Congressional Record Senate

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150020-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 49
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 25, 2003
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: April 26, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

April 26, IARproved For Release 2003/1 C1A-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ---- SENAT4
question. I am glad that the Senator
frOM Michigan raised the Point he_cause,
now We are. getting dawn to the issue of
what is wrong with existing law. Do
we wish to exempt under some flimflaa
excuse the right of someone to buy and
sell votes, or do we wish to break up the
practice? If we wish to ?break it up we
should desire to break it up entirely,
whether a voter is voting once or twice,
whether he is voting the Democratic
ticket, or whether he is voting the Re-
public= ticket,
Whether he is voting for a national
candidate or for a State candidate, if a
person is being paid, he ought to be
Prosecuted, The person who is paying
him should be Prosecuted also.
Mr. President, that is all we would do
under the pending amendment. We
would cut through all that redtape. I
shall be delighted to read the objections
if the Attorney General of the United
States can raise any.
Ik/fr. HART. Mr. President, the Con-
stitution of the united States is neither
a flimflam excuse nor a piece of redtape.
T.et us get that clep.r.
Mr:-WILLIA.MS of Delaware. No one
has said that it was.
Mr. HART. The interpretation of the
Senator has not persuaded me that that
Is really what is involved. The Attorney
General very properly would refrain
from bringing criminal cases arising out
of State or local elections. Merely add-
ing such a provision to the bill would not
add a constitutional right if none there-
tofore existed. The concern that we
have is that for us to pass local election
laws, unless they are tied to the 14th and
15th amendments, would clearly consti-
tute an unconstitutional action.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. That
particular situation involved a road con-
tractor who was trying to obtain a con-
tract for building a road that was being
built partly with Federal funds and
partly with State funds. He was ap-
proached and asked to make a contribu-
tion, to the campaign and promised that
In turn he was to get the contract.
Supposedly we have laws prohibiting
corporations making political contribu-
tions, particularly under such circum-
stances. We have laws to prohibit kick-
backs on contracts in which Federal
money' is involved. However, in that
case the Attorney General came back
and said that unless I could prove that
the payment was made and that the
money was used for the purpose of at-
tempting to elect national candidates
who were on the ticket that year there
was nothing he could do abOtit
I say again that it boils down to the
following question: Are we for clean
elections or are we not? The cmmittee
itself has already gone part way. The
bill which was reported by the commit-
tee and supposedly supported by the ad-
ministration provides that it shall be a
Federal crinie if anyone buys an illegal
vote or pays a person to register fraudu-
lently. If the voter voted a second time
It would be a Federal crime if he were
paid, but tnicier the bill he could be paid
If he should vote only once. So _far as
the bill is concerned there is nothing
against that possibility.
Surely that is not what the committee
means to do.
On the other hand, a person might be
paid $5 or $10 to register. If he should
register properly all well and good, but if
he should register illegally the person
who registered and the person who paid
him would be subject to a fine. I think
it is silly to approach the problem in any
such manner. Either we are against the
practice of vote buying all the way across
the board or we are not. The commit-
tee itself, in section 9 of the bill, has
already made the determination that it
will deal with elections in all 50 States.
I understand that this provision was sup-
ported by the Senator from Michigan.
A majority of the committee, including
the Senator from Michigan, though that
we had a constitutional right to adopt
that provision. I agree with the Sena-
tor.
Mr. HART. The Senator is now
speaking of the poll tax provision.
Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Yes. I
agree with the Senator on that. I shall
support him on that provision. At the
same time in supporting him in reference
to that provision and agreeing with him
on that I maintain also that we have the
right to go into the same 50 States on
the same principle and say that clean
elections shall be held in those States.
Mr. HART. The Senator knows that
we do not attempt to reach State or local
elections with a criminal sanction on
payment for fraudulent registration in
voting. Why? Because we had very
grave doubt that on that basis we could.
It is that point to which I reply. It is
not a piece of red tape or flimflam. It is
a very serious problem.
Mr. President, I understand that the
Senator from Oregon has a point of per-
sonal privilege that he wishes to make.
I yield to him for that purpose.
PERSONAL STATEMENT
Y SENATOR MORSE
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that I may take the
floor for such time as I think necessary
on a matter of personal privilege.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
HARRIS in the chair). Without objec-
tion, it is so ordered.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, to lay the
foundation for my discussion of this
question of personal privilege, I Fisk
unanimous consent that the brilliant
argument and speech made by the Sena-
tor from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING] at the
Students for a Democratic Society rally
held in Washington, D.C., on April 17,
1965, at the Sylvan Theater be printed
at this point in my remarks. I also ask
that it be followed by a column written
by Murray Kempton for the New York
World Telegram of April 23 concerning
a debate between Senator GRUENING and
Assistant Secretary of State William
Bundy.
There being no objection, the speech
and article were ordered to be printed in
the Amon, as followk;
8149
REMARKS BY SENATOR ERNEST GRUENING,
DEMOCRAT, OF ALASKA, AT RALLY OF VIETNAM
SPONSORED BY STUDENTS FOR A DEMOCRATIC
SOCIETY AT SYLVAN THEATER, APRTL 17, 1965
Thank you for inviting me to speak to you
this afternoon on the undeclared war in Viet-
nam.
It is particularly gratifying to me, in ad-
dressing similar groups such as this from
coast to coast, to find on university campus
after university campus both the faculties
and students discussing in an informed and
informative manner the issues involved in
Vietnam.
The extensive use of teach-ins is a promis-
ing and welcome development.
Such discussions of the pros and cons of
the U.S. position in Vietnam are healthy in
a democratic society such as ours. Your
right to petition the Congress is a right guar-
anteed by the Constitution?it is a right
forming the very cornerstone of that Con-
stitution?it is a right which you are exer-
cising today in protesting against the con-
tinuation of the present U.S. policies in Viet-
nam?policies which violate the basic prin-
ciples upon which our democracy was found-
ed and which has heretofore distinguished
our Nation from the totalitarian, Fascist, and
Communist governments of the right and the
left.
The United States has always stood for
government by the people?government by
majority rule?with full protection for the
rights of minorities.
But the course of action followed by the
United States in Vietnam under three sep-
arate administrations has not been governed
by adherence to the principle of government
by the consent of the governed.
It is not sufficient to justify the U.S. ac-
tions in Vietnam in supporting oppressive
governments in South Vietnam on the
ground that the government of North Viet-
nam is a totalitarian, Communist govern-
ment and likewise does not represent the
will of its peoples, who have been deprived
of their rights.
We should not be surprised when Com-
munist nations act like Communist nations.
But we should be surprised when the
United States, which has been in the fore-
front of the fight to free oppressed peoples
throughout the world, has for 10 years now
backed oppressive governments in South
Vietnam, and In support of which the United
States has now escalated its military actions
into North Vietnam.
The roots of the present dilemma facing
the United States in Vietnam go back to
our decision to back France after World
War II when it sought to regain Vietnam
as a colony of Prance.
That was a serious mistake on the part
of the United States.
Anticolonialism has been the longstand-
ing policy of the United States. We have
sought no colonies for ourselves. We should
not have backed the French when they
sought to reimpose the yoke of colonialism
upon the people of Vietman.
The United States supported Prance in its
colonialization efforts in Vietnam to the
tune of 82 billion.
In doing so, the United States became
Identified with Prance in the minds of the
Vietnamese who were fighting for their free-
dom from any sort of foreign rule. The peo-
ple of Vietnam fought as strongly against
the French as they had fought hundreds of
years before to oust the Chinese.
With the decisive military defeat of the
French at Dien Bien Phu in May of 1954,
it became evident to the people of Prance?
as it should have become evident to the peo-
ple of the United States long since?that
the war in Vietnam was not to be won on
the battleileid, but was a politiCal struggle
Approved For Release 2003/10/-14 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8150 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE April 26, 1965
and could and should be settled at the
conference table.
Then came the Geneva conference at-
tended by representatives of France, the
United States, the United Kingdom, Soviet
Russia, Commulaist China, Vietnam, Cam-
bodia, Laos, and the Vietnamese Communist
regime.
At Geneva, the conferees agreed to four
conditions:
First. Vietnam was to be partitioned along
the 17th parallel into North and South
Vietnam_
Second. Regulations were imposed on for-
eign military personnel and on increased
armaments.
Third. Countrywide elections, leading to
the reunification of North and South Viet-
nam were to be held by July 20, 1956.
Fourth. An International Control Com-
mission?ICC?was to be established to su-
pervise the implementation of the agree-
ments.
The United States did not sign the Geneva
agreement.
However, It did issue a statement?
unilaterally?promising: "It (1) will refrain
from the threat or the use of force to disturb
the Geneva agreements; (2) would view any
renewal of the aggression in violation of the
aforesaid agreements with grave concern
and as seriously threatening international
peace and security, and (2) shall continue
to seek to achieve unity through free elec-
tions, supervised by the U.N. to insure that
they are conducted fairly."
The armistice agreement--and it was never
intended to be more than an armistice until
the two halves of Vietnam could be unified?
was signed at Geneva on July 21, 1954.
On October 10, 1954, the Vietnamese Com-
munist regime took over North of the 17th
parallel under Ho Chi Minh.
Ho Chi Minh immediately took control over
North Vietnam in typical Comniunist style,
imposing a tight police state there with all
the less of individual and economic free-
doms implicit in such a takeover.
Fifteen- days after the Vietnamese Com-
munists took over in the north, South Viet-
nam became an independent nation south
of the 17th parallel with the U.S. hand-
picked Ngo Dinh Diem as premier.
This was the opportunity the United
States had in South Vietnam to show that
south of the 17th parallel true democracy
could flourish and the people there could
live In peace with their individual free-
doms preserved and, assisted by U.S. economic
aid, enjoying ever-increasing social and
economic benefits.
Renlember, South Vietnam is the bread-
basket of southeast Asia. North Vietnam is
the poor part of Vietnam. The United
States had everything working in its favor
to turn South Vietnam into a showcase so
that when the elections called for in July
of 1956 under the Geneva Convention tools
place, Hanoi Would be outvoted and the
people would choose to be reunited under
the leadership of non-Communists.
But we threw away our opportunity.
We did not insist on individual freedoms,
but stood by while Diem imposed an ever-
increasing terroristic, brutal, corrupt gov-
ernment.
Economic and social benefits for the peo-
ple were forgotten while Diem, with the help
of millions upon millions of American tax.-
payers dollars conquered faction after fac-
tion in South Vietnam to impose on it his
Iron, ruthless rule. South Vietnam?like
North Vietnam?became a police state.
When' the time came for the unification
elections called for by the Geneva Conven-
tion?which we had agreed to in our uni-
lateral protocol?we pulled the string on our
puppet Diem and he refused to go through
with the reunification elections, playing
right into the hands of the Vietnamese Com-
munists both in South Vietnam and in
North Vicbaarn.
Before being overrun by the Chinese, Viet-
nam had been an independent nation for
some eight hundred years. Its people wanted
both independence and unity.
When Diem refused unification elections,
the people knew that reunification and self-
determination could come about only
through armed resistance.
Many of the Vietcong fighting in South
Vietnam in the early stages of the guerrilla
war there were former Vietminh fighters
who had gotten their training in the fight
against France. Many went North to Hanoi
for training there, slipping back to South
Vietnam to rejoin the fighting. North Viet-
namese Communists joined them in increas-
ing numbers as the years fled by and Diem's
government became harsher and harsher.
War is not a pleasant pursuit wherever
and whenever fought.
Both the South Vietnamese and the Viet-
cong, together with their North Vietnamese
Cormnunist supporters, fight with brutality,
sadism and torture. Perhaps by asiatic
standards anything goes in wartime.
In addition. Diem?openly supported by
the United States economically and mili-
tarily?sought to retain his domination over
South Vietnam and the rule of his corrupt
henchmen, practiced torture not in the
course of waging war on the battlefted, but
against civilians in the torture chambers in
Saigon operated by Diem's secret police.
The facts of what went on in South Viet-
nam before, during and after Diem's regime
are now slowly coming to light.
I strongly commend to your attention two
new hooka by two Pulitzer Prize winning
authors.
The first, already on the bookstands, is en-
titled, "The New Face of War," and is by
Associated Press Reporter Malconae W.
Browne.
The second, which will be released in ap-
proximately 10 days, is by New York Times
Reporter David Halberstam, and is entitled,
"The Making of a Quagmire."
Both these books are must reading for
anyone who would understand how the
United States got into its present predica-
ment in Vietnam. Both have been excel-
lently reviewed by I. F. Stone in the current
Issue of the New York Review of Books.
You all recall how, after the fall of Diem,
the basic instability of the government in
South Vietnam and its lack of a firm basis in
popular support became apparent in coup
after coup until it became difficult at any
given moment to tell who was in charge of
the store.
This situation, so reminiscent of a comic
opera if it were not so tragic, was best de-
scribed by the noted columnist, Art Buch-
wald. last September which in humorous
form punctures the myth that we came there
in response to a request from the government
of Vietnam, a request which, incidentally,
we fostered. That government has long
since gone and the United States Is now in
effect the government. This is what Buch-
wald wrote:
"Probably the man who has the toughest
job in the world at the moment is Henry
Cabot Lodge, who has been traveling around
the world at the request of President John-
son, explaining our Vietnam policies to heads
of state.
"Although we haven't attended any of the
briefings, we can just imagine what is going
on as Ambassador Lodge is presenting his
case, let us say, to the King of Denmark.
" Now, sir, let me say at the outset that
the United States has the situation in Viet-
nam well in hand. Under the firm leader-
ship of Gen. Nguyen Khanh many new re-
forms have been instituted?
"As Ambassador Lodge is speaking, a
courier from the American Embassy rushes
in and gives him a telegram. The Ambas-
sador reads it.
"Well, as / was saying, General lthanh has
been dividing the country and the United
States feels he can no longer control the
various factions. It is our belief that the
best solution to the problem would be to
support a general who has the confidence of
the people.'
"The phone rings and the King hands it
to Ambassador Lodge.
"'Yes, I see, sir. Right, sir. I understand,
Of course. Thank you.'
"He hangs up the phone and continues:
'You see, Your Majesty, our experts believe
the best solution to the problem would be
to have a three-man military junta govern
until we can have elections. We feel General
Khanh has been a handicap and we intend
to support General Minh, whom General
Khanh had disposed of several months ago
with our help. Our strategy is to send the
South Vietnamese Army out into the field
to fight the Vietcong on their own terms.'
"An aid whispers something in Ambas-
sador Lodge's ear. He nods and says, 'Be-
cause of the rioting in Saigon our strategy
has been flexible and we are now urging the
South Vietnamese forces to return to Saigon
to prevent the breakdown of law and order.
We feel this can beat be done with General
Minh in command of the ?.'
"Another messenger from the American
Embassy dashes in and hands Lodge a cable.
"'Therefore, in line with what our people
have worked out, we are happy to announce
that Dr. Nguyen Xuan Oanh is now in charge
of the Saigon government. Dr. Oanh is a
Harvard-educated economist and gets along
very well with Ambassador Taylor. General
liaranh is now in Dalat resting up from a
physical and mental breakdown.'
"The phone rings again and Ambassador
Lodge answers it. 'Thank you very much.
That's very interesting.
" 'I want you to understand, Your
Majesty, we have not ruled out General
Khanh's contribution to our effort in Viet-
nam. We have decided that in spite of
everything he still holds the title of Premier
and we have every intention at this time of
supporting his government.'
"The Ambassador's secretary hands him
another paper.
"'As you have probably read, the main
problem in Vietnam is the friction between
the Catholics and the Buddhists. Realizing
this, the Americans have a plan to prevent
rioting between the two factions.*
"The secretary hands him another paper.
?But we feel at the same time that some-
rioting would have a good effect and there-
fore we've authorized the riots now going
on throughout the country.
"'Our main objective, of course, is to win
the war, but we realize that this cannot be
done until there is a stable government in
Vietnam. We feel we have such a govern-
ment with Dr. Oanh and * ? ?.'
"The phone rings again and Ambassador
Lodge answers it wearily. 'Yes, sir. Whom
did you say? Mine. Nhu? Thank you.'
"He turns back to the King. 'Weil, where
was I?'"
And now we are off again with Henry Cabot
Lodge recalled to gather support for the U.S.
position in other countries.
So the United States has fumbled and
bumbled along in Vietnam for over 10 years
now, disregarding our international obliga-
tions and commitments.
We violated two commitments of the Ge-
neva Convention which we unilaterally
agreed to support.
We Increased the armaments and military
personnel in South Vietnam and prevented
the holding of unification elections called
for by that Convention.
But further we failed to live up to our
commitment under the United Nations
Charter.
Article 33 at the Charter of the United
Nations states: "The parties to any dispute,
the continuance of which is likely to endan-
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
irpril 26, 1965
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150020-1
CONG1tESSIONAL RECORD --'SENATE
ger the maintenance of international peace
and security, shall first of all, seek a solu-
tion by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, con-
ciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, re-
sort to regional agencies or arrangements,
or other peaceful means of their own choice."
The United States has sought no solution
to the conflict in Vietnam by negotiation.
The United States has sought no solution
to the conflict in Vietnam by inquiry.
The United States has sought no solution
to the conflict in Vietnam by mediation.
The United States has sought no solution
to the conflict in Vietnam by conciliation.
The United States has sought no solution
to the conflict in Vietnam by arbitration.
The United States has sought no solution
to the conflict in Vietnam by judicial settle-
ment.
The United States has sought no solution
to the conflict in Vietnam by resorting to
regional agencies or arrangements.
The United States has sought no solution
to the conflict in Vietnam by any other peace-
ful means.
That is why I have maintained for over a
year, and continue to maintain, that if we
had waged peace as vigorously as we have
waged war we would not now be in the mess
we're in.
Within 2 months after the Geneva Con-
vention was signed in 1954, a conference was
convened in Manila and a collective seourity
pact was signed known as the Southeast Asia
Collective Defense Pact. It was signed by the
Governments Of Australia, France, New Zea-
land, Pakistan', the Philippines, Thailand, the
United Kingdom, and the United States. The
parties agreed to protect these countries from
"armed attack and countersubversive activi-
ties directed from without against their ter-
ritorial'integrity and political stability."
Are allied soldiers from Australia in the
front lines fighting and dying alongside U.S.
soldiers and marines? They are not. And
where are the t'reneh soldiers, the New Zea-
land soldiers, the Pakistani soldiers, the Phil-
ippine soldiers, the Thailand soldiers, the
United Kirigdom soldiers?
,They are not there or if so in only token
numbers. At present the United States is
going it alone in Vietnam. From reactions
in other capitals of the free world, it looks
as if the United States will continue to go it
alone, often even without the moral support
of our SEATO allies, and despite our Govern-
ment's earnest pleadings for their partici-
pation.
And now the United States has escalated
the war by air strikes into North Vietnam,
while the voices are being raised to send
more and inore troops into South Vietnam.
As the able publisher of the Detroit Free
Press, Miami Herald, Akron Beacon Journal,
and other dailies, John S. Knight, one of
the great figures in the world of American
journalism, stated it:
"The South Vietnamese ground forces can-
not cope with their enemies from the North.
U.S, troops are engaged in combat, and there
is talk in Washington of committing some
250,000 more to the struggle.
"The fact is that we are not winning this
war. Nor can we so long as the Republic
of South Vietnam is infiltrated by the enemy.
As Richard Dudnia,n of the St. Louis Post-
Dispatch has reported, 'Our side may still
control the cities and the air, but their side
controls the great majority of the country-
side and commands the allegiance , of the
great majority of the people."
There have been ever mounting protests
against the escalation policy in Vietnam.
We. might, perhaps, by sending the million
men to Vietnani which Ilanson palciwin, the
military critic of the New "York Times, has
proposed and reflects some of the thinking.
in the Pentagon to keep. that area in subjec-
tion. But what then? Do we propose to
stay there indefinitely and hold Vietnam as
conquered territory. Sooner or later that
would lead to an all-out Asian war In which
there could be no victors and only stagger-
ing losses. That is why I say we cannot win
the war. Certainly not by military means.
The St. Louis Post Dispatch put the spot-
light on the basic problem when it advised
the President "to repudiate the misguided
advisers who, in the name of a bankrupt
philosophy of containment have led him,
step by disastrous step, into an Asian
morass."
Two thousand five hundred ministers,
priests, and rabbis cried out in one Voice. in
a newspaper advertisement: "Mr. President,
In the Name of God, Stop- It," saying in
part:
"It is not a light thing for an American
to say that he is dismayed by his country's
actions. We do not say it lightly, but soberly
and in deep distress. Our Government's
action in Vietnam have been and continue
to be unworthy either on the high standards
of our common religious faith, or of the
lofty aspirations on which this country was
founded.
"Now the United States has begun the
process of extending the war beyond the
borders of South Vietnam; with all the at-
tendant dangers of precipitating a far greater
conflict perhaps even on a global and nuclear
scale.
"Mr. President, we plead with yosi,i to re-
verse this course. Let us admit dnr mis-
takes and work for an immediate cease-fire.
Let us call a conference of all the nations
involved, including China, not alone to con-
clude peace but to launch at once a major
and cooperative effort to heal and rebuild
that wounded land.
"Mr. President, we plead with you with
the utmost urgency to turn our Nation's
course, before it is too late, from cruelty to
compassion, from destruction to healing,
from retaliation to reconciliation, from war
to peace."
Heading the list of 2,600 clergymen are
such outstanding individuals as Bishop John
Wesley Lord, Washington area, Methodist
Church; Dr. Dana McLean Greeley, president,
Unitarian Universalist Association; Dr. Ed-
win T. Dahlberg, former president, National
Council of Churches; Father Peter Riga,
moderator, Catholic Council on Civil Liber-
ties; Dr. Isidor B. Hoffman, chaplain to Jew-
ish students, Columbia University; and Dr.
Henry J. Cadbury, biblical scholar, former
chairman of the American Friends Service
Committee.
My able and distinguished Senate col-
league, Senator FRANK CHURCH, of Idaho, in
an able article in this week's Saturday Eve-
ning Post entitled: "We Should Negotiate a
Settlement in Vietnam" states: "Our strug-
gle in South Vietnam has reached a point
where neither side can achieve a conclusive
military decision, and the only visible pros-
pact for a solution is to be found at the con-
ference table. But there is so much Wash-
ington talk about stepping up the war that
it threatens to engulf all rational discussion
of the crisis we face?almost as if peace were
something to be avoided."
/ agree. But meetings such as this one
this afternoon, if conducted in an orderly, _
thoughtful manner should help in showing
that the voices of reason will not be stilled.
The Students for a Democratic Society are
to be highly commended for sponsoring this
gathering. I appreciate the fact that there
are those elements, both fascist and commu-
nist, which seek to pervert events such as
this for their own mischievous ends. But
the voices of reason will not be stilled by
such tactics?and the people of the United
States will recognize that their own stake
in preventing further escalation of this war
in Vietnam are too great to be swayed by
fascist or communist diversionary tactics.
We stand today on the brink of a world
war of cataclysmic proportions.
In commenting on the President's speech
8151
in 'whkch he offered unconditional negotia-
tions, the noted columnist Walter Lippmann
stated: "Though no one can prove it, it is
just possible that a year ago that such a
Presidential statement could have changed
the course of the war."
As it happens, I have been speaking out
constantly on this subject for over a year.
In a major address on the Senate floor on
March 10, 1964, I urged that the United
States take its troops out of Vietnam. I ex-
pressed then, and have repeatedly ever since,
my view that the United States had no busi-
ness being in South Vietnam militarily, that
we should never have gone in, that we should
never have stayed in, that the security of the
United States was in no wise jeopardized or
imperiled by whatever happened in Vietnam,
and that all of Vietnam was not worth the
life of a single American boy. We have now
lost over 400 of them. And if this war con-
tinues, if it escalates still more, as there ap-
pears to be every likelihood of its doing, our
casualty lists will mount to even more tragic
proportions.
I pointed out at that time that President
?
Johnson had inherited the mess in South
Vietnam from previous administrations; that
it was not of his making, that he could and
should reverse the policies of his predecessors.
And if he had acted then, as Walter Lippmann
has pointed out, disengagement and a nego-
tiated peace would have been a lot easier to
achieve. Moreover, our pledge to the United
Nations, in article 33, the conditions of which
I have cited, made such action mandatory be-
fore we increased our military participation,
which in itself constituted a violation of the
Geneva agreement and our unilateral com-
mitment to it. Consequently, when we
charge treaty violation against North Viet-
nam, let us look at the beam in our own eye.
In consequence of my deep convictions on
this subject, I was unable to vote for the
resolution sent to the Congress by the White
House last August, approving not only of
what had been done by the administration
in Vietnam, but authorizing the President to
use our Armed Forces as he saw fit anywhere
in southeast Asia. Only two of us in the
Congress voted against this resolution. My
distinguished colleague, Senator WAYNE
MORSE, of Oregon, who was the other Member
of the Senate to vote against this resolution,
has repeatedly pointed out that we are con-
ducting war in Vietnam in violation of the
Constitution of the United States. Despite
congressional ratification of the resolution,
there has been no declaration of war by Con-
gress as the Constitution provides. Of course,
there should not be such a declaration, but
neither should we be carrying on a war as we
are doing.
But now is not the time to reminisce about
what might have been.
Now is not the time to point out the follies
and errors of the past.
Now is the time to think ahead and find a
decent way out.
Now is the time to take positive action to
wage peace as actively and forcibly as we
have been and now seem determined to wage
war.
President Johnson is to be commended for
modifying a previous stand and declaring
that the United States is willing to enter into
negotiations without any preconditions.
That is a good first step but it is only the
beginning.
More needs to be done.
The United States should immediately an-
nounce the cessation of our bombings in
North Vietnam, at the very least for a period
while negotiations can go forward not at the
point of a gun.
The United States should seek to negotiate
an immediate cease-fire in South Vietnam.
We should do this by recognizing the clear
facts of life: the war in South Vietnam is
basically a civil war, the control of which
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8152 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 26,
does not rest in the capital of North Viet-
nam?Hanoi--or in Communist China, which
our war hawks are apparently baiting to come
Into the conflict.
Well, China has not yet come in, and in
view of our provocative actions and utter-
ances appears to me to have Shown, to date,
aim, irable self-restraint.
It is also possible that China as yet feels
no need to come in and feels that the United
States has trapped itself into a mess which
Ideally suits China's purposes and propa-
ganda.
"Here," the Chinese may well be thinking,
"the United States is ensnared all alone in a
bloody war, costly in lives and dollars, sink-
ing in more deeply every day, pitting white
men against Asiatics in the Asian homeland,
and being fought to a standstill by a small
Asiatic nation.
"Why interfere? The U.S. course sults
us perfectly. It is alienating its own allies
and neutrals and thereby strengthening
China's position in the world."
Yes, we are probably helping the very
cause which it is our officially declared pur-
pose to defeat.
The ultimate control of the civil war in
South Vietnam rests with the Vietcong, and
they must be brought to the conference
table.
We should then take every, honorable op-
PortunitY to seek an international peace
conference. We should work night and day
to bring this about.
Nor do I share the view which is given in
justification of our military action, past,
present, and future, that a cessation will lead
to the loss of all southeast Asia, -then of
the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand,
and that we shall then be obliged to fight
Communist invasion on the beaches of
Hawaii and California. This view strikes me
as utter nonsense. This is the John Foster
Dulles domino theory raised to new heights
of absurdity.
As far as southeast Asia is concerned, the
futate may hot be certain but it is a risk that
I think all concerned should be prepared
to take in view of the tragic alternatives.
Tne people of Vietnam fought Chinese domi-
nation in the past for generations. They
no more want domination by China than
they wanted domination by the French, by
the Americans, or by any outsiders. I think
tve would probably get in South Vietnam a
'Moist form of communism, seeking inde-
pendence from control by Peiping, the very
situation that the United States has in-
vested 82 billion to create in Yugo-
slavia. Actually, our military activity which
pits Western whites against Asiatics, our use
of bombing, of napalm, and gas, is more
likely to produce the undesirable results
which it is our declared purpose to obviate.
For if our escalation brings the Chinese
into the war and they once move into Viet-
mama presumably to defend it, it may be
difficult to get them out.
As for the insular countries in the Pacific?
the Philippines, Australia, and New Zea-
land---the United States complete control by
sea and airpower of the Pacific makes such a
conjuncture, namely that they will fall un-
less we carry on militarily in Vietnam, mani-
festly ridiculous. -
Perhaps, as has been suggested by my
colleague, an able student of the Far East
and majority leader of the Senate, Senator
Mr= MANSFIELD, of Montana, we should
seize the opportunity of what appears to be
a forthcoming international conference on
the security of Cambodia's borders to widen
the topics to be discussed to include the
security of Vietnam.
The United States is a great and powerful
nation founded on the principles of peace
and freedom. It behooves the United States
not to adopt totalitarian tactics that have,
in the past, characterized both Fascists and
Communist regimes.
The United States should, without delay,
focus the spotlight not on the arrows but
on the olive branch also carried in our na-
tional emblem by the American eagle, and
seek an honorable and just peace in Vietnam
and an end to the needless killings there.
[From the New York World-Telegram,
Apr. 23, 1965]
THE FIRST DEBATE
(By Murray Kempton)
William P. Bundy, Assistant Secretary of
State, and Senator ERNEST Gainavrwo, of
Alaska, debated our Vietnam policy last
night at Joan of Arc School on the West Side.
William Bundy came through a cluster of
the youth against war and fascism wearing
their "Stop the War" buttons and sat down
with Garzwnvo for a predebate television
spot. Their host asked for voice levels.
"Now is the time for all good men," GRUEN-
INC began, "to come to the aid of their party,"
the Assistant Secretary of State finished.
He looked across Jim Jensen at GRITENINS
and smiled: "And that means Democrats."
We were watching an event for which
there was no remembered precedent in our
history. It we are not at war in Vietnam,
we are indisputably engaged in what Bundy
prefers to call a "sober and measured mili-
tary effort." And now a representative of
the President of the United States was pub-
licly debating a Senator from the President's
own party who wants to stop the war before
an audience overwhelmingly of the Presi-
dents party and, by any measure of its re-
sponse, demonstrably hostile to his policy.
ERNEST GRUENING was not to be placated.
"The President's policies," he told the cam-
eras, "are leading directly to a major war.
He says he wants no wider war, but he's
widening it all the time."
They Went off to the stage. Congressman
WILLIAM RYAN introduced Bundy first.
Bundy arose, tall and weary, to say what
an honor it was to share the floor with a
man like Senator GRISENING and to meet the
reform Democrats.
He recalled the lessons of the 1930's. We
had fought Japan to prevent one nation from
dominating Asia. "We seek no territory and
we seek to bases in southeast Asia."
The United States, he said, is going about
its business "in as measured and sober a
way as you can carry out a Military cam-
paign." At which eight of the Youth
Against War unfurled a sheet of paper
painted "Stop the War in Vietnam," and be-
gan to chant the slogan over and over, until
four or five volunteers came over and tore up
the sheet and a policeman came and took
them out. It did not seem an unpopular
act of repression. Bundy began again, "The
effort must be pushed in the maximum in
the south. The job can be done." He re-
peated Johnson's promise that we will not
withdraw, and sat down.
RYAN began to introduce ORtrENING; he
came to the citation, a Senate speech called
"The United States Should Get Out of Viet-
nam," and suddenly the applause was twice
as loud as any that had followed Bundy and
people were standing up.
Gatrmarro was a small man behind a forest
of microphones, with an old, strong and
amiable voice.
"We say," the voice declared, "that we are
doing what we are doing because other people
could not be trusted. But we have violated
three different treaties. * * * The bombing
of North Vietnam is a wholly disastrous piece
of folly which makes us absolutely disgrace-
ful before the whole world * * ? After 2
months of bombing, we are not better off
than we were before. We should stop it and
we should never have done it * * After
you've been bombing villages with napalm,
it's going to be very difficult to persuade
people that you're their friends."
The applause lasted More than a minute.
1966
Bundy would work on through an hour be-
fore an audience nasty in patches but in gen-
eral politely disaffected. But the point is
not that audience?the West Side may be
thought of as exotic. It is rather ERNEST
GRIIENING and that conception of the na-
tional honor which he has the strength no
matter of factly to express at a monent very
like a time of war. We are arguing at last
in public; and there are not any generations
which have lived through an occasion as
great as that quite simple thing.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, as a fur-
ther foundation for my discussion of th
question of personal privilege, and for
the benefit of the warmonger spoke:,-
men of the Johnson administration, ir.-
eluding the Secretary of State and the
Secretary of Defense, I ask unanimous
consent that a speech that I made at a
teach-in all-night seminar session at
the University of Oregon last Friday
night be printed at this point in the REC -
ORD.
There being no objection, the speech
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
To WHAT PURPOSE WAR LIST ASIA?
(Remarks of Senator WAYNE MORSE, Univer-
sity of Oregon, Eugene, Oreg., April 23,
1965)
It is with both pleasure and pride that I
accepted your invitation to speak on behalf
of the faculty-student committee to stcp
the war in Vietnam. I am proud not only to
be here, but I am proud that the University
of Oregon is part of a great, swelling tide of
opposition in this country to the war in
Asia, and to the use of force which is rapid] y
becoming the monster that controls is
maker instead of the other way around.
There is today a war in Asia that is as
much the making of the United States as it
is of any other country. And one cannot
read the daily paper or listen to the presen-
tations of administration officials in the con-
fines of the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee without realizing that the only plans
of the American Government are plans for
making it steadily bigger.
The whys and wherefores of this war are
but vaguely known to the American peopte
and even to the Congress. The contingen-
cies being planned for are not known at ail.
The ways in which the bombing of the north
are supposed to produce peace remain in the
realm of pure mysticism.
Yet this week, Secretary of Defentie
McNamara, Ambassador Taylor, General
Wheeler, General Westmoreland, Admiral
Sharp, and other military commanders met
in Hawaii to plan the further military steps
by the United States within South Vietnam
against North Vietnam. They take the form
of the familiar prescription the Military Es-
tablishment has dished up for southeast
Asia for the last 5 years?to increase the
South Vietnamese forces from 575,000 to 735,-
000 men, to build up American ground com-
bat forces to several divisions, and to inten-
sify the bombing of military targets ar d
supply routes from the north into the sout a.
It is to the great peril of the United States
and the American people that it is in a mili-
tary conference of military men in Hawaii
that the foreign policy of this country is
being made, a foreign policy that is leading
the American people into the jaws of both
China and Russia, while at the same time
stripping us of friends and allies in all parts
of the world.
Five years ago we were concerned about a
civil war in Vietnam. So we threw Ameri-
can money, weapons, and prestige into that
war in an effort to turn the tide in favor of
the faction we preferred. Today, more Utz n
30,000 U.S. troops are in the war, hundreds
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
?Approved For Release 2003/1Q/14 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
of Araerican aircraft are attacking North
Vietnam, and more of the same is being
planned. From a civil war in,Bouth, Viet-
nam, the conflict has seen North ,Vietna,m
brought directly into the battle, the setting
Up of Soviet antiaircraft missiles to ward off
U.S. planes, and the preparation by China
to send its armed forces into the fray.
All this has come about because the United
States has preferred war to seeing itself
proved wrong and mistaken in its support
10 years ago of Ngo Dinh Diem.
The takeover by the military of American
policy in Asia is producing not one advan-
tage for the United. States. It is not
strengthening freedom in Vietnam, north or
south. It is not gaining friends, admirers,
of allies in Asia for the United States. Yet
if it is not to strengthen freedom and main-
tain strong allies in Asia, what in the world
is our policy in Asia?
Why are we fighting? Why do we insist
that South Vietnam must remain non-Com-
munist (one cannot say "free" because it is
not free) ? Why do our advocates of more
war in Vietnam believe the United States
must fight the Vietcong itself if it is npt for
the nation that by so doing we are going to
establish and maintain some kind, of anti-
Communist ring around China and North
Vietnam? ,
The whole abject) of the war effort is to
contain China and to keep the other nations
of Asia from falling into her sphere. But
the Use of military means to reach that end
is, destroying the very end itself.
It is destroying it by driving into opposi-
tion the countries we claim we are saving.
There are in Asia six nations that in terms
of area, population, industrial capacity, and
resources /Mist be regarded as major powers.
They are the Soviet Union, China, India,
Pakistan, Japan, and Indonesia. Of these,
we are driving headlong into direct military
conflict with two: China and the Soviet
Union. In fact, our expansion of the war by
bombing North Vietnam made that result
Inevitable, for it compelled both those Com-
munist countries to compete with each other
In the race to come to the aid of North
Vietnam.
So when the Soviet Union announced that
Many volunteers desired to go to North Viet-
nam, and offered its_ antiaircraft missiles,
With Russian technicians to man them,
China upped the stakes by announcing its
preparations to send the Chinese Army into
the fray, not as volunteers, but in defense of
a country on its borders that was under
attack.
Nearly all the assessments offered to date
by our American spokesmen have sought to
allay fears that the war in Vietnam would
drive China and Russia back together. Time
and again, questioning Members of Congress
have been told that such a result was not
considered likely, because Russia is too
anxious to concentrate her attention and
resources on improving the living standards
of her own people.
But what is at stake,for Russia and China
Is the leadership of the Communist world.
Neither can afford to allow a sister Com-
munist state, especially a small one, to be
shot up like a fish in a barrel by the United
States without coming to her aid in one form
or another.
It is not a question of whether China and
Russia are going to become warm interna-
? tional_becifellows. B14 it is a question of
whether they are going to put men and
weapons into North Vietnam that will mean
a major war with the United States, and that
is exactly what both are preparing to do.
Where do we stand with the other great
powers of Asia? How about Pakistan and
No. 73
Because Pakistan has persistently criti-
cized the U.S. war effort in Vietnam, and ex-
pressed a certain degree of sympathy and sup-
port for China in recent years, a planned visit
to this country by its President Ayub was
postponed at our request. And in order to
even up things between Pakistan and her
archenemy, India, we asked Prime Minister
Shastri to postpone his visit, too.
Mr. Shastri promptly announced he was
canceling his visit to Washington, though he
would come to Canada, and to Moscow. Next
June we will witness the spectacle of a Prime
Minister on the receiving end of close to half
a billion in American aid each year visiting
Canada, from where he receives next to noth-
ing, but passing up the United States because
our relations are too strained. That, inciden-
tally, tells you a lot about our foreign aid
program, as well as our policy in Asia.
The reaction to Washington's postpone-
ment of the visits has not only been violent,
but has served to strengthen both Pakistan
and India in their objections to U.S. inter-
vention in Asia. Mr. Shastri, for example,
repeated his demand that the United States
halt its air attacks on North Vietnam, a state-
ment widely hailed in India as one that
stands up to President Johnson and what
Indian papers are calling his bullying diplo-
macy. For the first time in his career, Mr.
Shastri has all political factions in India
firmly united behind him in his response to
the clumsy attempt to whip India into line
along with Pakistan on the question of the
war in Vietnam.
In Pakistan, we read that the toll of 'U.S.
dead in Vietnam does not alter the image of
the struggle there as one with racial over-
tones in which the United States is seen as
insensitive to the military devastation of an
Asian country. Memories of Hiroshima are
being evoked, and the government-controlled
Pakistani newspapers are pointedly asking
whether the United States would be risking
its present bombing strategy in any European
country. A leading newspaper, Dawn, ob-
serves that it is "painful to see how little
Americans know of the heart of Asia, where
they want to act as perpetual policemen to
'protect' Asians against Asians. Should
large-scale war flare up in Vietnam," it con-
tinues, "Asia will emerge in ruins and the
very prospect which the West today dreads
so much?the rise of communism?will then
become a certainty."
A fifth leading nation of the area is In-
donesia. In a recent television interview,
President Sukarno responded to a question
about Communist aggression in Vietnam
with an insulting question of his own:
"What Communist aggression?" On Wednes-
day we learn that Indonesia intends to be
counted in on any Asian side against the
United States, because that is the meaning
of its announcement that thousands of vol-
unteers are appearing at government ?filets
to go to the defense of North Vietnam.
The only major Asian power that gives
so much as lip service to the American war
effort is Japan. 'Yet her people are so op-
posed to that war that the Japanese Prime
Minister Sato sent his own personal repre-
sentative to tour the area and to make his
own assessment of the effectiveness and
future of our policy. His report to Sato was
all against us.
He found that probably 30 percent of the
Vietcong were Communists, that the Viet-
cong cannot be considered as controlled by
either Hanoi or Peiping, and that the United
States was greatly mistaken in thinking that
military force would solve matters. It may
be some time before Japan officially changes
its position but its repeated statements to
China that Japan and China have no great
conflicts between them is a hint of what is
to Come.
8153
The war hawks and their newspaper
,The
will tell you that we must stop
concerning ourselves with what other coun-
tries think, and do what we think is right
In Asia. But everything they want us to
do there is supposed to be for the benefit
not of the United States, but of India, Pakis-
tan, Japan, Indonesia, and the smaller coun-
tries of the area to save them from com-
munism. Why it it, then, that they do not
appreciate that we know better what is right
for them than they do?
I suggest that the editorial I have quoted
from Dawn tells our military leadership in
the Pentagon something that they appar-
ently will never figure out for themselves;
namely, that the great advances made by
communism have been made in the ruins
of war. The destruction and desolation of
military force can kill a lot of Communists.
But it also makes Communists where none
existed before. And it produces the dis-
ruption and breakdown of society which is
the great opportunity that communism
seizes.
There is nothing wrong with President
Johnson's offer of April 7 to help develop
the Mekong River Valley. But what is wrong
with the speech he made on that occasion
is that he revealed no plans for ending the
war which is making development impossible
anywhere in southeast Asia. And within 2
weeks, his military high command was meet-
ing in Hawaii to plan the next escalation of
the action.
I ask you, as I have asked administration
officials as they have come before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee: Can you tell
me how carrying the war to the north is
going to bring an end to the war?
And the answer is the one we hear week
after week from our Secretary of State, by
way of his chant about making China and
North Vietnam leave their neighbors alone.
To go 8,000 miles away?alone?to make
someone else leave their neighbors alone is
perhaps the most hypocritical assumption of
the role of international policeman that any
nation ever claimed for itself.
It is not going .to defeat the Vietcong.
It is going to have no other result than to
bring China and Russia, as well as the
United States, into the war.
Why, indeed, should North Vietnam stop
whatever it is that she is doing that Secre-
tary Rusk cannot describe but what he as-
sures us North Vietnam knows?when it has
been our own position that we would not
quit the war while we were losing? Do we
think North Vietnam will cry "surrender" and
ask for negotiations when we would not
under the same circumstances? Do we think
that North Vietnam will do as we say but
not as we did, which was to escalate the
war in order to put ourselves in a stronger
bargaining position?
The returns are coming in on all these
assumptions and they spell not peace on
American terms but bigger and more terrible
war.
I do not suggest that at any point has
North Vietnam been innocent of illegal ac-
tion under the Geneva agreement. Nor do I
doubt that in recent months and perhaps
in recent years, the Vietcong movement has
received considerable advice and support
from North Vietnam. But violations by one
side do not excuse violations by the other.
Terrorist methods employed by one side have
been matched by terrorism employed by the
other. The United States had the clear duty
and obligation under international law to
petition the United Nations for redress of
North Vietnam's violation of the Geneva
agreement. Why didn't we? History for
generations to come will continue to ask the
United States that question. It will also
continue to find us of _haying been guilty of
Approved For Release 2003110114: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8154 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 26, 1965
substituting the,jungle law of military might
for our often professed ideal of the rule of
law through international agreement in cases
of threats to the peace of the world. In
southeast Asia we have walked out on our
ideals and joined the Communists in becom-
ing a threat to the peace of the world.
Each escalation by the United States has
resulted in a responding escalation within
South Vietnam, and we are now at the point
where the next escalation could well result in
a direct response from Hanoi. Each viola-
tion and retaliation has served:to worsen and
not to improve the American position.
What I am saying is that our reliance upon
wealth and military power to bring about a
prowestern government in South Vietnam has
been a failure. It does not matter that our
designs upon that country are not the same
as were the French designs. Our methods
are much the same, and they are failing
every bit as surely as did the French methods.
If we do not seek traditional colonial ob-
jectives, we do seek in Vietnam the nation-
alist objective of American military security
as we see it. We have already_ demonstrated
that far from seeking the free political choice
for the people of Vietnam we do not intend
to let them choose anything contrary to
American interests. We have let Vietnam and
the entire world know that the United States
considers South Vietnam as something to be
lost or held by the United States, and we will
kill as many of its people and destroy as
much of its property as is netessary to hold
it. ,
Our success with that objective is going to
be all downhill, just as it has been downhill
for 10 years. We could not cope with re-
bellion within the south and now we can-
not cope with assistance to it from the north.
We have thrown our 7th Fleet, hundreds of
aircraft, and thousands of U.S. troops into
the battle without success and we have not
yet encountered the Army of North Vietnam,
much less that of China.
Our raids on North Vietnam have been
illegal under the United Nations Charter.
And they have failed in their purpose of
making the Vietcong give up. One thing
they have done has been to alienate the ma-
jor countries of Asia and to cause serious
alarm among the countries of Western
Europe.
Our real problem in Vietnam is that we
cannot control the situation by the means
we know best?money and military force.
We cannot control it because we want the
area to remain pro-Western and to serve as
a bulwark against Chinese expansion. Those
are not realistic nor realizable objectives In
the middle of the 20th century. We never
will have peace in Asia on those terms.
But we can have a peace in Asia when
control of Indochina is removed from the
ideological conflict between this country and
China. To do that will require international
supervision and self-determination for Viet-
nam. To return to the Geneva accord offers
some hope for ending the war. But it would
require a return to the accord by the United
States and South Vietnam, too. In the end
I expect that we will settle for just that, but
in the meantime we and the world may pass
through a trial of bloodshed before we find
out that American fortunes in Asia are no
more achievable than were French, British.
and Dutch fortunes before us.
Neither the United States nor North Viet-
nam now has much chance to settle this
terrible war by bilateral negotiations. It has
gone too far. It is going much further if a
third force consisting of the nations of the
world who are not now involved in the fight-
ing.is not brought to bear on this Asian crisis.
That is why many of us who are urging a
negotiated settlement with honor and se-
curity for all participants have recommended
a formal presentation of the threat to world
peace created by the war to the procalures
of the United Nations.
Unless the nonparticipating nations come
forward and live up to their clear obligations
under international law, they are not likely
to be nonparticipants much longer. Man-
kind can very well be on the brink of a
third world war. Procedures of interna-
tional law created by existing treaties do
provide for the convening of an international
peace conference on the crisis. I ask Great
Britain, Canada, Japan, France, Russia, Italy,
Belgium, Australia, New Zealand?yes, I ask
all nations who profess that they want world
peace?when, oh when, are you going to keep
your obligations solemnly assumed by your
signatures to existing treaties which provide
for peaceful procedures for settling threats
to peace? Is it your answer that they may
not work? Then what is your alternative?
War? The time has dome for 85, 90, 95 and
more nations to say to the United States
and South Vietnam on the one hand and
the Communist nations on the other who are
jointly threatening the peace of the world:
"We beg you to cease your fire and come to
an International Conference Table."
Oh, I know the specter of Munich is im-
mediately raised, and we are reminded that
we could not do business with Hitler and
it is better to fight now than later. But in
all these comparisons with the years that
led up to World War II, I never yet have
heard anyone argue that the United States
should, in 1938, have acted alone to send
troops to Czechoslovakia to fight Germany.
What the "Munich" criers have in mind for
Munich is not that the negotiation should
never have been held, but that a concert of
nations should have acted together to serve
notice and to take steps to stop further
aggression. And that is what I am urging
that we do in Vietnam.
The United States can accomplish noth-
ing on the mainland of Asia so long as we
are acting alone and in isolation from the
large free nations of the area. To do so can
mean nothing but perpetual war. Our pres-
ent policy is not saving Asifegrom war or
from communism, either, yet it compels our
friends to choose between one or the other.
That is not an acceptable alternative to the
people of Asia or of the United States, and
I am satisfied that we have much more to
offer by way of leadership if we apply Presi-
dent Johnson's admonition to ."Come, and
reason together."
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, as a fur-
ther foundation for my discussion of the
question of personal privilege I intend
to raise, I ask unanimous consent that
a selection of other lectures I have given
on university campuses in opposition to
the 13.8. outlawry in South Vietnam be
printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the lectures
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
REMARKS OF SENATOR WAYNE MORSE AT MOCK
UNITED NATIONS ASSEMBLY, OHIO UNIVER-
SITY, ATHENS, OHIO, APRIL 10, 1965
The United, Nations Charter was drafted in
the closing days of World War II with one
essential purpose in mind: to save succeed-
ing generations from the scourge of war.
Twenty years later the nation most vitally
interested and most energetic in creating and
maintaining that organization is carrying, on
a war just as though the United Nations and
its peacekeeping machinery did not exist.
Like so many great powers before us, the
United States has found that it is more con-
venient, more expedient, to ignore the pro-
cedures of international law and world or-
ganization when it considers its national in-
terests threatened.
In his_ speech of Wednesday, President
Johnson invoked the blessings of the United
Nations and its Secretary General only to
pick up the pieces of a war-wracked coun-
try, and then only after the combatants have
decided to let the war end, if they should
ever so decide.
What a mockery of the United Nations.
What a shameful use of the U.N. and its Sec ?
retary General. What an admission that to
the United States the U.N. Charter is noughL
but a scrap of paper to be invoked when
it suits our purpose and to be ignored when
it does not.
Our flouting of the U.N. Charter is going to
lead the United States into a war in Asia that
we cannot finish. Probably the Vietcong,
the Chinese, and the Russians will not b
able to finish it, either. But the fighting
will cost many thousands more lives, perhaps
millions, and the cost is incalculable. In
fact, we know the administration cannot
calculate the cost because it is seeking
provision in the current foreign aid bill that
would give it unlimited, or what we call
"open ended" authorization of funds for the
war in Vietnam. So far, the Senate Foreig
Relations Committee has resisted this re-
quest in the hope of keeping at least a formed
review power over the course of the war.
A second disaster, less costly in the imme-
diate prospect but with frightening impli-
cations, will be the loss of our claim to
leadership on behalf of morality and respect
for law in world affairs. We have already
lost the ability to call to account such coun-
tries as Indonesia for its aggressions against
Malaysia, Greece, and Turkey for their
threatening gestures over Cyprus, and Naas( r
for his participation in the civil war in the
Yemen. As recently as April 6 of 1964, the
U.S. Ambassador at the U.N. was able to pre-
sent the American position on Yemen in
these words: "My Government has repeatedly
expressed its emphatic disapproval of provoc-
ative acts and retaliatory raids wherever they
occur and by whomever committed. We be-
lieve that we all join in expressing our dis-
approval of the use of force by either sie e
as a means of solving disputes, a princip.e
which has been enshrined in the U.N.
Charter."
When Nasser found it expedient to bomb
a source of aid flowing to the royalist gov-
ernment in Yemen, and began air raids cn
Saudi Arabia, the United. States joined in
sending a U.N. force to the scene which oper-
ated long enough to end the air raids.
But in Vietnam, the U.N. Charter has been
as thoroughly violated by the United States
as by any country anywhere. And for the
American people, the greatest tragedy of ell
is that the departure from the.charter leads
down a dark and violent road of which no
man can see the end.
GOVERNING PROVISIONS OF U.N. CHARTER
The specific provisions of the charter that
should guide our policy in Asia, as elsewhere,
are these:
"Article 2, section 4: All members shall r
frain in their international relations from
the threat or use of force against the terri-
torial integrity or political independence Df
any state, or in any other manner incon-
sistent with the purposes of the United
Nations."
