arab 'nations that their best in-
terest lies in negotiating a durable
peace?not in striking at Israel again.
Israel cannot afford to pay for the
weapons she needs from us. Her econ-
omy already is heavily overburdened.
Yet, she must have the military means to
defend herself and assurance of further
shipments from us to the extent that be-
comes necessary so she can proceed with
the serious negotiations at hand.
Mr. Chairman, our only goal in the
Middle East is a lasting peace with secu-
rity for Israel under a negotiated settle-
ment acceptable to all sides.
So, I urge all my colleagues to vote for
this legislation which lam convinced will
contribute dramatically to achieving this
objective.
Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
support of the legislation before us to
provide Israel with $2.2 billion in emer-
gency security assistance. I will not re-
state all of the arguments that have been
enade in support of this legislation by
the distinguished members of the For-
eign Affairs Committee and its distin-
guished chairman, THOMAS E. MORGAN.
That committee was almost unanimous
In reporting this bill out to the House.
I recently visited Israel and was pres-
ent in that country from November 18 to
November 23. The Government .officials
with whom I spoke and our own U.S.
Embassy officials provided me with back-
ground and insight into the military and
economic problems facing that country.
I met with the Director General of the
Ministry of Finance, Avraham Agmon.
He told me that the 19 days of the Octo-
ber war cost Israel approximately $300
million a day, or a little less than $6 bil-
lion. This WEIS the cost of destroyed war
material, mobilization of the army, and
the immediate economic losses suffered
by the country. The total working popu-
lation of Israel is 1 million and when the
army is fully mobilized it commands the
efforts of 300,000 people.
On November 22 when I was in the
country, 25 percent of the working force
was still mobilized in the army which
had to maintain a daily alert. During
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2006/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE.11 11091
the? recent hostilities, our Defense De-
partment delivered approximately $1
billion in arms to Israel. Because of the
enormous forces arrayed against the
Israelis, munitions delivered in the eve-
ning by our C-5A's were used by the Is-
raeli soldiers on the battle line the fol-
lowing morning.
The expected deficit in the next year
for the Israeli budget is $2.'7 billion. To
deal with that problem and to raise new
funds within Israel itself, Israeli citizens
are now being required to purchase "com-
pulsory bonds"; in addition, people are
being urged to buy additional bonds on
a voluntary basis. The Government also
has cut its various subsidies heretofore
used to keep prices for necessities within
bounds and it has increased the cost to
consumers of Government services. Taxes
represent 60 percent of the total income
in the country compared to 30 percent in
the United States and Israel has doubled
its taxes every 2 years.
As the committee report states:
This bill is designed to assure Israel the
security she needs. It is designed to demon-
strate unmistakably to Arab states and the
Soviet Union that the U.S. will provide Israel
with weapons essential for Israel's defense.
Director General Avraham Agmon
provided me with the following details
on his own financial situation to demon-
strate how the Israelis are being required
to bear as much of the cost of the coun-
try's defense as possible: Director Gen-
eral Agmon is one of the highest officials
in the country and receives a salary of
$650 a month. Out of that he must pay
taxes and buy his compulsory bond as
well as his voluntary bond. These bonds
are redeemable after 15 years at 3-per-
cent interest. With these deductions, his
salary is reduced to $300. This amount
is further subject to municipal taxes,
school costs, and health insurance.
Mr. Chairman, as it has been stated
by those who have spoken before me, as
well as by Secretary of State Henry
Kissinger, it is in our national interest
and a moral imperative that we provide
Israel with this financial assistance. Is-
rael is the only democratic state in the
Mideast. If we do not insure its security
and economic well-being, and were it to
be defeated by the Arabs, that area will
become a Soviet bastion which would not
bode well for our national security or for
the free world. It is a moral commit-
ment because of the Judeo-Christian
ethics which bind our people. The United
States took the lead in creating the State
of Israel and resurrecting an ancient
people in its own land. We must assist
them now when almost every other coun-
try has bartered or sold its principles
and ideals in exchange for oil.
When I saw Mrs. Meir on my recent
trip to Israel she said to me and I shall
always remember her statement:
We shall never, never forget what your
country did for us. Our children will be tell-
ing it to our great grandchildren.
The ties that bind our two countries
together are insoluble. I urge the passage
of this bill.
Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in support of H.R. 11088, legislation
authorizing $2.2 billion in emergency se-
curity assistance for the state of Israel.
as a member of the Foreign Affairs Com-
mittee, from which this legislation orig-
inates, I have had ample opportunity to
study the issues raised by this bill, and
I am convinced of the need for its
enactment.
The $2.2 billion authorized by this bill
Is to be used to provide military assist-
ance to the nation of Israel that is still
recovering from a tragic and costly con-
flict. Much of this authorization will be
used to provide, for the first time, grant
military assistance to Israel. This bill sets
a limit of $1.5 billion on total assistance
unless the President determines that the
expenditure of the remaining $700 mil-
lion is required by the national interest.
This legislation marks another step in
the evolution of American support for
Israel. It should be remembered, as we
consider this request for $2.2 billion, that
the great preponderance of military as-
sistance to Israel in the past 25 years has
been on a cash or credit basis. It was not
until 1962 that the United States began
to sell sophisticated weapons to the Is-
raelis, and in fact, it was only in response
to the massive Soviet arms resupply ef-
fort to the Arab States after the six-day
war of 1967 that the United States ini-
tiated the kind of comprehensive mili-
tary sales program that included Israeli
purchase of F-4 Phantom fighters, the
mainstay of the Israeli Air Force. Prior
to the "Yom Kippur war," however, grant
military assistance was not made avail-
able to Israeli, while between 1946 and
1972 the United States, according to the
Agency for International Development,
expended a total of approximately $55
billion in grant military assistance
throughout the world.
Israel's economy is such that grant
military assistance is now a necessity.
Israel has the highest percapita foreign
currency debt in the world. Israel has the
highest tax rate in the world?and yet,
Israeli citizens have recently been re-
quired to make a compulsory defense loan
of betlyeen 7 and 12 percent of their in-
come.
Israel's economy has been hurt by the
war, and continues to be stifled by the
impact of mobilization. It is estimated
that the loss in gross national product
between October and December of this
year will be approximately $476 million,
with an additional estimated loss in GNP
of $952 million for 1974. The Department
of Defense has documented that Israeli
purchases of military equipment, as a
result of the recent war, have already
amounted to $825 million, with at least
another $175 million in purchases ex-
pected. Yet Israel's need is estimated to
be $3.2 billion, and this need will be dif-
ficult if not impossible to meet without
substantial grant assistance.
Many Americans, remembering the
tragedy of our involvement in Vietnam,
are anxious that American military
forces not be directly involved in the
Mideast conflict. The current energy
crisis makes matters more difficult, as the
Arab oil embargo has exacerbated an al-
ready difficult energy situation. And,
there is a view that the United States
should take a position that at least re-
flects an acknowledgement of legitimate
goals and aspirations of the Arab States
and the Palestinians.
I believe that passage of the emer-
gency security assistance bill will further
these goals. The most important objec-
tive of U.S. policy toward the Mideast, it
seems to me, should be the conclusion of
a durable peace that is just for all par-
ties concerned, but which also provides
for the continued security of Israel?a
country for which the United States his-
torically bears a great responsibility. The
one lesson of the recent conflict is that
the force of arms alone will not solve the
many critical problems in the Mideast.
But there is another important lesson as
well?one demonstrated by the massive
Soviet arms shipments to the Arab States
since the cease-fire--and that is that no
peace will be achieved if either side in
the conflict has the perception that the
other side is negotiating from a position
? of weakness. Therefore, I believe it nec-
essary and appropriate that the United
States continue adequate security assist-
ance in support of Israel to the extent
necessary to ensure the military suffi-
ciency of Israeli forces. H.R. 11088 would
accomplish this goal.
Seventeen million dollars in the bill
will go to cover the costs of the United
Nations troops now policing the delicate
cease-fire. If for no other reason than to
reduce the likelihood that hostilities will
be renewed, this $17 million is well spent.
But, it seems to me, there is a more im-
portant principle at stake. The recent
war reemphasizes the importance of the
United Nations in any Middle East solu-
tion. I hope that U.S. policy will reflect
an appreciation for the valuable role that
the U.N. can play.
I urge my colleagues to support H.R.
11088. It is an urgently needed bill, and
one that I genuinely believe will advance
the prospects for peace in the Mideast.
Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, I
rise in strong support of H.R. 11088 which
provides $2.2 billion in emergency se-
curity assistance for Israel. In taking this
essential action we not only are seeking
to guarantee the survival of a valiant
friend and a vital democracy, but we are
at the same time protecting'the best in-
terests of our own Nation. We are re-
affirming our support for the territorial
sovereignty of a threatened democracy
and at the same time we are protecting
our only reliable ally in the Middle East,
a region dominated by forces hostile to
American interests.
Since the sudden and deliberate at-
tack on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of
the Jewish year, Israel has faced a for-
midable military threat. No less than 10
nations, with combined armed forces that
outnumber Israeli forces by nearly 3 to
1, have united against them. Supplied
with the most advanced RuSSian weap-
onry, the Arab nations are clearly bent
on achieving a military dominance in the
Middle East. Some even advocate the de-
struction of the State of Israel. It is,
therefore, imperative that we take
prompt action to help Israel replenish
her resources so that she can bargain
from strength at the negotiations table,
thereby retain defensible borders, and
the city of Jerusalem.
For this reason I urge my colleagues
in the House to guarantee the security of
Israel by passage of the ,Emergency Se-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000400010050-6
11.092 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE December 11, 1973
malty Assistance Act, which authorizes
" billion in direct grants and sales
esetlits for military aid to the State of
It is estimated that at least $ L bil-
Lai military equipment will be needed
imediately to counter the massive So-
viet arms shipments to Arab countries
that have continued unabated since the
eutbreak of fighting. Without prompt ac-
tion that neutralizes past and future
)eisiet armament build-up in the Middle
-Ist.. Israel will be a .target for another
Attack.
sesael suffered casualties in the brief
7:7em. Kippur war that, in proportion to
population, were greater than Ameri-
can losses in 11 years of lighting in Viet-
Lee And in spite of their miiltary sue-
the Israelis were forced to spend
' 0 million per day during the hostili-
We must do everything in our power
ke it plain to the Arab nations that
ley cannot continue to wage wars of
rd-ion supplied by Soviet arms that
will take the place of serious negotia-
ticaie.
We must support the survival of Is-
reel. I therefore urge passage of H.R.
1.08e,
vl ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
etteport of B.R. 11088 which provides
errier.meney security assistance for Israel.
TieS funds contained In this legislation
.rere critical to the very survival o.:f the
.ate of Israel and the maintenance of
i r territorial integrity.
'Phis is, as we know, a time of both
p,rri.1 and opportunity for Israel. Her ne-
retiarors are going into the peace talks,
which are scheduled to open in Geneva
December 18, with a set of prorosals
that deserve wide support. They will call
r'er anal renunciation of war by both
pdries, the establishment of diplomatic
relations, and the introduction of nor-
plat ehminerciai ties between all coun-
tries of the Middle East. Recently, an
aesteli official was quoted in a New York
".'imps interview as saying, "We want to
temionstrate at the outset that this is a
J3,,ace conference, not a withdrawal con-
reeenee,"
rnirtainly no unilateral withdrawals or
ler concessions can be expected until
it is clear that the Arab nations are will-
, -re, accept the existence of Israel once
.ror ail and to follow this up with
e,parcut evidence of a desire to live
aeacciully side by side with Israel_ The
tent of Israel have made clear that
rial concessions would be f draft-
g diming within tile context of such an
lent.
r even more essential that Israel go
titi the peace talks able to bargain from
eiesition of military strength. During a
made to :Israel during the Thanks-
' recess -with other ivlembers cf the
tj
one, we had an opportunity to talk
,01,i.t Prime Minister Golda Meir and
a:.i.ter government and army officials, and
:sat esso toured the Suez front. Ove e and
oter % we were told that the rapid airlift
American weapons, ammunition,
mcd-
upiles. and equipment?an average
Cktilv lift of about 1,000 tons?had been
so1utelv crucial to Israel's military re-
Irery anti the advances that were made.
were also told, and it is by now
ell-anown, that the Arab armies were
equipped by the Soviet Union with very
large numbers of the very best in each
class of weapons. In some instances, the
Syrians and Egyptians were equipped
with advanced models of troop carriers,
antitank missiles and tanks that are not
yet even in general use in the Soviet
Army, and the Soviet Union is continu-
ing to supply the Arab nations with
military equipment.
It should also be noted that the Israelis
were not only confronting the most so-
pnisticated Soviet planes and missiles,
but also French Mirage planes, British
Hunter jets and Centurion tanks, and
even some tanks furnished by the United
States.
In voting on this bill we should also
remember that unlike other nations who
have received our weapons Israel is a
democracy with a united purpose whose
people and country have been a haven
for the dispossessed and the haunted
from the days of the holocaust to the
present.
AS the one nation that has stood by
Israel, we must today enact this bill to
provide up to $2.2 billion in emergency
security assistance to Israel.. We should
do SO ior at least two reasons: to restore
the enormous losses that Israel incurred
in the loin Kippur war and to notify the
whole world that the American people
win continue to stand by their commit-
ment to Israel and its territorial integrity
and to serve notice that we will not sue-
cum? to the Arab oil blackmail.
The public may not realize this, but
between 1946 and 1972, according to the
Agency for International Development,
the United States provided to foreign na-
tions grants and military assistance to-
talling approximately $55 billion. Among
tne recipients were many dictatorships
whose policies are anathema to our
democratic principles. We even sent
grants of military assistance and train-
ing totalling about $324 million to nine
Arab States, but not a single penny of
this assistance was ever given by us to
the tiny, democratic State of Israel.
Leaders of the Israeli Go vernraent esti-
mate that it will cost almost $3 billion to
make up for the overwhelming destruc-
tion of military equipment, weapons, and
planes that occurred on the two fronts,.
The compromise figure of $2.2 billion in
this bill will allow Israel to purchase the
military equipment she needs for her de-
fense, allow her to pay off 'those short-
term debts whose payment cannot be
avoided, and prevent her from sliding
Mee hopeless bankruptcy.
In -voting on this bill, we should also
remember that unlike other nations
winch have received our weapons, the
beleagured Israeli people have fryer
asked for American manpower. They
have shown they are willing to make in-
credible sacrifices to preserve their tiny
nation. The threat to their survival re-
mains, compounded by the ominous Arab
oil boycott.
Our action in favor of this bill today
can signal to the world the readiness of
the American people to continue to ex-
tend the hand of friendship and support
te 111A courageous people of Israel. We all
pray that a permanent peace settlement
will be achieved in Geneva, a settlement
that is vital not only to all the nations
of the Middle East but to the entire world.
We must do all we can to make that
peace possible and I therefore will vote
for this measure.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have
no further request for time.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, I
have no further request for time.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in (congress assembled, That this
Act may be cited as the "Emergency Security
As?,.istance Act of 1973".
(Mr. GROSS asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
(By unanimous consent, Mr. GROSS
was allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.)
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, the legis-
lation now before the House is the latest
chapter in the continuing tragic inabil-
ity of the administration and Congress to
understand that the American people, al-
ready bearing the crushing load of more
debt than all other nations combined,
cannot continue to bankroll wars around
the world and pose as this planet's
policeman over and over and over again.
This legislation, authorizing the hand-
ing over of $2.2 billion to Israel, repre-
sents a partial payment, and only a par-
tial payment, for the one-sided and im-
provident intervention by President
Nixon in the Arab-Israel war?an act of
intervention that had no approval by
the American people or Congress, either
before or after the fact.
The unilateral, one-sided action of the
President is not only costing our citizens
more than $2 billion, but his alienation
of once friendly Arab nations and their
subsequent oil embargo is costing Amer-
ican industry, business, and workers un-
counted hundreds of millions of dollars
and thousands of workers have lost their
jobs. e grave and unanswered question is
why Nixon armed only Israel in this war.
In years past, the President and his pred-
ecessors have provided military hard-
ware to the Arab States. Arming both
sides in the October conflict would have
set no precedent, but it would have been
a demonstration of evenhanded treat-
ment and it is doubtful that vital oil sup-
plies would have been cut off.
Appearing before the House Appropri-
ations Committee on the administra-
tion's request for this huge handout to
Israel, Deputy Secretary of Defense
Clements stated:
United States policy in the Middle East, as
the President has said, is neither pro-Arab
pro-Israe., 011ie pro-peace.
No one can actually believe, not even
Clem.ents, that providing 52.2 billion in
arms to Israel?all or much of it an out-
right gift,--while refusing to sell jet
fighters for cash to Saudi Arabia. is
neither pro-Arab nor pro-Israel.
No one can actually believe that pro-
viding $36.5 million for Jewish refugee
relief compared with $2 million for Arab
refugee relief is neither pro-Arab nor
pro-Israel.
If President Nixon is going to single-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
handedly embark on military adventures
is it too much to expect him to practice
a modicum of even-handedness?
Incidentally, where now are the doves
whose wings were constantly fluttering a
few months ago from the floor to the
rafters of this Chamber and the one
across the way? They seem to have un-
dergone a strange metamorphosis since
those days when they were beating their
breasts in self-proclaimed righteous hor-
ror and outrage over this country's in-
volvement in Southeast Asia.
I am not for 1 minute defending par-
ticipation in that no-win war that started
with a little intervention and went on for
so long and at such a horrible cost. But
it has not been necessary for me to shed
any dove feathers as have these self-
annointed, alleged peace-lovers who
mounted the battlements in October ex-
horting all of us to support resolutions
and otherwise rush headlong to partici-
pate in yet another war?heedless of the
consequences and heedless of the lessons
of the past.
Mr. Chairman, on October 17, when the
Petroleum Emergency Act was before the
House and the Middle East war was still
in progress, I stood here in the well and
said this:
I predict that our supplies of fuel from
the Middle East whether they come through
the refineries of Europe or direct from the
Middle East, are going to be reduced and we
are going to pay right through the nose for
every gallon and every barrel of oil or the
product thereof which comes to this coun-
try. Why? Because we cannot keep our big,
long noses out of the affairs of other people
around the world.
I do not know who is going to win the war
in the Middle East, but I do know one thing
for dead sure and certain?that I can name
the loser. That will be the common, garden
variety citizen and taxpayer of the United
States of America.
Now, nearly 2 months later, let me
add this: By his act of unilateral in-
tervention in the Middle East war our
internationalist President has handed
the citizens of this country a costly
Christmas present?a Christmas present
for which they will be paying long after
he leaves Pennsylvania Avenue to bask
in the warmer climes of Florida or
California.
Mr. Chairman, during the past year
Congress has been yelping at the top of
its collective lungs about recapturing its
delegated powers and thus assert its role
as a coequal branch of Government. That
is what the fight over impoundment and
the war powers legislation was all about.
