CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160006-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 34
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 25, 2003
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: April 5, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

6660
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6 ?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE April 5, 1965
Par the currant school year, Kansas State
students have borrowed upward of a inIllion
dollars through univeridty and untveraty-
annstroatored funds to amist them in meeting
educational expenses One of *airy seven or
eight students has borrowed a motor sum
through one of these funds. The bulk of
the loons -more than two-thirds of the
total-- have been made through the National
Defense Education Act program.
"One of the principal purposes of the Na-
tional Defense Education Ali program is to
encourage top quality students to go on to
college." explains Harold Kennedy, director
or the ?Mee of aids end awards at Ironies
State University. The National Defense Edu-
cation Act program is making it possible for
many more capable young people to get a
college education. "It is the only loan pro-
gram we have from which we can make loans
to entering students."
But unique feettireiroi The National De-
dean Education Ace loan program create
collection problems not present in conven-
tional loans. For instance, the loans do not
begin to earn intermit (At S percent) until
the student has been out diva:tool a full year.
And his initial payment? epproximattly
tenth of the sum borrmivi4 le not due until
2 years after he has left"iiihool. IS. In the
meantime, the botTower reinunes his Pitied-
ing or enters the armed iiiivioes, his obtlite-
teen is deferred further. And If he lisegthis,
hie yearly repayments may be targime. VIP
to S 7cara.
In ettlectbig National DefameIllatication
Ant loan egrplicants. Kennedy aroya such far
ton as Snanolal, wen. chatecterl echaleptio
records and worm nt entranoolliste are rein.
eldered cerefUlly. actigilere are required tor
tribitars
Relatively elaborate procedures have been
worked oet at Kansas State to apprise seta
biit-going student of his obligations concern-
ing National Defense Education Act and other
loans, and 4 Wins of 'Written leotifieetione
and rethinneve follow as payrnetst on the loan
b000ma due or past due. If the -student be-
ocenee delinquent, and he makes no effort to
pay or *range a .attetact& ?dul. for
payMents, his account is turned over to the
Elate attorney general's office for collection.
So far records of seven Kansas State Watkins!
Deena. Education Act borrower* have been
turned over to the attorney general sad tine
have been collected.
In this country and representative ff0V- contiguous districts, the predominantly
(ailment as we have known it. Democratic States governments may draw
Ass Republican, I naturally regard the new Unes for more than 160 congressional
Portents of the Bartlett column with dis--trieti
ins Republicans are undertaking to meet
greater foreboding. PerhaPs, thanthe the challenge or 1066 by raising at million
majority side of this Rouse. It is fair to that will be spent In 100 critical districts.
suggest however that the destruction of ? They are peeking this money in special mart-
the Republican Party, which Mr. Bartlett tugs of large contributors around the *pun-
vermin to be the goal of the President. try and in no Ii appeals that sak, "Is this the
Inning of the end of our two-party gov-
could well Mean the destruction of effec- beg
tive minority protection in the United eruineat'9"
The response to this special drive has not
States. yet revealed any fervent determination to
The article follows: save the GOP in the 1906 elections About
Jonneon Ants AT EiCrinatiON or GOP 60 rich St Louis RepubLicans, all past donors
of 51,000 or more to party campaigns. gath-
ered at one of these special meetings last.
weolt and pledged $12,000, or slightly leas
than 6200 each.
The Republican field Dien do And pnwals-
ing signs that impressive candidates will be
evialable, especially In the distances that we
stanchly Republican before Goldwater. To
tin extent that his defeat cleaned out weak
incumhenta in 1966 and created oneninin
for abler Republicans in 1966. Goldwater
may yet be counted a blaming by hie party.
The potential of the South, where ei
trine were =contested by Itepublirens in
1554. is obscured by the rand amoke. Some
Insight into the party's 1906 outlook in that
region will be gained from the June by
election in South Carolina. no Sepublioan
have noted that the new neasseratse Nous
Manimes from the South ? frequently op
pore the seraintetration in their votes.
Bat the Northern Diunocratio bishmes
are playing It extremely close a Mums
and his program. Their politic*" careers an
the President's chance of matching Rome.
vat's feat will hang heavily upon the Instal
in Nvember 1966 of the national admin.
nitration
coNaRtesTONAL RitrouIl AND Tim
NOWoRrrv Vtg. 2,
(Mr. CLEVELAND (at Ole !Knelt of
Mr. Ram of New Yorki wan granted per-
t/baton to extend his re-Marks this
point in the Bacot's) and to include eitra-
MMus matter.)
Mr. CunrELAND. Mr. Speaker, as
fibairman of the Republican Task Force
en Congressional Reform and Minority
Staffing, / shall be introthicing Materfal
Into the REcOito from time to time filus-
trating the need for theta* force and
predenting the work we are doing. tarn
now offering No. 2 in this series, the first
having appeared in the CorCIRLILSIONSL
Itacou of March 30, page 6117.
The power of a majority, especially
when it is also in control of the White
House, is well nigh irresistible, unless the
nfinority y enjoys cirtain protections
Which it does not. now have. The follow-
ing column by Charles Bartlett, which
appeared in the April 1 edition of the
Washington Evening Star discusses out
cfne aspect ofielpirgitoliienl.For Release
The destruction Of ' the Republican
Party, as discussed by Mr. Bartlett. could
mean the destruction of minority rights
(By Charles Bartlett) ?
While Lyndon B. Johnson works as Presi-
dent to bury partisanship In a spirit of con-
April 5, 1965
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 6661
lets only a few months ago, has gone sour
and nobody in the enemy camp seems to
know what to do about it.
Of the three pastime most vitally cow-
cerned --Hanoi. Peiping, and Moseow?lienoi
Is most unhappy of all. North Vietnam's
big brothers, Red China and the Soviet
Union, are locked in a bitter quarrel over
how and what to do about rescuing their
little brother from continuing US. air
attacks.
Both, despite a great deal of tough talk,
have been careful to hedge their dbeamit-
ments. Talk about Russian "volunteers"
lighting side by side with their Vietcong
brothers in the jungles of Southeast Asia
draws nothing more than derisive hoots di
ta frointrallong Kong-based experts.
has toned to sena "selected in-
dividuals" an keep up the flow of ants and
ammunition. This sounds like mote of the
same. And It's a far cry from the torus-type
war Peiping was threatening a fele months
ago.