Other charter provisions are specific as to
the duty of nations when they find them-
selves involved in a dispute. Article 33
states:
"SECTION 1. The parties to any dispute, tie
continuance of which is likely to endanger
the maintenance of international peace and
security, shall, first of all, seek a solution '3y
negotiation, enquiry, mediation, concilia-
tion, arbitration, judicial settlement, resert
to regional agencies or arrangements, or
other peaceful means of their own choice.'
Note that the sentence says "shall."
For 4 years, the United States has bean
participating in the fighting in South Viet-
nam in disregard of that provision, and for
2 months we bombed North Vietnam in vio-
lation of that provision.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
On Wednesday of this week, the President
for the first time used the words "uncondi-
tional discussions." He did not, however,
suggest them or call ior them, or invite "any-
One to etch discussions. He said only we
"remain ready" for them. This presumes
that someone else will organize them, set
them up, and invite us to take part. Who,
where, when, and how are not mentioned.
Meantime, it is clear that the war will con-
tinue unabated.
That puts in violation of article 37 which
states:
"Should the parties fo a dispute of the na-
ture referred to in article 33 fail to settle it
by the means indicated in that article, they
shall refer it to the Security Council."
These provisions do not 'relate only to
Members of the organization. They relate
to "parties to a dispute." Other sections of
the charter make provision for jurisdiction
over parties who are not U.N. members. Our
contention that because North and South
Vietnam and China are not U.N. members
Makes these obligations inoperative is ut-
terly untrue.
It is commonly said both in and out of
government that the U.N. is a waste of time
and that the Communists understand noth-
ing but force. However, the line continues,
at some future date we may find it in our
interest to go to the U.N.
This supposedly sophisticated argument
ignores several points.
First, it may not be left to us to decide
whether and when the Vietnam war should
go to that body. Article 34 provides: "The
Security council may investigate any dis-
pute, or any situation which might lead to
international friction or give rise to a dis-
pute, in order to determine whether the con-
tinuance of the dispute or situation is likely
to endanger the maintenance of international
peace and security."
The Security Council is self-starting in
such matters.
Second; article 35 provides: "Any member
of the United Nations may bring any dis-
pute, or any situation of the nature re-
ferred to in article 34 to the attention of the
Security Council or of the General Assembly."
This means that if we wait for another
country to invoke article 35, we can be sure it
will not be in terms and under conditions
most favorable to us.
Our present argument against going to
the U.N. is purely one of international power
politics, and an unrealistic one at that.
It contends that because neither North Viet-
nam nor Red China is in the U.N., the Soviet
Union will become the spokesman for the
rebel Vietcong, thus driving Russia into
closer collaboration with China, North Viet-
nam, and the Vietcong.
But it is our bombing that is doing that.
It is the air raids on the north that are
forcing the Soviet Union to involve itself
directly in the war by sending air defense
missiles to Ianoi, to be manned initially at
least, by the Russians. The longer the war
continues and the more it is escalated to
destroy North Vietnam, the more Russia and
China are going to try to outdo each other
in coming to the aid of North Vietnam.
The longer this struggle goes on, the more
unified the Communist camp is going to be,
and the more isolated the United States is
going to be. That is the real fruit of our war
policy and the most dangerous for the
American,people.
- UNIT* VATES ISOLATED IN ASIA
The Southeast Asia Treaty Organization
was established in 1955 to permit concerted
action to maintain, peace in that part of the
world. It got off to a bad start when the
major Asian countries declined to take part.
India, Japan, and Indonesia, in particular,
are notable for" the absence from SEATO.
And in recent years, Pakistan, the only sig-
nificant local member, has increasingly neu-
tralized itself in all cold war matters. Of
the eight members only two small Asian
countries, Thailand and the Philippines, can
be viewed as active participants. Australia
and New Zealand are Asian, but they are
white, and therein lies our essential difficulty.
Only Australia, of all SEATO members, has
contributed to the Vietnam War with active
participants, and these number only about
160 men. Small Filipino and South Korean
units are noncombatant. While Thailand has
urged us on in Vietnam, there are no Thais
doing any fighting there, nor are there any
British, New Zealand, French, or Pakistani
forces.
That is how our SEATO allies feel about
fighting in Vietnam.
Although India is the one country of Asia
most threatened by China, even India has
no desire to see a war break out, because in
conditions of war between the United States
and China, nuclear weapons will be used.
Moreover, India knows that in war, nations
lose control of events and are controlled by
the exigencies of the war more than the other
way around.
Prime Minister Sha,stri of,India continues
to urge us to seek a negotiated settlement.
Even more indicative of our failure to
convince even our friends of the rightness
of our policy has been the action of Japan
in sending a senior diplomat to southeast
Asia to make his own assessment of the war
and of American policy. Prime Minister
Sato sent his personal emissary after Japa-
nese press and public opinion failed com-
pletely to endorse the American military
action.
And his report has been that less than 30
percent of the Vietcong are Communist, that
the Vietcong has not been shown to be con-
trolled by Communist China or the Soviet
Union or by North Vietnam, and that the
United States was greatly mistaken in think-
ing that military force would solve the
matter.
Perhaps some improvement in the recep-
tion by these countries of our actions in
Vietnam will result froth the President's
speech. But when no change results, when
the raids on the north are increased to in-
clude civilian targets, as they will be, then
the United States is going to find itself openly
opposed throughout Asia.
, The President's speech is being described
as the carrot that goes with the stick, the
offer, and the promise to go with the use of
force. Presumably, the air raids on the north
were designed to force North Vietnam to a
conference table more or less on our terms.
Now, so the argument goes, we can say
that we have offered to negotiate a peace and
if the offer is not accepted, it is the fault of
someone else, not the United States.
Yet 2 months ago, when the air raids on
the north began, American voices were say-
ing that we ha,d to step up our military ac-
tivity so that we Gould bargain at the con-
ference table from a position of strength.
How often that phrase has been thrown out
in Washington in the last few months. But
I have never, heard any explanation of why
it is a policy that only our side could or
should adopt.
Is anyone going to say now that North Viet-
nam should not undertake any negotiations
from a position of weakness, but should in-
crease her own military activity so that when
any negotiations do begin, she can bargain
from a position of strength?
I heard nothing in the President's speech
that suggests to me he has any negotiations
in mind at all. There was a lot of lipservice
paid to the theory of peace, grandiose utopian
verbiage was plentiful, and the dollar sign
was liberally displayed, apparently in hopes
of quieting the criticism from abroad. But
there was no language that suggested that
the United States is going to return to the
rule of law in southeast Asia or that we are
actively seeking a peaceful solution to its
problems. _ There was no word that the
8155
United States plans henceforth to observe
either the United Nations Charter or the
Geneva agreement of 1954.
All I heard in the President's speech was
that the United States is going to continue
shooting fish in the barrel until they are
all dead.
In short, what the President did not say
was far more meaningful and significant than
what he did say. He did not mention the
peace-keeping functions and duties of the
United Nations, nor the obligations of the
United States under the United Nations
Charter. He did not mention that South
Vietnam refused to hold the elections of
1956 which were supposed to reunite Vietnam
under one government. The most meaning-
ful negotiations that could be held with the
North are those that were supposed to have
taken place in 1956 to decide the details of
a countrywide election.
When are we going to conduct those ne-
gotiations? The President is quite wrong in
thinking that he can call upon others to
observe the 1954 agreement while at the same
time he insists that South Vietnam must be
guaranteed as an independent nation. The
1954 agreement did not create a sovereign
South Vietnam. It created one Vietnam,
divided into two zones, to be reunited within
2 years by elections supervised by the Inter-
national Control Commission. If the Presi-
dent wants an independent South Vietnam,
he must negotiate a new agreement. If he
wants the old agreement observed, then he
must go ahead with the reuniting of Vietnam
under one government. But we cannot have
it both ways unless we are expecting only to
use this line as an excuse for war, and that
is how we have been using it for 10 years.
Most of all do I regret the reference the
President made to the United Nations and
its Secretary General. Clearly, the President
sought to invoke the sanctity of the United
Nations while at the same time repudiating
its most vital function?that of keeping the
peace. I 'say to the President that U Thant
could use the prestige of his office, and his
deep knowledge of Asia, to initiate peace
talks. The good offices of the Secretary Gen-
eral are infinitely more meaningful to peace
than they are to the presiding over of a
billion-dollar development program. Surely
the President well knows that peace must
come to that area before any kind of de-
velopment plan can succeed.
When are we going to make use of the
United Nations and of the Secretary General
for the one purpose they were created to
serve?to save mankind from the scourge of
war?
Unfortunately, the American policy in Asia
is not saving mankind from war nor from
communism, either. And I fear that to con-
tinue the war, as we have been doing, is
going to help communism make even more
gains in Asia, because our policy tells the
people of Asia that we would rather see them
dead, than see them live under Communist
control. We are fast killing them. The
Pentagon keeps records of how many civilians
in the South are killed by Vietcong terrorists,
but it says it has no record of how many
civilians in the South are being killed by
napalm and the other weapons of war being
used hy American and government forces.
But the people know. And if our raids on
the North bring down upon South Vietnam
the organized force of the North Vietnamese
army, all of southeast Asia will be swallowed
up in a war for which this country must
assume major responsibility, and which we
will have to fight alone.
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA
(Remarks of Senator WAYNE MORSE, Johns
Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., Mar.
15, 1965)
Last summer and fall, many voices were
raised by American politicians and by the
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8156 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
political generals of South Vietnam to "go
north." The war in South Vietnam was be-
ing lost. Gen. Nguyen Khania, one of the
passing parade of Vietnamese leaders, was
anxious that the losses in the south be cov-
ered by expansion of the war into North
Vietnam by the United States. 4 presidential
campaign was being conducted in the United
States almost entirely on the issue of who
was placing his faith in military power to
solve all our problems and who was not,
On September 28, 1964, at Manchester, N.H.,
President Lyndon Johnson said of all this:
"So just for the moment I have not thought
that we were ready for American boys to do
the fighting for Asian boys. What I have
been trying to do, with the situation that I
found, was to get the boys in Vietnam to do
their own fighting with our advice and with
our equipment. That is the course we are
following. So we are not going north and
drop bombs at this stage of the game, and
we are not going south and run out and leave
it for the Communists to take over. We have
lost 190 American lives, and to each one of
those 190 families this is a major war. We
lost that many in Texas on the Fourth of July
in wrecks. But I often wake up in the night
and think about how many I could lose if I
made a misstep. 'When we retaliated in the.
Tonkin Gulf, we dropped bombs on their
nests where they had their PT boats housed,
and we dropped them within 35 miles of the
Chinese border. I don't know what you
would think if they started dropping them
35 miles from your border, but I think that
that is something you have to take into con-
sideration.
"So we are not going north and we are not
going south; we are going to continue to try
to get them to save their own freedom with
their own men, with our leadership and our
officer direction, and such equipment as we
can furnish them. We think that losing
190 lives in the period that we have been
out there is bad, but it is not like 190,000
that we might lose the first month if v,e
escalated that war. So we are .trying some-
how to evolve a way, as we have in some
other places, where the North Vietnamese
and, the Chinese Communists finally, after
/getting worn down, conclude that they will
leave their neighbors alone, and if they do
we will come home tomorrow."
Time after time, the spokesmen for the
administration told the public and told
congressional committees in private that
What was going on in South Vietnam was
essentially a civil war. The outside aid was
put at Somewhere between 10 and 20 percent
of the rebels in numbers. Weapons were
described as coming primarily from capture
of government sources, with perhaps 10 per-
cent brought in from outside South
Vietnam.
For these reasons, it was maintained that
there was little to be gained by bombing
North Vietnam or even the trails leading
through Laos into the South. Row often did
you hear it said that the battle had to be
fought and won in South Vietnam?
Yet last month all these policy statements
of why expansion of the war would serve no
purpose were thrown out by the same people
who had made them. Something called a
white paper was published by the State De-
partment to coincide with the change in
policy. But this white paper did not afford
any explanation or any reason or any justifi-
cation of a change in policy.
What it did in fact was to confirm and
verify what we have been told so many
times: that somewhere between 10 and 20
percent of the number and about 10 percent
of the weapons of the Vietcong rebels come
from outside South Vietnam.
That is what the white paper confirms
That is all. It does not even claim that the
war is any less a civil war than it ever was.
It describes the weapons and it tells where
they were found. It cites a grand total of 179
guns of all kinds, including pistols, that
were captured from the Vietcong in 1962 and
1963 and which were manufactured in Cana-
rnunist countries. But we already know
that some 10,000 wea,pons were lost by the
government to the Vietcong in approxi-
mately the same period, and some 7,000 to
8,000 weapons were captured from them.
The white paper estimates that a maxi-
mum of nioo infiltrators entered South
Vietnam from the north from 1959 through
1964. Yet with the known casualties and
the estimated current guerrilla force, these
men from the north still constitute at most
20 percent of the Vietcong. The confirmed
infiltrators constitute only 12 percent.
Moreover, of the men captured and used as
exhibits in the white paper, many were na-
tives of the south. Seven Were captured in
1962, eleven in 1963, and five in 1964.
In other words, everything in the white
paper with the sole exception of the boat
sunk on February 15 of this year was known
to the administration last summer and
last fall when the President said "we are not
going north," and when both the Pentagon
and the State Department insisted that no
useful purpose would be served in the south
by attacking the north.
And today it is still just as true as it
was then that the Vietcong rebellion is es-
sentially a South Vietnamese affair in per-
sonnel and weapons. The stories of the
captured men were the same and were known
in 1962 and 1963. The captured weapons
were the same and were known in 1962
and 1963.
To put them in a white paper in March
of 1965 and call them a justification for ex-
panding the war now when they weren't
before, is an insult to the intelligence Of
the entire world, not to mention the Ameri-
cans. I suppose this is why five very able
and prominent men in the intellectual world
hired most of a page in the, Washington
Post March 12 to reprint a devastation of
the white paper called "White Paper on
Vietnam. What Does It Prove?" The men
are Robert S. Browne, formerly a high rank-
ing U.S. aid official in Cambodia and South
Vietnam; Benjamin Cohen, once high in the
councils of the Roosevelt administration and
later the State Department; Lewis Mumford
from the world of arts and lettere; Hans
Morgenthau, perhaps our most prominent
political scientist in the field of interna-
tional relations from the University of Chi-
cago; and Dr. Bryant Wedge, Director of the
Institute for the Study of National Be-
havior at Princeton.
The article these gentlemen sponsored
first appeared in the New Republic and con-
cludes: "The white paper fails to sustain
its two major contentions, that there is
large, militarily crucial infitration of both
men and material from Hanoi."
REASON FOR POLICY CHANGE
The white paper does prove one thing. It
proves that the war we had been sustaining in
South Vietnam, the effort to retain that
area as a Western bastion, was a failure. The
Taylor-McNamara program for Vietnam, an-
nounced on so many visits to that country
by these men, was rapidly going down the
drain. Despite aid running in the magni-
tude of $700 million a year, despite the
presence of American military strength that
began at 680 and rose steadily to 23,000, de-
spite absolute control of the 'air including
helicopters to rush troops to any trouble-
spot, and despite military equipment of many
kinds that were completely in violation of
the Geneva agreement, our men in Saigon
were losing.
More and more territory was being lost to
the rebels, and the political turmoil in the
capital reached the point where there was
no government at all worthy of the name.
It became clear that something else had to
be done. And to the men who have always
believed in a military solution to everything,
April 26, 1965
the answer was to increase our military
activity.
So we began bombing targets in North
Vietnam. Clearly, this was not done with
the idea that it would have a direct effect
upon the capacity of the rebels to fight in
the south, because that contention had been
thoroughly disposed of last year. The pur-
pose of the bombing was ostensibly to inflict
damage upon North Vietnam that could be
called off in return for the Vietcong calling
off their war in the south.
I do not doubt for a moment that President
Johnson is sincere in his belief that this is
a real possibility. But I am satisfied that
there are many in the high office of the Pen-
tagon and the State Department who know
perfectly well that the only result of such
a policy will be the steady expansion of the
war throughout all the old colony of Indo-
china, the steady increase in the use of Amer-
ican air and naval power, and the steady
funneling of more and more American troops
into southeast Asia.
The white paper is the signal for a new
war, because we could not win the one that
was already going on.
The committing of 3,500 marines to ground
combat is only the first installment of U.S.
ground forces that will be needed. I am
satisfied that what is behind our expansion
of the war is a design to match our half mil-
lion ground forces in Europe with halt a
million in Asia, to act as the trip-wire that
would bring the full American nuclear power
to bear upon China should she make any
move to support local governments.
That is the direction we are now taking
in Asia. It is the direction of singlehancled
U.S. containment not only of China but of
all political movements that seek to remove
Western influences from southeast Asia. No
longer do we propose to organize groupings
of friendly countries to act in concert, such
as the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization.
No longer do we plan to seek the concerted
action of our Western allies.
We are now committed to "going it alone"
and putting American soldiers into Asia on
whatever scale needed to carry out this ob-
jective.
The pretense that we are in South Viet-
nam to help the people win a fight for free-
dom has been entirely dropped. From now
on, the war will be conducted by Americans,
under American command, for American ob-
jectives. It is obvious that no internal po-
litical force within South Vietnam will be
allowed to reach a position of power except
with American approval. And it will be the
strategic interests of the United States, as
we see them, that will determine the course
of the war.
I am satisfied that this in large part ex-
plains the President's anxiety about public
debate; and his implied rebukes to Mem-
bers of Congress who continue raising ques-
tions and objections to what we are doing.
I am satisfied that the President under-
stands the inherent fallacies in his presump-
tion that we can bring the Vietcong to heel
by bombing North Vietnam. He knows the
American people will understand these falla-
cies, too, if there is any discussion in depth
of Asian affairs. He surely recognizes that
he is now dependent upon the good faith of
both North Vietnam and China not to re-
spond to our escalation of the war with an
escalation of their own.
His announced policy requires North
Vietnam to stop aiding the rebels, it requires
the Vietcong to collapse as a result, and it re-
quires stability to emerge in South Vietnam,
all as a result of these bombings. The likeli-
hood of any of these things happening is so
remote that I do not wonder at the massive
campaign with the press and Members of
Congress to support what is being done with-
out raising questions or objections.
The failure of this policy, too, will soon
emerge. The New York Times already re-
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved
April 26, 1965
For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ports a frank recognition, in private, by ad-
Ministration officials that tly,e bombings have
not had any effect upon the war in the south
and they are now considering what new force
to bring to bear upon North Vietnam.
Presumably, this new force will take the
form of bombing industrial targets further
to the north, instead of military installations
In the southern part of North Vietnam.
When that doesn't help, either, I expect
that the next step will be the landing of
thousands more ground combat troops to
engage the rebels directly.
anscriolv OF OTHER NATIONS KEY TO FUTURE
How much further this entanglement will
go will depend, in my opinion, entirely upon
the reaction of other aations. The easy ac-
ceptance by Prime Minister Wilson of the
white paper 'excuse strengthens belief in
the report he and the President have agreed
to go along with whatever the other does in
southeast Asia. British shipping in North
Vietnam apparently will not be mentioned
by the United States so long as Mr. Wilson
does not object to our bombing of North
Vietnam.
Ten years ago, it was the refusal of Britain
to join us that kept us out of Indochina be-
cause President Eisenhower did not propose
to get into a unilateral war there. But there
were many other trouble spots 10 years ago,
especially in Europe, that also restrained us
from excessive unilateral entanglement in
Asia. Today, tensions with the Soviet Union
are sufficiently relaxed to encourage many of
our policymakers to think we are free to
fight in Asia without worrying too much
about what Russia will do.
They are counting on Russia leaving us to
tangle with North Vietnam and China while
she remains quiescent not only in Asia but
everywhere. They are also counting on
Japan, India, the Philippines and the other
nations of the area to remain silent specta-
tors to a war in their midst. And they are
?
counting on both North Vietnam and China
to submit to American bombings without
comm,iting their own major military force,
which is manpower.
Any change from what is expected of them
on the part of these countries could alter our
own policy. We have already heard Pope
Paul, the United Nations Secretary General,
and now the World Council of Churches call
upon us to negotiate our problems in Asia
rather than make war over them. It is a sad
fact to contemplate that the American peo-
ple and the American Congress have aban-
doned their international responsibilities to
a small handful of men in the executive
branch of our Government. For the moment,
at least, they have chosen to let the Presi-
dent deicde, and to make his choice not on
the basis of full public debate and discussion
but on advice from the same group of men
whose advice on Vietnam for the last 4
years has been totally wrong.
I hope that this silence on the part of
the Araerican public and its Congress will
not continue, If it does, that silence will
be broken not by wisdom but by casualty
lists. I under,stand that President Johnson
Is telling visitors that Bob Taft based his
Opposition to the Korean war _on the failure
of President Truman to keep leading Re-
publicans advised of his actions. President
Johnson presumably does not intend to make
that mistalW.
But I hope he is not deluding himself with
the idea that the revulsion of the American
people to the Korean war stemmed from
Truman's failure to advise Bob Taft and
other leading Members of Congress.
It is not a cozy visit to the White House
that will head.,Off dlsaster for a Pemocratic
President, Only a sound policy can do that,
and a sound policy must be one that protects
and conserves American lives by limiting
our vital interestS to those that can reason-
ably be defended.
I do not suggest that South Vietnam is
not of interest to us. But it is not the kind
of vital interest that deserves to be protected
by American blood. It is the kind of in-
terest that should be the subject of discus-
sion with other affected nations and there
are many nations that are even more vitally
affected there than we are.
That is why I continue to hope that the
President will respond to U Thant's appeal
for negotiations under United Nations
auspices. And above all, I hope that the
American people will bestir themselves to
examine the implications of Our present
cOurse in Asia, and make their voices heard
In support of U Thant, Pope Paul, and the
Council of Churches. Otherwise, we stand
to awaken only when we are being drenched
in blood and for an objective that is not
shared by any of our allies or even by those
nations in Asia whose really vital interests
are at stake.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I warn
the American people that a propaganda
drive has been started by spokesmen for
the Johnson administration to interfere
With one of their most precious, funda-
mental liberties and freedoms, namely,
the right of freemen to criticize their
government. That does not mean that
those of us who criticize our Government
in regard to this outlawry in Asia, as we
s-ee it, question the sincerity of the
spokesmen for this administration. We
question only their judgment. We also
deplore the fact that they are not telling
the American people the facts about the
record, and the policies of the United
States in southeast Asia.
So I wish to refer briefly to a speech of
proPaganda delivered by the Secretary
of State of the United States last Satur-
day night. I ask unanimous consent that
that speech be printed in the RECORD at
this point.
There being no objection, the speech
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
ADDRESS BY THE HONORABLE DEAN RTJSK, SEC-
RETARY OF STATE, BEFORE THE AMER/CAN SO-
CIETY OF INTERNATIONAL LAW, MAYFLOWER
HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C., FRIDAY, APRIL 23,
1965
When this distinguished society was
founded 59 years ago, the then Secretary of
State, Elihu Root, became its first president.
Within the passage of time, the Secretary of
State has been elevated to a less demanding
role, that of honorary president. Secretary
Root himself not only establishd the prece-
dent of becoming president while Secretary of
State; he also superseded it by continuing to
serve as your president for 18 years. The pro-
ceedings of the first meeting indicate that
Secretary Root not only presided and deliv-
ered an address, but that he also selected the
menu for the dinner.
The year 1907, when the first of the so-
ciety's annual meetings was held, today ap-
pears to have been one of those moments in
American history when we were concentrat-
ing upon building our American society, es-
sentially untroubled by what took place be-
yond our borders. But the founders of this
society realized that the United States could
not remain aloof from the world. It is one
of the achievements of this society that, from
its inception, it has spread the realization
that the United States cannot drop out of
the community of nations?that interna-
tional affairs are part of our national affairs.
Questions of war and peace occupied the
society at its first meeting. Among the sub-
jects discussed were the possibility of the
8157
Immunity of private property from belliger-
ent seizure upon the high seas and whether
trade in contraband of war was unneutral.
Limitations upon recourse to force then pro-
posed were embryonic, as is illustrated by the
fact one topic for discussion related to re-
strictions upon the use of armed force in the
collection of contract obligations. The dis-
tance between those ideas and the restrictions
upon recourse to armed force contained in
the Charter of the United Nations is vast. It
is to these charter restrictions?and their
place in the practice and malpractice of
states?that I Shall address much of my re-
marks this evening.
II
Current U.S. policy arouses the criticism
that it is at once too legal and too tough.
Time was when the criticism of American
concern with the legal element in interna-
tional relations was that it led to softness?
to a "legalistic-moralistic" approach to for-
eign affairs which conformed more to the
ideal than to the real. Today, criticism
of American attachment to the role of law
is that it leads not to softness, but to sever-
ity. We are criticized not for sacrificing our
national interests to international interests,
but for endeavoring to impose the interna-
tional interest upon other nations. We are
criticized for acting as if the Charter of the
United Nations means- what it says. We are
criticized for treating the statement of the
law by the International Court of Justice as
authoritative. We are criticized for taking
collective security seriously.
This criticism is, I think, a sign of
strength?of our strength, and of the
strength of international law. It is a tribute
to a blending of political purpose with legal
ethic.
American foreign policy is at once prin-
cipled and pragmatic. Its central objective is
our national safety and well-being?to "se-
cure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and
our posterity." But we know we can no
longer find security and- well-being in de-
fenses and policies which are confined to
North America, or the Western Hemisphere,
or the North Atlantic Community. This has
become a very small planet. We have to be
concerned with all of it?with all of its land,
waters, atmosphere, and with surrounding
space. We have a deep national interest in
peace, the prevention of aggression, the
faithful performance of agreements, the
growth of international law. Our foreign
policy is rooted in the profoundly practical
realization that the purposes and principles
of the United Nations Charter must animate
the behavior of states, if mankind is to pros-
per or is even to survive. Or at least they
must animate enough states with enough
will and enough resources to see to it that
ohers do not violate those rules with im-
punity.
The preamble and articles 1 and 2 of the
charter set forth abiding purposes of Ameri-
can policy. This is not surprising, since we
took the lead in drafting the charter?at a
time when the biggest war in history was still
raging and we and others were thinking
deeply about its frightful costs and the
ghastly mistakes and miscalculations which
led to it.
The kind of world we seek is the kind set
forth in the opening sections of the charter:
a world community of independent states,
each with the institutions of its own choice,
but cooperating with one another to promote
their mutual welfare, a world in which the
use of force is effectively inhibited, a world
of expanding human rights and well-being, a
world of expanding international law, a world
In which an agreement is a commitment and
not just a tactic.
We believe that this is the sort of world
a great majority of the governments of the
world desire. _We believ,e it is the sort of
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
8158 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 26, 1965
world man must achieve if he is not to per-
ish,. As I said on another occasion: "If once
the rule of international law could be dis-
cussed with a certain condescension as a
utopian ideal, today it becomes an elemen-
tary practical necessity. Pacta sunt servanda
now becomes the basis for survival."
Unhappily a minority of governments is
committed to different ideas of the conduct
and organization of human affairs. They are
dedicated to the promotion of the Commu-
nist world revolution. And their doctrine
justifies any technique, any ruse, any deceit,
which contributes to that end. They may
differ as to tactics from time to time. And
the two principal Communist powers are
competitors for the leadership of the world
Communist Movement. But both are com-
mitted to the eventual communization of the
entire world.
The overriding issue of our time is which
concepts are to prevail: those set forth in the
United Nations Charter or those proclaimed
in the name of a world revolution.
In
The paramount commitment of the char-
ter is article 2, paragraph 4, which reads: "All
members shall refrain in their international
relations from the threat or " use of force
against the territorial integrity or political
independence of any ste,te, or in any other
manner inconsistent with the purposes of
the Milted Nations."
This comprehensive limitation went be-
yond the Covenant of the League of Nations.
This more sweeping commitment sought to
apply a bitter lesson of the interwar period?
that the threat of use or force, whether or
not called war, feeds on success. The in-
delible lesson of those years is that the time
to stop aggression is at its very beginning.
The exceptions to the prohibitions on the
Use or threat of force wei'e expressly set forth
in the charter. The use of -force is legal:
as a collective measure by the United Na
tions, or as action by regional agencies in
accordance with chapter VIII of the charter,
or in individual or collective self-defense.
When article 2, paragraph 4 was written it
Was Widely regarded as general international
law, governing both members and nonmem-
bers of the United Nations. And on the
universal reach of the principle embodied
in article 2, paragraph 4, wide agreement
remains. Thus, last year, a United Nations
Special Committee on Principles of Inter-
national Law Concerning Friendly Relations
and Cooperation Among States met in Mexico
City. All shades of United Nations opinion
Were represented. The ComMittee's purpose
was to study and possibly to elaborate cer-
tain of those principles. The Committee de-
bated ,imuch and agreed on little. But on
one point, it reached swift and unanimous
agreement: that all states, and not only all
members of the United Nations, are bound
to retrain in their international relations
from the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence
of any state. Nonrecognition of the state-
hood of a political entity was held not to
affect the international application of this
cardinal rule of general international law.
But at this same mec ting in Mexico City,
Czechoslovakia, with the warm support of
the Soviet Union and some other members,
proposed formally another exemption from
the limitations on use of force. Their pro-
posal stated that: "The prohibition of the
use of force Shall not affect * * serf-de-
fense of nations against colonial domination
in the exercise of the right of self-determina-
tion." ,
The United States is all for self-defense.
We are against colonial domination?we led
the way in throwing it off. We have long
favored self-determination, in practice as
well as in words--indeed, we f avor it for the
entire world, including the -peoples behind
the Iron and Bamboo Curtains. But we
could not accept the Czech proposal. And
we were pleased that the Special Committee
found the Czech proposal unacceptable. '
The primary reason why we opposed that
attempt to rewrite the charter?apart from
the inadmissibility of rewriting the charter
at all by such means?was that we knew the
meaning behind the words. We knew that
like so many statements from such sources,
it used upside down language?that it would
in effect authorize a state to wage war, to
use force internationally, as long it claimed
it was doing so to liberate somebody from
colonial domination. In short, the Czech
resolution proposed to give to so-called wars
on national liberation the same exemption
from the limitation on the use of force which
the charter accords to --Miens? against
aggression.
What is a war of national liberation? It
is, in essence, any war which furthers the
Communist world revolution?what, in
broader terms, the Communists have long
referred to as a just war. The term "war of
national liberation" is used not only to de-
note armed insurrection by people still un-
der colonial rule?there are not many of
those left outside the Communist world.
It is used to denote any effort led by Com-
munists to overthrow by force any non-
Communist government.
Thus the war in South Vietnam is called
a war of national liberation. And those who
would overthrow various other non-Commu-
nist governments in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America are called the forces of national
liberation.
Nobody in his right mind would deny that
Venezuela is not only a truly independent
nation but that it has a government chosen
in a free election. But the leaders of the
Communist insurgency in Venezuela are de-
scribed as leaders of a fight for national lib-
eration?not only by themselves and by
Castro and the Chinese Communists, but by
the Soviet Communists.
A recent editorial in Pravda spoke of the
peoples of Latin American * * * marching
firmly along the path of struggle for their
national independence and said: "the up-
surge of the national liberation movement
in Latin American countries has been to a
great extent a result of the activities of
Communist parties." It added: "The Soviet
people have regarded and still regard it as
their sacred duty to give support to the
peoples fighting for their independence.
True to their international duty the Soviet
people frave been and will remain on the
side of the Latin American patriots."
In Communist doctrine and practice, a
non-Communist government may be labeled
and denounced as "colonialist," "reaction-
ary," or a "puppet," and any state so labeled
by the Communists automatically becomes
fair game * * * while Communist interven-
tion by force in non-Communist states is
justified as "self-defense" or part of the
"struggle against colonial domination."
"Self-determination" seems to mean that any
Communist nation can determine by itself
that any non-Communist state is a victim of
colonialist domination and therefore a justi-
fiable target for a war of "liberation."
As the risks of overt aggression, whether
nuclear or with conventional forces, have be-
come increasingly evident, the Communists
have put increasing stress on the "war of
national liberation." The Chinese Commu-
nists have been more militant in language
and behavior than the Soviet Communists.
But the Soviet Communist leadership also
has consistently proclaimed its commitment
in principle to support wars of national lib-
eration. This commitment was reaffirmed as
recently as Monday of this week by Mr.
Kosygin.
International law does not restrict internal
revolution within a state, or revolution
against colonial authority.' But international
law does restrict what third powers may
lawfully do in support of insurrection. It
is these restrictions which are challenged by
the doctrine, and violated by the practice,
of "wars of liberation."
It is plain that acceptance of the doctrine
of "wars of liberation" would amount te
scuttling the modern international law of
peace which the charter prescribes. And
acceptance of the practie of "wars of libera-
tion," as defined by the Communists, would
mean the breakdown of peace itself.
Iv
Vietnam presents a clear current case oi
the lawful versus the unlawful use of force.
I would agree with General Giap and other
Communists that it is a test case for "ware
of national liberation." We intend to meet
that test.
Were the insurgency in South Vietnam
truly indigenous and self-sustained, interna-
tional law would not be involved. But the
fact is that it receives vital external sup.
port?in organization and direction, in
training, in men, in weapons and other sup-
plies. That external support is unlawful,
for a double reason. First, it contravenes
general international law, which the United
Nations Charter here expresses. Second, it
contravenes particular international law:
The 1954 Geneva accords on Vietnam, and the
1962 Geneva agreements on Laos.
In resisting the aggression against it, the
Republic of Vietnam is exercising its right of
self-defense. It called upon us and other
states for assistance. And in the exercise of
the right of collective self-defense under the
United Nations Charter, we and other na-
tions are providing such assistance.
The American policy of assisting South
Vietnam to maintain its freedom was in-
augurated under President Eisenhower, and
continued under Presidents Kennedy and
Johnson. Our assistance has been increased
because the aggression from the North has
been augmented. Our assistance now en-
compasses the bombing of North Vietnam.
The bombing is designed to interdict, as far
as possible, and to inhibit, as far as may be
necessary, continued aggression against the
Republic of Vietnam.
When that aggression ceases, collective
measures in defense against it will cease.
As President Johnson has declared: "If thrt
aggression is stopped, the people and gov-
ernment of South Vietnam will be free to
settle their own future, and the need for
supporting American military action there
will end."
The fact that the demarcation line be-
tween North and South Vietnam was in-
tended to be temporary does not make the
assault on South Vietnam any less of an
aggression. The demarcation lines between
North and South Korea and between East
and West Germany are temporary. But that
did not make the North Korean invasion of
South Korea a permissible use of force.
Let's not forget the salient features of the
1962 agreements of Laos. Laos was to be
independent and neutral. All foreign troops,
regular or irregular, and other military per-
sonnel were to be withdrawn within 75 days,
except a limited number of French instrue-
tors as requested by the Lao Government.
No arms were to be introduced into Laos
except at the request of that Governmer t.
The signatories agreed to refrain "from all
direct or indirect interference in the internal
affairs- of Laos. They promised also not to
use Lao territory to intervene in the internal
affairs of other countries?a stipulation that
plainly prohibited the passage of arms and
men from North Vietnam to South Vietnam
by way of Laos. An International Control
Commission of three was to assure com-
pliance with the agreements. And all the
signatories promised to support a coalition
government under Prince Souvanna Phourn a.
What happened? The non-Communist
elements complied. The Communists did
not. At no time since that agreement was
signed have either the Pathet Lao or the
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003110/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
North Vietnam authorities complied with it.
The North Vietnamese left several thousand
troops there?the backbone of almost every
Pathet Lao battalion. Use of the corridor
through Laos- to South Vietnam continued.
And the Communists barred the areas under
their control both to the Government of
Laos and the International Control Com-
mission.
To revert to Vietnam: I continue to hear
and see nonsense about the nature of the
struggle there. I sometimes wonder at the
gullibility of educated men and the stubborn
disregard of plain facts by men who are sup-
posed to be helping our young to learn?
especially to learn how to think.
Hanoi has never made a secret of its de-
signs. It publicly proclaimed in 1960 a re-
newal of the assault on South Vietnam.
Quite obviously its hopes of taking over
South Vietnam from within had withered
to close to zero?and the remarkable eco-
nomic and social progress of South Vietnam
contrasted, most disagreeably for the North
Vietnamese Communists, with their own
miserable economic performance.
The facts about the external involvement
have been documented in white Papers and
other publications of the Department- of
State. The International Control Commis-
sion has held that there is evidence "beyond
reasonable doubt" of North Vietnamese in-
tervention.
There is no evidence that the Vietcong has
any significant popular following in South
Vietnam. It relies heavily on terror. Most
of its reinforcements in recent months have
been North Vietnamese from the North Viet-
namese Army.
Let us be clear about what is involved to-
day in southeast Asia. We are not involved
With empty phrases or conceptions which
ride upon the clouds. We are talking about
the vital national interests of the United
States in the peace of the Pacific. We are
talking about the appetite for aggression?
an appetite which grows upon feeding and
which is proclaimed to be insatiable. We
are talking about the safety of nations with
whom we are allied?and the integrity of the
American commitment to join in meeting
attack. It is true that we also believe that
every small state has a right to be un-
molested by its neighbors even though it is
Within reach of a great power. It is true
that we are committed to general principles
of law and procedure which reject the idea
that men and arms can be sent freely across
frontiers to absorb a neighbor. But under-
lying the general principles is the harsh
reality that our own security is threatened
by those who would embark upon a course
of aggression whose announced ultimate
purpose is our own destruction. Once again
we hear expressed the views which cost the
men of my generation a terrible price in
World War II. We are told that southeast
Asia is far away?but so were Manchuria and
Ethiopia. We are told that if we insist that
someone stop shooting that that is asking
them for unconditional surrender. We are
told that perhaps the aggressor will be con-
tent with just one more bite. We are told
that if we prove faithless on one commitment
that perhaps others would believe us about
other commitments in other places. We are
told that if we stop resisting that perhaps
the other side will have a change of heart.
We were asked to stop hitting bridges and
radar sites and ammunition depots without
requiring that the other side stop its
slaughter of thousands of civilians and its
bombings of schools and hotels and hospitals
and railways and buses.
Surely we have learned over the past three
decades that the acceptance of aggression
leads only to a sure catastrophe. Surely we
have- learned that the aggressor must face
the consequences of his action and be saved
from the frightful miscalculation that brings
all to ruin, It is the purpose of law to guide
men away from such events, to establish
rules of conduct which are deeply rooted in
the reality of experience.
Before closing, I should like to turn away
from the immediate difficulties and dangers
of the situation in southeast Asia and re-
mind you of the dramatic progress that
shapes and is being shaped by expanding
international law.
A "common law of mankind"?to use the
happy phrase of your distinguished col-
league, Wilfred Jenks?is growing as the
world shrinks, and as the vistas of space
expand. This year is, by proclamation of
the General Assembly, International Co-
operation Year, a year "to direct attention
to the common interests of mankind and to
accelerate the joint efforts being undertaken
to further them." Those common interests
are enormous and intricate, and the joint
efforts which further them are developing
fast, although perhaps not fast enough.
In the 19th century, the United States
attended an average of one international
conference a year. Now we attend nearly
600 a year. We are party to 4,300 treaties and
other international agreements in force.
Three-fourths of these were signed in the
last 25 years. Our interest in the observance
of all of these treaties and agreements is
profound, whether the issue is peace in Laos,
or the payment of the United Nations assess-
ments, or the allocation of radio frequencies,
or the application of airline safeguards, or
the control of illicit traffic in narcotics, or
any other issue which States have chosen
to regulate through the lawmaking process.
The writing of international cooperation into
international law is meaningful only if the
law is obeyed?and only if the international
institutions which administer and develop
the law function in accordance with agreed
procedures, until the procedures are changed.
Everything suggests that the rate of
growth in international law?like the rate
of change in almost every other field these
days?is rising at a very steep Angle.
In recent years the law of the sea has been
developed and codified?but it first evolved
in a leisurely fashion over the centuries. In-
ternational agreements to regulate aerial
navigation had to be worked out within the
period of a couple of decades. Now, within
the first few years of man's adventures in
outer space, we are deeply involved in the
creation of international institutions, regu-
lations, and law to govern this effort.
Already the United Nations has developed
a set of legal principles to govern the use of
outer space and declared celestial bodies free
from national appropriation.
Already nations, including the United
States and the Soviet Union, have agreed not
to orbit weapons of mass destruction in outer
space.
Already the Legal Subcommittee of the
United Nations Committee on Outer Space
is formulating international agreements on
liability for damage caused by the reentry
of objects launched into outer space and on
rescue and return of astronauts and space
objects.
Already the first international sounding
rocket range has been established in India
and is being offered for United Nations spon-
sorship.
To make orderly space exploration possible
at this stage, the International Telecommu-
nications Union had to allocate radio ire-
quiencies for the purpose.
To take advantage of weather reporting
god forecasting potential of observation
satellites, married to computer technology,
the World Meteorological Organization is cre-
ating a vast system of data acquisition, an-
alysis, and distribution Which depends en-
tirely on international agreement, regulation;
and standards.,
And to start "building a single global com-
munications satellite system, we have created
8159
a novel international institution in which a
private American corporation shares owner-
ship with 45 governments.
This is but part of the story of how the
pace of discovery and invention forces us to
reach out for international agreement, to
build international institutions, to do things
in accordance with an expanding interna-
tional and transnational law.
Phenomenal as the growth of treaty obli-
gations is, the true innovation of 20th cen-
tury international law lies more in the fact
that we have nearly 80 international insti-
tutions which are capable of carrying out
those obligations.
It is important that the processes and
products of international cooperation be
understood and appreciated; and it is im-
portant that their potential be much further
developed. It is also important that the
broader significance of the contributions of
International cooperation to the solving of
international problems of an economic,
social, scientific, and humanitarian character
not be overestimated. For all the progress
of peace could be incinerated in war.
Thus the control force in international
relations remains the" paramount problem
which confronts the diplomat and the
lawyer?and the main in the street and the
man in the ricefield. Most of mankind is
not in an immediate position to grapple
very directly with that problem, but the
problem is no less crucial. The responsi-
bility of those, in your profession and mine,
who do grapple with it is the greater. I am
happy to acknowledge that this society, in
thinking and debating courageously and
constructively about the conditions of peace,
continues to make its unique contribution
and to make it well.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, it is per-
fectly obvious what the Secretary of
State would like to see. It is perfectly
Obvious what other spokesmen for this
administration, whose statements I shall
comment upon shortly, would like to see.
They would like to see us go silent.
They would like to see the critics of the
Johnson administration policy in Asia
go silent. But let me say to the Johnson
administration that no matter how
many attacks they make on the senior
Senator from Oregon, no matter how
many attacks of the likes of the propa-
ganda that was issued this morning by
a spokesman for this administration, my
lips will not be closed. I intend to con-
tinue to carry to the American people
what I honestly believe to be the facts
about the wrong policy of the Johnson
administration in making war in Asia on
a unilateral basis, completely outside the
framework of international law, and in
violation of one treaty after another to
which the signature of the United
States is affixed. I tell the American
people today, as I said in Eugene, Oreg.,
last Friday night, that if the Johnson
administration continues its present
warmaking policy in Asia, the proba-
bilities are that 12 months from now
there will be several hundred thousand
boys fighting and dying in Asia. That
is my conviction.
As a member of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, I, too, have sat
through briefings. On the basis of those
briefings, I see no other result than an
all-out massive war in Asia. That war
will kill hundreds of thousands of
American bays. The time to stop that
war is now. It can be stopped honor-
ably if the administration will face up to
the ugly realities that confront the
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8160 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April
world. It can be stopped now if our
allies, who are giving us all words of en-
couragement but none of the men to join
in doing the dying in Asia, will live up
to the signatures on treaties that they
signed. I mean specifically such coun-
tries as Canada, to the north, Great Brit-
ain, France, Italy, and our other NATO
allies. I mean every nation that has
affixed its signature to the Charter of the
United Nations, because every nation
that has affixed its signature to that
charter and has not carried out its ob-
ligation to that charter by seeking to
bring the procedures of the charter into
effect to try to stop the war in Asia, to
preserve the peace of the world, is violat-
ing its international treaty obligations.
It is very interesting to read the state-
ment of ?the Secretary of State in a
shocking speech last Saturday night.
Apparently the speech is a part of the
effort of this administration to drive
criticism of its policies underground, be-
cause it charges that some of those who
speak against the administration are
appeasers, in some way, aiding and abet-
ting Communists.
I say to McNamara and to Rusk, I say
to President Johnson: "Not a single one
of you hates communism more than does
the senior Senator from Oregon; but I
completely disagree with your judgment
as to how you believe the Communist
threat can be handled. The Communist
threat cannot be handled successfully
with war. The Communist threat can-
not be handled successfully with bomb-
ing. The Communist threat cannot be
handled successfully by the United
States setting itself up as a one-man
policeman in an action to police the
world against communism."
What rot, what absurdity, to think
that this point of view would come to be
given serious thought by the Government
of the United States. It is beyond my
power of comprehension.
To talk about the United States con-
taining communism is the way to make
Communists. Unilateral American mili-
tary action in Asia is bound to create
strength for communism.
But line up 85, 90, or 95 nations under
the procedures of existing international
law to keep the peace rather than to
make war, and we will see a turn of
events in human history that will once
again -return us to the road of peace and
have us come back from the shocking
road of war that we are now traveling.
We want to get used to this activity, I
say to my associates in the Senate who
have been criticizing the administration
for its warmaking in Asia. We want to
get used to the kind of language that will
be used by our detractors and will be
used, apparently, by those who do not
know us; for if they think their actions
' will drive us underground, they could
not be more wrong. We read such
tommyrot as this:
Modern-day appeasers and isolationists
are making our task difficult. Every day they
make speeches and engage in some sort of
irresponsible student rally.
The Communists are led to believe that
we will surrender all of Asia to them without
a nuclear showdown if they will just keep
up the pressure.
So long as our enemies suspect that this
may be the case, they are going to pay an in-
creasingly greater price to test our will.
Therefore I have no doubt that our losses
in Vietnam will increase so long as anyone
suspects that the handful of Senators and
Congressmen and the bearded beatniks?
I have only a mustache?
with the peace-at-any-price placards rep-
resent anything more than a small, poorly
regarded fragment of American thinking.
That is the kind of smear tactic we
can expect, I say to the Senator from
Alaska [Mr. GRUENING]. He has already
received some. What the administra-
tion is worried about, in part?and I
think I engage in 'an understatement
when I say it?is that at least 80 per-
cent of the academic world in this coun-
try are against the administration's
policies in Vietnam, for the authorities,
scholars, and students on Asia know that
the Johnson administration is leading
the country into a massive war that will
kill hundreds of thousands of persons.
Do not forget that even ignorant, illit-
erate orientals are also children of God.
I sat and listened to a briefing by a high
spokesman of the government who took
pride in the fact that now, at long last,
we have a ratio of killing that is about
4 to 1 ratio in our favor. What has hap-
pened to our spiritual values? What has
happened to our professing about believ-
ing in God? If we do not watch out, the
propagandists will soon be telling the
people of the country that God is on our
side, for usually when we get into this
kind of war hysteria, it is interesting to
note how quickly the advocates of killing
associate God with their cause. That
does not have any relationship to and is
not a part of my religious faith. I
merely say that, in my judgment, my
country is following an immoral, god-
less policy in Vietnam, for this war, in
my judgment, cannot be reconciled with
spiritual values.
I shall continue to pray to my God for
peace; not for war.
Mr. President, let me say to the John-
son administration that the war now
is not only McNamara's war and Rusk's
war; it is Johnson's war, as well. This
administration has a solemn moral re-
sponsibility to stop the killing.
I say to the clergy of America: Let us
hear from you. I want to hear the
church bells of America ring, not toll.
The church bells of America are going
to toll and toll and toll as the coffins start
coming back from Asia if the Johnson
administration's war in Asia is not
stopped.
I say to our allies: I want to hear
from you. I want to hear our allies say,
at long last, that they will have the cour-
age to call the United States and the
Communists to an accounting under the
procedures of international law.
The attack by Rusk and the attacks by
other spokesmen of the administration
upon the academic fraternity of this
country, at least 80 percent of whom
repudiate the Johnson war in Asia, must
be met.
I announce to the Secretary of State,
"Mr. Secretary, I shall meet you any-
where, before as many university campus
faculty meetings as you want to arrange.
26, 1965
I shall discuss with you the McNamara-
Rusk war in Asia."
I say to the academic world, "Meet
them, for you have a great service to per-
form by bringing your authoritative
knowledge to bear upon the great issue
that the United States has now raised in
threatening the peace and the future of
mankind."
Says McNamara this morning, and I
Paraphrase him, "He does not think that
Russia and Red China will come in the
war." I say that he has been so irrespon-
sibly wrong for so long that any predic-
tion that McNamara makes about the fu-
ture course of this war in Asia, in 1113
Judgment, should be discounted and com-
pletely. discredited. He ought to have
been removed as Secretary of Defense
months ago, and the Secretary of State
along with him.
We are confronted now with what 3
think is probably one of the most vita.'
issues that has faced this Republic in all
of its history. It is a vital issue that is
very important to the security and future
of this Republic. The many who are
meeting on the campuses of America,
seeking to exercise their precious right to
petition this Government in opposition to
a policy, have, in my judgment, every rea-
son to have fear as far as the future
this Republic is concerned. I say to those
academic leaders, "So many of you have
asked me for so many months past, `What
can we do? We feel helpless.'" I say,
"You can now rise up in campus after
campus, in city after city, in community
after community, and tell the country
your answers to the propaganda of this
administration's seeking' to lull the popu?
-
lation of this Nation into the false as-
sumption that we are justified in increas-
ing the rate of this war."
McNamara said this morning that he
did not think that Russia and China
would come into the war. My rhetorical
question to that statement is: "Mr. Sec-
retary, suppose they do?" I happen to
think that our course of action and the
plans for escalating this war that Rusk,
McNamara, and Taylor intend to imple-
ment leave China and Russia no other
course than to come into this war.
When they escalate those plans and
those nuclear installations of China are
destroyed--and the preventive war
crowd in the Pentagon Building, hi
my judgment, are bent on destroy them--
the massive war in Asia is on. World
War III will then be over the brink, into
which war we will tumble hundreds of
thousands of American boys. It must be
stopped. The only place to stop it is
here in the United States, by the Amer-
ican people making it perfectly clear to
the Johnson administration that thc7
want a change from warmaking in Asia
to the United States joining with othe
nations in peace keeping in Asia.
What makes anyone think that Red
China, North Vietnam, and the Vietcong
are going ot come to any conference ta -
ble called by the United States, no mat -
ter how nice sounding the semantics of
unconditional discussion? Of course,
we ought to have unconditional discus.
sion. I applaud the President for hi
enunciation of the concept. It has to be
implemented. It cannot be implemented
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
by the United States. It must be imple-
mented by others.
That is why our country ought to do
now what it should have done 2 years
-ago. rn fact, we never should have vio-
lated the Geneva accords as we have been
violating them from the very beginning.
We,should have insisted that this whole
matter be laid before the nations of the
world for a peaceful solution.
Mr. President, it is with great sadness
in my heart that I speak out strenuously
against my Government. But this is not
the last time, may I tell you, Mr. Presi-
dent, Mr. Rusk, and Mr. McNamara. I
say, "If you continue with this kind of
propaganda, starting with the Rusk un-
fortunate speech of Saturday night, the
Senator from Oregon and the Senator
from Alaska will not be alone. An in-
creasing number of people across this
country must speak out and will."