Having marched up the Hill to attack
Executive power, this bill greases the
skids for a quick retreat. Read the sec-
ond sentence of section 3 of this bill. It
gives the President the unadulterated
right to use $2.2 billion for aid to Israel
on whatever terms and conditions he
wishes.
As if that were not enough, turn to
section 4. In plain, unvarnished English
it provides that if any of this money
starts out as loans, the President can
convert them to grants?gifts?before
the end of next June.
Let us hear three big cheers right now
from those who have professed so much
worry about the erosion of the powers of
Congress.
Then there is a little window dressing
inserted by the Foreign Affairs Commit-
tee that the President can hold back?
impound?$700 million until he alone
determines it is in the national interest
to use it. These are weasel words ancl do
less than nothing to restrict this broad
delegation of power and authority to the
President.
In short, there never was a worse con-
gressional abdication of control over the
public purse than this.
Last but not least, how does this $2.2
billion fit into the President's budget
which he charges is constantly being ex-
ceeded by Congress? One witness read a
reassuring statement from the Office of
Management and Budget that "this leg-
islation will not force the executive
branch to reduce or impound any funds
previously requested for other Federal
programs."
How sweet it is to have those words.
One can only wonder how much more
loose change to the tune of $2.2 billion
Is floating around that can be used to
finance other programs without exceed-
ing what the President proclaimed as
his "tight" budget for the current fiscal
year.
When Members receive hot letters
from cold constituents they should tell
them that Congress is simply restoring
the balance of power in the Middle East.
It should give them great comfort. What
with the gasoline shortage, they may
even welcome you home?permanently.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. GROSS. I yield to the gentleman
from' Ohio.
Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thought
somebody ought to remind the gentle-
man that in the regular foreign aid bill?
and may I say that I voted against It?
there is $81 million for six Arab nations,
so I just thought the House ought to
know, in view of the gentleman's speech,
that we are on both sides in this war,
arming both sides so they can keep the
thing going.
Mr. GROSS. It has become fashionable
for this country to practice duplicity.
That is why I said the precedent was
already created. Why did we not sell
Saudi Arabia Phantom jets while we were
giving them to Israel?
Mr. HAYS. We gave assistance to
Saudi Arabia.
Mr. GROSS. We would still have
Arabian oil to operate on.
Mr. HAYS. We will sell them if they
want them, not give them to them, but
that is what we did in the regular bill.
Mr. GROSS. But in this case we are
giving Israel $2,200,000,000, when they
are already in hock to us. Israel is al-
ready in debt to the United States for a
billion dollars.
Mr. WYLIE. Mr. Chairman, one of the
most complex and vexing issues to con-
front the world today is the lingering dis-
pute between the Arab nations and the
State of Israel over which of these peo-
ple shall claim, the land of Palestine as
their national home. It is a tragic dis-
pute, for both the Palestinian Arabs and
11 11093
the Jews of Israel are able to support
their claims to Palestine with historical,
legal, moral, and religious precedents
which they each believe to be right. It is
tragic because they are both right, and
they are both wrong, and they both have
suffered the ultimate frustration of re-
sorting to armed force to secure their
concept of justice.
I have not risen to praise or denounce
either the Arabs or the Israelis, nor to
offer a brief in defense of past actions,
nor to act as advocate as though this
were a court of law. I have risen to offer
what I earnestly believe to be a reason-
able encouragement to Arab and Israeli
alike to resolve their differences and find
an accommodation under which they
both may survive. My proposal, if it may
be called that, is not a formula for peace
nor a detailed plan to resolve all the
problems. It is, instead, a gesture of en-
couragement which I hope would send
the Israelis and the Arabs to the peace
talks scheduled to be held shortly in
Geneva with a concise understanding
that the United States does not support
the use of war to settle differences be-
tween nations. . ?
My proposal requires that I oppose the
current bill before the House, the bill
which would provide $2.2 billion for the
State of Israel. I am in opposition to pro-
viding military assistance, as my voting
record will attest, because I do not be-
lieve the way to a peaceful resolution of
conflict is through the continual rearm-
ing of nations at war. This was my pur-
pose in supporting an amendment to the
Export-Import Bank legislation during
my first term which prohibited the mak-
ing of a loan for the purchase of arms.
This is why I have voted against the For-
eign Military Assistance bills. It appears
to me that the best hope for peace in the
Middle East is the direct display of
peaceful intentions, not the belligerent
show of strength inherent in an arms
race. For the United States to become di-
rectly involved in an arms race in the
Middle East, and our providing more
weapons to either or both sides at this
time amounts to a direct involvement, is
Incongruous with the stated principles of
this Nation that the world should live at
peace.
I appreciate Israel's plight, surrounded
as it is by hostile neighbors, and I appre-
ciate the Israeli hunger for a future of
peace and an end to war. I also appre-
ciate the frustration and fears of the
Arab peoples and their search for mod-
ernity and respectability among the fam-
ily of nations. I also know that the senti-
ment in favor of this bill today in the
House of Representatives probably' mir-
rors the sentiment of my own constitu-
ents of the 15th District of Ohio. By op-
posing the bill, I do not denigrate that
sentiment, but, I believe, support it.
The Israeli Minister of Defense, Mr.
Moshe Dayan, was quoted as saying on
December 9, 1973, that Israel has never
been stronger than it is today. If that is
true, and I have no reason to doubt the
Minister of Defense of Israel, then why
should the United States add to that feel-
ing of strength by providing a gift of $2
billion worth of weapons? With each in-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
094 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? HOUSE December 11, 1973
:*,e or Israeli might, there is a come-
ng decrease in the chances for a
in settlement, because both the
Arabs and the Israelis know that if their
g aurn', at Geneva should founder or stale
tage can always return to the battlefield.
oriT.! battles. more war in the Middle
Will cause more destruction, more
interrupted lives, more maimed bodies,
tvire 411eaths, more empty chairs in the
teelit _circle. Let the Israelis and the
igihs go to Geneva, to the peace confer-
etati arranged through the good o.thces
fl the United States, knowing that there
wi bc no more weapons, no more arms
caeca ia which they can turn when con-
I) t rioucis their deliberations. The
itaite,d States should stop fueling the m-
ettles or war. The United States should
cantinue what we have begun in Geneva,
peaceful settlement of conflict
high discourse and compromise. Hope
'ace is in Geneva, not along the
erase-lire lines.
Israel has every right to exist, and 1
sooport that right. But I wonder how
Lnig Israel can exist if it is in a perpetual
state of war. Can Israel afford endless
war can it afford to send its young peo-
plr and its treasure oil to battle every
5 or 10 years? I would suggest that if
tete United States is the friend of Israel,
Li en we should stop supplying the means
tor Israel's suicide. Knowing that they
cannot rely upon the threat of an in-
creasing military capacity, perhaps both
I be Arabs and the Israelis will talk more
seriously and concentrate upon the
2carc.it for peace in the Geneva negotia-
tions. i simply cannot in good conscious
i/pte 1;44 give any country $2.2 billion to
anus.
RARICK. Mr. Chairman, I move
strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr, RARICK asked and was given
eemission to revise and extend. his
ii -larks.)
'Sr RARICK, Mr. Chairman, I take
this time to pose a question to my good
'no, the distinguished chairman of the
,r1:19?U a tee, Dr. MORGAN.
would ask the gentleman if he or any
liters of the committee have at any
tt considered the possibility that this
Mg,islation poses a consatutional
? iues-
egardurig a violation of the doctrine
ettaration of church and state as ex-
'tressed in the first amendment of the
17;nnstitution.
gar.
MORGAN. No. 1 do. not think the
ettnimittee ought to consider that. There
A,;A:1,; never any aiscussion in that area, to
a t y knowledge.
Tiii RARICK. Mr. Chairman, I well re-
mind the gentleman that the first
await reads:
,(,,,iciress shall make no iaw respecting an
of religion, or prohibiting the
exercise thereof.
MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, we are
ying this assistance to a religion;
we are giving it to a foreign, friendly
rn
!AMU( This is [lie problem that
is posed.
status of Israel is a matter if in-
cation, of course.
ate MORGAN. We are M no way giving
tan-Ymoney or granting these arms to a
aligion, Israel AS a state: it is a nation;
It is a member of the world community.
Mr. RARICK.. Is the gentleman's inter-
pretation that Israel is not a religious
state?
Mr. MORGAN. Well, not any more
than England or some other country is a
religious state, no.
I would say again that Israel is a mem-
ber of the world community. It is a state;
It is a nation.
Mr. RARICK. Of course, the problem
Is that there have not yet been any law-
suits filed on this issue.
Coming to the interpretation of
whether or not this is the establishment
of a religion, I might remind the mem-
bers of the committee that recently here
in Washington, D.C., several Federal
judges have ruled that taxpayers' funds
could not be used to place a nativity scene
on the ellipse in celebration of Christmas.
Other judicial decisions concerning sep=
aration of church and state under the
first amendment have forbidden prayer
by children in public schools. Allowing
this bill to pass without even considering
the constitutional ramifications certainly
creates a strange double standard as
concerns the American people and rela-
tions between themselves as compared to
their relations with foreigners concern-
ing the establishment of religions.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
very much for his response.
Mr. RUNNELS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the requisite number of words.
(Mr. RUNNELS asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RUNNELS. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that I may be
allowed to proceed for 5 additional
minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from New
Mexico?
'Mere was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Rumnts) for 10 minutes.
Mr. RUNNELS. Mr. Chairman, there
are two things in this bill that flashes
lights and rings bells?blank checks and
slush funds. I feel that a full discussion
is absolutely necessary so the American
taxpayers can read and judge for them-
selves the considerations and votes on
this measure.
Part of what I have to say has been
gaid thousands of times on this floor.
This is one place where I 'believe con-
a!etion means something and am im-
pressed with the many Members who do
net waiver on this score. My topics are
lease funds; in the Government bin;
abdication of power and; manipulation
of funds. Almost everyone has used or
these wards in a speech at one time,
ot? aim-then There are many quotations
T think are appropriate. I will not take
the time to cite commentators of the
press or quotable quotes from taxpayers'
letters. The CONGRESSIONAL RECORD will
do.
First, as I read the committee report,
page 7, there is to be an estimated outlay
of orily $600 million in fiscal year 1974
which will come out of the $2.2 billion.
The rest will come in succeeding years it
says. I ask, are we passing on something
that will become a form of carryover of
an unobligated balance from a prior
year? If $600 million is all that is needed
for expenditures in fiscal year 1974, then
why are we talking about $2.2 billion?
Why are we not talking about $600 mil-
lion? Why do we not review the $1.6 left
during next year's appropritions effort
when the figures are current?
I hope the Members will remember all
of the howling and screaming a couple
of weeks ago about carryovers and
unobligated funds. A favorite description
was "slush funds." If you have forgotten
here is a couple of quotes.
On page H10412 of the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD it says:
We can never have true congressional con-
trol over military spending as long as We
allow the Department of Defense to main-
tain such huge sums of money which they
can spend pretty much as they please. The
power of the purse Is the only real power
Congress can exercise to control the military
and I believe it is high time to reduce these
funds to more equitable amounts.
On that same day it was stated on page
H10413 that "we have given them carte
blanche, one might say" and although
the billion talked about was a large
amount, we were told it was a "slush
fund" or a kitty just for the asking.
Another page, H10422, says?
will we next see more of the $10 billion
of unobligated funds in the bill put to work
for America's reinvolvement in Vietnam?
Well, if you are worried about a pipe-
line of money to Vietnam, you had better
take a second look at this bill. Buried in
the language is a potential $2.2 billion
blank check to not only the President
hut to DOD for the reimbursement of
appropriations, accounts, and funds for
the value of articles and services sent
to Israel. I ask who in Congress has ab-
solute assurance that this reimbursed
money will not end up, as one Member
put it, in a fancy new F-SE with a hot
Vietnamese pilot blowing 671 gallons of
PRI: to bomb yet another- village? I do
ant want to shiver in the dark this win-
ter and I would suggest that if these
Members want to stick to their convic-
tions they will not vote for this slush
fund either.
Next, I have trouble understanding
who has got what and where is it going?
Just for starters, the $600 million out-
lay seems like an awfully low amount
and does not even sound reasonable. The
testimony in the hearings expresses con-
cern over the fact that Israel does not
have the cash to cover an obligation to
pay $1 billion in the February-March
time frame. There ie also a matter of
1500 million worth covering cash sales
prior to October 6, 1973. No one has said
where the cash will come from other
than from this bill. In fact it has been
said that it will come from this bill. That
totals $1.5 billion which will be an outlay
in fiscal year 1974 as I read it. And if I
read the provisions of the bill correctly,
the money will end up in DOD's pocket
for the reimbursement of goods and serv-
ices sold. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Clements just as much as said so when
he testified, and I will paraphrase, "If
Israel defaults on the cash sales, the
U.S. military departments may not be
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE H 11095
reimbursed.". He is no doubt referring to
the $1.5 billion of cash sales made around
October 1973.
I think either we have not yet ob-
tained all of the facts we need to make
a sensible decision or we are being sweet
talked, hoodwinked, and gobble-de-
gooked right out of our purse strings un-
der the cover of aid to Israel. ?
At first we were told that we must pro-
vide a billion for arms already sold and
shipped and for which Israel cannot pay.
Then the President says we need another
billion besides?but as I see it, this extra
billion amounts to a giant contingency
fund not supported by actual facts and
figures, but rather, hazy estimates. The
Deputy Secretary of Defense said we
may be confronted with another bill for
$3 billion. The Deputy Secretary of State
said that the Israelis have approached us
and Suggested they may need $500 mil-
lion a year?year after year?and we are
studying the matter. Not much is being
said of the outstanding debt on credit
sales before October 6 in the amount of
$1.2 billion.
The $2.2 billion looks piddley compared
to these amounts thrown around. Set-
ting a precedent with this bill, with this
magnitude of potential cost overrun is
not what I call appropriate?particularly
with regard to the lack of congressional
oversight of billions flowing every which
way.
Although I am one who supports the
theory that we should provide assistance
to Israel, I cannot agree with the meth-
ods contained in this bill. I am not even
bothering to propose an amendment be-
cause under the circumstances' there is
nowhere to begin?and it does not look
like the bill is needed in the first place.
Whether this bill passes or not, laws
already on the books provide ample 'au-
thorization to give needed assistance to
Israel provided the appropriations are
available.
We have the Jackson amendment to
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1971 which
authorizes unlimited assistance in this
kind of situation. Under the amendment,
which is in force till 1975, the assistance
is authorized through credit sales and the
President has the power to extend such
credit in any shape, manner or form he
chooses. Surely he can find a satisfactory
credit arrangement that will ease Israel's
acute economic burden. And I can see no
objection to a simple conversion of the
cash sales in question to a credit trans-
action.
There is one other matter I would like
to take up. The committee has amended
the bill directing the Secretary of De-
fense to study doctrine, tactics, assess
arms effectiveness, compare U.S. arms
with those of other major nations, con-
sider program unit costs, and report to
Congress.
I consider this amendment a direct
affront to the committees and those
Members in the House and the Senate
concerned with the annual examination
of the Defense Establishment. Nearly a
month ago the Armed Services Commit-
tee started an examination of these very
subjects. The committee did not ask the
Secreatry of Defense to do its work nor
was there aAlaw required to get the work
started. Twenty-one Members have al-
ready been to the Mideast to get a first
hand observation and discussion of these
matters and the investigation is continu-
ing. To do less would amount to a shirk-
ing of committee responsibilities to the
Congress and the taxpayer. I feel that the
amendment in this bill is redundant and
it seems nothing more than window-
dressing hastily tacked on at the last
minute.
SEC. 2. In addition to such amounts as
may be otherwise authorized to be appro-
priated to the President for security assist-
ance for the fiscal year 1974, there are hereby
authorized to be appropriated to the Presi-
dent not to exceed $2,220,000,000 for emer-
gency military assistance or foreign military
sales credits, or for both as the President may
determine, for Israel, and not to exceed $200,-
000,000 for emergency military assistance for
Cambodia.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report
the committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
On page 2, beginning in line 1, strike out
"and not to exceed $200,000,000 for emergency
military assistance for Cambodia." and in-
sert in lieu thereof the following: "of which
sum amounts in excess of $1,500,000.000 may
be used pursuant to this section or section 4
of this Act only if the President (1) deter-
mines it to be important to our national in-
terest that Israel receive assistance hereun-
der exceeding $1,500,000,000, and (2) reports
to Congress each such determintaion (if more
than one) at least twenty days prior to date
on which funds are obligated or expended un-
der this Act in excess of such $1.500,000,000
limitation. The twenty-day requirement con-
tained in the preceding sentence shall not
apply if hostilities are renewed in the Middle
East. The President shall include in his re-
port the amount of funds to be used pursuant
to the determination, the terms of the addi-
tional assistance under section 2 or section 4,
and the justification for the determination.
All information contained in the justification
shall be public information except to the ex-
tent that the President concludes that pub-
lication would be incompatible with the secu-
rity interests of the United States."
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
SEC. 3. Military assistance furnished out of
funds appropriated under section 2 of this
Act shall be furnished in accordance wtih all
of the provisions applicable to military as-
sistance under the Foreign Assistance Act of
1961 (75 Stat. 422; Public Law 87-195), as
amended. Foreign military sales credits ex-
tended to Israel out of such funds shall be
provided on such terms and conditions as the
President may determine and without regard
to the provisions of the Foreign Military Sales
Act (82 Stat. 1320; Public Law 90-629), as
amended.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask
unanimous consent that the remainder
of the bill be considered as read, printed
in the RECORD, and open to amendment
at any point.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
The Clerk read the remainder of the
bill as follows:
SEC. 4. At any time prior to June 30, 1974,
the President is hereby authorized, within
the limits of funds appropriated under sec-
tion 2 of this Act for Israel, to release Israel
from its contractual liability to pay for de-
fense articles and defense services purchased
or financed under the said Foreign Mili-
tary Sale Act or Under this Act during the
period beginning October 6, 1973, and end-
ing June 30, 1974, and such funds shall be
used to reimburse current applicable ap-
propriations, funds, and accounts of the
Department of Defense for the value of such
defense articles and defense services.
COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will re-
port the committee amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
On page 2, immediately after line 23, in-
sert the follow:
"SEC. 5. The Secretary of Defense shall con-
duct a study of the 1973 Arab-Israeli con-
flict to ascertain the effectiveness of the
foreign military assistance program as it
relates to the Middle East conflict, Includ-
ing weapons that the United States is pro-
viding to Israel through foreign assistance
programs, and to compare them to the ef-
fectiveness of the weapons which the Soviet
Union is providing to the Arab states. In
conducting such study and submitting such
report, the Secretary shall take care not to
disclose, directly or indirectly, intelligence
sources or methods or confidential informa-
tion received from any other nation. A re-
port of the conclusions of such study shall
be submitted to the Congress as soon as prac-
tical and in any case not later than Decem-
ber 31, 1974.
