WAR-POWER CURBS DEBATED IN SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75B00380R000700090011-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 14
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 16, 2005
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: March 30, 1972
• Content Type: NSPR

NE VAp 5f d lidl
P73b0QA(1D700090011 IAGE
DEBATED IN SENATE
Bill Would Restrict the Use
of Forces by the President
By JOHN W. FINNEY
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, March 29-
T a Canat began r1P .hate to-
day on a bi that its sponsors
thA war-makmz cowers e
i reci L The Administration-
has protested that the measure
is unconstitutional and unwise.
The legislation would au-
thorize the president to use
military forces in certain emtr-
gencies but for not more than
30 days without congressional
approval.
The Administration's last-
minute lobbying effort included
a letter by Secretary of State
William P. Rogers warning that
the bill "would violate tht Con-
stitution and, far from prevent-
ing future military involvement,
would increase the likelihood
of such involvement."
The letter, written last Fri-
day to Senator Gordon P. Al-
lott, Republican of Colorado,
was madt public by the Senator
and at the State Department
as the debate began.
.Senate Approval Expected
With the broad support be-
hind the bill, however, it ap-
peared unlikely that the Ad-
ministration could defeat the
measure in the Senate, al-
though it might succeed block-
ing it in the House of Rpre-
sentatives.
According to Republican
sources, the Administration has
been able to line up only three
Republicans, Senators Barry
Goldwater of Arizona, Roman
L. Hruska of Nebraska and
Peter H. Dominick of Colorado, States or to forestall "the di-
and one Democrat, Senator
Gale W. McGee of Wyoming, and imminent threat of
,
to speak against the bill. such an attack,". to repel or
orestall an attack upon United
Senator Jacob K. Javitts Rep States forces abroad, or to pro-
i 'onal security-
t e r mme e Pn
evacuated from a foreign coun-
t The President would be re-
quired to report promptly to
Congress and could not con-
tinue, hostilities for more than
30 days' without receiving "spe-
cific statutory authorization"
from Congress.
UIt>11 next WP.P el to ac- Contending that the Consti-
commndaLe Genatrn wa er, tution intended that the war-
who -leas.- a making power should be shared
attend., bis cnn'e werldiino _ to- by Congress and the President,
morrow. Senator Javits and his col-
The legislation, cosponsored leagues argued that adanger-
b24 Senators, would author- ous constitutional imbalance
Approved Forii eti eee2OO5IOi6/06e: CI at DR7d N380 lQfl.
sence of a declaration of war, have assumed what they de-
to use the armed forces to re- scribed as a power to commit
pel an attack on the United the nation to undeclared wars
The Adminictratinn'ha~lc
ar ,m n . has b . n tha no eg-
1RIa. _ y restraints should be
ced upon e s is
powers as cothrnandar in cni1i f
BC1d_ that the ivl'SR' o 'The
Referring in particular to the
Vietnam war, Senator Javits
said "it is the failure of this
approach which necessitates a
war-powers bill.
In his letter, Mr. Rogers said
that the present allocation of
war powers "has survived the
e o tie for nearly two
!{,k el; cis basic to our sys-
tem, and should be changed,
if at all, only by Constitutional
amendment."
 NEW p vi4 ?Zelease 2005/06/0(DA R i5gd8O-~ieO70009Oa1A4E 1
Attempt to Divert
War-Powers ti ll
Opposed in Senate
Special to The New Yark Times
WASHINGTON, March 30 --
si- I
byI
e 4ixon_Admir~istxat
the Senate, would authorize the
President to use the armed
forces in certainemergencies.
But it would provide that he
could not continue 'hostilities
for more than 30 days without
Congressional approval.
Lacking the votes to defeat
the measure directly, the Ad-
ministration is seeking to 'have
it referred to the Judiciary
Committee or move that Sena-
tor Mansfield said "would
amount to sending it to a
graveyard."
Senator Stennis, a leader
among the Southern conserva-
tives, who is a cosponsor of
the bill, said he hoped the Sen-
ate "would come to grips with
this issue now" and not send
the bill to the Judiciary Com-
mittee.
Senator Barry Goldwater, Re-
publican of Arizona, issued a
statement charging that the bill
was "as shot through with holes
as limburger cheese."
All voting on the measure
has been put off until next
Week, largely to accommodate
Senator Goldwater, who, has
gone to California to attend his
son's wedding.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700090011-8
 NEW v 1= 2elease 2005/06/06)AU LR Y-'B(fQ380R 700090 aE
President's War Powers
Senator Davits is indulging in Nixonian hyperbole when .
he asserts that his War.Powers Act, currently before the
Senate, is "one of the most important pieces of legisla-
tion in the national security field.,that has come before
the Senate in this century." The 'act merely attempts to
spell out powers which Congress has always.enjoyed
under the Constitution but which successive Congresses,
especially In recent years, have allowed dangerously to
erode. Unless Congress acts more responsibly than it did,
for example, in 1964 when the Tonkin Gulf Resolution
was hastily adopted without serious challenge, the. War
Powers Act is not likely to prove effective in checking
the arbitrary extension of Presidential authority in the
war-making field.
The Javits bill is, however, a useful appendage. to the
Constitutional powers because it compels Congress to
face up to its responsibilities. While granting the Presi-
dent ample latitude to act ,imni.ediately in emergency
situations, the bill requires a prompt report to Congress
and Congressional authorization for.the continuation of
hostilities beyond 30 days. Congress could no longer
allow a Presidential initiative to stand and grow by
default as it has done time and again during the steady
escalation of the Indochina conflict.
Administration spokesmen have assailed the War
Powers Act as an. unconstitutional abridgement of the
President's powers as commander-in-chief, But it is the
President and his predecessors who have defied the
Constitution by ascribing. to the commander=in-chief
exclusive powers to commit the nation to war that were
certainly not intended by the Founding Fathers. Senator
Javits has pointed out that the Second Continental Con-
gress, wary of the arbitraryauthority of kings, strictly
instructed George Washington as commander-in-chief
"...punctually to observe and follow such orders and
directions ... from this or a future Congress
In a nuclear age when the President of the United
States commands forces of unprecedented power scat-
tered around a volatile globe it is especially important
to reassert the Congressional checks on Presidential war-
making authority that were. explicitly written into' the
Constitution. Senate passage of the, War Powers Act
could be a significant step toward redressing a perilous
imbalance in the American federal system.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700090011-8
 Q~~
. t r4w.~A FB ase 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP75B00380R000700090011-8
THE WASHINGTON POST
Stennis Tells Hill
War Powers Bill
Won't Hurt Safe
By Spencer Rici'-
waahin;ton Post Staff whiter
Armed Services Committee
Chairman John Stennis (D "There is some flexibility in
Miss.) assured the Senatt -" the language of the bill itself," d
terday, that the President said the Mississippi senator. lo
would retain full power to pro- "The. authority of the Presi- h
dent to use the armed forces n
tect the nation in military without prior congressional
emergencies under the terms approval is recognized in the t
of the war powers bill now event of armed attacks upon a
being debated on the Senate
floor.
"I speak as one who is not
wanting to restrict the Presi-
dent of the United States," de-
clared Stennis` in his deep
booming voice. "I speak as one
who has a voting record over
the years as leaning toward
the executive powers . I
don't want anyone in the Pres-
ident's office to sit idly by and
fail to act in an emergency,
and I say this resolution fully
takes care of the situation."
The bill, of which Stennis is
a cosponsor, permits the Presi-
dent to wage undeclared war
for up to 30 days in emer-
gency situations, but requires
him to come to Congress if he
wishes to extend hostilities be-
yond that period. Sponsors say
it would restore the, f eroded
constitutional power o Con-
gress to determine. when"' the
nation shall go to war.C"tics
argue that it could hamstring
the President, and the Nixon
administration opposes it.
Stennis, the single most
prestigious figure in Congress
on military matters, said the
measure had been carefully
tailored to give the President
flexibility to act in all genuine
emergency threats to the
United States, without giving
him the complete freedom to
carry on hostilities indefi-
nitely without congressional
assent which passive Con-
gresses have allowed presi-
dents over the past two gener-
ations.
the United States or its forces t
and in the event such use is ~ t
required to evacuate Ameri-'
can citizens in foreign count- 11
ties. It is important to note it
that the President is also au-11
thorized not only to repel such
armed attacks, but also to
`forestall the imminent threat'
of attack upon the United
States or its armed forces."