Let me say to these academic leaders
-and authorities in regard to Asia?who,
In my judgment, were so unjustifiably at-
tacked by innuendo, implication, and di-
rect language by the Secretary of State
last Saturday night, and by some of the
spokesmen of this administration this
morning?that those attacks will and
must be answered.
Therefore, I do not welcome this con-
troversy. But I am ready to meet the
challenge. I am ready to meet the Sec-
retary of State across the land before
the very people he criticized last Satur-
day night, and let the facts be the judge.
Let the facts speak for themselves.
What this means, of course, Mr. -Sec-
retary of State and Mr. Secretary of De-
fense, is that we will start telling all the
facts to the American people, for the con-
cealment from, the American people of
many things that are going on in south-
east Asia and their, rewriting of history
after the fact are a betrayal of the trust
of the office of Secretary of State and
Secretary of Defense, and also a betrayal
of the American people themselves.
Let the Defense Establishment and the
State Department tell the American peo-
ple the facts about the innumerable times
that the Geneva Treaty on war prisoners
has been violated not only by the Viet-
cong, but by the South Vietnamese, with
their U.S. advisers standing by doing
nothing while these atrocities go on.
I never expected to live long enough
to read the accurate accounts of the
atrocities Committed against the Viet-
cong?of course, the atrocities have gone
the other way, too, those of the Vietcong
against the South Vietnamese?such as
the United Press dispatch last Friday
reported. Row those stories ever got out
of Vietnam is a matter of wonder, be-
cause, let the American people know, the
Pentagon and the State Department are
seeking to screen the information that
is coming out of Vietnam. Some of our
correspondents who have written have
even been arxested by the American mili-
tary in order to prevent them from hav-
ing access to events so they can tell the
American people about them.
Mr. President, what do you suppose
Ernie Pyle would say if he could come
back to earth'? What do you suppose
No. 73-10
other fearless wax correspondents would
say? We have just as fearless and
courageous war correspondents in Viet-
nam today. Many of them have been
muzzled. They are not being allowed to
tell the truth about the Johnson-Rusk-
McNamara war.
The United Press dispatch told of a
Vietcong prisoner with cloth wrapped
around his neck, being subjected to a
tug of war ordered on each epd of that
cloth while American military men stood
by in silence. God forbid. God forbid.
I know war is dirty. I know that when
people become hysterical in combat, in-
humanity to man is practiced. But the
reports of these atrocities are too fre-
quent to be alibied on the ground of
temporary hysteria.
The sad fact is that the United States
has not been doing its duty and standing
up for the enforcement of the Geneva
Treaty in regard to the handling of war
prisoners. That inaction is not justi-
fied by pointing at the terror and vicious-
ness of the Vietcong.
Mr. President, I wanted to make this
statement as a matter of personal privi-
lege, for I do not have to be hit on the
head with a bat to know who is re-
ferred to in the vicioup propaganda of the
administration. I am well aware of the
unhappiness I have caused for the John-
son administration because I have been
speaking on an average of two to four
times a week in opposition to my coun-
try's outlawry in Vietnam. But I intend
to continue to do so, here and elsewhere.
I invite the Secretary of State to join
me at meetings he selects, to meet with
the academic group which he insulted
Saturday night in his speech, and discuss
there our points of view. But, Mr. Sec-
retary, when you meet me on the plat-
form, do not try to hide behind executive
privilege. When we meet on the plat-
form, do not give me the old line that
you cannot tell me something because it
might affect our security. Every time
we ask for information to which we are
entitled, the officials hide behind execu-
tive privilege. To you, the people, I say,
"Demand of the Johnson administra-
tion that you be given all the informa-
tion about the war in Asia."
I have stated before, and I repeat now,
as an ardent supporter of the adminis-
tration in most matters?probably 95
percent?that nothing could pain me
more than to so completely disagree with
the President in his - foreign policy in
Asia. But, as I have told him, I com-
pletely disagree with him.
I am satisfied that if he continues to
follow the ill advice of McNamara and
Rusk, he will come out of office the most
discredited President in the history of
this Nation.
No President can lead this Nation into
. -
a massive war in Asia, with all the con-
sequences that will flow for many' dec-
ades to come, and not go down in Ameri-
can history as totally discredited. This
-war is totally unnecessary.
We can brink economic freedoms, with
resulting political freedoms, to the
masses of Asia without idllingthem by
the millions first. Our present carie of
8161
action will kill Asians by the millions,
and it will also kill Americans, by the
hundreds of thousands.
Mr. President, several weeks ago I re-
ceived a very interesting letter from Mr.
and Mrs, Reward Kurtz, of Chappaqua,
N.Y., outlining some of their ideas for
the control of war. Mr. Kurtz is a man-
agement consultant and former Air
Force lieutenant colonel. Mrs. Kurty is
an ordained minister of the United
Church of Christ.
As Mr. and Mrs. Kurtz suggests, an
administration that can make "war on
poverty," might Well give time and
thought to making "war on war."
I ask unanimous consent to have
printed in the RECORD the letter I re-
ceived from them, together with a press
interview which appeared in the Re-
porter-Dispatch of White Plains, N.Y.,
on March 3, 1965.
There being no objection, the letter
and press release were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
WAR CONTROL PLANNERS, INC.,
Chappaqua, N.Y., March 17, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Vieth.11m is proof of
American strategic failure. We lose if the
war escalates. We lose if we withdraw. We
lose if we negotiate a truce, freeing the
enemy to regather his force for yet another
thrust.
We are fighting a war in a location chosen
by the enemy, at a time chosen by the
enemy, in terrain beneficial to the enemy,
and fighting the kind of war which is to the
advantage of the enemy. We play the
enemy's game, in the enemy's ballpark, ac-
cording to the enemy's rules, when, and if the
enemy wants to play.
Every attack we make turns more Asian
people, and other people of the world against
us. Every attack weakens the cohesion with
allied people and nations. Every attack
tends to reunite our Communist enemies.
Every attack tends to tarnish our image of
moral leadership before the world, to the
advantage of the enemy. Our excuse, as al-
ways, is that the "Communists" have forced
us to do these things. It is our confession of
weakness for mankind to see, that the "Com-
munists" have the power to force us to do
the things we say we do not want to do * * *
things which Jeopardize our own national
security.
Americans are being killed in Vietnam in a
war being fought in a strategic vacuum.
The strategic problem: The people of all
nations are endangered if Vietnam escalates
into modern war. The people of all nations
need protection, not threat of annihilation.
The nation which assumes responsibility for
world leadership will not be the nation
brandishing the power to destroy all na-
tions * * nor will it be the nation which
disarms and weakens leadership strength.
The deepest instincts of self-preservation
and national defense will move the people
of all nations to follow the leadership of that
great power which will dare develop and
demonstrate war safety power to guarantee
the national security and political inde-
pendence of all nations.
The President and world leadership: The
President can now issue directives to the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Security
Council to begin active planning, develop-
.ment, creation, and demonstration of global
War safety control systems strong enough
to protect Israel people from the Arabs
* *.proteet Arab people from the Israeli
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8162 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 26, 1965
* * * protect European people from the
Germans * * * protect German people from
the R, ussians *4 * protect Russian people
from the Chinese ? * protect the people
of all nations against threats of war or
domination from any foreign source ? * ?
strong enough to prevent production and
proliferation of nuclear weapons, and other
weapons, in all nations * * * strong enough
to control production of war materiel, within
an entirely new world security organization,
or a vastly revised and strengthened 'United
Nations, not world government, '
This will be the most diffieult and com-
plex problem man has ever mobilized to
solve. It will require a generation of creativ-
ity in military-technological-legal-economic-
public opinion-political-moral fields. There
is no precedent in military or political sci-
ence, for an all-nation defense system. But
man now has all of the necessary components
within reach, if the effort is made, in addi-
tion to maintaining national defense power.
The first international war safety year
* * 1967? The President can project a
future yearlong exhibition of man's emerg-
ing new power to inspect, detect, and force-
fully prevent any preparations or actions of
war, anywhere in the world between nations.
International war safety games can be held
on a world stage for mankind to Witness.
The President can invite all nations to par-
ticipate, to assure themselveS this is not a
plan for the United States to dominate the
. world. No nation will be able to veto the
war safety games. They will be held with
whatever nations chose to cooperate, but all
communications channels will be used-to see
that the people of all nations learn the /acts
of the developing future power to protect
their nations, and all other nations from
danger of war. There are thousands of "im-
possible" problems which can be solved, when
if the great new initiative begins with
strong congressional bipartisan support, and
authorizatiens and budgets.
But who in the hierarchy of American
power wants to remove the threat of war?
PrOfiting from national insecurity: For 4
years, highest military and civilian advisers
have refused to bring this new strategic
power opportunity to the attention of Pres-
ident Kennedy or President Johnson. There
are no evil men involved. There are danger-
ous Unconscious motivations. Each time
Communist world power and threat leaps
up to new magnitude, American public dan-
ger goes up; Americans defense indusfry cap-
ital gains and executive bonuses go up; non-
profit military think-factory budgets go up;
engineering 'University research grants go up;
subsidies for scientists go up; military re-
sponSibilities and promotions go up; the per-
Song prosperity of the hierarchy of national
security policy goes up.
In, view of this barrier of self-interest.
Who will tell the American people and the
President that we have within reach the
power of safety?the power to bring the
threat of war under control throughout the
world?
Sincerely yours,
HOWARD G. KURTZ.
HARRIET B. Ftuarz.
[Prom the Reporter Dispatch, White Plains,
N.Y., Mar. 3, 19651
CHAPPAQUA : PROFILE FOR A WEDNESDAY 'AFTER-
NOON?TECHNOLOGY, THEOLOGY JOIN FOR
PEACE
(By Daniel Harrison)
CHAPPAQUA.?A remarkable couple has
combined technology and theology with the
aim of creating an "all-nation" defense sys-
tem which would end the arms race and re-
duce international tension.
Over coffee in their book-lined living room
at 150 South Bedford Road the other day.
Mr. and Mrs. Howard G. Kurtz discussed war
safety control, now nascent but hopefully
"the next historic stage" in man's age-old
quest for security.
Mr. Kurtz is a management consultant and
a former Air Force lieutenant colonel. His
wife, Harriet, was ordained a minister of the
United Church of Christ at the First Con-
gregational Church last November.
In essence, war safety control calls for a
worldwide intelligence system manned by
scientists to detect and evaluate rapid mili-
tary buildups and the use of United Nations
inspection?teams to investigate potential
danger areas.
It is not, according to Mr. Kurtz, the same
as disarmament, but a "new kind of power"
in many dimensions, "something new to
break a generation-long crisis."
GLOBAL NETWORK
The system the couple envisions would
create a global communications network
feeding data into electronic computer cen-
ters' air traffic control centers, electronic
auditing of highways and railways, television
equipped satellites and sensory devices that
would detect radioactivity and bacteria that
might be used in warfare. The couple has
produced a booklet and a film on their plan,
and much of the material is quite technical
and complex.
Once "war safety control" is establishede
Mr. and Mrs. Kurtz say, nations would begin
to eliminate their most destructive weapons.
The system is an extraordinary blending
of ethical and technical concerns. In addi-
tion to data on the laser and cybernetics, the
booklet contains statements from, among
others, religious leaders endorsing the con-
cept. Prominent persons in various other
fields such as Senator JACOB K. JAVITS and
Elmo Roper have reacted favorably.
On the theological side, Reverend Kurtz
believes too many clergymen have been silent
on issues of war and peace because they have
been caught between their desire for peace
and their patriotic instincts. She believes
that war safety control results in a conver-
gence of interests in national security and in
an ordered world.
SOLID ALTERNATIVE
Mr. Kurtz believes the system presents a
solid alternative to the arms race and simple
disarmament, both of which he believes to
be "dangerous." He regards national and
regional defense systems as demonstrably
meaningless, just as the castle became a
meaningless defense against artillery. Thus,
in his mind, the only alternative to a con-
flagration is the all-nation security system.
The United States, the plan says, must
take the lead. In order for this to take place,
the .couple believes, public opinion must be
aroused in favor of war safety control, and
this is the major aim of their initial efforts.
The booklet and other literature have been
widely distributed, although the organiza-
tion which the couple has started, War COn-
trol Planners, Inc., has no general member-
ship, no dues, no regular meetings, no set
program.
"I guess hope keeps us going," Reverend
Kurtz said, when asked how a couple can
hope to combat what President Eisenhower
called the military-industrial complex.
'Actually, Mr. and Mrs. Kurtz contend, the
military would have certain functions under
the plan, and skills now being employed to-
ward the manufacture of arms would be used
in the detection and control of arms.
INSPECTION DIFFERENCE
Mr. Kurtz notes that the difference be-
tween various inspection proposals made
during the last decade and his plan is that
no agreement from another nation is needed
for war safety control to operate.
Reverend Kurtz, saying, "we refuse to be-
lieve this (the present world situation) is
the way it will stay," notes that their plan
will not change basic human instincts tc-
ward such things as power and covetousneus
but will remove the inordinate dimensior s
these instincts have assumed in the modern
world. National envies and hostilities will
be curbed, but the couple is quick to poir t
out that national security won't be vitiated
under the all-nation security plan. A dim-
inution of "escalation' is the simple aim.
Among other factors needed to make the
system work, the Kurtz' booklet notes, ale
a reevaluation and revamping of interna-
tional law and the alleviation of econonne
woes that spur international friction. Sp e -
cialists in the legal and economic fields, e s
well as in public opinion, will be needed fcr
the systems implementation.
The couple observes, however, that "true
security can be achieved only when this ir -
formation (that obtained by technical
means) is known and believed by all." They
note that the detection of Russian missiles
in Cuba in 1982 is an example of the type of
activity war safety control would engage in,
only the next time, as they put it, the fate
of over 100 nations would not be dependent
on the actions of the leaders of 2,
The report, at great length, thus suggests
that modern technology now makes it pos-
sible to assure the prevention of war. But
technology is not advocated to the exclusion
of more spiritual concerns. Reverend Kurt??
in a sermon recently at the First Congreg.-
tional Church entitled "Our Enemies and
Our Religion," said: "If there are new eh-
mensions to technical capabilities, there are
as a corollary new dimensions of religious
capabilities."
Mr. and Mrs. Kurtz, in their attempts to
marshal public support for war safety con-
trol, have recently written letters to Vice
President HUMPHREY and McGeorge Bundy, a
top White House aid, in addition to the
chairmen of key congressional committees.
They have been assured by a deputy assist-
ant secretary of defense that the Pentagon
has not restrained officers who wish to study
the plan.
The couple (they have a son and daughter
in college), while readily noting that a gen-
eration of problem solving may be required
to pioneer war control power, is sincerey
earnest. Mr. Kurtz has said:
"If the American people are first to demon-
strate not only a national defense capabilii y
second to none, and not only a group national
defense capability such as NATO, but ti e
new magnitude all nation defense capability
of war safety control, aggressively to guard
all nations against threats of future war, ti e
impact on the public of the world will be
so great that no one will remember who was
the first to land a lonely astronaut on an
empty moon."
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, Lalso ask
unanimous consent to have certain othcr
communications and editorials printed
in the RECORD at this point as a part of
my remarks.
There being no objection, the commu -
nications and editorials were ordered to
be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
APRIL 20, 19135.
Hon. WAYNE L. MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.
SIR: In view of the critical situation in
Vietnam which now threatens peace in Asia
and the security of Japan, we, the under-
signed, have addressed an appeal to the
Japanese Government, calling for its prompt
and effective action toward peaceful settle-
ment of the Vietnamese problem.
Enclosed, we are sending you a copy of the
appeal, in the hope that it will draw your
attention and prove to be of interest to you.
We should be grateful if you would, in giving
advice to the Chief Executive of the T.Jnited
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10114: CIA-RDP67B06446R00 300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
Eitates, take into your consideration our
Opinion stated therein.
Sincerely yours,
liEYOE Guam,
561 Gokurakuji, Kamakura, irana-
paiNt-ken, Japan, Professor Emeritus
of the University of Tokyo, Former
President of Hosei University, Mem-
ber of the Japan Academy.
TOSHITOSHI MIYAZAVVA,
Professor of St. Paul's University, Pro-
fessor Emeritus of the University of
Tokyo, Member of the Japan Acad-
emy.
jIRO OSARAGI,
Writer, Member of the Art Academy of
Japan.
TETSUZO TATIKAWA,
? President of Hosei University.
&MAE WAGATSIIMA,
Professor Emeritus of the University
of Tokyo, Member Of the Japan
-Academy.
?
APPEAL TO THE JAPANESE GOVERNMENT ON THE
WAR IN VIETNAM
The devastation and the danger brought
about by the war in Vietnam are being ag-
gravated day by day. Not only is this war
Causing unsurpassable misery to the the
people of Vietnam, but it is also constituting
a great menace to peace in Asia and to the
security of Japan. It is no wonder that
there is rapidly growing among the Japanese
people concern and apprehension as to the
implications of the war. We deeply regret
that the Japanese Government has not taken
any position action by way of fulfilling its
responsibilities to guarantee the security of
Japan and to restore peace in Asia.
Therefore, we strongly urge our Govern-
Ment to make a prompt decision according
to the three proposals we present below, and
to declare its intentiOn to the Japanese peo-
ple and to other nations.
1. If the United States should persist in
her present policy, there is an imminent
danger of armed conflicts ensuing between
the United States and the People's Republic
of China, regardless of the calculated design
of the Government of the United States.
17urthermorp, there is a natural les; for
the tension being heightened at the 38th
parallel in Horea, between South Korea, who
has sent troops to South Vietnam, on the
One hand, and North Korea, who has pledged
military support to the National Liberation
Front (Vietcong), on the other. It is past
any dispute that our involvement in these
armed conflicts resulting from the milliary
operations of the United States will be ab-
solutely incompatible with the security of
Japan.
It is true that Japan is bound by the secu-
rity treaty to collaborate with the United
States, Nevertheless, article I of this treaty
holds that, in accordance with the provision
of the United Nations Charter, international
disputes shall, be settled by peaceful means,
and the parties to the treaty shall refrain
from "the threat or use of force against the
territorial integrity or political independence
of any state." We believe that the present
use of force by the "United States in Vietnam
Is in violation. of these provisions. It is
evidently in line with the general rule of
international law that in such a case Japan
is not necessarily bound by the above men-
tioned duty of collaboration. This point is
Clearly illustrated by the position of the
United States who, at the time of the Suez
crisis, opposed the military actions under-
taken by Britain and France, in spite of the
fact that the United States was in alliance
with these two nations.
Accordingly, we appeal to the Japanese
Government Jo manifest its position im-
mediately to its own people and to other
nations that If the war in Vietnam should
escalate into a war on a larger scale involv-
ing additional countries, Japan would refuse
t:o let the U.S. bases in Japan be used for the
purpose of military combat. operations. A
declaration of the Japanese Government in
making this stand will in itself be an im-
portant impetus toward preventing the war
in Vietnam from escalating into armed con-
flicts between the United States and China
or the Soviet Union.
2. The direct cause of such expansion of
the war in Vietnam is the air attacks by the
United States on North Vietnam. - For this
reason, the first thing that should take place
to prevent this danger is the cessation of the
bombardment on North Vietnam by the
United States and South Vietnamese forces.
Moreover, the air attacks on the north are
in themselves operations beyond the limits
of self-defense, even if further escalation of
the war might somehow be avoided. Such an
abuse of the right of self-defense is contrary
to the provisions of the United Nations Char-
ter and article I of the Japan-United States
security treaty. It may be noted that the
Government of the United States no longer
endeavors to justify its actions by invoking
such concepts as "retaliation" or 'collective
self-defense," as it did at the beginning of
the air attacks on the north.
Though there may be a certain degree of
aid given by North Vietnam to the National
Liberation Front, even the figures given by
the 13.5. Government in the white paper on
Vietnam, show clearly that the military as-
sistance from the north is very modest in
terms of military force. Looking back on. the
whole process of the war in Vietnam, we are
persuaded to believe that the aid from the
north has been more of a counterbalance to
the enormous amount of military aid of-
fered by the United States to the South
Vietnamese Government, which has taken
measures to suppress any groups opposing
its policies, and has forfeited the support of
the people. This means that the United
States is not entitled to justify the air at-
tacks on the north, by citing the help
extended by North Vietnam to the National
Liberation Front.
For these two reasons, we urge the Japa-
nese Government to appeal to the United
States for immediate suspension of the air
attacks on the north.
3. At present, in South Vietnam, a grue-
some war is going on, side by side with the
air attacks an the north. We cannot refrain
from expressing our profound indignation
against the recent use by the 'U.S. forces of
napalm bombs, poisonous gases and other
atrocious weapons, and especially against the
bringing in of tactical nuclear weapons into
South Vietnam.
If the United States should continue to
fight the National Liberation Front with such
means of warfare, which would make the war
in Vietnam literally a war of annihilation, the
greater part of South Vietnam will inevitably
be reduced to a scorched land of complete
devastation. The people of South Vietnam
are exhausted by the war that has lasted
more than 20 years. There is no doubt about
their not desiring continuation of such a
war. The United States, however, is pur-
suing war efforts and destruction, against the
will of the Vietnamese people who are long-
ing for peace. The fact that Japan belongs
to Asia makes it all the more impossible for
us to remain inactive in the face of the suf-
fering of the people in South Vietnam.
In view of what has been stated above,
the war in South Vietnam conducted by the
United States cannot escape from being
called an inexcusable disregard of human
dignity and the right of national self-deter-
mination. In order that South Vietnam
should emerge out of its present condition of
misery and despair, diplomatic negotiations
should be opened without delay to terminate
the war. In this respect, we welcome Pres-
ident Johnson's Statement,, made in response
to the proposal by the 17 nonalined nations,
to the effect that the United States "remains
8163
ready for unconditional discussions." This
kind of diplomatic discussion, however, must
be accompanied by an unconditional cease-
fire, so that there can be no room for con-
tinued military operations with the aim of
gaining a favorable position for negotiation.
The essential conditions for a solution to
the war in Vietnam will be firstly to base
the whole argument on the recognition that
this war is fundamentally a civil war, and
should be treated as such; the National Lib-
eration Front should be recognized as a
party to the negotiation; the U.S. troops
should eventually be withdrawn; and there
should be corresponding suspension of the
aid from North Vietnam.
We fervently hope that the Japanese Gov-
ernment, in full realization of the points
cited above, will send urgent appeals to the
United States and other nations concerned
to open diplomatic negotiations at once, to
which the National Liberation Front should
be a party, and to effect an immediate cease-
fire, so that there will be the earliest possible
restoration of peace in Vietnam.
- APRIL 20, 1985.
TOSHIYOSHI Mrs AZAWA,
Professor of Law, St. Paul's University,
Professor Emeritus of the University of
Tokyo, Member of the Japan Academy.
JIRO OSARAG/,
Writer; Member of the Art Academy of
Japan.
HTOE OT_TCH/,
Professor Emeritus of the University of
Tokyo, Former President of Hosei Uni-
versity, Member of the Japan Academy.
TETSUZO TANIKAWA,
President of Hosei University.
SAKAE WAGATSITIVIA,
Professor Emeritus of the University of
Tokyo, Member of the Japan Academy.
LIST OF SIGNATURES
Abe, Tomoji, writer; professor of English
literature, Meiji University.
Aomi, Junichi, professor of jurisprudence,
University of Tokyo.
Ariizumi, Torii, professor of law, Univer-
sity of Tokyo.
Arisawa, Hiromi, professor emeritus of the
University of Tokyo.
,Ranno, Masataka, professor of Chinese
history, Tokyo Metropolitan University.
Egami, Fujio, professor of biochemistry,
University of Tokyo.
Egami, Namio, professor of archeology,
University of Tokyo.
Fujimoto, Yoichi, professor of physics,
Waseda University.
Fukuda, Kanichi, professor of political
science, University of Tokyo.
Fukushima, Masoa, professor of Chinese
law, University of Tokyo.
Fukutake, Tadashi, professor of sociology,
University of Tokyo.
Hidaka, Rokuro, professor of sociology,
University of Tokyo.
lion, Toyohiko, professor of political sci-
ence, Waseda University.
Horigome, Yozo, professor of European his-
tory, University of Tokyo.
Hotta, Yoshie, writer.
Ienaga, Saburo, professor of Japanese his-
tory, Tokyo University of Education.
Iizuka, Koji, professor of human geogra-
phy, University of Tokyo.
Inoue, Yoshio, professor of Tokyo Union
Theological Seminary.
Ishii, Teruhisa, professor of law, Univer-
sity of Tokyo.
Ishikawa, Shigeru, professor of economics,
Hitotsubashi University.
Isono, Fujiko, lecturer in sociology, Japan
Women's University.
Isono, Selichi, professor of law, Tokyo
University of Education.
Ito, Masaml, professor of law, University
of Tokyo.
Ito, Mitsuharu, associate professor of eco-
nomics, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8164 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Ito, Sei, writer.
Iyanaga, Shokichi, professor of mathema-
tics, University of Tokyo.
Jodai, Tano, former president of Japan
Women's University.
KaikO, Takeshi, writer.
KainO, Michitaka, lawyer.
Kato, Shuichi, -writer.
Katsuta, Shuichi, professor of pedagogy,
University of Tokyo.
Kawata, Tadashi, associate professor of
international economics, University of
Tokyo.
Kido, Mataichi, professor of journals ern,
Doshisha University.
Kikuchi, Isao, former president of Kyushu
University.
Kinoshita, Hanji, professor of political his-
tory, Tokyo University of Education.
Kiyenniya, Shiro, professor of law, Nihon
University.
Kuno, Osamu, lecturer in philosophy,
Gakushuin University.
Kobayashi, Naoki, professor of law, Uni-
versity of Tokyo.
Maruyama, Masao, professor of political
Science, University of Tokyo.
Matsuda, Tomoo, professor of economic
history, University of Tokyo.
Matsumoto, Nobuhiro, professor of orien-
tal history, Keio University.
Minemura, Teruo, professor of labor law,
Keio University.
Miyake, Yasuo, professor of chemistry,
Tokyo University of Education.
Miyazaki, Yoshikazu, professor of eco-
nomics, Yokohama National University.
Munakata, Seiya, professor of pedagogy,
University of Tokyo.
Mutat, Risaku, professor emeritus of
Tokyo University of Education.
Nagai, Michio, professor of sociology,
Tokyo Institute of Technology.
Nakagawa, Zennosuke, professor of law,
Gakushuin University.
Nakamura, Akira, professor of political sci-
ence, Hosei University.
Nakamura, Takafusa, associate professor
of statistics, University of Tokyo.
Nakano, Yoshio, professor of English lit-
erateure, Chuo University.
Nambara, Shigeru, former president of the
University of Tokyo.
Niida, Noboru, professor emeritus of the
University of Tokyo.
Nods, Yoshiyuki, professor of law, Uni-
versity of Tokyo.
Nogami, Mokichiro, professor of physics,
University of Tokyo.
Nogami, Yaeko, authoress.
Nomura, Heiji, professor of labor law,
Waseda University.
Nomuro, Koichi, associate professor of
Chinese history, St. Paul's University.
0e, Kenzaburo, writer.
Okochi, Kazuo, president of the University
Of Tokyo.
Ooka? Shohei, writer.
Otsuka, Hisao, professor of economic his-
tory, University of Tokyo.
&Litt% Makoto, professor of American-his-
tory, University of Tokyo.
Sakamoto, Yoshikazin professor of inter-
national politics, University of Tokyo.
Sah5, Isao, professor of constitutional law,
Seikei University.
Sugi, Toshio, professor . of French litera-
ture, St. Paul's University.
Suraiya, Mikio, professor of economics,
University of Tokyo.
Serizawa, KOjirO, writer.
Tajima, Eizo, professor
Paul's University.
Takahashi, Kohachin5, professor of eco-
nomic history, University of Tokyo.
Takano, Ytlichi, professor of international
law, University of Tokyo.
Takeda, Kiyoko, professor of history of
thought, International Christian University.
Takeuchi, Yoshiml, writer, Chinese liters,-
ture.
?
of physics, St.
Tamanoi, Yoshiro, professor of economics,
University of Tokyo.
Tanaka, ShinjirO, critics, arms control and
disarmament.
Tsuru, Shigeto, professor of economics,
Ritotsubashi University.
Tezuka, Tomio, professor of German lit-
erature, St. Paul's University.
Tomonaga, Sin-itiro, professor of physics,
Tokyo University of Education.
Toyoda, To,shiyuki, professor of physics,
St. Paul's University.
Uchiyama, ShOzO, professor of civil law,
Hosei University.
Ueinura, Tamaki, honorary president of
Japan YWCA.
Wakimura, YoshitarO, professor emeritus
of the University of Tokyo.
Watanabe, Kazuo, professor of French lit-
erature, St. Paul's University.
Yamamoto, Tatsuo, professor of southeast
Asian history, University of Tokyo.
Yoshida, Hidekazu, music critic.
Yoshida, TomizO, director, Cancer Insti-
tute, Tokyo.
Hirotsu, Kazuo, writer.
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY,
Bronx, N.Y April 23, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.0 .
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The ad hoc faculty
committee on Vietnam and the ad hoc stu-
dent committee on Vietnam wish to express
our agreement with your public call for a
temporary cessation in the air raids over
Vietnam. At the same time we would like
to apprise you of what we have done to stim-
ulate a thoughtful revision of American pol-
icy on Vietnam. On Wednesday evening,
April 14, a teach-in on American policy in
Vietnam was held on the University Heights
campus of New York University.
The response of the college community to
the teach-in has demonstrated that concern
over the present cOurse of our involvement
in southeast Asia is uppermost in the minds
of many Americans. An auditorium of 400
seats was filled to capacity, with standees
from 8 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. To handle the over-
flow, the speeches were sent over the public
address system to an adjacent cafeteria. At
4:30 a.m., the final lecture of the evening
was heard by 250. Allowing for turnover,
a safe estimate is that over 700 students and
faculty were in attendance. This is reputed
to be the largest audience ever to attend a
discussion on public affairs at University Col-
lege. The strong effect this meeting exerted
on the audience has been shown by the de-
bate on Vietnam which dominated the class-
room and cafeteria for the remainder of the
week.
The political, economic and military back-
ground of the Vietnamese war, together with
an exposition of the administration policy in
Vietnam were presented. While different as-
pects and views were presented, the consensus
of the presentations at the teach-in can be
summarized as follows: The United States
must take immediate steps to reverse a policy
in Vietnam that is both dangerous and futile.
The speakers noted that President Johnson's
address at Johns Hopkins does offer a pos-
sible hope of a move toward a Vietnamese
settlement. However, they repeatedly stat-
ed that continuing elements of the U.S. pol-
icy preclude realization of that hope and
that the modified policy is still both dan-
gerous and futile.
The willingness to negotiate uncondition-
ally will not bear fruit until a minimal situ-
ation is created for North Vietnam's partici-
pation in negotiations: a cessation of air
attacks on North Vietnam and the inclusion
of the Vietminh in all negotations. Whether
North Vietnam CT the Vietminh will come to
the bargaining table .under these conditions
is problematical: that they will not come
without them has been borne out by state-
April 26, 1965
merits subsequent to the President's speen.
No offer of a major development program for
southeast Asia, however inviting, can get ne-
gotiations underway until these conditions
are met. Men will sit 'down and reason to-
gether only when honor and politics permit.
Respectfully yours,
CONSTANCE R. SUTTON,
PHILIP G. ZIMBARDO,
Cochairmen, Ad Hoc Faculty Com-
mittee on Vietnam.
OPEN LETTER TO THE FACULTY OF NEW YORK
UNIVERSITY
We find ourselves now in a time of great
social unrest and political turmoil?a time
when we are shocked by the lack of concern
and involvement shown by man for his fel-
low man. It is one thing to be unable to
relate oneself to abstractions like "society"
or "country," but quite another to disen-
gage oneself from other human beings.
To counter this state of alienation or non-
involvement, perhaps the most serious prob-
lem of our generation, a new force has
arisen?college students have been in the
vanguard of protest movements throughout
the country. Their effect within the civil
rights movement has been considerable.
It is time for college faculties not only to
join their students, but to provide, by exam-
ple, the leadership in a national protest
against our Government's actions in Vie t-
nam.
We believe that the national 'administra-
tion has adopted a military policy which
could involve generations of our students )n
a war on the mainland of Asia.
To preserve peace in Vietnam and to "show
the Communists we mean business," we have
changed our position from one of providing
"advisers" and equipment to the ever-chang-
ing South Vietnam governments, to one of
direct belligerence. Our Government has
explained that its efforts are directed at stop-
ping military aggression. Yet ironically, we
support a regime that bombs schoolhouses
and ignores the protest of Vietnamese moth-
ers carrying the corpses of their children.
The reasons given to the American peo-
ple why we must kill as the quickest way to
achieve peace would hardly stand examina-
tion in a college classroom. We are struck
by the Orwellian duplicity used in policy
statements: war is peace and destructic.n
means survival.
The pressure of public and world opinion
has finally broken the President's silence.
He has agreed to consider negotiations, but
not to stop the war in order to do it. As
President Johnson said, the instruments of
war are evidence not of power but of folly.
Let us ask, then, that the path to reason not
be cluttered by the debris of folly. War is
not only foolish: it is immoral.
While we welcome even these ambiguous
overtures to peace, we maintain that America
must stop all military action immediately m
order to conduct negotiations in good faith.
Moreover, we must not dictate peace terms,
but allow the United Nations to negotiate
any settlement.
We, the undersigned, therefore urge a
mobilization of faculty in a venture to pro-
test the war in Vietnam, to call for immediate
cessation of all bombing, and encourage
negotiations which will lead to peace.
PLEASE ANNOUNCE THIS PART TO YOUR CLASS LS
We therefore wish to support actively the
march on Washington of April 17, 1965, of
faculty and students from colleges through-
out the Nation, by urging our colleagues and
our students to join us on an NYU-sponsored
bus to Washington.
A bus will be leaving from our Heights
campus early Saturday morning, April 17,
and returning here in the evening. The cost
will be $6 per seat round trip. Reservatioos
should be made by you as soon as possible.
They can be obtained in the lobby of Gould
Student Center or at the Faculty Club during
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003110/14: CIA-RDP67600446R0007300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONdRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
lunch time. A number of faculty members
have lready made this commitment. We
need you. Ideally we would like you to come
along. If you can't come, would you be
willing to contribute money for a student to
go?
In addition to this protest to be made in
our Nation's Capital, and in order to have
the issues presented publicly, we are hold-
ing a "teach-in." This is a technique in
which faculty members and other informed
speakers present information, opinions, and
their views about the military, political,
social, and moral issues involved in Viet-
nam (not necessarily the views of the ad hoc
committee) . There will be an opportunity
for questions and discussion. It will be
held in the Playhouse, Gould Student Cen-
ter, on Wednesday, April 14, starting at 8
p.m. We want you to lend your support to
this venture. You can do this in several
ways:
1. Attend, and convince others to attend.
2. Be willing to assist our committee with
the many tasks involved (by contacting
one of us immediately).
Philip G. Zimbardo, Chairman; Rob-
ert D. Burrowes, Edwin S. Campbell,
James T. Crown, Joan Fiss, H. Mark
RoeIofs, H. Laurence Ross, Constance
R. Sutton, Thomas W. Wahrnan, Ad
Hoc Committee on Vietnam.
TEACH-IN ON THE ISSUES IN VIETNAiVI
(Wednesday night, April 14, 1965, New York
University?University College Playhouse,
Gould Student Center, West 181st Street and
University Avenue; the Bronx, doors open
'7:45 p.m.)
8: Philip G. Zimbardo (NYU), chairman,
Prof. Seymour Melman, Columbia University,
"A 8trategy for Peace."
8:50: Dr. Vo Thanh Mirth, "The South
Vietnamese Position."
9:15; Prof. Arnitai Etzioni, Columbia Uni-
versity, "Which Way Out?"
10:15: Constance R. Sutton (NYU), chair-
man, Prof. Robert Engler, Queens College,
"The United ,States and the World in Revo-
lution."
11: Prof. Ernest van den Haag, New York
University, "Is Intervention for Freedom
Justified?"
12: Joan Fiss (NYU), chairman, Raymond
Brown, Sarah Lawrence College, "The Do-
mestic Economic Implications of the Cold
Var."
12:45: Prof. Anthony J. Pearce, New York
University, "How Did the United States Be-
come Involved in Vietnam: 1954-60?"
1:45: Roscoe C. Brown, Jr. (NYU), chair-
man, Mr. Ross Flannagan, New York Friends
Group, "The Moral and Human Dimensions
of the War in Vietnam."
2:30: Michael Arons (NYU), chairman,
Prof. James T. Crown New York University,
"The Great War or the Great Society?"
3:15: Prof, Stanley Millet, Briarcliff Col-
lege, "American Policy in Vietnam."
Sponsors: Ad Hoc Faculty Committee on
Vietnam, New York University.
Cochairmen: Philip G. Zimbardo, Con-
stance R. Sutton; Robert D. Burrowes; Edwin
S. Campbell; James T. Crown; Joan Fiss; H.
Mark Roelofs; H. Laurence Ross; and Thomas
W. Wahman.
Ad Hoc Student Committee on Vietnam,
New York University.
Cochairmen: B. Diamond; S. Barkas; P.
Jacobson; S. Itrugman; M. Greenfield; G.
Chieffetz; B. Nfittenzwei; It. Schoen; D. Fed-
er; J. Meyerson; J Ween; K. Hirsch; E. Win-
terbottom; L. Dworkin; L. Giovanella; B.
Glushakow; II. Forbes; N. Sachs; J. Roberts;
A. Weinert; J. Arak; and A. Greenbaum.
STATEMENT OF AD Hoc COMMITTEE Von A
TEACH-IN ON VIETNAM
James Reston wrote, "The first casuality
in every shooting war is commonsense, arid
the second is open and free discussion."
As -teachers and citizens, we are deeply con-
cerned both with the implications of our
present military actions in Vietnam, and
with the relative absence of information,
debate, and public discussion of the reasons
for our involvement there. Our teach-in of
April 14, 1965, grows out of these concerns.
We seek to generate discussions based
upon the best available information. We do
this in the belief that this is one way in
which the academic community can best
carry out its responsibility toward provid-
ing students with an informed basis for
their opinions and actions on major issues.
Many topics and views were presented in
our teach-in. The speakers were selected on
the basis of their area of special competence.
A serious attempt was made to present as
many informed positions as possible. The
conclusions reached by the ad hoc commit-
tee do not necessarily represent the views of
the speakers. Our major conclusions, there-
fore, are:
1. The U.S. Government has not offered
adequate information and arguments in sup-
port of the military risks we are continuing
to run in Vietnam.
2. Our present policies in Vietnam have led
to the spreading of the war from the south
?to the north, and create a serious risk of in-
volving the United States in a military con-
flict with China. We welcome the Presi-
dent's offer for unconditional negotiations,
but our stepped-up military actions follow-
ing the President's offer vitiate the possible
positive effect of his gesture.
3. Therefore, we believe that the U.S. Gov-
ernment should cease bombing attacks im-
mediately in the north and should attempt
to arrange a cease-fire in the south. This
should be followed by negotiatins with
whomever it may be necessary?not exclud-
ing the Vietcong?to the end of insuring
peace throughout Vietnam.
4. We disagree that vital interests of the
United States are involved in southeast Asia
and particularly in Vietnam, and therefore
we believe that the solution to the political,
social, and economic problems of the peoples
of this area should be determined by them
with the assistance of the United Nations,
and should not be-directed by the United
States.
5. Finally, we feel that the technique of a
"teach-in" is an effective device for provid-
ing the academic community with a forum
for the public exchange of information and
opinions in an atmosphere appropriate to the
serious consideration of current, complex
issues of national isgnificance.
YALE UNIVERSITY,
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE,
New Haven, Conn., April 7,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am enclosing a
copy of a letter on Vietnam sent to the Pres-
ident last week and signed by 209 members
of the Yale faculty.
My very best personal wishes.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT A. DAHL.
YALE UNIVERSITY,
New Haven, Conn., March 29, 1965.
The PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ma. PRESIDENT: We should be deeply
gratified to learn that American policy in
Vietnam is to negotiate a settlement. We
support such a policy.
We believe that recent American actions in
Vietnam are inconsistent with your- great
goal, which we share, of reducing interna-
tional tensions and moving toward a more
stable and more peaceful world. We realize
that the conflict in Vietnam is not subject
to a simple solution; we realize also that
8165'
you and your advisers may have important
Information of which we are unaware. But
on the basis of the information available
to us, including the recent white paper, we
are strongly persuaded that our policies in
Vietnam have been inappropriate.
First, no new elements seem to have been
added to the steadily deteriorating political
and military situation in Vietnam, except for 7,
our recent policy of escalation. After nearly
a decade, American policy has failed to pro-
duce a stable and friendly regime that com-
mands enough loyal support among the peo-
ple of South Vietnam to turn the tide of
war. The crisis cries out for a new definition
of our true interests in Vietnam.
Second, the one new element, the policy of
escalation by bombing North Vietnam, in-
curs great new risks without much promise
of achieving its objectives, whatever these
may be. The balance of advantage in what
is to a great extent a civil war in jungles,
mountains, and rice paddies cannot be al-
tered very greatly, we believe, by bombing
bases, military personnel, and civilians in
North Vietnam; the evidence from World
War II, we think, supports this judgment.
If the objective is to frighten the leaders of
North Vietnam or China into submission,
experience from World War II suggests that
the method is psychologically inept and that
the opposite result from the one hoped for
is equally likely. If the objective is to force
the Soviet leadership to choose between co-
operating with the United States or sup-
porting Communist revolutionary movements
in Asia, the United States is, we believe, tak-
ing a foolhardy gamble. If Soviet leaders are
compelled by us to choose between a total
break with Communist China and a total
break with the United States, the Soviets
may well choose to break with the united
States. In any case, our policies make it
more difficult to strengthen Russian modera-
tion against Chinese intransigence. Yet, a
satisfactory settlement hinges more on the
attitudes of leaders in Communist China
and the Soviet Union than on North Vietnam.
If, then, the objective of recent policy is to
enable us to negotiate from strength at some
future time, we see little prospect that the
tide of war will turn in our favor in the fore-
seeable future. And if it does not? Must
we, in order to "negotiate from strength,"
then escalate the war to higher and higher
levels, run greater and greater risks, provide
ever more dramatic provocations to the North
Vietnamese to send their large army march-
ing southward, to the Chinese to enter ac-
tively into the war, and to the Soviets to
abandon their doctrine of peaceful co-
existence?
Third, our actions in Vietnam are, we
think, producing more enemies than friends
of the United States in Asia. It is difficult
for us to believe that the ordinary Viet-
namese, whether in the South or in the
North, see much difference between Amer-
icans and their predecessors, the French
colonials and their army. We Americans
know that our actions are not intended to
implement "white imperialism in Asia"; but
our policies and actions have a different and
much more sinister look to Asians. As to the
famous "falling dominoes" argument so com-
monly used to justify our actions, this is
almost exclusively an American doctrine; it
does not have much support among the
"dominoes" themselves. Indeed, these "dom-
inoes" have a thousand years experience in
resisting Chinese imperialism. Our two
greatest Asian allies, Japan and India, do
not endorse our actions in Vietnam, and so
far as we can judge, we lack the support of
leaders and the general public in those coun-
tries. Prime Minister Shastri has appealed
for negotiations, as have Secretary General
U Thant, Prince Sihanouk, and two Euro-
pean leaders who could hardly be regarded
as naive or sympathetic to Communist ex-
pansion, Pope Paul and General de Gaulle.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8166 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Fourth, we are deeply concerned with the
legal and moral bnplications of our actions
in Vietnam. Our military intervention ap-
pears to us, as it evidently does to much of
the rest of the world, to constitute a viola-
tion of the 1954 Geneva agreements. As to
our moral position, we cannot help wonder-
ing, Mr. President, whether your advisers
have given adequate weight in their calcula-
tions to the men, women? and children,
whose lives are irreparably harmed or de-
stroyed by our bombings. Have we grown
callous to the concrete human meaning of
"escalation"?
Finally, Mr. President, we believe that
American opinion itself is too divided to
sustain a long crisis in Vietnam. much less
an enlargement of our participation in that
war. Among the people we know best, the
community of scholars and teachers, there
is extensive opposition to escalation. In-
deed, a great many thoughtful people
throughout the country, the editors of the
New York Times, other journalists, publicists
of national repute and unimpeachable in-
tegrity, like Walter Lippmann, share our
view. We believe, therefore, that our policies
in Vietnam run the additional risk of creat-
ing such discontent, frustration, and dis-
unity here at home as to impair the achieve-
ment of other goals and our effectiveness in
dealing with the problem of Vietnam itself.
We therefore urge you, Mr. President, to
mobilize the energies of your administration
in Seeking a new and different solution to
the problem of Vietnam. In particular, we
urge you to enter into negotiations with the
leaders of countries whose agreement is
needed in order to bring about a cease-fire, to
neutralize the area, and to eliminate the
direct military participation of the United
States.
We should not presume to specify the pre-
cise nature of the negotiations, whether you
shOuld use the good offices of General de
Gaulle or the auspices of the United Nations,
or With what specific leaders or countries
you should seek negotiations.
We do strongly urge, however, that the
United States vigorously and sincerely seek
to arrive at a solution by negotiation, not by
escalation. We urge you not to lay down
requirements for entering into negotiations
that the North Vietnamese or others obvi-
ously are not going to meet. Though we may
continue to hope for it, we cannot reason-
ably demand or expect that a cease-fire and
a cessation of all activity will precede nego-
tiations: these are among the objectives to be
achieved by the negotiations themselves.
If the American Government pursues a
policy of negotiation as energetically as it
has, until now, pursued its policy of uni-
lateral action, we are most unlikely to be
worse off than we are now. Surely we shall
be better off than we are going to be as time
goes on and our position deteriorates as our
military intervention escalates. And there
is some reasonable hope that we shall move
toward a goal that after 10 years of unilat-
eral action still eludes us, a tenable solution
to the conflict in Vietnam.
Respectfully yours,
Jortar Bram,
Professor of History.
KARL DEUTSCH,
Professor of Political Science.
ROBERT TRIFFIN,
Professor of Economics.
ROBERr A. Dam,
Professor of Political Science.
GEORGE D. Moscow,
Professor of Mathematics.
MARY WRIGHT,
Professor of History.
P.8.?The following members of the faculty
of Yale University have subscribed to this
statement:
Department of anthropology; J. Buettner-
Janusch, associate professor; Harold C.
Conklin, professor; Richard N. Henderson,
instructor; Sidney W. Mintz, professor; June
Nash, assistant professor; Harold W. Schef-
tier, assistant professor.
Department of architecture: Berge Cher-
mayeff, professor; Peter Millard, assistant
professor.
Department of biochemistry: George
Brawerman, assistant professor; Michael
Caplow, associate professor; William Konigs-
berg, associate professor; S. Vinogradov, re-
search associate.
Department of biology: R. J. Andrew, as-
sistant professor; N. Philip Ashmole, assist-
ant professor; E. J. Boe11, professor; Joseph
Gall, professor; Arthur W. Galston? pro-
fessor; Ken Hartford, laboratory business
manager; Christopher K. Mathews, assistant
professor; R. Bruce Nickles, associate profes-
sor; Donald F. Poulson, professor; Thomas L.
Poulson, assistant professor; Charles L.
Remington, associate professor; J. P. 'Prink-
haus, professor.
Department of chemistry: William Doer-
ing, professor; Julian M. Sturtevant, pro-
fessor.
Department of classics: Eric A. Havelock,
professor; Gilbert Lama11, instructor; Adam
Parry, associate professor; Peter W. Rose, lec-
turer; Joseph A. RUSSO, instructor; Erich
Segal, visiting lecturer.
Divinity school: Rev. J. Edward Dirks, pro-
fessor; Rev. Robert C. Johnson, dean; Rev.
K. S. Latourette, professor emeritus; David
Little, assistant professor; Rev. B. D. Napier,
pi.ofessor.
Department of economics: Bela Balassa,
associate professor; Ronald G. Bodkin, assist-
ant professor; William C. Brainard, assistant
professor; Gerald K. FreHeiner, assistant pro-
fessor; Shane J. Hunt, assistant professor;
Tjalling C. Koopmans, professor; Donald C.
Mead, assistant professor; James L. Pierce,
assistant professor; Lloyd G. Reynolds, pro-
fessor; Mary T. Reynolds, research associate;
Peter Schran, assistant professor.
Department of engineering and applied
science: J. L. Hirshffeld, assistant professor;
Franz B. Tuteux, associate professor.
Department of English: E. Talbot Donald-
son, professor.
Department of epidemiology and public
health: Richard A. Greenberg, assistant pro-
fessor; Kathleen H. Howe, assistant professor;
Irving Miller, instructor; Anita Pepper, re-
search associate; M. Elizabeth Tennant, asso-
ciate professor emeritus; Joan H. Vicinus,
research assistant.
Institute of Far Eastern Languages: Ken-
neth D. Butler, assistant professor of Japa-
nese; Charles J. Chu, instructor in Chinese;
Hugh M. Stimson, assistant professor of
Chinese.
School of Forestry: William E. Reifsnyder,
associate professor.
Department of Geography: David E. Sny-
der, assistant professor.
Department of Geology: John H. Ostrom,
assistant professor; John Rodgers, professor;
A. L. Washburn, professor.
Department of History: Robert Anchor, in-
structor; Harry J. Benda, associate professor;
Hans W. Galzke, professor; Eugene Levy,
acting instructor; Robert S. Lopez, professor;
Edmund S. Morgan, professor; Norman Pol-
lack, assistant professor; Harry R. Rudin pro-
fessor; Robin W. Winks, associate professor;
C. Vann Woodward, professor; Arthur F.
Wright, professor.
Department of the History of Art: Kermit
S. Champa, instructor; Kurt W. Forster, as-
sistant professor; George Heard Hamilton,
professor; Robert L. Herbert, associate pro-
fessor; S. K. Kostof, assistant professor; Jules
D. Prown, assistant professor; Vincent Scully,
professor.
Department of Industrial Administration:
Roger Harrison, assistant professor; Fred I.
Steele, lecturer.
Law school: Layman E. Allen, associate
professor; Joseph W. Bishop, Jr., professor;
April 26, 1965
Boris I. Bittker, professor; 'Ralph S. Brown,
Jr., professor; Marshall Cohen, senior fel-
low; Thomas I. Emerson, professor; Grant
Gilmore, professor; Joseph Goldstein, pro-
fessor; Pauli Murray, senior fellow; Louis H.
Pollak, professor; Charles A. Reich, professor;
Clyde W. Summers, professor; Harry H. Wel-
lington, professor.
Department of linguistics: Sydney M.
Lamb, associate professor; Rulon Wells, pro-
fessor.
Department of mathematics: Joseph AUS-
lander, research associate; Richard Beals,
instructor; Frank Hahn, assistant professor;
G. A. Hedlund, professor; R. Larsen, instruc-
tor; William S. Massey, professor; J. Peter
May, instructor; Stephen Puckette, research
fellow; Charles E. Rickert, professor; George
B. Seligman, associate professor.
Medical school: Dr. Marie J. Browne, as-
sistant professor of pediatrics; Harry Fein,
research associate in physiology; Dr. Thomt.s
F. Ferris, instructor in medicine; Dr. Law-
rence R. Freedman, associate professor of
medicine; Daniel L. Kline, associate profes-
sor of physiology; Dr. Paul H. Lavletes, asso-
ciate clinical professor of medicine; Dr. N.