"SEc. 6. Of the funds appropriated pur-
suant to sectioin 2, the President may use
such sums as may be necessary from time
to time for payment by the United States
of its share of the expenses of the United
-Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East
as apportioned by the United Nations in ac-
cordance with Article 17 of the United Na-
tions Charter,"
The committee amendment was agreed
to.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. CROSS
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. GROSS: Page 4,
after line 10, add the following:
"SEc. 7. Notwithstanding any other pro-
vision of this Aot, none of the funds author-
ized to be appropriated under section 2 of
this Act shall be available for use as provided
in this Act until the President determines
and certifies to the Congress, in writing, that
current energy supplies available for use to
meet current energy needs of the United
States have been restored to the level of such
supplies so available on October 5, 103."
POINT OF ORDER
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve
a point of order against the amendment.
Mr. GROSS. Why does not the gentle-
man go ahead and make it? I do not
want to waste any energy. If the gentle-
man is going to make a point of order,
let him make it.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from Pennsylvania insist on his point of
order?
Mr. MORGAN. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I make. a point of order
against the amendment in that it deals
with a subject that is not germane to the
bill. As a matter of fact, it deals with an
energy crisis in an emergency- situation.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from Iowa wish to be heard on the point
of order?
Mr. GROSS. No, Mr. Chairman, I do
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
096 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
Egyptian .battle plan called for stopping
at. the June 1967 borders and for not
oressing the attack into Israel.
Two President have recognized and
supported the interests of Arab States,
as well as Israel, by sponsoring and stead-
fastly supporting United Nations Security
Council Resolution 242 in 1967 and Se-
curity Council Resolution 333 this year.
Just 2 weeks ago Secretary of State Kis-
singer restated U.S. support for these two
the United States has committed itself, in
security Council Resolution 338, to support
implementation of Security Council Res-
Motion :1.42 in all of its parts.
TIO. went on to say:
We hope that Israel, as well as the Arab
,,mintries, will recognize that one of the clear
,,onsequences of recent events is that a pure-
iy military solution to the problems of the
East is impossible .
This bill, is silent on nonmilitary solu-
tions and Arab interests. It :is advanced as
necessary to "maintain the balance of
power" in the Middle East, but Arab
States could understandably interpret it
as a bill to help maintain only the occu-
pation of Arab lands.
The House should amend the bill in
vides to avoid such a misinterpretation.
IL should explicitly endorse the wise ini-
tiative toward a peaceful settlement of
he ill/fiddle East conflict which two Presi?-
aents have advanced. The amendment I
offered in committee will provide badly
needed balance to this bill.
My amendment, which I will offer in
the House, states::
in addition to the maintenance of the bal-
ance of military power in the Middle East,
TilevI l. is intended
Assistance authorized herein for
intended to support the implementa-
tion of United Nations Security Council
Resolution 242 (1967) and United Nations
Security Council Resolution 338 (1973).
My amendment will provide needed
balance. It will do no harm to the inter-
-faits of Israel. Indeed, it should help the
negotiating position of our diplomats and
thus enhance the possibility that this
massive provision of military assistance
will actually become a powerful force
for a just peace.
M. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. FINDLEY. I yield to the gentle-
man from Wisconsin.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. The two United Na-
tions Security Council resolutions which
the gentleman mentions in his amend-
ment have for years been the policy of
i,he United States; is that not true?
Mr. FINDLEY. That is certainly true
or the executive branch but unfortu-
nately to this moment the Congress has
never stated its own position in regard
to U.N. Resolution 242.
Mr. ZABLOCKI. I join the gentleman
from Illinois in his efforts to bring bal-
ance to the bill. It is my sincere hope the
members of the committee will support
toe amendment.
Mr. FINDLEY. I thank the gentleman
from Wisconsin very much.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Illinois has expired.
(On request of Mr. ICHORD, Mr:FIND-
LEY was allowed to proceed for 2 addi-
tional minutes.)
not wish to oe heard on the point of
miler, I do not accede to it.
he CHAIRMAN (Mr MURPHY Of New
k . The Chair sustains the point of
e-eer because the amendment would
ike the authority contained in the bill
d-:1,,encient on an unrelated contingency.
ME ND MEM-. OFFERED B Y MR. FINDLEY
FINDLEY. ? Mr. Chairman. I offer
emendate/. it..
Clerk read as follows:
..mendment bffered by Mr. FIND'. : On
, 4, after line 10, add a new Section 7 to
as IODIR
7. In addition to the maintenarwe of
balance of military power in the Middle
the military assistance authorized
h for Israel is intended to sunport the
mementation of United Nations Security
Resolution 242 (1987) and united
Nations Security Council Resolution 338
Mir, FINDLEY asked and was given
!mission to revise and extend his
Alr, FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, this
bill I feel deserves careful examination
'les a number of reasons, but the great
fundamental flaw is the absence of even
single word which shows recognition
on the part of the Congress that Arab
states, as well as Israel, have legitimate
crests at stake.
My proposal for correcting the defect
a modest one: Include language which
i'::2.1:4_-rrs favorably to United Nations Res-
inetion 242 of 1967, and the supportive
resoltuion 338 of this year is a bal-
e:need thoughtful resolution still strong-
ly supported by the United States and
if other major powers. It calls noon
lame! as well as the Arab States to ac-
sept certain principles as the basis for
it peaceful settlement.
The amendments?printed in the com-
mittee report on page 13?would not
-otlitee. by one penny the financial and
:4iW:,a,ry assistance for Israel authorized
hi'his act. It would not extend finan-
? lal or military assistance in any form to
?v Arab State. But it would do some-
rilitig important: It would place
silli prestige of the House of Representa-
tives behind fairness and evenhanded-
as the basis for our Middle East
iojic,fa
'erne, the bill as reported says nothing
,slatut policy. It is nevertheless thunder-
is as a policy document. It supports
inasiiiiitly and implicitly only the mill-
, interests of Israel. It contemplates
a military solution to the problem.
is.rael of course has interests which
the United States should support, and for
;Ina, reason I voted to report this bill.
tint so do other parties to the recent
military conflict; namely. Egypt and
Jordan, with which we have diplomatic'
relations, and syria, with which we do
Jait.
Testimony before the committee dis-
assaef that, except for a few minor corn-
-tare-to actions, all the fighting in Oct,o-
her on Arab land occupied by
reel since 1967. The chairman of the
a' Joint Chiefs of Stain Adm. Thomas
.Diioorer, testified that he had no reason
?to 'Oelieve the Arab States had military
%eneetives in October extending beyond?
she recovery of these occupied lands.
merican intelligence reported that the
necember 11, 1973
(Mr. ICHORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. 'CHORD. Mr. Chairman. I rise
to commend the gentleman from Illinois
for offering this amendment. As the gen-
tleman from Wisconsin has stated, it will
bring balance to the bill.
The war between the Arabs and the
Israelis, is an enormously complex con-
troversy. It is going to be extremely dif-
ficult to obtain a just and lasting peace.
But it is to the interests of not only the
United States, but the entire world, that
peace be obtained in the Mideast, be-
cause the closing of the Suez Canal, for
example, in my opinion stands as a
monument to the stupidity of man: but
if a peace is to be reached, it must be
reached within the framework of resolu-
tion 242 of the United Nations.
I would hope that the chairman of the
committee will accept the amendment of
the gentleman from Illinois. I commend
him for his offering it.
Mr. FINDLEY. I thank the gentleman
very much.
(Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN asked and
was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I rise in opposition to the amend-
ment. A few minutes ago the gentleman
from Illinois and I had a brief discussion
regarding the language which in his
mind would make this bill more balanced.
The thing that disturbs me is the fact
that the gentleman seems to be trying
to write legislative history to indicate,
without the language he is now propos-
Mg, that in some way we were inten-
tionally trying to slap the Arabs. He says
the Arabs might interpret U.S. assistance
to Israel as being provided only on the
basis of a continuing occupation by Israel
of the Arab lands.
I can see no justification for such a
contention or belief on the part of any-
one, including the gentleman from Illi-
nois. He says that the fundamental flaw
in the language of the bill as written is
its failure to recognize that the Arabs
have legitimate interests. How could he
possibly Justify a contention that we
Members of Congress do not recognize
that the Arabs have legitimate interests
in the area? I would think a child must
know the Arabs have legitimate interests.
The fact that we are providing assist-
ance to Israel should not by any stretch
of the imagination be considered as an
indication that we do not think the Arabs
have any rights.
What the gentleman seems to be say-
ing is that the language of Resolution
242 will give a pro-Arab flavor to what
we are doing.
As the gentleman indicated earlier, I
do not think this should be interpreted
as an anti-Arab move in any sense. Ne-
cessity compels us to restore the military
balance in the Middle East.
I, myself, think it is entirely unfound-
ed to suggest that we are going around
bankrolling wars as the gentleman from
Iowa has just claimed.
I think it is even more untenable to
charge, as the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Hays) just did, that we are arming both
sides to keep this thing going.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 CIA-RDP75BONOR000400010050-6 H 11097
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?1-iOu
I do not snicker at our administra-
tion officials who say that our objective
is peace. Our objective is peace. Our ob-
jective in this bill, though obviously pro-
viding assistance to only one side, is not
to encourage war, but to develop condi-
tions that will produce peace.
The fact that there is no reference to
Resolution 242 in the bill should not be
considered, unless we make it so, a re-
pudiation of the principles of Resolu-
tion 242.
As the gentleman from Illinois himself
suggested, the fact that Israel supported
the U.N. Resolution 242 indicates that it
can be read almost any way anyone wants
to read it.
What does this resolution say? It says
that we are interested in the establish-
ment of a just and lasting peace. Of
course, we are. It says that we are in-
terested in fair and recognized bounda-
ries, free from threats or acts of force.
Of course we are. But to some extent
the wording and the language of Resolu-
tion 242 is out of date. What we should
be concerned with is the practical situ-
ation in which the countries of the Mid-
dle East find themselves.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I would like to finish, and I do have
5 minutes. If I have the time, I shall be
glad to yield.
If, in the course of negotiations, all the
participants recognize the continued
validity of Resolution 242, more power to
them. All I am saying is, this amendment
provides no balance; it does not provide
a pro-Arab bias regarding what we are
doing nor will it prevent us from being
considered antiArab, because we are aid-
ing Israel.
The gentleman says it does not reduce
the amount we are giving Israel. That is
the point; it is already well known in
the Arab world that the President would
like to provide aid and the expectation is
that Congress will provide it. So I would
suggest that we are not doing any good
by incorporating this language, and it
could complicate the situation.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, the gen-
tleman very conveniently refrained from
referring to a very important item in the
United Nations Resolution 242 which
states,
Withdrawal of Israeli Armed Forces from
territory occupied in recent conflicts.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, I did not very conveniently fail to
recognize that language; it was the lack
of time. In fact, I specifically recognized
that language in my previous remarks. Of
course, there is recognition on the part
of this country and Israel that there be
an adjustment of territory.
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, the basic imbalance in
this situation is a result of imbalance in
the past. The gentleman from New Jer-
sey is quite correct that the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Illinois
will not correct that imbalance. On the
other hand, it is very difficult for me to
see why anybody should object to this
amendment.
It is very true that it does very little.
As the gentleman from Illinois says, it
doe S not hurt the Israelis or hurt any-
body. Actually, all it is, is a sort of an
expression of congressional intent.
But, I think in that fashion it is im-
portant because what it says, in effect, is
that although we are trying to maintain
that military balance in the Mid East,
we are doing it as a step in maintaining
peace and we are doing it in the recogni-
tion and with: the intent that in the end
we want a just and balanced peace, some-
thing beyond a mere maintaining of mili-
tary balance.
If we vote against that amendment,
it seems to me that in effect we are say-
ing that all we are interested in is a
military balance; that we are not con-
cerned with going ahead and arriving
at the type Of peace which Resolution
242 envisages. I think that is what the
gentleman from Illinois is trying to do,
and I cannot see any possible harm in
adopting the amendment, and much
good may flow from it.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. DENNIS. I yield to the gentleman
from Illinois.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank
the gentleman for his words and support.
I would like to take this opportunity to
respond to something the gentleman
from New Jersey said. He indicated that
my amendment was intented to give a
pro-Arab flavor to the bill, or that the
amendment has a pro-Arab flavor.
Nothing could be further from the truth,
and an examination of the amendment
and United Nations Resolution 242 will
show that.
Furthermore, the gentleman from New
Jersey has stated his personal support
for United Nations Resolution 242, so
I am at a loss to understand why there
should be any objection on his part or
on the part of anyone else to including
this very beneficial balanced language.
Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, neither
the gentleman from Illinois nor the
gentleman from Indiana wants to give a
pro anybody flavor. We are interested
in even handed justice.
Mr. PRICE of Texas. Mr. Chairman,
I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
(Mr. PRICE of Texas asked and was
given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Texas. Mr. Chairman,
I rise to discuss the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
FINDLEY) .
I had not planned to take part in the
discussion on this bill. However, I think
It is time that some of us stand up and
let it be known to the Members of this
body what we learned on the trip that
the Committee on Armed Services took
to Israel and Egypt recently.
We met in Israel with General Dayan
and received a briefing from him about
the war. We met with their economic ad-
visers. We met with Mrs. Meir for an
hour and a half, and the war and eco-
nomic situation was discussed very thor-
oughly and frankly.
We saw firsthand the captured Rus-
sian materials that were in Israeli hands.
We went to the front at the Suez Canal
and viewed the territory that was held
by the Israelis on the Egyptian side of
the canal. And while in Egypt we traveled
to and crossed the Suez Canal to the
Egyptian front.
While in Israel we were told of the
economic hardships that are now being
brought upon the State of Israel and the
losses that were sustained by their people
in men and materials. We were told that
approximately 60,000 immigrants are
coming into that nation every year and
is costing $40,000 per family to relocate.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know what
part of our assistance goes for the set-
tlement of people of the Jewish race in
Israel, but I am wondering if it is the
position of the citizens of our country
that our taxpayers should be called upon
to provide assistance for the relocation
of a race of people in peripatetic.
I wafit it clearly understood that I
have no animosity toward the Jewish
people of this country or the Nation of
Israel or toward the Arabic people of
this country of Egypt.
To continue conveying my observations
on our trip to the Mideast, we then pro-
ceeded to Egypt, and we met with Presi-
dent Sadat for 11/2 hours, and the very
question was asked that the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. FINDLEY) brought out
in his amendment.
He said, "Why are you Americans
furnishing weaponry and not only tax-
ing your people to give them this weap-
onry but to sell them this weaponry to
kill Egyptian people when we have been
your friends for years?"
And they also asked us at the same
time, "Why are you loaning and giving
$2.2 billion to Israel, in order to kill
Egyptian people?"
Honestly, it was difficult to reply to this
question.
President Sadat said that the Sinai
had belonged to the Egyptian people for
7,000 years, and they intended to take it
back.
He said, "You are always worrying
about the protection of the Israelis. What
about the protection of the Egyptian peo-
ple? We, too, would like to have some
type of protection and guarantee."
Then the thought was brought out:
Why not have a buffer zone as called for
under U.N. section 242? However, the
U.N. forces have not been able to en-
force or guarantee any buffer zone for
either side as long as the Russians con-
tinue their aggression in all parts of the
world.
Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, the U.N.,
In the Middle East, with regard to this
war, is a joke. We observed a U.N man
standing there with a gun, and he could
not have turned back anybody or en-
forced anything. It is a tribunal that sits
there, and it is a farce, in my estimation.
Both sides, Egyptians, Syrians, and
Israelis, can push them aside immediate-
ly if they want to move tomorrow, and
the U.N. would not make one iota of
difference.
Why do we not try to settle the prob-
lem with all countries invalued? Both
countries say, "Yes, we want peace," and
then they say, "We want peace, but we
want arms to carry out this peace."
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000400010050-6
11 11098 CONGRESSIONAL
-11-ai CHAIRMAN, The time ref the gen-
tleman has expired.
Mr. PRICE of Texas, by unanimous
censent, was allowed to proceed for 2
Ate Lionel minutes.)
PRICE of Texas. I yield to the
.nt.ien-atrt from Pennsylvania for a ques-
tion.
r, MORGAN. I wonder whether any
member of toe Armed Services Commit-
tee t:riat was over there asked President
leaflet where he got the SAM-2. SAM-3,
feAM-6, and SAM-7 missiles, and SCUD
miesiles, and Frog missiles. and Saeger
eneitank missiles, and T-e2 tanks, and
Mit - 21 Jet fighter planes and a lot of
ether military equipment and under
what terms?
Mr. PRICE of Texas. They bought
ehem from Russia and said they would
Le glad to buy the al-4's from us if we
would sell them to them.
Mr, MORGAN. Does the gentleman
think they bought them?
Mn PRICE of Texas. All I know is what
tile gentleman told us. I am not tied to
any position. I was a youne man in 1947
and 1 was not in the Government at that
lime. I am not arguing for or against
eEther side but trying to discuss it so
that hopefully we can make a decision
on the matter on the merits_
Mr. MORGAN. I am sure that in the
Armed Services Committee, the gentle-
elan was told about the amount of ton-
nage of military equipment the Soviets
efini: into Syria and Egypt before the Oc-
tober hostilities, and again after the hos-
alities began, as compared to what we
lea.ve furnished to Israel. It was a much
greater tonnage of aims than what we
rent to Israel as replacement for war
iesses. I am sure the gentleman realizes
ileat Israel has an economy that is at
least twice as developed as the economy
oil Egypt,- so it is difficult to imagine how
leeePt could possibly have paid for those
eons.
leer. PRICE of Texas. According to
i he figures presented to me, the Rus-
tans shipped 15,000 tons over a period
fii days and we shipped 14,800 tons over
period of time.
ivtr. MORGAN. I am talking about the
whole reread since the start of the war.
ivIr. PRICE of Texas. I agree with the
efintiernan. President Sadat said that the
$2.2 billion of course, will be taken as an
eI f rout to the Egyptian people. Of course
they are going to take it as an affront. I
would do so and so would you. But I am
raving that we are not going to help
folve the Middle East Problem if we keep
ii4linuing more money and pumping more
efuipment in there. We do realize that
perhaps the overall problem is really be-
tween Russia and ourselves aside from
the Israeli-Arabic war.
Mr. WOLFF. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Texas. I yiele. to the
eentlenian.
Mn WOLFE Can the gentleman tell
-'4)4' on what side the Arab nations were in
World War II and on what side they
were in World War I?
'ehe CHAIRMAN. The time of :he gen-
tleman has expired.
err. DERWINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I
move ai strike the reouisite number of
words,
RECORD? HOUSE
(Mr. DERWINSKI asked and was
e yen permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. DERWINSKI, Mr_ Chairman, I
h -me to return this debate to the amend-
ment before us. Basically I rise in oppo-
sition to the amendment. I think it is
ennerfluous tie the bill before us.
I have just discussed the matter with
the geptlema.n from Illinois (Mr. FIND-
"Ey) and I do not think this amendment
does a disservice to the measure, but I do
not believe it adds anything, either.
The important thing is that in the
next week negotiations will take place in
Geneva. The bill before Us is a practical
recognition of the tact that one of the
weys in which we hope to keep the peace
Is to maintain a legitimate military
balance there. That is the basic intention
of this proposal before us.