Stennis said he saw nothing
in the bill that would cripple
the United States in efforts to'
carry out its commitments to,
NATO-a point on which he
was strongly backed by Sen-
Cviiliam R. Snon' ()-A7, ) '^-
other sponsor. Spong said he
expected that as debate ""ro-
ceeds, one "red herring" after
another would be brought
forth, like the NATO champ
or the contention that the bill
dilutes presidential nowors.
rather than merely reasserting.
Congress's power to set out.
conditions for exercise of the
Majority Leader Mike Mans-
DATE'~ 1 . I'X. ""I'Z.,,,
field said, "I do not want tc
see another Dominican inter-
,ven;tion, I do not want to
se -another "V'ietna'm" unless
Congress gives its full, express
approval.
"In a quarter of a century,
Congress has not been con-
sulted in the use-of-force deci-
sions," said Spong.
Sen. Robert Taft Jr. (R-
Ohio), another sponsor, de-
clared, "War is nod only too
important to be left to the
generals, the American people
abhor war to such an extent
that it is too important to be
left to the President alone."
Sen. Gale W. McGee (D-
Wyo.) suggested it might be
better to appoint a high-level
presidential commission to
study the whole question of
war decision-making in the
Constitution and hinted he
may propose such a floor
amendment.
Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-
Ariz.), meanwhile, issued a
press release enumerating
what he said were the bill's re-
strictions on emergency action
by the President. Goldwater's
contentions had been contra-
dicted earlier by Sen. Jacob K.
Javits (R.-N.Y.), the chief GOP
sponsor, in a floor discussion
with other senators.
Goldwater said the bill
doesn't give the President
enough discretion to deter-
mine what is an emergency
justifying action without con-
gressional assent.
PAGE Z''
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700090011-8
 pp el lae 2005/06/06 :CIA-R~P751~ ( O IM009001 t> , ~3
i. 1.1 :4 1'Y X6x it 1 ~l~l~ .Ls ' a 1 x.. ~j
Senate Approves War Measure
By Spencer Rich ; threat of attack, to rescue U.S.
for-
Washington post staff writer I nationals endapgered in a for-
5940-0
She Sena y
Vte a innted an amen IY It
the war powers bill yeester-
rotect the lives of American
hoops to pro ec U.S. na ion-
..s.. .-sere _
NATO joint command struc-
The amendment was offered
by the bill's sponsors-Wil-
liam B. Spong (D-Va.), Jacob
K. Javits (R-N.Y.) John Sten-
nis (D-Miss.) and Thomas F.
Eagleton (D-Mo.)-to reassure
critics that the legislation
won't tie the President's hands
in critical situations.
Under the bill, the Presi-
dent would be barred from
waging undeclared war except
to protect the United States or
U.S. troops stationed abroad
from attack or imminent
eign land, or to carry out spe-
cific congressional authoriza-
tions. Even then, however, the
bill would require him to
cease the military action
within 30 days unless he came
back to congress and obtained
express permission to con-
tinue it.
Critics of the administra-
tion-opposed measure, such as
Barry Goldwater (R-Ariz.) and
Peter Dominick (R-Colo.), had
argued that the bill might re-
quire the President to stop
military action abruptly after
the 30 days, even if that left
U.S. troops exposed to severe
and immediate peril; might
forbid rescue of non-military
personnel on the high seas;
and might bar U.S. participal
tion in the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization command
without a specific authoriza?
Iton from Congress.
Spong, Javits and Eagleton
to the congress that unavoida-
ble military necessity respect-
ing the safety of the armed
forces ... requires the con-
tinued use of such armed
forces in the course of bring.
ing about a promptm e n t disengage-
e n t from such
hostilities ..:'
Authorizes him to take
emergency action with ad-
vance congressional approval
in "any situation on the high
seas involving a direct and im-
minent threat to the lives of
(American) citizens and na-
tionals."
Specifically permits U.S. of-
ficers to participate in
NATO's joint command and
similar unified command
structures.
The purpose of the bill is to
prevent the President from
committing the United States,
to war without congressional I
assent, while preserving his
power to defend the country
in emergencies.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700090011-8
told the Senate yesterday that
this wasn't so, but in a gesture
of conciliation offered an
amendment spelling out their
interpretation.
The amendment allows the
President to continue an emer-
gency action beyond the 30-
day limit, even if Congress
hasn't acted to authorize con-
tinuation, when he "deter-
mines and certifies in writing
 AMWONIOXX R,91%09 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP75B
Senate, d~8-16, Backs Curb
i On President's War Power
ror no Senate, the bill rep-
resents its most ambitious ef- a
fort in recent years to reassert.`
1 what it regards as the forelgnr
policy perogatives of Congress.;,
Blit- to observers it appeared
M1 Would he sing d by gxc In y. i~'T . iFtat^rPi
thei
Hous of RCrnre_q ta. ' s
Power Delineation Sought
A di
t
t
th
f th
Congrss.
Despite opposition by the
Nixon Administration, which
had termed the bill unconstitu-
tional and unwise, all rl,nu~ Re-
nf Q, den tor.g T-Ttleh Senrr. T? I -
>Z_Griffn Gordon L. Aflott and
Margaret Chase Smith - vat j
~ far tt. -
.-i u1aeu Arom Page 1, Col. 4
Fpreign AffairsQ~mi t. have
already {Wade. 'cclear that they
igrd the mea e as, an
desirable, if not m i u ien"
a1 ~encroacfirte t. -__ the
C&90011-8
American udL,w,.aYb wine cuey
were being evacuated from a
foreign country in which they
were endangered.
The bill goes on to provide
that the use of the armed
forces in such situations cannot
be extended beyond 30 days
without authorization "in spe-
68
"the nation _to -_ sustained -hos-
tiiit es without tllP ennegnt of
The House last year approved j citic legislation enacted for
a war-powers bill that would
require the President to submit
a report to Congress when he
commits the armed forces to
In the course of debate, this
restriction was modified.
hostilities. That approach, ac- saying that no existing treaty
ceptable to the Administration Ives the President "specific
was rejected by the Senate statutory authority" to commit
yesterday by a vote of 56 to the armed forces to hostilities.
22 when offered as a substitute
bill by Senator Peter H. Domi-
nick, Republican of Colorado.
House Bill Provides Device
The House bill, however, does
provide the Senate with a par-
liamentary device to rescue its
*i^n *n n Conn+o TTrnica _n_nnn
` ,.. __mmittee.
Senators Jacob K. Javits, Re-
publican of New York, and
Senator William B. Spong Jr.,
Democrat of Virginia, the two
floor managers who steered
the measure through 11 days of
debate, expressed the hope that
the one-sided Senate vote would
help force House consideration
of the measur.
Even if the bill Is not im-
mediately enacted, its Senate
sponsors felt they had got
across an intended political
message to the executive branc
that Congress must be involved
in decisions on hostilities.
Effect Believed Achieved
Senator Javits and Spong ex-
pressed the view that, as a
matter of political precaustion,
no President would now commit
the nation to hostilities without
obtaining the specific approval
of Congress.
As the debate progressed, the
sponsors emphasized repeatedly
tht the purpose was not to
detract from the President's
constitutional power as Com-
mander in Chief. To state De-
partment officials, the sponsors
also offered increasingly flexi-
ble interpretations of the emer-
gency authority that the Presi-
dent could exercise under the
bill.
In the absence of a declara-
tion of ar by Congress, the bill
would permit the President to
use the armed forces to repel
or forestall an armed attack
gressi rig
approval. 1
-the House lea4grshe,
Continued on Page 13, Column 1
Vietnam war, the bill was ad-
vanced by a coalition of liberal
and conservative supporters as
a way to give Congress a voice
In an age of undeclared wars.
The bill would attempt to de-
fine and delineate by legisla-
tion for the first time the war-
making powers conferred on
the Presidency and Congress by
the Constitution. It would au-
thorize the President to make
emergency use of the armed
forces but would provide that
the President could not con-
tinue hostilities for more than
30 days without specific Con-
,
rec
grow
ou
o
e
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 s0Qr' j #"100090011-8
 W44 - Loy /eo7tv
1~r#r~}v~tdo~yl1se 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP,75Ql%e090011-8r,x Q~..+
Who's Got the Power?
fng to Vietnam, the Javits bill would Congress has made no -bid for su-
radically change the constitutional re- premacy so bold, and so foreign to the
lationship between Congress and the Constitution, since the impeachment
Presidency in making foreign policy. of Andrew Johnson. The legal theory
Ignoring their own repeated votes for of the bill would permit a plenipoten-.