Ronald Morris, assistant professor of pharmx-
cology; Dr. Ellis A. Perlswig, clinical instruc-
tor, child study center; William H. Prusoff,
associate professor of pharmacology; Julia a
P. Rhymes, research associate in pediatrics
and nursing; Dr. Norman S. Talner, associate
professor of pediatrics; George Wolf, post-
doctoral fellow in anatomy.
Department of molecular biology and bio-
physics: Alan Garen, professor; Irwin Ruben-
stein, assistant professor; Robert C. Wilhelm,
assistant professor.
School Of music: Richmond Browne, as-
sistant professor; Robert Conant, assistant
professor.
Department of near eastern languages and
literatures: Martian Despalatovic, assistar t
in instruction of Serbo-Croatian; Marvin H.
Pope, professor of northwestern Semitic
languages.
School of nursing: Jean Barrett, profesoor;
Vera Keane, research associate.
Department of philosophy: Richard j.
Bernstein, associate professor; Norman S.
Care, instructor; Frederic B. Fitch, professor;
James Milliken, acting instructor; George A.
Schrader, professor.
Department of physics: Earl E. Ensberg,
research associate; Henry Margenau, profes-
sor; William W. Watson, professor.
Department of physiology: Dr. Louis H.
Nahum, lecturer emeritus.
Department of political science: Robert E.
Lane, professor.
Department of psychiatry: Dr. Jules V.
Coleman, clinical professor; Alice R. Corneli-
son, research associate; Yasuko Filby, re-
search fellow; Dr. Stephen Fleck, professor;
Dr. Robert J. Lifton, associate profesdor;
Roger K. McDonald, associate professor; Net
M. Morton, assistant professor; Dr. Albert 0.
Solnit, professor.
Department of psychology: Robert P. Abel-
son, professor; James B. Appel, assistant pro-
fessor; Sidney J. Blatt, assistant professor;
Claude E. Buxton, professor; Irvin L. Child,
professor; Dorothy D. Ciarlo, research as-
sociate; Michael Cole, assistant professor;
Edmund J. Fantino, assistant professor D.
H. Goldberg, lecturer; Michael Kahn, as-
sistant professor; William Kessen, associatt
professor; Julius Laffal, associate clinical
professor; Paul Schulze, clinical instructor;
Alan P. Towbin, assistant clinical professor,
Cynthia Wild, assistant professor.
Department of religious studies: Rev.
Hans W. Frei, associate professor; Rev.
James M. Gustafson, professor.
Department of romance languages: Vic..
ton H. Brornbert, professor of French; Man-
uel Duran, professor of Spanish; Robert G.
Mead, Jr., visiting lecturer in Spanish; Ed--
gar Pauk, acting instructor in Italian; Henr.
Peyre, professor of French.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
'
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Department of Slavic languages and litera-
tures; ,Richard F. Gustafson, assistant pro-
fessor of Russian.
Department of sociology: Wendell Bell,
professor; Robert M. Cook, assistant profes-
sor; Diana Crane, assistant professor; George
A. Hueco, assistant professor; James A. Mau,
assistant professor; Stephen W. Reed, as-
sociate professor.
Department of statistics: G. Yeo, research
associate and lecturer.
Additions to the original list of subscribers:
Divinity school: Rev. Charles W. Forman.
Drama school: Edward C. Cole, associate
professor.
Department of English: Edward J. Gordon,
associate professor.
Department of epidemiology and public
health' Jean Emmons associate in research.
Department of History: Prosser Gifford, as-
sistant professor; J. 11. Hester, professor;
Staughton Lynd, assistant professor; D. A.
Smith, acting instructor; M. W. Swanson,
acting instructor.
Department of mathematics: Howard Gar-
land, instructor.
Medical school: Dr. Ell,sha Atkins, associate
professor of medicine; Dr. Jerome Grunt, as-
sociate professor of pediatrics; Dr. George F.
Thornton, instructor in medicine.
Department of philosophy: Robert S.
Brumbaugh, professor; David Carr, acting
instructor; Charles W. Hendel, professor
emeritus; T. K. Scott, Jr., assistant professor;
Paul Weiss, professor.
Department of physics: Joseph E. Roth-
berg, instructor.
_Department of psychiatry; Dr. Theodore
Lids.
Department of psychology: Barry E. Col-
lins, assistant professor; Doris K. Collins, re-
Search associate; E. E. Krieckhaus, assistant
professor.
Department of sociology; Roy C. Treadway,
acting instructor.
[From the Christian Science Monitor, Apr.
21, 10851
TRUE ASSESSMENY
To the CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR:
I was a -junior officer of the 20th Indian
_ Division (under the command of the late
Gen. Sir Douglas D. Gracey) and arrived in
Saigon from Burma in September 1945.
We were Welcomed by the Annamites--
placa.rds from the airport to the town center
(Rue Catinat) were marked "Welcome to the
Allies, to the British and to the Americans?
but we have no room for the French."
The government was being run efficiently
by the Popular Front of Vietminh groups?
to whom Emperor Bao Dal had abdicated in
August 1945.
On September 23, the Free French (not
Vichy French), without warning to anyone,
seized all the public buildings such as the
Palals de Justice, the post office, the power
station, etc., and hosited the French Tri-
color.
There followed 10 days of negotiation be-
tween the British?who had only one Gurkha
battalion of 20th Indian Division to support
them (the rest of the division was traveling
from Burma by sea)?under the command of
Brigadier Taunton?and the Vietminh. No
conclusion was reached, and the Vietminh
groups withdrew, determined to fight for the
freedom of French. Indochina in. accordance
With the ideas of the Atlantic Charter, well
known to them, also of General de Gaulle's
Brazzaville speech of 1943 offering independ-
ence to French Lids:china after, the war.
General Gracey then took under his com-
mand the Japanese surrendered personnel
(under Field Marshal Count Teramchl) in
order, to dgfend. _Saigon-Malan from the
VietTA14- V.11-2 attached each night.
; personally had a Colonel Endo and
Lieutenant Colonel MUarata, report to me as
the ammunition and 'transport officer of the
20th Indian Division each morning, and we
sent lend-lease U.S. vehicles to redeploy the
Japanese forces for the defense, and also
issued more weapons to them (including 3-
inch British mortars which had been cap-
tured in February 1942, in Singapore).
For 2 months (October and November,
1945) the Vietminh suffered severe casual-
ties in constant attacks on these Japanese
troops and the 20th Indian Division. Thus
was a bridgehead secured for the arrival of
General Leclerc and his Foreign Legion
troops from Madagascar.
The present was stems directly from these
events.
Personally I have no doubt that the legiti-
mate government of Saigon in September
1915, was that of the Vietminh who had
resisted the Japanese during the occupa-
tion?with the help of OSS supplies para-
chuted to them in 1943, 1944, and 1945.
This is a piece of missing history. I be-
lieve its public airing may help the American
people make a correct decision about the
future of their relations with Vietnam.
I am not a Communist, nor even a sup-
porter of the British Labor Party, but a sub-
scribing member of the Tory Party?yet I
believe no true assessment of the situation
is possible without the information I have
outlined above.
ROBERT DENTON WILLIAMS.
ABINGTON, NORTHAMPTON, ENGLAND.
[From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Apr. 20,
19,65]
INTERNATIONAL PRESSURES To HALT BOMBING
RAIDS IN NORTH VIETNAM CONTINLTING TO
INCREASE?IN TENS CONTEXT, CANADIAN
MEETS THANT TODAY?FUTURE OF U.N. SAID
To BE LINKED TO ASIAN CRISIS
(By Donald Grant)
International pressures to halt bombing of
North Vietnam as a condition for negotia-
tions to end the war are increasing in the
United Nations. Most diplomats believe that
the pressures will continue to increase.
The Canadian Minister of External Af-
fairs, Paul Martin, is lunching with Secretary
General U Thant today. Canadian policy is
clear on the subject of bombing North Viet-
nam?and important, as Canada is ra. member
of the three-nation international control
commission for Vietnam. The other two are
India and Poland.
Poland, a Communist country, follows a
straight anti-American policy on the whole
Vietnamese issue. Until recently, India
tended to join with Canada in a more mod-
erate position.
President Lyndon B. Johnson has become
irritated?and let it be known that he was?
with both Canada's and India's present posi-
tions. Ile has evidenced a similar irritation
with Thant's attitude.
This is a part of the background of Cana-
dian Minister of External Affairs Martin's
visit with Thant today.
Lester B. Pearson, the Prime Minister of
Canada, was active in D.N. affairs for many
years. He was the choice of the United
States for first Secretary General of the or-
ganization when it was founded 20 years ago.
The cause of President Johnson's irrita-
tion with Canadian policy was a speech given
by Pearson in Philadelphia. April 2.
At that time Pearson suggested that a
"supension in the airstrikes against North
Vietnam, at the right time, might provide the
Hanoi authorities with an opportunity, if
they wish to take it, to inject some flexibility
into their policy without appearing to do
so as the direct result of military pressure."
Thant has refrained, so far, from making a
direct appeal for a cease-fire to avoid further
White House irritation. At has press confer-
ence last Thursday, however, Thant was asked
how he would assess Pearson's efforts in be-
half of peace in Vietnam. Thant replied
that he had "high esteem" for Pearson, for
his proposals already made and for those he
might make in the future.
8167
The same "high esteem" phrase was used
by the Secretary General's spokesman to
characterize Senator J. W. FULBRIGHT, Demo-
crat, of Arkansas, yesterday, after Fur,
BRIGHT'S statement advocating a halt in
American airstrikes against North Vietnam.
Thant, again, refrained from indorsing
FULERIGHT'S suggestion, but his spokesman
said that the Secretary General valued the
Senator's "vision, wisdom, and approach to
international problems."
Tomorrow, the United Nations Disarma-
ment Commission will meet?including rep-
resentatives of all 114 members of the world
organization. The meeting will be only for
the purpose of organizing the session, but
when regular meetings begin, next Monday,
the situation in Vietnam and the American
bombings of North Vietnam are expected to
be major subjects of debate.
Thursday, the 33-nation committee con-
sidering the problem of U.N. peacekeeping
operations will hold an open meeting. Viet-
nam may or may not enter the discussion at
this session, but most diplomats here see a
close connection between the future of the
U.N. and its inability, so far, to tackle the
problem of ending the war in Vietnam.
Aofi Enoxntge:naiAtco
such diplomats is Canada's Minister
are facing, at this moment," Martin
said last week in Montreal, "one of the most
serious crises we have faced since the end
of the Second World War. It is not a crisis
which has come upon us suddenly. As
Canadians?as members of the international
commission?we have watched that crisis
build up in Vietnam over the past 10 years,
It has now reached the point of open con-
flict.
"It has reached the point where that con-
flict, by the progression of stroke and coun-
terstroke, could expand beyond the limits
of control.
"In such a situation the interests of the
international community are deeply engaged.
We would be right to expect, therefore, that
the international community would bring its
influence to bear upon that situation. And
the channel that comes to mind for doing
that is, of course, the United Nations."
Martin expressed his regret that the U.N.
had not been able to act. In another part of
his speech he urged "universal membership"
for the U.N.?a phrase meaning that all na-
tions, including Communist China, should
be members so the organization would be
able to act in crises such as the present one.
The Canadian minister pointed out that
"the good offices of the Secretary General
have been available to the parties through-
out this critical situation." He said that he
was "hopeful that the Secretary General will
be able to play an important part in carrying
forward the imaginative and far-reaching
proposals now under consideration for the
cooperative development of the whole region
of southeast Asia."
Martin's chief, Pearson, along with Paul
Hoffman of the UN., advanced the economic
development plan later taken up by President
Johnson. The U.N.?after peace is estab-
lished?may play a large role in this plan.
The Canadians, however, believe that the
United Nations must be active in the political
search for peace, as well as acting as an
economic agent, if it is to maintain itself
as a viable organization.
Unable to keep the peace, Martin pointed
out, the League of Nations "foundered on
the rock of collective security." Martin then
asked: "Are we going to allow, can we afford
to allow, the United Nations to share the
fate of its predecessor?"
{From the Portland Oregonian, Apr. 25, 19651
PROPAGANDA CLAIMS JUSTIFIED?ATROCITIES
MAR VIETNAM WAR
(By Michael T. Malloy)
(As the war in Vietnam grows more brutal,
charges of atrocities committed by each side
increase. The Americans and the South
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150020,-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8168 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 26, 1965
Vietnamese claim that the Communist guer-
rillas have murdered thousands of minor offi-
cials since 1961. The Communists trump
this by raising the figure to hundreds cif
thousands tortured and maimed by the gov-
ermnent. This dispatch looks beyond the
propagandists' claims to the truth that in
this war neither side's hands are entirely
clean.)
SAIGON.?A squad of Vietcong sneaks
silently into a sleeping village. I Wearing san-
dals cut from rubber tires, they pad silently
to the house of the village chief, who is loyal
to the government in Saigon. '
They pull the chief from his bed, wake up
the villagers and assemble them in the pub-
lic square. They pick out one or two more
men who are known to have Informed the
government of their movements.
Then they cut the throats Of the men they
have chosen.
The villagers who watch will be less eager
to talk next time government troops conne
looking for information about the where-
abouts of the Communists.
This is an atrocity of war. So is this:
RED CAPTIVE TORTURED
A Vietnamese Ranger captain squats on
the chest of a Vietcong captive and pours
water from a rusty tin mug into a towel
wrapped around his victim's face.
The Vietcong struggles and gags as the
cloth becomes so soaked that only water
rushes into his nose and mouth when he
gasps for air.
A sergeant Slams his heavy combat boot
into the prisoner's side. Two enlisted men
holding the guerrilla's ankles and legs be-
gin twisting them.
The captain dips his mug into a rusty
bucket and ladles out more water. This is
an "interrogation" on the battlefield, viet-
namese style.
Late one night in February the Vietcong
overrun a district headquatrers 70 miles
northeast of Saigon.
Whey lead four American soldiers into near-
by jungles.
The Americans are bound. Then begins a
systematic beating. Blows rain on the Amer-
icans' heads, stomachs, kidneys, legs.
After a time the Americans are shot. Their
bodies are left to rot in the jungle. A few
days later they are found.
This is an interrogation on the battle-
field, Vietcong style.
Chalk up one more atrocity for each side.
WAR TOUGH BUSINESS
War is a rough and tough business. The
war for control of the rice?rich plains Of
South Vietnam is getting to be just as Ugly
as any that has ever been fought.
When opposing groups of men contest, a
piece of land with guns, planes, bombs,
na.palm, mortars, and artillery, elements of
- terror are bound to play a role in the conflict.
Who is committing these atrocities? This
is war.
Vietnamese Armed Forces Regulation 6b9-
TT-20 says:
"No torture of any kind is allowed to be
performed with the prisoners in order to get
Information from them."
But a wiry little Vietnamese lieutenant
with a chestful of combat ribbons says: -
"The government sometitiles looks in the
other direction."
It looked in the other direction a I ew
Months -ago when infantrymen of the 21st
Division pulled six Vietcong soldiers out of
a tor.hole and handed them over to the bat-
talion commander.
Bullets were still whizzing overhead. The
battalion was trying to regroup for an at-
tack. The commander handed them over to
a middle-aged sergeant with a nod of the
head.
The sergeant marched them to a small
canal and shot them all.
The government was looking away last
month when a Vietnamese Marine Corps lieu-
tenant looped a pink towel around a prison-
er's neck and ordered two husky Marines to
play tug-of-war with the towel.
It was looking away when a ranger unit
operating in mountain country north of
Saigon a few weeks ago found three wounded
Vietcong in a bamboo grove after a fierce bat-
tle and shot them all simply to avoid the
labor of carrying them back to base.
This sort of murder in the field reflects the
grim economics of war.
The battalion commander could have saved
his six prisoners. It would have cost him
three or four men to do it, though, because
they would have had to be guarded.
The beating of prisoners is ignored and
sometimes condoned by the American advis-
ers who accompany the Vietnamese into
battle.
"If I had to choose between beating up a
guy or being killed by his buddies, I'd take
torture ,every time," said an American Army
strgeant riding with this correspondent on
a helicopter assault into the central high-
lands a few months back.
mums'. BEATINGS PRACTICAL
The object of beating a prisoner is to get
desperately needed information.
The prisoner who gagged and struggled un-
der the ranger captain's water torture was
a Vietcong regular. His age and his full kit
of equipment, indicated he might be a senior
officer.
The captain who squatted on his chest
wanted desperately to know whether he was
about to be attacked by the hundreds of Viet-
cong who had quite obviously just left the
thatch and bamboo training camp where
the prisoner was seized.
A man's brutality depends on his emotions.
If his life is in danger, if he has just seen
a. friend shot down by the man he is about
to question, he is less likely to be kind to
his prisoner.
A Vietnamese paratrooper with 12 years of
combat experience says:
"It depends on the battle. If the para-
troopers go on an operation and none of
them gets hurt, then the prisoners are
lucky.
"If one of the paratroopers gets killed,
then nobody can guarantee the lives of those
prisoners."
The Vietcong, it is often said ?here, prac-
tice unspeakable savagery in order to retain,
through terror, the cooperation of villagers.
The Americans say more than 20,000 village
chiefs have been killed since 1961.
They tell of guerrillas impressing hundreds
of peasants for coolie labor to help them
move supplies and of hundreds more to fight
in their battles.
The Vietcong have even begun attacking
American civilians here perhaps as a way to
terrorize the Americans themselves. They
have blown up a ball park, a movie theater
and the American Embassy in the past year
and a half. They have captured at least two
civilian aid officials and three missionaries.
One aid official was shot when he refused to
return to Vietcong captivity after having es-
caped once and been caught.
But it seems evident that if the Com-
munists have learned savagery, it has been
at least partly a lesson from the Vietnamese
Government itself.
DIEM REGIME HARD
There was, of course, the 9-year reign of
Ngo Dinh Diem, who shipped thousands of
political opponents to Poulo Condore, a
tropical prison island off the coast, who
raided Buddhist pagodas, who ordered his
troops to fire on Buddhist mobs, who packed
Up thousands of peasants bag and baggage
and moved them into strategic hamlets that
Were little better than prison camps.
But even after Diem was ousted and assas-
sinated in November 196$, the government
continued to be, perhaps, somewhat less than
humane.
The case of Le Dna, a terrorist who was
caught this month in a Da Nang hotel used
as an American billet with 5 pounds of
plastique crammed in a transistor radio casa
is only the most recent example.
Le Dua's trial was postponed for several
days running, while he "sang like a canary"
as one of the U.S. officials put it. When he
finally did show up, he was sporting a,
thoroughly blackened eye that twitched i a
its socket periodically. And he was sti 1
groggy from the effects of sodium pentathol
truth serum.
Yet there remain signs of hope. The Viet -
namese are anything but a barbarous people
at heart. When the last bullet has been
spent and the last knife sheathed, their good
nature bubbles back to the surface like a jot
of clear water in a muddy pool.
POINT RICHMOND, CALIF.,
April 26, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.0,7
We fully support your stand on our coun-
try's course of action on South Vietnam.
DAN/EL BREWER.
ENCINITAS, CALIF.,
April 25, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.:
Never regret what you are doing. No
monuments perhaps but love from us all.
ELIZABETH B. Nswrort.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
April 24, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.:
Warmest congratulations and thanks for
urging peaceful settlement and denouncing
odious and senseless war.
J. F. DELORD.
SUDBURY, MASS.,
April 24, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
We strongly support your stand regarding
U.S. activities in Vietnam.
ELIZABETH and WILLIAM WARREN
LOS AN- GELES, CALIF.,
" April 25, 1965
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.:
Heard your speech on Vietnam. Agree
with you 100 percent. Keep American peo-
ple informed.
SYLVIA WARNER.
THE JOHNS HOPK- INS HOSPITAL,
Baltimore, Md., March 10, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator, the Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I support you in
your stand on Vietnam. I have supported
you as long ago as 1962, which year was spent
as an American adviser in Saigon. Last year,
when you dissented from the carte-blanche
approval of the President's actions in Asia,
I was in sympathy with you. Having eft
the Navy in December, I now feel free to
openly declare my thoughts.
Three years ago, the assistance to Vietnam
had certain clandestine overtones, designed
to conceal our efforts from the ICC and vocal
critics such as yourself. The ability of the
military to thus act outside the interests ;end
intent of the people was partially instru-
mental in my decision to resign. Casualty
figures and troop numbers were handled with
utmost care to avoid frightening the public,
until the election campaign pointed to the
need for popillar support. It seems that,
knowing American respect for our boys,
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the adMinistration found it convenient to
dwell On the -hardships and casualties. The
consse Of,policy has changed from conceal-
Ment o ,involvemeht as public emotion is
mustered to quell critics. In this atmos-
phere of growing hysteria, it seems especially
important to congratulate you on your
courage.
Although the Constitution reserves for
Congress the privilege of declaring war, his-
torically Executive action followed by public
indignation have lead Congress to the point
Where no alternative was open to 1,1 short of
war. Now, before we replace "Jerry" and
"Jap" in our vocabulary of hate with "VC"
and "Chink," it is important that reasonable
opposition be heard. If the American mind
is molded to a just war in Asia and Cuba,
then the U.N. and world peace become con-
cepts for another generation to define.
Although I am no longer a constituent
since I left the Navy, I will continue to re-
gard you as my Senator so long as you con-
tinue to speak from your conscience. Today
you may be called a character of a man, but
it is of no importance if in the long run you
are remembered as a man of character.
Very truly,
MELVIN E. GOVIG,
Director, Medical Record Services.
GREATER PORTLAND
COUNCIL OF CNURCHES,
Portland, Oreg., April 12, 1965.
THE PRESIDENT,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
M. PRESIDENT: The burden of decision re-
garding Vietnam which you must shoulder is
grievous and we would not add to it. We,
the board of directors of the Greater Portland
Council of Churches, wish to aid and support
you.
We support you fully in your statement of
April 7 concerning your desire to follow the
way of unconditional negotiation. We are
pleased that you have stated, forthrightly
your ultimate goal of just peace through
negotiation for the Vietnam conflict. Your
offer of $1 billion in aid to eradicate hunger
in southeast Asia, to be channeled through
the United Nations, is heartening.
On the other hand, for some time We have
been perturbed by the escalation of the war
in Vietnam for fear it might advance beyond
the point of no return. As a Christian body,
We have deplored the increasing loss of life,
,the use of napalm bombs and gas?even
though of a nonlethal action?which awaken
horror in all parts of the world, and even in
our allies.
May God in His graciousness guide you as
you lead our Nation to a peaceful negotiation
of the Vietnam conflict,
Sincerely,
WILLIAM B. CATE,
Executive Secretary.
PAUL S. WRIGHT,
President.
THE CLEVELAND Panss,
Cleveland, Ohio, April 22, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: This is not the first time I
have written to you in grateful appreciation
for your valiant fights for seemingly unpopu-
lar causes. I earnestly hope you will not only
continue, but redouble your attempts to
awaken the public conscience regarding our
reprehensible policy in Vietnam.
I am a lifelong independent Democrat who
has lived through two world wars, and I have
been a daily newspaper writer for 40 years.
Yet now, reluctantly, I have come to the
conclusion that the warhawks have their
talons imbedded in President Johnson so
deeply that it will require a superhuman ef-
No. 73-11
fort to persuade him his policies are leading
straight to a tremendous bloodletting?prob-
ably followed by nuclear annihilation for
millions.
The point we must strive to bring home
to our people is one on which you have been
hammering?that we have grossly violated
the 1954 Geneva treaty terms by shipping
troops, arms, and munitions into South Viet-
nam. Also, that we have without apparent
shame been as responsible as anyone for the
fact that the Diem goverment never held the
1956 elections called for by the 1954 agree-
ments.
As usual, truth is the first casualty in war-
time. The propaganda emanating from
Washington is conditioning our people to
stand for a war which we had no business
entering in the first place.
Our people are told we are in a fight to
guarantee the freedom of others. What
freedoms? Since the Vietnamese never have
been permitted to elect their own govern-
ments, how can our country have the crass
effrontery to say we are shedding our blood
(and spending mounting millions of dollars)
for freedom? The poor rice farmer of Viet-
nam can have no illusions about this situa-
tion, or there wouldn't be so many of them
who apparently are Vietnamese in the day-
time and Vietcong after dark.
That, incidentally, is the exact remark
I heard a wounded GI make on TV when he
was shipped home?until an officer quickly
stepped in and shut him up.
I am among the millions of Americans who
are simply crushed by the obvious fact that
we really didn't have a choice at the last
national elections. We couldn't vote for
Goldwater for many reasons, particularly
because he was obviously a irresponsible war-
hawk.
But now look. The man we felt offered
us a decent alternative has apparently turned
his back on reason. I can never again vote
to Lyndon Baines Johnson. The fight for
civil rights and the war on poverty are won-
derful goals. But what good will it have
done for us to achieve them if the world is
shortly to be left in ashes?
For the love of heaven, Senator, redouble
your efforts. You will have the blessing of
history if we can overcome the impending
disaster.
Sincerely,
JACK CLOWSER,
Sports Department.
THE GREATER PORTLAND
COITNCIL OF CHURCHES,
Portland, Oreg., April 14, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We have attached a
copy of the letter which we sent on April 12
to the President of the United States regard-
ing the situation in Vietnam.
Sincerely,
,
WILLIAM B. CATE,
Executive Secretary.
INDIANAPOLIS, IND.,
April 19, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I support the grow-
ing numbers of Senators calling for a peace-
ful solution to end the war in Vietnam.
You speak for me when you say "* * * a
continuation of the State Department's
policy in South Vietnam is certain to lead
to a massive war in Asia * s." We can
only do so very little to prevent this but we
need to do all that we can and we do admire
you for your courage to stand in this day
when so many will attempt to do so. Thank
you again and take courage. Our thoughts
are with you, hoping we have not as yet
reached the "point of no return."
Mrs. LORETTA CORDELL.
8169
HEIFER PROJECT, INC.,
Goshen, Ind., April 21, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: The developments in
Vietnam and elsewhere the past few weeks
reminds me of the coming of World War I
and World War II. I wonder how It looks to
you? Because I am sure that I do not have
enough of the truth about the situation, I do
not want to draw conclusions unduly; but I
am confident that the movement of our
present foreign policy is heading toward
world war III. I want to see it stopped and
I know you do too. How to get it done is
my big question.
It looks as though the "military-industrial
complex" of which President Eisenhower
warned has been having a real field day. I
was surprised a few months ago to read in
our local paper, the "Elkhart Truth" (a
fairly conservative paper), the story about
the "Missile Gap of Sixties, A Myth of His-
tory" by Everett S. Allen, Here was given?
about 5 years too late?the story of how the
American people were fooled into accepting
a $17 billion increase of our missiles. I
wonder if a similar deal is being worked out
behind the scenes again. Can you find out
the truth for me?
Not at all cynical about the present ad-
ministration (at least yet) I think they are
taking the whole world in the direction of
destruction. I believe President Johnson
honestly means to offer all of this help to
southeast Asia after the hostilities cease.
but I doubt that many people over there will
believe it. And if this is allowed to escalate
into a major war the human race is probably
doomed. This is what Dr. Otto Hahn told
me in his office in Gottingen, Germany, in
1959, "Any major war will be a nuclear war
and a nuclear war is likely to destroy all of
mankind."
It seems to me a little handful of you Sen-
ators there at Washington might be able to
work together and turn the tide. It seems
to me of critical importance.
If I can do anything out here at grassroots
please let me know.
Cordially,
DAN WEST.
P.S.?Can you do anything to help the U.N.
meeting on disarmament now? I should
hate to see that fail.
WICHITA, KANS.,
April 21, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: According to our Constitu-
tion only Congress has the power to declare
war. However, the President, as Commander
In Chief of the Armed Forces, can involve
us in undeclared war not necessarily ap-
proved by the American people. It is time
an amendment be made to the Constitution
which will protect the people from the trig-
ger-happy politicians.
Sincerely,
DON BLAINE.
LA CROSSE, Was.,
April 19, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Hon. ERNEST GRUENING,
U.S. Senators irom Oregon, and Alaska,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE AND SENATOR GRUE-
NING: I am writing to say that I agree com-
pletely with your stand on Vietnam. I am
only 15 years old and can't do much but I
read with interest what you have said. In
our classroom at school, I am the only one
that agrees completely with your stand. I
don't know if this is due to the fact that this
area is heavily Republican, but I am sur-
prised at anyone advocating war. We should
have learned in Korea, _ YOU don't know
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8110 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 26, 1965
what the Red Chinese will do if they do have
the atomic bomb now. I am a Democrat and
worked with Young DemoCrafh last year to
help elect President Johnson and other can-
didates. However, I don't like his Vietnam
policy. I hope the President Will press for
negotiation and you will continue your stand
on South Vietnam. I am also interested- in
going into politics some day. Do you have
any information on a career in politicsr I
would appreciate any information you might
have.
Sincerely yours,
CmusroPute KGECHIVIANN.
CAMBRIDGX, MASS.,
Aril 22, 1965.
SEBIGIOT WAYNE 1VIORSE,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.:
In your stand an the Vietnamese situation
you speak for other citizens of 'United States
like myself.
ANNETTE SILBERT.
NORTHVILLB, MICH.,
April 20, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.:
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am with you in all
your efforts to stop the Vietnam war. It
seems incredible that our country could be
pushing such an outmoded, vicious, and
dangerous military effort. I hope Senator
FaLienonr's suggestion of a temporary lull
will be pushed in Congress and gain the ear
of the President. Many thanks, and please
keep up the fight for peace.
Respectfully,
Ax-r:Oz M. WOODRIIST.
Tian Sruna, Anima/. CL/NIC,
Cleveland, Ohio, A'pril 20, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
, DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Please continue to
eak_ out against the bombing of North
'Vietiip.m?the local newspapers rarely carry
VIM,-40mments except to criticize them.
Is there any way of being placed on your
Mailing list to obtain the full text of your
statements?
Tours for a saner world.
Sincerely,
Mrs. D. A. McKee:is.
LUNN EAPOL/S, MINN.,
April 19, 1965.
Senator W. MORSE,
U.S. Senate.
13aka You have many people behind
'Stu. Please keep informing the V.S. people
41Mt the truth in Vietnam. As yott said,
We Must deal with the rebels in South Viet-
naM before We can have peace. It is a
civil war and we Must deal with that reality
!test.
Congratulations and keep it up.
Sincerely,
Mrs. A. W. Waxama.
ALEXANDRIA, VA.
Senator Moms,
United States of America,
Washington, D.C.
Dr-Ait SENATOR: I thank you from the bot-
tom of my heart for speaking out and' tram-
ing the American people about the war in
,Vietnam. If only there Were more Sena-
Unlike you.
Sincerely,
'JANET M. HANNAN.
RICHMOND, VA.,
April 20, 1965.
Bon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, D.C.
Mr PEAR. SENATOR NtoREE: As one of your
long-time admirers, I must take pen in hand
and urge you to step up your well known
opinions by more and more public expres-
sions.
It is not that you have been correct from
the first, but that the entrance of North
Vietnam openly in the conflict will also bring
in Red China. Then we will be at war. That
is exactly what you were saying long ago.
My background has been on all other mat-
ters a strong supporter of the Johnson and
Nennedy administrations. I say this to show
I am deeply sincere in my support of you
Mid your position.
Now is the time, Senator Morse, for a dem-
onstration of _genuine statesmanship and
you possess all the prerequisites so rarely
found in one person: character, integrity,
intelligence, oratorical ability, and knowl-
edge.
Seriously you must step out and keep the
story in front of the American people before
it is too late.
Sincerely,
LEONARD HIZER.
Nesnvrtr.r, TENN.,
April 19, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I am a Christian lay-
woman and I am very concerned about the
situation in Vietnam. I am aware of your
opposition to administration policies. I
would like to express my approval and let
you know that I am behind you. The only
answer to the problems of the world is the
love of Christ for all men. We need more
people who will at least try to put that love
into action both in private and public life.
May you find strength from God to continue
your stand.
Sincerely,
MTS. DAVID KRAFT.
NEW Your, N.Y.,
April 21, 1965,
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I agree with your
Views on Vietnam. I only wish there would
exist less aggressive men in our executive
branch. Please continue your fight against
hypocrisy and war.
JOHN PAGGIOLL
CHICAGO, ILL.,
April 19, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. SENATOR: This is to belatedly
thank you for the frank exposition of your
views While we were riding in from the air-
port for you to make your address to the
Warsaw ghetto memorial meeting. I must
confess I was considerably shaken by your
feeling that the movement is toward attack
on Chinese bases, leading inevitably to gen-
eral war. The average citizen, as you can
well imagine, faces nothing but frustration
when up against the alternatives of doing
nothing, marching in peace parades, or writ-
ing letters to his representatives, the latter
bringing canned replies with which, in my
case, you must be well familiar. Despite
this, I have again written as per the attached,
to Senators 1010orawks and DIRKSEN. Is there
anything to be gained from Such efforts? Do
you rectnnmend any more meaningful action?
Sincerely yours,
PHILIP BRAIL.
APRIL 19, 1965.
Senator Evnarrr DIRKSEN,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Mn. SENATOR: I have written you on
previous occasion voicing opposition to U.S.
conduct of affairs in Vietnam. I have care-
fully read your replies, and some of your
speeches in the Senate, and sin mindful of
the tact that there is too wide a divergence
of opinion to be narrowed by the enforced
limitations of a letter. Let me say only that
my opinions developed only after wide read-
ing on the French Indochina background, the
1954 agreement, and subsequent deVe14-
ments, as well as constant reading of Amer-
ican news reports, supplemented by English
and French, which are much more complete,
Such reading just doesn't confirm the fixed
American position that the struggle is an
invasion from the north, which Hanoi could
turn off at will, even if it so willed.
Be that as it may, and recognizing that nc
exposition by me is likely to temper yow
views toward those of your Senate colleagues
MORSE, GRITENING, and others, may I maks-
this suggestion which seems possible of ac.
ceptance by both sides. A Geneva conference
on Cambodia could assemble all the coon
tries concerned with Vietnam, and permit
informal exchanges. This could provide ib
way to get around the hurdles of "face" and
preconditions. While the conference would
formally deal with Cambodia, both side;
could put out feelers for a Vietnam settle -
ment.
Reports in the New York Times and the
St. Louis Post Dispatch, and recent books hi
Pulitzer Prize winners Browne (Are) and Nal-
berstrom (New York Times) makes it clear
that in South Vietnam, we have a most un-
stable and unpopular ally, that any hope of 1
clear-cut victory by us for them is hopeless,
and that our losses are much greater thau
publicized. Peace is to the mutual interest
of all parties including us, and its pursuit is
therefore your obligation as well as mine.
The President certainly seems to want it.
Wouldn't a Cambodian conference open the
way?
Sincerely yours,
PHILIP BRAIL.
AMERICAN BAPTIST CAMPUS
MINISTRY IN NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
Berkeley, Calif., March 30, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: During this mom( h
a number of us have engaged in fasting,
each for 46 hours, as?(1) in repentance for
our share, unwilling though it is, in the
brutal, barbarous, illegal, and immoral war
in Vietnam; and (2) as a deep expression at
our concern that negotiation and economic
and social aid may take the place of m 1-
itary escalation there.
Sincerely yours,
GEORGE L. COLLINS.
BRITNSWICK, MAINE,
April 21, 1965
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate.
Derat SENATOR MORSE: Although I am x ot
one of your constituents, I want to thank
you for speaking out about our present folly
In Vietnam. Why are so few people in Wash-
ington criticizing this continuing insanity?
I feel sure that a major reason why States
such as Maine turned down Goldwater so
heartily was the fear that he might do in
Vietnam just what the present administra-
tion is doing.
As Norman Thomas said on Monday eve-
ning in Brunswick, "Goldwater being dead
yet speaketh."
More power to you.
Yours sincerely,
CECIL T. Hca. mEs.
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA,
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.,
April 21, 1965..
SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: We write to ex-
press our approval of your deep questions
and objections to the administration's l'or-
eign "policy" in Vietnam. We agree that the
trouble there is one of a civil war nature;
that we have violated the Geneva accords of
1954; that the administration has given no
good reasons for our present bombings, in
North Vietnamese territory. We especially
wish to praise you for your Johns HolAins
address.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
April 267 1965
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Sorry that this id so short. We have just
written more lengthy letters (but not of
praise) 'to the President and to several Sen-
ators, urging the latter to join your stand.
WM. 0, BOARDMAN,
ROBERT BAKER,
Instructors.
PIER.MONT, N.Y.,
April 21, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Though not a Con-
stituent of yours, I want to express my
thanks and admiration to you for your con-
sistent and courageous stand on Vietnam. I
only wish more Senators and others in the
Government had your insight and courage.
More power to you, and good luck.
Sincerely yours,
WILLIAM W. STAFFORD.
WOODBURY, CONN.,
April 21, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR 'SENATOR Moan: Haw glad we are, how
thankful to have at least a few of you who
are holding firm in your opposition to the
War in South Vietnam.
This is just to send a word of encourage-
ment as you make your stand these days. I
hope somehow you will be able to persuade
some of the other congressmen of the folly
Of our involvement in this Vietnamese civil
war.
Respectfully yours,
EBEN T. CHAPMAN.
URBANA, ILL.,
April 20, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Your career in the
Senate has been one that I have admired for
What must be close to 20 years by now.
But at no time have your courage, dili-
gence, and honesty been more apparent than
in your struggle to speak the truth about
Vietnam.
If we manage somehow to pull out of this
morass I am sure that the Nation will be in
your debt.
Thank you for being a good Senator.
,Sincerely,
GENE GILIVIORE.
BOSTON, MASS.,
April 20, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: You may wonder, as
the escalation grows of our attack against
North Vietnam and our commitment to a
military "solution" increases, if your effort
is worthwhile. I hope that you will take
strength from the knowledge that thou-
sands of Americans depend upon the lone
stand of you and Senator GRUENING as the
voices of realism in our confused political
scene. May you find the patience and forti-
tude necessary to discover means of convinc-
ing adequate numbers of your colleagues in
the Senate to a real desire for a solution to
the dangerous conflict in southeast Asia.
Yours sincerely,
4LICK BARTHOLOMEW.
I
ATHENS, OHIO.
April 21, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Stand firm, stand
tirra, and stand firs,
There are many of us who are appalled
and ashamed at what the United States is
doing in Vietnam. You are right, we do not
belong there with our bombs and gas. Make
a speech on the Senate floor every day to keep
us all from becoming lulled into acceptance
of the situation.
We enjoyed your speech at Ohio University.
Sincerely yours,
MAILJOR/E S. STONE.
ST. Louis, Mo.,
April 21,1965.
DF,AR SENATOR MORSE: I want you to know
that I fully support your stand against ex-
tending the Vietnam war, and I hope you will
continue to state your views.
Thank you also for the letter which you
sent to the St. Louis Rally for Peace in
Vietnam on April 21, 1965.
Support for your position is growing, but
there is an incredible amount of misinforma-
tion circulated by the news media in regard
to the war going on in Vietnam. Also, there
is a general feeling that the Government
possesses secret information which is not at
the ordinary citizen's disposal and without
which he cannot formulate an opinion.
Your words do much to dispell a general
feeling of irresponsibility on the part of the
public.
Thank you,
Sincerely,
MIRIAM R. KAY.
AUSTIN, Mc.,
April 19, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We want to thank
you for your continuing courage and honesty
about our policy in Vietnam. If only there
were more like you in the Congress.
Sincerely,
Mr. and MTS. ROBERT EsTrs.
GREENWICH, CONN.,
April 22, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Just a note to ex-
press my admiration for your candor?and
stamina?on the question of Vietnam.
We say we are fighting for freedom in
that unhappy land.
Yet, for the last 9 years, we have opposed
free elections to reunify both Vietnams.
And hardly any of our free world allies
warmly support our military adventures
there.
It's argued that if we pulled out now and
permitted honest elections under U.N. aus-
pices, we'd lose face. Actually, however,
our prestige falls with every napalm bomb.
You're a brave man to stand up to the
"hawks" and speak the truth.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN PAMPEL.
MINNEAPOLIS, MINN.,
April 23, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: For the past several
weeks I have discussed with many of the
customers I call on in Minnesota, North and
South Dakota, and Iowa in my work as a
steel salesman for the Jones & Laughlin Steel
Corp. our Nation's role in South Vietnam.
I have been somewhat surprised at their opin-
ion, for almost to a man they have all ex-
pressed their complete rejection of our role
in this troubled area. Few can find any rea-
son for our being there and most feel that
the conflict may escalate ,into a general nu-
clear war.
I must say that I tend to agree with their
reaction and want to urge you to continue
to use your good offices to see what can be
done to reduce our aggressive actions in Asia
and bring reason to bear on this needless and
dangerous conflict.
You and Senator GREENING seem to be the
4ouly ones with enough good sense and cour-
age-to speak up in this crucial hour. We
salute you.
Yours for the democratic way of life,
Mr. and MTS. ROBERT W. MCCOY.
8171
ARLINGTON, VA.,
April 23, 1965.
Se/MOT WAYNE Moan,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Though I am not a
constituent of yours, please count me as a
supporter in your forthright campaign to
pound some sense into our makers of foreign
policy in regard to the dangerous and stupid
situation in Vietnam.
How can we hope for peace while dropping
napalm on civilians? Say we seek confer-
ences on ending the war while we spread it
northward? Ask for a lessening of tension
when we pour more men, weapons, and planes
into the Vietnam civil war?
We sleep better knowing that you and your
like-minded associates are keeping an eye
on the war hawks in the Department of State
and the Pentagon.
Sincerely,
TRAVIS K. HEDFLICK.
MIAMI, FLA., --
April 22, 1965.
EDITOR THE HERALD: In recent months We
have witnessed in our country almost every
conceivable sort of protest, both violent and
nonviolent, against our war policy in Viet-
nam. They have ranged in violence up to
the maximum protest of self-immolation by
fire, and in size to the great 20,000-person
April 17 march on Washington, am.: to literal-
ly millions of letters written to the President,
to Congressmen, and to the editors of our
daily newspapers.
Despite this magnitude, and depth, and
force of protest, our administration sees fit
to further escalate this ugly war. What
then is to happen now? When people feel
so strongly about this issue that they are
willing to burn themselves alive in protest,
will they simply fold their tents and steal
away into the night when their protests are
ignored? I do not believe so, especially since
there is the lingering, burning, shameful,
and comparatively recent example of apathy
the German people showed toward the in-
humanities perpetrated by the Nazi govern-
ment under Hitler.
It is my considered opinion that if we per-
sist further on our present course in Viet-
nam, that we can expect violence of a sub-
stantial nature to manifest itself in our coun-
try by our own people. I believe this vio-
lence will be directed at first against the
production facilities, transportation, and
communications facilities, military estab-
lishments, utilities, and our national shrines. _
Beyond this I do not even like to think.
Is it worth this much to prove our virility?
Or, can it be that when proving it becomes
so important to us, that perhaps it is because
we have already li-sst it?
REYNOLDS MOODY.
DAVIS, CALIF., April 20, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I want you to know
that I am very grateful for the reasonable
and courageous stand you have taken with
respect to our country's military actions in
Vietnam.
I hope you will recognize that there are a
significant number of people in the United
States who do support you. I hope you will
/not be tempted to compromise your stand.
May God guide and comfort you.
Yours sincerely,
ANDREW C. MILLS.
MEDIMONT, IDAHO, April 20, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
_ DEAR SENATOR: Would like to commend
you for your stand on the Vietnam war.
The majority of people I have talked with
about this agree with me but doubt if 95
Approved For Release 2003/10/14-: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8172 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD
percent of them would take the trouble to
write. So I could safely say that the greater
number of the corn/nen people condemn
President Johnson's and McNamara's war.
Am aware that you may be very busy and
if you do not answer all your =ail it% Okay.
Very truly yours,
E.. H. HANSON.
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y.,
April 23, 1945.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE" May I congratu-
late?and thank?you with all my heart for
your opposition to this Vietnam madness?
It seems that nobody outside Washington,
either in the United States or the rest of the
world, approves of our Present actions there.
The administration seems to have sold out to
the Army brass, who are aiwari stupid. Also,
they love war and don't mind in the least
how much of other people's blood (or money)
they spend.
Do please stick to your guns.
Your sincerely,
B. CROWLEY
MERCER ISLAND, WASH,
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Hitler, Mussolini,
and Stalin insisted on unanimity?that is
"yes men." It is heartening to learn that
there's a few brave representatives left to in-
dicate an alternative course to the present
One Which history will indict President John-
son as the cat's paw for reaction.
Respectfully yours,
Homan 1-Immanicasoan
P.S.?Is it too late for a democratic SOW-
.
tiOn auch as indicated by the Geneva Con-
vention of I954?a commitment we 'ignored
and which we are trying to cover with
bombs.
GAINESVILLE, FLA.,
Arpil 23, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR. MORSE: I was shocked to read
today of the possibility that 100,000 U.S.
troops will be committed to South Vietnam.
if Evens and Novak are to be believed U.S.
Senators have already been briefed on this
decision. I can only consider such an action
to be one .of unprecedented body. In gen-
eral the U.S. policy toward Vietnam has
been distinguished only by its lack of moral
beads and intellect. I can only hope that
Senator FULBRIGHT'S proposal for temporary
ceasation of bombing will be adopted and
serious attempt made to negotiate.
Respeetfully yours,
E. S. Maaanca.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I would like to en-
dorse Mr. Matalka's views in this matter and
to add that it is with considerable relief
that at long last you seem to be opposing the
apparent escalation of the southeast Asian
crises. Please continue to take the stand
that the Nation has come to expect of you
in these matters.
Sincerely,
W. E. Boaarra.
I am in complete agreement with Mr.
Mettalka in this matter.
Wan W. OTTEN.
Fawn; E. Boaxarr.
,
BERKELEY, CALIF.,
April 21, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Through your con-
tinuing exposure of administration claptrap,
hypocrisy, and dishonesty about Vietnam you
are performing a great service to world civ-
ilization and humanity itself. Your honesty
and Courage has certainly inspired many
Aniericans, lass been a very crucial factor, I
think, in creating what is beginning to look
like a real mass movement of protest in the
? SENATE April 26, 196,f5
United States against actions of our Govern-
ment that are both stupid and hideous.
HAROLD B. JAMISON.
ATERDEEN, WASH.,
April 21, 1965.
President LYNDON B. Jonwsoar,
White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Nea. PRasmmrr: Ona War in Vietnam
is doing More to bring on socialism in this
country than anything since the depression.
People in every group you get into are dis-
cussing the right and wrong of our military
policy in Asia. I only know of one man in
this town who is willing to defend what is
being done, and he is connected with the
John Birch Society. Even he has to admit,
In the final analysis, that he thinks what we
are doing is politically expedient rather than
right.
At a basketball game the other night when
we stood for flag salute, not over a dozen
people stood at attention and only a few
made a feeble attempt to salute or to even
look at our flag. Parents and students alike
seemed depressed.
It is somewhat more difficult to brainwash
people now than it used to be; folks know
that we have an interest in tin, tungsten
and oil in southeast Asia. They also know
that the foreign press tells us things that are
later admitted by our Government when con-
venient. In fact, people feel that they voted
against What we are doing in Asia last
November. Many will never vote again for
anyone. They feel that it is of no use.
Is it true that we have had a military
coup in the United States of America and
that you do not dare try to control the
military? litany people seem to think so. If
this is true, would it not be better to let us,
the people, know so we could help and try to
do what is right and to protect you?
Sincerely,
MAXINE ACKER.
Copy to HENRY M. JACKSON, WAYNE MORSE,
Senator GRUENING.
JOHNSTOWN, PA.,
April 22, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR: It's too bad that we can-
not have a majority in the Senate of men
with your good sense in international af-
fairs.
Let's get the hell out of Vietnam,
Best of wishes to you, and keep after the
nit-wits.
ARTHUR JOHNSTON.
PHILADELPHIA, PA.,
April 23, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We thank you deeply
for your struggle in behalf of the honor of
our country and the rights and welfare of
people, everywhere.
Gratefully yours,
ARTHUR and HEIXN BERTHOLF.
Hon. Watrart MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MC>liSE: Enclosed is a copy
of a letter that I have sent to President John-
son regarding our current southeast Asia
policy.
I realize that you have already spoken out
against the present expansion of the war in
Vietnam, however, please attempt to further
seek methods of enticing our Government to
adopt a responsible approach to world leader-
abip.
My own recommended approach to the
problem In Vietnam has been described in
SB earlier communication, however, almost
SUNNYVALE, (SLIP.,
April 22, 1965.
any form of resolution is preferable to out
present blind, obstinate, dictatorial and po ?
tentially disastrous policy.
Sincerely,
BYF.ON F. ivhsews.
SUNNYVALE, CALIF.,
April 21, 1695.
The PRESIDENT,
The White House,
-Washington, D.C.
Sin: Please consider the adoption of a
policy encompassing reason, honor and com-
passion in Vietnam.
I do not favor withdrawal, or even nego-
tiation necessarily, however, our present
premeditated attacks upon the northera
portion of the country are no less a criminal
act than those of the Viet Cong terrorist..
Indeed they are perhaps of a greater degree
of viciousness due to our overwhelmingly
superior power.
Because of the arbitrary approach of the
United States to the solution of an inter-
national problem, I have all but lost fait a
in the intents and purposes of this country is
the modern world. For the first time in nay
life I am actually ashamed of my Nations I
Government.
Please, sir, direct our strength and re -
sources into a course of action which wi I
bring honor, respect, and the gratitude of al
people who are presently innocent victin s
of our capacity for death and destruction.
Sincerely,
BYRON F. Miscars.
Copy to Senator THOMAS H. KUCHET, Sena-
tor GEORGE MURPHY, Representative CHARLES
S. Gussart, Senator WAYNE MORSE, and Ser -
ator ERNEST GRIIENING.
APRIL 19, 1965.
ED/TOR,
San Francisco Call-Bullet-in,
San Francisco, Calif.
DEAR Sm: There are many things that as e
disturbing to me about what is happening
in Vietnam. Almost each day brings sorr e
incident that is either shocking, or else
leaves me with the dim feeling that would
have been considered shocking in some ear-
lier, more innocent, time.
But to me the most striking point of all
is that we claim to be acting there, not for
reasons of narrow self interest, but out of
moral considerations. The President has
spoken eloquently to the point that we want
nothing for ourselves in southeast Asia,
that we are there only because of commit.-
ment to our friends, that we want only that
they be allowed to choose their own govern-
ment without outside-ainterference.
What can he mean by this? Who are the
friends he refers to? Are they the people
of South Vietnam? Or are they the mens-
bars of the sequence of more or less unsavory
regimes which we have instituted and sup-
ported and which have been unable to ob-
tain the confidence of the majority of the
people of South Vietnam?
Perhaps the answer to this question of who
are our friends can be seen in the history
of the past few years. If we have any com-
mitment in Vietnam at all, it is to the Genii-
va agreement, which we had pledged to
carry aut. The history is complicated ax d
there were violations of the terms by both
sides. But one point stands out as being
of overwhelming importance. According r.o
the terms of the agreement, the split be-
tween North and South Vietnam was to be
temporary. Nationwide elections were to be
held with the object of uniting the country
under a single government. When it became
clear to us that the regime we favored in
Saigon had not much more support in the
South than in the North, and would lose
in any election, no elections were held. So
much for our commitment to self ciet( r-
mination for the people of Vietnam.