Calling for compliance with Resolu-
tion 242 again, I say, does not perfoien a
di sserviee, but there Is hardly anyone in
the United Nations who agrees on ex-
actly what Resolution 242 means. I be-
lieve at this point, outside of being a
momentous nu:mber in history?at least
in the history of the United Nations?
Resolution 242 will be rendered obsolete
at the start of peace negotiations ap-
proximately a week from now in Geneva.
As I understand the Issue before us,
It is possible for the military balance to
be maintained so that peace will be
maintained du:ring the course of what
will be long, delicate, frustrating but
eventually; we hope, successful peace
neeotiations.
[am not aware of anyone who wants
a new outbreak of hostilities in the
Middle Ease. I look uport this basic bill
as an investment in peace in the Middle
East. Since it does not add a needed fea-
ture. I would suggest we reject the
endmen t.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, will the
Pc' Itleman yield.?
e1r. DERWINSKI. 1 yield to the gen-
tleman from Illinois.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I realize
that the gentleman from Illinois regards
this as a very modest and ineffective
amendment. but I want to point out that
others do not so view it.
For example, former U.N. Ambassatlor
Charles Yost read the language of the
amendment, and he said, "I strongly
support it." He said. "I think it ought
to lie written into the bill."
People from the Arab States not only
in :his country, but elsewhere, view reso-
lution 242 as a significant statement of
U.N. policy. It does have importance and
value in their eyes. And if for no other
reason, the Congress ought to seize this
opportunity to support this..
Mr. DERWINSKI. I etill do not believe
that proves that this particular amend-
ment deserves support at the present
time. I do not see the point in further
cluttering up the bill.
Mr. PASCELL. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I yield to the gen-
tleman from Florida.
Mr. FASCELL. Will the gentleman
agree that the timing of this Particu-
lar amendment is of great significance?
Here is a U.N. resolution which has been
December 71, 1973
on the statute books since the last war,
renewed in October of 1973. This has
been accepted as U.S. policy, enunciated
by the President, and voted on by the
United States in the U.N. Now the gentle-
man says let us have the Congress put
its stamp of approval into the bill. I think
that this is interjecting an entirely new
element in this bill. We have come here
to talk about authorizations for funds
for helping Israel, and to inject a U.N.
resolution dealing with a certain policy
I think pits an entirely new light on
the problem. Obviously it can only be
interpreted to mean something in terms
of pending negotiations and thus would
be dangerous to adopt at this particular
moment. The timing of the effort of the
gentleman from Illinois is what gives
this amendment on unfortunate inter-
pretation. It can be read as a U.S. effort
to pressure the pending negotiations dif-
ferently from that al eady established.
And the meaning of the U.N. resolutions
can only be determined by the negotia-
tions.
Does not the gentleman agree that
putting this amendment in this bill at
this time could give it a erroneous inter-
pretation even though unintended?
Mr. DERWINSKI. I agree with the
gentleman from Florida, and may 1 sa,y
frankly that humility requires me to
admit that the gentleman from Florida
has made the argument much better
than I did myself.
I again suggest that we defeat this
amendment.
Mr. SMITH of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, I move to strike the requisite num-
ber of words, and I rise in strong
support of the amendment.
(Mr. SMITH of New York asked and
was given permission to revise and ex-
tend his remarks.)
Mr. SMITH of New York. Mr. Chair-
man, the gentleman from Illinois in his
supplemental views says that this would
do something vitally important, and I
agree with the gentleman. It would place
the prestige of the Howe of Representa-
tives behind fairness and evenhanded-
ness as the basis for our Middle East
policy.
Mr. I would like to ask the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. FINDLEY)
a question, and that is has the committee
talked to Secretary of State Dr. Kissin-
ger in regard to similar language?
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, if the
gentleman will yield, shortly after this
bill was introduced by the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. MoeceN) Henry
Kissinger appeared before our Commit-
tee on Foreign Affairs here in the Capi-
tol Office, and in response to a question
I raised he said:
I have no objection to this bill being
amended by including language which would
state the support of the Congress for U.N.
Resolution 242.
POINT OF 0111,ER
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, a point
of order. I believe the gentleman from
Illinois is quoting a remark which may
have been made, or may not have been
merle. in executive session.
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, if I have
violated a rule of the Rouse I certainly
apologize. I will say that he certainly did
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?HOUSE
not qualify by any secrecy known to me
his views on this.
I was asking him for his position on
an amendment to a bill which is very
public in its character. I will add further
that shortly before this I had one of
these rare opportunities to be in the
Oval Room, and the President told me
of his own personal support for the terms
of U.N. Resolution 242. So support of
U.N. Resolution 242 is obviously some-
thing that the administration is not at
least ashamed of, and I hope the gentle-
man will not press his point of order.
Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New York. I yield to the
gentleman from New York.
Mr. WOLFF. I think the gentleman for
yielding.
I should like to take the time to ask
the gentleman, was not this amendment
brought up in committee, and was it not
defeated in committee?
Mr. FINDLEY. Yes, to my sorrow it was
turned down by a very substantial vote.
I regret that my lack of ability to argue
its merits caused it to fail upon that oc-
casion, but I have high hopes for today.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New York. I yield to the
chairman, the gentleman from Pennsyl-
vania.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I made
by point. I withdraw my point of order.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SMITH of New York. I yield to the
gentleman from New Jersey.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. I thank the
gentleman for yielding.
The gentleman has suggested that in
some way this language would show that
Congress is interested in fairness and
evenhandedness. Is there anything in the
language of this bill that makes the gen-
tleman think that we would not be inter-
ested in fairness and evenhandedness if
this amendment were not included?
Mr. SMITH of New York. If I were a
member of an Arab nation of the Middle
East and read the bill, I would not think
this body was too fair and evenhanded.
I would urge this committee to adopt
the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the remain-
der of my time.
`Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I move
to strike the last word.
(Mr. ICHORD asked and was given
permission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in
behalf of the amendment of the gentle-
man from Illinois. Let me say that I
cannot understand how the Committee
can possibly oppose this amendment. Let
me read what the amendment says:
Sec. 6. In addition to the maintenance
of the balance of military power in the Middle
East, the Military Assistance authorized
herein for Israel is intended to support the
implementation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 242 (1967) and United
Nations Security Council Resolution., 338
(1973).
It is true, as the gentleman from New
Jersey states, there are different inter-
pretations of United Nations Resolution
242, but both the Israelis and the Arabs
have stated that they agree with the
United Nations Resolution 242.
Let me state to the members of the
Committee that I have the greatest re-
spect and admiration for the Israel na-
tion and for the courage of her soldiers.
There is no doubt, as stated by the gen-
tleman from Texas (Mr. Pince) the war
between the Arabs and the Israelis is one
of quality, against quantity?quality sup-
plied in weapons by the United States of
America, and quantity supplied to the
Arab nations by the nation of Russia.
The Israelis are using our weapons, I
would state, even better, in my opinion,
than we can use the weapons ourselves.
The military strategy carried out by the
Israelis in the recent war was daring,
brave, and nothing short of brilliant.
I have the greatest respect and ad-
miration for Israel and her soldiers and
we do have a vital interest in the con-
tinuance of Israel as a nation. But, Mr.
Chairman, the Israelis by the occupation
of Sinai have done something for the
Egyptians that no Egyptian leader has
been able to do for 5,000 years: it has
united the Egyptians. The Egyptians are
united and they are ready and willing to
die, if necessary, to regain the Sinai.
I ask the gentleman from New Jersey
to answer this question. As the gentle-
man from Texas stated, we were re-
peatedly asked by President Sadat and
other Egyptian leaders this question:
What have we done as a nation to cause
you to supply the Israelis guns and am-
munitions to kill our innocent women and
children and to occupy our land? They
pointed out that they were not Com-
munists by any stretch of the imagina-
tion; that their Moslem religion pre-
cluded their ever going communistic;
that many of their leaders were educated
in the United States; that they had the
utmost respect for our Nation and all for
which it stands. This was not the easiest
question for us to answer. Oh, yes, we
could answer the question obliquely by
saying that we were not supplying the
weapons to kill Egyptians; that we were
supplying the weapons to maintain a
balance of power and we could also state
that the Israelis could say the same
thing about Russian arms. To say the
least, this is a difficult question to answer
to their satisfaction. What have they
done to us? As the gentleman from Illi-
nois has stated, we should have balance
in the bill. We should recognize that
Egypt and other Arab nations who want
to be our friends do have legitimate in-
terests.
I state to the gentleman from New
Jersey that, if we are going to obtain a
peace in the Middle East, it will have to
be within the framework of the United
Nations Resolution 242.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ICHORD: I yield to the gentleman
from New Jersey.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen-
tleman from Missouri has expired.
(On request of Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN,
and by unanimous consent, Mr. Icnoae
was allowed to proceed for 2 additional
minutes.)
H 11099
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Chair-
man, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentle-
man was asking me a question. All the
gentleman has made me think is that
perhaps some members of the Foreign
Affairs Committee should have accom-
panied the members of the Armed Serv-
ices Committee if they were not able to
answer that question that the Egyptians
Posed.
We are not anxious to give anybody
arms, and Lord knows we are not anx-
ious to pour a substantial amount of
arms into the Middle East. We are doing
it because the Soviet Union and others
have been pouring arms into Egypt and
Syria.
-Of course, there must be something
other than a military effort to resolve
the difficulty. Of course, there must be
a recognition of concessions on the part
of both sides along the lines of Reso-
lution 242.
Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I decline
to yield further. We are not making any
interpretations of the United Nations
Resolution 242. Why is the gentleman
objecting to the amendment? The Is-
raelis have said they agree with 242 and
the Arabs have said they agree with 242.
Why should not the Congress of the
United States agree with Resolution 242?
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. If the gentle-
man is asking me a question, I am not
suggesting we should not. I am suggest-
ing the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
FINDLEY) and the gentleman and others
are making a mountain out of a mole-
hill. Nobody is suggesting because we do
not have language with respect to Reso-
lution 242 in this bill that we are some-
how repudiating it. I am saying, if we
want to state the U.S. position, we can
do it in some way other than by adopt-
ing the weasel wording of Resolution
242?and I mean no disrespect to the
U.N. by this description?but it was
passed in 1967. I do not think it adds
much to the prestige of the House of
Representatives one way or another to
support this U.N. resolution. I would
suggest we vote against the amendment:
Mr. ICHORD. I would put it the other
way around. I would say, if the amend-
ment does not amount to anything, why
is the committee making a mountain
out of a molehill?
Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I
move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in 'opposition to
the Findley amendment. In doing so let
me also observe that of course on the
Armed Services trip to the Middle East
we had a lot of democracy, since ob-
viously not all the members of that sub-
committee see eye to eye on this legisla-
tion. But as long as there has been some
reference to the President of Egypt (and
I have some qualms as to exactly how
much of that conversation we ought to
discuss here) I think it should be made
clear, and I speak now as just one of the
members of that delegation and not in
an official capacity as its chairman, that
It was perfectly obvious to all of us that
President Sadat's primary concern is to
get back to Arab territories.
He made it clear to all of us in the dis-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
1100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE December 11, 1973
J,:aislion that that was his objective, and.
" that objective is achieved and peace
obta,ined in the Middle East, then he
not worried whether Israel gets $2.2
or $3.2 billion. His concern is to
achieve peace: and although some mem-
of our subcommittee have spoken
?one one of tins amendment thia. after-
sac; other members have spoken,
on the other side, I feel strongy that
iioth sides in the Middle East siacerely
ant peace and that there is a real op-
"n unity to achieve peace. In my judg-
olent this paxticular bill goes to the
heart of achieving that peace because it
ti help to achieve the military balance
on which any kind of effective peace
iousi, be founded.
Now with specific regard to the amend-
qiient offered by the gentleman from
cleahng with U.N. Resolution 242,
She fact of the matter is, that this reso-
nition, which of course we all s'..ipport,
actually says a great many things, as
liref Supreme Court justice Arthur
ol (they g said and in an article in the
Washington Post-on Sunday. The fact is
that Resolution 242. like most gcod po-
litical documents, including the cease-
wo agreement in the lYliddie East ne-
otiated by Mr. Kissinger, contained a
substantial number of ambiguities. And
:a..., the fact of the matter is that putting
T reference to it in this legislat.Acn does
not (nTnimit us on either side.
A,ltually the achievement of peace in
East will depend on what the
l'eace Conference which convenes on the
glai of December in Geneva decides what
Kesottition 242 means.
T hojleve we would be making a very
mistake here on this floor, when
ani arc being presented with a simple
re directed toward one single aS-
9e,A of tins overall problem, the military
-,,n,ITect, that we should try to get into
be specific details of those peace nego-
ais, which we simply cannot do here
nit the floor of this House.
-place to determine what Resolu-
J.on. 242 really means is in the Peace
i:Pplerence. We ought to leave that busi-
?Tess up to the participants in the Peace
i.l.onference and not try to include it in
egislation.
MORGAN. Mr. Chairman. 1 rise
opposition to the amendment.
ean assure the Members of this
etouse that there is nothing in this bill
that we are considering here today that
is in any way anti-Arab. There if noth-
ing, here that is anti-Arab at all.
This is not a policy bill, as many
.aioifi,kers have pointed out, but a bill
which involves existing U.S. policy.
I hope we do not get into the writing
of policies here, as the gentleman from
Vs, York saiei. Negotiations are going
start on the 18th of this month and
we are being confronted with a pol-
matter, which could certainly harm
se negotiations.
Mr: KETCH UM. Mr. Chairman, will
eOft eman yield?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle-
.
roan from California.
KercHuM. Did we not just exact
auch a policy in the trade bill a few min-
ate*: ago?
Mr. MORGAN. The gentleman did not
vote for the trade bill. I am not defend-
ing what happened then. I am defending
this bill.
The amendment of the gentleman
from Illinois in my opinion will add more
controversy to the negotiations that are
going to start on the 18th.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. MORGAN. I yield to the gentle-
man from California.
Mr. MAILLIARD. I do not think there
is any harm in the substance of the
amendment: but to try to go back to a
policy established by the "United Nations
6 years ago when we are in a whole new
ball game is just unwise.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I urge
defeat of the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. FINDLEY) .
The question was taken and the Chair
announced that the noes appeared to
have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Chairman, I de-
mand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
vice. and there were?ayes 82, noes 334,
not voting 16, as follow:
Baker
Bid ;man
pcnnett
Bowen .
Burleson, Tex.
Hurlison, Mo.
metier
chigholm
Cochran
Coflicr
Cronin
Daniel, Robert
W., Jr.
Davis, Wis.
de is Garza
riclienback
Dennis
du Pont
Edwards, Ala.
ryins, Tenn.
Findley
Flynt
Surd,
William D.
Gibbons
Ginn
Gross
Hain/tier-
rchm kit
Hanna
Adorns
Addabbo
Alexander
Anderson,
Anderson, Dl.
Andrews, N.C.
Andrews,
Dak.
Annunzio
Archer
Arends
..:lninstrong .
Ashbrook
Ashley
ilspm
Iladillo
Befalls
Barrett
Beard
Bell
Bergland
Bevill
Biaggi
iiieNter
Dinghain
Blackburn
Blatnik
[Roil No. 6461
AYES-82
Hansen, Wash.
Hastings
Heinz
Hicks
Holt
Hosrner
Hutchinson
Ichord
Jarman
Johnson, Colo.
Jones, Okla.
Jones, Tenn.
Kastenmeier
Kazen
Ketchum
Landrum
Lott
McClory
McCloskey
Mann
Me raziti
Martin, Nebr.
Martin, N.C.
Ma yne
Mazooli
Miller
Mink
Montgomery
Mosher
Nedzi
NOES-33
Boggs
Bol and
Bolling
Brademas
Brasco
Bray
Breaux
Breckinridge
Brinkley
Brooks
Broomfield
Brotzman
Brown, Calif.
Brown, Mich,
Brown, Ohio
Broyhill, N.C.
Broyhill, Va.
Buchanan
Burgener
Burke, Fla.
Burke, Masa.
Burton
Byron
Camp .
Carey, N.Y.
Carn.ey, Ohio
Carter
Casey, Tex.
Cederberg
Par ris
Poage
Powell, Ohio
Price. Tex.
Pritchard
Rarick
Roberts
Roncalio, Wyo.
Runnels
Schroeder
Sebelius
Sinister
Skubitz
Smith, N.Y.
Ste nton,
J. William
Steiger. Ariz.
Symms
Thomson, Wis,
Treen
Vander Jagt
Waggonner
Wh Men
Wil son,
Charles H.,
Calif.
Zablocki
Zwach
Chamberlain
Chappell
Clancy
Clark
Clausen,
Don H.
Clawson, Del
Clay
Cleveland
Cohen
Collins, Ill.
Collins, Tex.
Conable
Conlan
Conte
Conyers
Corman
Cotter
Coughlin
Crane
Culver
Daniel, Dan
Daniels,
Dominick V.
Danielson
Davis, Ga.
Davis, S.C.
Delaney
DellurnS
De nholin
Dent
Derwinski
Devine
Dickinson
Diggs
Blilgell
Dore-airy.
Dorn
Downing
Kuykendall
Kyros
Landgrebe
Latta
Leggett
Lehman
Lent
Litton
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Drinan Luj an
McCollister
Duncan McCormack
Eckhardt McDade
.:(1 wards, Calif. McEwen
i'llberg McFall
Esch McKay
Eshleman McKinney
Evans, Colo. McSpadden
Fascell Macdonald
Fish Madden
Flood Madigan
Flowers Mahon
Foley alailliarci
Por,ythe Mall sty
Fountain Mathias, Calif
Fraser Mathis, Ga.
relinghuysen Matsunaga
Frenzel 1VIeeds
Frey Melcher
Froehlich Metcalfe
Fulton 1VIezyinsky
7' Lai :la Michel
Gaydos
Ciettys
eileamo
Caiman
Goldwater
Gonzalez
Goodling
Grasso
Gray
Green, Oreg.
Green, Pa.
Griffiths
Grover
Gubser
Gude
Gunter
Milford
Minish
Minshall, Ohio
Mitchell, N.Y.
Mizell
Moakley
Mollohan
Moorhead.
Calif.
Moorhead, Pa,
Morgan
Moss
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
Myers
Natcher
(luyer Nelsen
Haley Nichols
Hamilton Nix
Hanley Obey
Hanrahan O'Brien
Hansen, /claim O'Hara
Harrington O'Neill
Harsha Owens
Harvey Passman
Hawkins Patman
Hays Patten
Hechler, W. Va. Pepper
Heckler, Mass. Perkins
Helstoski Pettis
Henderson Peyser
Hillis Pickle
Hinshaw Pike
^ ogan Podell
Hol 'field Preyer
Holtzman Price, Ill.