Vietnam, the sponsors contend that tiary' Congress to dominate the Presi-
the cause of the Vietnam tragedy is a dency (and the courts) more com-
modern usurpation of the war power pletely than the House of Commons
by the President. As Senator Cooper governs in Great Britain.
points out, this claim rewrites history. I do not favor increased Presidential
The Javits bill would annul the power. But I do defend the constitu-
military provisions of all outstanding tional pattern of enforced cooperation
treaties and Congressional resolutions between Congress and President we
authorizing the use of force by the have inherited. Its corollary, however,
President, including NATO and the is democratic responsibility. It is un-
Middle East Resolution, as well as all seemly for astute and worldly men
Presidential commitments. who spoke and voted for SEATO, the
The bill is full of paradox. While it Tonkin Gulf Resolution, and other leg-
purports to assure the nation that a islative steps into the Vietnam War
pacific Congress will keep jingoistic now to claim that they were brain-
-_ washed, and therefore that we-and
vividly than any proposal since that appointed by the Congress its
By EUGENE V. ROSTOW dency, which the Founding' Fathers
were at pains to establish as an equal
L NEW HAVEN, Conn. -The Javits . branch of the tripartite government,
war-powers bill confirms Oliver Wen- to the humble posture of George Wash-
dell Holmes' quip that "great cases ington during the Revolution, when
which was authorized by Congress
through the very procedures proposed
in the bill as constitutionally proper.
In Korea, the Javits bill would have
required President Truman to obtain
a Congressional resolution within thirty
days-which would surely have been
voted at the time, although Truman
and the Congressional leaders thought
it unwise to do so under the circum-
stances.
But if the Javits bill had been on
the books, it would have prevented
President Kennedy from handling the
Cuban missile crisis as he did. There
was no claim on that occasion that
we were acting to forestall an immi-
nent threat of armed attack. Under
the Javits bill, Mr., Johnson could not
have moved the fleet to keep the
Soviet Union out of,the Six-Day War
in 1967. Mr. Nixon could not have
used the same method to avert general
war in the Middle East in 1970, or to
confine the India-Pakistan War of
102.. Nor could earlier Presidents
have used force or the threat of force
to induce France to leave Mexico in
1865-66, to avooid war with Britain
and Spain over Florida, or to send
Commodore Perry to Japan.
The Javits bill would deprive the
Presidency of powers which were used
by George Washington and by nearly
every President since-the powers of
wars like Korea or Vietnam, the bill
would not have prevented Vietnam,
n
With admirable candor, e
Javits has said that the purpose of book, "Peqce in the Balance: The
1,;n is to reduce the elective Presi- Future of American Foreign Policy."
Appwa~tei?IgF Iwa>;e 2005/06/06E MA [ ~ 90011-8
ator Yale is author o e o
S
the United States as if they never
happened. These men were not brain-
washed. They knew everything the
executive knew. But even if they had
been brainwashed, their votes stand,
The Fourteenth Amendment is not a
nullity because it was ratified by many
legislatures which voted under circum-
stances of fraud, or the coercion of
military occupation.
Korea and Vietnam did not come
about because the Presidency arro-
gated Congress' powers over foreign
policy. The Congress fully supported
those efforts when they were under-
taken. The country is In a foreign
policy crisis, however-not a consti-
tutional crisis, but an Intellectual and
emotional crisis caused by growing
tension between what we do and what
we think. The ideas which guided our
response to Korea and Vietnam have
suddenly lost their power to command.
Those who now believe Korea and
Vietnam were errors should recall the
prudent wisdom of an earlier time,
when the powers of the Supreme Court
were left untouched even after this
dency we have developed in nearyy
200 years of intense experience more
than we need it today. The Javits bill
would turn the clock back to the Arti-
cles of Confederation, and emasculate
the independent Presidency it was one
of the chief aims of the men of
credible deterrent diplomacy the nation Annapolis and Philadelphia to create.
 LV/.. ?O b 4
THE WASH'vN03lfase 2005/06/06: CIAfgP7~y pFi'f~(i~j0009A1
&IR
"Hot.Stove" Legislation,
P
Bill Would Curb WtUJiJtiIdII9 ower
CO NGRESS is now working on a law to
prevent Presidents Kennedy and Johnson
from involving the United States in the the
defense of South Vietnam. Since the effort
comes ten years or so late, the law's spon-
sors explain that their object is to forestall
"another Vietnam."
The chance that any President would so
ignore tragic experience as to undertake
again anything remotely like the Vietnam
intervention is about the same as the chance
that a child who has burned his hand on a
hot stove would do the same thing a second
time.
Yet there is always someone, after a burn-
ing, who feels that there ought to be a law
against hot stoves. This time it is Sen. Jacob
Javits of New York, author of the so-called
war powers bill, now under debate in the
Senate and scheduled for a vote today. His
measure seems to have majority support in
the Senate, though perhaps not in the
House. In any case, a presidential veto is vir-
tually certain if it gets as far as the White
House.
This is not the first time hot-stove legisla-
tion has been handled by Congress. After
the first world' war and a Senate investiga-
tion of "merchants of death", the House and
Senate wrote a set of neutrality laws to pre-
vent President Wilson, then long dead, from
involving the U.S. in a European war.
The effect of these laws was to hamstring
President Roosevelt in his attempt to help
contain Adolph Hitler before the Nazis
could overrun all of Europe and precipitate
another world war. Obviously, Hitler posed
a different and more serious threat to the
By Kenneth Crawford
world than Kaiser Wilhelm had. Fortu-
nately, Roosevelt, before it was too late,
,found ways through, over and around the
neutrality laws.
What the Javits bill would do is limit a
President's authority to employ armed
forces abroad. In emergencies he could
order the Army, Navy, Air Force or Marine
Corps, or all four, into action overseas. But
he could not keep them in action for more
than 30 days without specific congressional
sanction. Pending amendments would not
substantially change the purpose and thrust
of the legislation.
c+J
Opponents argue that the war powers bill,
like the neutrality laws, however well inten-
tioned, would only straightjacket future ad-
ministrations by undertaking to anticipate
unpredictable international developments.
They even doubt the constitutionality of the
proposed redistribution or war-making pow-
ers. Why, they ask, change a system that has
served the nation well for almost 200 years?
Why abandon flexibility in favor of rigidity
at a time when world affairs are as chaotic
as they are now?
Proponents counter with the argument
that Vietnam has demonstrated the neces-
sity of "redressing" the balance of war pow-
ers between Congress and the President.
The Constitution gives Congress the exclu-
sive right to declare war but the present war
has never been declared. It has been fought
of Past Presidents
by executive decree. What this overlooks is
that this country has engaged in armed con-
flict more than 200 times, going all the way
back to George Washington, even though
Congress has declared war only five times.
A balance that never has existed can't be re-
dressed.
Not all members of the Senate have made
up their minds about war powers. Some of
them consider the Javits bill innocuous on
the assumption that Congress' would never
in any conceivable circumstance pull the rug
from under a President once U.S. military
forces were committed. They point out that
Congress already has ample authority to
stop an American shooting war. Its- control
of the purse strings could have been used to
stop American operations in Vietnam at any
point.
When Congress adopted the Bay of Ton-
kin resolution in 1964 with only two dissent-
ing votes in the Senate and none in the
House it was approving Presid nt Johnson's
escalation as surely as it could have with the
Javits bill in effect. Within a year,, more-
over, Johnson asked for an additional $700
million for Vietnam operations in a message
specifically inviting Congress. to withold the
funds if it disapproved of his war policy.
Again the approving vote was almost unani-
mous.
Several senators are skeptical of the no-
tion that Congress would be more restrained
than a President in the face of provocation.
It never has been in the past, not even in
the case of Vietnam. Some of the skeptics
will nevertheless vote for the Javits hell
Such a vote for them will be . a gesture de-
noting second thoughts about Vietnam. A
post facto vote against an unpopular WRY
can't do them any harm.
Both advocates and foes of the Javits b+il
are convinced that it is the most important
legislation Congress will consider at this ses-
sion. Advocates believe it can help heal the
Vietnam sickness that has infected Ameri-
can society. Foes are equally convinced that
it would undermine this country's diplo-
matic credibility. Yet Senate-debate on the
issue has attracted a minimum of attention
from media and public.