Meanwhile, It's North Vietnam that's being
bombed almost daily with increasing in-
tensity. Its coastal shipping is screened by
U.S. 7th Fleet vessels for southbound arms
shipmenta. Its ports are under Constant scru-
tiny and subject to attack any Urn*. And
the signs are tuiltiplyine that the long War
in the South become a real drain on the
Wilted mem of the Hanoi rejime.
Watchers here And ite bait to believe
,verland passage of Soviet mill supplies
o
frOth /4006te that Peiping has barred
o Hanoi. Yet they coticede the there ars
mite capable of doing just that.
After all, the Chinese are the people Who
few years ago tamed bales or anti-Soviet
wopaganda cdf Russian trains at every eta-
non ?until Moscow put a stop to it.
The Chinese Embassy in Kabul. Afghanis-
tan, denied Thursday that Peiping is oh-
structing Soviet efforts to send aid to North
Vietnam overland through China, the As-
sociated Press reported.
Bed China's hatred of Moscow almost
matches its hatred of the United States.
In some respect* it's more virulent became,
Peiping oonstders the Soviet leaders traitors
to the Communist calm.
The reason is not bard to and. With So-
viet air potter and nuclear weapons, Peiping
could deal with the American imperialist ag-
'remora on more than equal terms. Without
them the Chinese Communist leaders ars re-
duced to raging impotence.
Quite possibly the Chinese are blocking
Soviet supplies from reaching Renal in a des-
perate bid to force Moscow Into a united
front against the United States.
There's good reason to believe the Chinese
Reds are oonhieed awl uncertain as a result
of U.S. determination to carry the war to
North Vietnam. The V.S. bombing; intro-
duced a totally new and upsetting element
Into the war.
ActOrdRig to Mao Tite-tung's reckoning, the
United States was really a paper tiger because
when the crunch came the Americans would
never use the power at their disposal.
Ironically the Chinere leaders were count-
ing on world opinion, for which they per-
sonally have complete contempt. to stay the
American hand.
But Americans setrad upon the Communist
attack on Pielku February 7 as a reaeors to
go ahead and do what they thought best.
More and more Pleiku looks like the turning
point of the war.
Peiping and 'Hanoi apparently are still
betting they can force a political decision in
South Vietnam by military means before
North Vietnam is seriously hurt by Ameri-
ca" alr. raids.
Mr. Speaker, It would be my hope that
those who have been trying to force
President John/ion Into negotiations at
this time when we are Making Preerero
In Vietnam, will take a look and careful-
ly reed Mr. Beech's very timely report.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question in
my mind but what President Johnson's
decision to strike back at the Commu-
nists in Vietnam will go down in history
as a monument to his good judgment
and Indeed is going to secure that land
for the freedom and democracy that the
people of South Vietnam so urgently
went.
MDT NUCLEAR REACTOR
IN SPACE
(Mr. HOLIPIELD asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute; to revise and extend his re-
marks and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. HOLIPIELD Mr. 8Peaker within
the past 48 hours our Nation accom-
plished another fat in Its competition
with the Soviet Union for the explora-
tion and conquest of spec*. On Satur-
day, April 3, from Vandenberg Air Base,
the United Stetea launched the first
nuclear power reactor for space appli-
coition?the SNAP-1841. 800-watt nuclear
reactor. On April I, at approximately
8:06 p.m., eastern Standard time, Atter it
fruceesatully had been planed in orbit, a
signal was transmitted to the nuclear
1n)werplitrit approximately 700 miles out
In space to bring the ratetor into opera-
lion?the first time a nuclear reactor has
been operated in specs.
As chairman of the Joint Committee
ett Atomic Energy, I want to omirratu-
late all the personnel of Atomics Inter-
national. the Lockheed corp., the Air
Force. and the Atm* Sawa Commis-
sion. who worked on this project and who
successfully brought it to truition. They
have instilled the faith the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy and the ?en-
trees plated in them.
Lest it be forgotten, this.project would
have been canceled and the flight test
would not have taken place had it not
been for the actions of the Joint Com-
mittee and the Congress. One year ago
at this time the executive branch of the
Government, became it did not have an
Immediate requirement for the SNAP-
10A project, had canceled its planned
night The joint committee successfully
ainvinced the executive branch to re-
instate the flight test by authorizing the
cost to be funded by the AEC in lieu Of
the Air Force. Subsequently, In Septem-
ber of last year we, for the first time,
ascertained that the WEAR. was work-
ing on an almost identical Project. the
Romashka.
Had it not been for the actions of the
legislative branch, the United States
would have been deprived of another
first in its competition with the Soviets
but. More important, we would not be
able to obtain needed tactual data on the
actual operation of atomic reactors In compact nuclear-electric power sources for
We have taken the initial step in the
attainment of this leadership.
To my colleagues in the Congress I
cite the SNAP-10A as one more project
to be added to that list of nuclear devel-
opments which would have been deleted
at doomed to cancellation had it not been
for the active influence and prodding by
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.These former projects included:
Pint. The nuclear submarine pro-
gram;
Second. The hydrogen bomb:
Third. The food irradiation program;
and
Fourth. In 1961, the first launch of a
nuclear isotope powered navigation satel-
lite.This satellite isotopic power device
Is still operating and producing elec-
tricitytoday.There are those who decry what they
believe to be an inability of the legisla-
tive branch to effectively and positively
Influence policy decisions in this coun-
try. The decision to flight-test the
IEDIAP-10A nuclear powerplant waemade
and directed through the influence of
the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
and the congress.. It is not the first
time we have been responsible for a ma-
jor policy decision, nor will it be the last.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
to place in the Recom at this point in my
remarks the following materials:
Vint. Excerpts from Senate Resort
No. 987 and House Report No. 1332. nib-
mined by Senator Jorar 0. Peron and
myself front the Joint Committee on
Atomic Enemy, April 1964, in which the
joint committee recommended to the
Congress that it override the executive
branch decision to cancel IINAP-10A and
to authorise its night test during the
coming year. ?
Second. Background information and
description of the SNAP-10A prolect.