Horton Quie ,
Howard Quillen
H u ber Railsback
Iludnut Randall
Kungate Rangel
Johnson, Calif. Rees
Johnson, Pa., Regula
Jones, Ala. Reid
Jones, N.C. Reuss
Jordan Rhodes
Ic arth Riegle
Keating Rinaldo
Kemp Robinson, Va,
King Robison, N.Y.
Kluczynski Rodino
Koch Roe
NOT VOTING-16,
Akalnor
Burke, Calif.
Erlenborn
Fisher
FL6bert
hunt
Rogers
Roncallo, N.Y.
Rooney, Pa.
Rose
Rosenthal
Rostenkowski
Roush
Rousselot
Roy
Roybal
Ruppe
Ruth
Ryan
St Germain
Sandman
Sarasin
Sarban es
Satterfield
Scherle
Schneebeli
Seiberling
Shipley
Shriver
Sikes
Sisk
Slack
Smith, Iowa
Snyder
Spence
Staggers
Stanton,
James V.
Stark
Steele
Steelman
Steiger. Wis.
Stephens
Stratton
Stubblefield
Stuckey
Studds
Symington
Talcott
Taylor, Mo.
Taylor, N.C.
Teague, Calif.
Teague, Tex.
Thompson, N.J.
Thone
Thornton
Tiernan
Towell, Nev.
TJdall
1711man
Van Deerlin
Vanik
Vigorito
Waldie
Wampler
Ware
Whalen
White
Whitehurst
Widnall
Wiggins
Williams
Wilson, Bob
Wilson,
Charles, Tex.
Winn
Wolff
Wright
Wydler
Wylie
Wyman
Yates
Yatron
Young, Alaska
Young, Fla.
Young, Ga.
Young, Ill.
Young, S.C.
Young, Tex.
Zion
Mills, Ark.
Mitchell, Md.
Rooney, N.Y.
Shoup
Steed
Stokes
Sullivan
Veysey
Walsh
Wyatt
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. SIKES
Mr. SIXES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an
amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE II 11101
Amendment offered by Mr. SIKES On page
4, after line 10, add a new Section '7:
'It is the sense of Congress that every
reasonable effort be made by the President
to bring about meaningful negotiations be-
tween Israel and the Arab states directly
concerned leading to a treaty of peace in the
Middle East and to a resumption of diplo-
matic and trade relations between the
United States and the Arab countries, and
between Israel and the Arab countries."
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chainnan, I reserve
a point of order on the amendment.
(Mr. SIXES asked and was given per-
mission to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unan-
imous consent that I may be permitted
to speak for an additional 2 minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from
Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from
Florida is recognized for 7 minutes.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I believe
this amendment is very clear. I question
that it requires detailed discussion. I am
hopeful that the Committee will accept
the amendment.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, will the
gentleman yield?
Mr. SIRES. I yield to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania.
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have
had some consultation with the gentle-
man from Florida, and if the point of
order which has been reserved by the
gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Grtoss) to
the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. SixEs) is overruled by
the Chair, then I, as the chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs, would ac-
cept the amendment. I think it is a
good amendment.
One of the principal objectives of the
bill before us is to promote lasting peace
In the Middle East?peace which can
only come through negotiations between
Israel and the Arab countries, and which
will benefit all concerned.
The amendment of the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. STK:Fs) seeks that same
objective and for that reason I would
support it.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIRES. I yield to the gentleman
from California (Mr. MAILLIARD) , the
ranking minority member on the com-
mittee.
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Chairman, while
I have not had opportunity for consulta-
tion with all of the minority committee
members, as far as I am personally con-
cerned I am agreeable to accepting the
amendment. ?
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, I had been
disposed to try to save this time, but
now that a point of order has been re-
served I feel constrained to discuss the
amendment, even though it has been ac-
cepted by the committee on both sides
Of the aisle.
Mr. Chairman, the language of the
amendment is carried in the report on
the appropriations bill which will follow
this bill. It was overwhelmingly adopted
by the Appropriations Committee.
Let me make it clear that I support
the legislation now before the House. I
__realize that without positive help for
Israel from the United States that na-
tion would in a few years cease to exist.
-Arab power is growing, and other na-
tions are backing away from Israel be-
cause of concern for Arab purchasing
power, and the need for Arab oil.
Our Nation has strong ties with Israel
which have caused us to look beyond the
considerations that are influencing other
nations. But we also have an additional
reason for apprehension. We know how
Russian influence has grown in the
Middle East. We know that Russian
naval ships are based in Yemen, Iraq,
Egypt, and Somalia, and that Russian
ships, in large numbers, are regularly
visiting most ports of the area. We know
that Russia is supplying advanced
weapons to virtually every country that
is anti-Israel. If Israel should cease to
exist as a nation, it will be Russia that
dominates the Middle East, and which
exercises new and fearsome control over
Europe and much of the free world
elsewhere.
The reasons for my amendment should
be very clear. It not only is important,
it is essential that peace be restored to
the area as quickly as possible?not an
armed truce of the kind which has ex-
isted for a quarter of a century with
constantly recurring wars?a lasting
peace which is acceptable to both Israel
and to the Arab States. I think it is a
mistake to pass this bill without a hope
for peace and an expressed desire that
the President make every reasonable ef-
fort to obtain a lasting peace. Otherwise,
this bill speaks only for the U.S. concern
for arms for Israel.
Having achieved peace, it is equally
important that the Congress show an
interest in the resumption of normal
diplomatic and trade relations with the
Arab countries. Nearly all of those coun-
tries want our friendship. They do not
want the doors closed to normal relations
with the United States. How much better
it would be if we show that beyond the
immediate necessity of keeping Israel
alive, we want both peace and normal
relations with the Arab countries and,
indeed, with and between all of the
countries of the world, including peace
and normal relations between Israel and
the Arab States.
There are those who say that we can-
not deal with some Arab nations. They
use Libya as an example. Who can say
that the present policies of Libya will
continue or that another government in
Libya will not in time be friendly to
America?
Let us leave the door open. This
amendment can help to show both sides
that we want peace, that we want mean-
ingful negotiations, that we want to live
in harmony with all nations. It takes
nothing away from the Israelis. It gives
nothing to the Arabs. But it shows that
we are not blind to the future.
Indeed, how important it would be if
peace were to come quickly and Arab oil
would flow again to the United States.
This could prevent cold homes and
stalled transportation and increasing un-
employment before the end of winter.
The Arabs have said that oil will be
available if peace returns.
The rank and file of the American peo-
ple want peace in the Middle East and
trade with the Arab nations. This
amendment endorses that hope. I trust
that it will be accepted, and I sincerely
hope that the distinguished gentleman
from Iowa will not insist on his point of
order.
Mr. BUCHANAN. Mr. Chairman, will
the gentleman yield?
Mr. SIXES. I yield to the gentleman
from Alabama.
Mr. BUCHANAN. I thank the gentle-
man for yielding.
I should like to commend the distin-
guished gentleman on his amendment,
and I wish to associate myself with his
remarks.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman
from Iowa insist on his point of order?
Mr. GROSS. I do, Mr. Chairman. This
amendment is window dressing. It calls
upon the President to resume diplomatic
and trade relations between certain na-
tions and clearly goes beyond the scope
of this bill.
Mr. SIRES. Mr. Chairman, this amend-
ment expresses the hope and asks the
President to move to bring to the Middle
East. It expresses the hope that we will
be able to resume normal trade relations
with all nations, and that other nations,
the Arabs and the Israelis, will be able to
resume diplomatic and normal trade
relations. I feel that it does not impose
additional requirements. I feel that it
adds to and supplements the language
of the bill, and that the point of order
should not be sustained.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MURPHY of New
York) . The Chair has studied the amend-
ment and will state that the amend-
ment goes to the question of negotiations
involving Arab and United States trade
and diplomatic relations and is not
within the purview of this legislation.
The Chair sustains the point of order of
the gentleman from Iowa. Are there fur-
ther amendments? If not, under the rule,
Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and
the Speaker having resumed the chair,
Mr. MURPHY of New York, Chairman of
the Committee of the Whole House on
the State of the Union, reported that that
Committee having had under considera-
tion the bill (H.R. 11088) to provide
emergency security assistance authoriza-
tions for Israel and Cambodia, purusant
to Houie-Resolution 742, he reported the
bill back to the House with sundry
amendments adopted by the Committee
of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put
thein en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
The SPEAKER. The question is on the
passage of the bill.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I demand
a recorded vote.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
1102 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE December 11, 1973
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic de-
7ice, and there were--ayes 364., noes 52,
Atiii voting 16, as follows:
112 "1.1-111
? ICXp rider
4 ial if
41.4nlerson. Ill.
u-irews, N.C.
alrewe,
link.
Aimorizal
Archer
Arerals
IVIstrong
4ishbrook
Achley
.44soin
/1:v11110
ITO
iiiiralis
-gettett
liergland
r1cyii
einem
iingha.m
Blackburn
4-!4_04;e8
1loiand
Bradema,s
-zirasco
uraY
iireekinridge
Brinkley
iirooks
14r,,0441 11.4f1
iirotzman
Hrown, Calif.
Hrown, Mich.
Firown. Ohio
t4,royritil, NO.
Va.
IJ,=1,2hanan
Porgener
41,, vire, Fla.
mirke, Mass.
lierton
Hinder
larey. N.Y.
iirnev_ Ohin
T 17-trt er
{:.I..sey. Tex.
?iederherg
4-lheinnerinin
4 !happen
4 811".1111
1
4 giirk
Rem
it ion H.
iaweon, Del
OFT
Cleveland.
11en Hillis
ine, Ill. Hinshaw
? ins, Tex. Hogan
Holifield
? tan holt
,? ante Heltzman
nae
!,,iiter Hosmer
^ p: MI Howard
.1: ;bile iiuber Rangel
4 -.twin Hudnut Rees
tver Hutchinson Regina
Dan Jarman Reid
Ise Uel. Robert Johnson, Celli. Reuss
Johnson, Pa. Rhode
Daniels, Jones, Ala. Riegle
iominick V. Jones, N.C. Rinaldo
110-4 k ielson Jones, Okla. Robert;
liavis. Ca. Jones, Tenn. Robinson. Va.
Call1S, S.C. Jordan Robison, N.Y.
4.; ViS. Wis. Karth Rodin?
e-,arza Keating Roe
Kemp Rogers
King Roneal Lo, Wyo.
Dent Kluczynski Roncal M, N.Y.
re:rwinski Koch Rooney. Pa,
Kuykendall Rose
Dickinson gyros Rosenthal
Roll No. 6471
AYES-- 364
Diggs Leggett
Dingell Lehman
Donohue Lent
uorn Litton
f irinan Long. La.
Downing
Long. Md.
LW an
Duncan MeClory
du Pont McCloskey
Eckhardt McCollister
Hdwards, Ala. McCoemack
Edwarda. Calif. McDade
Eilberg Mcalwen
Esch McFall
Eshleman McKay
Weans, Colo. McKinney
Flans, Tenn. McSpadden
Fascell Macdonald
Findley Madden
vish madiean
Flood Mahon
Flowers "" Mai lli ard
Foley Manary
Ford, Mann
William D. Maraziti
Forsythe Martin, N.C.
Fountain Mathias, Calif.
[eraser Mathis, Ga.
Frelinghuysen Matsunaga
Frenzel Mayne
Prey Meths
Froehlich Metcaefe
Fulton Mezvinsky
Fuqua Mic
Gaydos Milford
tiettys Minish
Giaimo Minshall, Ohio
Gibbons Mitchell. N.Y.
Gilman
Ginn Moakley
Goldwater Mollohan
(Mnzalez Moorhead. Pa.
Grasso Morgan
Gray Mother
Green. Oreg. Moth
Green, Pa. Murphy, Ill.
Griffiths Murphy, N.Y.
Grover Myers
Gubser Nateher
N
Gude edzi
Gunter Reiser
Guyer Nichols
Haley Nix
Hamilton Obey
Hanley O'Brien
Hanna O'Hara
Hanrahan O'Neill
Hansen, Mahe Owens
Hansen. Wash. Parris
Harrington Passman
Harvey Patina ii
Hastings Patten
Hawkins Permer
Hays Perkins
Heckler, Mass. Pettis
Heinz Peyer
Helstoskt Pickle
Henderson Pike
Poage
Podell
Preyer
Price, !II.
Price, Tex.
Pritchard
Quie
Quillen
RailsMick
R,ostenkowakt
Roush
Pay
Roybal
Rippe
ituth
Ryan
Sit Germain
Sarasin
Sat banes
,Satterfield
Sehneebeli
Schroeder
Sebelius
aeiberling
Sbriver
Sikes
Sisk
slack
Smith, Iowa
Smith, N.Y.
Spence
Staggers
Stanton,
J. William
Stanton,
?Tames V.
Stark
Steed Ware
Steele Whalen
Steelman White
Steiger, Ariz. Whitehurst
Steiger, Wis. Whitten
Stephens Widnall
Stratton Wiggins
Stubblefield Williams
Stuckey Wilson, Bob
Studds
Symington Charles H.
Talcott Calif.
Taylor. N.C. Wilson,
Teague, Calif. Charles, Tex.
Teague, Tex. Winn
Thompson, NJ. Wolff
Thomson, Wis. Wright
Thane Wydler
Thornton Wyman
Tiernan Yates
Towel!, Nev. Yatron
Treen Young, Alaska
Udall Young, Fla.
Ullman Young, Ga.
Van Deerlin Young, Ill.
Vanik Young, S.C.
Vigorito Young. Tex.
Waggonner Zablocki
Waldie Zion
NOES-52
Baker Harsha Montgomery
Bowen Hechler, W. Va. Moorhead,
Breaux Hicks Calif.
Burleson, Tex. Hungate Powell, Ohio
Burlison, Mo. Ichord Randall
Byron Johnson, Cole. Rarick
Camp Kastenmeier R,ousselot
Cochran Kazen Runnels
collier Ketchum Scherle
clop yers Landgrebe Shipley
Dellenback Landrum Shuster
Derums Latta Snyder
Dennis Martin, Nebr. Symms
:Flynt Ma zzoli Taylor, Mo.
Geedling Melcher Vander Jagt
Gross miner Wampler
llaramer- Mink Wylie
se Innidt Mitchell, Md. Z wach
NOT VOTING-16
nor
Burke, Calif.
Frit nborn
Fisher
H6hert
Hunt
Lott
Mills, Ark.
Rooney, N.Y.
Shoup
Slcubitz
Stckes
Sullivan
Veysey
Walsh
Wyatt
so the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Rooney of New York with Mrs. Burke
of California.
Mr. Hebert with Aar. Fisher.
Mr. Mills of Arkansas with Mr. Stakes.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A. motion to reconsider was laid on the
GENERAL LEAVE
Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to
reif,,se and extend their remarks, and
include extraneous matter, ori the bill
just, passed.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Penn-
sylvania?
There was no objection.
PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE ON
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
TO FILE CC)NFERENCE REPORT
ON H.R. 3180, FRANKING PRIVI-
LEGES
Mr. HENDERSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the managers
may have until midnight tonight to Me
a conference report on the bill, H.R.
3180'.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from North
Carolina,?
There was no objection.
CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 93-712)
The committee of conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
3180) to amend title 39, United States Code,
to clarify the proper use of the franking priv-
ilege by Members of Congress, and for other
purposes, having met, after full and free con-
ference, have agreed to recommend and do
recommend to their respective Houses as
follows:
That the Senate recede from its amend-
' Ments numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 17, 18, 26,
and 27.
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendments of the Senate num-
bered 8, 10, 13, 14, 16. 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25,
30, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, and 42,
and agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 3: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 3 and agree
tp the same with an amendment as follows:
Strike out the matter proposed to be inserted
in the House engrossed bill by Senate amend-
ment numbered 3 and, on page 2, line 15, of
the House engrossed bill, strike out "by a
Members of Congress".
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 9: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 9 and agree
to the same with an amendment as follows:
In the matter proposed to be inserted in
the House engrossed bill by Senate amend-
ment 9 strike out the word "a"
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 11: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 11 and agree
to the same with an amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted
in the House engrossed bill by Senate
amendment numbered 11 insert the follow-
ing subparagraph:
" (D) any mass mailing when the salhe is
mailed at or delivered to any postal facility
less than 28 days immediately before the
date of any primary or general election
(whether regular, special,- or runoff) in which
such Member or Member-elect is a candidate
for public office. For the purpose of this
clause (D), the term 'mass mailing' shall
mean newsletters and similar mailings of
more than 500 pieces in which the content
of the matter mailed is substantially iden-
tical but shall not apply to mailings-
" (I) which are in direct response to in-
quiries or requests from the persons to whom
the matter is mailed;
"(11) to colleagues in Congress or to gov-
ernment officials (whether Federal, State, or
local); or
"(iii) of news releases to the communica-
tions media.
The House Commission on Congressional
Mailing Standards and the Select Committee
on Standards and Conduct of the Senate shall
prescribe for their respective Houses such
rules and regulations and shall take such
other action, as the Commission or Commit-
tee considers necessary and proper for the
Members and Members-elect to conform to
the provisions of this clause and applicable
rules and regulations. Such rules and regu-
lations shall include, but not be limited to,
provisions prescribing the time within which
such mailings shall be mailed at or delivered
to any postal facility to attain compliance
with this clause and the time when Such
mailings shall be deemed to have been so
mailed or delivered and such compliance at-
tained.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, 1973 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
Amendment numbered 12:
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate num-
bered 12 and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows: In the matter pro-
posed to be inserted in the House en-
grossed bill by Senate amendment numbered
12, strike out "February" and insert in lieu
thereof the following: April
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 12: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 12 and agree
to the same with an amendment as follows:
In the matter proposed to be inserted in
the House engrossed bill by Senate amend-
ment numbered 12, strike out "February"
and insert in lieu thereof the following:
"April".
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 21: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 21 and agree
to the same with an amendment as follows:
In the matter proposed to be inserted in
the House engrossed bill by Senate amend-
ment numbered 21 strike out the word "Feb-
ruary" and insert in lieu thereof the follow-
ing: "April".
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 28: That the House
recede from its disagreement to the amend-
ment of the Senate numbered 28 and agree
to the same with an amendment as follows:
Eliminate the matter proposed to be in-
serted by Senate amendment numbered 28
In the House engrossed bill, restore to its
former place in the House engrossed bill the
matter proposed to be eliminated from the
House engrossed bill by Senate amendment
numbered 28, and, immediately atter the
word "privilege" in such matter so restored,
insert the following: "by any person listed
under subsection (d) of this section as en-
titled to send mail as franked mall".
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 29: That the_House
recede from its disagreement to the amends
merit of the Senate numbered 29 and agree
to the same with an amendment as follows:
On page 7, line 3, of the Senate engrossed
amendments, insert immediately after
"privilege", the following: "by any person
listed under subsection (a) of this section
as entitled to send mail as franked mail,".
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 31:
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate num-
bered 31 and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the provisions of Senate amend-
ment numbered 31, on page 15 of the House
engrossed bill, strike out line 6 and all that
follows down through the period in line 10
on page 16, and Insert in lieu thereof the
following:
"(a) The equivalent of?