Perhaps this is because, like all debates on
Constitution-related questions, this one has
been serious and unspectacular. War powers
lack the spice of an ITT investigation. Indif-
ference may by partially explained, too, by
doubts that Congress could pass the Javits
bill over a presidential veto. Secretary of
State William Rogers, obviously sneaking.
for the White House, has challenged both
the validity and the practicality of the nro-
posed legislation.
However, neither in floor debate ,nor in
Rogers's statements has the most telling
cloak-room argument against the hill been
A roved For Release 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP75B0038OR ~' 9 J&jNJ at passage would be re=
pp sallies passage
as, a signal that
Chairman William Fulbright and his Senate
Foreign Relations committee are about to
IftfeAt-of American foreicn nolicv.
 L.! A pR4&* ' F"05/06/06: CIA-RDP75B00380R000700090011-8
THE WASHINGTON POST jAT01 PA(,,,
:-War Powers
Bill Wins'
Senate Test
By Spencer'Rich
Washington Post stiff Writer
In a key victory for support-
ers of the bill to reassert the
war powers of Congress, the
Senate yesterday refused by a
60 to 26 vote to send the legis-
lation to the Judiciary Com-
mittee for 45 days of study.
The motion=-offered by
Sen. Roman L. Hruska (It-
Neb.) and backed by the Nixon
administration-had been re-
garded as a major test of Sen-
ate sentiment on the measure.
Hruska argued that, al-
though the bill already had
been approved by the Foreign
Relations Committee, the Ju-
diciary Committee should de-
termine whether Its provisions
impinge on the President's
constitutional powers as com-
mander in chief.
Sponsors of the bill, who in-
clude Jacob K. Davits (R-N.Y.),
William B. Spong (D-Va.),
John Stennis (D-Miss.) and
Thomas F. Eagleton D-Mo.)
countered that it doesn't
change the Constitution and
that the referral move simply
was an attempt to delay rapid
passage so opponents could
work up a new campaign.
The bill is an attempt tc
reassert the congressional
power to determine when the
nation shall go to war, whict
Javits, Spong and others sas
has been largely ignored b3
presidents over several gener
ations.
See DEBATE, A4, Col. 1
? DEBA"CE, From Al
Under the bill, the Presi-
dent in future may engage in
undeclared wars for up to 30
days in emergency situations,
but then must come back to
Congress if he*'wants to con-
tinue the military action. The
emergencies in which the
President may act without the
advance approval of congress
include attack on the United
States, its armed forces or its
nationals 'on the high seas, or
imminent threat of attack
upon the United States or its
armed forces.
Opponents, led by Barry
Goldwater (R-Ariz.) and Peter
Dominick (R-Colo.), have
argued that the bill could tie
the President's' hands in cer-
tain emergencies. Stennis,
chairman of the Armed Serv-
ices Committee, has insisted
this is not so.
Yesterday's test vote indi-
cated that the bill's supporters
have an overwhelming major-
ity in the Senate, though
House prospects are less san-
guine. Despite administration
opposition to the bill, 19 Re- publicans voted against Hrus ka's move, while 23 were vot- lug for it. Only three Demo- crats voted with Hruska, while 41 were opposing him. Of the Maryland and Virginia sena-
tors, only J. Glenn Beall (R-
Md.) Md.) supported Hruska. the Hruska move was Sen. Mike Gravel (D-A forced votes on two pro-posals to apply the principlesof the bill to the present war
in Vietnam, which the bill spe-
cifically exempts from its Spong and Javits leaped to
their feet arguing that the bill
was an attempt to work out a future procedure for congres-
sional review of emergency military actions taken withoutadvance authorization, and
that it would be impossible to
act if the present war with itsbitter disputes and complexi? ties were dragged into the dis- cussion. first amendment, beaten 74 to 11, would in ef-
feet have given the President
45 days to end the Vietnam
war unless Congress approved
a declaration of war in the
meanwhile. The only senators
voting with Gravel on this;
were Alan
W. Fulbright (D-Ark.), Fred
R. Harris (D-Okla.), Philip A.
R
Hart (D-Mich.), , Harold Hughes
(D-Iowa), , Edward M. Kennedy
(D-Mass.), .), Mike Mansfield (D-
, Walter Mondale (D-
Mont.)
Minn.)
and Abraham A. Ribicoff
-Conn.).
(D-Conn.).
Gravel then offered a test
war on
amendment declaring
North
Senate would reject it so
then argue that the
he could
present war had been ex-
pressly repudiated. But in-
stead of taking a direct vote,
the Senate killed this proposal
tabling it, 78 to 7 with
by
Cranston, , Harris, Dart,
Kennedy, Metcalf and Mon-
dale joining Gravel in oppos-
' ing the tabling move.
A Fulbright amendment, de-
signed to make it clear that
exemption of the Vietnam war
from the bill shouldn't be con-
strued as endorsing the legal
basis for Vietnam action, was
defeated, 56 to 28. Spong said
he already construed the bill
the way Fulbright wanted, and
he preferred not to add
amendments of that. type for
fear of tying up the bill.
Pending as the Senate ad-
journed was a Beall amend-
ment to create a 24-member
study commission on war pow-
ers and wipe out all other
provisions.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700090011-8
 tV4+Ap @qfReae ~2AR5/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700090011-8
10
War Powers Bill Wins
Test in Senate, 60 to 2
Special to The New York Times
WASHINGTON, April 11 - and Fulbright proposals wouM
Legislation defining the war have been to undo a basic unT
powers of the president sur- derstanding that led to sponsor-
vived a test today when the ship of the legislation by a
Senate refused, by a vote ofjcoal tion of liberals and con-,
60 to 26, to send the measure
to the Judiciary Committee for
further study.
The one-sided vote indicated
that the Senate, probably later
this week, would approve the
measure. The bill, while au-
thorizing the President to make
emergency _ use of the armed
forces, would provide that he
cannot continue hostilities for
more than 30 days without
congressional approval.
As the Senate finally settled
down to voting on provisions
of the bill after a week of
debate, it refused to take a
direct vote on a proposal by
Senator Mike Gravel, Democrat
of Alaska, that the United
States declare war on North
Vietnam. By a vote 78 to 7,
the Senate laid aside the
declaration, which Senator
Gravel had offered as an
amendment.
The senate also rejected, by
a vote of 74 to 11, another
Gravel amendment that would
have specified that the legis-
lation applied to the Vietnam
war. The Vietnam war is ex-
cluded from the terms of the
bill as it was approved by the
Foreign Relations Committee.
Also defeated, by a vote of
56 to 28, was an amendment
by Senator J. W. Fuibright,
chairman of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, that would
have specified that the bill, by
exempting the Vietnam war,
did not confer upon the Presi-
dent any authority to continue
hostilities in Southeast Asia.
servatives.
Senator John Stennis, they
chairman of the Armed Serv ;
ices Committee, for example,
agreed to co-sponsor the bill.
with Senator Jacob K. Davits,
Republican of New York, on
the understanding that the,
measure would not apply to
the Vietnam war.
The sponsorship of Senate:
"Stennis is crucial in providing,
conservative support for the,
legislation.
From today's votes it wal
apparent that the coalition was
holding firm and that it had,
a clear majority to drive the
bill through the Senate over thp,
opposition of the Administra
tion. Even if passed by the Sen'w
ate, however, the legislation is
believed unlikely to be ap?
proved this year by the House.
The Administration, which;
has been opposing the bill at
unconstitutional and as an un'
wise limitation upon the power
of the President, had hoped to,
block the measure by sending
it to the Judiciary Committee
The motion was offered by Sen-
ator Roman L. Hruska, Repub,
lican of Nebraska, who along
with Senator Barry Goldwater,
Republican of Arizona, was
working closely with State De-
partmennt officials in lobbying
against the measure.
Proponents of the measure
said they sought to restore the
war powers of the Congress by
establishing procedures under
which Congress,i in an era of
undeclared war, would be in-
volved in decisions of war and
The effect of both the Gravelpeace.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700090011-8
 S T3760 Approved For Rel d $ / A I fi Qp?P2700090011-8August, 6, 1971
trated in a handful of locations, to the com-
plete neglect of the rest of the nation. Neith-
er of these are responsible alternatives, and
I respectfully urge you to reject them both
by increasing the allocations provided by this
legislation.