Third. Congratulatory telegrams to
Dr. Chauncey Starr, at Athrilies InternA-
tkomi, and Mr. Reginald Itearton, of the
Lockheed Corp., from Congressman Clull
HOLIPTSLD, chairman of the Joint Com-
mittee on Atomic Energy and Senator
:cans 0. PAST0111, vice chairman Of the
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy.
Fourth. SNAP-10A launch and tan
statistlai prepared by the Joint Commit-
tee on Atomic Energy.
Excerpts from Senate Report No. 887
and House Report No. 1332. submitted by
Senator JOHN 0. PASTORS and myself
from the Joint Committee on Atomic:
Energy. April 1964, in which the Joint
committee recommended to the Congress
that it override the executive branch de-
cision to cancel SNAP-10A and to au-
thorize its flight test during the coming
year:
(.) SATELLITE AND SMALL POWS/ 1101711C111111
A. Ale request
Tee Atomic Energy Commission requested
$78 million for the satellite and small power
sources (SNAP) Program for fiscal year MIL
This amount to $4.8 million less than the
level of needing for 'fiscal year 1904.
The SNAP program involves the develop'
reent and meting of long-lived, lightersigat,
A Communist military offensive in South seem space vehicles and other specialised applies-
Vietnam may be in the oug. If .,it doubt- Any nation that seriously intends to Slone.
less will be *cowman esRePtalski40000POP14/411391~., 104315044=013rer 1301610hree insius sub"
ve to take the war to the conference table. ultimately depend mien Mamie energy. cu ) a cievelopment of lower
No. 00-11
April 5, 1965
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67800446R000300160006-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
so as to exempt the county from provisions
of the proposed voting rights law.
Fact is, far less than one-third., Mizell less
one-half, the qualified voters within the
bounds of Cumberland County voted in last
November's general election.
The reason is another matter.
A close look strongly indicates that At-
torney General Katzenbach did Cumberland
County an injustice when he "indiscrimi-
nately" lumped 34 eastern North Carolina
counties with Mississippi in a statement on
registration procedures, and said "snow did
not keep them away from the polls."
The implication was there that is racial
discrimination.
The study shows there is none.
tnless the discrimination is much subtler
than a cynical reporter can detect, none- ex-
ists in the Cumberland County elections of-
fice against Negroes registering to vote.
From what can be learned, registrars go
further than they might to help a Negro get
registered, becoming at times almost pater-
nal.
The figures support the conclusion.
And so do Negroes themselves.
REGISTRATION REQUIREMENTS
A Negro, when he goes to register, must
prove only that he can read and write, as
Must everyone.
It is widely known that the test for prov-
ing that can be so manipulated as to bar
almost anyone from registering. That is the
problem in Alabama and Mississippi. There,
the charge is, Negroes are given a much
harder reading and writing test than whites.
Negroes and whites in Cumberland County
have to do only two things, and all have to
do it, regardless of race. They are required
to read aloud the elections oath, and sign
their names.
Whoever can do that can register and vote.
Further proof of the county's position on
registration is the fact that Fayetteville's
only precinct which is macle up predomi-
nantly of Negro voters has a prominent Ne-
gro man as registrar.
He has the full backing of Elections Board
Chairman G. E. Edgerton to register whom-
ever he finds to have met qualifications.
He is Dr. Henry M. Eldridge, professor at
Fayetteville State College, prominent mem-
ber of the community and registrar in the
13th precinct.
Asked if he knew of any racial discrimina-
tion, direct or implied, in Cumberland's reg-
istration policies, Eldridge said he did not.
"I have found that anyone who wanted to
register had an opportunity to do so," he
told the Observer.
He confirmed the fact that the same sim-
ple test for registration is given Negroes and
Whites,
The length to which registrars sometimes
go to help a Negro get on the registration
rolls was shown recently when a man came
to the elections office and asked to be reg-
istered.
The registrar filled out his form, and asked
that he read the oath.
She learned by questioning him that he
was going to night school. But his reading
was quite elementary.
The registrar coaxed, helping him get
through the oath. Finally, it appeared he
could not do it.
She offered to give him another chance
when his reading proficiency improved
through his night study.
Another man came recently to Eldridge.
He could read, but could not see well enough
to read the oath. Eldridge went to great
lengths, even trying to obtain the oath in
braille, to determine that he could read. He
was eventually registered.
REGISTRATION' BREAKDOWN
Cumberland County at the moment has
31,176 voters registered. Of the total, 24,595
are White, 6,581 Negro.
Chairman Edgerton said that, although he
did not have exact figures, within the past
year his office registered a larger percentage
of Negroes than whites. (Percentage based
on the number registered to population.)
A year ago, the total registrations were
31,638. That total was cut by a recent purge
of the books, cutting the total back to its
present level.
The purge cut white registrants from 26,798
then to 24,595 now. Despite the purge, the
Negro registration total has increased?from
5,840 a year ago to 6,581.
The fact remains that Cumberland is
among 34 North Carolina counties that would
qualify for Federal registrars under the vot-
ing rights bill. The bill would allow Federal
registrars to go into a county in which less
than 50 percent of the population over 21
years of age in the 1960 census voted in the
last general election.
About 23,000 persons voted in Cumberland
County in last November's election. There
are about 86,000 people in the county over 21.
That means less than one-third of the eligible
people voted.
FORT BRAGG PERSONNEL
Why is this true?
The biggest reason, most observers believe,
is the presence of Fort Bragg. Thousands of
military personnel choose not to declare
North Carolina their home State, and there-
fore vote elsewhere by absentee.
That creates a big population total and
depresses the percentage of people voting. It
creates the illusion of discrimination, or
some other artificial voting controls.
Discrimination, of course, is the assump-
tion in the voting rights bill in picking coun-
ties with less than 50 percent voting.
The Government might send Federal reg-
istrars here, but chances are they will be
an inactive group.
[From the Washington Star, Mar. 24, 1965]
QUESTION LINGERS ON VOTING BILL
(By Richard Wilson)
The question that the advocates of the
new voting rights bill have as yet failed to
answer adequately is this: Why should lit-
eracy test as a qualification for voting be
perfectly all right in 45 of the 50 States but
invalid in the other 5?