"(1) postage on, and fees and charges in
connection with, mail matter sent through
the mails?
"(A) under the franking privilege (other
than under section 3219 of this title), by
the Vice President, Members of and Mem-
bers-elect to Congress, the Secretary of the
Senate, the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate,
each of the elected officers of the House of
Representatives (other than a Member of the
House), and the Legislative Counsels of the
House of Representatives and the Senate; and
"(B) by the surviving spouse of a Mem-
ber of Congress under section 3218 of this
title; and
"(2) those portions of fees and charges to
be paid for handling and delivery by the
Postal Service of Mailgrams considered as
franked mail under section 3219 of this title;
shall be paid by a lump-sum appropriation
to the legislative branch for that purpose
and then paid to the Postal Service as postal
revenue. Except as to Mailgrams and except
as provided by sections 733 and 907 of title
44, envelopes, wrappers, cards, or labels used
to transmit franked mail shall bear, in the-
upper right-hand corner, the sender's signa-
ture, or a facsimile thereof, and the printed
words 'Postage paid by Congress'.
"(b) Postage on, and fees and charges in
connection with, mail matter sent through
the mails under section 3214 of this title
shall be paid each fiscal year, out of any
appropriation made for that purpose, to the
Postal Service as postal revenue in an
amount equivalent to the postage, fees, and
charges which would otherwise be payable
on, or in connection with, such mail matter.
"(c) Payment under subsection (a) or (b)
of this section shall be deemed payment for
all matter mailed under the frank and for all
fees and charges due the Postal Service in
connection therewith.
And the Senate agree to the same.
Amendment numbered 37:
That the House recede from its disagree-
ment to the amendment of the Senate num-
bered 37 and agree to the same with an
amendment as follows:
In lieu of the matter proposed to be in-
serted in the House engrossed bill by Senate
amendment numbered 37, insert the follow-
ing:
SEC. 12: (a) Chapter 32 of title 39, United
States Code, is amended by adding at the
end thereof the following new section:
"I 3219. Mailgrams
"Any Mailgram sent by the Vice President,
a Member of or Member-elect to Congress,
the Secretary of the Senate, the Sergeant at
Arms of the Senate, an elected officer of the
House of Representatives (other than a Mem-
ber of the House), or the Legislative Counsel
of the House of Representatives or the Sen-
ate, and then delivered by the Postal Service,
shall be considered as franked mail, subject
to section 3216(a) (2) of this title, if such
Mailgram contains matter of the kind au-
thorized to be sent by that official as franked
mail under section 3210 of this title.".
(b) The table of sections of such chapter
32 is amended by adding at the end thereof
the following:
"3219. Mailgrams.".
And the Senate agree to the same.
T. J. DULSK/,
DAVID N. HENDERSON,
MORRIS UDALL,
CHARLES H. WILSON,
EDWARD J. DERWINSKI,
ALBERT JOHNSON,
Managers on the Part of the House.
GALE W. MCGEE,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
H. L. FONG,
TED STEVENS,
Managers on the Part of the Senate.
JOINT EXPLANATORY STATEMENT OF THE COM-
MITTEE OF CONFERENCE
The managers on the part of the House
and Senate at the conference on the dis-
agreeing votes of the two Houses on the
amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
3180) to amend title 39, United States Code,
to clarify the proper use of the franking
privilege by Members of Congress, and for
other purposes, submit the following joint
statement to the House and the Senate in
explanation of the effect of the action agreed
upon by the managers and recommended in
the accompanying conference report:
TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SENATE
AMENDMENT NUMBERED 3
Amendments Numbered 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15,
and 17: These technical amendments, which
make certain purely minor and technical
changes in language, punctuation, and para-
graph and subsection and subparagraph
designations, are eliminated as inappropriate
because of the action taken by the confer-
H 11103
ence committee on Senate amendment num-
bered 3. The Senate recedes.
MAIL MATTER FRANKABLE BY MEMBERS AND
MEMBERS-ELECT OF CONGRESS
Amendment numbered 3:
House Bin
Section 3210(a) (3) of title 397 United
States Code, as set forth in subsection (a) of
the first section of the House bill listed spe-
cific categories of mail matter, included in
all of those categories of mail matter, mail-
able by a Member of Congress or a Member-
elect to Congress under the franking priv-
ilege.
Senate Amendment
Senate amendment numbered 3 inserted on
page 4, after line 2, of the House engrossed
bill, language in a new paragraph (4) in-
tended to emphasize that certain categories
of mail matter frankftble by a Member of
Congress are also frankable by a Member-
elect.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement reflects the ef-
fect and intent of both Senate amendment
numbered 3 and the applicable provisions of
the House engrossed bill with an amendment
which clarifies the application of the sending
of mail matter by Member of, and Members-
elect to, Congress under the franking priv-
ilege.
HOLIDAY GREETINGS
Amendments numbered 8 and 9:
House Bill
The House bill, in the form in- which it
passed the House, contained no specific pro-
visions prohibiting a Member of or Member-
elect to the Congress from sending a card ex-
pressing holiday greetings. However, the pro-
visions of section 3210(a) (4) of the House
passed bill contained a general prohibition
against any public official using the frank for
mail which, in its nature, is purely personal s
to the sender and is unrelated to the official
business, activities, or duties of the official.
Senate Amendments
Senate amendment numbered 9 amended
the provisions of the House bill to provide a
specific prohibition against a Member of OT
Member-elect to the Congress using the
frank to mail a card expressing holiday
greetings.
Senate amendment numbered 8 Is a tech-
nical amendment to conform the provisions
of the House bill to the changes made by
Senate a.aneridment numbered 9.
Conference Agreement
The House recedes from its disagreement
to the technical amendment made by Senate
amendment numbered 8 and recedes from
its disagreement to Senate amendment num-
bered 9 and agrees with a further amend-
ment which is purely technical to include
the clarifying word "such" before the words
"Member or Member-elect".
MASS MAILINGS
Amendments numbered 10, 11, and 35.
House Bill
The House bill did not restrict mass mail-
ings. It did, however, direct the House Com-
mission on Congressional Mailing Standards
to study and evaluate problems relating to
mass mailings and postal patron mailings.
The House bill also directed the Commission
not to recommend that mailings, whether
mass or individual mailings, be prohibited
more than 30 days before an election.
Senate Amendment
Senate amendments numbered 10 and 11
added a new clause (D) to section 3210(a)
(5) to prohibit mass mailings mailed less
than 31 days before a primary or general
election (whether regular, special, or run-
off) when the Member or Member-elect is a
candidate for public office. "Mass mailing"
includes newsletters and similar mailings of
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
1104 CONGRESSION AL RECORD HOUSE 1-Member 11, 1973
,nor. than fi00 pieces when the coatent is
alientical but exempting mailings ta direct
ecamonse to eirect inquiries or requests, Sen-
ma amendment numbered 35 repealed the
envisions of the House bill on studs lug and
evaluating mass mailings and postal. patron
mistimes as no longer necessary because of
tie) epeciiic prohibition against mass mailings
net ore elections and the prohibition in Semi
see amendment 18 against postal patron
Con !drenee Agreement
sne conference agreement provie.es that
:nass mailings shall not be delivered to the
ins Sal facility less than 28 days before a pri-
-alary or general election in which the Mem-
eer of Congress is a candidate for public
lane. 'the term "mass mailing" is defined to
elide newsletters and other similar mail-
ins of more than 600 pieces when the eon-
eent is substantially the same, except for
'15teMgs---
(1) in direct response to inquiries or re-
quests;
la) to colleagues in Congress or to Federal,
:;tate, or local officials: and
(3) of news releases to the communica-
teens media.
The House Commission on Congressional.
Mailing Standards and the Senate Select
Committee on Standards and Conduct are to
promulgate rules and regulations necessary
earry out clause (D), including rules and.
regulations to determine when mailings are
eonsidered to be mailed at or delivered to a
postal facility.
,IIIATION OF FRANKING PRIVILEGE
Amendments numbered 12. 21, 22, 23. 24,
20. 32, 33, 34, 3.1), 40, 41, and 42:
House Bat
Section 3210(b) of title 39 in the House.
bill authorized the use of the frank by the
VITIOUZ officials until the 30th day of June
following the expiration of their respective
01 offices
ec nate Amendments
mate amendment numbered 12 limits
authority for such officials to use the
moor until the first day of February.
Senate Amendment numbered 21 adds a
section 2 to the bill amending section
of title 39. 'United States Code, relating
to the sending of public documents under
the frank and makes two changes. Pest, the
amendment deletes from the provisions of
cameing law reference to the Clerk of tlia
House of Representatives and the Sergeant
Arms of the House of Representatives and
i meets in lieu thereof "each of the elected
eft-Meals of the House of Representatives
ether than a Member of the Houser. Sec-
ninny, the amendment es angee the peovi-
eienes of existine law which permits the use
of
he irank for sending public documents
mail the 30th day of June following the ex-
pisetion of their respective terms of office to
itie fast day of February.
Sill of the other Senate amendments re-
tuned to above are technical amendments
i) conform the provisions of the bill to the.
,e-iesige,s made by Senate amendments num-
12 and 21.
COW wrenee Agreement
The conference agreement provides for the
me 01 the frank until the first day of April
feilowing the expiration of the terms of ce-
sium of such officials. The conference agree-
ie at also adopts the changes contained in
she Senate amendment numbered 21 reladt-
mie to the mailing of public documents.
-rhe House recedes froni its disagreement
-ie or the technMal onion-nine amend-
-merits.
,I.:.-11FJ.5T:VE COUNSEL OF THE SEN ATE
,tmenements numbered 13, 14, 16. and 38:
House MU
?Mimi 32101 b) of title 39 in the Hause
MIL relating to the basic authority for the
use of the frank, did not extend the privilege
to the Legislative Counsel of the Senate. The
last sentence? of section 1303(d) of the
Revenue Act of 1918 (2 U.S.C. 277) author-
izes the Legislative Counsel of the Senate
to use penalty mail.
Ssnate Amendments
The Senate amendments numbered 13, 14,
end 16 made the necessary amendments
under section 3210(b) to extend the privilege
al the frank to the Legislative Counsel of
is Senate. Senate amendment numbered 38
TD,0pe4de)d. the last sentence of such section
,
Cc nference Agreement
The conference substitute Adopts the len-
euage of the Senate amendments on this
eubje.ct.
POSTAL PATRON MAIL
Senate amendment numbered 18:
House Bill
Seetion 3210(d) of title 39 in the House
bill authorized Members of the House to send
mail with a simplified form of address for
delhery within the area constituting the
eongressional district from which he was
sleeted. The simplified form of address does
not require a specified addressee or address
to be placed on the mail matter.
Senate Amendment
The Senate amendment numbered 18
struck out the provision of such section
3210 (d) .
Conference Agreement
ate Senate recedes from the amendment..
FRANKING COST AS POLITICAL CONTRIBUTION
Senate amendments numbered 19 and 20:
house Bill
The House bill contained no provision re-
lating to the eost of franked mail ass politi-
es.] contribution.
Senate Amendments
ecnate amendment numbered 20 added a
iesw subsection if) to section 3210 to pro-
hibit the cost of preparing or printing
frankable matter from being considered as a
eontribution to or an expenditure by the
Vice President or a Member of Congress for
the purpose of determining any limitation on
expenditures or contributions with respect
so any such official imposed by any Federal,
State, or local law or regulation in connec-
tion with any campaign of smell official for
election to any Federal office.
senate amendment numbered 19 is a
technical amendment to conform the provi-
:dell of the bill with the change made by
ea'-ate amendment numbered 20.
Conference Agreement
The House recedes from its disagreement
to Senate amendments numbered 19 and 20.
ADMINISTRATIVE PROEM/I P, ON FRANKING
PRIVILEGE COMPLAINTS
aaaate amendments numbered 25. 26, 27.
98, a-id 29:
House Bin
Tee House-passed bill established a House
Commission on Congressional Mailing Stand-
is to provide guidance, assistance, advice,
rt counsel through advisory opinions or
ennsultations in connection with franking
mailings upon the request of any Member
of the House or Member-elect, Resident
Commissioner, or ?Resident Commissioner-
Meet, Delegate, or Delegate-elect, surviving
enouses of any of the foregoing or other
House official entitled to use of the frank.
Provisions were also included for com-
reaints to be Med with the Commission that
a violation of any of the franking require-
a is -about to occur or has occurred
mai the requirement that the Commission
--educt an investigation of the complaint
make written findings of fact. Such find-
ings of fact are binding and conclusive for
all judicial and administrative processes. A
provision was included that any judicial re-
view of such decision if ordered on any
ground shall be limited to matters of law.
The Commission if it finds that a "serious
and willful" violation has occurred or is
about to occur may refer its decision to the
Committee on Standards of Official Conduct
of the House of Representatives for appro-
priate action.
Senate Amendments
Senate amendment numbered 25 added the
words "by any person" to clarify who could
file the complaint of a violation. Senate
amendment numbered 27 struck out the
words "serious and willful" in connection
With the provision relating to the type of
violation which the Commission would refer
to the Committee on Standards of Official
Conduct.
Senate amendments numbered 26 and 28
struck out the provision of the House bill
that made the findings of fact by the Com-
mission final and binding on the courts.
Senate amendment numbered 29 added -a
new section 6 to the bill to provide that the
Senate Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct would provide guidance, assistance,
advice,, and counsel to Members and Mem-
bers-elect of the Senate. This amendment
provided that the appropriate courts would
not have jurisdiction, to entertain any civil
action relating to a Violation of the franking
laws or an abuse of the franking privilege
until a complaint has been filed with the
Select Committee and the Committee has
rendered a decision thereon,
Conference Agreement
The House receded from its disagreement
to amendment numbered 26 so that the words
"by any person" is included to clarify the ap-
plication of the complaints that may be filed
wtih the House Comtaission on Congressional
Mailing Standards.
The Senate receded from its amendment
numbered 27 so that the words "serious and
willful" are retained in the House provision
relating to the type of violation that would
be referred to the Committee on Standards
of Official Gionduct of the House of Repre-
sentatives.
The Senate receded from amendment num-
bered 28 relating to the finality of the find-
ings of fact by the House Commission,
The House receded from its disagreement
to amendment numbered 28 with a further
amendment that clarifies the application of
the provisions of section 6 to violation of
the franking privilege by officials of the
House only.
The House receded from its disagreement
to amendment numbered 29 which added
section 6 to the bill and agreed to the amend-
ment with a further amendment which
makes it clear that the provisions of such
section 6 relate only to the mailings under
the -frank by Members of the Senate.
MAILGRAMS
Amendments numbered 31 and 37.
House Bill
The House bill, in the form in which it
passed the House, contained no provisions
permitting the- sending of Mailgrams as
franked mail.
Senate Amendments
Senate amendment numbered 37 permits
the frank to be used for the sending of Mail-
grams and other items transmitted by elec-
tronic means.
Senate amendment numbered 31 provides
for payment for the handling and delivery
of Mailgrams as franked mail.
Conference Agreement
The House recedes from its disagreement
to Senate amendment numbered 37 and
agrees with a further amendment which
deletes the authority to send items trans-
mitted by electronic means under the frank
except Mailgrams.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Aoocoved For Relgase 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
December 11, Will CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?HOUSE
The House recedes from its disagreement
to Senate amendment numbered 31 with
further technical amendments to reflect the
agreement of the conferees on Senate amend-
ment numbered 37.
FRANKED MAIL BY SERVING SPOUSES OF
MEMBERS
Amendment numbered 36:
House Bill
The House bill in the form in which it
passed the House contained no provisions
modifying the privilege granted to the sur-
viving spouse of a Member to send franked
mail relating to the death of such Member
under section 3218 of title 39, United States
Code.
Senate Amendment
Senate amendment numbered 36 amended
section 3218 of title 39, United States Code,
by restricting the type of mail which the sur-
viving spouse of a Member may send under
the frank to "nonpolitical" mail relating to
the death of such Member.
Conference Agreement
The conference agreement ad'opts the Sen-
ate amendment.
T. J. truLsicr,
DAVID N. HENDERSON,
MORRIS UDALL,
CHARLES H. WILSON,
EDWARD J. DERWINSKI,
ALBERT' JOHNSON,
Managers on the part of the House.
GALE W. MCGEE,
JENNINGS RANDOLPH,
II. L. FONG,
TED STEVENS,
Managers on the part of the Senate.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RE-
LATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIA-
TION ACT, 1974
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move
that the House resolve itself into the
Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union for the. consideration
of the bill (H.R 11771) making appro-
priations for Foreign Assistance and re-
lated programs for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30I7 1974, and for other pur-
poses; and pending that motion, Mr.
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that
general debate be limited not to exceed
11/2 hours, one-half of the time to be
controlled by the gentleman from Kan-
sas (Mr. SHRIVER) and one-half of the
time to be controlled by myself.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Lou-
isiana (Mr. PAssmAN) ?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered. by the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. PASSMAN).
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE, COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Accordingly the House resolved itself
into the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the con-
sideration of the bill H.R. 11771, with
Mr. PRICE of Illinois in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the unani-
mous-consent agreement, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. PASSMAN) will be
recognized for 45 minutes, and the gen-
tleman from Kansas (Mr. SHRIVER) will
be recognized for 45 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. PASSMAN).
Mr. PASSMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the foreign aid bill be-
fore you, supported by facts covering
title I only, is the best balanced bill pre-
sented to the Congress since the incep-
tion of the foreign aid program. Inci-
dentally, practically all of the publicity
on foreign aid is built around title I.
The budget request for title I, fiscal
1974, was $2,501,682,000. The bill before
you calls for $2,044,932,000 for title I, or
a reduction below the budget of $456,-
750,000.
Now, dealing with the total bill that
is before the committee covering titles I,
II, III, and IV, the reduction below the
budget request for all titles of the bill is
$1,032,655,000. The bill calls for $269,789,-
000 below the amount appropriated last
year for titles I, II, and III. Incidentally,
it is $84 million below the authorization
that the House passed in the conference
report last week. So, all in all, we have
brought you a bill that should be accept-
able even to the critics of foreign aid.
I would like to call the committee's
attention to the fact that the large in-
crease in the total foreign aid bill cov-
ering titles I, II, III, and IV is brought
about by the emergency request for $2.2
billion for Israel, plus, of course, the con-
tinued alarming increase in multilateral
organizations.
Let me assure the committee that the
bill is not purposely weighted in favor of
any particular nation. To those who
would venture far enough to call this bill
weighted in favor of Israel, may I urge
that you check the facts as they are.
First, the calm thinkers realize that if
there is a strong Israel, it simply means
protection for 150 million Arabs, because
If the one nation in the Middle East
friendly to the United States should go
down the drain, then, in all probability,
in due time the entire Arab world would
fall under the domination of the Soviet
Union, the wishes of the Arabs, notwith-
standing. Such designs are on the tregtle
board, and we might as well face up to
it.