I would like to make two final comments
which are peripheral to the actual drug
treatment programs, but which are so im-
portant that they cannot be ignored. The
first is that research in drug control is vital,
more so now than ever. With a crushing
problem confronting us on a daily basis., it
is easy to overlook or forget the need and
long-range benefits of research programs. And
yet perhaps no effort is more urgently needed
than full-scale medical investigations of the
physiological and psychological impact of
drug abuse. I strongly urge that this im-
portant research not be delayed another day,
least of all for want of adequate budget
allocations.
Finally, I alluded earlier in my testimony
to what I consider to be a disastrous plan
to phase-out the NIMH Psychiatry Training
Program completely over the next three years.
This cut will mean a significant decrease in
the number of psychiatric residency slots
currently available. Fewer residencies will
mean fewer psychiatrists. Fewer psychiatrists
will mean an even more critical shortage of
trained personnel to staff drug treatment
centers. Here, perhaps as nowhere else in
this budget, it is possible to see how closely
related are all of these programs. Taken
alone, the cutbacks in the Psychiatry Train-
ing Program seem ill-advised; when viewed
against the need for competent drug treat-
ment personnel, it appears to be nothing
short of nonsensical.
To combat the drug abuse problem that
haunts our playgrounds, our parks, our sub-
urbs, our high schools, our cities, we must
these previously classified documents
and the historic decision of the Supreme
Court permitting their publication have
engendered debate on topies of vital con-
cern and lasting importance to the Con-
gress.
The essential issue here, of course, is
the problem of providing information to
Congress. Complete and accurate infor
mation from all available sources, should
be accessible to the Congress. As matters
now stand, Congress is sometimes denied
access to current intelligence information
compiled by the CIA and the intelligence
community.
The Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOPER) has presented a timely and con-
structive bill that will make such intel-
ligence information available to the Con-
gress just as it is already available to the
Executive. His proposal, which I was
pleased to cosponsor amends the Na-
tional Security Act of 1947 by adding a
section requiring the Central Intelligence
Agency to provide individual Members
of Congress, upon request, through the
Committees on Armed Services and For-
eign Affairs of the House of Representa-
tives, and the Committees on Armed
Services and Foreign Relations of the
Senate, intelligence information and
CIA's analysis thereof. The security of
and access to the information provided
to the Congress would be the responsi-
bility of the committees, who would in-
stitute the necessary measures to provide
clearances, secure areas, documents con-
trol, and so forth.
The National Security Act of 1947 does
moral-to a full-scale, comprehensive Fed-- not specifically bar intelligence informa-
eral program. tion from Congress, but neither does it
THE WARMAKING POWERS OF
CONGRESS
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as the
United States continues to extricate it-
self from the land war in which we be-
came involved in Southeast Asia during
the decade of the 1960's, many of us in
Congress, as well as many private in-
dividuals have begun to give increasing
attention to the vital question of the role
of Congress in the decisionmaking proc-
ess which led to that involvement.
This question, it seems to me, breaks
into two equally important parts: one
deals with the warmaking powers of
Congress and the other with the problem
of providing adequate information to
Congress in order that it may intelligent-
ly deal with the substantial questions of
war and peace on which we are expected
to act.
It is because of my deep concern that
the legislative branch of the Govern-
ment regain its constitutional status of
coequality with the executive branch in
the matter of decisionmaking that I
am pleased to join the distinguished
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. CooPsa)
and the distinguished Senators from
Mississippi (Mr. STENNIS) and Montana
(Mr. MANSFIELD) in sponsoring legisla-
tion pertaining to these areas.
The Cooper bill (S. 2224) is a direct
outgrowth of the discussion and self-re-
flection which the publication of the so-
called "Pentagon papers" stimulated
earlier this summer. The revelations of
provide for the dissemination of such in-
formation. This proposal makes intelli-
gence information available to the proper
committees as a matter of law. If the
Congress is to fulfill its constitutional
responsibilities in the formulation of for-
eign policy and national security policy,
it must have available intelligence facts
and their analysis. Although the Central
Intelligence Agency has often provided
such information to certain committees
and Members of Congress in the past,
this has been done only at the pleasure
of the Executive, and the veil of secrecy
has been extended to cover too much
that is necessary to make legislative de-
cisions of great substantive importance
to the American people. Proper dis-
closure to appropriate committees is a
vital safeguard against Government
adoption of positions and policies of un-
known and potentially dangerous impli-
cations. Congress cannot be expected to
function effectively if it is not acquainted
with information about a particular sub-
ject in essentially the same detail that
is in fact in the possession of the
Executive.
Adoption of this proposal, S. 2224, will
make available to Congress information
absolutely essential if we are to fulfill our
obligation to the people of this country.
It will strengthen the balance of respon-
sibility between the Executive and the
legislature by promoting trust and rea-
soned judgment on matters relating to
the national interest.
The second proposal-the Stennis-
Mansfield resolution, Senate Joint Reso-
lutlon 95-Is a reasoned and reasonable
response to the other facet of the prob-
lem which I referred to earlier, namely
the congressional responsibility in the
warmaking process.
Senate Joint Resolution 95 does not in
any way attempt to fix responsibility for
the present tragedy in Southeast Asia on
either the Democrats or the Republicans.
Instead, Senate Joint Resolution 95 at-
tacks the heart of the whole 1971 prob-
lem. The fact that Congress has not de-
clared war since the Second World War
ended in 1945, despite the many conflicts
and near conflicts we have engaged in,
raises the question of who has the power
to begin the wars we fight. Senate Joint
Resolution 95 is not an attempt to re-
write the Constitution. The Constitution
lodges in,the Congress the power to de-
clare war, and throughout our history
the Congress has been recognized as the
only branch which could declare wars.
This power to declare war is not out-
moded simply because we have grown
from an America composed of Thirteen
Colonies and separated from the rest of
the world by an impenetrable sea barrier
to an international leader, or which is
outdated by modern warfare. As Sen-
ator STENNIS stated when introducing
this resolution.
I remember I was standing at the desk
which is behind me now when the news came
into this Chamber that troops had been
ordered to land in Korea. I knew that this
was the first time in our history a delib-
erate decision had been made to land
troops, an army, in a war against another
nation without a declaration of war by the
Congress of the United States.
Senate Joint Resolution 95 is an at-
tempt to delineate more clearly the war
powers of the executive and the legis-
lative branches. At the same time, it
would insure that the decision to go to
war, a decision too massive and too im-
portant to be decided by one man, would
again become the collective judgment of
the President and the elected represen-
tatives of the American people. The reso-
lution guards the powers of the President
and the security of the Nation by out-
lining very carefully those emergency
situations in which the President may
commit American troops to combat
abroad. At the same time, the resolution
safeguards the right of the Congress to
declare war by placing a time limit on
this commitment of troops. The time
limit, 30 days, is long enough to avert a
disaster, but short enough so that if a
full-scale war is to be begun, the Con-
gress too will be required to authorize
it.
Finally, in placing this resolution be-
fore the Congress, Senator STENNIS has
made a significant contribution to what
ought to be a long, serious discussion,
and a protracted study, by the Senate,
the Congress, and in fact, the, whole Na-
tion, in what the future role of the Con-
gress and the President ought to be in
the declaration of war. It is a study
which the Congress has long shoved
aside, and which has not been resolved
satisfactorily in the entire history of our
Nation. The possibilities for total an-
nihilation today, and the volatile and
dangerous situation of the world today
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B00380R000700090011-8
 August 6, 1971 Approved ftgglMWQ6FDf3'Q80R000700090011-8 S 13'59
ment, rehabilitation, and research. His treatment are: (a) In-patient care; (b) out- tized in Congressional hearings two months
statement, I believe, puts quite force- Patient care; (c) Parti all hospitalization; (d) ago when NIMH officials, under cross-ex-
fully the case for a national commit- 24-hour emergency services; (e) Consultation amination, revealed that they have or 1971
meet against drug abuse and I ask and education services. The pattern of in- applications for three times as man-Y grants
unanimous consent that it be printed at stitutional adulation used by the community as they can award, and yet they have not
mental health centers boasts a number of increased their budget request for grants for
this point in the RECORD. distinct advantages: (1) it assures continuity Fiscal 1972.