In view of this. I would be more comfort-
able of the President, in discussing our rcle
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
8173
in southeast Asia, spoke in terms of national bled by the violent course we are pursuing But you, a wise man, have been foolishly
self-interest rather than moral commitment, in Asia, and I therefore, direct my appeal to advised. President Eisenhower was advised
_.
and posed the question of whether it is in- you. not to engage in direct intervention in Viet-
deed in our self interest to be in Vietnam? It is my belief that the President's advisers nam, and he, a brilliant military man, ac-
To my mind, compelling arguments that it have lost their perspective, and are quite cepted this advice as sound.
is not in our interest to be there have been out of touch, in judgment, with intelligent Please, listen to those who would stop this
given; e.g., by Senators MORSE and CHURCH. world opinion. I fear that in their intense, club wielding course we are pursuing. Please
But if the administration insists that the desire to prove they are right, they will soon hear their arguments. Senators CHURCH,
matter is one of moral commitment rather commit us to a bloody land war we can never Gni/ENING, MCGOVERN, and MORSE are all wise
than national interest, sensible dialog is win, on the continent of Asia. and patriotic men. Please, just listen with
impossible. Under the Constitution, I plead to you as the best that is in you to What they tell you.
Even worse, the administration has made a senator to do all you can to stop this reck- Sincerely,
it clear that dialog is unwelcome. Mem- lessness. Mrs. BERNARD BAUMRIN.
bers of Congress who have taken a strong I am not a member of any pressure group, _
stand against our actions in Vietnam have but am not ashamed to say that I am par- ORMOND BEACH, FLA.,
not been gently treated by the administra- ticularly concerned because I have a young April 23, 1965.
tion. There have been increasing restrictions son who could be a part of this sacrifice. Senator WAYNE MORSE,
on reporting out of Vietnam and even a few Certainly I did not agree to commit him to Washington, D.C. '
flagrant instances of harassment of reporters. such a war, nor did the Senate under our DEAR SENATOR MORSE: These days you must
The unhealthy and undemocratic attitude of Constitution. I am confident millions of feel like a man standing on the bank of the
"only the experts can decide such compli- other citizens feel, as I do. Niagara shouting at a boatload of joyriders
cated matters" has been fostered. Please insist on a course of sanity before who are pushing off for a ride to the falls:
But in spite of all this, or perhaps even in it is too late. That these advisers will "lose "Turn back before it is too late" only to
part as a response to the challenge, there has face" if our policy is changed, is certainly a get their raucous reply: "We know how to
been an increasing expression of concern, matter of no true importance. take care of ourselves." Are you in a tiny
People, for a great variety of reasons, are Yours, with hope, minority in Washington or are there many
standing up and saying "enough." In spite JOHN W. MALLEY. others who see clearly the terrible disaster
of the awful circumstances which have led -- that awaits us and the world if we go to war
to it I find this protest an exciting thing andSANTA ANA, CALIF., with China? Are there only a few who dis-
an indication of health in a society for which April 22, 1965. cern the futility of trying to solve the prob-
many had feared,- Senator WAYNE MORSE, lem of communism by war?
Sincerely yours,Senate Office Building, Hitler tried to destroy Russian communism
KAREL DELEEUW.Washington, D.C.
by invading Russia and he did succeed in
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I Wish to offer my killing 15 million Russians and destroying
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., heartfelt thanks and my support for your untold property (secretly abetted by many
April 22, 1965. rare and welcome voice of sanity in our Gov- in the West), but he left a fractured Ger-
Senator WAYNE MORSE, ernment regarding the horrible war in Viet- many. I was in the Far East When Japan
Senate Office Building, nam. launched her invasion of China with far
Washington, D.C.
_ I have never felt so ashamed, 'so angry, and superior military forces plus the advantage
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: We appreciate your so frustrated, probably because I am an of the camouflage of Oriental features and
courage and integrity in maintaining your American and a Democrat that pounded the the ability to live as the Chinese do. They
opposition on Vietnam. We are dismayed precinct pavement to prevent the imple- did untold damage but lost their empire.
that President Johnson has accepted Gold- rnentation of the Goldwater policy?and be- Suppose we do beat China to her knees for
water's trigger-happy position. cause I'm not sure I would even want to stay a time, can we police the country? Can we
You speak for many quiet people who the hand of doom that must surely come if support the necessary rehabilitation? to say
despair because their President has declared we cannot allow life to those who will not nothing of survive in history the infamy of
war without their consent or even that of run their governments to suit us. such an invasion. Is President Johnson to go
their Congress. When did we don this mantle of the Aryan down in history as the one who led us into
Sincerely yours, supermen? How did we become the judge such supreme folly?
I NATNAN SVEN. and executioner of the rest of the world? I spent 18 years in China, most of it as
? Surely there are a few checks and balances a professor in the University of Shanghai.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., left in Washington to halt this course of mad After 1900 we built up a great fund of good-
April 22, 1965. men. And I suggest that the preservation will to our people which has been almost
Senator WAYNE MORSE, of even one human lifels worth all the poli- completely dissipated by our policy toward
Senate Office Building, ticaj wounds that could result through the mainland China since the war. Not long ago
Washington, D.C. process of impeachment. I received a letter from a Christian physician
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I feel I must write Sincerely yours who is head of surgery in a government hos-
to congratulate you on your brave speech, R. L. SEIDEL. pital in Shanghai asking why our Govern-
which I heard on the radio this morning, re- ment took up such an attitude toward the
garding the war in Vietnam.ST. Louis Chinese Government when they were putting
I wholeheartedly agree that the moral posi- , Mo.,
April 22, 1965. into effect many of the things Christians
tion of the United States has been seriously Hon. WAYNE MORSE, tried to accomplish (universal education and
compromised by its escalation of the war.Senate Office Building, medical service, equality of women, etc.) .
In the last analysis, people and nations are Washington, D.C. The antagonism of China toward us is not
judged by what they do, not by what they DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Please find enclosed utterly unreasonable when we consider our
say; and the actions of the United States insupport of its enemy?Chiang Kai-shek?on
a letter I have just written to President
Vietnam directly contradict our supposedFormosa.
desire for peaceful settlement of interna- Johnson.
Sincerely, Last night Alsop's column defamed Hans
tional problems. Indeed, I am beginning JUDITH BAmmuN, Morgentau as a pompous ignoramus because
to wonder if etir desire for peace is not he took a position against the war hawks.
merely a desire for the kind of peace whichST. LOUIS, MO.,
Your speeches and Senator GRLTENING'S don't
prevails when one group, through nakedApril 22, 1965.
get into our papers. What can we ordinary
power, can enforce its viewpoint upon thePresident LYNDON JOHNSON, citizens do to stop the false patriotism that
rest of mankind.White House, demands that we support every military ad-
I hope you realize that your voice is find- Washington, D.C. venture which our Government undertakes?
ing many responsive listeners in the UnitedYours sincerely,
DEAR PRESIDENT JOHNSON: I was one of
States. The purpose of this letter is to en-GORDON POTEAT.
those who fought hard for your election. I
courage you to keep on speaking, loudly andbelieved that of the many qualities which
P.S.?I met you several years ago at a tea
clearly, knowing that many people share you brought to the Presidency the most im- in Paul Raymond's home when you came to
your convictions, but do not have the op- Portant were caution and patience. You speak at our Daytona Beach forum. I have
portunity nor the eloquence to give themhad learned through your many years in the
long been one of your supporters. (I'm a
direct expresSion. ' legislature that things worth having are retiree, 74 years old.)
Very sincerely Yrs, ou
.... ?., worth striving for carefully, without creat-
ivIr ior
s, RETCHEN ANN ROAD. lug enemies for one's cause along the way.
, BROOKINGS, S. DAN,
Your many hours of talk with your political April 21, 1965.
CnEvY CHASE VILLAGE, opponents usually won them over--gradu- Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Chevy Chase, Md., April 24; 1965. ally. 'U.S. Senator,
- Hon. WATNE Monsz, I believed that in times when our fele,- Wash-ington, D.C.
Senate office riundi4, tions with the other' nations in the world re- DEAR' SENATOR MORSE: I read a summary
Washington, D.C. ? quired delicate, diplomatic, but most of all of your address at the Johns Hopkins Uni-
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I interpret the news patient handling, that you would be the man versity in the Hopkins Alumni magazine.
as indicating that many Senators are trou- who would fulfill these requirements. I want to go on record for endorsing your
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8174 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
remarks. I am afraid the present policy will
bring an incident to precipitate an impossible
war. Just because a mistake may have been
made in a former administration is no reason
to intensify this operation.
I admire your courage and sincerity.
Yours very sincerely,
DOUGLAS CHITTICN,
Professor of Aural Sociology,
South Dakota State University.
NEW BEDFORD, MASS.,
April 21, 1965.
The Honorable WAYNE MORSE,
The U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: Do keep on with your messages
to the American people over radio, TN., and
in the newspapers. I heard your taped mes-
sage over the radio this morning, and I think
it has powerful appeal to the mothers whose
sons may have to give their lives in this
unnecessary war, and to mothers who have
already lost their sons in battle.
I just want you to know Trn very grateful
to you, and a few others In Congress for
your keen insight, fairmindedness, and hu-
manitarian sensibilities, in matters dealing
with Vietnam.
Sincerely,
MTS. ALENE FORTIN.
KANSAS CITY? KAN4k,
April 22, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I Wish to commend
and endorse your publicly stated views on
the Vietnamese civil war. As the stanchest
critic in the Senate of the administration's
policy you have again shown your independ-
ence and courage.
My personal views of this situation are
incorporated in a letter I have written to
President Johnson. I have taken the liberty
of enclosing a copy of that letter for you.
Please continue your efforts on behalf of
a fair and peaceful solution to this problem.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT G. WUNSCH.
KANSAS CITY, KANS.,
April 22, 1965.
President LYNDON JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: I DM greatly dis-
tressed at your policy of continued aggres-
sion in the Vietnamese civil war. As a stu-
dent of this situation for the past several
years I continue to be convinced that we
are illegally intervening :n a situation which
is indigenous to South Vietnam. Our de-
structive efforts there are not in keeping
Whit accepted interpretations of inter-
national law, contrary to the letter and the
spirit of the Geneva Convention of 1954, and
in direct violation of the United Nations
Charter.
Your April 7 speech calling for uncondi-
tional negotiations was superficially attrac-
tive. Upon study, however, it Is clear that
there were conditions and your protesta-
tions of a desire for peace appear to be
hollow and quite insincere. Your speech was
in reality a sop. It wilt be used to justify
continued American aggression.
You have mentioned many times that the
price of appeasement is dear and that ag-
gressor's appetite is never satiated. /3ut
because you give the enemy no choice but
to appease our increasingly intransigent po-
sition, or fight against us, there can be only
one logical conclusion. You have dedicated
an of our resources to the single purpose
of ensnaring China into a general war. This
-policy of preventive war is Goldwaterism at
its worst and deserves the scorn of all think-
ing people.
If you must lead us into a general Asian
war for the single purpose of perpetuating
unchallenged American dominance in Asia
you must understand this. You will lead a
divided alliance, and worst of all a divided
Nation, into that conflict.
Sincerely yours,
ROBERT G. WUNSCH.
VIRGINIA BEACH, VA.,
April 23, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: Even after carefully con-
sidering information from the most reliable
sources available to me, I am not certain
that our Vietnamese campaign is serving the
best interests of the American people. Does
whatever the American people stand to gain
in Vietnam merit the costs in their lives,
moral standing prestige, security, unification
and creation of enemies * * *? All of the
American people have placed their trust in
you and your colleagues to protect them from
sacrifice for causes that do not merit that
sacrifice. If there is anything I might do to
encourage careful evaluation of goals of our
war effort in relation to costs involved, please
let me know.
B. D. PHIPPS.
SAN JOSE, CALIF.,
April 23, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I wish to heartily commend
you and all those in the Senate who have
protested the illegal presence of U.S. troops
in Vietnam.
/ believe it was a tragic error for the Sen-
ate to give the President a free hand to fol-
low any policy he deemed best in pursuing
his undeclared war in that unfortunate coun-
try. It is my understanding that the Sen-
ate's business is to see that the wishes of the
people determine such important decisions
especially when it may mean life or death
for themselves and the continuation of life
on this planet, which this conflict may well
decide.
The President has proven himself a per-
don totally ignorant of understanding of the
rights of other nations and the consequences
of those events for which he is responsible.
I do not mean to infer he alone has made de-
cisions, for it is well known the Pentagon
has for far too long had a powerful hand in
governmental affairs of this country. This
should cease. I believe it to be unconstitu-
tional.
It now appears all the progress made to-
ward better relations with Russia during the
past decade is fast deteriorating, if not now
entirely destroyed and the friends among
those we have considered our allies are day
by day becoming fewer and fewer, I believe
the mandate given the President should be
withdrawn at once. Surely there must be
machinery which would make this possible.
In addition I urge that a cease fire be ar-
ranged at once, the unprovoked bombing of
North Vietnam be stopped. Someone must
compromise and if we are seriously interested
in peace we should do whatever is required
to bring about negotiations toward that end.
I urge that these negotiations be entered into
by the parties who took part in the 1954
Geneva Conference including also represent-
atives of the Liberation Front, called by some
the Vietcong, as they are the ones against
whom the attack was originally directed.
These negotiations should continue until a
settlement satisfactory to the Vietnamese
people should be arrived at which, of course,
should a,ga.,in include a free election under
the auspices of the U.N., and not to be inter-
fered with by the United States as in the
1954 agreement.
It is difficult for me to believe that our ob-
jective in Vietnam is that which the Presi-
dent claims, as I do not believe the policies
of this Government have changed since Els-
April 26, 1965
enhower made a speech before a Governors'
conference in August 1953, when he stated
"Now let us assume that we lost Indochina.
If Indochina goes, several things will happen
right away. The peninsula, the last bit o:
land hanging on down there, would be scarce-
ly defensible, the tin and tungsten that We
so greatly value from that area would cease
coming. * * So when the United States
votes $400 million to help that War (then
France's war) we are not voting a giveaway
program. We are voting for the cheapes,,
way we can to prevent the occurrence o.'
something that would be of a most terrible
significance to the United States of America,
our security, our power, and ability to go:
certain things we need from the richest o '
the Indochina territory and from southeas:,
Asia."
Occasionally the cat is let out of the bag.
Jt would seem the interest of the United.
States is considered by this Government to
be the only thing to be considered, as in the
Latin American countries and everywhere the
Government of the United States could by
fair means or foul gain control. It is a 'dis-
grace and only a return to the basic ideals
upon which this country and its Governmen,,
were founded, adherence to the principle
that each nation has an inalienable right to
decide for itself the form of government i;
wishes to live under to run its own affairs as
free citizens, without interference from with--
out, can restore sanity to the world.
Because of the need for the public to un
derstand just what the war in Vietnam is all
about and how self-defeating it is I sugges;
a speaking tour of the United States,by your
self and any other Member of the Senate, to
lay before them the facts, that our position
as the aggressor should be made most plain
to them. I believe the expense for this nil.
dertaking would gladly be borne by the exist .
ing peace, church, civil rights, and other or
ga,nizations, now so greatly concerned.
The question in my mind is this: Is the
Senate unable longer to act in a statesman
like manner to protect the citizens of the
United States or not.
Yours very truly,
DELLA P. BROWN.
SAN JOSE, CALIF.,
April 17, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
The White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR Ma. PRESIDENT: This letter is an ex -
pression of dissent with the immoral and II
legal war in which you have committed the
United States in Vietnam, and is being writ
ten for the reason that I believe failure to
dissent is to imply agreement with the pres.
ence of U.S. troops in Vietnam and the sense.
less bombing of North Vietnam. The time
has come when no longer can informed citi-
zens remain silent.
The propaganda emanating from the State
Department and the White House is totally
alien to the real facts, and affronts the prac-
tical judgment as well as the moral sense or
millions of those who defended you agaIns;
the attacks of your opponent during las:,
fall's campaign and who so hopefully cas5
their vote for you in November on the
strength of your promise to take steps to end
the hatred so prevalent in this country and
to diligently seek roads to peace. We did no;
realize that the hand you promised to stretch
out to all concerned in the quest, would
hold a gun.
My vote, as well as that of a large majority
of those who supported you was an over-
whelming repudiation of the policies voiced
by your opponent, Barry Goldwater. Thai
fact should have been crystal clear to you.
Now that you are safely in the seat of au-
thority and we see you not only adopting
but recommending the Goldwater policies
which you soundly condemned during your
campaign, we feel that we have been be-
trayed.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-R0P67600446R000300150020-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENAtE
The methods you are employing in your
unjustified war in Vietnam are antiquated.
They reflect 'Only what stupid men all
through history have attempted, and failed
to prove, that war is the only way to solve
the problems that from time to time beset
mankind. The truth is, historical records
prove that war has been found hopelessly in-
adequate to produce anything but more
war; is a totally unintelligent way to attempt
to solve human problems and it can never
result in enduring peace.
On the other hand; our Creator gave man-
kind laws and provided men and women with
mind and the power to reason which, when
Used intelligently, in conformity with His
laws provides the only way the peoples of
the world can live and prosper together with-
out conflict. It cannot be that you are to-
tally ignorant of those laws, Mr. President,
Which comprise Christian doctrine, among
which is the Golden Rule. This rule ad-
monishes "all things whatsoever ye would'
that men should do to you, do you even so
to them." Or can it be that you consider
yourself immune to the consequences of dis-
obedience to this basic law, and to the com-
mandment "Thou shalt not kill"?
Looking further into the very important,
though seldom mentioned subject of uni-
versal law; whether one is concerned with
matters pertaining to nature or the thoughts
of man upon which their actions are pred-
icated, the universal law "like produces like"
is inexorable and always operative. The
cause of crime ,and juvenile delinquency, the
breaking down of morality, etc., with which
our courts are so greatly concerned now and
which are increasing at such an alarming
rate, leads directly to the doors of our own
Government now engaged in the greatest
crime of all, ruthless and brutal war which
cannot be justified by any pious utterances
from the State Department or the White
House. -
When the nes reports daily on the num-
ber of Vietcong which have been killed, and
in many instances those who did the kill-
ing are given medals which only glorifies the
act of Murder, what effect can any thinking
person possibly think it would have upon
the mind of our youth? If it is quite legal
for their Government to kill innocent women
and children, burn their homes and rain
down bombs upon them, why then is it
wrong to follow the example of their Gov-
ernment whom they have been taught to
believe is beyond reproach. So the search
for the cause f crime ends right at the door
- Of the White House and the halls of Congress.
It is perfectly obvious to all who do any
sane thinking that crime in this country is
escalating in exact proportion to the es-
calation of your war in Vietnam. Ponder
over that, Mr. President. There is nothing
more scientific than divine law.
Today a statement allegedly made by you,
reported in the news, states that no human
power can force you to change your Viet-
nam policy. This implies stubbornness, not
statesmanship, on your part, a lack of cour-
age to face the fact that to continue your
present policy is to not only lose -the respect
of the rest of the world and their friendship,
in the end, but that you not only should but
will meet with complete disaster. Does it
not seem a very high price to pay for your
folly?
To occupy the same position in the pages
Of history with Mussolini and Hitler who also
believed that might made right, should not
be an attractive thought to you. They also
gave no thought to retribution, but it came
In due time and whether you realize it or not,
you may be facing the same end as a result
of disobedience to divine law.
The U.S, poverAmerip made a colossal
blunder when it was persuaded to interfere
in the internal affairs of a nation, an act for-
bidden by the Charter of the United Nations,
to which the United States 'was a signatory.
It has now developed that you are compound-
ing that error by taking on a war against a
people who are actually engaged in a civil
war against great odds, in the defense of
their inalienable right to a government of
their own choosing not one forced upon
them by alien bombs, guns, and poison -gas.
Strangely enough the freedom of choice is
the very thing to which this Government
is committed, yet it appears that freedom
of choice must be approved by the United
States. What nonsense.
No one can deny that the Vietnamese,
both North and South, are as entitled to
their culture, their language, and a system
of government of their own choice as are
the citizens of the United States. WhO
among the people against whom this cruel
and unjustified war is being waged could
possibly believe that the only objective of
the United States is to preserve their free-
dom when the U.S. forces are employing
every cruel and inhuman method to prevent
them from having that freedom, and espe-
cially when it is always stressed that any
action must be in the interest of the United
States?
The presence of the U.S. Armed Forces in
Vietnam is to a large percentage of the
population a form of tyranny, and many
millions of citizens of this country agree
with them. That is why people from all
walks of life are demanding that you call
for an immediate cease-fire and meet with
all parties concerned, most particularly
with the Vietcong, against whom the war
is being waged, to negotiate a settlement,
one acceptable to the Vietnamese people, to
be determined by a free election under the
supervision of the U.N. and without the
presence of U.S. troops. This election is ac-
cording to the provisions of the Geneva
agreement of 1954 but which was circum-
vented by the U.S. Government. We do not
feel that the people of the United States
should be called upon to give of their sub--
stance, their blood, or their tears to further
the aggressive policy of this Government.
It is time to recognize the fact that the
world is rapidly changing. No bombs, mis-
siles, or biological war, which this Govern-
ment is so shamelessly preparing for, can
stop it. It is as real as the change of the
seasons. The peoples of the wOrld are 'de-
termined to break the shackles of poverty
which have bound them over the centuries.
They now know the cause and do not need
to be told bY the Communists when they
are hungry, in need of the education they
have never had, or the good things of life.
It is not the ones who now have might
on their side and who believe that is their
security, but the downtrodden and, as the
Bible tells us, the meek who will inherit
the earth, and it may be sooner than you
think.
I llo not expect a reply to this letter, nor
nor do I care to receive another copy of the
questions and answers on Vietnam fiction.
Most sincerely,
D.F.B.
NORTH MIAMI, FLA.,
April 24, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: We wish to congratulate
you on your great effort in protesting the
senseless war in Vietnam. We want to let
you know we are 100 percent behind you all
the way.
Yours very truly,
MT. and MTS. WALTER L. WISEHART.
OREGON CITY, OREG.,
March,1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: I aln. Writing this letter to
you to state my opinions on the Vietnam
8175
crisis. I don't feel that the millions of dol-
lars and numerous lives lost each day are
worth all our efforts to gain, friendship with
this country. This is proved by the fact that
each day we are physically losing face more
and more; rather than gaining it as we had
hoped.
I believe that the smartest move the United
States could make would be to clear out of
Vietnam and to do it fast. The people of
Vietnam have certainly more than proved
to me that they are very ungracious toward
the help we have been giving them in the
past. I am wondering how much longer it
is going to take our U.S. Government to
realize this and act accordingly.
Thank you.
Yours,
Mr. NORMAN BASS.
SHERWOOD, OREG.,
March. 30, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORRIS,
U.S. Senate,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE, this is to inform you
of my support of your position on our poli-
cies in Vietnam.
It is difficult to find a valid reason for
American involvement in Asia, either his-
torically, or from people who have traveled
or lived there recently.
The oriental must shake his head in won-
der at the classic American jokes about "sav-
ing face."
One of tbe best ways I have found to re-
medy a social blunder is to apologize and
leave. I would like to recommend this to
the U. S. Government.
Sincerely,
JAY MARTIN BAKER.
CORVALLIS, OREG.,
April 2, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I have been shocked
and sickened by what I consider to be the
reckless, irresponsible, illegal and immoral
actions of President Johnson in his escala-
tion of the war in South Vietnam. During
the presidential campaign President John-
son stated explicitly that there was a fun-
damental difference between the bellicose,
trigger-happy policies of Senator Goldwater
and his own sober, diplomatic, peace-loving
methods. The present policy in southeast
Asia makes a travesty of Mr. Johnson's prom-
ises. So far as I can see the consequences of
this policy can only be disastrous.
My wife and I wish to express our admira-
tion for your courageous and intelligent crit-
icism of this new and savage policy of esca-
lation. We pledge our support to you and
to men in the Senate such as GRUENING,
CHURCH, MCGOVERN and NELSON. We are
saddened and disillusioned by the craven sil-
ence of men such as MANSFIELD, FULBRIGHT,
and Stevenson.
This is our third year in Oregon. We con-
sider an honor and a great privilege that you
are the Senator from this State who has the
integrity and the vision and the knowledge
to criticize a policy that is cruel, immoral and
untimately self-defeating.
Respectfully yours,
THOMAS R. MEEHAN.
SHERIDAN, OREG.,
March. 30, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I started to write
this to the President, but thought I might
get more satisfaction from writing to you.
There is so much talk about Vietnam (and
while working in our State fair I noticed there
was an overwhelming interest from people
of all walks of life, all ages, about Vietnam)
that I feel it Is time for me to voice my
views.
It just doesn't make sense to think we are
going to ever achieve peace in this world, as
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
long as there is a war going on any place In
the world. I don't care how small it is or
how isolated it is; relatively speaking there
just is no such thing as a "small war," or an
"isolated war."
Vietnam surely needs help, but it should
come through the U.N. and the United States
should get out until their help is needed and
asked for by the U.N.
Thank you for the opportunity to air my
feelings. I feel I am speaking to a fair man,
an intelligent man, and a Christian man.
It helps to know you are on the job.
Sincerely,
TVIOLI.Y BA/L.
THE DALLAS, OREG,
March 31, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
Delta SENATOR MORSE: My husband and I
thank you for your outspoken opposition to
our Intervention in Vietnam.
Sincerely,
letITH erevant.
CORVALLIS, GREG.,
March 31, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Enclosed is a clip-
ping that says plenty. Isn't there some way
that this undeclared war can be stopped?
Each day we read in the papers how war is
being stepped up. The French knew enough
to get out of South Vietnam but apparently
we haven't learned our lesson yet.
Anything that you can do to stop that war
that is leading directly to wax there will be
greatly appreciated.
Thanks for the many favors you have done
and for your stand on this South Vietnam
situation. I am,
Yours truly,
MARTIN H. BAILER.
[From the Oregonian, Mar. 31, 1985]
ASIAN NOVELIST
rs. VIETNAM
Posrricas
WII.LAMETTE UNIVERSITY, SALEM.?U.S. ae-
tkal In yietriam is promoting communism
and "srou should pay attention to your Sen-
ator, WAYNE MORSE, on the Vietnam issue;"
claimed Dr. Han Suyin in talks at Wilismette
University Tuesday.
Dr. Han, a doctor of medicine and suceess-
ful novelist who knows many of Asia's lead-
ers personally, criticized U.S. policy and ea-
tiorie in Vietnam and said, "You're not re-
assuring your friends; you're frightening
them and consequently losing, them."
,Dr. Han, who lives in Malaya, backed
MORSE'S position calling for 17.S. withdrawal,
a solution that she feels is necessary to
achieye the ends which the United States
chains to be seeking in Vietnam,
Hee' comments came during informal talks
to students following a morning address on
"The Many Faces of Asia," as part of the
Willamette lecture series.
? UNITED STATES SAII) susnevoinereD
Dr. Han indicated that the United States
Is sadly misinformed on the Vietnam situa-
tion and that citizens in general are trying to
take a short cut to knowledge on the basis
of mass communication that still doesn't pre-
sent the whole situation.
In speaking on the many faces of Asia, Dr.
Han stated that the "bedrock problem of Asia
today is that it did not Invent the steam
engine."
"While the Western 'World has been in-
volved in an industrial revolution for the
past 400 years, only in the last 100 years has
Asia begun to emerge from the feudal age in
a struggle to assume its identity in the
world:"
POVERTY PREVALENT
Dr. Han indicated that 80 percent of the
Asian -population lives in the _countryside,
where peasants stagnate at the level of pov-
erty.
-But," she added, "the peasant no longer
accepts the problems of poverty as God-given;
he knows they are from the hand of man."
Land reform was seen as a necessity before
any industrial revolution and -we cannot
look forward to anything but change and
turmoil for at least the next two decades."
TRADE, NOT A/17)
"Trade, not aid is the motto of Asia," she
declared. Restrictive tariffs have hindered
external markets for Asian goods and poverty
hinders internal markets.
She said any form of government that of-
fers some measure of security, some measure
of prosperity to the many people who are
starving, will have the people's support.
"It is good for Americans to talk of free-
dom and democracy, but the word freedom is
unknown to the peasant?it is not even in
his language. He has only the freedom to
starve," she said.
There has to be an overwhelming drastic
reform in Asia from the bottom up. And
it's not going to be attained by means of arms
or might, according to Dr. Han.
Senator MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Our President's bar-
barianism has gone too far. This time he
really flipped his lid, burning people like
Nero, and Hitler.
My conscience continues to bother me so
I wrote some more letters (copies enclosed).
I hope my last letters have enough poison in
them to poison those war hawks, because I'm
getting a bit disconraged.
can't even imagine how you could take
it all these years.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. NATALIE DR/SCOLL.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
April 2, 1965.
PORTLAND, GREG.,
April 2, 1965.
The OREGONIAN,
Editor HERBERT LUNDY,
Portland, Oreg.
_DEAR Emma: Do you really believe that
you can stop our President's barbarity with
your editorials?
Nero was a happy and gay person; he was
happiest most of all when he set his city,
Rome, on fire. As you know, he played his
musical Instrument while people burned.
Sure, he was crazy.
Strange how history repeats itself. Is our
President sane when he sets forests on fire,
deliberately burning alive babies, children,
and illiterate, poverty-stricken villagers. He
is happy on TV (see enclosed letter to Vice
President HUMPHREY.
Don't say stop, stop President for this he
will not do (you can already see this). In-
stead try to figure a way to yank this pyro-
maniac out of the Presidency or to get Con-
gress to limit his war authority by new legis-
lation. People should not expect this poor
soul to act rationally.
Enough people on both sides have already
been murdered; what are you waiting for
catastrophic figures or world war m? This is
no time for embarrassment, we, the public,
are to blame for the President's actions, for
we are sane. It should not be my country
rigIst or wrong but on the contrary, if my
country is right, OK, but if wrong, correction.
Why not try (if possible) to arrange a
conference between you newspapermen and
TV networks for the purpose of solving the
problem for it is a problem that neither you
April 26, 1965
nor the Vice President can manage alone.
It's fantastic that world powers and Congre
are also afraid to act but the problem is
serious and everyone thinks and hopes the
other fellow will do the work, and the Presi-
dent continues, in his madness.
Sincerly yours,
Mrs. NATATIE DRISCOLL.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
April 1, 1965.
Vice President HUMPHREY,
White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR VICE PRESIDENT: When our side
bombed Asian schools both with gas and
bombs, most war hawks did not shed many
or any tears. However, when the U.S. Em-
bassy, officers club, and other headquarter
groups perish, these same war people cry
murder! In this day and age, how can any-
one not know that wax is tragic murder cm
both sides?
In the past, wax hawks enjoyed relative
immunity. During the day, they sat un-
scathed behind desks, far behind the battle-
front planning and carrying out bloody wars,
in which the sons of common people, for the
most part, died in great agony in trench.rs
or were crippled. At night, many of there
same war hawks , thoughtlessly entertains d
themselves with speeches, festive dinners,
beauties and champagne.
The war in Vietnam is unique in that the
Communists are no respecters of this ancient
tradition and now, all participate, all die.
Tragic murder? What about the school-
children?
What about burning alive with fire, inno-
cent South Vietnamese civilians. The United
States put on fire 19,000 acres of forest, claim-
ing that leaflets were dropped, warning civt -
ians to get out. The President very well
knows that 90 percent cannot read (in fact
you could make it 100 percent for villagers
If there would be one or two who could read,
would the leaflet fall in their hands, in the
right place. One does not need to look for
hell after death; this is hell.
Jesus, if there is a God (nature-spirit), like
you said there is and you are the earthly spirt
(part of the great universe power) why then
do you permit this insanity on poor peopli,
while the war hawks laugh like devils and
claim their morale is lifted? "What Price
Glory."
Come to think of it, Jesus stated that be-
fore the advent of His new world systern
there would be famines, earthquakes, at d
wars. It's unfortunate for the human race
to suffer such great tortures but maybe they
are necessary to produce wisdom (reason and
not book knowledge) in order for the world
to survive.
Famines and earthquakes force the con
mon people to band together as groups 710
fight for human rights against both natural
and man-made disasters and injustices.
Punishment of wax hawks is mandatory
for these people do not understand that the
earth was created by a great universe power
and should not be devastated by their stupid-
ity or insanity. I'm sure its God's will the t
war hawks will be banished forever, for earth
is His footstool and He isn't going to allow
pipsqueak generals to make a fool out a
Him.
It is for this reason that U.S. doves are
crying and their numbers are becoming
greater as the war escalates and gets dirtier.
Four U.S. wars in half a century is suffix:Jest
proof that war does not achieve freedom and
that only wisdom can produce this, particu-
larly since both sides are unconquerable mil
left (Christ and his follower, Karl Marx,
Were both for the poor).
Since the doves are an intelligent publie,
how long are you going to ignore their met -
Approved For Release 2003110/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 :,CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
sage? If you cannot recognize your public,
here is its shape:
1. Science rnid religious groups clamor for
peace.
2. Students, and teachers fast and sing such
as 1, 2, 3, 4, we don't wan't war (in Vietnam);
5, 6, 7, 8, have the world associate.
3, Newspaper editors and writers (formu-
lators of public opinion) are advising the
President not to abdicate his reponsibilities
to military hawks and for Congress not to
abdicate war responsibilities to one man.
4. Congressmen (even Republicans) cry
for humanitarianism.
5. We, common people, demand peace with
or without negotiation. How much clearer
can the public get? Like Jesus said, "They
have ears but do not hear."
Since we doves voted you into office (war-
hawks lost Goldwater), then we, the people,
demand that you serve us. If you too are
not capable of out your duties, why
not resign and give someone else a chance
to do your job better?
Recently I heard the President state, "He
felt like a jackass pelted by Texas hail." It's
bad enough for others to think this but if
the President (in his position) feels this way,
he needs help. His soul is not altogether
wicked (for he did all right on the home
front) but his soul is lost and groping in
world affairs.
It is your job to help this poor soul; don't
be afraid. As your rank superior, the Presi-
dent's powers are limited. He cannot fire you
because the people hired you. The people
made you second in command (so quit hid-
ing) and be an assistant to the President,
not his servant. However, remember above
all, that your oath demands that you remain
loyal to the country, not the President.
It's true you haven't shown much support
for the President's foreign policy; in fact,
your intelligence makes this virtually im-
possible. However, this doesn't seem to be
enough. Wisdom like yours should shine
like a beacon and not be just barely visible
through cracks in a bushel. Your own ad-
vice to the President would be of more value
than all the military jackasses that there are
in the United States; so why is it necessary
for the President to go to the jackasses or feel
like one?
When the President saluted the space
twins it seemed to me as if he were trying to
recapture some kind of a military aura,
perhaps the kind he missed in World War II.
If the President really means "Give me lib-
erty or give me death" what is there to stop
him from becoming a commander in chief on
the battlefront like Theodore Roosevelt? The
battlefront is not particular; it will accept
anyone, as well as his daughters, as can
be witnessed in Vietnam. I'm sure the
United States wouldn't miss him, for under
his policies the United States considers hu-
.mans dispensable and then you (the more
intelligent) could be President.
The above criticism may be a bit harsh, but
4t is constructive. Our President should not
expect our people to do that which he, him-
self, or his daughters would not be willing
to do. The President once remarked he
would be here in the year 2000.
Also, at 57, the President should be a.ble
to accept criticism and profit through it, for
that is the purpose of criticism. I now reject
the idea that public officials should be
shielded from criticism; this is a democracy.
However, if the President's narcissistic love
of self is so' strong that he cannot bear the
tiny and ancient Vietcong winning, to such
an extent that he will even burn alive people
he's supposed to be helping in order to get
at the Vietcong, then he needs a psychiatrist.
In defeat, insane defiance. Under such cir-
cumstances the man apparently rili plod
and escalate until world war III blows up
the world. ,You cannot expect him to act
No. 73--12
rationally like Kennedy with Cuba. Kennedy
asked the military, "How many people would
be killed?"
In World War II, as an overseas WAC, I
was saluting and wearing a uniform but I
wasn't contributing anything of value to my
country. Is this patriotism?
Now in the war against war, I have to
summon the utmost courage to write letters
like this. It takes real patriotism for I am a
diabetic and arthritic, in continual pain and
infection, and extremely tired of writing let-
ters.
Wisdom is the greatest weapon but I feel
like Jesus trying to teach people full of
hate from a painful position on the cross.
In April 1961, I was near death with
septicemia (blood poisoning), endocarditis,
and rheumatic fever. The pain was more
than I could bear and I prayed for Jesus to
take me away. Soon after, in a dream, I
saw my 4-year-old son, tears streaming
down his face, begging me not to die.
It was then that my Jesus philosophy
took shape and since then it bothers me to
see little children suffer. Yet children are
the greatest victims of war; imagine burn-
ing children alive for adult problems.
This is my personal appeal but since you
men want cold facts, alright there are those,
too.
With the advent of nuclear energy, gen-
erals are as obsolete as the horse and buggy
and earth people have important things to
do, such as learning how to get along. Please
contemplate and comprehend if possible,
genius, the following paragraph retrieved
from a pamphlet.
"Space is so immense that the best human
minds are unable to comprehend it. In our
own galaxy there are about 100 billion stars
'like our own sun' that are stretched over
such an inconceivable distance that light,
moving at a speed of 186,000 miles a second,
takes 100,000 years to cross it. And this is
only one of an unknown number of galaxies.
Light from the most distant one that man
can see with his largest optical telescope took
2 billion years to reach the earth. Compared
with such vastness, man's rocket accomplish-
ments fade to insignificance."
This is sufficient reason why the doves
must win. In comparison to the universe,
tell our President, he isn't even an insignifi-
cant flea and blowing us the world isn't
going to make him any bigger. If this
doesn't give him humility, nothing will.
I am under the impression, that in the
event that a Commander in Chief is not
capable of discharging his duties that the
Vice President takes over. I do not know
what is the criteria, who will determine and
When, but the world is about to be blown to
bits, and there isn't any time to waste. You
and those over 400 Congressmen should do
something more than talk. Ask the Con-
gressmen for help.
Sincerely yours,
Mrs. NATALIE DRISCOLL.
P.S.?Do not give the President this letter.
He is beyond help of my letters and they
would only enrage him.
? CRESWELL, OREG.,
March 29, 1965.
LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
President of the United States, the White
House, Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: In Eugene, as in many
places in the United States, groups have used
foreign policy association compiled material
and other information in "Great Decisions"
discussion groups. We have just had a ses-
sion on Vietnam.
Because of participating in such a study
group I do not presume to inform you about
a situation concerning which you have plenty
of knowledgeable informers. But, I do have
to assume that our actions in Vietnam do
8177
not become a good American nor a good
democracy.
It seems important to me that we lead for
self-determination in South Vietnam just as
earnestly as we do in Alabama. And, I want
this letter to convey to you the strong sup-
port I have felt, and tried to express locally,
for your leadership in insuring Negro rights
in our Southland. That will stand to your
credit in history pages.
Contrary to this action, however, you take
leadership in Vietnam to force a government
upon the people that they detest so much
that they run for Communist help to get
away from their government and the United
States. So, instead of protecting the area
from communism we may be said to expand
communism, and must, in following our
present course, end up in history as the Na-
tion that circumvented a democracy in Viet-
nam that we preached and tried to practice
at home.
In view of the present situation I believe
it is most vital to world peace and to our
Nation's honor that we move at once, and
with the greatest speed consistent with
soundness, to make it possible for the South
Vietnamese people to elect a government
that represents them and their desires. I
recognize that there are possibilities of Com-
munist strength in the area but nonethe-
less that it is an area traditionally opposed
to Chinese domination.
Is it not very important that we stop
action considered colonial like in the area
and take leadership in U.N. effort to give
those people the right of free expression in
their government? With the right will, a way
can be found to do this. Our leadership
seems to be lacking the will to give there
what we insist upon for 'ourselves. Lacking
this our help and encouragement on the
Mekong River project and U.N. activities may
fail .to convince them that we are not aggres-
sors.
Historically, Communists have been ac-
cused of letting the end justify the means
used to gain it. Some have answered that
the means becomes the end. If we are right,
Mr. President, it seems we will be more
prudent to exemplify less the violent means
of some Communists and more the nonvio-
lent means of some Negroes who are over-
coming.
But our time is short. We tarnish our
honor by being forced into democratic action
for the more lasting good of all. Surely we
should stop the "Little Tin God" stand we are
making in southeast Asia. And, surely with
the right will and cooperation with the United
Nations we can give more democracy to that
area even though they may make some bad
choices as we no doubt have sometimes done.
Sincerely yours,
G. RALPH EARLE.
Copy to Senators: WAYNE MORSE, MAURINE
NEUBERGER, and Congressman ROBERT DUN-
CAN.
CORVALLIS, OREG.,
March 31, 1965.
NOM WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington., D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Congratulations for
your courageous advocacy of peace in Viet-
nam. Our present policy seems directed to-
ward the destruction of the U.N.; we seem to
be striving to earn the enmity of the Indo-
chinese by destroying their villages. We con-
fuse civil war with Chinese- and North Viet-
namese-backed invasion, setting ourselves as
judges over the right to self-determination
of the Vietnamese people.
I believe that just as we have no right to
dictate the political destiny of a people, we
also have no right to dictate their economic
destiny. We are our brothers' keepers, and
must help them, but our help need not be
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
8178 CONGRESSIONAL
given tactlessly. Aid should be so adminis-
tered as to provide the greatest possible
advancement at the least possible coat to
the recipient's dignity.
As a Peace Corps volunteer in Chile I ob-
gaffed that AID money was much less effec-
ttve than Rockefeller or World Bank or
UNICEF money. Our foreign aid program
has too many bosses--bothhigh AID offiefels
and visiting Congressmen. (However, very
few of these take the trouble to go on inspec-
tion trips far outside Santiago.) These hurt
the program by their emphasis on the writing
of apparently fruitless reports and on rap-
idly visible results. Longer term projects
under international organizations suffer
much less from these problems. Further,
internationally directed projects do not fos-
ter a feeling of inferiority, resentment, and
dependence toward the donor?partly be-
cause he is less readily identified.
I would advocate that as much as possible
of our economic foreign aid be directed
through international organizations. As for
military foreign aid, r fail to see why it needs
fa he double the economic; I should like to
See it eliminated.
Sincerely,
Amos Roos.
THE DALLES, OREG.,
April 1, 196,5,
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I'M Writing you a few
lines to let you know I agree with you 100
percent on your views concerning the situa-
tIon in Vietnam. Fully four-fifths of the
people I talk to also think as we do about
that senseless war. Isn't there something
that we, the people, can do about it. Many
a Us are willing and eager to do something
to stop the slaughter of both our own boys
mid the natives of Vietnam but we lack
leadership. Please help us.
Yours truly,
Mae- MCCULLOUGH.
OREGON CTIY,
March 12, 1965.
BE/3.0tOr WAYNE MORSE,
tur Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I Wish to voice My
opinion on the present Vietnam crisis, I
strongly feel that we should pull our troops
out of Vietnam. It seems to me that We a
waste of time leaving our boys to help out in.
a place where help seems_ unwanted. If hell)
M wanted; it's wanted only by the minority
and the United. States goes against her peenciple "Majority rules" by trying to farce
democracy upon people who don't want it
a4 seem to fight it at every step.
Another point to be considered is?even
If democracy finally was accepted by the Viet-
=Mese, their government is so instable that
slamocracy would fail to last for any length
Of time.
It seems a terrible waste that the lives of
our boys and the money of our country
shpuld be sacrificed for the well-being of a
country that fails to appreciate it. It seems
to me that there must be a better answer to
this problem.
Respectfully yours,
Miss PAT LYONS.
COOS BAY, ORES.,
April1, 1965.
SENATOR MORSE: I read the speech you
Made at Portland, Oreg., concerning Vietnam
seat I wish to say that I agree with you. I
hope- that the United States does not go com-
pletely beserk.
I believe the people of this country have
beeri so brainwashed apout communism that
they can no longer us g good judgment about
Sincerely,
LAWRENCE BAGQUIST,
RECORD -- SENATE
YACHATS, OREG.,
April 5, 1965.
Senator WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR : McGeorge Bundy says he
believes the American people support Presi-
dent Johnson's present policy in Vietnam.
He vras rather vague about his source for
making this assessment.
I want you to know this citizen doe_ not
support our present policy in Vietnam. This
citizen still agrees with you?we should not
be fighting in. Asia.
If, as Bundy says, President Johnson be-
lieves that Asia is for the Asians, and that
the development of their resources should
be undertaken by Asian leaders, is it not
reasonable that the Asians should fight their
Own wars?
President Johnson stated something to
the effect that the terrorist bombing of our
embassy in Saigon will strengthen (?) the
American people's resolve to fulfill our obli-
gation (?) in South Vietnam. He sounded
almost like Roosevelt after Pearl Harbor. If
our security forces there had advance knowl-
edge of such a bombing, was not the laxity
in military police protection a virtual invita-
tion for them to go ahead and bomb it?
This is not an accusation?it is a question
which I think the American people should be
wondering about.
The knowledge that Hanoi, with the overt
backing of Peiping and now Moscow, started
an aggressive action by organizing the Viet-
cong insurrection, is coupled with this tragic
pose of Uncle Sam as the rich moral crusader
who will send his eager nephews to the far
side of the world to fight on any foreign.
battlefield, in any foreign war, where he is
invited to defend a non-Communist nation.
The fact remain?lost in the uproar of a
righteous cause?that the United States
should not be fighting in an. Asian war. We
ah.ould never have undertaken that commit-
ment when the French bowed out. We
should recognize now that it was and is a
mistake. Or are we too swelled in the head?
In the long run continuing this war will hurt
us mere than it hurts Red China..
Do Our generals enjoy this Vietnam thing?
Let them be reminded that these men and
boys who die in the mud and. jungle and
skies of southeast Asia are not little tin
soldiers. Each one is an irreplaceable human
being who deserved better than to die in a
war between two nations in Asia.
Sincerely,
LAWRENCE DAWSON.
BEAVERTON, ORE.,
April 3, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
UB. Senate Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: This letter is written
in response to your recorded speech which
was broadcast on the Portland, Oreg., radio
station, REX. The speech concerned the
"nausea producing, nonlethal" gas being sup-
plied by the U.S. Government for use in
Vietnam. Previous to your speech, I had felt
that the use of this gas was immoral and
unethical. However, your speech pointed out
the fact that the use of this gas is also illegal
In the terms agreed upon at the Geneva
Convention.
Since I am in complete opposition to this
action on. the part of our Government, I am
writing to you to ask what I might do in
support of the feeling you so positively ex-
pressed in the above-mentioned speech. As
a voter, taxpayer, and loyal citizen of the
United States, I feel obligated to speak out
at this time. I realize my position as part
et the masses is quite inaignifieent in moving
our Government to make decisions. There-
fore, I hope that you, as my Senator, will be
e
April 26, 1665
able to act supporting the feelings you have
expressed and to call on me requesting any
help I might possibly give to aid this cause.
Very sincerely yours,
DIANA M. GERDING.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
April 4, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: We have attended your recent
debate with Senator PROXM/RE in Portland.
As U.S. citizens and the residents of Ore-
gon we are proud to have you as our Sen-
ator.
May we thank you for bringing the truth,
no matter how ugly at times, to the Amer-
ican people. We trust you will continue
your relentless campaign for a lawful solu-
---tion in Vietnam, as well as in other parts
of the troubled world.
You have our gratitude and fullhearted
support for your brave actions and your c ut-
spoken views.
Sincerely yours,
AZIADNA V. LAPIN.
ETJGENE LAPIN.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
April 6, 1965.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
Washington, D.C.
MY DEAR SENATOR MORSE: As a retired horse
trainer, I have been following your fight to
preserve the American people from a ci uel
and burdensome war in Vietnam.
I must reveal to you that I have nothing
but the most highest respect and admiration
for your actions and speeches to expose to
the public the illegality of this count.y's
involvement in a war largely imposed on the
American and Vietnamese people by former
Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles end
his successors in office, who have failed and
neglected to conduct international affairs in
conformance with international law end
commonsense.
As your loyal supporter, I commend you in
opposing this administration's policy and its
further involvement to escalate the war in
Vietnam. Nearly every person of experience
can foresee that before this war is resolved,
President Johnson and his advisers, as well
as the American people, will have an ade-
quate opportunity to sober up with the
absolute knowledge of the fact that he
United. States cannot forcefully rule and
dominate the yellow race without extending
the casualty lists into the millions.
Retreat may seem cowardly but at times
most wise; realistic negotiation, most likely,
may lead to an honorable solution. If ehe
President were to appoint you to serve in a
capacity to explore and to participate in ne-
gotiations with the North Vietnamese and
other governments in a United Nations Ne-
rum, you could help the United States find a
peaceful solution to terminate the war.
Your experience in solving labor disputes
would enable you to bargain effectively in
behalf of the United States and the peo Die
of the world.
You may use this letter as you may see
fit.
Sincerely,
GLEN KLINE.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
April 4, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR WAYNE MORSE: Keep tsek-
ing, for you are right and we are thankiul
that you are being understood and we all hear
you.
I have been very disappointed since the
election that our program is not as peaceiul
as it was presented.
I would almost think the other party had
won if I hadn't seen the victory.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
I think the President had too many
Republican advisers, and they promised the
Democrats waged the wars.
They must be very happy that they are
not losing face, when losing face seems to
be the big problem in the war program for
the Nation. The Republicans will say we
told you so for they are now saying the
Democrats followed their program.
Respectfully yours,
CRYSTAL MAXWELL.
Hon. WAYNE MORSE,
The Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Please count me
among those urging a peaceful settlement in
Vietnam soon.
Sincerely yours,
SYBIL EMERSON.
MCMINNVILLE, OREG.
APRIL 6, 1965.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Your stand on Viet-
ram is intelligent and courageous. You de-
serve the thanks of the whole country.
Very truly yours,
MILLICENT A. ST. HELEN.
SALEM, OREG.
? FOSTER, OREG.,
April 7, 1965.
Hon. Senator WAYNE MORSE,
Senate Office Building,
Washington,, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR: As you have been consist-
ently right on issues and questions con-
cerning Asia, you are doubtless so on Viet-
nam.
We should get out of there whether we
save or lose face. It seems to me that
President Johnson and his chief advisers are
sold on the idea that might is right. I
wonder if they have considered the nations
that have survived the practice of this pol-
icy? Most of my neighbors say they feel
the same way.
HERBERT T. HUGHES.
SALEM, OREG.,
April 6, 1965;
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I heartily agree with
your stand on Vietnam. Your debate in the
ER center April 2 was very enlightening and
it seems that the public is being told only
what the administration believes the public
should know.
We have the undying hatred of the masses
in Asia from our conduct of the war.
Respectfully,
VICTOR A. HELGESSON.
PORTLAND, OREG.,
April 7, 1965.
President LYNDON B. JOHNSON,
White House,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: X am writing to ex-
press my protest concerning our present
policies and actions in Vietnam.
We must invest our resources and our
prestige in the direction of the rational, in-
telligent and civilized method of resolution
of conflict as provided for by the United
Nations. The nonuse of this course of ac-
tion is irresponsible for a country in a posi-
tion of leadership.
We must not follow the course of action
of even "limited war." In an era of great
scientific achievement and growth of all
knowledge such as never before dreamed of,
it is unbelievable that we resort to fighting
and killing in a manner distinguishable from
the behavior of animals only by the weapons.
Our present actions in Vietnam are not
only morally wrong, but legally and ration-
ally wrong as well. To resolve, or attempt to
resolve, differences and competitions between
communism and ourselves through anything
resembling war is a betrayal of everything
we stand for.
This is the time to stand for a world or-
der, a system, a process to resolve differences
and achieve compromise, and if there were
none our country should strive to create such
an organization. Of all things, we must not
turn our backs on the United Nations and
fail to use it. If we see weaknesses, work to
correct them rather than revert to savagery.