Of course, if the Arab world should
come under the domination of Russia, so
would 70 percent of the known oil re-
serves of the world, and it would give the
Soviet Union free aocess to all ports in
the Mediterranean, plus the Suez Canal.
In addition to the words that I have
committed to the record, let us have a
look at the figure which you may find
somewhat surprising. For instance, in the
budget request there is $200 million plus
for the Arab States, including, of course,
Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen, Sudan,
Morocco, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia, to
name only a few. In addition to that por-
tion of the bilateral request, these na-
tions draw very heavily upon the multi-
lateral organizations of which the United
States is by far the largest contributor?
in fact, several times as much as any
runner-up contributor.
With respect to those who may feel
that they should criticize the military
assistance to Israel, may I point out that
our country has never provided military
11 11105
material to Israel on a grant aid basis.
In fact, there has been only a limited
amount of grant ecoonmic aid. Those
who have negotiated sales agreements
with Israel have usually driven hard bar-
gains.
As I reported this bill today, I can say
to you that Israel is not delinquent on
as much as one dollar of her indebted-
ness to the United States. Her accounts
are completely up-to-date. In recent
years, she has repaid 213 million dollars
for her indebtedness.
It may also surprise you to know that
the Israelians are so proud of their coun-
try and so determined to maintain it that
they .are willing for 80 percent of their
total budget to go to the military estab-
lishment.
Now, may I cover a few of the pertinent
points in the bill before you:
Mr. Chairman, we have a new format
to deal with this year. In prior years in
considering this bill we have had world-
wide, technical assistance, Alliance for
Progress, and technical assistance, pro-
grams relating to population growth and
development loans. None of these titles
are any longer in the bill. Rather, the
authorizing committee has substituted
new titles such as: food and nutrition,
development assistance; population
planning and health, development assist-
ance; education and human resources
development, development assistance;
selected developemnt problems, develop-
ment assistance; and selected countries
and organizations, development assist-
ance. These things are extremely com-
plicated.
The AID people assure us though that
they can administer the programs ac-
cording to the new captions and titles. Of
the $580 million we are recommending
in the bill for these development assist-
ance programs, $280 million will be for
loans, the same as the old development
loan funds, and $300 million will be for
various types of grants.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to run
through the bill very briefly, and bring
out, if I may, some of the key points and
things in which I know the Members will
be interested. This bill is cut $1,032,655,-
000 below the budget request. That is
one of the largest cuts made in the his-
tory of foreign aid, and a lot of credit
goes to the great Committee on Foreign
Affairs, because they certainly did their
homework well this year. They trimmed
this bill very substantially and did not
leave too much fat for this committee to
take out.
Mr. Chairman, if we may actually look
to what this bill protects, let us go back
if we may about 25 years ago, to the out-
break of the Korean war. President Tru-
man, and later of course President Eisen-
hower, and I believe President Kennedy,
and subsequently President Johnson felt
that Korea must be maintained as a
sovereign nation. All of our great gen-
erals and great admirals, all of our Sec-
retaries of State during the period made
the same claim, that we must protect-
South Korea, and protect them because
they are friends of our Nation. Now that
we have done this, they have a very
strong economy, and they are just as
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP751300380R000400010059-6
06
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE December 11, 19;'3
eeon friends of America as any nation
you wid find ria the face of the Earth,
tot. they mast maintain a very strong
iiiintario and without some military as-
-once from this country it is perfectly
inous that it is just it question of time
until South Korea would fall.
nome of the members do not like to
-refer to it as an investment, but 1 do not
eniov of any better way to refer to it than
ioveetment. We actually invested
billion in all of the categories of
encial assistance, including the De-
-me Department, for South Korea. In
:!eilition to that, we invested 54,246 pre-
lolls American lives in that conflict, and
to that were 105,785 casualties.
'in me that is a tremendous investment
eniele by the ./emerican people and, for
money, it is an investment that must
bo protected.
eot os have a look at another invest-
s-ent that we made. and this goes back
te the days of President, Eisenhower, later
L'resident Kennedy, President Johnson,
:oel President Nixon. All of these F-resi-
nts, all of our great leaders, our Secre-
taries of State over the period of years
want all out and said we must have a
;itivereign South Vietnam.
'This may surprise you. We have in-
vested $141 billion of our resources in
nouth Vietnam, and added to -Ghat, of
ierse. are 56,388 lives and 308,817 casu-
eities. Without economic aid, and, of
eaurse, the replacement for those mili-
taiy items in the defense appropriation,
neatii Vietnam would go down the drain.
net we must provide assistance to South
Vietnam, otherwise, of course, that coun-
t:re cannot survive.
no, as I say that investment must be
a keeled.
Tenowing, to I believe, that the Mem-
bers want their subcommittee in the fu-
elli-e as they have in the past, not to with-
hold any information from them. we have
a very voluminous report. We put it on
the line. We have named every nation
on the face of the Earth that we have
given assistance to since the inception
ot the foreign aid program, and we nave
iven aid to 128 nations of the world and
1 territories.
Ta we add the amount of money we
ave spent for the interest on money we
eve borrowiei to give away, we eau see
oil page 9 the total cost is $253,3.71,100,-
eine. We are not trying to hide anything
loan the Members. We want to put it out
where they can see it. The main reason
lee putting the table in our report is so
tiee Members may return to their con-
etituents after reading the report and
em what, any nation-on the lace of
e le Earth has received. Most people think:
is ii good investment. I am only re-
porting the facts as we find them.
in an effort to be completely lair with
Ole Members and not to mislead them,
we have put all types of foreign am d and
essistence in one place. We have included
the Export-Import Bank, which is one
at 'the finest organizations we have in
our Federal Government. It has paid
back to the U.S. Treasury over $800 mil-
lion in dividends. It has been a very
handsome profit.
Ifthe Members will study the reports,
they win find that there have been bil-
lions of dollars paid into the U.S. Treas-
ury due to the profits made by the cor-
porations on the sale of their exports,
in addition to the fact that it provides
employment for thousand.s of our fellow
Americans in producing the goods that
we export.
To give the Members a general idea
how this committee over the years, along
with other committees, has taken some
of the fat out of the foreign aid pro-
gram, the Members will find on page 11
the amount of money that we have been
able to take out of the budget request
by year for the past 19 years.
Hurrying along, if I may, Mr. Chair-
man, let us look at population planning
and health, development assistance.
Under the legislation that we have
drafted and the limitation we placed in
this bill, there will only be $100 million
for family planning. So far as abortion is
concerned. it is covered in the authoriza-
tion bill. But population planning and
health is a program, as far as I know,
which has a lot of support, so we funded
it.
If I may discuss briefly American
schools and hospitals a-broad, I think
that this is one of the finest parts of the
foreign aid bill and we have provided
$19 million for this item. Among the in-
stitutions that will be financed will be
the University of the Americas at Pueb-
lo, Mexico. That is purely and wholly
an American inetitution. It is owned by
Americans. and etudents from 42 States
attend this university, So we are fi-
nancing that university.
The American University of Beirut.
That is totally an American institution.
Many of our leaders in the Far East were
educated at the American University at
Beirut, and it has been said by expert
witnesses before our committee that
without the AUB in Beirut, Lebanon
would have also broken off diplomatic
relations with our country when some
of the others did. So it has been a tre-
mendous investment.
Then, of course, we have the Weiz-
mann Institute in Israel. That is an in-
etitution that is attended by scholars
from throughout the world. po far as
know, there is no criticism of the Weiz-
onten Institute. Project.. Elope, of course,
is covered in this bill. That is something
that we have been supporting for many,
many years. It is funded in this bill.
Of course, the appropriation last year
wati $25,500,000. This year it is only $19
million, a reduction of $61/2 million. That
ant leave very little money in this bill
lei what is usually referred to as purely
small schools. Very few schools can or
all! be funded out of this bill.
We have what has been referred to
previously as the President's Contingency
enact We have made no reduction in this
inasmuch as we have cut substan-
tially from the other sections. We have
ultiuded $20 million in the bill so in case
ui emergency the President would have
sufficient funds in that particular item
to take care of emergencies.
The Members will find on page 33 that
we have the International Narcotics
Control program for $42,500,000. We
have met with, great success with this
program. For instance, in Turkey they
have almost eradicated the growing a
the Ponean and they are cooperating
beautifully. We find that to be true in
other parts of the world, so the commit-
tee decided we should make no reduc-
tion in the International Narcotics Con-
trol item.
On page 35 it can be seen we have put
in a special grant for the African Sahel
Famine and Disaster Relief Assistance.
This is set out at $25 million in a single
item.
Mr. Chairman, in military assistance
the budget request was $e85 million, but
the bill before us provides $500 million,
which is $53.4 million below the amount
that was appropriated last year.
The Indochina postwar reconstruction,
Mr. Chairman, is a must. The budget
request was $632 million, which is shown
on page 40 of the report, but the Mem-
bers will find the committee recommend-
ed only $500 million. That is a reduc-
tion below the amount authorized. Con-
cerning aid to Israel, and the $2.2 bil-
lion, it is clear what the thinking of the
House is on this matter. I can assure the
Members that this money will not be
spent unless it -is necessary, because a
certain amount of it will be held until
such time as the President makes a de-
termination and notifies the Congress.
On the international organizations our
committee is deprived of the right to ex-
amine those who administer this pro-
gram. They say this is in violation of our
international agreements, so those who
administer the program cannot come be-
fore our committee and justify the funds.
We have to hear people in the State De-
partment or in the Treasury who try to
justify these funds.
I might try, Mr. Chairman, to give the
Members an idea how the United Nations
Development program works. I think the
Members are entitled to have these facts.
I have always thought the United Na-
tions was supposed to be a peacekeeping
organization but rapidly they are moving
toward becoming another rather large
spigot of foreign aid. If the Members will
look at the UNDP item, they will find we
have recommended a reduction. We feel
it is adequate.
This agency has financed 53 projects in
Cuba, amounting to almost $10 million.
In addition to that we find that they are
working on some plan to invest millions
of dollars in Kuwait. We find the U.N.
financed seven projects in Kuwait, one of
the richest countries of the world.
In Japan, another of the world's
wealthy countries, we find that the UNDP
has a project for some $737,000.
We can go on and on about how this
organization is operating. We think the
time is coming when we are going to
have to insist that we have the right to
examine those who administer the pro-
grams. I am not going to be }mocked off
my feet by any claims that we put up
this much and that fellows puts up that
much. Look at how much money we put
up and how much of it is going to na-
tions such as Cuba to which I just
referred.
I think I should cover one other item
and show the Members how the inter-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000400010051-6
NEW YORK TIMES DATE OCOC: PAGE
Israeli Errors on Eve of War Emergingl,
By TERENCE SMITH
Special to The New York Times
JERUSALEM, Dec. 9?In the
book-lined library of the former
Justice Ministry in downtown
Jerusalem, a five-man judicial
commission has being taking
top-secret testimony for the
last two weeks froth Cabinet
ministers, intelligence sp6cial-
ists and Government officials.
Known formally as the Com-
mission of Inquiry into the
War, the select panel is seek-.
ing an answer to the major
question being asked in Israeli
today: What went wrong that
left Israel so unprepared forl
the combined Arab attack of
Oct. 6?
The question still haunts
most Israelis more than two
months later. Israelis from all
levels, especially the families
of the 2,412 soldiers killed dur.i
Awmpolosiori.., f
ing the war, are demanding
an answer.
The full report of the com-
mission is not expected for
several months, but a prelimin-a
inary picture of the Govern-
ment's deliberations during thei
crucial days before the wary
has already emerged.
It illustrates how and why.
Israeli's normally efficient in-i
telligence apparatus erred in)
its assessments, how certain?
key indicators were misreadt,
because of a widespread as-,
surnption that the Arabs would'
not attack, and finally, howl
few ministers actually partici-
pated in the final assessments
on the eve of the war.
The commission's report is
likely to have major poiTttCaT
ramifications. One Government
official predicted that it would
be "political dynamite" thaw
could bring about the resigna-
tion of Defense Minister Moshe
Dayan and other ministers if
pointedly critical of their per-
formance.
The controversy has been
fueled by a number of state-
ments by ministers ab
themselves and indirecTPFMi
plicating others.
There has been a wrangle,!
for example, over whether Dep-
uty Yigal Allan was kept prop-
erly informed of the Arab build-
ups from Sept. 30 to Oct. 2,
1when he was Acting Premier
!while Premier Golda Meir was
in Europe.
TV11:-.! Allon has denied that he
lreceived the daily intelligence
reports normally prepared for
the Premier. Associates have
suggested that ate blame lay
?
with Mr. Dayan, in his capacity
as Defense Minister.
The controversy has yet to
be resolved, but it has already
produced a, response from the
Mossad, the Israeli External in-
telligence agency, denying that
it had or was required to pro-
vide such inforniation to Mr.
Allon. It was the only public
statement by the Mossad Is-
raelis could recall.
The judicial commission,
which was appointed by the
Government in response to de-
mands from all parties, is the
more important of two official
Inquiries. The second is a mili-
tary commission examining the
performance of the armed
forces before and during the
war. The military study may
well result in resignations of
some commanders and army
organizational chances but it
will not have the same political
impact.
The judicial commission is
headed by the President of the
Supreme Court, Justice Shimon
Agranat. It includes two for-
mer Chiefs of Staff, Yigel Ya-
din, the Hebrew University
archeologist, and Lieut. Gen.
Chaim Laskov, now the army
Complaints Commissioner, or
ombudsman. The others are Dr.
Itzhak Nebenzahl, the State
Controller, and Justice Moshe
Landau of the Supreme Court,
have high reputations for in-
tegrity and independence.
The commission's first wit-
ness was Maj. Gen. Eliahu
Zeira, the army chief of intel-
ligence, who testified for seven
hours on the first day and re-
turned for additional question-
ing. Foreign Minister Abbe
Eban, who was in the United
States at the time of the war,
was scheduled to testifly today.
Day-by-Day Sequence
Pieced together from inter-
views with Government offi-
Eidsf the RehliagtaMS/Oei
ministers and subsequent*,
confirmed news reports, the
day-by-day sequence went as
9
Tuesday, Oct. 2?The Egyp-
tian Press agency announces a
high state of readiness along
the Suez Canal, after similar
reports from Syria. In Israel,
a senior military source calls
in the military correspondents
of several Israeli papers and
asks them to tone down their
reports of the battlefield situa-
tion, to avoid raising tension.
Premier Meir is in Vienna, argu-
ing with Chancellor Bruno
Kreisky over the continued
transit of Soviet Jews through
Austria.
Wednesday, Oct. 3 ? Upon
Mrs. Meir's return, her so-
called kitchen Cabinet meets
in Jerusalem. Participants in-
clude the influential minister
without portfolio, Israel Galili;
the Chief of Staff, Lieut. Gen.
David Elazar; Mr. Dayan, Mr.
Allon and a colonel from army
intelligence. The build-ups on
both the Egyptian and Syrian
fronts are discussed, but are
viewed as similar to other
build-ups in January, May and
September that proved to be
false alarms. (In May, General
Elazar mobilized part of Is-
rael's reserves to meet the
threat. The order cost some
$10-million was was criticized
as wasteful by some ministers.
The assessment that the pros-
pect of war is remote is ap-
parently influenced by the as-
sumption what the Soviet Union
is discouraging any Arab mili-
tary activity to protect its new
relation with the United States.
Israeli intelligence reportedly
has full details of Egypt's at-
tack strategy, but there is skep-
ticism that Egypt would launch
an attack nriitil she acquired
aircraft capable ottleep strikes
into Israel.
Thursday, Oct. 4?Mrs. Meir
ang.tpentlents of Soviet ad-
visers in 53th Egypt and Syria
are being airlifted out. This,
according to military sources,
lit a "red light" at Israeli head-
quarters since there had been
no such evacuation durng the
previous buildups. At a special
staff meeting late that night, a
decision is made to declare an
alert the next morning for the
relatively small regular army.
No mobilization of the much
larger reserves is recommended.
Friday, Oct. 5-1n the morn-
ing, a senior military officer
telephones the military corres-
pondents of the Israeli papers,
asking if they close early that
day because of the Yom Kippur
holiday, which begins that eve-
ning. The army spokesman then
issues a statement: "Israeli
forces are following with atten-
tion events on the Egyptian
side of the Suez Canal and all
steps have been taken to pre-
vent the possibility of a sur-
prise on the part of the Egyp-
tians." The statement receives
little attention since no papers
were to be published the next
day.
At the same time, Mr. Dayan
meets with General Elezar,
General Zeira and other offi-
cers in his Tel Aviv office.
Learning of the arrival of large
Soviet transports in both Cairo
and Damascus, presumably
carrying heavy weapons, they
alert the regular forces. Holiday
leaves are canceled and as a
precaution, the reserve mobili-
reports on her European" trip
to the Defense and Foreign Af-
fairs Committee of Parliament,
but makes no mention of the
Arab troop concentrations still
building on both fronts.
That afternoon, in an elec-
tion campaign appearance at
a kibbutz, Mrs. Meir attacks
the right-wing opposition party,
Gahal, for its persistent fore-
casts of an Arab attack. "Nat
one bit of the black prophecies
of Gahal have come true," she
tells her audience. 'Why don't
De?0110-40 0 0 10050-6
al ?ei5plame have the
Meanwhile, the miltary com-
mand is alerted by an intelli-
gence report that the families
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
NEW YORK TIMES
United Press International
Israeli soldiers captured
in the Sinai during the
first days of the war.
DATE
PAGE
zation machinery is alerted as
well. Despite all this the official
intelligence estimate is still
that there is "little likelihood"
of war.
The defense officials then
move next door to the old
stucco building that houses
Mr. Meir's Tel Aviv office. Mrs.
Meir invites in Mr. Galili and
they both listen to the intelli-
gence assessment. The other
ministers who live in Tel Aviv
are called and arrive about 11
A.M. Missing is Mr. Allan, who
has already gone to his kibbutz
for the weekend, and Pinhas
Sapir, the powerful Finance
Minister, who later complains
that Mrs. Meir's office made
only half-hearted efforts to
reach him. ("With a little effort
they could have found me," he
said "When has it ever hap-
pened that they didn't find me
when they needed me?")
Both fronts are thoroughly
reviewed and General Elazar
repeats his doubts that war
will break out. He stresses the
previous build-ups and says
that American intelligence also
considers war unlikely. As the
meeting breaks up, Mrs. Meir
announces that she will not go
to visit her daughter, Sarah, at
her Negev kibbutz, as she had
planned. She recommends that
the other ministers remain in
the Tel Aviv area. But at the
same time, the Premier tells
friends that she is relieved by
the generally encouraging re-
ports and that war seems un-
likely after all.
An hour later, Mr. Sapir
meets Michael Arnon, the Cabi-
net secretary, in a restaurant
and learns that he has missed
the meeting.
Later he said: "Mike told me
it was a matter for the general
S day, Oct. 6?At 4 A.M.,
Gene- ,Elazar telephones Mrs
Meir her suburban Tel Aviv
apartment. Irrefutable intelli-
gence has come in during the
night indicating that war is in-
evitable. It is expected to begin
on both fronts at 6 P.M. that
day. Mrs. Meir and Mr. Dayan
confer on the phone. They
agree that the key ministers
must be summoned to a special
meeting at 8 A.M.