There being no objection, the state- of care for the addict-as the patient is The funds earmarked for special projects,
ment was ordered to be printed in the transferred, say, from a hospital to a rehabili- authorized under the Comprbhensive Drug
RECORD, as follows: tation center, his treatment record will fol- Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970
low him, making integrated treatment pos- (P.L. 91-513) is a futher example of budg-
DRUG Ai3usE: TREATMENT AND REHABILITATI01~7 sible; (2) it assures a geographic compre- etary neglect in the face of desperate need
(Statement of Senator Jo V. TUNNEY) hensiveness which does not currently exist in The Administration has requested $9 mil-
Mr. Chairman, on June 17t1 the President most cities-that is, an addict living within lion to finance the operation of specialized
declared that, in his judgmen ,the problem the community is guaranteed treatment, re- drug treatment centers, i.e., centers which
of drug abuse "has assumed the,dimensions gardless of ability to pay; (3) the centers are offer one of the five critical phases of drug
of a national. emergency," and proposed ad- flexible enough to be able to specialize in treatment. This category of grant is par-
ditional appropriations and the establish- drug treatment, thus offering leadership in ticularly useful in avoiding duplication in
ment of a new Special Action Office for Drug the field which standard institutions are in- cities where certain treatment facilities al-
Abuse Prevention, to co-ordinate the Fed- capable of generating on their own--city and ready exist. Of the $9 million request, how-
-
eral response to that emergency. The papers county hospitals and mental health facilities, ever, $4 million worth of projects are being of E have been filled with glowing reports of drug where they foxist,me generally find themselves
that they tunny traferrtoed tromcommuniey mental Oppor
health
and money
abuse programs
promising be funded with millions pressed
dollars, , quick relief for those rarely can devote the attention to treatment centers. This means that there is no real
ravaged by the habit. And yet, in spite of techniques that the community centers spe- gain in funding, since Fiscal Year 1971 ex-
all the cialize in every day. penditure was at the $5 million level. And
around
publicity , heroin recent weeks, the drug
total requests. er $26 pouring minillion from for 1971.
ab buse problem, addiction particular- And yet, despite the admitted importance yet, country grant
.
ly, continues to plague society to degrees of these community mental health centers, This another example 26 how far the need
never before imagined in our worst night- funding for Fiscal Year 1972 is disappoint- This funds p eiof how In ar field need
mares. While I applaud the President for his ingly meager. There are 60 major cities in outstrips the e of
belated recognition of the magnitude of this this country with serious, serious heroin drug abuse control today. Grant requests
amount more than five y times
problem, I feel we must critically examine addiction and drug abuse problems, but for spec tial hanr projects
the Administration's proposals because I be- treatment facilities are still woefully inade- gew funds are h ou.
lieve there are still critical shortcomings quate. Yet, as I stated earlier in my testi- education and training portion of the
in the Federal response. mony, the Administration's request for Fis- The g P
The Administration has requested approx- cal Year 1972 asks for only an additional $15 drug abuse contrbl program has also received
imately $89 million for treatment and re- million, funds which will go toward support- scant attention. Although the President is
habilitation programs under the Department lug some new centers, but not for the expan- requesting g an additional $10 money oval ami lion,the eby
of Health, Education and Welfare. Although sion of any drug treatment operations. increasing the
to more than $24 million, these figures only
this represents a significant Increase in the For special staffing under the narcotics ad- ain meaning
of the total problem. Education is our first
adequate to meet the critical increase in mental health centers, the Administration
problems now being reported by every hos- budget allocated only $14.6 million, all of line and, of herefore, defense is In the real combatting rt the a problem,
pital and clinic in the nation. In fact, the which is for the continuation of current o effort. Our educational he effof our orts mue-
significance of the increase in the Admin- projects related to drug abuse treatment, ventive nd, t be extended not o u tr school-aged
rors and com-
istration's budget request is nearly lost when but for new projects. Yet the demands for bchildren, ex but to parents, edu our school
is size and rate of growth of the problem treatment at these centers is rapidly grow- bt alike. In the face of this need,
is considered. ing, as we all know. The number of addicts mushy leaders a rn has received less this
One great source of concern to me is that in the military services, for example, is more, drug budget request received less driorty
the Administration has in large measure than six times the number that can be han- the it .
These problems will not be alleviated by
overlooked the use of the community mental died by the V.A. centers now established or ,hetoric from Washington. As a matter of
health centers to treat drug addicts. I do planned. The community mental health cen- feet, every from time there is a newspaper or tele-
not need to tell any of you here that drug ters must be able to cope with this overflow, vision report of more federal money being
addiction is a much a psychological as a phys- as well as with substantial numbers of ad- visin proposed or aof more federal allocated or being
ap-
iological problem. While a new superagency diets from civilian life. Right now, unfor- t there a a oriz rof patients or the
may provide valuable assistance in co-ordi- tunately, most of the drug treatment centers prdrug d, there new r rush San patients at
ah
Hating Federal drug abuse activities and de- at the community medical health centers Angeles, looking desperately for help.
veloping overall strategy, it cannot be ex- have long waiting lists, large numbers of Los TAnsad pct is that they s era turned away.
pected to develop effective treatment centers Vietnam veterans among them. The result of The California and across the nation, eaause
at the community level, where the real solu- this conflict between pressing needs and staff hkind of'- oney needed for widee read
tiaras lie. This is the job of the community resources available is tragic neglect. This the p
mental health centers, which is why I con- sadness becomes all the more bitter when treatment programs simply hasn't been made
one hears of a staffing grant applied for by available. It costs at least $1,000 a year to
slier them to oc par impor- offer out-patient, methadone-maintenance
tones in any pr rogr ramm o of drug g abuse abuse treat- a center in San Francisco one-and-a-half services to one addict, and that is a con-
Director Dr. Sherman N. Kieffer, the Associate years ago which was meritorious, but which estimate; ad all that a were so
Director of Patient Gare of the National In- was turned down because no funds were services iv the annual costwould addicts mount stitute of Mental Health, stated in testimony available. The treatment workers at the com- treated, million a cost treat one t Lo over
co in
before Senator Hughes' Subcommittee on Al- munity level could. see one-and-a-half years $300 year. ago the rising trend in drug use which has a residential therapeutic community such
ago, that and mb barely two months as Synanon costs over $3,000 a year; such wed grams tha are the. best,
gcommunity- the ono- only Us led the virtual could epidemic which confronts need treatment for all addicts would cost well over
r, and nd perhaps ps the today. They ey cforesee the neeed fofor $900 million. That kind of money simply is
means of providing help, particularly to expanded staff and pars-medical personnel not available.
young people with drug problems. Dr. Kieffer to deal with that problem. But there were
said, "Our emphasis has been on trying to no funds available two years ago or one year In Fiscal Year 1971, the NIMH budget for
beef up the resources the treatment oapabili_ ago, and there are none available today, to drug-related programs was $37 million. In
ties within each community to handle these speak of. As the Hughes subcommittee hear- Fiscal 1972, the original request was exactly
situations." ings revealed, there are no new staffing pro- the same, $37 million. The President's pro-
One thing should be made clean here; a jests or grants anticipated for Fiscal Year posal will add $67 million, including $43 mil-
community mental healt4i center is not a 1972 because there are no resources ear- lion for treatment programs particularly.
place; it is rather an affilistive agreement marked in the budget request. However, in view of the figures discussed pre-
between several institutions capable of offer- There are phenomenal demands being viously, this allocation is clearly inadequate.
ing comprehensive treatment to the drug made upon NIMH for new project grants in It seems obvious that twice or even three
addict. Such an organizational arrangement this area, but to little avail in many cases. times that amount could be wisely spent. It
makes it possible for the patient to receive The answer given is that while there has is my profound conviction that until the
the full range of needed-treatment at affili- been much talk in Washington, the Admin- Administration and this Congress make that
ated local hospitals, vocational rehabilitation istration and the Congress have been very sort of a commitment, the fight against drug
centers, and educational and consultation slow in making a real commitment. The fact abuse is doomed to be a losing battle.
services, etc. Drug treatment must always is that little in the way of federal funds for The meager allocations proposed here by
be co-ordinated, or the chances for perma- drug abuse control programs has actually the Administration guarantee that location
nent cure will be virtually nil. The essential reached the cities and communities where of treatment centers win be scattered and
five services included in this comprehensive the problem exists. This problem was drama- inadequate, or that resources will be ooneen-
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700090011-8
 iugu t 6, 197Approved For E 63/' 6g 5 gh000700090011-8 S 13761
make a clear, final decision on this con-
stitutional question imperative if we are
to survive as the powerful Nation we are
now.