If a voter in Alabama who cannot read or
write is qualified to vote in a Federal or any
other election, why should not an illiterate
New Yorker have the same right? The right
to vote certainly has no connection with the
number of people who vote, and it is mani-
festly unjust to bar an illiterate from voting
in a State where less than 50 percent of the
qualified voters cast their ballot, but to per-
mit him to vote in a State where more than
50 percent of the voters go to the polls.
This, nevertheless, would be the effect in
606 counties in 10 States of the passage of
the voter rights bill sent to Congress by
President Johnson,
The only justification offered for this
anomaly is that it is the only way to force
election officials in those 10 States to regis-
ter Negroes to vote. Otherwise, they will en-
force prohibitive regulations that prevent
Negroes from voting, but not enforce the
same regulations on whites who could not
meet the qualifications.
This is another example of the devious
legislative tactics in the Johnson administra-
tion to achieve results by legal circumlocu-
tion. Another outstanding example is the
aid to education bill that attempts to get
around the church-state issue.
From the President's recent statements it
can be concluded that what he really desires
is the removal of virtually all restrictions on
voting for persons 18 years old, and over, if
they are sane, and in spite of the fact that
the Supreme Court would have to reverse
itself in finding that the imposition
of reasonable qualifications is valid.
6695
It must be admitted that literacy tests as
a qualification for voting are honored in the
breach in the North. Thirty States have no
such requirements. States that do have
literacy requirements often do not enforce
them, or the enforcement is so cursory as to
be meaningless.
New York requires proof of an eighth-grade
education or demonstration of the ability to
read as a requirement for voters. This ex-
cludes a great many people, including re-
cently arrived Puerto Ricans, from voting
and is being challenged in the courts. Pre-
vious Federal legislation proposals would
have required a sixth-grade education as
proof of literacy.
Residency requirements are universal. In
short, people are not born in this country
with an inherent right to vote at any time or
any place. This is a right for which they
must qualify by tests that vary from State to
State, and which was affirmed by a 1959
Supreme Court decision. The layman would
think that the Constitution is quite clear on
this point in its 1st article and in the 17th
amendment, to say nothing of the 1959 de-
cision of the Supreme Court.
Furthermore, the Johnson voting rights
bill recognizes this principle by providing
that a voter shall be stricken from the rolls
if he fails to vote at least once in 3 consecu-
tive years. Thus the Federal law would im-
pose restrictions Congress regards as rea-
sonable while outlawing other restrictions
imposed by the States.
Why is not the issue confronted squarely?
Why is Congress not asked to abolish lit-
eracy requirements in all States altogether?
The answer to that is clear. It is because
literacy requirements have validity both in
reason and in law. It makes sense that a
voter should have at least an elementary
ability to read and write the language of
the country in which he resides. It makes
sense that States should have the power to
set reasonable minimum standards for vot-
ers, and the proposed law recognizes that by
itself setting some standards. It hardly
needs to be argued, also, that a Federal law
should apply equally to the citizens of all
States.
The strange, awkward, and unequal nature
of this new legislation shows how wrong it is
to try to legislate on such complicated mat-
ters in an atmosphere of violence?provok-
ing public demonstrations.
The Johnson administration was rushed
into the presentation of a law that has so
many obvious flaws that it can immediately
be challenged in the courts. Elaborate and
tricky formulas provide no answer for a more
basic question: Why in a nation with com-
pulsory, universal public education are so
many people, Negro and white, illiterate?
And why should there be a premium on illit-
eracy in some States and not in others?
[From the Wall Street Journal, Mar. 25, 1965]
INCONGRUITIES IN THE DRAMA
The civil rights struggle, focusing this
week on the march to Montgomery, is cus-
tomarily described in terms of high drama,
and certainly there has been no lack of
violent incidents. Yet great drama, whether
in real life or reflected on the stage, must
have the ring of truth, and it seems to us
that too often, on all sides, this one does
not have that ring.
To say that is not to disparage the justice
of the voter registration drive, condone the
extreme southern segregationists or question
the depth of concern in the White House.
On the contrary, the sympathy of the ma-
jority of Americans is for the Negro cause,
especially in so fundamental a field as vot-
ing, and not for a bullying sheriff or a recal-
citrant Governor.
It is, rather, to say that all the protagonists
are pursuing particular, highly political, in-
terests which do not always add up to the
Nation's best interest but which do produce
Approved For Release 2003/10/10,: CIA-RDPS7B00446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
6696 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 5, 1965
incongruities and rob the drama of some of
its reality.
? Consider the frequently made comparison
between the American demonstrations and
the Indian resistance movement of Mahatma
Gandhi. It is a little incongruous, to begin
with, to equate the well equipped Mont-
gomery marchers, moving under the full
panoply of U.S. Government military pro-
tection, with the Indian leader's wretched
hordes.
Therein lies the major weakness of the
analogy: Gandhi was protesting the foreign
rule of his entire nation,, not some local
abuse. In the United States today the whole
Federal Establishment, as well as most pub-
lic opinion, is arrayed on the side of the
Negro. We may be thankful it is so, but
the present point is that against that awe-
some power the intransigent local politician
can prevail only for a time. Ultimately the
contest is unequal.
6uch confrontations intensify the politics
and the bitterness. Not only is it right that
the Negro should have access to the polls
equally with other citizens in his State; the
extent of his success in reinforcing the right
can also powerfully affect local politics. On
fi national scale, long before the present ef-
forts, the Negro vote was showing its consid-
erable influence in elections.
While there can be no quarrel with this
development as such, it helps explain the
bitter-end opposition of some of the south-
ern politicians in municipal, county, or State
office. In the Deep South especially they
can play on, as well as mirror, white fears
that some local political structures may
eventually be taken over by Negroes through
sheer force of numbers. It is remarkable
that in all the long period of strife few out-
side the South appear to have recognized
that this potential revolution actually is a
problem requiring consideration and accom-
modation.
At the same time the high political con-
tent of the issue is causing the national ad-
ministration, for its part, to stray from the
paths of reality and constitutionality. The
Government's attempts to redress wrongs
also have obvious political advantages. It
can hope to cement, for the time being any-
way, the Negro vote without alienating the
majority of the electorate. Last November
demonstrated how feebly resentment, either
South or North, could affect the outcome.