Sincerely,
Ross C. MILLER,
(Copies to Senator WAYNE MORSE and Rep-
resentative EDITH GREEN.)
PORTLAND, OREG.,
April 9, 1965.
WAYNE MORSE,
U.S. Senator.
DEAR SENATOR: Just a few lines to tell
you I am very glad for the stand you have
taken on our involvelnent in southeast
Asia. As I see it this is the result of our
interest in other people's affairs. I was
learned at an early age to mind my own
affairs and I have been very glad for that
learning; it has paid off wonderfully for
me and I am sure the same principle applies
to nations as well. Please take a look at
the record, I am sure you can see what price
England, France, Spain, and Germany paid
for their "interest" in outlying countries.
Then glance at the record of those countries
who have tended their own affairs and see
where they stand.
We have spent millions to develop the
United Nations and now refuse to put our
disagreements before that wonderful body of
nations. Even the most ignorant unedu-
cated peoples can see we are on the wrong
road if we want a fair and just peace.
Please continue your opposition to all en-
tanglements ?whether it be in Asia or any
other oversea country where we would only
be ridiculed for becoming involved. As I am
sure you know we have millions of hungry
people right here in our good old U.S.A.
The bread and soup line is getting longer
and longer, even some women in it now right
here in Portland, Oreg., so do all you can to
stop spending any more money overseas.
No matter who started that mess, over
there, Johnson could have pulled out with
clean hands since we all know he did not
start it but he failed to do that and has
now get himself in clear over his head so
will be blamed for all of it. Let's let the
world know there RIG a lo k of people here
that talk peace and mean it. -
Yours respectfully,
FRANK H. ANDERSON.
FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH,
Holden, Mass., April 8, 1965.
HMI. WAYNE L. MORSE,
U.S. Senate Office Building,
'Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MORSE: While, as a Demo-
crat and a resident of the State of Oregon,
I do not always agree with your political
stance, I am writing today to express my
appreciation to you for your courageous and
reasoned stand relative to the "war" in Viet-
nam. It seems to me that the United States
clearly is in the wrong in pursuing its policy
there.
I am a candidate for the ministry and a
student at Andover Newton Theological
School. While I will be unable to join a
march on Washington on April 17 to urge the
Congress and the President to press for im-
mediate negotiation and cease-fire in Viet-
nam, my sympathies are certainly with the
march and with your position.
I urge you not to be pressured by those
favoring our present position, including the
minority leader. ,You have a good many sup-
porters in the colleges and seminaries of
Boston.
Sincerely,
DOUGLAS W. CRUGER.
8179
Senator MORSE: Points you may wish to
make relevant to the Rusk speech to Society
of International Law, and otherwise:
1. We are embarked on the road to becom-
ing the world's most hated people.
2. This is because we have finally managed
to combine pious righteousness with power.
Heretofore we have been morally sure of our-
selves, but never sure of our power. Now we
are sure of ourselves.
One is reminded on the exchange: "Only
fools are positive." "Are you sure?" Arm
positive."
3. Secretary Rusk sought in his inter-
national law speech to compare the present
aggression in Vietnam, with the Hitler ag-
gression. This carries historical analogy to
the point of absurdity:
(a) Communist China is not Hitler Ger-
many.
(b) Most of the world perceived the
danger of Hitler; only the United States per-
ceives the danger of China.
(c) Germany was a great industrial
power; China is not.
(d) Germany threatened the sources of
Western Civilization; Communist China does
not.
(e) And furthermore, we're not fighting
China.
(f) We didn't belong to the League of Na-
tions; we do belong to the United Nations.
4. Someone has lost his perspective;
either the President and the Secretary of
State and the Secretary of Defense, or the
American people, a majority of the Members
of the Senate, and most of the nations of the
world.
5. I shudder what would be happening
now if Mr. Goldwater had been elected
President and embarked on this course of
action. He would be torn to pieces by the
Senate.
ADDRESS BY VICE PRESIDENT
HUMPHREY AT DUKE UNIVERSITY
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, on April
24 the Vice President of the United
States delivered an address before a
gathering at Duke University, in Dur-
ham, N.C. The remarks of the Vice
President on that occasion deserve the
thoughtful consideration of all Ameri-
cans. For this reason I ask unanimous
consent that the speech of the Vice Pres-
ident at that time be printed at this
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
REMARKS OF VICE PRESIDENT HUBERT H.
HUMPHREY, DUKE UNIVERSITY, APRIL 24, 1965
My fellow students, my theme today is
'this: "What Can We Americans Ask of Each
Other in 1965?"
Where are we bound in life?
What is our place in the world?
It was only 30 years ago that millions of
Americans asked of each other: "Brother,
can you spare a dime?"
Our great friend Carl Sandburg tells about
those times:
"The man in the street * * * lives now
Just around the corner from you
Trying to sell the only thing he has to sell,
The power of his hand and brain
To labor for wages, for pay, for cash of the
realm.
And there are no takers, he cannot connect."
No, my fellow students?and we are all
students in this world, for the learning
process never stops?no, there were no takers
then, and there were millions of us who
could not connect.
I saw, all of it as a young man?a young
man the age of most of you in this audience.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
8180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
I saw my neighbors and people in South
Dakota losing their farms, their businesses,
their health, their hope.
All we had Was dust and desperation.
We didn't worry much then about "have
you gone Cunard in the off-season?" 'Why
Is the Fastback the most exciting news in
America?" "Have you sleazed with a White
Tornado?"
No. We worried then about shelter,
clothing and holding onto work and life.
Thank 'God those times are past.
But to my generation they will always be
fresh and real. And a reminder that our
precious democratic society once tottered
on the edge.
This Nation 30 years ago was divided,
deeply divided: Have and have-not, business
and labor, North and South, black Mid white,
farm and city, left and right. But in face
of disaster and revolution we united--
united, I might add, under brilliant leader-
ship?to face our common foes. First, eco-
nomic crisis at home. Then, totalitarianism
and barbarism abroad.
We did not have to be asked what we could
do for each other and for our country. We
had to fight for survival.
Most of you here today were born after
those crises had passed. You have lived in
time of prosperity. You have not known
what my generation knew.
But your young generation has not turned
Inward on itself or satisfied itself with
material pleasures.
You have responded to the needs of these
times and you have done It in magnificent
fashion.
You are the volunteer generation.
There are now 10,000 volunteers serving
in the Peace Corps with more than 3,000
already returned and another 100,000 wait-
ing for their chance to participate.
When VISTA?the Volunteers in Service
to Alnerica?was launched, there were 8,000
Inquiries on its first day of business.
And I know that in most of the minds
here today there is the question: What can
I do to serve my country and my fellow
Man?
President Lyndon Johnson held his first
Presidential appointment at 27 and his first
political office at 29. As he has said;
"No one knows more than I the fires that
burn in the hearts of young men who yearn
for the chance to do better what they see
their elders not doing well * * * or not doing
at all."
Old men dream dreams, but young men
see visions,
Today in our country there is a vision of
a Great Society.
The nature of this vision has much to do
with ray question here today: What can we
Americans ask of each other in 1965?
In this time of prosperity, is the Great
Society to be a welfare state? Some may
think so. But that is not the vision of
President Johnson. Neither is it my vision.
We see the Great Society as a state of
opportunity.
No government owes every man a living.
But a just government of, by and for the
people does owe every man an opportunity
to enjoy the blessings of life.
The Great Society is based on the propo-
sition that every man shall have that op-
portunity.
If you examine the legislative program in
this Congress; if you listen to the words of
our President; if you look into your own
heart you cannot escape the conclusion that
we are succeeding, we are breakifig through
in our efforts to provide all American men
and women with that precious opportunity.
Some, once receiving it, may squander it.
But all Americans must have the chance?
a chance now denied to many?to make
/Something better of their lives and the lives
of their children.
Only a few days ago this Congress passed
a great bill which is a basic investment to-
ward achieving that equality of opportun-
ity: the Elementary and Secondary Edu-
cation Act. Thomas Jefferson was right.
We cannot be both ignorant and free.
This act in itself is accomplishment
enough to satisfy an ordinary Congress. But
it will be followed soon by passage of the
higher education bill.
These bills together will help build class-
rooms. They will provide funds for libraries
and textbooks and teaching materials. They
will provide funds for research in teaching
techniques and development of community
education centers.
They will above all, I hope, give new in-
spiration to teacher and student alike in the
exhilarating experience of gaining and using
knowledge. (And may I digress for a mo-
ment to say that true education depends
more that anything else on the quality of
teaching. I may be venturing here into
dangerous ground, but I must say that there
must thus be an appropriate balance be-
tween research and teaching.)
The education bills passed by this Con-
gress will contribute to the long-term, last-
ing health of this Nation. So will a dozen
other bills which will come from this Con-
grss, aotiag out the will of the American
people.
For the American people, in unprecedented
peacetime consensus and unity, have made
known their purposes.
We today stand united as Americans in
agreement:
That all Americans shall have truly equal
education.
That all Americans shall have truly equal
voting rights.
That we shall provide adequate medical
care to our people.
That we shall make our cities better places
In which to live and work in safety and
health.
That we shall preserve this Nation's beauty,
history, and natural resources.
That we shall open our doors again to im-
migrants who can enrich and lend new vital-
ity to our national life.
That we shall help our urban and rural
Americans alike adjust to technological revo-
lution and social change.
That we shall not drop the torch of inter-
national leadership.
For there are voices in America today which
say that America is ?vertex-tended in the
world; that other-people's problems needn't
be our problems; that we ought to close up
shop overseas and enjoy our fruits here in the
good old U.S.A.
When that time comes, this Nation is
doomed.
Who in the world will work for democracy
it we do not?
Who in the world can preserve the peace
If we do not?
Whomn the world can set the example, can
offer the needed hand, if we do not?
We live In a time when everything is com-
plex, when there are no more rapid and
easy answers. We live in. a time when we
must exert our patience as never before.
Let me spell it out: Have we the pa-
tience, for instance, to work, sacrifice, and
bleed 5,000 miles from home?in Vietnam?
for months and perhaps years ahead with-
out guarantee of final success? I can tell
you that the forces of totalitarianism have
that patience.
For the forces of totalitarianism do not
plan to blow the world to pieces. They plan
to pick it up piece by piece as we progres-
sively tire and withdraw.
But, as President Johnson declared in his
historic speech at Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity;
"We will not be defeated.
"We will not grow tired.
"We will not withdraw,"
April 26, 1965
We will not sacrifice small nations in the
false hope of saving ourselves. We will de-
fend the cause of freedom wherever it may
be threatened.
But at the same time, with equal deter-
mination, we will pursue each possibility of
lasting and just peace. The pursuit of peace
resembles the building of a great cathedral.
It is the work of generations. In concept it
requires a master architect; in execution, the
labors of many. It requires patience.
Thus I call on you as the generation cam-
ing to leadership to be strong and persever-
ing: strong in defense of justice and in op-
position to tyranny?persevering in seeking
a goal of peace for ill men.
I return then once more to my quest on:
What can we Americans ask of each other
in 1966?
I am essentially a religious person. I am
not ashamed of it. I believe that God
created man in His own image. I believe
that there is a spark of the devine in every
person. And I believe in the meaning of
human dignity.
My fellow students, the big struggle in the
world?and at home?today is not over the
forms of production. Those shift and
change. The struggle is about men's ela-
tionship to man and man's relationship to a
higher and nobler force.
I say that what we can ask of each other
is this:
To fight poverty because poverty destroys
the human spirit and human dignity.
To fight discrimination because it violates
the precepts of our democratic society and
Judeo/Christian ethic.
To pursue justice because it is basic to
our religious and ethical heritage.
To pursue an honorable peace because it is
the greatest gift we can give to our children.
So that there can be no question that
man?and not the state?is the most im-
portant thing worth preserving in this
world.
We c,an do it. It is within our grasp?
perhaps for the first time in history.
Yes, the first step toward these things is
the longest journey. And we have made
that step. And the second step. And now
we take a third.
We are privileged each year, each decade,
each generation in our time to take a new
step.
How fortunate we are to live in this
dramatic and creative period of change, of
challenge, of opportunity How great is our
responsibility to achieve excellence of mind
and spirit to do the tasks that must be
done.
I appeal, therefore, to you the generation
of 1985:
Make no little plans.
Have not little dreams.
Do not set your standards and goals by
those of your mother and father.
Do not set your standards and goals by
those of this time.
Challenge the impossible. Do what can-
not be done.
Thirty years ago it was "Brother, can you
spare a dime?"
Today we reach the stars.
My friends, I ask of you: Believe in the
perfection of man; make a better life for
our people; save the peace; build a Great
Society to last for generations beyond us.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, relev am, to
our consideration of pending legislation
to benefit the arts and humanities in the
United States is the fact that the secre-
tary of the Smithsonian Institution is
included on the Federal Council on the
Arts and the Humanities proposed in S.
1483, the administration bill which I 'arid
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For,Rselease 2003/10/14 CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.? SENATE
Mr. DOUGLAS. put Mr. Addieks was
aided by the Republicans, and the Sena-
tors' specific example was aimed against
the city of Chicago and was not arkexam-
ple which supports his case.
IRTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE PRAC-
TICES AND PROCEDURES--
Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. Presi-
dent, I ask unanimous consent to have
printed at this point in the REcorto an
Intriguing editorial from the April 23,
1965, issue of the Government Standard,
Signed by John F. Griner, national
president of the American' Federation of
Government Employees.
There being no objection, the editorial
Was ordered to, be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Government Standard, Apr. 23,
1905]
HEARING DELAY UNFAIR TO IRS EMPLOYEES
The Internal Revenue Service's handling of
cases involving serious charges against some
Of its employees should be a matter of grave
gonearn to all Fed,eral employees and to all
citizens who believe in justice and fairplay.
Internal Revenue has played fast and loose
with the rights of these employees and has
subjected them to unwarranted indignities.
All of this, presumably, has been done in
the interest of preserving the integrity of the
Agency and our tax collecting system. But
integrity can no more be preserved by fear
and pressure tactics than democracy can be
protected by adopting the repressive meas-
fires Of totalitarian states. The Internal
Revenue ervice has behaved as it it never
heard of some of the most cherished prin-
ciples on which this Nation is based, princi-
ples which go to the very heart of protec-
tion of, and respect for, individual rights and
due process of law.
Internal Revenue's handling of the
charges against some of its employees in
New York has given new force and meaning
to the Old saying that "justice delayed is
tustice denied." A number of Internal Rev-
entre employees in New York have been dis-
missed for allegedly accepting bribes or fail-
ing to report bribe offers.
Many of the dismissals were based on the
testimony of a so-called tax practitioner, an
individual who advises people on tax mat-
ters and helps them fill out their tax returns.
This tax practitioner has admitted bribing
Internal Revenue employees.
Ironically, the employees fingered by this
confessed briber have been fired while he is
still permitted to carry a Tremury Depart-
ment card authorizing him to represent tax-
payers. The employees were dismissed be-
fore they had exhausted all their adminis-
trative appeal rights within the Government.
This, unfortunately, is normal procedure
in the Government service. In itself, this is
bad enough, but Internal Revenue has seen
fit to compound the inequity. Some of the
accused employees have pleaded with Inter-
nal Revenue to hold an appeal hearing on
their discharge. The agency has steadfastly
refused to do this.
Internal Revenue has told the employees
that the hearings they are presumably en-
titled to are being delayed, at the request
Of the Justice Department, until criminal
Charges growing out of the bribery accusa-
tions have been disposed of. And the Jus-
tice Department, for its part, appears to be
In no hurry at all to proceed with the cern-
tnal cases.
We can find no legal justification for In-
ternal Revenue's action in denying its em-
ployees the hearings they are entitled to
tinder the Veterans Preference Act and the
No. 73-17
appropriate civil service laws and regula-
tions. The agency'S only defense is the re-
- ply that such action is customary in "these
cases." Meanwhile, the stigma that hovers
over these employees has ruined their Gov-
ernment careers and, in some cases, very
nea.rly wrecked their lives.
The alleged briberies -have 'received wide
newspaper publicity. The employees in-
volved have found it difficult .to get other
jobs and have been hampered in their efforts
to collect unemployment compensation. Yet
the fact remains that these employees have
appeals pending before the agency and have
never been tried, much less convicted, on any
criminal charges.
And all of this stems from accusations
made by a confessed briber, a man whose
credibility, to say the least: is questionable.
The IRS's handling?or mishandling?of
this situation is in keeping with the agency's
entire investigative procedure when it comes
to its own employees. Some of the accused
employees in New York have obtained other
employment outside the Government only
to find that Internal Revenue investigators
have visited their new places of work, asked
to see the employee, and then discussed the
case and the nature of the charges against
the employee with his new employer.
The powers of the IRS's investigative offi-
cers are truly awesome. They have the au-
thority to make arrests and seize property
without warrants if they have reasonable
grounds to suspect that the person being ar-
rested has committed a felony. Certainly
such wide ranging powers should be used
with discretion and judgment.
Unfortunately, this is not the case in In-
ternal Revenue. employees are summoned
before investigators and interrogated with-
out being told what, if any, are the charges
or accusations against them. During these
interrogations employees are not permitted to
be represented, either by their union or by
counsel. Yet these star chamber proceedings
can and have led to an employee's dismissal
and even to criminal charges being placed
against him.
AFGE never has and _never will condone
wrongdoing by any Federal employee. But
neither can we condone a, situation which
amounts to employees being adjudged guilty
until proven innocent. And that has been
the effect of the Internal Revenue's handling
of the charges against its employees.
These employees want, are entitled to, and
should have a timely hearing on the charges
against them. If found guilty, they should
be punished; if found innocent, they should
be reinstated. There is no justification
whatsoever for the Internal Revenue's action
in refusing to grant these employees a chance
to clear their names.
The denial of this, basic right is an affront
to all Federal. employees and a disgrace to
the Internal Revenue Service and the Fed-
eral Government. It should be counte-
nanced no longer.
JOHN F. GRINER,
National President, AFGE.
-Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. Presi-
dent, although the whole editorial raises
Interesting questions about IRS prac-
tices and procedures, I was particularly
interested in the paragraph relating to
the issuance of the so-called Treasury
cards.
According to Mr. Griner, a number of
IRS employees in New York have been
dismissed on the word of a tax practi-
tioner who is an admitted briber of IRS
employees. Yet this tax practitioner is
still permitted to carry his Treasury card
and to represent taxpayers.
On May 12, 1965, the Subcommittee on
Administrative Practice and Procedure
8217
is having a hearing on S. 1758, a bill
which would abolish Treasury cards.
Officials of the Department of the Treas-
ury have asked to be heard on that day;
and I expect to examine them closely on
the identity of the accuser and why he is
permitted to keep his card and to con-
tinue to represent taxpayers before the
Treasury Department.
THE ADEQUACY OF PRODUCTION
SCHEDULES FOR MILITARY AIR-
CRAFT AND HELICOPTERS
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, it pre-
viously has come to the attention of
members of the Armed Services Commit-
tee that there is some question as to
whether our current production sched-
ules for military aircraft and helicopters
are adequate to meet the attrition rate
which we now are experiencing in
Vietnain.
The increasing loss of planes either
shot down or damaged has raised the
distinct possibility that supplemental
funds may be necessary to speed produc-
tion of such aircraft?both those now
being built, and new models shortly to
be in production.
The distinguished acting chairman of
the Armed Services Committee has
pointed this danger out to the Senate and
has indicated that his Preparedness Sub-
committee will be looking into the situa-
tion. I know that it will bring to the
Senate an important judgment about
this matter.
I noted that Mr. Hanson W. Baldwin,
of the New York Times, discussed the
attrition worry in detail in Saturday's
editions of that paper, pointing out that
transfers of planes from existing units
already is underway. I ask unanimous
consent that Mr. Baldwin's revealing
article be printed at this point in the
RECORD, and I sincerely hope that other
Senators will give it careful study.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the New York Times, Apr. 24, 1965]
VIETNAM PROBLEM: A PLANE SHORTAGE?
LIMITED SUPPLIES A WORRY AS LOSSES RISE?
U.S. CRAFT ALSO HAVE DEFICIENCIES
(By Hanson W. Baldwin)
The limited numbers of aircraft available
and the technical shortcomings or unsuit-
ability of the U.S. planes used in Vietnam
are causing increasing worry among military
officers.
Several manufacturers?Douglas, North-
rup, and others---have received indications
that they may be called upon to initiate or
to speed up production of some military
types.
Aircraft losses are slowly increasing in
Vietnam as air operations are intensified, it
is pointed out. Limited numbers of replace-
ments are available for the newest and most
modern types. Production lines are small
for a few types, nonexistent for others.
To replace the losses, 2 squadrons of
B--57 light bombers, totaling 24 planes, have
been transferred from Air National Guard
units to the Air Force.
TRANSPORT SERVICE AIDED
The Air National Guard has also been
called upon to supplement the Military Air
Transport Service to a greater degree than
normally. Forty-six additional oversea
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
8218 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 26, 1965
transport flights were flown by Air National
Guard planes in March alone.
Helicopters and light aircraft have been
transferred from U.S. forces in Europe and
this country to Vietnam to provide replace-
ments and to increase helicopter strength
there.
A screening of skilled mechanics and other
aircraft maintenance personnel has been
underway for some time to provide for the
increasing needs in Vietnam.
The military believe that some major de-
cisions in budgeting, production, and other
areas will have to be taken soon if future
shortages in Vietnam are to be avoided and
if inadequacies are to be remedied.
Thfy believe that Vietnam is a kind of
proving ground for fiscal and military policies
and technological concepts and that some of
these are being shown to be in error or inade-
quate or unsuitable.
Present problems stem primarily from the
following factors: .
The unprogramed nature of the Vietnam-
ese war. The extraordinary expenses and ex-
penditures incurred by U.S. forces in Viet-
nam have not been budgeted. Supplies.
money, and equipment have come from other
commands, or as military puts it, out of
"other people's hides."
The prorfounced reduction in military air-
craft inventories and in numbers of planes
produced in the United States in the last 10
years. The aircraft inventory of the Air
Force and Navy was reduced by more than
4,000 planes in a decade. In 1954, 8,089 mili-
tary aircraft were produced in the country.
The estimate for 1961 is about 1,500.
The failure to develop an aircraft spe-
cifically designed for close 'ground support
and for interdiction missions of the type
now being flown in Vietnam.
NY/CLEAR-WAR CONCEPT CITED
The reduction in aircraft totals has been
caused by two policies.
One was the concept that any war the
United States fought would be a nuclear con-
flict and that far fewer planes would be
needed to deliver nuclear weapons than con-
ventional bombs. This concept was modified
in the closing years of the Eisenhower ad-
ministration, and funds for conventional
warfare have been sharply increased during
the tenure of Defense Secretary Robert S.
McNamara.
But the greatly increased costs of modern
aircraft?$4 million, for instance, for a single
modern Navy A-6, a Grumman jet-powered,
all-weather attack plane, as compared to
about $285,000 for an old A-1, a Douglas
propeller-driven Skyraider-Lhave prohibited
the replacement of older planes on anything
like.a one-for-one basis.
Moreover, some thought, the increased ca-
pabilities of the new planes in speed, al-
titude, automation and firepower would more
than compensate for the reduction in num-
bers.
But Vietnam appears to be upholding the
contention of those who disagree with this
theory, pointing out that one plane can be
in only one place at any one time, that its
bombload in conventional weapons is limited
and that for a conventional war greater num-
bers of rockets, bombs, and aircraft are re-
quired than the militaryloudget has provided
for.
BOMBING ACCURACY 'SCORED
The April 12 issue of Aviation Week notes
that there 'are serious discussions in Washing-
ton "about the shortcomings of U.S. aircraft
in the Vietnamese war and what means there
are to correct them."
'"Some nef ens e Department leaders contend
current fighter-bombers are too' fast and so-
phisticated for the job there and are taking
fresh looks at proposals for subsonic aircraft
equipped with old-fashioned guns and can-
non," the magazine adds.
It describes Mr. McNamara as dissatisfied
with the bombing accuracy in Vietnam and
says he "is expected to show new interest
in such aircraft."
The development of planes suitable for the
Vietnames type of warfare has been handi-
capped by a variety of factors?technological
differences as to the desirable characteristics
of the aircraft, different tactical concepts,
service differences about the proper methods
for employing airpower in support roles, and
Mr. McNamara's cost-effectiveness emphasis,
which has tended to emphasize "all-purpose"
planes instead of specialized ones.
Some critics contend that it makes no
sense to risk multi-million-dollar jet fight-
ers, with electronic systems and missiles,
against hundred-thousand-dollar bridges.
Others point out that the kind of plane re-
quired for the interdiction of roads and com-
munications must be rugged, capable of with-
standing damage from ground fire.
They say it should be able to undertake
both day and night missions. The pilot com-
partment, at least, should be armored, they
add, and the plane should be capable of fly-
ing for long periods at relatively low altitudes
above roads and communications points.
In addition, it is noted, the plane should
be equipped for a large and variable arma-
ments load. No jet-powered aircraft appears
to meet these requirements fully.
' In an article in the April U.S. Naval In-
stitute Proceedings, Lieut. Comdr. A. D. Mc-
Fall says that the propeller-driven Douglas
A-1, now used in limited numbers in Viet-
nam by the South Vietnamese and U.S. forces,
has met the requirements better, than any
other plane.
DECLARATION OF IIJ AS A
COMBAT
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I wish to
commend the President for his action
of Saturday in declaring Vietnam a com-
bat zone. This action makes income tax
benefits available to our men there and
serves to point out an obvious fact which
has previously been ignored.
Vietnam is indeed a combat zone. It
has been for some time.
The President's action accomplishes
the purposes sought in this Chamber last
January by the introduction of a bill to
declare Vietnam a combat zone. I was
pleased to welcome as cosponsors on that
bill (S. 459) Senators ALLorr, BENNETT,
CLARK, FANNIN, FONG, JORDAN Of Idaho,
MURPHY, RANDOLPH, and SIMPSON.
I am sure that these cosponsors would
agree with me today that nothing could
give them more satisfaction than now
being able to note that the bill is no long-
er necessary. Its goal has been accom-
plished and rightfully so.
It is now my hope that having given
public notice that we regard Vietnam as
a combat zone, this Government will
promptly proceed to extend to our men
there the other benefits this Nation nor-
mally has provided to fighting men.
I, for one, shall do all that I can to
make certain that a Vietnam GI bill is
enacted granting education and loan
benefits similar to those granted by the
Korean GI bill.
I am pleased to note that a Vietnam
GI bill was introduced in the Senate in
January by myself and Senators ALLOTT,
BARTLETT, CURTIS, FANNIN, FONG, MUNDT,
MURPHY, RANDOLPH, and SIMPSON. I
hope that It will be enacted as a part of
the coming higher education bill.
Mr. President, members of all the
armed services, both officer and enlisted,
have told me and written to me that they
regard their service in Vietnam to be
under combat conditions equal to those
of Korea and World War II.
As every Senator knows, some 33,000
U.S. personnel are committed to the
Vietnam war. Nearly 500 of these have
been killed. We are losing boys ar d
equipment there almost every day in this
fight against communism.
America's Armed Forces have suffered
more battle casualties in the war against
Communist guerrillas in Vietnam than
they did in the war with Spain in 1898,
according to official figures. The Span-
ish-American War, which began 67 years
ago this month, is listed officially as one
of the eight principal wars in which the
United States has participated.
In the undeclared hostilities in Viet-
nam, not on the official list, the U.S. toll
to date is 2,344 killed and wounded by
enemy action and a further figure of 36
captured or missing. The comparable
statistics for the war with Spain, foug at
in Cuba and the Philippines in Apr 1-
August, 1898, are 2,047 killed and
wounded in battle.
Americans fighting in Southeast Akia
today, and those who risked their lives
In earlier years, are entitled to be re-
garded as combat veterans for incorae
tax purposes and for education benefits.
The period 1954 to 1959 was a quiet
period in Southeast Asia with the United
States conducting a low-key military
program of some '700 advisers. Com-
munist terror and subversion were at a
low level. Then, in 1960, the North
Vietnamese Communists initiated a
turning point with their decision to take
over full direction of efforts to seize
South Vietnam.
The American buildup in response
to obvious Communist designs began in
1961 when we increased the number of
advisers to some 2,000 in the face of Red
infiltration. By 1962, we were up to
11,000 men; by 1963, to 15,500, by 1964,
to 23,000; and today, to nearly 28,000.
DENIAL OF USE OF MIGRANT FARM
LABOR IN TEXAS
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I note
that once again, today, the Secretary of
Labor has forgotten Texas.
Earlier this month he admitted that
his past position on the admission of
bracero farmworkers was grievously in
error. On April 9 he reversed his ban?
which was causing a danger of rotted
crops and higher consumer prices--a ad
allowed thousands of West Indian work-
ers to enter the country, as they nor-
mally have in the past, to assist in the
citrus harvest in Florida.
I was pleased that he took care of
Florida's problem, but amazed that he
had ignored the same problem in my
State and in California.
Now today, I see that California has
been admitted to the Labor Depart-
ment's union and that 1,500 Mexican
bracer? workers have been admitted to
work the asparagus and strawberry lux-
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 " CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A1945
votes by sowing money in every possible
field, to build power by promising solutions
to all problems. But that process of Govern-
ment aggrandizement cannot go unaccom-
pained by some weakening of individual will.
It is necessary only to note how placidly
many Americans today accept Federal in-
trusions that would have been unthinkable
a generation or two ago.
Federal largess, moreover, is by no means
the sole agent of the alteration, even at a
time when the subsidies are proliferating at
a remarkable rate. There is also a pervasive
pseudo-philosophy preached both in and out
of Government, a creed of irresponsibility.
In this dark dogma security becomes the
paramount value, overriding thrift, pru-
dence, self-reliance, self-respect, intelligent
accommodation to the complexities of exist-
ence and often indeed simple morality and
honesty. People are not merely to be helped
when in need; they are to be supported no
matter what they do or do not do.
It could hardly be more symptomatic of
the attitude that in our era serious dis-
cussion is granted to the proposition that
income should be divorced from work, which
means everyone should have a guaranteed
and comfortable income regardless of
whether he chooses to work. That, if any-
thing could be, is a headlong flight from
adult responsibility and straight into the
arms of the all-mothering State.
To look askance at the trend is not neces-
sarily to bewail an impending despotism, at
least in the usual sense. As Tocqueville also
perceived, the dangers confronting democ-
racies are more subtle. In a degenerated
democracy, the central authority is not
wholly exploitative but wishes the people to
be happy, so long as they don't think, and it
actually tries to supply their wants and
necessities.
To function at all the "tutelary power"
must nonetheless cover the surface of society
with a network of small, complicated rules,
minute and uniform, through which the
more original minds and the most energetic
characters cannot penetrate, to rise above
the crowd.
Thus, in Tocqueville's view of the danger,
"the will of man is not shattered, but soft-
ened, bent and guided. * * * Such a power
does not destroy but, * * * it compresses,
enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a peo-
ple, till each nation is reduced to nothing
better than a flock of timid and industrious
animals, of which the Government is the
shepherd."
How near or far the American democracy
Is today from that denouement, and what
could realistically be done to prevent its
materializing?these are questions without
answers. What is clear is that we have al-
ready moved some considerable distance
toward that society of sheep and that the
pressure of much public policy and preach-
ment seeks to push us further toward it.
Apart from diminishing the dignity of
man, one of the unhappy aspects of the
flight from responsibility is that it is a de-
lusion. In our world no one and nothing
can guarantee security or wash away all sor-
rows and difficulties. Time and again, the
Federal Government has proved its incom-
petence to solve the myriad problems it takes
on.
But no matter what a government at-
tempts, it cannot forever shelter a people
from the abrasive realities of personal, eco-
nomic, and moral imperatives. To the ex-
tent a State succeeds in keeping a citizenry
in perpetual childhood, it can only assure
them a more painful awakening to manhood.
Dereliction in Debate
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. THOMAS B. CURTIS
OF MISSOURI
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, individ-
ual editorial writers around the Nation
are beginning to realize and to speak out
publicly about the lack of discussion in
this House on some of the most impor-
tant and complicated issues before us.
Unfortunately, it conies too late at this
time but perhaps the fact that individual
voices are being raised will help convince
some that fair and full discussion is far
preferable to steamroller tactics.
The thing which is most puzzling to
me is that in view of the huge and work-
able majorities which the Democratic
Party has in this and the other body,
that they are compelled by some force
to prevent scholarship and full and fair
discussion. One wonders why, in view
of their large numbers, they cannot al-
low the minority time and other oppor-
tunities to try to explore complicated
legislation, the results of which many of
us do not know. Generosity on the part
of the majority would seem to be politi-
cally wise as well as legislatively sound.
Their unwillingness to play fair is both
disappointing and not able to be under-
stood. Hopefully columnists, editorial
writers, commentators and scholars of
the legislative process will do some inter-
views in the weeks and months ahead
to find out why the majority party
Members feel so insecure that they have
to rush their legislation through without
adequate discussion and debate. This
is one concrete recommendation that I
have to make today in view of what has
been happening here during recent weeks
and what we are told will happen in the
weeks and months ahead.
Following is an editorial from the Wall
Street Journal of April 6, 1965, which I
wish to call to the attention of my col-
leagues:
DERELICTION IN DEBATE
It's tempting merely to chuckle about par-
tisan politics when Republicans complain,
as one of them did other day, that "the
Great Society has turned into the great
steamroller." But when a northern liberal
Democrat supports the substance of that
complaint, perhaps it's time to listen.
To wit, Representative EDITH GREEN'S sear-
ing commentary on both the administra-
tion's primary education bill and the tactics
used to speed House approval of that meas-
ure, The lady from Oregon noted that while
her fellow Democrats brag of guarding mi-
nority rights, their benevolence evidently
doesn't extend to congressional minorities
which question official infallibility. She ob-
served, "It seems to me we have in the House
a determined effort to silence those who are
in disagreement."
The debate did seem curiously restricted
for a proposal with such far-reaching impli-
cations. Also, the bill is such a Rube Gold-
berg contraption that, as Mrs. GREEN said,
more debate was needed simply "to let the
House know what is actually in the bill."
The measure is so confusing that at one
point even its sponsors couldn't agree on
what its language allowed. Still, its backers
seemed intent on passing it without change,
and treated most amendments peremptorily,
without record votes and often without dis-
cussion.
Such arrogance might be understandable
if the amendments were merely political or
trifling. Instead, may -of them dealt con-
scientiously with the bill's fundamentals,
such as the fact that while its ostensible
purpose is helping the disadvantaged, its sys-
tems of allocating Federal funds heavily
favors already wealthy States.
The majority even brushed aside bipartisan
attempts to facilitate judicial tests of the
bill's constitutionality. The proposal inten-
tionally walks close to the constitutional line
on church-state questions, and Federal courts
often evade jurisdiction on this issue by find-
ing that no one is directly enough affected
to bring suit. One proposed amendment
might have helped simply by encouraging
judicial review; another definitely specified
who would be eligible to start constitutional
tests.
Since the bill festers a multiplicity of ap-
proaches to aiding children in church schools,
it has endless opportunity for chaos unless
the constitutional questions are resolved
quickly. Not surprisingly, the judicial re-
view provision was backed by the National
School Board Association, which represent
boards covering 95 percent of the Nation's
pupils. The House majority chose to avoid
the whole constitutional issue.
Simple by closing its ears to serious ques-
tions, the Democratic majority achieved the
victory of having its measure passed practi-
cally untouched. This bit of vanity means,
among other things, that some disadvantaged
children will get shortchanged, and the Na-
tion's school boards will have to struggle with
the tough questions the House was afraid to
face. As with so many past Federal pro-
grams, the price for dereliction in congres-
sional debate will be paid by those the pro-
gram purports to help.
Duties and Responsibilities of Trial
Judges?Essay by Hon. Gordon W.
Chambers
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. HERMAN E. TALMADGE
OF GEORGIA
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, the
Honorable Gordon W. Chambers, judge
of the city court, Richmond County,
Ga., has written an excellent essay on the
great duties and responsibilities of trial
judges. I ask unanimous consent that
his essay be printed in the Appendix of
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the essay was
ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as
follows:
JUDICATURE
(By Gordon W. Chambers)
"Judici Satis Poena est Quod Deum Habet
Ultorem."?1 Leon, 295.
A thousand defendants are tried by an
active criminal court judge in a relatively
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- APPENDIX April 26, 1965
short space of time and each of them only
once, but they in turn try civilization, the
law, justice, and the judge a thousand times.
Prisoner and judge pass judgment on each
other.
Society must be protected, and with cer-
tainty, for its own preservation and more
thought should solidify itself in behalf of
the law abiding rather than sentimentaliz-
ing in behalf of the law violator. '
It would be trite to emphasize in detail
the terrific responsibility of a judge issuing
orders, warrants and commitments, holding
hearings at chambers, to say nothing of
extrajudicial conferences, trying civil issues,
making rulings and adjudicating subject
matters of contract or tort involving immense
sums of the "root of all evil," money, and
even more so on the criminal side involving
"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
It almost staggers the Imagination, one de-
fendant's emotional life and social history
with its ramification of heredity and environ-
ment, status, health, economics, character,
and personality, an indicative of the record
of the cause. The effect is being tried. Yet,
we all know the victimized individual's
right and the public interest must also be
protected by the exercise of a certain and
equal justice tailored to history, status,
record, and offense; just as we know in spite
of our sympathies a mad dog must be de-
stroyed, a contagion must be quarantined
and that we must give some of our property
(taxes) to preserve the rest of it and withal
continue to civilized order of government
and society. Multiply this a thousand times
and you have some idea of a year in the life
of a jurist.
A judge doesn't forget what he knew as a
man. His conscience is not concerned with
its own approval or persuaded by its dis-
approval of a statute. He applies the law,
construes and interprets, in all cases to the
end that in truth justice will ensue in ac-
cordance with legislative intent. The jury
establishes the facts under rules of evidence
enacted in- search of the truth and to make
sure as human experience can make cer-
tain that the jury's final verdict reflects the
truth as they found it to be. From the fil-
ing of civil petition, warrant or indictment
In criminal accusation, through demurrer,
plea and answer, every ruling "His Honor"
makes, every construction and interpreta-
tion, every judgment rendered or sentence
pronounced places the judge on trial.
Still, these judges are more powerful
than President or potentate within the limits
of their court's jurisdiction geographically
and the subject matte. Therefore, they
should be thrice more humble and lose
themselves completely in applying the power
of their office to the law of the land which
is the last defense of democratic institu-
tions and the rights of society.
Treating life as it is, the great Greek law-
giver, Solon, said, "No, I have not given the
people the best laws; I have given them the
best laws that they will stand for." There is
a practical equation measured by our own en-
lightened progress with civilization. Always
growing apace and trying to make things
better and as they should be.
Elected judges must have something more
than mental attainment and judicial tem-
perament. They have to possess political
sagacity, character, and personality to cap-
ture the public imagination Or interest the
same as any candidate aspiring to be mayor
or alderman. Necessarily they have to meet
and know all classes of people making up the
electorate and it is essential that they be
friendly if they hope to serve these people
an equal and fearless universal justice. This
can be done regardless and heedless of human
perversity without co:npromise of soul, heart,
mind or conscience.
The judge being a human being, he can
feel friendly toward every living creature and
this includes sinners as well as saints, deni-
zens, and also, citizens of the ecclesiastical
clergy. It is entirely a matter of personality
and strength of character. A minister and
a judge, certainly those of the Christian
faith, can be friendly to sinner and saint
without granting immunity to any citizen
for reaping what he has sown. Hate the sin
if we will, but never the sinner. Before in-
dependent courts of justice there are no
such things as friends or foe. "His Honor,"
is very dear to a judge.
Politically there are diverse views as to
electing a judge for a limited tenure or ap-
pointment by leigislative, executive or other
committee for a rather lengthy period or life.
Much can. be said pro and con, but with all
Its imperfections the popular vote can termi-
nate incompetence, which is very hard to do
under life tenure by impeachment. The
idealistic theory of unlimited tenure has
proved impractical in State governments
and from time to time it is censured in the
Federal system.
The duties of a judge invokes, if not im-
poses, a cruel responsibility touching as it
does the quick of a dedicated conscience,
which challenges a brave indifference to any
personal effect, ambition or status. God
must bless with some mystical gift those
judges defiant of the political demagog
or boss, deaf to the cries of the mob and im-
mune to subtle influence or treacherous flat-
tery such as press slanted propaganda or
half truth vocally. These mystically en-
dowed wearers of the robe can look into the
mirror and see nothing there but. duty.
They have God as their avenger and this is
enough for them. They face their responsi-
bility without tremor or fear. Socrates and
his hemlock come to mind and the cross
transfixes the heart. ?
Taxes and College Tuition
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. STANLEY R. TUPPER
OF MAINE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. TUPPER. Mr. Speaker, as one of
many Members who has introduced leg-
islation during the past 5 years to obtain
tax relief for parents sending children to
college, I was encouraged by an editorial
in Forbes magazine, April 15, in. behalf
of tax credits for college expenses.
The article follows:
TAXES AND COLLEGE TUITION
Why not?
Who would, could sensibly oppose a rea-
sonable program for some degree of tax
credit for college tuition?
Presidents Kennedy, Eisenhower, and Tru-
man all advocated various Federal programs
to encourage and finance higher education.
President Johnson is even more all-out in
his enthusiasm for substantially stepping up
our investment in learning. Every State
university has been growing enormously,
straining State exchequers to meet the cost
of educating more eligible millions of young
people.
Fortunately, most Americans agree that
putting money into schooling and scholar-
ship is the wisest, soundest type of invest-
ment. Much has been done by many gov-
ernmental agencies, foundations, corpora-
tions and other private groups to provide
scholarships for those with college ability
but not family means.
In point of fact, those who now have it the
toughest are the family breadwinners who are
earning too much to qualify on a poverty
basis for scholarship aid, but too little to meet
the heavy burden of their youngster's college
costs. Tuition, board, lodging, books, clothes
and assorted sundries for a college year ars
figured to average over $2,000. If there is
more than 1 child in college?and the aver-
age American family now has 2.39 children--
the strain on the family income, even if it
is well over $10,000 a year before taxes, is
frequently prohibitive.
A number of proposals to permit a tax
credit are in the congressional hopper, some
of them having been introduced for many
years. It is high time the advocates got tc -
gether on one measure and put it through.
The postwar baby crop is now of college age
and the squeeze between rising costs and
larger numbers is really on and really hurt-
ing.
With a President and a Congress and a peo-
ple all sympathetic to the family financial
problem and all warmly committed to the
value of higher education, it surely shoal d
be possible this year to enact a meaning-
ful college tuition tax-credit measure.
Our Position in Asia
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF'
HON. ALBERT GORE
OF TENNESSEE
IN THE SENATE OF nab UNITED STATES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, ' I ask
unanimous consent to have printed in
the Appendix of the RECORD an editor al
entitled "The World Now Knows Pi e-
cisely How It Can Have Asian Peace,"
published in the Atlanta Constitution of
April 8, 1965; also an article entitled
"U.S. Concept Is All Wrong," written by
Walter Lippmann and recently publish-3d.
Both the editorial and the article thal
generally with the same subject.
There being no objection, the editorial
and article were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, DE follows:
From the Atlanta Constitution, Apr. 11,
1965j
THE WORLD NOW KNOWS PRECISELY How IT
CAN HAVE ASIAN PEACE
President Johnson greatly enlarged the
possibility of peace in Vietnam Wednesday
night by spelling out what the United States
will not do, and what it will do.
If the war must continue, then "We will
not be defeated. We will not grow tired.
We will not withdraw * * ? Armed hostility
is futile * * ? our resources are equal to any
challenge ? * * our patience and determina-
tion are unending * * * We will use our
power With restraint * * * But we will use
it."
That much needed stating once and for
all, and it was so stated.
What the United States will do, if North
Vietnam is ready to call off its war; and per-
mit "an independent South Vietnam" to live
as it wishes, "securely guaranteed" and 'free
from outside interference" by anybody, was
spelled out with a clarity, in advance of any
negotiations, that may be unprecedented in
modern diplomacy.
The United States for its part will accept
a South Vietnam "tied to no alliance," and
serving as "a military base for no cther
country." That would mean withdrawal of
American troops, which North Vietnam has
been demanding as a precondition to a e go-
tiations.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
14pril 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX
And 'when North Vietnam is ready to talk
over these essentials, then the United States
is ready "for unconditional discussions,"
rt was that clear.
What if North Vietnam isn't ready to talk?
The President's threat was unmistakable:
"We have no desire to devastate that which
the people of North Vietnam have built with
toil and sacrifice * * But we will use our
power."
And what if North Vietnam does wish to
Make peace? For the first time President
Johnson specifically included North Vietnam
as a prospective beneficiary of massive de-
velopment aid for southeast Asia, which
could secure its independence from China,
among other things. He asked U Thant to
organize the development effort among all
southeast Asians. He specifically mentioned
harnessing of the Mekong which serves all of
southeast Asia. Ile put a billion U.S. dollars
on the barrelheacl to start the underwriting,
and he invited the rest of the world to join
in?specifically including Russia?lest any-
body think this was an oily American effort
to buy southeast Asia away from commu-
nism per se.
ha a very shrewd way, though, it did rep-
resent an effort to buy southeast Asia away
from China. Russia can afford to join us
hugely in the development financing. China
lacks the resources. Russia doesn't want to
me China take southeast Asia. Neither does
North Vietnam want to be taken by China.
The President figures they can all add,
So there it it, It couldn't be clearer. With
? extraordinary candor, the President has
opened a way to a peace desirable to everyone
but China?and closed the way to any fur-
ther doubt about American will if North Viet-
nam chooses war.
U.S. CONCEPT Is ALL WRONG
(By Walter Lippmann)
WasitiNGTON.?Why is it, it is time to ask,
that our position in Asia has declined so
sharply though we are widening and intensi-
fying the war in Vietnam?
According to the so-called domino theory,
the United States would lose the respect and
support of the peoples of Asia if, in confront-
ing Chinese communism, it showed itself to
be a paper tiger and refrained from military
action. For 3 months, since February, we
have applied this theory ever more vigorously.
And what are the results? Quite contrary to
what was predicted: today the United States
is not only isolated but increasingly opposed
by every major power in Asia.
With the exception of Japan, which has a
government but not a people who support
our policy, all the Asian powers are against
us on this issue?not only China and Indo-
nesia, but the Soviet Union, India, and Pak-
istan. The crucial fact is that, although the
Asian powers are by no means at peace with
one another, what they do have in common
is an increasingly vociferous opposition to
the escalated war we have been waging since
February. India and Pakistan, India and
China, China and the Soviet Union are
quarreling to the point of war with one
another. But they are united in con-
demning our February war.
? GENERAL OPPOSITION
The administration should put this fact in
its pipe and smoke it. It should ponder the
fact that there exists such general Asian
opposition to our war in Asia. The Presi-
dent's advisers can take some comfort, but
mighty little, from the fact that alined with
us is the Thailand Government in Bangkok,
Which is independent though weak; the gov-
ernment in Seoul, which we subsidize; the
government in Taipei, which we protect; the
goVerninent in Saigon, which governs some-
thing Tess than half of South Vietnam.
Pondering the matter, we must, alas, put into
the other scale the ominous, rising anti-
Americanism in the Philippines.
The dominoes are indeed falling, and they
are falling away from us.
What is the root of all this swelling anti-
Americanism among the Asians? It is that
they regard our war in Vietnam as a war by
a rich, powerful, white, Western nation
against a weak and poor Asian nation, a war
by white men from the West against non-
white men in Asia. We can talk until the
cows come home about how we are fighting
for the freedom of the South Vietnamese.
But to the Asian peoples It is obviously and
primarily an American war against an Asian
people.
In my view the President is in grave
trouble. He is in grave trouble because he
has not taken to heart the historic fact that
the role of the Western white man as a ruler
in Asia was ended forever, in the Second
World War. Against the Japanese the West-
ern white powers were unable to defend their
colonies and protectorates in Asia. That put
an end to the white man's domination in
Asia which had begun in the 15th century.
ULTIMATE VICTORY
Since then, despite our ultimate victory
over the Japanese Empire, the paramount
rule has been that Asians will have to be
ruled by Asians and that the Western white
powers can never work out a new relation-
ship with the Asian peoples except as they
find a basis of political equality and non-
intervention on which economic and cultural
exchanges can develop.
This great historic fact is an exceedingly
difficult one for many westerners to digest
and accept. It is as hard for them to accept
this new relationship with Asia as it is for
many a southerner in this country to accept
the desegregation of schools and public ac-
commodations. The Asia lands who still in-
stinctively think of Asia in prewar terms
are haunted by Rudyard Kipling and the
White man's burden and the assumption that
east of Suez are the lesser breeds without the
law.
Until we purge ourselves of these old pie-
conceptions and prejudices, we shall not be
able to deal with Asian problems, and we
shall find ourselves, as we are today in Viet-
nam, in what the German poet described as
the unending pursuit of the ever-fleeting
object of desire.
Armenian Martyr's Day
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. STANLEY R. TUPPER
OF MAINE
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA rWaS
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. TUPPER. Mr. Speaker, on the
50th anniversary of the Turkish mas-
sacre of the Armenian nation, the Gov-
ernor of the State of Maine, His Excel-
lency John H. Reed, issued a proclama-
tion setting Saturday, April 24, 1965, as
Armenian Martyr's Day. I think it is
appropriate that Members of the 89th
Congress be informed of the action by
the State of Maine.
The proclamation follows:
ARMENIAN MARTYR'S DAY PROCLAMATION
STATE OF MAINE
Whereas 50 years ago, on April 24, 1915, the
Government of Turkey ordered the massacre
of the Armenian nation which before ite
termination was to take the toll of 1 million
lives, with an additional 1 million displaced,
ill, and in want; and
Whereas the beginning. of the Armenian
martyrdom marked at the same time the
A1947
opening of the many important contributions
to the Allied war effort in World War I by the
Armenian nation, affectionately termed "The
Little Ally" by Woodrow Wilson, President of
the United States of America; and
Whereas the sacrifice of the Armenian na-
tion in the cause of virtuous government,
freedom, justice, and human rights serves
to remind us that mankind is ready to
perish in the interest of noble causes; and
Whereas in this anniversary year of the
1915 genocide of the Armenian nation it is
significant to remember those men, women,
and children who perished in violence, to
honor their memory and pay tribute to their
self-sacrifice:
Now, therefore, I, John H. Reed, Governor
of the State of Maine, do hereby proclaim
Saturday, April 24, 1965, as Armenian
Martyr's Day, and urge that proper recogni-
tion be accorded to this solemn occasion.
Given at the office of the Governor at Au-
gusta and sealed with the great seal of the
State of Maine, this 15th day of April 1965,
and of the independence of the United States
of America, the 189th.
By the Governor:
JOHN H. REED.
Indianapolis Times Praises Secretary
Fowler
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. VANCE HARTKE
OF INDIANA
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, Secre-
tary of the Treasury Henry H. Fowler
made an address before the recent meet-
ing Of the American Society of News-
paper Editors. It was his first major
speech since assuming the post of Secre-
tary, and it received a warm reception
by the newspapermen who were there.
The Indianapolis Times was among the
newspapers which commented favorably
In its editorial pages on this address.
I ask unanimous consent that an editorial
of April 21, which was published in that
newspaper under the title "Fowler's Eco-
nomics Lecture," may be printed in the
Appendix of the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
iFrom the Indianapolis Times, Apr. 21, 1965]
FOWLER'S ECONOMICS LECTURE
In his first major speech as the new Secre-
tary of the Treasury, Henry H. Fowler last
weekend delivered a lecture on economics to
a meeting of the American Society of News-
paper Editors. The lecture made unusually
good commonsense.