Mr. President, I deem these two pro-
posals-S. 2444 by Senator COOPER and
Senate Joint Resolution 95 by Senators
STENNIS and MANSFIELD-major steps in
providing answers to the complex, yet
crucial questions which have arisen con-
cerning the constitutional balance of
power between the legislative and execu-
tive branches of the Government. They
are questions which we can continue to
ignore only at the peril of the continued
viability of the intricate system of checks
and balances which are so necessary to a
stable government.
NEA ANNUAL CONVENTION, 1971
Mr. MONDALE. Mr.,President, I had
the good fortune recently to participate
in and address the annual convention of
the National Education Association held
in Detroit, Mich., June 26 to July 2.
At this convention, Mrs. Helen Bain,
the outgoing president, presented an elo-
quent and thoughtful address on the
needs and responsibilities of education.
Mrs. Bain-who in my judgment has pro-
vided the Senate with excellent advice
and counsel on both legislative and ap-
propriation questions concerning educa-
tion during her past year in Washing-
ton-emphasized the need to ret rder
priorities and the need for educators
to' become involved in the political
process.
I ask unanimous consent that her ex-
cellent address be printed in the RECORD.
I also ask unanimous consent that the
very interesting and stimulating report
of the NEA on governance and finance
of public education be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the items
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ADDRESS BY MRS. HELEN BAIN
dency with much to say and a concern that it
be said adequately.
continue to score impressive representation port to the need for such funds within a
election victories. During this last year, NEA balanced budget.
affiliates won elections in Seattle, Portland, I would like to share a new experience that
Cincinnati, Louisville, and New Orleans, and I had this year. An employee strike against
every one of fourteen elections held in Ohio. an employee organization though not un-
The AFT conducted at least four disastrous usual is always embarrassing, and the NEA is
strikes ... Newark, Hartford, East St. Louis, no found exception. o s For on the first management m my er,
and Minneapolis. The two major organiza- mside
tional goals of the AFT during the last year the f table. Your Executive the Committee and I
were the State University of New York and set the parameters for management before
the statewide election in Hawaii. The teach- negotiations began, and we ratified the agree-
ers in both cases showed their wisdom, and ment after negotiations were completed. The
produced victories for themselves, their state role wasn't comfortable, but it was necessary.,
we had a responsibility to repre-
officers
A
,
s
affiliates, and the NEA.
These victories show that the NEA is the sent your interest and insure that your dues
teachers' best bet. money was wisely spent.
However, we will not become complacent. The strike caused some confusion of roles,
We must continue to improve the NEA so and I know this also occurred at the state
that we may become a greater power for and local level, but out of the confusion came
learning. And, out of the impasse came reso-
anging the status of education, The Con-
titutional Convention is indicative of the lution. Negotiations produced a settlement
ontract satisfactory to both sides. You
d
c
rofession's determination to do this. an
f us here who will be delegates can be pleased with the contract which you
th
ose o
For
have with your employees
to the Constitutional Convention, I wish suc- employees.
I have tried to serve as your president with
cess in our deliberations. My prayer for us a sense of responsibility that meets with the
is that we possess the courage and wisdom to approval of the teachers of this nation. At
devise a strong structure for the United athe time, I am privileged to make this presi-
Teaching Profession. dential report on our progress in achieving
We are now a large and complex organiz - the priorities I placed before you in San
Lion governed by the delegates to this As-
Francisco last year. Events of this past year
sembly, and by the elected members of the make the early achievement of these goals
Board of Directors and the Executive Com- imperative.
mittee. This Assembly wisely saw the magni- Perhaps the greatest concerns of teachers
tude of that governance function when it ap- throughout this country are the alleged over-
proved full-time leave for the President, and supply of teachers and the inadequate fl-
then the President-Elect. We have taken Canting of education.
many other positive steps in recent years in Rising prices, generally poor economic
recognition of the size and complexity of our conditions, and criticism of the schools are
organization. Other actions must yet be contributing to the serious cutbacks in
-taken. One, in particular, I call to you atten- school finance, which in turn forces teacher
tion. cutbacks. Our condition is properly called an
Immediate Past President George Fischer underfunding of schools, not an oversupply
and President-Elect Don Morrison join me of teachers.
in recommending a two-year term for the There are many unmet needs:
NEA President. Each of us has seen something Adequate early childhood education would
of the magnitude and of the responsibility of call for far more teachers.`
this position. We request this not for our- Vocational and technical teachers, and
selves, but for the men and women who are remedial teachers are greatly needed.
yet to be elected. We know that the responsi- You and I know full well we need tens of
bilities grow each year, and the individuals thousands of additional teachers to reduce
who occupy this high office will find it in- class size to manageable levels.
creasingly difficult, if not impossible, to repre- This year, teachers are not in oversupply,
sent you adequately and carry out the duties but schools are understaffed.
of the office in one year. No one acts or speaks Teachers must take the lead in correcting
more often in your behalf than does your these problems. Once again, the strength of
President. In the interest of continuity, it is public education depends upon a will and
time that we elected our president for a two- determination of the teachers to take the ac-
year term. bons necessary to improve it. Fortunately, we
An area not waiting for ConCon is the in- have some means at our disposal to begin to
volvement of the Student NEA in NEA policy take these steps.
making. We have given the SNEA President First, you must this week give the NEA the
teachers of this country, with confidence in the right to deliberate with the NEA Execu- authority necessary to act at the national.
your ability, your courage, and your intelli- tive Committee. The Board of Directors has level to correct the general underfu?nding.of
gence. I end this year with an even stronger done the same thing for five SNEA Members. schools. The most significant single action
conviction that teachers are the most impor- You will have an opportunity to vote for an you could take at this convention would be
tant people in the world. You are my hope for amendment which will give them delegates to to direct the NEA to rejoin and resume lead-
a better future, and you are the hope of mil- our Representative Assembly. This is neces- ership of the Emergency Committee for Full
lions of people around this world as we work sary for them to have meaningful involve- Funding. This spring, the NEA could not sup-
to improve society, both here and abroad. ment, and I urge you to vote for it. port the Hathaway amendment and it lost by
The truism has become a necessity-edu- This past year, they have made many sig- four votes, and education lost 750 million
cation must solve our problems. It is appar- nificant gains. Their efforts contributed to dollars, 750 million dollars would go a long
ent that education moves, changes, and im- the passage of the 18-year-old vote in Con- way toward the reemployment of our col-
proves best when teachers move it, change it, gress. Active student involvement is a positive leagues who are out of work.
and improve it. Our profession through the step toward strengthening change within the Another significant way that we can help
National Education Association is a force to American system. The students also want to is through professional negotiations.
be reckoned with. work within the system of the professional Last year, we identified as one of our pri-
Teachers are on the move educationally association to produce changes in American orities the securing of professional negotia-
and politically on the local, state, and fed- education. We must be sure that the NEA has tion laws in every state. Although this has
eral levels. The influence which we have a sound, viable structure. been an off year for many state legislatures,
achieved is most encouraging. However, we To maintain viability, the NEA must be much has been accomplished. At the present
are just beginning. We have not yet reached kept on a sound financial basis. Our practice time, approximately fifteen states are prepar-
our full potential in serving the students and of spending an entire year's income within ing to join the twenty-four which already
teachers of this nation. To reach that po- that year is not a wise practice. In some have negotiation laws. Within the last two
tential, we must continue to use our influ- years, it has been necessary, but, as a prac- years, the number of locals with professional
ence and to build our strength wisely. tice, it has not allowed the development of negotiation agreements has increased from
Change enables us to meet the needs of reserves for the future, nor has it provided for less than 1,000 to 10,500, and the number of
teacher8 more effectively. The teachers have emergencies within the year. This year's teachers covered by these agreements has
indicated their preference. The past year has budget contains a modest beginning to estab- increased eight times. These agreements have,
been good for us, but bad for the AFT. We lish such funds. I urge you to give your sup- become increasingly important to teachers
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 CIA-RDP75BOO38OR000700090011-8
 S 13762 Approved For Re4@g-M?fff ZCREk~M-OBIl( Fib( ,p700090
in establishing their salaries, conditions of
teaching, involvement in the determination
of curriculum, and in the current situation,
the protecting of job rights. This leads me to
our goal of self-governance of the teaching
profession.