So it is that less than a year after passage
of the Civil Rights Act, a couple of whose
sections are open to constitutional question,
we have a proposed voting law which is in-
herently inconsistent and seems flatly to
contravene the Constitution. It is expected
In Washington that the momentum of the
administration's efforts to reassure the civil
rights leaders will accelerate.
Beyond any proposed legislation, reality
also tends to be submerged in some general
attitudes. If the diehard segregationists
err in supposing they can reverse the move-
ment, so do the civil rights leaders and
supporters err in thinking that endless dis-
ruption of the civil order spells the auto-
matic fulfillment of their aspirations; ft may
delaythem through exasperating the patience
of the public.
Specific goals may indeed be won; more
important is what is done with equal treat-
ment or full citizenship. Too little attention
has been paid to the Negro's own responsi-
bility in the development of the society.
The reality is that the society, with the best
will in the world, cannot do everything for
him or any other citizen.
That the various political interests play a
large part in the issue is inevitable, since
practically all national decisions are reached
through the interaction of political interests.
But those who lead groups or nations must,
like other mortars, find time for cooling off
and reflection lest they propel the drama to
lengths that are not only incongruous blit
injurious.
[From the Greensboro (N.C.) Daily News,
Mar. 23, 1965]
SPECIAL LAWS AND BLANKET INDICTMENTS
In the present tense situation in Alabama
Federal officials?and indeed everyone con-
nected with the civil rights controversy--
should check carefully on facts and figures
before sounding off in public.
Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach
failed to do this in remarks made before a
House committee last Friday. The nib-
stance of his testimony was sound?much of
the civil rights story in the South had been
one of "intimidation, discouragement, and
delay" in the struggle to win full citizen-
ship rights for Negroes.
But the Attorney General barked up the
wrong tree when he dragged 34 eastern North
Carolina counties into the picture and
linked them with Alabama. The reference
was to the projected abolition of literacy
tests in counties where less than 50 percent
of eligible citizens turned out to vote?and
they included Aroostook County in Maine as
well as most of the 4 Southern States,
parts of Alaska, and Arizona, and 31 counties
in North Carolina.
"They may have had a snowstorm in
Aroostook County," the Attorney General
told the committee, "but they ddin't have
a snowstorm in 34 counties of North Caro-
lina, and they didn't have a snowstorm in
Mississippi."
No, there was no snowstorm down here
last November. But as far as North Carolina
is concerned neither was there specific "in-
timidation, discouragement, or delay" in
registration or voting for Negro citizens. The
only protests about registration delays in
North Carolina in recent years have been
confined to one county, Halifax?and that
situation has now been cleared.
Let it be understood by Mr. Katzenbach
and others, including President Johnson and
Rev. Martin Luther King, that North Caro-
lina cannot be tarred with the brush of Ala-
bama or Mississippi. Negro citizens have had
the right to register to vote here just as
other, citizens have. They have been sub-
jected to the same kind of literacy tests
which apply for all other would-be voters--
except in several very rare sittiations in Hal-
ifax County.
To equate conditions in North Carolina
with those in Dallas County simply because
less than 50 percent of the eligible voters
went to the polls last November is presump-
tuous and inaccurate. It indicts the think-
ing behind the President's new Federal voting
legislation.
There are far, far more reasons than racial
discrimination behind some of the voting
apathy in North Carolina, Mississippi, or
New York. As we noted the other day, the
Guilford County Elections Board has tried
to cooperate in getting more registrants on
the books; a study of its recent efforts re-
veals that even voters signed up by an in-
tensive campaign have stayed away from the
general election in droves.
It is grossly unfair to infer that simply
because 50 percent of the eligible voters
failed to go to the polls, racial discrimina-
tion Ls the reason.
The more we study the President's Federal
voting legislation, the more we are convinced
that the 50-percent figure is ill advised. In-
deed, the whole idea of setting up special
laws to cover certain statistical situations
may not work fairly. The Federal Govern-
ment's duty is to see that all citizens are
allowed to register and vote if they desire
to do so. It is not to create special rules
for some citizen:5 which do not apply to all
citizens. And that quite clearly would be
done if literacy tests and other voter qual-
ifications are abolished in certain areas but
allowed to flourish in others.
Basic constitutional principles are involved
on both sides of this controversy over suffrage
rights. One principle ought not to receive
higher priority than another, closer home,
and the attorney general should watch his
blanket indictments based on fuzzy statistics.
USE IN OF U.S. AIR
ER
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, The Re-
porter magazine, in its issue dated
March 25, presents us with a lucid re-
port, from Saigon, by Denis Warner.
The article recounts the military sit-
uation which has led to the utilization
of American air power against North
Vietnam and in support of government
troops in South Vietnam. It makes the
point that Ho Chi Minh and his follow-
ers remain unwilling to negotiate the
Vietnamese situation on any terms less
than a U.S. capitulation, and remain
convinced that they can win that nasty
war. But consistent, effective use of
American air power can be used, Mr.
Warner points out, to disabuse the Hanoi
regime and its allies in Peiping of this
notion.
I ask unanimous consent that the Re-
porter article on Vietnam be printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Reporter, Mar. 25, 1965]
VIETNAM
(By Denis Warner)
SAreorr.?By the beginning of Februarf the
restricted war in South Vietnam, with its
inhibitions on the use of American power
and its privileged sanctuaries for the Com-
munist Vietcong, was all but lost. Los; not
merely in the sense that a weak govern:Trent
in Saigon would one day want to negotiate
a fictitious neutrality, but in the total sense
of the word. Instead of the diplomatic nice-
ties and face-saving protocol of the confer-
ence table conjured up by some Congress-
men and editorial writers on the basis of
unrealistic and ill-informed accounts of the
situation, what lay ahead for South Viet-
nam?and the United States?was bate: and
disastrous defeat.
"The National Liberation Front counts on
clear-cut victory over whatever United
States-Saigon regime is in power at the
time," wrote the Australian Communist
journalist Wilfred Burchett from the Na-
tional Liberation Front's headquarters in the
jungle north and west of Saigon. "Pax
Americana is unacceptable to the Vietcong."
Hanoi confirmed this hard line. In con-
versations with International Control Com-
mission officials, the North Vietnamese lead-
ers expressed no interest in the resumption
of the Geneva Conference, or in any negotia-
tions that did not include the prior exclu-
sion of all American military advisers and
equipment from South Vietnam.