Shortly after 6 A.M. General
Elazar proposes to Mr. Dayan
that the air force launch a pre-
emptive strike against both
Egypt and Syria. Mr Dayan
thinks it unwise, but agrees to
suggest it to Mrs. Moir.
Drives Back in Car
The kitchen cabinet convenes
in Mrs. Meir's office. Mr. Galili
is there, but not Mr. Al-Ion nor
Mr. Sapir. The Deputy Premier,
contacted by Mr. Amon at his
kibbutz, in Galilee asks if the
situation is urgent, in which
case he will take a helicopter.
Mr. Arnon, who apparently had
not been filled in on the intelli-
gence received during the night,
says no. Mr. Allon sets off by
car for Tel Aviv, two hours
away.
Mr. Sapir is attending Yom
Kippur services in his syna-
gogue just outside Tel Aviv. He
sees young reservists, including
the cantor, being called out of
the service to active duty. He
rushes to call Mr. Arnon and
learns that the Cabinet is dis-
cussing imminent war.
In her office, Mrs. Meir re-
jects General Elazar's proposed
pre-emptive strike. Recalling
the :ppIsi,Wl damage Israel suf-
fered, _ailing first in 1967,
staff and that it was not seri- she repOitedly says: "This time
ous.") it bas to be crystal clear who
began, so we won't have to go
around the world convincing
people our cause is just."
Mrs. Meir also reveals that
during the night she has sent
a message to Foreign Minister
Eban in New York urging him
to confer immediately with Sec-
retary of State Kissinger to get
the American appraisal. The
message apparently does sot
arrive in New York until late
in the evening, by which time
both men are committed to pre-
vious engagements.
War Footing Ordered
After a new review of the
military intelligence, the deci-
sion is made to declare a full
mobilization of, the reserves
and place the country on a war
footing. It is 10 A.M., six hours ,
after clear evidence had been
received that war was immi-
nent, four hours before the
fighting, is actually to begin.
Shortly after 10, Mrs. Meir
summons the American Am- -
bassador, Kenneth B. Keating,
to her office. She reveals
Israel's intelligence appraisals
and asks the United States to
inform Egypt, Jordan and Syria
that Israel will not strike first.
The mesages are transmitted,
but it is too late. The Arab
decision is final.
At noon a full Cabinet ses-
sion is convened. For several
of the ministers, including
Labor Minister Yosef Almogi,
and Justice Minister Yakov
Shirnshon Shapiro, it is the
first official word of the crisis.
Since all the major decisions
have been made, there is little
for them to do except endorse
the mobilization order and pre-
pare for war. In protest Mr.
Shapiro later resigns, charging
Mr. Dayan with "criminal neg-
ligence.' At 2 P.M., the fight-
ing begins.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RD12-709MS300400010050-6
l'HE EVENING STAR DATE 5 PAGE
Soviet Mideast Tactics Puzzling
By George Aertnan
Star-Nows lief Writer
Many key elements of
Soviet tactics hi the recent
Middle East war are still a
mystery to the American
intelligence eommunity.
According to insiders, the
two main missing pieces to
the puzzle are:
? What did Soviet Ambas-
sador Anatoly Dobrynin tell
Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger during several
long meetings in the days
between Sept. 30 and Oct. 6
? the day the war broke
out.
? ? ns
_ ? $11.9.k.g. girr
_kg? .A..4.1vp. at e heigt
dm teitTi: NAM
harbor ? enty to, yiatk raw
`ZkezikOver`pt id-Aks wet ,Dre
jease-fire finally took. hold
--Mgt. 25.
These two unanswered
questions, according to ana-
lysts, reflect uncertainty in
the Washington intelligence
community about how Mos-
cow handled the 18-day war.
Soviet tactics contained
elements both of caution
and adventurism. But top
sources acknowledge that
vital pieces of information
which would provide a co-
herent view are still miss-
ing.
.2.411Lr CIE. THE, reap,
.aa these _SOUIP-P,?2- Ithat
lassingcri14.1.MCVntrikd
.theintelligenge process tMt
.Jic,alone is the _Oa Y., 0
W.We.XIM ? ? on
3410 knows_ t
..gpnce_availAbla? 01.
=act and ,the
rem
ttleaeiaCe4_ 'Y3criFAv
e.bLy- Jan toldl(issinger
p
Ar?i-
&j.a.org Yo.r.-flod
nnatipo wns not
given to.intelligence ana-
lysts:-
Suspicion exists, said the
sources, that the Soviet
ambassador broadly hinted
to Kissinger that an attack
was in the offing. Three
times during the week be-
fore Oct. 6 Kissinger ? by
his own admission ? asked
for special assessment of
American and Israeli intel-
ligence that the Egyptian
and Syrian military build-
up was not preliminary to
an all-out war.
"There was the unani-
mous view that hostilities
were unlikely to the point of
there being no chance of its
(an attack) happening,"
said Kissinger at a press
conference Oct. 12 of the
outcome of these assess-
ments.
ate aim of Soviet diplomacy
would have been to prevent
It from upsetting the bal-
ance of power in the Middle
East and Soviet-American
detente. Zar..tliatzam it
ii..11)1.4gt4.1.?OrraM
have presented formu a-
rt-.F.ar've:rchOqt
eintelligenee lir ?
a coil:fa liait a erted
ene ? :161114 the iftei-
met of the war.
Within four days after the
war, say these insiders,
Soviet policy veered to a far
less cautious path. The
Egyptians had reached the
Israeli Bar-Lev line on the
east bank of the Suez Canal,
the Syrian tanks were mov-
ing up the Golan Heights.
On Oct. 10, the Russians
began their round-the-clock
airlift of vital ammunition
and equipment ? believing,
analysts conclude, that
Arab success would give the
Arabs and their Soviet al-
lies the whip hand in the
peace negotiations to fol-
low.
BY THAT TIME, sa3
these sources, the Russian;
had dispatched by sea tc
Egypt the Scud surface-to
surface missile long desiret
by President Anwar Sadat
For over a year he had been
asking for this offensive
weapon, which has a range
of 180 miles and is able to
hit Israeli cities, to balance
the Israeli Phantom jet
fighter-bombers and the
still highly secret Israeli
Jerico ground-to-ground
missile.
wen-ling to -the -heat. in-
fatlitatiagl available here,
b ec eds_arrive wraout
-nuclear warheatis. Accord-
-ang..to_U.S. intelligence they
wet place with admen-
'. s
xandria PP -
sizagnt within a_week to
0ays4ter, the ,Oct,
On Oct. 16 Sadat, in, a
speech to his national as-
sembly, warned Israel he
had the Egyptian "Zafir"
missile, but the unanimous
concensus in Washington is
that he was really speaking
about the Soviet Scud.
IhazraLargiumatja_13c-
lievedto_have come ever
putting nuclear warheads
Jen_tbes,e_missiles.ge--IMs
?day?Arat4can__ intelligeo.ce
nat .sure. what timeLied.
ajaezymber
carrying nuclear amp rap-
WWI:Gilt tip in the eastern
Mediterranean, an ap -`-
eaLMFICIWer to make "Ps
arrndg nuclear warheads
fri theiflackSealnEept
la conspicuous.
.111-1Tall or eheut-nr.td, 20
Araerican sensors on the
larr,Pw Bosphorus?,siked
irppliat
le4111,p1 0,1P w,hich
rntget not
.11e_ea its way_ to jpiifl-fhe
in .,the. TAW/ter-
lasaiREca....saY
qflUreeLit..is.gleat,Wrille
-Russia/1,5_1BL .
advance
aarniozotthe,CterE
.arulavere dubious 04
On Oct. Oct. 3 Soviet depend-
ents were airlifted out of
both Egypt and Syria,
scarcely a sign, say ana-
lysts. of Soviet confidence
in an Arab victory. Even
earlier, dsitigl_th.e.
Auckinoteraber, the- o-
wiets-began a sealift of mill-
tary-supplies to Egypt and
agria whicktelaOarrivinj
Almost precisely with the
.entbiaak of war.
If the-rtirgrals knew of
the attack and were skepti-
cal, reamed a top intelli-
gence source, the immedi-
reseaa.
13y Oct. 25 that shizms
sp?orfEdirl Alikariarla,-as
wera.,anvict grcws,likeix to
banCede0 to kVP WM)) of
..the Scuds with nuclear
warheads- But noi4jlce
elasts_tliat aey warheads
Jure unloaded. -Seieral
days later the Ship-WWII&
nuclear material aboard
departed and returned to
the Black Sea.
By that time the crisis
was over. According to top
sources, intern ence
t the nuclear warhs
a in e
enerarmifltarVy ateftlge
an nistraritorbr.
triliTigOTTrat "NA
in . response',vie
4Nni_tirgypt.
Informed iTiWtg-Believe
that the Soviet defense es-
tablishment under Gen.
Alexei A. Grechko had pre-
vailed upon the Kremlin to
send the warheads as a
"contingency need,? after
the basic political decision
had been made to send the
Scuds. It is also believed
that Sadat was making the
same argument to Moscow.
BUT SOVIET party lead-
er Leonid Brezhnev, ac-
cording to this reasoning,
saw the danger of escala-
tion and the risk of the war-
heads falling into Egyptian
hands, and withheld them
once the cease-fire took
hold Oct. 25.
In the final stages of the
war, then, according to this
assessment, Soviet caution
once again took charge.
Ever since Soviet Premier
Alexei N. Kosygin spent
three days in Cairo Oct. 17-
19, Moscow saw the press-
ing need for a cease-fire to
prevent Egyptian defeat by
Israeli forces now being
resupplied by the United
States and still on the west
bank of the canal. A day
after Kosygin returned to
Moscow Kissinger was in-
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
vited to come to the Soviet
capital and the Soviet-
American agreement on a
cease-fire was reached Oct.
21.
When Israel continued its
encirclement of the city of
Suez and the Egyptian 3rd
Army in the following three
days, say analysts, Brezh-
nev felt he had been had by
Kissinger and Israeli Pre-
mier Golda Meir. He had to
act.
Moscow was no longer
thinking of a whip hand in
the peace negotiations, the
sources say, but simply of
preserving the Soviet stake
in the Arab world. The
threat of unilateral Soviet
intervention was the lever
he used.
0-01214tVed For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
THE WASHINGTON POST
DATE F
'Money Weapon
TIPVT Arab deeisiop to use the
?? ? ? - - ? ?n" a!ains he - is
91.a cams,- ? g tit 1.4 erT1 an PV 1/1
: $ . ? ?? ? ? ? o? " . ? - til
I, ^ g_-.0=5111M1FU .ut he
The economic ministers of the Arab
League member states met in Cairo
earlier this month and agreed to begin
the "gradual" withdrawal of Arab
funds from Western banks. Financial,
experts concede that if the Arabs with-
drew the $10 billion they now keep in
Western banks, or any major part of it,
this could play havoc with the intricate
economic and financial mechanism of
the Western world. -
But, they contend, the Arabs would
do no such thing, because they could
not find a better home for their money
?which is much like the earlier argu-
ment than the Arabs could not stop
selling oil to the West, because they
could not drink it. Moscow, on the
.other hand, is telling the Arabs that
they certainly ought to use the money
weapon--and give the money to the
Russians.
The Arabs? say the Western bankers,
would not be as simple-minded as to
do that. But the Kremlin, which knows
that it cannot dupe the canny Arab fi-
nance ministers, has devised a round-
about way to achieve its purpose.
.041taca1 Moscow broadcast, just 13,e-
mentestille...axaheallutheir..=fieetige,"
.11112,344144-$41.3=4014-but-t0=ded
agm.illatjaisgrph.tautia1-wae-14act.sen-
tiaadot.e.41-810804.441.-*fltdrawo1 of
ch
sive sive
e Arab League meeting,
lcomed, the decision to be-
Wind Withdrawal but evi-
?, that this did not go far
bough. An inflammatory broadcast
promptly sought to arouse Arab suspi-
eons With talk of an international Zi-
onist conspiracy. In terms reminiscent
of thePkOt9gOls eLt-lie Elders of Eton,
it United' the "pil monopolies? with
lewish-controlled banks, and the
Rothschads with the Rockefellers and
the Gettys.
4,0Atit(tr?ed litt/e, that the Acacia-
lers and the Gettys were not Jews,
MQ4c6w enpleined, since they were be-
holden to the Jews, They profited from
the industries which supplied arms "to
the Israeli aggressors at low cost." Had
it not been for Arab oil, which was
"the life 'blood of modern indus_try,"
bundieds of major factories in the
West "would have ground to a halt."
That was just before they had indeed
ground to a halt in Britain.
I 4 : I ri, ow seems t ? be
- I ? mrsurymairaworiari t
as en jn their j????.mnlye tn thenV
weaatano.aaa.....1.4s...tharx jaw.. jag jag
stiara444-Ati
zgagpn. The West's major industrial
corporations, it says, are "subservient
,? to the Zionist banking capital which
dominates, according to economists, 80
per cent of the financial system of the
? West." And yet the Arabs put their
?13 PAGE 61
money in these banks which "use Arab
capital to develop the war industry
and to give direct economic and finan-
cial aid to Israel."
When the money theme of recent
broadcasts is examined against the
background of what the Russians have
been saying to the Arabs over the
years, it adds a further strand to the '
pattern which has begun to emerge
lately. Now the "reactionary Arab oll
kings" who insist on keeping their, ,
inpney in Western banks are seen to ,
"secretly" in league with Western "
imperialists and Jewish caphal.ists,
and, indeed, with Israel itself. The aim ,
of this international conspiracy is fo -
preserve Israel's power alto protect
the kings against the "Arab revolution-
ary movement," in which the Cornniu: '
nists would one day play a leading
part.
Moscow's recent pat on the back for
King Faisal of Saudi Arabia is certain _
to be followed, sooner or later, with a
blow under the belt. The Kremlin ex-
pects that when the "reactionaries" Sr.
overthrown, the Arabs would establish
the political and economic links with
the Soviet,Union which would not only
give it a share in the Mideast's oil, a,
has been suggested, but would alio
"If the Arabs withdraw
the $10 billion they keep
in Western banks,
it could play havoc with
the economic mechanism
of the Western world."
help to redirect the flow of Arab ell
money to Moscow.
This is the long-term plan, which de-
pends to .some extent on continuing _
tension to produce the sparks th
would ignite the flammable revelutjant
ary material lying around the 14(diest.
In the short term, as another Iitoscolr ?
commentary on the Arab League deci-
sion made clear, the Arabs must With-
draw the money from the West
cause "tomorrow" another devaluation
could again cost them hundreds of mil7
lions of dollars. At the same time Mos-
cow warned them that if they used it
to buy shares in Western industry, as
orae Arab leaders propose, their
pendence on the West would only in-
crease.
The way out of the dilemma, accord-
ing to Moscow, lies in using the Arab
money withdrawn from the West to
buy, from a certain country that re-
mains coyly unnamed, the equipment,
machinery, and whale factories which
it would supply?unlike you know who
?"on the basis of equal and mutual
economic cooperation and cordial and
honest assistance." That wey, it said,
the Arabs would be "assured" that
their money would not be used to n-
nati.ce Israeli aggression, "which is
what is happening now."
gfaugur,se.,_aultasecawhas.ghtign,40161.?
amiulzahs,..ita...0A0-initzesLi&-eatitelv.
cwwn onnri nnlv--nr Am it lays.
0 1973, victor zorss
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
Approved For Release 2005/06/09: CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6
DATE 2 12."1 - PAGE it
THE WASHINGTON POST
Soviets Say U.S. Got
Mideast War Alert
By Murrey Marder
Inrashington Post Staff Writer
41a-Suyie,Lialiga-ZatAnds
t1 it triei my tlerithe
"LEnitpri Stair.% to....the-datuipar of
ma-outbreak-of -warfare in. the
Middle_Zast_do-.tha.montbsi-be-
fara-the-onthreak_ of the -Arab-
IscaelLakullict-Con6..s_Ac-
corsting--ta-a-diplaroatic. source.
Warnings that Arab-Israeli
tension was "explosive" and
that pressure was mounting in
Egypt to recoup territory cap-
tured by Israel in the 1967 war
were passed to the Nixon ad-
ministration as late as Septem-
ber, a, Soviet diplomatic source
said Yesterday.
apviet Communist Party_lead-
er.1m7-d-C-Brezpnev.
spirt told. Zresident_Won
earlier,--at -their summit _confer-
eneeJn June ' ids
njatjazell_t_Atc ou Any
Subsequent warnings of ur-
gent need for diplomatic
movement toward a peace set-
tlement to head off a conflict
were said to have been passed
by the Russians to Henry A.
Kissinger, now Secretary of
State.
Iter.ej,s_no claim that the
Snviot Union verirrilly
warm.r1 the' United Stntes_that
ver_33141,s_tiruninentan_euly
Clctober. The Soviet version,
iaskagLla_thaLits,i Soviet
Union rinvatodlyAriesi to ca
tion the United States that a
conflict was inevitable-inio
progress was maddlliKeygit
ane American--reaction is
reported, from the Soviet side,
to have been two-fold: disbe-
lief that the Egyptians would
launch an attack on Israel,
and American confidence that
if the Egyptians were foolish
enough to do so, the Egyp-
tians would "get a bloody
nose."
On the Soviet side it is said
that this reaction illustrated
a fundamental difference pf
assessment by the oviet
Union and by the Nixon ad-
ministration of the danger in
the situation. The Soviet
Union, the arms supplier of
Egypt, withdrew dependents
of its military advisers from
Egypt just before the war
broke out.
There was no immediate of-
ficial comment from either
the White House or the State
Department yesterday on the
??Sovie$ _contention. Earlier,
res100tNixon e:: pressed
hoPe fOr a lasting .e.ttlement
of the Arab-? Israeli conflict in
0
fi
conference which opens in
ene,End
on Friday with the
U e ates and the Soviet
Union as co-chairman. Secre-
tary Kissinger, who will repre-
sent the United States, has
been in frequent consultation
with the Soviet Union on
organizing the conference, for
which he has taken the lead.
laim that the Soviet
LtnignItiedlilutieriall te
States_tajk,e_siwger of Arab-
uesnonso_to_nnestions raised
latiz_n_e_mt,s,,men,_ hem AbauLa
stIetch-14E.- Zen.
Jacksou-4111Easit.Ljn NeW
Izeric---lest-Monday?lackson
repeat e clrg.iade
eardiez.b.z.linLielf anCo_t ers,
that Union - de-
faultejj,_oa_m_a eement it
signed_with_Ere_ i en on
qn June 22 for the preven ion
oi nuclear war, by failing to
nsult over the threat of war
e id die E azt,,,.The
Soviet Union maintainsthat
there was no default and that
it repeatedly tried to warn of
danger.
Approved For Release 2005/06/09 : CIA-RDP75600380R000400010050-6