This profession is determined to establish
its own system of who comes in, who stays,
and who leaves. We intend to see that this
is based on true educational achievement,
classroom a ertise, and the judgment of
our peers. D ring the last year, extensive
work has been one to develop model legis-
lation for self-g vernance. The effort will be
accelerated durin the coming year. We must
be in the forefront of this drive.
Last year, you aced for a reordering of
our national priorities. Our first move to
give education the dignity and the impor-
tance it merits was to c A41 for a Cabinet Post
for Education. If you come to think about it,
it is an absurdity that we;are probably the
only nation on earth which does not have
a cabinet post devoted to education.. From
Norway to New Zealand, from Burma to
Britain, every country has a `,aninister of
education. We, on the other hahd, created
an unmanageable bureaucracy called HEW,
whose head has the impossible and' onflict-
ing tasks of devoting his attention tt, three
separate and distinct areas of nationai\cson-
cerns: health, education, and welfare. is
my view that one of the many reasons i+qr
organizational monstrosity of HEW. A Cab-
inet Post for Education would mean not
only that there would be a man-or
woman!-at the President's council table
whose sole advocacy and principal concern
would be the cause of education in America,
but it would also mean that responsibility
could finally be put at the Cabinet level for
federal educational policy.
This is not exactly a new idea. In 1921, a
joint resolution passed by fourteen national
organizations asked that "education be given
recognition commensurate with its supreme
importance to the Nation," and stated: "In
view of the reorganization now pending, the
present is a most. opportune time for giving
education its proper place in the Adminis-
trative Branch of the Government . . we
respectfully urge that the President of the
United States use his great influence to bring
about the creation of a Department of Edu-
cation with a Secretary in the Cabinet."
Some of the fourteen national organizations
signing this resolution were the NEA, the
American Federation of Labor, the American
Library Association, the National Council of
Jewish Women and the PTA.
That was 1921. The resolution expressed
then is still appropriate today. A half cen-
tury later, in 1971, we know that this reso-
lution can be implemented only through
political action.
The educational forces in this nation have
mounted a nationwide campaign to achieve
our goal. You met the leaders of these na-
tional organizations tonight. There are six
others who have endorsed the idea, and sev-
eral others will consider it at their national
conventions. We are establishing statewide
teams of our Big Six Coalition to be headed
by our Board members in each state. You
have already participated in two letter-
writing campaigns.
With this kind of positive political action,
I am convinced that we shall have aSecre-
tary of Education before we reach our two
hundredth birthday in 1976. That will insure
that the federal government's share is more
than the small fraction of the cost of public
education which it is now paying-less than
seven percent. It seems to me that by the
time this nation is two hundred years old
its federal government must be both willing
and mature enough to pay for one-third of
the cost of public schools. This will not only
create a more just and equitable access to
education, it will help drastically to reduce
the mushrooming cost of welfare and correc-
tional expenditures.
It may sound incredible, but it is true that
in the City of New York last year, with its
eight million people, there were as many
homicides as in about a dozen European
countries with a population of some 140 mil-
lion. These countries include Sweden, Den-
mark, Norway, Finland, Austria, Switzer-
land, Holland, Spain, Portugal, and the
United Kingdom, with huge metropolitan
concentrations in London or Amsterdam or
Stockholm or Copenhagen, and elsewhere.
We simply cannot tolerate the possibilit
least civilized and most unsafe places n
earth. Decent educational and emp, rent
opportunities will mean a better qual y of
life throughout this land, and with eatry
reduced public costs of nonproducti a wel-
Last year, I urged political acts as the
way to achieve these priorities. flou were
magnificent in your response. ampler of
teacher power in the politics arena are
countless. Let me just mention few.
The teachers of California h ped put John
Tunny in the U.S. Senate a George Mur-
phy went into public relati s work. Wilson
Riles became the state issioner of edu-
cation, and whatever happ ned to Max Raf-
The teachers of Alaska nducted the most
intense campaign in the history. From local
they made their marl/. Nick Begich, a for-
m educator and ardent supporter of
edutian, was may from the state legis-
lature%to the U.S. ngress.
The Feathers of lorida helped bring to an
end to tXe reign of Claudis Maximus Kirk
and Rube h Aske became governor. In the
process, th k care of a hopeful named
Carswell and incument named Cramer.
The teache of Washington State voted
and won, an Congresswoman May learned
that i t doe t p to oppose every piece of
educational ilegisl tion. The district is now
represented by Mi McCormack, who is a
The teachers of Oh'o had had enough, so
for the fitst time in the history they backed
a candidate for governo. He won, and John
Giliigap is pushing hard r better education.
Teaplrers worked for epublicans and
Democrats, but always for ucation. NEA is
a bipartisan organization. a are made up
of good Democrats and goo Republicans.
Nothing would have pleated a more than
to be able to report to you on t e marvelous
leadership in the cause of educa ion by the
President of the United States. This has
When I took office at this time st year,
I felt that it would be in the best terest
of education in this country for th NEA
to make a real effort to work with tr. Nix-
on's administration. As your preside , I
extended a friendly hand. It has remai ed
cial educational needs for the millions of
children in this nation were ignored. Fur-
ther efforts to reach the President were made
through Congressman Quie, George Schultz,
Elliot Richardson, Sid Marland, Robert
Finch, and many others.
One last effort was made in late April,
when every member of the Board of Directors
signed and sent to the President a letter re-
questing that he give us an opportunity
to present our cause. As yet, there has been
no acknowledgement of this request. The
only word from the White House has been
a refusal of the President to speak at this
convention.
In this age of technological wonders, the
lack of leadership, the lack of compassion,
and the la of creative solutions at the
highest Iev is in our national government
are frigh ning. A lion's share of the na-
tion's it , frustrations, and failures must
be plat at the doorstep of Richard Nixon.
Whe we look at our nation's vast re-
sourc s and the failure of this administra-
tion mobilize them for the country's bene-
fit, t is frightening. As we look back over
t last year, during which we combined the
most appalling inflation in a generation, it
is frightening.
We must not accept these conditions.
What is called for is effective action within
our system to get our priorities straight, to
streamline the apparatus of our federal gov-
ernment, and to commit our resources to
achieve our true national objectives.
This is the most anti-education admin-
istration this country has had in many years.
This administration has repeatedly made
statements which were calculated to reduce
confidence in public education. On rare oc-
casions, Mr. Nixon has.asked educators to
serve on such task forces as urban educa-
tion, higher education, and student unrest.
In each instance, he had discredited and
ignored the reports. It seems that the ad-
ministration attacks the schools because
that is much cheaper than financing them.
Our concern for the adequate financing
of education is shared by the Congress of the
United States, which felt strongly enough
to override the President's veto of education
appropriations.
Mr. Nixon says we need to know more about
learning. He was not aware of the things you
and I learned shortly after we first started
into a classroom: That a hungry child can-
not learn: That children cannot learn In an
overcrowded and understaffed school: That
schools cannot function in a constant state
of financial crisis.
In 1968, Congress appropriated 60 percent
of the authorized aid to education. In 1969,
the ratio was 46 percent. In 1970, 37 per-
cent, and this year, 36 per cent. In other
words, of the total amount authorized for
education this year, only a little more than
one-third will actually be spent.
Mr. Nixon's educational promises far ex-
ceed his educational performance. By defini-
tion, Mr. Nixon is an underachiever.
I do agree with Mr. Nixon on one thing,
however. There should be accountability.
This should include presidents, too. Any
president who vetoes educational funds and
calls them inflationary, and fights for obso-
lete weapon systems and calls them progress,
should be held accountable. Mr. Nixon has
called for our accountability for over thirty
months. In November of 1972, we shall call
for his.
For my conclusion, I have chosen one of
our most important goals-the work in the
area of human relations on local, national
and international levels. I am very pleased
with the activity and the movement in de-
veloping human relations programs and the
considerable accomplishment of both our
state and our local associations. There are
now forty state associations with active hu-
an relations programs. We have over 2,000
cal associations throughout this country
w ich have established local human relations
pr rams.
O a national level, we have had an active
part ;Nn at least two significant decisions
which\have been made this year. We now
have a rule from the highest court in this
land concerning the integration of our
schools. l any of the points made in the NEA:
brief presented in the Charlotte-Mecklen-
burg case were found in, the final decision
of the Supreme Court. We should take pride
in having had a part in the establishment
of this ruling, which clearly establishes the
guidelines for the effective integration of
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP75B0038OR000700090011-8