Opinions differed in Saigon on how long
final disaster might be averted. Some quali-
fied observers spoke of a couple of months.
The resilience of the Vietnamese people and
the country's capacity to muddle along with-
out effective government, or any goverr ment
at all, convinced the more optimistic that
things might just go on getting worse for a
much longer time. But few, if any, doubted
the inevitability of defeat if the war con-
tinued to be fought by Vietcong ground
-rules. Not all of the troubles were due to
the Vietcong, of course. The generals had
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300160006-6
April 5, 1965 CONuRESSIONAL RECORD ?.SENATE
abandoned the battlefield for politics, In tion of American targets than the fait ac-
compli of partition. As government forces
the interplay between military and govern-
ment, the South Vietnamese adnaini,stration, quickly discovered, the Vietcong had seized
never very strong, simply withered away, control of the Qui Nhon-Pleiku road, the
On the military front there were, as al- strategic highway supplying the Second Corps
ways, some gains with the losses. In the headquarters and all of the northern part of
southern regions of the populous Mekong the high plateau. Under the rules by which
Delta, along the region most heavily infested the war had been fought, Pleiku, Kontum,
by the Vietcong, the government reported Dak To, and other government positions in
successes. Villages once securely in Vietcong this part of the high plateau were now un-
control had passed more or less into govern- tenable. It was a defeat as potentially dis-
ment hands. But? even here there was astrous for Saigon as the loss of the Thai
scarcely reason for jubilation. Of the 6 mil- country of Tonkin had been for the French
lion inhabitants of the 15 provinces in the 11 years before. The war, it was clear, was
southern corner of Vietnam, not more than entering its final phase.
a million could be regarded as on our side, The days when the Vietcong depended on
and only 1,700 of the 4,000 hamlets were slingshorts, homemade rifles, and even cap-
anything like secure. Meanwhile in central tured American equipment had long since
Vietnam, which had been drained of its gov- passed. Hard-core units were receiving their
ernrnent forces to reinforce the delta, the own new Communist-bloc equipment. And
deterioration had been shattering. tucked away in the middle of a long war
In February 1964 the hard core of the Viet- communique was the news that the Vietcong
cong forces numbered,, by official American had used artillery for the first time.
estimate, about 22,000 men. Despite heavy It was this change, and not just the ques-
combat losses, by the beginning of February tion of retaliation against North Vietnam,
of this year their regular forces had grown that was the real challenge President John-
to an estimated 35,000. These men are son faced on February 7. If ever there was
organized under 5 regimental headquarters to be a last chance to amend the rules of
(3 others are in the process of formation), the war so as to fight back to a position
and are deployed in some 50 battalions, where peace might one day be won at the
139 independent companies, and 29 inde- conference table, this was it.
pendent platoons. Ambassador Maxwell D. Taylor brought
With the active military assistance of per- with him to Vietnam the realization inspired
haps a hundred thousand part-time guer- by the Cuban missile crisis of 1962 that if
rillas and regional forces and the cooperation only the United States could convince Hanoi
of some half a million members or supporters and Peiping that it was in deadly earnest,
of the National Liberation Front, the Viet- that southeast Asia was really worth the risk
cong now had a substantially larger mobile of a major war, then a way could be found
attacking force than the 600 000 military to terminate North Vietnamese aid and to
and paramilitary troops of the 'Government. bring the Vietcong insurgency to an end.
With their responsibility for keeping roads, For the plan to work, there could not be an
railways, rivers, and canals open, and for in- ounce of bluff.
suring that crops reached the markets, by Until February, however, the one deadly
far the larger portion of the Government's aspect of the whole scheme was Washington's
forces were tied down. indecision. The Tonkin Gulf affair last sum-
Tactically, helicopters had added a new mer appears in retrospect as anything but a
element of mobility and surprise to the GOV- bold warning of the shape of things to come.
ernment's family of weapons. With this new Instead of drawing in its horns, Hanoi re-
strength, however, there were also weak- sponded with a vastly increased volume of
nesses. While the helicopters often contrib- materiel and other aid to the Vietcong. Yet
Uted to the success of Government sorties attempts by planes of the 7th Fleet to close
against the Vietcong, they also tended to off the Ho Chi Minh Trail in the general re-
give them the character of hunting parties, gion of Tchepone in Laos were low-key, ir-
thus helping the Communists to identify resolute, and unsuccessful. To the Vietcong,
themselves more closely with the peasants. they were more of an irritant, and perhaps
The lesson has been slowly and painfully even a stimulant, than a-hazard. As Hanoi
learned that there is no substitute for effec- and Peiping evaluated the situation, the
tive administration on the ground. United States had bluffed in the Gulf of
Tonkin, and its bluff had been effectively
THE MEANING OF PLEIKU called. Nor were the Communists alone in
By December some inkling of the grave this estimate. In other parts of southeast
new turn in the war had become apparent Asia, friends, foes, and neutrals alike won-
when substantial Vietcong forces grouped to dered whether Washington really meant busi-
seize An Lao in central Vietnam. In itself, ness.
the fall 9f An Lao was of little consequence. Here in Saigon, Washington's resolution is
What did matter, however, was the capabil- no longer seriously questioned. Whatever
ity implicit in the Vietcong action. Under doubts remained were quickly taken care of
the patient leadership of Maj. Gen. Nguyen by the introduction of American jet fighters
Don, who established his headquarters in in direct support of Vietnamese ground
the mountains of Kontum Province 5 years forces. The sensation of each new develop-
ago, the Vietcong had accumulated sufficient ment now is truly that of being carried up-
forces to attempt what the American Mill- wards on a rapidly moving escalator.
tary Assistance Command had once believed The message does not yet appear to have
Impossible: to cut South Vietnam in two. reached North Vietnam, however. As one
' The attacks against the American installa- senior U.S. official commented: "The great
tions at Pleiku and Qui Nhon, which led to debate in the United States about whether
the retaliatory raids north of the 17th par- we should cut and run, and the generals'
allel, were part of this plan. For weeks the three-ring political circus in Saigon, haven't
Vietcong rehearsed the Pleiku attack. Few helped to get the message across. Hanoi still
armies have ever given such attention to the thinks it's got it made down here." This
planning of the most minute detail of corn- opinion is confirmed by International Control
paratively small actions. From sand tables Commission reports from Hanoi. The Corn-
the Vietcong moved to full-scale mockups, mission's observers have found nothing to
leaving little to chance or luck?although by indicate a willingness on the part of Ho Chi
miscalculation or inexperience, many of their
rounds of mortar fire at Pleiku fell short.