Here are some of the points Fowler made:
There is no one theory on which economic
progress can rest. We gain by a host of prac-
tical policies which are "pragmatic rather
than dogmatic, balanced rather than extreme,
resilient rather than rigid."
The Government by itself cannot fashion
any cure-ails or solutions for economic prob-
lems; the prime mover has to be the private
economy.
The Government's responsibility lies in
sound tax policies which stimulate business
rather than hamper it, in a "rigorous" con-
trol of Government spending, and in mane-
tory practices which permit suitable long-
term credit and make for price stability.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150020-1
A1948 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- APPENDIX April 26, 196,15'
There is such a thing as "excessive" growth
In the economy, which can promote inflation.
This is to be avoided
Fowler's statements were in contrast to
some of the high-flown ideas we so often hear
from Government officials, or even private
economists, who talk as though a single pet
theory or their own could provide instant
prosperity, who never are influenced by the
failure of these theories, who complain our
national growth has been lagging, who think
the Government, merely by spending, can
solve everything.
4, The Treasury Secretary thinks the reduc-
Mons in sale or excise taxes President John-
son is about to propose will provide an incen-
tive for price reductions and at the same time
bolster private purchasing power. But he
warned against anything but "prudent" tax
9uts--which, for one -thing, Simply would fur-
ther the perennial round or Governmeurdefi-
cits. Fowler, almost uniquely for a Wash-
ington official, seems to think these are bad
business.
If the policies Fowler outlined are to be
Government policies the next 4 years, then
the country can indeed look forward to a
burgeoning economy. We hope the spenders
and theorists in Congress and elsewhere in
the Government will refrain from meddling.
Additional U.S. Aid to Nasser's Egypt?
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
ow
HON. JAMES ROOSEVELT
OF csirrernIs
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, a few
days ago, on April 21, there appeared in
the Los Angeles Times an editorial en-
titled "Additional U.S. Aid to Nasser's
Egypt?" the full text of which follows:
ADDITIONAL U.S. AID TO N-ASSER'S EGYPT?
Can Carnal Abdel Nasser be serious in his
reported request for $500 million in U.S. aid
to Egypt over the next 3 years? Ah, indeed he
can. Like the patricide who seeks mercy from
the court because he is now an orphan, Nasser
has always shown an incredible impudence in
his dealings with the United States.
Being slow to anger and quick to forgive
may well be a comMendable virtue, but it is
one that has definite limits in international
relations. The House recognized this in Jan-
ina/7 when it Voted to halt further Surplus
food shipments to Egypt. Under executive
prodding this stand was abandoned.
But the House vote reflected a widespread
feeling that in Egypt's case the United States
has run out of cheeks to turn, Just as it has
run out of libraries for Egyptians to burn
down.
Most of the $1.2 billion in U.S. aid to Egypt
Since 1952 has consisted of surplus food,
Mostly grain. The United States doesn't
,want to take this food out of the mouths of
hungry fenahin. But an end to U.S. wheat
sties, Which Nasser has said he expects and
has planned for, wouldn't have to do this.
The serious shortages of food and other
consumer necessities in Egypt haven't oc-
curred simply because Egypt is a poor coun-
try with a too rapidly growing population.
The shortages exist because the Egyptian
Government has squandered countless mil-
lions on needless, unproductive, and largely
malicious enterprises of no value at all to
the Egyptian people.
Nasser has had no trouble finding the
money to sustain a 50,000-man army in
Yemen., or to supply Congo rebels, or to
inibvert other governments, or to pay off on
$1 billion worth of Soviet arms. With
limited resources, he has chosen which
courses to follow.
The -State Department. argues about the
need to maintain a U.S. influence in Egypt.
What influence? Nasser daily grows chum-
mier with the Communists and meddles more
openly in the business of other nations. He
has worked, independently or as a Soviet
agent, against free world interests at a score
of points.
It is impossible to see why the United
States, through aid of any kind, should con-
tribute to the furtherance of these policies.
The answer to any Egyptian aid request is
written in Nasser's own record.
The opinion expressed is precisely that
which I hold on this subject, and it is
shared by my constituents, as indicated
in their many letters to me over the past
months.
In view of Nasser's past performances,
and particularly his grossly insulting ac-
tions and speeches during this last year,
I simply cannot see how the 'U.S. Gov-
ernment can possibly give favorable con-
sideration to any further request for
U.S. aid to the United Arab Republic
without a strong, positive indication of
a sincere and definite about-face in posi-
tion and policy.
So far as I can determine, the con-
tinued discretion granted to the Presi-
dent early in this congressional session
has had absolutely no effect in what ap-
pears to be our continually deteriorating
relations with the United Arab Republic.
A firiner approach to the problem
through the executive branch Might
serve some useful purpose. There can
be no question, however, that it appears
more advisable to exert pressure for a
policy change through provision for pro-
hibition of further assistance in the for-
eign aid authorization bill now under
consideration by the Foreign Affairs
Committee.
I earnestly caution my colleagues to
watch this development closely, and un-
less some more effective presentation
evinces a promise of improved relations,
I urge them?on both sides of the aisle?
to stand resolute to the position origi-
nally adopted by the House in its vote
on January 26 of this year, and to do
what we can to convince the other body
that such position has proved to be cor-
rect.
Wisconsin: Mother of Circuses
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. VERNON W. THOMSON
OF WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. THOMSON of Wisconsin. Mr.
Speaker, under unanimous consent, I ex-
tend my remarks in the Appendix of the
RECORD and include the attached article.
Wisconsin is best known as "America's
Dairyland," but it is also the "Mother of
Circuses." The greatest of all, Ringling
Bros. Circus, was spawned in Bara-
boo, Sauk County, hometown of the
Ringlings. In this circus city is the Cir-
cus World Museum, operated by the
State Historical Society of Wisconsin. It
is a tremendous tourist attraction, lur-
ing increasing numbers every year to see
this authentic circus of yesteryear.
It is so aptly described in the Northern
Natural Gas Co.'s Transmission maga-
zine, that I submit it herewith in the
hope it will prove of interest to t'aose
who read this RECORD:
BAFLABOO'S CIRCUS WORLD MUSEUM
Often, when one thinks of a museum, he
is vulnerable to thoughts of a cavernous
hall, musty and dusty.
Most museums are not like that, but none
shatters this image more than the Circus
World Museum in Baraboo, Wis., some 30
miles northwest of Madison.
Cloaked in bright colors and noisily .slive,
the museum is owned and operated by the
State Historical Society of Wisconsin, and
annually it attracts more than 125,000 per-
sons during a mid-May to mid-September
season.
Director C. P. "Chappie" Fox, author of
five books dealing with the circus life, de-
scribes the hubub of activity simply:
"This is the way it's supposed to be. The
circuses of yesteryear were like this. Every-
thing has to be authentic. Sure, there are
easier ways to do many of the thinis we
perform and construct here, such as tie re-
habilitation of circus wagons, but if it isn't
authentic the public resents it and we're in
trouble."
To do the museum Justice, it takes a mini-
murti Of 4 hours to see and do everything. A
thorough inspection would fill an entire day.
Before the features of the museum are de-
scribed, it is probably best to answer the
following question at this time: Why in
Baraboo, anyway?
Wisconsin is probably best known as
America's dairyland. It also is the "Mother
of the Circuses." Of 100 circuses which
emerged from various communities in Wis-
consin, the greatest of all, Ringling Bros.
World's Greatest Shows, was spawned in
Baraboo, hometown of the brothers.
The famed Ringling Bros. Circus was born
on May 19, 1884, under meager CITCUM-
stances?in terms of both finance and talent.
After a small parade through Baraboo, the
customers were treated to acts of Juggling
and tumbling and the antics of a clown, all
under a tent 40 by 95 feet.
Sympathetic and apparently footloose
farmers used their wagons and horses to
transport the circus to the next town. In
a matter of 20 years Ringling Bros. was
challenging Barnum & Bailey for circus
supremacy.
Ringling Bros. wintered in Baraboo from
1884 to 1919, but when Barnum & Bailey was
acquired, off-season headquarters were
moved to Bridgeport, Conn.
Once the circus left town, lore sins left
to the oldtimers. In the 1940's John M.
Kelley, for many years legal adviser for
Ringling Bros., retired to Baraboo.
He talked up the idea for a circus museum,
and tried long in vain to sell it to the citi-
zens. Finally, after much preaching, the
spark ignited in the mid-1950's and Bars-
boo's businessmen got behind the plan.
Circus World Museum, Inc., was organized
and a successful fund drive was culminated
in 1958.
That same year the city of Baraboo bought
one of the nine }angling Bros. buildings
which lined Water Street a couple of blocks
from the downtown section. The building
was turned over to the museum, and several
businessmen banded together to construct
two more for concessions. Word began to
spread. Soon circus memorabilia began filter-
ing in?circus wagons, costumes, vintage
posters, and many others.
On July 2, 1959, the museum opened, com-
plete with parade. Forty thousand saw the
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26 19Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300150020-1
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPE A1949NDIX
parade; 10,000 crowded past the exhibits.
. Among celebrities on hand ,was Actress
Rhonda rlepaing. star of. the =vie, "Big
Circus," which premiered at the Al Ringing
Theateiintipralx:o that day.
With the museum on sound financial foot-
ing, the State Historical Society of Wisconsin
took over the operation. During the past 6
years, 3 additional buildings have been
purchased, and the size of the grounds has
been increased to where it now totals 15
acres.
The museum has a fantastic wealth of arti-
cles on display. There are authentic circus
Wardrobes, photographs, and art work of per-
forming horses, intricate wood carvings, pho-
tographs of current circus acts and personal-
ities, flamboyant examples of circus adver-
tising and lithographs, colorful circus wagon
? wheels, photos of famous sideshows, and a
history of the circus in Wisconsin.
_ Perhaps the most fascinating display is a
miniature Circus built by John Zweifel. It is
an exact replica of the Ringling circus of
1956 containing 25,000 individual pieces, Most
of which are animated. The Circus World
Museum also owns 40 colorful circus wagons,
the largest collection in the world.
Supplying real flavor is a steam calliope
Which blasts out in concert every half hour.
Twice a day, under a smaller size version
of the "big top," trained animal acts take to
the ring, including three elephants, 12 po-
nies, dogs, clowns, and acrobats. Twice a
day a seven-car 'circus train on 800 feet of
track is unloaded by eight Percheron horses
and a chain-driven truck just as it was done
In the old days.
? Roaming the premises are a goat pulling
a wagon in which children can ride and an
even-tempered, nonspitting llama named
Lloyd.
Another of the. top attractions is a 25-
minute tour of Baraboo in an open carriage
pulled by a jeep where points of historic
interest related to the circus are described.
New at the Museum in 1.965 will be an
85-foot railroad advertising car used by the
advance men to beat the drums for the com-
ing circus. The car is the last one actually
used by Ringling Bros. & Barnum & Bailey.
In the car will be a graphic history of circus
printing and design including a pastemaking
boiler. The car will even be outfitted with
bunks used by the advance men.
Another innovation this year will be a
newly acquired side show of memorable cir-
cus freaks of the late 1800's, all molded of
Fiberglas and housed under a 20- by 40-foot
tent.
The Circus World Museum relies entirely
on its acinaissions and donations to stay in
the black, and museum officials are quick
to point out that the admission price takes
care of the entire tour with no hidden fees
Within the gates.
Of course, not all donations come in the
form of cash, but they are equally if not
more valuable. "Chappie" Fox explains: "As
the fame of the museum has spread, we have
received articles and collections from all over
the country. We try to work most of them
into displays, but one of the greatest values
Is that it provides an important research
function, a key- area of our operation."
The Circus World Museum makes a signifi-
cant economic contribution to Baraboo, a
city of 7,500.
Yirst of all, it has an annual payroll of over
$40,000, employing 15 persons during the
summer and 9 during the winter.
Of more importance is the tide of visitors
each year. After this season they will num-
ber close to a million since the opening in
1,959?? - 0,- -
Fox describes :the impact: "Bankers in
Baraboo have told me that the average visitor
to the anise= spends anywhere from $3 to
$5 in town in addition to our admission.
Multiply that by a million, and you have a
pretty impressive figure."
Peace and Promise in A ia
EXTENSION OF R
OF
HON. DONALD M. F ASER
OF MINNESOTA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. FRASER. Mr. Speaker, the mili-
tary events in South Vietnam have thus
far overshadowed what could be the most
significant international cooperative
project yet undertaken in the world.
The Mekong River plan has been in the
planning stage for some time. This ex-
citing and challenging idea could become
reality if a peaceful settlement can be
reached in the war in Vietnam. Presi-
dent Johnson has pledged a billion dol-
lars for this cooperative project, and I
am certain that the United States stands
ready to do even more if called upon for
assistance.
In a Washington Star editorial of
April 21, 1965, the promise and potential
of this enterprise were eloquently de-
scribed. I take this opportunity to bring
the editorial to the attention of my
colleagues:
THE PROMISE OF 111.E. MEKONG
Although nothing much can come of it
until there is a peaceful and guaranteed
settlement of the war in Vietnam, there is
great promise in President Johnson's offer of
large-scale American aid to improve the lot
of all the peoples of southeast Asia, includ-
ing the North Vietnamese. He will ask Con-
gress, he says, to approve "a billion-dollar
American investment In this effort" as soon
as it gets underway as an international co-
operative enterprise. The investment should
prove to be good.
The enterprise, as a matter of fact, has
been in the planning stage for some years
past. Under the leadership of the United
Nations, no fewer than 21 countries, a dozen
specialized U.N. agencies, and several private
business organizations and foundations
have been contributing millions of dollars
and invaluable brainpower to it. The first
objective is to begin translating the plans
into action, with a view to developing the
immense potentialities of the 2,600-mile-
long Mekong River, which is one of the
World's greatest.
This river, which has it source in Tibet
and empties into the South China Sea, has
a basin that covers 381,000 square miles,
which is much larger than France. The ri-
parian states directly affected are Cambodia,
Laos, Thailand and South Vietnam, and it
is noteworthy that these four?despite their
bitter political antagonisms?have long been
working together in support of efforts to
harness the Mekong for their mutual en-
richraent. The economic and social better-
ment of 50 million human beings is involved,
and at least another 50 million will be
helped if the basin's potentials are effectively
exploited.
In President Johnson's words, "The task
Is nothing less than to enrich the hopes and
existence of more than 100 million people.
* * * The vast Mekong River can provide
food and water and power on a scale to
dwarf even our own TVA." Experts have
estimated, for example, that the Mekong's
waters can be used for irrigation effective
enough to increase rice production 500 to 600
percent. Clearly, in terms of agriculture,
industiv and things like rural electrification,
the river's harnessing promises to be benefi-
cently revolutionary.
The Asians are well aware of all this, and
great numbers of them?assuming that they
hear the Voice of America?must be encour-
aged by what the President has pledged.
Actually, of course, the $1 billion he has men-
tioned seems conservative. It probably
would be but the start of a much larger
American contribution in the event of a
genuine international cooperative effort?
more or less like the Marshall Plan that
saved Western Europe?to stem the Red tide
and keep southeast Asia free.
Great Society Question Marks
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. GLENARD P. LIPSCOMB
OF CALIFORNIA
/N THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Speaker, the Los
Angeles Times has performed a note-
worthy service in bringing to public at-
tention some of the serious questions
which exist in connection with the ad-
ministration legislative program.
In an editorial entitled, "Great Society
Question Marks" the Times poses ques-
tions that must be faced about the far-
reaching role the Federal Government
would assume at the National, State, and
local levels of government under various
programs enacted by the Congress and
proposals under consideration.
I believe the editorial will be of interest
to Members of Congress. Under leave to
extend my remarks I submit the editorial
for inclusion in the RECORD:
GREAT SOCIETY QUESTION MARKS
As the 99th Congress completes its first
100 days, President Johnson is getting high
marks for the impressive volume of Great
Society measures which are becoming law.
Whether it is sound legislation, taking
Americans along a route they actually want
to travel, is another question.
One thing is clear: Under Mr. Johnson's
leadership the Federal Government is as-
suming an unprecedented role of leadership,
even dominance, in areas traditionally in the
local and State bailiwick.
Under measures already signed, Federal aid
to elementary and secondary schools will be-
come a reality for the first time?with Wash-
ington keeping a veto power over how the
money is used.
The so-called Appalachia bill breaks new
ground, too, in taxing citizens everywhere to
subsidize economic recovery and development
in one region.
Federal responsibility for medical care for
the aged is asserted in the multibillion-dollar
medicare bill which has passed the House.
Still pending are White House proposals to
pay rent subsidies to middle-income families,
to inject Washington into city planning and
to double the antipoverty program.
Each of these measures represents an effort
to deal with real problems which must be
met at some level of government. The ques-
tion is which level.
Great Society champions argue that local
and State governments have proved unwill-
ing or unable to do the job, and that Wash-
ington has the responsibility to move in?
which it is now doing.
What is alarming is that such a momentous
shift in American government could take
place with no true national dialog, and so
little public recognition that it is even tak-
ing place.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
A1950 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD APPENDIX April 26, 1965
Problem one is that so Much legislation is
being passed so fast that no one is quite sure
What jokers may be in the deck.
Another trouble is that, in a sense, no
opposition party exists. Republicans are Out-
numbered more than two to one in both
houses. And many, understandably, are too
concerned with rebuilding the party image
to take a vocal antispending stance.
Normally, the Democrats wotild soon 'fail
out among themselves, and a dollar-conscions
business community would raise an outcry.
President Johnson, however, heads off such
criticism by calling" in potential opponents
and hearing their views while the legislation
is being drafted. Thus, a consensus is
reached, with little fanfare, before the bill
even reaches Congress.
This is remarkably astute politics, and it
makes for deceptively smooth government.
But it smothers the kind of public discussion
essential to healthy democracy.
What, for example, 'wM be the future costs
of medicare, aid to education and the anti-
poverty program? No one knows?except
that the present price tag is only a starter.
Another foot-in-the-door tactic is to leave
legislation purposely vague in order to skirt
opposition. The idea is, "pass it now and fix
it later."
Mr. Johnson will have his problems later
in the form of soaring budgets, higher taxes,
court tests, and administrative waste and
confusion. By that time, how-ever, there may
be no turning back from the welfare state,
L,B.J. style.
The Posture of Neutrality
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. JAMES B. UTT
OF CALIDORNYA
IN TFIE nont or REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1966
Mr, UTI'. Mr. Speaker, under unani-
mous consent to extend my remarks in
the Appendix of the RECORD, I include
the following essay, entitled "The Pos-
ture of Neutrality," which was delivered
at the graduation ceremony at Holly-
wood High School on Thursday, January
28, by Miss Nancy Knight. I'ain not
only deeply impressed, but greatly en-
=raged by the sentiments expressed in
her paper, for the very survival of our
great Republic depends upon the youth
Of today.
The essay follows:
THE POSTURE OF NEUTRALITY
ReCently, a major metropolitan newspaper
Pit-Wished the results of a public opinion poll.
The question: Are you in favor of Federal
aid to education? The significant conclusion,
Obvious in the results of this poll, did not lie
in he percentage of those who reacted nega-
tively or those who responded affirmatively.
Standing out like an ominous flare at the
scene of a highway disaster was the frighten-
ing fact that more than one-half of those in-
terviewed expressed nc opinion at all. These
are the neutrals, those who Sack sufficient in-
terest to examine, to evaluate, and to take
a stand. Progress, whether it is achieved by
an individual, a nation, or the universe, al-
Ways is the product of active involvement. In
this great period of social upheaval and
change, to what extent are we involved? Are
We to be spectators or participants/
History has proven that men who cling to
their positions of neutrality have stunted the
growth of new ideas and impeded progress.
Those who fail to take a stand do not fulfill
their obligation to society.
Pontius Pilate is a classic example of a neu-
tral. In his capacity as Roman provincial
governor, he was called upon to decide wheth-
er Christ should be put to death, The Bible
records his evasion of responsibility in Mat-
thew 27: 24 which reads, "He took water and
washed his hands before the multitudes, say-
ing, I am innocent of the blood of this just
man." Pontius Pilate's conscience dictated
a course of action. He believed that Christ
was an innocent man, but was afraid to resist
the majority.
Neutrality may lead to national tragedy.
History is filled with events that demon-
strate the folly of apathy. For example, the
Western powers, although they had promised
aid to the point of intervention, if necessary,
did nothing when Hungary was invaded by
the Russians on October 23, 1956. The
Hungarian people lost their freedom because
of Western neutrality. To those now living
in enslavement, neutrality is far more
devastating than war.
Hitler's Third Reich, with all of its atro-
cities, never would have been possible if men
of principle had taken an active stand to
prevent it. Less than 5 percent of the Ger-
man population were Nazis. Hitlerism
flourished because of what the remaining
95 percent did not do. The swastika flag flew
over more than half a continent because of
the refusal of larger nations to become in-
volved.
The inertia of neutrality can also lead to
disaster in the destiny of an individual. In
May 1964, in the predawn darkness of the
middle-class community of Kew Gardens,
N.Y., Kitty Genovese was murdered while 37
witnesses stared from their windows but
would not call the police or otherwise inter-
cede. Primarily concerned with their own
comfort and safety, these 37 witnesses
refused to involve thernaelves. Their
neutrality nourished crime and resulted in
the death of an innocent girl.
When people take a stand and dedicate
themselves to their beliefs, they are then aC-
cepting their responsibilities as human be-
ings. The posture of neutrality is neither
positive nor negative. It is passive.
Neutrality is the doctrine of doing nothing.
Any situation of importance requires doing
something constructive.
Consider the people of Judea in their great
moment of decision when the Syrian King
Antiochus ordered them to discard their
heritage, abandon their God, and worship
the graven images he had placed in their
temple. Would not their acceptance have
been far easier than the savage battle that
ensued/ Yet, the Jewish people, though ap-
parently hopelessly outnumbered, did take a
stand and did win. It is in celebration of
this refusal to remain neutral that the world
Jewish community now annually celebrates
the happy holiday, Hanukkah.
Or?remember Joan of Arc/ She was only
18 years old and unable to read or write, thus
being a perfect candidate for neutrality. In-
stead, she elected to assume military leader-
ship in the fight to save her country. As a
result of her efforts, France was saved.
Three hundred and forty-four years later,
on December 16, 1773, a band of Bostonian
men refused to tolerate the punitive tax on
tea which was imposed by the British. To
dramatize their protest, they disguised them-
selves as Mohawk Indians. Brandishing
hatchets, they boarded 3 British ships in
the harbor, broke open 342 cases of tea, and
dumped the contents overboard. This act
caused Severe new restrictions on Massachu-
setts from British Parliament. An attempt
was made to starve out the citizens of Mas-
sachusetts, but their refusal to remain neu-
tral had inspired the people in the other
colonies to come to their aid with food and
supplies. Instead of neutrality, there was
organized action, leading eventually to our
Declaration of Independence.
Neutrality is stagnation. Like the auto-
mobile whose gearshift is in neutral, a so-
ciety which is neutral goes nowhere. Civili-
zation can move forward only if it is geared
to move forward. The engine may be run-
ning, but the vehicle will not advance if ths
engine is merely idling. Those of us who ars
graduating tonight are prepared for a con-
structive contribution to our society. Those
who have educated us have done their best
to equip us with sound motivations. But- -
only we can shift gears. Only we can choose
our destinations. We can move in reverse,
we can idle and go nowhere, or we can move
forward. As free men, we have the right to
change destinations. As human beings, we
will encounter hazards such as stop signs and
detours. But always we must avoid the stag-
nation of neutrality.
The distinguished American poetess, Edna
St. Vincent Millay, was approximately the
same age as we candidates for graduat'on
when she wrote one of her most famous
poems, "Renascence," She closes her lyrical
rhapsody with this expression of the futility
of neutrality.
"And he whose soul is fiat?the sky
Will cave in on him by and by."
NANCY V. KNIGHT.
Future of the U.S. Merchant Marine
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. WILLIAM S. MAILLIARD
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. MAILLIARD. Mr. Speaker, under
leave to extend my remarks in the Ap-
pendix I am submitting an interesting
talk by Mr. William E. Rand, president,
United States Lines, at launching of the
SS American Resolute, at Sun Ship-
building & Dry Dock Co., Chester, Pa., on
April 15, 1965.
Members who share my concern as to
the future of the U.S. merchant marine
may find these remarks thought provok-
ing.
The talk follows:
Mrs. Manila-1*d, Miss Mailliard, Congress-
man MAILLIARD, ladies and gentlemen, it is
a great pleasure to welcome you who are
joining with us today in the launching of
our newest ship?the SS American Resoltte.
It is particularly pleasant to meet Mrs.
Mailliard and to congratulate her on the per-
fect swing she displayed in smashing he
traditional bottle of champagne and send Lng
the Resolute into her natural element a few
short hours ago. I must add, also, that .she
was most admirably supported in her chrst-
ening role by lovely Miss Toni Mailliard.
In nudging the Resolute into the Delaware,
Mrs. Mailliard closed the logbook on a par-
ticular, and I might say spectacular, cies:. of
cargo liners. For this 13,000-ton vessel is
the last of five sister ships, which have the
distinction of being the first vessels in the
entire American merchant marine to have
been designed and built from the keel up as
fully automated ships.
The Si? American Resolute is an electrcnic
marvel. The technological advances b silt
into this vessel are such that a single officer
on the bridge can control her 18,750 ho-se-
power engines as easily as a Sunday admiral
can manipulate his outboard on a postage
stamp lake.
A simple turn of a wheel set in a console
on the Resolute's bridge can dictate the sy eed
of the ship, fast or slow, ahead or astern.
Approved For Release 2003/10114: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Releas_e_ZQW1A1N~67Mittie00300150020-1 812g
April 26, 1965 00114GRWS1
In his remarks. Newman wide* "Negress of
South Carolina have never spurned a bona,
floe offer of ben. At the same time X believe,
I voice the sentiment of Negroes In South
Carolina when I say that we feel perfestly,
capable at providing our own leadership in
the area of voter regishation es wdi as
other civil rights activities."
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there
further morning business? If riot, morn-
ing business is closed.
Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. Preddetit, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The VICE PR.ESIDENT. The Clerk,
will
will call the roll.
The legisiative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. ELLENDER. Err. President, I ask
unanhnous consent that the order tee-
the quorum call shall be rescinded.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without elk:
jection, it is so ordered.
MESSAGES FROM THE PRESIDENT'
Messages in writing from the President
of the United States were conininnintiod
to the Senate by Mr, ,loner, litt
seereterfee.
REPORT ON DISASTER RIII?Mlitir
lifESSA.GE FROM TIM pmcounarr
(H. DOC. NO. 153)
The VICE PRESIDENT laid before the
Senate the following message freer the
President of the United Stith*
with the socompanytus MOM
ferred to the Committee on. PO=
Works:
To the Congress of the United Stares: ?
I have the honor to transmit herewith_
a report of activity under authority et
Public Law OM 11 Congress. aerimen40,
ed, and' required by motion it of such law.
Funds which have been appropriate*
to accomplish the Federal. assistance 404
termined eligible under this outhorits
are sperittrallY appropriated, to the 'MU":
Went for purposes of disaster relief,
Lyceum B. Jonneom
Tut Warr' Houma, April 26, 1965.
EXECITITVE NEMAGEB IMPERILED
As in erecothresesolon,
The VICE PRESIDENT laid- before' the
Senate messages from the President of
the United' Staten submItting sundry
nominations, which were refetrred to the
appropriate committees.
(For nominations this Ong received,
see the end et Senate Protherilitelh)
Mr. ELLENDER, Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The vrcz PRESIDENT. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative 'clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. DIEMEN. Mr. Freakiest. I ask
imanintons consent that the order tor
the quorum call be rescinded
The VICE PRESTDEN. Without oh-
it is so ordered.
virr OFFICIAL APPEAL& Tel
AMICRICAN PUB 2C TO END WAR.
Mr. ECEMBETC. Mr. President, a very
short item appeared in the New Tort
No. 73-6
Times. under the title "War's End
Urged.fr imder data of April Eto OS&
We know that a great deal At the-
%Monti= to BOW INIted MPS)* be
Windt eolith
Vietnam has stemmed from the Mtn-
munista and those who have been duped
Into following their ling, or those who
customarily do so.
I submit to the Senate. however. Oat
unique arrogance has been Mown in a
Soviet oteciaror writing an open lenses
to the New York Timer urging a motor
of Americans* to orPeee our response t?
armed Communist aggression end to
terrorism. Aithouidi I would be some-
what horrified It this became the rule, I
believe the New York Times performed
near*" in publishing Shia latter on Us
editorial Page of AMR 211 I wish. dux
WI quite brief, threat til, the Senate.
41'he letter read*: -
Litton thea Tort (N.Y.) 'New. Apr. *
teen
Warr Saes thorax
lb Ohl thleresi:? .
The aspension of tilk minter, apersliona,
ibe NINO Viewless evokes sedois manse omit
prolhiund indignation In brood circles alba.
fieviet 71101614 Ifbreugh your?wiespepte, I
*Ma terayessons the AisameancpublKOsse,
to men at mimes In particulem *a What *IL
nherMireir seep timer eperateolas.
iireletiniefois i;Dfreeter fitsteleibi akt
.11Nesbenere.
-985114014114. L
III. ITS- Mikan who
had
Identity. with Uzi owo-*
certainly an000dowlidow
of the Soviet Union must have some suds
identity?writing a letter to levestia or
Meet's:* sappealing to a. drates of the
WOW ;Mogi& In. order to ineuenor them
I ma*rot Ede kind. The airry4-,
log their Poaununl, nronellanda, rather
acesr,movarrices or THEttriTir
voutofter RELATrwo TO VER.
ZIONTII. PARTICIPATION IN PED:
=AL RIORWAY PROGRAM AND
WY RURAL wiimat SUPPLY
- Mr. Af. Mr. President, I ark
unanimous cement that two Mai ran.
Whim which have been adopted by- the
Vennente Stole Legislature be printed at
this *tint In the Rican. . -
Were being no oblection., the reetilur
ikons Were ordered- to be printed in tha
nacos?, as follows:
Rm. -12
Mint resolution relating to INirmont'e pare
Itetpatien
In the newer highwaiy
Viet I
pie-
Wherses the Mote of Vermont .cidninemaiit
its participation in the pros:min of construe-
non of hoWilnite and *wenn inghworkip-
mew. la lien; and
Whereas the Peden* act provides that
State participation In usid program of oon-
struotion is at the ratio of el of Btate to Se
St Federal peralcipatiorn and
'Whims theVeMprel.,00 for Indust aid to
wive pecieldia forle'reno? ot $11 of Mott
looney to
55 at ?Oleg
Wheless Vermont_Wang always has rem
inane' to bear Its Aft ibeit or tbi expons
or those propene denoted for the good at the
Nation; and
Whereas Ventiont with a population el less
than 40111081 Per capita income well
below the- national averalP In inked to build
highways oomparebis Ow " length to
those of States having a, much greater popu-
lace and resources; and
Whereas Ms Met of construction and
susilustulawreS Ofeltways in Vermont, due to
the rugged Wralh.. and siewIty of weather
coondNdonn far esoesda such costs In the
poet ingority of other Stoma and
Wherece.other elates having a ihnilar
dearth of population and resources for high-
way purposes .are. laboring under the same
dlmcurussas Vernitite Now, therefere. be It
' Resolget bethe tonere end Nouse of Sep-
resenterifier, 'Mot tha Vermont &MOM allo-
stenbtif hereby exhorts the Federal Congrem
to reevaluate the contribution formulas or
ewe Peened act for the Nome aid to high--
wee Program` vith the' object of 'educing
the?eredribudien of the State of Vermont,
eatili htliehfitatehlaboring under compar-
able lian.? is a proportion booed on the
factors etiated above, or to the same
ratio Mier ethiested prevailing in the inter-
stroaranit dilate* bigfairay program; and esi
'
Resolved, That the secretary of stet* be4*-
etrosted to made copy of thie resolution to
Vermont's Benatopie and Neprosentative In
Climpepti ? ,
4,647,
-t , -1,- &mentor.
'1 '7 frikrnilidiv nliaLielos, h..
? gereliefie/ fbelltilisa Of" lispressateitveo
' - ? .. - a ligeweitToitwir., ?
t. ? tP.realdoet of Mt Stow*
aii,tia. NZ . -
4100/441/0/05tin Ibildang, by atria water
?.r.T. / .70.4n1 WOMB "
i WS** li lailailleliAllielerect soh* the pone,"
etVesasestabat 4 thil *Wier reeounies of Um
State alliall that anoteeted, regulate& au*
whir* eigosegorpoquirollet under authertty
of the Ntati in the. nabllo Interest and to
promote the general' **Vire; and
Whereas their Ineteellnt use or water fit for
by Vermonters ei for red-
p
0414- , -mid agricultural pur -
OW .rte 'it .-.01' great public Interest:
Whereas extrenie aNieteget 4it' such water
ha50pwieucsd..in, many rural ammo(
Vermont. End
ct
- ... .... ... . -
Wien water eborteges are not Mr
striated tOlerniallt but are a national prob-
lem Wen i tin' ?Wend recognition and
malstatteig ead .
Where= it te the primary reeponsibitfty at
WI State and local communities to plan. de-
edolo sad Illelribitte we in rural areas:
and . .
. Whinela thoi:longram of the United States
In ' neer_annielerloa ? ilreiric proposals such
ill'Ileilete hill 498. Introduced by Vermont's
flehMor theaton P. damn, to meet the mitt-
eel Miter nadir et rural America: such pro-
yeergideeigneei te provide *Federal seeletenen
11111111ka tonineesesoni and expouwion ot exist-
fee foollitlee 'lad. the development of non
mist . erniense , end distribution method,:
Now. theestonr. be It .
asagivo4Pcihs, semi* and ?souse of rep-
resent:ether. That the General Assembly of
the State of Vermont endorses the alms and
crCew of elenaei, out 495 and urges the
ongeser 10 elm favorable considers.-
Skin* logeitation embodying the principles
enk *Oh therein; ant be *further
? .11tinitned..Tbeit tills asewelly believes that
semeor. sec of -nselate. bill 498 should be
amsodni. to poem* grants to be-, made to
*Me politicot subdivisions, as well as is-
operative or mutual associations, and bell
further
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 8127
became a lawyer, and later joined the Liberal
political party, directed the Institute of Arts
and Sciences in Oaxaca, was twice governor
of his State, and in 1868 became President of
the Republic of Mexico. The example set by
Benito Juarez is very real in my country.
Every Mexican school child learns that, after
surmounting tremendous obstacres he be-
came President and saved our Nation and
our institutions. Our young people are
taught that every Mexican, no matter how
humble his origin or how many barriers on
his path, can reach the highest positions in
our democracy.
With his indomintable courage, his un-
bending will to save our republican form of
government against all odds, and his honesty
and clear understanding of our needs, Juarez
gained for Mexico the respect of the Euro-
pean powers. They realized that our young
Republic was fully able to be a master of its
own destiny, and did not need the guiding
hand of foreign rulers to reach its goals.
Benito Juarez showed us that our only
objective must be the greatness of our Na-
tion, that we must not tolerate foreign
interference either in our political affairs
or in our economic development and social
progress.
We believe that our revolutionary move-
ment of today cannot be fully comprehended
without the knowledge of Juarez' contribu-
tion to the political and social ideology that
made possible the Constitution of 1857, the
establishment of boundaries between church
and state, and laws pertaining to civil mar-
riage, freedom of worship, and the non-
sectarian character of public institutions.
Juarez was the defender of our hard-won
independence, and the father of a proud na-
tionalism that inspires us to devote our-
selves to the development of the resources
of our country for the benefit of the people
of Mexico. Along with his insistence on the
development of Mexico by Mexicans, Juarez
left us a rich heritage in his valiant strug-
gle for the freedom of the individual, and
respect for all human rights. Nothing could
be more eloquent than his famous pro-
nouncement: "Between individuals as be-
tween nations, the respect for the rights of
others is peace."
Benito Juarez was twice in New Orleans.
The first time he arrived on December 29,
1853, as a weary third-class passenger on a
boat that brought him from Havana. Ban-
ished by Dictator Santa Anna, who had per-
secuted him and held him in prison, he was
placed on a ship headed for Europe; but
when the boat stopped over in Cuba, he
decided to come to New Orleans. Here he
was welcomed by other exiles: his loyal
friends Melchor Ocampo, Ponciano Arriaga,
and Jose Maria Mate, three of the most im-
portant figures in the formulation of plans
that culminated in the adoption of the
Constitution of 1857, and the Laws of Re-
form that so strengthened the foundation of
our Republic and set the stage for further
advance in our own century.
It is natural to imagine the long conver-
sations that Juarez and his friends must
have had in New Orleans in dingy boarding
houses, on the banks of the Mississippi, in
Jackson Park, where they would spend some
evenings after visiting the French Market for
caf?n lait and rolls.
Juarez, who came from wretched poverty,
reverted to it with characteristic stoicism.
Not a word of complaint was ever uttered
by Juarez, even when he was obliged to move
to a suffocating garret because he could no
longer afford lodging in a roominghouse on
St. Peter's Street, where he paid $8 a month.
A Negro woman provided board for an-
other $8, but that was too large a sum for
a man in his circumstances, and he had to
accept an even more precarious life. He
slept on a cot borrowed from a Mexican
pharmacist, bought 10-cent meals at the St.
Charles Hotel, and occasionally fished in the
Mississippi not for sport but for food.
Whenever possible, he earned a few dollars
in a printing shop, and rolling cigars and
cigarettes in a wretched house on a street
called Great Men. While one of his com-
panions peddled them in restaurants and
amusement places, Juarez patiently waited
at the corner.
Juarez's daily occupations in New Orleans,
when not engaged in such humble bread-
winning work, consisted of reeding constitu-
tional law, studying colonization plans, read-
ing the newspaper, visiting the post office,
and educational and civic institutions. His
proudest day was when he was invited by
a judge to sit in on a case involving a land
-grant. His opinion was unanimously ap-
proved and he received warm congratula-
tions.
There were also lonely hours, as when he
disappeared a whole day to the consterna-
tion of the friends who shared his privations,
and was discovered that he spent It at the
harbor, without a bit of food, watching the
ships that docked, and hoping that one of
them would bring mail from home.
In June 1855, Juarez returned to Mexico
to wage his battle for constitutional govern-
ment. We may well imagine that it was
in this city, in the company of his faithful
companions, Melchor Ocampo, Ponciano
Arriaga, and Jose Maxie Mate, that he elab-
orated many of the ideas later incorporated
in the Laws of Reform. From this point
of view, those 18 long months of exile were
not barren.
As President of Mexico, Juarez restored
our Federal Republican form of government,
after toppling a French supported empire,
and he made us feel tall in the family of
nations, in spite of our ancestral poverty and
undeveloped economy. A man of incom-
parable dignity, he never referred to his days
in New Orleans as full of anxiety, discom-
fort, and loneliness.
? Juarez visited New Orleans a second time,
in the year 1858. He arrived here on the
25th of April, and departed on the 1st of
May for Veracruz. He had become Presi-
dent, but was obliged to establish his gov-
ernment wherever he could. And .so, from
Guadalajara he journeyed to Manzanillo,
where he took a ship bound for Colon. From
that port he traveled to Havana, and
thence to New Orleans. During this brief
stay he stopped at the Hotel Verandah Conti,
located, perhaps, not far from this Avenue
of the Americas.
He returned to our land to give battle for
laws responding to the needs of the time, for
institutions worthy of a modern society, for
the right of a nation to self-determination,
for everything held dear by free men. More
than any other leader in our national life, he
contributed to extirpate from the soul of our
Mexican Indians the fatalism which for cen-
turies placed them on a level of inferiority,
accepting as natural and preordained all
social, economic, and moral injustice.
And now Juarez comes for the third time
to New Orleans, but this time cast in bronze,
the metal suggested by one of our major
poets as symbolic of the enduring quality of
his race. He is here, as visualized by Juan
Olaguibel, one of our finest sculptors, not
as a mere gift from one nation to another,
but as a reminder to young and old, that
the humblest of origins is no impediment to
greatness; that poverty of worldly goods can
be overcome by spiritual wealth. May those
who glance at his serene countenance on this
Avenue of the Americas remember that his
life was an inspiration to peoples other than
his own. Victor Hugo saluted him as the
peer of Abraham Lincoln, and the Congress
of Colombia, a sister nation, proclaimed him
a hero of the Americas.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, in the
name of my people, in the name of my gov-
ernment, in the name of the President of the
Republic of Mexico, His Excellency Gustavo
Diaz Ordaz, and with deep emotion as Mexi-
can Ambassador to the United States of
America, I present to the American people
and to the city of New Orleans, the statute
of our national hero, Benito Juarez. It will
remain here for all time to come, as a
memorial to a great man of vision and
integrity who lived here in exile, thinking
only of his people, a man who succeeded in
saving his nation from the destructive in-
fluence of civil war, and foreign interven-
tion.
We may be sure that Juarez never
imagined that his statute would be some
day erected by his country in a city where
once experienced so much hardship with per-
fect poise and unwavering faith in the
triumph of his cause. May this gift serve to
bring to the attention of all peoples the ex-
ample of a righteous leader devoted to the
attainment of the goals most essential to a
nation: liberty, dignity, progress.
PRESIDENT JOHNSON'S SPEECH ON
UTHEAST ASIA
Mr. YANDOLPH. Mr. President, an
April 7, at Johns Hopkins University,
President Johnson reiterated our objec-
tives in South Vietnam and our intent
to stand firm in securing "the indepen-
dence of South Vietnam and its freedom
from attack." He reaffirmed our desire
for a peaceful settlement in this troubled
area?but only a settlement with suffi-
cient provisioni to guarantee for South
Vietnam the ability "to shape its own
relationships" free from outside inter-
ference.
History has proven that any cessation
of hostilities must be followed by con-
structive programs of development. And
the President recognized this critical fac-
tor in his call for a cooperative effort for
development. He has offered the assist-
ance of the United States in eliminating
the ancient enemies of poverty, disease,
and ignorance in that strife-torn part
of the world. Indeed, this is manifest
evidence of our willingness to approach
the problems in southeast Asia in good
faith.
Diplomatically, the President's address
was a masterpiece. It is often fashion-
able to belittle the inadequacy of Amer-
ican diplomacy at the conference table or
In public pronouncements on cold-war
activities. The initiative which the
President grasped in his recent speech
refutes any derogations of our diplomatic
endeavors.
A recent editorial in the Dallas Morn-
ing News eloquently captures this
thought and the impact of the Presi-
dent's remarks in foreign circles.
I ask unanimous consent that the edi-
torial be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
A POLITICAL DEAL
In the rough-and-ready world of American
politics, Machiavelli would have been notable
chiefly for his naivete. Considering the sense
of timing and skill in swaying public opinion
we show in American politics, it is rather
ironic that American cold-war diplomacy
sometimes seems to be conducted as if we
were born yesterday. The early success of
the President's Vietnam ploy indicates that
may be changing.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
8128 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Here at home, the speech displayed once
again Lyndon Johnson's ability to construct
a policy with something for everybody. Tex-
as' two Senators, the conservative TOWER and
the liberal YARBOROUGH, both hailed the Pres-
ident's talk.
The conservative Chicago American called
it -in essence, a stonewall policy. The Com-
munists may ram their heads against ft. as
long as they choose, but the wall will stay
where it is. Meantime, there is an inviting
detour around it?.an end to aggression."
The liberal New York Post declared, "The
dnited States has recaptured political and
diplomatic initiative * * *. Plainly the tone
and substance of the speech represent a ma-
jor rebuff to those in our midst who have
recklessly urged an all-out military adven-
ture in Asia.'
Abroad, the speech won praise from allies
a no have questioned our policy before. Brit-
ain's Prime Minister Harold Wilson said the
t'resident's "statesmanlike and imaginative
approach': offers the Vienamese "hope of
progress toward peace and economic better-
ment."
Japan echoed this in an even more mean-
ingful way. It offered to help pay for the
economic development program the President
proposed.
Diplomats spoke admiringly of the Presi-
dent's skill in offering the Reds an acceptable
way to give up the war without losing too
much face. Others noted the smoothness
in which he shifted the weight of world
opinion against continuing the conflict onto
the Red leaders in Hanoi and Peiping and
made a direct appeal to the people,of south-
east Asia.
But the finest compliment he has received
NO far on his propaganda finesse and use of
the political stratagem has come from those
who are best able to judge their effective-
ness: Communist leaders in Peiping.
The howls from these professionals are of
the hit-dog variety. Peiping radio declared
indignantly that the United States "trumpets
peace by word of mouth" to induce the Viet-
cong to disarm. It pointed out that Johnson
"clearly stated" that U.S. forces will not leave
South Vietnam and that that country's "pup-
pet government must be assured of its rule,"
It noted that the United States made
elear it would continue bombing North Viet-
nam and saw this as a move to force Hanoi
to negotiate on U.S. terms. The billion-
dollar bonus, it screamed, was "a political
deal to weaken the South Vietnamese (for
which read Vietcong) people's fight and dis-
solve the U.S. predicament."
The howls from Peiping's experts at our
osing a political deal to good advantage may
sound humorous, coming from the people
who signed the Geneva accords 11 years ago.
But they are also the best indication that
f ,..B.J. has struck a nerve.
KANSAS PILOTS LOST IN VIETNAM
Mr. PEARSQ.N..._ Mr. President, this
Nation's stfuggle against the infiltrating
forces of communism in Vietnam may
appear to be on the other side of the
world to many, but the war has come
ikome to Kansas.
Although Wichita, Kans., is 2,200 miles
from Vietnam, death knows no distance.
Two pilots permanently stationed at our
McConnell Air Force Base in Wichita
have lost their lives in Vietnam, and a
third is missing in action. The Wichita
community has accepted this tragic truth
of los.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
cent to have two articles and an edito-
rial from the Wichita, Kans., Eagle-Bea-
con, reprinted in this RECORD at this
spoinptilgoitvaing tributes to the two lost Kan-
as There being no objection, the articles
and editorial were ordered to be printed
In the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Wichita Eagle Beacon, Apr. 9,
1965]
BASE PAYS FINAL HONOR TO FALLEN FIGHTER
PILOT
(By Steve Sells)
"The joy of flying was part a his life. For
him, this is a moment of intense joy."
Lt. Col. Erwin R. Ray, base chaplain, Mc-
Connell Air Force Base, spoke Thursday of
Maj. Frank E. Bennett, Derby, McConnell
fighter pilot shot down Sunday in South
Vienam.
In an eulogy during memorial services at
the base chapel, the chaplain said, "I don't
think he would have had it any other way.
His many medals speak of the caliber of the
man and we honor him."
Bennett was awarded the Air Medal, Dis-
tinguished Flying Cross and 15 other medals
in nearly 20 years of active service.
The chapel was filled with 300 persons,
family and friends, officers and enlisted men,
many of whom wrote their names in a "mem-
ory book" to express their sympathy.
Bennett left a widow and five children
when he drowned in the Gulf of Tonkin after
ejecting from his crippled F-105.
He was the first McConnell pilot reported
lost in action in South Vietnam, although
Capt. James Magnusson, Jr., Derby, shot
down at the same time, still was missing
Thursday night.
Eight honor guard members lined the en-
trance of the chapel as visitors arrived for
tne services.
In services assisted by the Rev Richard S.
Klein, pastor of First Presbyterian Church,
Derby, a .poem, "High Flight," was read in
tribute.
"Taps" sounded over the base as a bugler
ended the services.
A "missing man" formation of three
E-105's roared low over the chapel in final
tribute to a fallen comrade.
From the Wichita Eagle-Beacon, Apr. 18.
1965]
McCoieNeaa PILOT DIES IN VIE WAR
Capt. Samuel A. Woodworth, 34, became the
second McConnell Air Force Base pilot to die
in the Vietnam war when his F-105 Thunder-
chief crashed while dive bombing a military
truck in North Vietnam Saturday.
Mrs. Nellie Jane Woodworth was notified
of her husband's death while visiting her
parents in Duncan, Okla. She and Captain
Woodworth resided at 169 Sunset, HaysviIle.
He was attached to the 563d Tactical Fighter
Squadron at McConnell.
Maj. Frank E. Bennett, Derby, died April 4
when his F-105 jet was shot down by
Soviet-built Mig 15 and 17 fighters south of
Hanoi. Capt. James Magnuson Jr., Derby,
was shot down the same day and was still
on the missing list early Sunday morning.
Mrs. Woodworth said her husband left Mc-
Connell April 8 and had been in Vietnam
only a few days.
Woodworth, son of Mr. and Mrs. Marvin
Woodworth, mine?, Okla., had been in the
Air Force since graduating from Oklahoma
State University in 1955. He previously had
served in Korea with the Oklahoma National
Guard. He came to McConnell in September
1963.
Besides his widow, survivors include three
children, Marvin, 9, Kathye, 7, and Alan. 5.
A U.S. spokesman said a pilot, later identi-
fied as Woodworth, was killed when his plane
failed to pull out of a diving pass against a
truck on Highway 12 through Mugia Pass
along the border.
April 26, 196i;
[From the Wichita Eagle Beacon, Apr.
1965]
THE WAR COMES HOME
What does the war in Vietnam mean her 3
in America's heartland, half a world away?
For Maj, Frank E. Bennett, of Derby, it
meant death, and for his family and friend:,
sorrow. For those close to Capt. James F.
Magnusson, Jr., also of Derby, it means anx-
ious waiting. Major Bennett was reported
killed in action in Vietnam this week, and
Captain Magnusson reported missing. Fo ?
George E. Herrington, of Wichita, it mean,
risking his life, though he escaped unharmed
from riding shotgun on helicopters flying
over South Vietnam.
This news that men from our cornmunite
are seeing action in Vietnam?that F-10e
fighter planes from McConnell Air Force Base
are taking part in airstrikes there?suddenle
brings the distant war home to us.
We see clearly now what may have eluded
some of us before: This is our war.
Vietnam may be distant, its terrain un-
familiar to us, its politics mystifying. Su.
the fact remains that South Vietnam's gov ?
ernment is locked in a death struggle witl
Communist insurgents and our Governm.ene
has given its word we will help. Rightly cr
wrongly, wisely or unwisely, we are in
volved in this war, and this means thee
Americans must risk?and on occasion lose-
their lives.
When our fellow Americans?indeed, our
friends and neighbors?are dying, we have na
choice but to care about this far-off struggh
to seek to understand it, to be part of Sr
informed public opinion that will help our
Government choose the proper course is
Vietnam.
President Johnson will make a majoi
speech on Vietnam Wednesday night, A
solid, detailed report is needed. But needee
no less is the careful attention of all of uf
to what he says. Our fellow countrymen are
dying, and we must care.
SOUTH CAROLINA NEEDS NO AID,
NAACP LEADER SAYS
Mr. RUSSELL of South Carolina
Mr. President, I ask unarnnious consent
to have printed in the RECORD an article
appearing in the State, of Columbia, S.C.,
on Saturday, April 24, 1965, entitled
"South Carolina Needs No Aid, NAACP
Leader Says."
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SOUTH CAROLINA NEEDS No Am, NAACP
LEADER SAYS
The field secretary of the South Carolina
NAACP said Friday he doesn't think South
Carolina Negroes need outside help in voter
registration.
The Reverend I. DeQuincey Newman.