But for this, the U.S. casualties would have
been much heavier,
The real significance of the Pleiku and Qui
Nhon actions was less the calculated selec-
Minh and his followers to negotiate on terms
that would require anything less than a U.S.
capitulation.
UPPING THE ANTE .
American officials advance three reasons for
the bombing attacks on the North: to per-
.6697
suade Hanoi to stop interfering in the South:
to inspire some feeling among the South Viet-
namese that there is real hope of winning the
war; and, though graded a long way below
the other reasons, to interrupt the south-
ward flow of men and materials.
If the impact is not ultimately to be nega-
tive, bombing above the 17th parallel, and
also direct American jet support in the
South, must be continuous and effective. As
part of a cautious phased program designed
to test world reaction rather than to hurt
North Vietnam, the first attacks against Dong
Hoi and Vinh Link no doubt served their
purpose: but the destruction of 30 barracks
and the sprinkling of some fields with a par-
ticularly nasty antipersonnel bomb known as
the Lazy Dog, which showers razor-sharp
pieces of steel in its target area, were not
enough to promote radical changes in Hanoi.
Elsewhere, the raids provoked predictable ex-
pressions of hostility and some reassuring
support, not all of it expected. But they
lacked the conviction of deadly earnestness
that the United States must communicate if
the new exercise is not to prove a failure.
North Vietnam has reconstructed its rail-
way lines to China, and built its steel center
at Thai Nguyen, and cement mill at Hai-
phong, only by great economic sacrifices at
a time when it has the lowest living stand-
ards in southeast Asia. It must be made th
understand that the price for continuing the
war in the South will be the destruction not
merely of barracks and bridges but what it
has labored to achieve industrially.
In terms of the Peiping-Hanoi concept of
wars of national liberation and their impact
on the United States, the stakes are so high
that Ho Chi Minh may elect to suffer even
this sort of disaster while he still has hopes
of victory in South Vietnam. Those who
know him best believe that he will want to
avoid at all costs a situation in which Chi-
nese Communist forces (as distinct from spe-
cialists) may come to his aid. But the
doubt persists, and will continue to persist,
unless and until it can also be shown that
direct American air support in South Viet-
nam and any other measures the United
States may decide on are successful. Failure
will breed failure, and this is true on all the
complex political, diplomatic, and military
fronts that are involved in this crisis.
For this reason, the battle slowly unfold-
ing in central Vietnam for the Qui Nhon-
Pleiku road is without doubt the most im-
portant of the war. This is the proving
ground for American air support of South
Vietnamese forces pitted against a mobile
Vietcong force that not only controls the
jungle, and therefore has the initiative, but
may well also prove to be numerically su-
perior. Early combined actions along the
highway, the scene of the bloodiest Viet-
minh ambush of the entire Indochina war,
proved highly successful, as jet fighters
drove off entrenched ambush forces. A gov-
ernment prisoner who escaped from the
Vietcong during the bombing reported that
he saw a hundred dead being carted off. It
would be excessively optimistic, however, to
expect this sort of casualty rate to continue.
Targets will be more difficult to locate as the
Vietcong becomes aware of the even greater
need for camouflage and concealment, and
experienced air officers are relcutant to pre-
dict the outcome.
What is at stake here is not merely a high-
way, or the security of the Second Corps
Headquarters at Pleiku, or even the control of
the High Plateau, damaging though its loss
would be: what is of absolutely critical im-
portance is that the Vietcong be denied the
Opportunity to move into the Maoist phase
of mobile warfare. If by the use of Ameri-
can air power they can be forced back to a
lower level of guerrilla activity?which,
though dangerous enough, lacks the means
of delivering the massive blows on which
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300160006-6 -
6698 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 5, 1965
their hopes for a purely military victory de-
pend?then Hanoi may realize the futility
of continuing an interminable war in which
the rewards for continued struggle are the
ashes of its own destruction.
MORE OF LIPPMANN ON VIETNAM
Mr: CHURCH. Mr. President, in a
foreign-policy debate which has been
characterized by rigidity, the voice of
Walter Lippmann has added a much-
needed creativity. In two recent articles,
Mr. Lippmann has exposed some of the
fallacies which seem to underline much
of the current thinking on the subject of
Vietnam.
In his article which appeared in the
April 1 issue of the Washington Post, Mr.
Lippmann agrees irith the tenets of Sen-
ator COOPER'S closely reasoned March 25
speech on Vietnam. Both Senator
CooPER and Mr. Lippmann warn of the
danger of prescribing condition S to nego-
tiations which are clearly unacceptable.
I ask unanimous consent that two of Mr.
Lippmann's recent articles?entitled "On
the Way to the Brink" and "The Basis
of Negotiation"?be printed at this point
In the RECORD.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
TODAY AND TOMORROW?ON THE WAY ro THE
BRINK
(By Walter Lippmann)
The war in Vietnam has reached the point
where the President is wrestling with mo-
mentous and fateful decisions. For what has
happened is that the official theory of the
war, as propounded by Gen. Maxwell Taylor
to President Kennedy and by Secretary Mc-
Namara to President Johnson, has proved to
be unworkable. The government in Saigon
has not been able to pacify South Vietnam
even with the help of American munitions,
money, and 25,000 military advisers. The
crucial fact today is that for all practical
purposes the Saigon government has lost
control of the countryside, and its followers
are increasingly holed up in the cities.
The roads and the railroads connecting the
cities have been cut by the Vietcong. The
cities now have to be supplied hi great
measure by air and by sea. This condition
of affairs has been well reported by Mr.
Richard Dudman in a series of reports to
the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, and his findings
are confirmed in all essentials, though not
yet publicy, in the well-informed quarters
In Washington.