NAACP field secretary, said, "In the last
4 years there has been a 147-percent increase
in Negro voter registration without any out-
side invasion," the Reverend I. DeQuincey
Newman said.
"I think this is one of the best records
cif voter registration anywhere in the South
I think that record speaks for itself as to
whether or not we need outside assistance."
"Registration of Negroes increased from
58,000 in 1960 to more than 150,000 in 1964,"
he said.
Newman's comments were in response to
an announcement last week by Congress of
Racial Equality Director James Farmer that
CORE would send 100 workers into South
Carolina this summer to work on Negro voter
registration. Farmer is scheduled to be in
Columbia Sunday and will hold a press
conference.
Approved For Release 2003110114: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A1951
The bridge installation, however, is really
an extension of the ship's main controls,
centered in a huge console in the engine
room.
But many of you guests here today are
shippers, and I'm sure you are more inter-
ested in just what a ship like our American
Resolute can do for you, rather than what
makes her run.
Well, to begin with, she can help you pin-
point vessel transit time to a much more pre-
cise degree than heretofore.
This is made possible by the easy, 21-knot
service speed of the new ship. The vagaries
of weather which are often a factor in de-
layed ocean transit time, are greatly offset
by a reserve speed of some 4 knots built into
the Resolute and her sister ships.
Our fast new Challenger-class ships are
today crossing the Atlantic in 61/2 days which
cuts 3 to 4 days from the old running times.
Speed and efficiency are the key notes
throughout the entire ship. Like her 4
sisters and 11 predecessors of conventional
design, she has automatic, pushbutton
hatch covers, high-speed electric winches.
Two of her six hatches have triple hatch
openings permitting the spotting of cargo
directly to final stowage point without need
for shunting or man handling once aboard.
These hatches are served by a 70-ton, heavy-
lift boom.
The Resolute and his sisters have a 700,000-
cubic-foot cargo capacity a striking feature
of which is 151,000 cubic feet of refrigerated
space. This latter area is equivalent to the
capacity of 43 railroad cars and is easily ac-
cessible to expeditious cargo-handling de-
vices such as forklift trucks.
I said earlier that the launching of the
Resolute closed the book on the group of
ships, which we call our Challenger ll class.
It did, but it also signaled the start of a
new breed of ship even more advanced as far
as automation and speed are concerned than
the Resolute.
We have contracted to build in this same
yard five "Super Challengers" which will be
powered by 26,000 horsepower turbines giv-
ing a cruising speed of 23 knots and a fan-
tastic top speed of some 27 knots. They will
be the fastest freieiters ever to put to sea.
Additional features of these new ships will
include a push-botton cellular arrangement
for stowage of containers and powerful
booms providing lifts of 30 tons, 70 tons,
and 140 tons. They will have a 760,000 cubic
foot cargo capacity.
The American Resolute, the 15 new ships
that have preceded her and the score or so
more vessels that we plan to build at an
overall cost of nearly $400 million are a con-
crete indication of the confidence my com-
pany has in the future of the American mer-
chant marine.
However, I must confess that that con-
fidence I refer to has been somewhat shaken
by certain events of recent years. There is
no longer any semblance of a clear policy on
the national level as to the future of Ameri-
can shipping?as a matter of fact, we are liv-
ing today in a climate of confusion such as
we have never experienced before. We, who
operate American-flag ships, cannot make a
maximum contribution to national maritime
policy when it is so uncertain as to what that
shipping policy is and whose responsibility it
is to determine that policy.
We know, however, what we are doing and
we think it constitutes a constructive con-
tribution toward a sensible national policy to
develop a sound and healthy merchant
marine. For example, we know we are pur-
suing a ship replacement schedule that is
saving the Government money and attempt-
ing to buy the United States the best per-
formance at the most economical cost.
Already, it can be seen that the decision to
build bigger and faster vessels to replace our
aging fleets of wartime construction has en-
abled us, through the reduction in number of
units, to reduce the operating subsidies the
Government is paying to support U.S.-flag
shipping. The payoff on this program in-
creases every year with the substitution of
these new vessels for the old. We estimate in
my company an approximate saving to the
United States of 15 percent of the operating
subsidy based on a comparison of 1964 per-
formance of five Challengers in a trade that
once required six C-2's. Add on top of this,
the saving in future subsidy costs of the
automation features now being built into
these vessels?a saving which has been esti-
mated to mean $2 million less subsidy ex-
pense over the life of the vessel?and I think
that you can see the fact that we have been
at work for years in our planning to try to
get the Government a greater return for each
subsidy dollar spent.
Another contribution we are making?and
would dearly love to increase?is our contri-
bution to conserving American dollars to-
ward a more favorable national balance-of-
payments position. The American merchant
marine annually contributes almost $1 bil-
lion directly to the favorable side of our
balance of payment?without the American-
flag fleet this amount and another billion to
pay for the shipping services our exporters
would still have to buy, would represent an
additional $2 billion deficit in the Nation's
payments balance. This contribution is a
plus factor of the greatest signiflcance to
our Nation right now and will probably re-
main so for a long time.
Another accomplishment in which we take
some pride in having played a big part is
the great expansionary performance of Amer-
ican exports, the single most vital means of
earning dollars for the Nation. The whop-
ping big $6.8 billion 1964 trade surplus rep-
resents approximately a one-third increase
over the 1963 surplus, this performance not-
withstanding some strong denunciations of
liner rate making policies by critics who con-
tend these policies discriminate against
American exports. We recently addressed a
letter to hundreds of the Nation's leading
industrial companies, part of which letter
sought comments of protest on this issue of
allegedly discriminatory rates. The response
has more than reinforced our own belief that
the charge is incorrect. We find that what
the shipper really does need?rates to keep
him competitive in foreign markets?we have
been setting, with his interests and his voice,
a very strong factor in the determination of
the rate.
In all these things we have done I feel
we have been fighting a real uphill battle,
succeeding not because of our critics but in
spite of them. Our present regulatory pol-
icy toward the shipping interests of other
nations has created an almost impossible
climate on the high seas and in the capi-
tals of the major shipowning nations. Reg-
ulations by the United States Of its for-
eign commerce, must take into account the
rights, interest, and sovereignty of other na-
tions?and our public officials are going to
have to face up to this fact. Other gov-
ernments have different philosophies regard-
ing international shipping and, so long as
there is no wherewithall to apply and en-
force our laws across the board, on all parties,
these laws and regulations operate to the
detriment of the one controllable segment
of carriers in our foreign trade?the Amer-
ican merchant marine. We have said it many
times and we will say it again?we are not
against regulation per se but only against
ineffective unilateral regulation which traps
us in the middle of the great debate on how
an international business should be con-
ducted. It seems certain that the United
States is bound and determined to regulate
the shipping of its foreign commerce in or-
der to eliminate the abuses, real and imag-
ined, which are believed to exist. It seems
equally certain that the major shipowning
nations are going to oppose any regulatory
action that they feel will endanger the eco-
nomic welfare of their own lines.
An irresistible force meeting an immovable
object? I hope not and sincerely wish the
clamor of voices and conflicting policies
could be stilled long enough to give reason-
able men and interested parties time to cope
with this problem.
But this is too serious a note on which
to end an occasion of great pleasure and sig-
nificance to the American merchant marine
generally and United States Lines particular-
ly. We feel strongly that the partnership
in maritime endeavors epitomized by gov-
ernmental policy over the years must and
will continue, and more and more ships like
the American Resolute will take their place
as leaders in the free world's trade routes.
Faster Pace in the Space Race
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE
OF TEXAS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Thursday, April 8, 1965
Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker,
the editorial in Life magazine of April 9,
1965, focuses sharply on our past and
current achievements in our national
space program. The editors of Life point
out the evolution of our space program
to a valuable and well-planned effort.
The comments on the security value of
the space program describe well our
present status and the alternatives for
the futtre. This editorial puts in per-
spective the space race at its present
point in time and is a valuable critique
on the importance of our continued ef-
fort in this field.
With unanimous consent the editorial
follows:
FASTER PACE IN THE SPACE RACE
These weeks are so crowded with "firsts"
and "breakthroughs" in space that man's
progress there seems more hectic and jumpy
than it really is. First came Russia's
Voskhod II and Leonov's somersault; then
the US. Gemini, with Grissom's and Young's
changes of course in midflight; then Ranger
9 with its extraordinary closeups of the
moon. And this week Early Bird, the bundle
of audio and video channels which NASA is
launching for the Communications Satellite
Corp., is aimed to give U.S. private enter-
prise and intercontinental telephone users
a stake in the busy welkin.
The first Sputnik was less than 8 years
ago, but already the space age has reached
what President Johnson calls an "early ma-
turity." Each technical advance is a planned
and measured consequence of the previous
one; Mercury fed Gemini and Gemini feeds
Apollo; each hero stands on the shoulders of
predecessors who are also his contemporaries.
Since 1958 no fewer than 94 U.S. space flights
have left the cape, 59 of them fully success-
ful. At first the ratio of successes was 1 in
2; in the last 2 years it has been 16 to 1.
There are still a few worried critics, such
as the New York Times, who think the space
effort is a distorted use of U.S. resources at
a time when we still have terrestrial prob-
lems to solve. That is now surely the view
from the caboose. Our space program is,
as Johnson puts it, "a national asset of
proven worth and incalculable potential." Its
cost is leveling off at about $7 billion a year.
One hopes this includes enough to land us on
the moon before the Russians?and what's
wrong with wanting to be first? But, Gemi-
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDF'671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
A1952 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX April 26, 196.i
in and Apollo (landing target date 1970) pro-
vide a sale and sensible program worth stick-
ing to, in any case. Our next unmanned
moon snot after Ranger, for example, will be
llurveyor, a complex of mechanical eyes and
nands that will make a soft lunar landing
and send back landscape views, soil analysis
al other instrumented Information.
There are other worried critics like Gen-
eral beMay who fear that the Soviets, retain-
eg their early lead in several sectors of space'-
raring, may achieve a critical military ad-
s:irileage?for example, through a first
manned orbiting platform. The U.S. military
:low has a 20-percent share in our whole
apace program and could no doubt have more
ii anyone could describe a more acceptable
eel Mary mission in space. The one generally
agreed on is defensive intelligence and corn-
iiunications, in which the United States
already excels. Our program, though less
dramatic than the Russian, has already
milked the heavens of a lot more new in-
:ormation than theirs,
ito tirst beneficiary of this information
has been U.S. technology and industry. Most
NASA money involves private contractors,
and of the 300,000 men now employed in the
Inoon program. only 15,000 are Government
employees. And all U.S. industry gradually
[eels the challenge of the new thoroughness
and precision, of the unprecedented toler-
ances and complexities, that success in space
demands.
This challenge is now with us for good.
iilven before Apollo meets the Moon, we will
face gigantic choices for the next adventure.
Shall we concentrate on intensive study and
mapping of the Moon? Or on the "inner
epace" nearer Earth, peopling it with orbiting
laboratories, rescue stations, etc.? Or on
the outer solar system, whither we already
have launched a flyby mission, Mariner IV.
on its 7 VA -month trip to Mars? Or shall we
pursue all three lines at once?
The choice will be determined in part by
comparative costs and by the Russian com-
petition, which still has overtones of secrecy
and military menace. But it will also be de-
termined by what we learn from what we are
already doing. Our program, which may or
may not be overtaking the Russian, is well
past its own first period of jumpy despera-
tion. We can stick to it in confidence.
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. DONALD RUMSFELD
nr ILLINOIS
TN'FI-IE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. RUMSFELD. Mr, Speaker, al-
though U.S. policy in Vietnam has
been under heavy attack from vari-
ous sources and for a variety of reasons,
there is reason to believe that recent U.S.
actions have placed the responsibility for
the continuance of the conflict on Hanoi
and Peiping, as is pointed out in the fol-
lowing editorial from the Chicago Sun--
Times. and the article by the knowledge-
able observer of world affairs, Mr. Mil-
burn P. Akers:
VIETNAM
The failure of the Communists to move
toward peaceful settlement of the Vietnam-
ese conflict has been disappointing. First
North Vietnaln and then Red China rejected
late appeal of 17 nonalined nations to accept
President Johnson's proposal for uncondi-
tional discussion to end the war. Red China
talks threateningly of Chinese organizations
sending their own people to fight if the U.S.
escalates the war further. Premier Kosygin
of Russia calls for a cessation of bombing
in North Vietnam.
Such public reactions were to be expected
but Washington obviously hoped that some
private soundings toward peace talks might
come from the other side. None apparently
has.
These developments have brought de-
mands from some Americans that the United
States change its posture. They argue that
since bombing of North Vietnam did not
move the Vietcong Communists toward a less
aggressive attitude in the war and toward
peace talks, easing off or stopping the bomb-
ings for awhile might so move them. It
would let them save face.
We believe Defense Secretary McNamara
and Secretary of State Rusk make a better
and more pragmatic analysis when they
argue that stopping the bombing would do
the cause of peace more harm than good. It
has raised South Vietnamese morale and
lowered the morale of the Vietcong. It has
brought heavy political and military pres-
sure on North Vietnam. It has slowed in-
filtration. Stopping the bombing would be
interpreted as a defeat for a major U.S.
military undertaking and could cause the
collapse of the South Vietnam Government.
When Mr. Johnson offered unconditional
discussion?to be carried on without a cease
fire?he offered a billion dollars to help
southeast Asia to a better life. His speech
was promptly labeled the "carrot and stick"
approach. Those who deplore the heavy
military commitment the United States con-
tinues to make in Vietnam would have the
President drop the stick but still offer the
carrot.
The main purpose in Vietnam must not be
forgotten, however. It is to prevent the
spread of communism. In the circumstances
and as long as the Communists refuse to
enter peace talks, the stick as well as the
carrot must be used.
Communism is an idea that must be coun-
tered by better ideas for improving man's
lot. That's the carrot. But communism in
South. Vietnam is also aggression from
North Vietnam and this must be countered
by force. The United States has announced
it will put more money and men into the
ground war in South Vietnam. This is to
erove to the Communists that he meant it
when Mr. Johnson said, "We will not be de-
feated." He also meant it when he offered
unconditional discussions to stop the blood-
etted , When the Reds believe him on both
counts, perhaps they will be moved to the
talking stage. But they are hardly likely to
be moved inward a peaceful attitude by a
lessening of America's militant attitude.
They never have been in the past.
REDS BEAn VIET RF.SPONSIBILITY
(By Milburn P. Akers)
Now that Red China and North Vietnam
have rejected the appeal of 17 neutral na-
tions for discussions intended to resolve the
southeast Asian conflict there should be no
confusion as to responsibility for its con-
tinuance. For this is the same appeal which
President Johnson accepted in his uncondi-
tional discussions speech at Johns Hopkins
University.
This column has been critical of the U.S.
role in South Vietnam ever since the late
President John F. Kennedy switched that
role from a passive to an aotive one. And it
has been equally critical of the roles of Red
China and North Vietnam. Throughout the
Eisenhower administration the American role
was limited to economic assistance and a
military assistance group of less than 685
men which devoted itself to training the
South Vietnamese army.
During 1961, Kennedy's first year. in the
White House, the Vietcong began an inten-
sified campaign, one which threatened the
existence of the Saigon government of Pre:. -
ident Ngo Dinh Diem. On October 26, 196: ,
Kennedy pledged "that the United Stalls
Is determined to help the Vietnamese pre -
serve its independence, protect its peop.c
against Communist assassins and build a
better life."
On December 11. 1961, the U.S. aircra. t
ferry-carrier Core arrived in Saigon with 23
U.S. Army helicopters and 400 air and ground
crewmen assigned to operate with the Souta
Vietnamese army.
On December 20, of the same year, the Ne sr
York Times reported that uniformed U.S.
troops and specialists were operating in bat -
tie areas with South Vietnamese forces and
had been authorized to fire back if fired
upon. Two thousand U.S. military men wen e
then in South Vietnam.
The escalation of the war in South Viet-
nam had begun. It has gone on steadily
eince. It should be noted that Kenneda, ES
he switched the U.S. role from passive 'to
active, did so as the consequence of greatly
intensified Vietcong activity. Each escals -
tory step by the United States has come f,S
a consequence of one by the Vietcong.
Soviet Russia on January 10, 1962, in a
note to Britain, charged the United States
with aggressive interference in South Viet-
nam, a charge which the British rejected
with the statement that "the tension in
South Vietnam arises directly from the pui -
suance by the North Vietnamese * * *
seeking to overthrow the established govern -
Anent by force."
Few, if any, newspapermen who are sta -
tioned in Saigon, or who have visited thei e
since the conflict began, would. deny Met
British assertion of 1962. I was in South
Vietnam in January and February of 1913
and saw plenty of evidence to convince ire
of the fact of North Vietnamese aid of Ire
Vietcong and of its direct participation in
the conflict.
By the time Lyndon Johnson succeeded
Kennedy in the White House the United
States had more than 12,000 fighting men
in South Vietnam. The new pattern hid
been set although the United States gene'-
ally continued to maintain the fiction that
it was still acting only in an advisory capacil y
and Defense Secretary Robert S. McNamar I,
making periodic trips to Saigon, continued lo
report that a successful conclusion of tie
war in South Vietnam was in the offing. Ti e
direct assaults on military installations I y
the Vietcong began after Mr. Sohnson's suc-
cession and the policy of retaliation by air
strikes commenced. Today. the United States
has more than 40.000 military personnel in
South Vietnam.
As earlier stated, this column has for 3
years OT more been critical of U.S. polls' v
in South Vietnam. But it has never failed
to point out that North Vietnam and Red
China are, in Met, the agggressors; that tl e
Vietcong, if only, as some contend, a group
of indigenous patriots in rebellion against
the Saigon government, could not long main -
tam themselves in the type of war that hi s
been waged against them. Hanoi and Peipieg
bear at least as much responsibility for ti e
situation which exists in southeast Asia as
does the United States. In my judgmer t
they bear more. And since their rejection
of the 17-nation plea for negotiations?a
plea accepted by President Johnson?they
now bear the entire responsibility for the
continuance of that conflict.
This column many times urged negotie-
tions to end the Vietnamese conflict. It in
been critical of President Johnson as well
as the Hanoi and Peiping regimes for not
having sought a resolution of the conflict
long ago. Now that Mr. Johnson has agreed
to such negotiations and Hanoi and Peiping
have refused to participate in them theie
is little the United States can do other than
to wage the war to victory.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A1955
Hon. Eugene H. Nickerson, county execu-
tive of Nassau, Long Island, N.Y.:
PROCLAMATION ON FREEDOM CRUSADE WEEK
Whereas the Christians of Constantinople
are being expelled and persecuted and their
properties ? are being confiscated without
compensation; and
Whereas the hierarchy and the clergy of
the ancient and venerable Eastern Greek
Orthodox Patriarchate in Constantinople are
being persecuted, deprived of the right to
exercise their churchly and religious func-
tions and some of the hierarchy are being
exiled unjustly; and
Whereas the people of Cyprus are seeking
the rights to establish a democratic govern-
ment where all the citizens will have equal
suffrage, equal protection of the laws, reli-
gious freedom and equal educational, eco-
nomic, and social opportunities; and
Whereas the American Hellenic Educa-
tional Progressive Association, otherwise
known as the Order 'of AHEPA is seeking re-
dress and a solution of these problems in
accordance with the American principles and
traditions originally enunciated in the Decla-
ration of Independence and which, ever since,
have become the cornerstone of the ideals,
beliefs, and traditions of the American
people and Government: Now, therefore,
I, Eugene H. Nickerson, Nassau County
executive, do proclaim the week of May 9-
15, 1965, as Freedom Crusade Week in Nas-
sau County, N.Y.
I endorse the basic principle of U.S. foreign
policy on self-determination for all peoples
and earnestly urge our Government to fully
implement and support this policy of self-
determination for the people of Cyprus.
I further urge our Government to do all
in its power to bring about freedom of reli-
gion in the Republic of Turkey.
I further urge our Government to do all
in its power to stop the persecution and
exiling of the Christian people of Constanti-
nople.
I further urge on all our citizens of all
creeds to participitate in the AHEPA Crusade
for Freedom Week for Constantinople and
Cyprus, and to pray for a just solution of
the problems and the establishment of a
just and permanent peace in these ancient
places where civilization wais born and where
all our great religions were first promulgated
and established.
Calhoun Bust Presented to U.S.S. "John
C. Calhoun"
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. W. J. BRYAN DORN
OF SOUTH CAROLINA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Tuesday, April 13, 1965
Mr. DORN. Mr. Speaker, our beloved
Dr. Robert C. Edwards, president of
Clemson University, on March 10, in
Charleston presented to the Polaris sub-
marine John C. Calhoun a bust of South
Carolina's greatest statesman. At the
presentation ceremony aboard the U.S.S.
John C. Calhoun, Dr. Edwards made a
brief but very appropriate address. I
commend Dr. Edward's superb address
on that occasion to the Congress and to
the country:
REMARKS OF R. C. EDWARDS AT THE PRESENTA-
TION CEREMONIES ABOARD THE U.S.S. "JOHN
C. CALHOTJN"
Congressman RIVERS, Admiral Daspit, Ad-
miral Loughlin, Commander Axene, Com-
mander Thurtell, distinguished guests, ladies
and gentlemen, we are delighted to have
such a splendid audience for this historic
occasion. We are especially grateful to Con-
gressman RIVERS for his presence here today.
Having recently assumed the chairmanship
of the Armed Services Committee of the
U.S. House of Representatives, we appreciate
fully the importance of the tremendous re-
sponsibilities that rest on his shoulders and
the demands made upon his time. It is a
great relief to me personally to know that
during this most perilous and critical period
in our history that we have directing the
affairs of this most important congressional
committee a man of such outstanding
knowledge, ability and dedication as Con-
gressman RIVERS. It was my happy privilege
to listen to his marvelous address at the
commissioning ceremonies of this great ship
on September 15, 1964, at Newport News.
Clemson University, for which I speak, has
a unique interest in the ship on whose deck
we stand. This ship bears the name of one
of South Carolina's?and the Nation's?
most illustrious sons, John Caldwell Cal-
houn.
Clemson University, named for Calhoun's
son-in-law, Thomas Green Clemson, whose
vision and generosity created the institution,
stands on land which was the John C. Cal-
houn plantation.
The house, called "Fort Hill," was Cal-
houn's home for the last 25 years of his life,
and is beautifully preserved as an historic
shrine at the center of the Clemson campus.
Calhoun's spirit, as well as Clemson's, per-
vades the very air each Clemson student and
teacher breathes and constitutes an inspira-
tion to all of us there.
This spirit is an inspiration, too, to the
officers and men of the U.S.S. John. C. Cal-
houn,.
This is the joint heritage which Clemson
University is proud to share with the U.S.S.
John, C. Calhoun.
No American was ever more dedicated than
was Calhoun to the purpose for which this
ship exists?the defense of our country.
For 39 years Calhoun served the Nation as
a Member of both Houses of Congress, as a
Cabinet officer under two Presidents, and as
Vice President of the United States.
From 1811 to 1817 he was a Member of the
National House of Representatives from
South Carolina. As acting chairman of the
Foreign Affairs Committee, he stood with
Henry Clay and others who for their patri-
otism were called "War Hawks"?a name
which has become a badge of distinction
again in these troubled times. He stood for
strong defense of American rights against
depredations of the British, from ? whom we
had only a few years before won our inde-
pendence.
In his devotion to the protection of the
security of this country and the traditions
that have made it great, the Honorable MEN-
DEL RIVERS is truly the John C. Calhoun of
1965.
I remind you of those solemn words of Mr.
Calhoun when he said, "The honor of a na-
tion is its life. Deliberately to abandon it is
to commit an act of political suicide." So he
introduced the resolution declaring war on
Great Britain in 1812, and his views pre-
vailed.
From 1817 to 1825 he was Secretary of War
in the Cabinet of President James Monroe.
He reinvigorated many aspects of military
administration and clarified the command
situation. One historian from another re-
gion of the country says, "he gained, as he
deserved, a lasting reputation as one of the
ablest of War Secretaries."
From 1825 to 1832 he was Vice President
of the United States in the administration of
President John Quincy Adams and the first
administration of President Andrew Jackson.
From 1833 to 1843 and again from 1845 to
his death in 1850, he was a U.S. Senator from
South Carolina, standing with Henry Clay
and Daniel Webster as a towering figure in
the Senate's history.
In 1844 and 1845, between his two periods
of service as Senator, he was Secretary of
State, holding the highest Cabinet office
under President John Tyler.
Such, in barest outline, was the career of
John C. Calhoun on the stage of national
affairs.
It is appropriate that this ship should be
named for him and that Clemson University
should help to perpetuate his memory.
Our university, like the statesman whose
home it now occupies, is dedicated to pub-
lic honor and to public service. We are
basically a scientific and technological in-
stitution engaged both in the research and
the teaching so needed by South Carolina and
the Nation in this scientific age. This gives
us another special interest in a ship embody-
ing the most advanced of technologies. Our
university has a military tradition, too, and
our sons have served with distinction in
every war since Clemson was founded.
For all these reasons, Clemson University is
pleased today to present to the Navy for
display in this ship a bust of John C. Cal-
houn.
This bust, an excellent likeness, was once
the property of Thomas G. Clemson and
has been in the home that was Calhoun's
and later Clemson's.
Commander Axene, will you please come
forward?
It is with pride and with great pleasure
that I deliver to you this bust to the ship as
a gift from Clemson University, knowing
that the U.S.S. John C. Calhoun will add new
luster to a long-revered name.
Md of the Arts
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. ELMER J. HOLLAND
OF PENNSYLVANIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, April 7, 1965
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. Speaker, for a
number of years I have been dwelling on
the importance of education. The need
for people to be well educated increases
each day, for without it?employment
will be practically nonexistent and, with-
out it, the leisure time, automation, and
technological developments furnished all,
will not be enjoyed to its fullest extent.
As a cosponsor of the legislation set-
ting up a National Foundation for Arts
and Humanities, I should like to call the
Members' attention to an editorial ap-
pearing in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette
on April 21, recommending passage of
this bill:
AID FOR THE ARTS
When the American Symphony Orchestra
League met in Pittsburgh recently, its dele-
gates sounded a new policy note for their
organization. Reversing a stand taken as
recently as 1962, when 60 percent ' of the
members said they favored independence of
orchestras from Government money, the
league this year decided to endorse Federal
financial support for the arts.
As an organization representing 900 major
metropolitan and community orchestras, the
league made known its new position at a
significant time. Congress, too, has changed
Its mind in the last 10 years. When Presi-
dent Eisenhower in 1955 proposed a Federal
Advisory Commission on the Arts, Congress
turned a deaf ear. President Kennedy in
1961 recommended a similar agency, but was
rebuffed. The Senate in 1963 passed a Ken-
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
A1956 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX April 26, 1965
nedy administration bill to provide Federal
aid for the arts, but the House refused to
go along. Finally, in 1064, with the support
;if the Johnson administration, Congress en-
acted a law creating a National Council on
I.O.c Arts, an advisory body composed of a
chairman and 24 members appointed by the
President. Earlier this month the Caun-
cd?made up of members representing art,
sculpture, literature, music, theater, opera,
the screen and television?held its first meet-
ing and Chairman Roger L. Stevens an-
flounced that the organization wanted to
deliberate longer before issuing a magna
carts for the arts.
Meanwhile. Congress this spring has been
posy on another item of legislation in the
delft of the arts, this time to set up a Na-
Launch Foundation for the Arts and Human-
ities. The earlier objective of providing
Federal support for the arts has now been
broadened to include the humanities, a step
which was initiated by Pittsburgh Congress-
man WILLIAM S. MOORHEAD when he intro-
duced last summer a bill to establish a Na-
tional Humanities Foundation, an agency
intended to match the National Science
Foundation and to aid a wide range of hu-
manistic subjects?among them, history.
philosophy, law, and literature. The latest
version of Representative MOORHEAD'S bill.
which has HOW been approved by a House
Education and Labor Subcommittee, call,
for a National Arts and Humanities Foam-
dation which would administer Federal en-
dowments of $5 million each for the arts and
the humanities, plus an additional $5 mil-
lion for each endowment to use in matching
private donations. In the Senate, similar
legislation is being considered in Senator
CLAIBORNE. PELL'S Labor and Public Welfare
Subcommittee, where favorable action is ex-
pected in the near future.
With aolid support coming :from the ad-
ministration, from academic circles and
from such organizations as the Symphony
league, the Arts and Humanities Founds -
Mon bill appears to have a good chance cif
enactment. If this new source of encourage-
ment for music and other half-starved ar-
tistic endeavors and for humanistic studien
should finally be established, it would help
to redress the cultural balance in our so-
ciety, which tends to emphasize science and
technology to the neglect of creative pun tilts
that are equally important but that do not
have the glamor of a race to the moon.
Dodge and Columbia County, Wis.,
Boards of Supervisors Oppose Soil
Conservation Cuts
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. ROBERT W. KASTENMEIER
OF WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker.
after spending the week of the Easter re-
cess in my home district viewing the
damage sustained within my district
from both tornados and floods, I am con-
vinced more than ever that the adminis-
tration proposal to reduce appropriations
for soil and water conservation programs
would be a serious blow to conservation
practices throughout the country.
While the headlines have dealt with
the serious flood conditions in Minnesota
and western Wisconsin, much Wisconsin
farmland is flooded each spring in the
small headwater rivers and water basins.
Here is where emphasis on conservation
practices is most needed and this is where
the cutback in funds would be most
seriously felt.
Throughout my district I have found
farmers and city dwellers alike concerned
about this prospect of reduced conserva-
tion efforts. This is reflected in the reso-
lutions adopted by the Dodge and Co-
lumbia County Boards of Supervisors.
The board of supervisors, of course, are
the governing bodies of the counties and
represent not just the farmer but the
town and city dweller as well. These
resolutions in my :judgment reflect the
views of the vast majority of citizens in
my district. Accordingly, I include these
resolutions of the Dodge and Columbia
County Boards of Supervisors in the
RECORD at this point:
"RESOLUTION OPPOSING A CUT IN SOIL CON-
SERVATION SERVICE APPROPRIATIONS, WHICH
WOULD DIRECTLY AFFECT ASSISTANCE TO THE
COLUMBIA COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CON-
SERVATION DISTRICT
"Whereas the Columbia County Soil and
Water Conservation District program has
recognized the need for continuation and ex-
pansion of district assistance to landowners
iii conserving our natural resources; and the
inventory of conservation needs has pointed
not the large amount of work still needed
iii our district; and the requests for district
assistance increases each year. with a cor-
responding increase in the application of
conservation practices; and district assist-
sure landowners is vital in keeping our
soil on the land, our streams and lakes silt
free, our rainfall on the land where it falls,
beautification of our county, and protec-
tion of our tax base; and the proposed cut-
back in appropriations for Soil Conservation
Service technical assistance to districts
would curtail our help to landowners; and
the proposed revolving fund would place an
additional burden on the stewards of our
national resources: Therefore be it
Resolved. That the Columbia County
Board of Supervisors affirm the need of con-
tinued soil and water conservation practices
and that Federal appropriations be continued
to meet present and future soil and water
conservation practice needs."
rE OF WISCONSIN,
iJmmntg of Columbia...
1, Natalie Sampson, county cleric in and
for said county do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing is a true and correct
copy of a resolution adopted by the board
of supervisors on the 31st day of March,
NATALIE SAIVIPSON.
f MSOLIrrioN 4
"Resolution to the Honorable Board of S71-
ForViSOrs or Dodge County, Wis., members
Whereas the agricultural conservation
program of the Federal Governmen I, has con-
tributed immeasurably to the prosperity of
the national economy and the beautification
of the American landscape and the promotion
f the conservation of natural resources; and
-Whereas it is proposed that $100 million
be cut from the agricultural conservation
program cost sharing funds: and
"Whereas it is proposed to establish a
revolving fund through which landowners
would be charged a total of $20 million for
Soil Conservation Service technical assistance
Lo districts: Therefore be it
"Resolved, That the Dodge County Board
of Supervisors register its opposition to cut-
ting $100 million or any part thereof from
agricultural conservation program cost shar-
ing funds and to the establishment of a
revolving fund; be it further
"Resolved, That the county clerk of Dodge
County be and hereby is authorized and di-
rected to forward a copy of this resolution to
the President of the United States, Governor
Knowles, Senators Panzer, PaoxmraE, and
NELSON, Congressman KASTENMEIER, and Ps-
semblymen Nitschke and Doughty.
"All of which is respectfully submitted this
20th day of April 1965.
"Adopted April 20, 1965.
"JOHN O'DONOVAN,
"Chairman, Dodge County Soil a ul
Water Conservation District."
I, Walde H. Mueller, clerk of Dodge Courry.
Wis., do hereby certify that the above is
a true and correct copy of Resolution 4 passed
at a meeting of the Dodge County Board of
Supervisors on April 20, 1965.
WALDE H. MUELLER,
Dodge County Clerk
A Revivified United Nations Is Needed in
Pm
ofietnam
EXTENSION OT REMARKS
oy
HON. HENRY S. REUSS
OF WISCONSIN
IN THE: HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, March 31, 1965
Mr. REUSS. Mr. Speaker, the peace-
making potential of the United Nations
should be put to work in Vietnam.
Recently, I introduced a concurrent
resolution, House Concurrent Resolu-
tion 386, to revivify the United Nations
and-make it available for a role in sout a-
east Asia. The resolution would remove
the congressional requirement that t ae
United States keep the General Assemt ly
in a paralyzing impasse over the appli-
cation of article 19.
In an article in the Evening Star in
April 19, 1965, columnist Max Freedman
pointed out the opportunity for t ae
United Nations to make a contribution to
peace in Vietnam. I include his excel-
lent article hereafter.
I include also an editorial from Tile
Nation of April 26, 1965, on the need for
a vital United Nations organization.
The articles follow:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star,
Aar. 19, 1965)
U.N's DUTY IN VIETNAM STALEMATE
i Hy Max Freedman)
UNITED NATIONS.?Without publicity mid
solely with the desire to promote conditicns
favorable to a peaceful settlement, the United
Nations has taken a watching attitude in the
Vietnam situation. In the process it has pi o-
vided yet another proof of how the United
Nations can cast its influence into the scales
of peace when more direct agencies of clip o-
macy find it almost impossible to operate
In his Johns Hopkins address, Presichnt
Johnson tried a bold experiment in public
diplomacy. He appealed for an honorable end
to the fighting, while pledging the Uniled
States to continue the military pressure on
North Vietnam.
In general, it may be said that the appeal
impressed only those who are willing to heed
the arguments of reason. Our major allies
and by far the largest part of the neut
world have welcomed the President's bait a-
tive. But there the fayou.ble response en-is.
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1
April 26, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A1957
Commultist forces in South Vietnam have
given no sign they are ready to drop their
weapons. With varying degrees a hostility
but in each case with open suspicion, the
Governments of North Vietnam and China
and Russia have returned dusty answers to
the President's message.
Equally disappointing has been the re-
sponse to the British effort to establish con-
tact with the Communist side by the methods
of private diplomacy. The imaginative and
constructive offer of the British Government
to send Patrick Gordon Walker, the former
Foreign Secretary, to the embattled area has
thus far produced no visible result. China
in particular has been critical of the British
role as prejudiced and tainted since it is
an axiom of Chinese policy that in the Viet-
nam war Great Britain is an agent of Ameri-
can policy.
Perhaps France, which like Britain has rec-
ognized the Peiping government, may have
better access to China's rulers. But even that
is highly doubtful, and in any event deeply
rooted American suspicions of France would
first have to be overcome before there could
be an effective French intervention.
Confronted with this bleak response to the
President's appeal, alike in public and in
private diplomacy, many Americans are eager
to put their trust in the more belligerent
passages of the Johns Hopkins speech. They
are saying that the bombing and military
raids must be continued, probably on a more
intensive scale, until the Communists come
to their senses and accept peace.
These Americans, large in numbers and
outspoken in their advocacy, have never
placed much faith anyway in the force of
world opinion. Force alone is enough for
them. They regard world opinion as a mythi-
cal thing or as a fraudulent invention that
can be manipulated to meet the convenience
of the interested governments. But the State
Department does not accept this cynicism;
nor does President Johnson; nor do millions
? of Americans who cannot shake their convic-
tion that there must be something profound-
ly wrong with American policy whenever it
cannot be defended and explained in open
debate at the United Nations.
The President deemed it wise and essential
to state his commitment to a peaceful set-
tlement when faced with an appeal of con-
science from only 17 neutral nations. The
cry of the neutral world would become much
louder and more insistent if the President
should ever drift into the folly of regarding
his pledge of peace as a dead letter. The
search for a negotiated settlement must re-
main therefore as a fixed and urgent priority
of American policy, regardless of the changes
and chances in the military struggle and re-
gardless of the clamor to impose a solution
by military means.
Under the charter of the United Nations,
Secretary General U Thant has an inescap-
able duty to do what he can to compose the
crisis in Vietnam even though China and
North Vietnam are not bound by the prin-
ciples of the world organization. The situa-
tion in Vietnam is quite plainly a threat to
world peace and therefore comes within his
jurisdiction and is a proper matter for the
concern of the United Nations. The Secre-
tary General, as a former leader of Burma,
has the most detailed knowledge of the whole
problem of Vietnam and can make an impor-
tant personal contribution to its study and
resolution.
Some weeks ago the Secretary General was
denounced by large sections of American
opinion for a personal statement on Vietnam
which was well intentioned but blundering-
ly phrased and sadly misunderstood. But
this experience has at least freed him from
the suspicion of being the creature or agent
of American policy and given him the chance
to use the full prestige of his great office for
peace. Behind the scenes and against great
odds he is now quietly preparing the United
Nations for the time, still distant unfortu-
nately, when it can bring peace in Vietnam
closer to the agenda of diplomacy.
[From the Nation, Apr. 26, 1965]
THE REDISCOVERY OF THE U.N.
Prince Bernhard of ? the Netherlands, like
certain other consorts of royal ladies is a very
conscientious fellow, and well informed on all
sorts of industrial and governmental matters.
When, the other day, he was called on to
speak at the University of Michigan, he gave
much better value, in return for his honor-
ary degree, than is usual on such occasions.
Democracy, he pointed out, is not for the
indifferent, for those who feel that those in
authority should solve the problems and
leave the citizen to his own concerns. Per-
haps this was true once, Prince Bernhard
went on, "but the problems which face those
in authority, whether in parliament or in
government or in other high stations in life
In our modern world, prove to be beyond
their powers of solution since they involve
the whole of mankind."
Prince Bernhard was not speaking, par-
ticularly of the United Nations, but this
statement could hardly have been more apro-
pos in that connection. Indeed, after the
impasse at the last session of the General
Assembly, it is clearer than ever before that
an international body, even when limited to
an ancillary role, is indispensable to the so-
lution of international problems. The 'U.N.'s
past failures and frustrations are the strong-
est testimony to its value: when it failed, the
reason was that it intervened in situations
so desperate that intervention seemed im-
perative, and it was defeated by the very
nationalistic passions It had been founded
to control.
Discerning observers see this clearly, and
have no intention of writing off the U.N. Its
vitality will be restored to the extent that
the great powers cease using it as instru-
ment of their cold war objectives. "Inter-
national events of recent weeks," Senator
GEORGE A/KEN, of Vermont, told his colleagues
late in March, "seem to have overwhelmed
the capacity of this Government for affirma-
tive action, except in the military field." He
was referring to Vietnam, but then he re-
minded the Senate that when the United
States had turned the screws on the Rus-
sians (and the French) in an effort to
stigmatize them as delinquent debtors in
the Congo operation, he and other Senators
had sought to learn from the Department
of State what the American reaction would
be if the General Assembly were to send a
U.N. force into some area in which American
Interests were involved on the other side.
Would the United States pay up? The State
Department would not even discuss the
question and, considering what its policies
have been, the evasiveness is understandable.
When the Russians stood fast, the United
States decided that to wreck the U.N. would
not be in our interest. Representative
HENRY REUSS, of Wisconsin, has recently
given several practical reasons for revivifying
the U.N. as speedily and thoroughly as pos-
sible. If the Vietnam conflict does not ex-
pand into a general war and the belligerents
are eventually dragged by self-interest to the
negotiating table, the U.N. will be needed to
further peacemaking efforts, to administer
the aid program envisioned by President
Johnson, to supervise an election if one is
agreed on, and to take care of other con-
tingencieS that may arise. Mr. REUSS sug-
gests that the United States should cease its
futile invocation of article 19 of the U.N.
Charter, The Aiken and Reuss moves may
have administration backing. If not, they
should have.
President Johnson's "100 Days"?A Re-
markable Record of Achievement
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
Os,
HON. FRANK THOMPSON, JR.
OF NEW JERSEY
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr.
Speaker, a most informative article in
the current issue of U.S. News & World
Report describes the remarkable record
of achievement by President Johnson and
the Democratic 89th Congress during the
1st 100 days of this session. According
to the article "nothing to touch it has
been seen since F.D.R.'s first 100 days."
Those who carefully examine the record
certainly agree.
The U.S. News observations are much
like the comments that I made last week
in my own newsletter. Mr. Speaker,
under leave to extend my remarks, I in-
clude the text of the U.S. News article
and my April 22 newsletter at this point:
L.B.J.'s "100 DAYS"?A RECORD PILING UP
It's one success after another for Lyndon
Johnson. That has been the record of the
1965 session of Congress to date. Bills that
have been bogged down for years are sailing
through now. Nothing to touch it has been
seen since F.D.R.'s first 100 days.
Not since the first 100 days of Franklin
Roosevelt back in 1933 has a President en-
poyed the success with Congress that Lyndon
Johnson now is enjoying.
In that preiod 32 years ago, the Nation
was emerging from a financial panic with
people united in a demand for action. The
rapid-fire enactment today of new laws of
major importance is coming at a time of
high prosperity and of national contentment.
The Johnson record, as a result is being
cited by some of the President's aids as even
more impressive than the Roosevelt record.
In quick succession, Congress has taken
these actions:
Gold backing for deposits with Federal Re-
serve banks was ended without so much as
an argument. The vote: 300 to 62 in the
House; 74 to 7 in the Senate.
A billion-dollar development program for
the 11-State area in the East known as Ap-
palachia sailed through the form the White
House asked. The vote: 257 to 165 in the
House, and 62 to 22 in the Senate.
An aid program for local schools starting
at $1.3 billion a year passed both Houses of
Congress without a single major change from
White House plans. In this case funda-
mental issues of policy and constitutional
principle were involved. The vote: 263 to
153 in the House, 73 to 18 in the Senate.
For years, Presidents have tried to get from
Congress approval of a plan for meeting costs
of hospital care for elderly people under
social security. Always they met defeat.
Lyndon Johnson is about to achieve success
where others failed. The House has voted
medicare, 313 to 115. The Senate, having
approved plans in the past, will join in, and
could even broaden the plan.
It's the same story with a law to provide
Federal supervision of local elections to as-
sure Negroes the right to register and vote
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP671300446R000300150020-1
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1 _
A1958 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX April 26, 1965
in areas where they now meet discrimination.
Action by the Congress has been blocked in
the past. It is about to be taken now.
Congress also is about to approve and sub-
mit to the States an amendment to the Con-
stitution providing for an appointment to the
Vice-Presidency if that office becomes vacant.
It also provides for a line of action if a Pres-
ident is assassinated, dies or is disabled
while in office.
The House approved this plan April 13 by
368 to 29. A similar measure went through
the Senate unanimously.
Excise taxes are to be reduced by more than
$1.7 billion later in 1965. In this case, Mr.
Johnson may have difficulty restraining the
urge in Congress to make larger reductions
than he wants.
The success story carries all along the line.
The "poverty war" will be given $1.5 billion
more to spend. A battle is mounting over
the way this money is being used, but critics
are saying that, politically, money is money
in congressional districts.
There will be the usual approval of foreign
aid and approval for a wide range of other
White House proposals.
What the President wants: The record sug-
gests this: Nearly anything President John-
son really wants from the 89th Congress he
can get. In the Senate today are 68 Demo-
crats and 32 Republicans. In the House there
are 294 Democrats and 140 Republicans, with
1 vacancy.
in 1964, during the year when he served
out the term of the late President John F.
Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson started to make
the record that is being developed fully in
1965.
That year, the new President pried loose
a tax-cut bill that had been tied up in the
Senate Finance Committee while Mr. Ken-
nedy was in office.
President Johnson, too, got through Con-
gress a new law governing civil rights of Ne-
groes?a measure that had been bogged down
earlier in Congress and had blocked action
on most of the other legislative plans of the
late President.
Now the President's program seems to have
clear sailing.
There is some doubt that Congress will
grant the President's request for a new Cabi-
net Department of Housing and Urban De-
velopment, but a large part of his urban pro-
gram is likely to be enacted. Also headed for
passage is President Johnson's plan to im-
prove water resources and to help cities con-
trol air and water pollution.
The President, in fact, has outlined as
broad a program for expansion and improve-
ment as Mr. Roosevelt proposed for recovery
from depression. And the record of Mr. John-
son's 100 days during the present session of
Congress suggests that, with huge Democratic
majorities in House s,nd Senate, the President
will push most of his projects through.
In the 32 years which have passed since
the first 100 days of the Franklin D. Roose-
velt administration, there have been in-
numerable discussions about the achieve-
ments of the Congress in those short 100
days. The actions taken way back then were
considered to be fantastic, as indeed they
were. Few people, even the most knowledge-
able ones, expected a later Congress and
administration to match the output of the
great 73d Congress. To the delight and sur-
prise of nearly all, the 89th Congress has
given the 73d a run for its money.
The United States was in the depths of a
horrible economic depression when F.D.R.
took office. 'The people wanted relief and
action and they got it in the form a the
NRA, the Bank Holding Act, the Bank
Moratorium, and the Esnergency Relief Act,
to mention the major bills passed. The ad-
ministration was great, and so was the Con-
gress.
In 1965, when Lyndon B. Johnson took
office, he had with him a tremendous pop-
ular mandate and an overwhelmingly Demo-
cratic Congress, but there were no really
great legislative demands from a people en-
joying relative prosperity. The President
had his own program, however, and he wasted
not a minute in making his recommenda-
tions to what has turned out to be an eager
and responsive Congress. The results have
been nothing short of sensational in Presi-
dent Johnson's first 100 days.
The first measure of importance to travel
the whole distance and become law was
L.B.J.'s program for poverty stricken
Appalachia. The Senate acted first, and
then the bill was placed in the hands of the
extraordinarily skillful Representative
ROBERT E. JONES, Alabama's only liberal
Member. JONES steered the bill through
without a single amendment?a splendid
and unusual achievement.
The Appalachia legislation will help not
only the States directly involved but will
benefit the whole Nation as the economy of
that poor area improves. New markets will
open, and thousands of men will be put back
to work to take their places as taxpayers and
customers. Their children will receive better
educations and, hopefully, be prepared to
enter the job market equipped to be em-
ployed.
The President's next legislative victory
ended a fight of nearly 100 years within the
100 days when the great education bill sailed
through the Congress. In this instance, the
bill originated in the General Education Sub-
committee of the House. From the time it
left our subcommittee, all the way to the
President's desk for signature, not one comma
in it was changed. In this case, the bill was
handed to the colorful and able Senator
WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon. He duplicated
Representative JONES' feat of passing the bill
unainended. Several of my earlier newslet-
ters have discussed the education bill in
depth, so I shall say only that the entire Na-
tion will benefit permanently from the ed-
ucation program.
Following the education bill, the House
passed a massive revision of the social secu-
rity law including President Johnson's medi-
care program. Only a year ago, the Senate
passed a medicare program, but it failed to
get out of Committee in the House. Many
feel that the last Congress would have de-
feated medicare if it had reached the House
for a vote. We will never know, but it's safe
to say that the margin would never have
been within a hundred votes of what it was in
the 89th Congress. As time goes by, I shall
make available to my constituents the many
details of the medicare and social security
programs. They are marvelous, in my opin-
ion.
As we break for a few days' rest, we are con-
fident that a voting rights bill will be ready
for action upon our return. A great national
demand has built up favoring this legislation,
and I suppose that we can thank Alabama's
Governor George Wallace and his red-neck
pals for that demand. There have been many
martyrs in the cause of equal rights who shall
be remembered long after the Wallaces have
been forgotten. Their monument will be the
real emancipation of the southern Negro.
The red-neck monument will be the shame
they brought to their neighbors and to the
Nation.
Before it leaves office, a long time from
now, the Johnson administration will have
done much more than its sensational 100 days
have already brought forth. The administra-
tion recognizes the needs of the people and
of the country and intends to meet those
needs. There will be mistakes, too, for this is
the nature of things. I predict though a
favorable balance sheet in the history books
and am honored to have a small part in the
making of that history.
Citation for Dr. Paul Hamilton Allen
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. SILVIO 0. CONTE
OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 26, 1965
Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, recently,
Dr. Paul Hamilton Allen, a respected
and well-known botanist for the Mated
Fruit Co., passed away. Dr. Allen had
devoted his life to horticulture and bot-
any, living with his wife, Dorothy
Osdieck Allen, within the tropics. His
contributions to these fields were many
and he was recognized as the leacing
authority on palms. As a result of his
work the number of known specie:, of
palms was more than doubled.
On March 26, at the annual meetin; of
the Fairchild Tropical Gardens in Miami,
Fla., the Robert H. Montgomery Palm
Medal was awarded, posthumously, to Dr.
Allen. Dr. Walter H. Hodge of the Na-
tional Science Foundation, in presenting
this award to Mrs. Allen, read a citation
describing the life and work of this dedi-
cated scientist.
I call the attention of my colleagues to
this citation, the text of which follows:
ROBERT H. MONTGOMERY PALM MEDAL CITATION
FOR PA'UL HAMILTON ALLEN
It would be hard to say when the late Paul
Allen saw his first living palms. It is dc ubt-
ful that it was in his native Oklahoma.
More likely it was as a student at the Mis-
souri Botanical Garden whose conservatories
in the thirties were at their horticultural
zenith. Soon he was to see palms In their
native haunts in Panama. The garden was
initiating a modern flora of that botanically
important isthmian country and, as ax im-
pressionable young man, Paul Allen hail the
great good fortune to be included in a 1ant
collecting trip to that land. As any good
botanist could have predicted he was th 'filed
and excited by the great green world cf the
tropics. In 1936 he returned for good ls ith a
new wife, Dorthy Osdieck of Kirkwood, Mo.,
Who was to love the tropics with as much
zest as her young husband. Excep , for
a brief respite in 1953, when Paul served as
director of the Fairchild Tropical Garden, the
Aliens lived their married life within the
tropics.
His first job was to manage the Missouri
Botanical Garden Tropical Station bascd in
the Canal Zone. Palm collecting was part
and parcel of the overall task of assembling
the herbarium collections and associates. data
on which the Panama flora was to be based.
Paul Allen's success is demonstrated in the
account of the palms prepared for this flora
by Liberty Hyde Bailey in 1943. Prior to 1936
only 37 species of palms were known from
Panama. Paul's field efforts more than
doubled this number and in so doing 13 new
Panamanian palms were discovered, 5 of
which very appropriately honor the name of
this superb and discriminating plantsman.
In subsequent years Paul Allen developed
a special affection for the palms along with
his other major plant love?the orchids.
Under the kindly aegis of a new employer,
the United Fruit Co., he studiee the
flora--including the palms--of Costa Rica,
Honduras and El Salvador. During -thi3 time
several new palms were named by him?pri-
marily in the genera Roystonen and Cryoso-
phila. In the fifties a new young society
devoted to these principes of plants was
formed. Paul Allen served the Pains Society
Approved For Release 2003/10/14: CIA-RDP67600446R000300150020-1