? The surest evidence that Mr. Dudman's
reports are substantially correct is that in
the Pentagon and the State Department
there is mounting pressure for the commit-
ment to southeast Asia of American infan-
try. The current estimate Is that the Presi-
dent should be prepared to send 350,000
American soldiers, even though this would
compel him to order a mobilization of re-
servists and draftees.
This call for American ground forces is
the logical and inevitable consequence of the
Virtual collapse of the Saigon government
in the villages. Having lost the countryside
Saigon has lost the sources of military man-
power. This deprives it of the means for
winning the war. The official estimates to-
day are that the Saigon government com-
mands forces superior to the Vietcong by a
ratio of not quite 5 to 1. Experience shows
that no guerrilla war has ever been sub-
dued with such a low ratio of superiority.
It is estimated that in Malaya, the Brit-
ish and the Malayans, who were fighting
the indigenous Chinese guerrillas reached a
superiority of 50 to 1. In Cyprus, which
they gave up, the British had overwhelming
force. In Algeria, though the French Army
had unmistakable superiority, the country
became untenable. It is the deficiency in
South Vietnamese military manpower which
explains why the pressure is now on to put
in Americans to fill it.
After 2 months of bombing North Viet-
nam, it has become manifest also that the
bombing has not changed the course of the
war. As a result of this disappointment,
the President is now under pressure to ex-
tend the bombing to the populated centers
around Hanoi and Haiphong.
There is no doubt that American airpower
can devastate North Vietnam and, if China
intervened, could do great damage in China.
But if we had an American army of 350,000
men in South Vietnam and extended the war
In the air, we would have on Our hands an
interminable war without the prospect of a
solution. To talk about freedom and na-
tional independence amidst such violence
and chaos would be to talk nonsense
In order to rationalize, that is to sell, the
wider war, we are being told by Secretary
McNamara and others that this war is a
decisive test for the future. It will decide
the future of "wars of liberation." This is
a profoundly and dangerously false notion,
and it shows a lamentable lack of knowl-
edge and understanding of the revolutionary
upheavels of the epoch in which we live.
It assumes that revolutionary uprisings
against established authority are manufac-
tured in Peiping or in Moscow, and that they
would not happen if they were not instigated,
supported, and directed from one of the
capitals of communism. If this were true,
the revolutionary movements could be sup-
pressed once and for all by knocking out
Peiping or Moscow. They little know the
hydra who think that the hydra has only one
head and that it can be cut off.
Experience shows that there is no single
central source of the revolutionary up-
heavels of our epoch. What is there that is
common to the Irish rebellion, to the Jewish
uprising in Palestine, to the civil war in
Cuba, to the Arab rebellion in Algeria, to the
Huk revolt in the Philippines? What is
common to them all is violent discontent
with the established order and a willingness
of a minority of the discontented to die in
the attempt to overthrow it.
What has confused many well-meaning
Americans is that in some of these rebellions,
though not by any means in all of them,
Communists have become the leaders of the
rebellion. But that does not mean that they
owned the rebellion. The resistance to the
Nazis in France and Italy contained a high
proportion of Communists among the active
partisans. But 20 years later it is General
de Gaulle who presides over France.
It would be well to abandon the half-baked
notion that the war in southeast Asia will
be decisive for the future of revolutionary
upheavels in the world. Revolution is a
home-grown product, and it could not be
stamped out decisively and once for all?
supposing we had such delusions of gran-
deur?by stamping out Red China. In
southeast Asia we have entangled ourselves
in one of the many upheavels against the
old regime, and we shall not make things
any better by thrashing around with ascend-
ing violence.
TODAY AND TOMORRoW?THE BAsis or
NEGOTIATION
(By Walter Lippmann)
The cardinal defect of the administra-
tion's conduct of the war in Indochina has
been pointed out by a Republican Senator,
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, of Kentucky. In a
statement last week (March 25), Senator
COOPER said that the U.S. Government, like
its adversaries in Peiping and Hanoi, is
"prescribing conditions as a prerequisite
to negotiations which *ill not be ac-
cepted." The Communists are making it
a condition of a negotiation that the United
States must withdraw from Vietnam; we are
making it a condition of a negotiation that
North Vietnam must withdraw from South
Vietnam. This is, said Senator CooPEL,
kind of demand from both sides for uncon-
ditional surrender."
It is, therefore, highly important that the
administration put itself in a position where
negotiation is possible, granting that even if
it did so. Hanoi and Peiping may gamble on
winning the war in order to overrun South
Vietnam and inflict a smashing defeat on the
United States. But regardless of what they
do, we must come into court with clean
hands. The administration needs to clarify
its own position?in order to set in motion a
movement for negotiation and, failing that,
to put the onus of prolonging and widening
the war unmistakably on our adversaries.
There is a mistaken impression in this
country that we are ready and willing to
negotiate but that the other side is impos-
ing intolerable conditions; namely, that we
should withdraw our Laces before the nego-
tiation begins. Senator COOPER rejects the
Communist condition, as do all of us who
have been actively interested in this ques-
tion. We cannot withdraw our forces until
there has been a political settlement in Indo-
china, a settlement which promises tc last
because it serves the primary interests of all
concerned.
But what, as a matter of fact, is our posi-
tion? It is that before negotiations can take
place, the North must demonstrate its readi-
ness to leave its neighbors alone." Secre-
tary Rusk has avoided a precise definition of
that phrase, We know that "illegal infiltra-
tion of military personnel and arms" is con-
sidered to violate that condition. That
"leaving your neighbors alone" means also
withdrawal of infiltrators who are already
there has at times been suggested but never
formally stated.
Senator COOPER says of this position: "I
think it unlikely that the Communists will
agree to this condition for negotiations, as
we will not agree to their condition that the
United States withdraw."
What Senator COOPER is asking the admin-
istration to do is what was done ir, the
Korean war: "No such conditions were im-
posed by either side prior to negotiations, but
a cease-fire was sought." Until the admin-
istration comes around to this position, its
diplomacy will be confused.
Last week (March 25) the President issued
a statement that "we have said many times?
to all who are interested in our principles for
honorable negotiation?'hat we seek no more
than a return to the essentials of the agree-
ments of 1954?a reliable arrangement to
guarantee the independence and securtty of
all in southeast Asia."
This is rather puzzling. The agreements
of 1954 were reached at Geneva in a confer-
ence in which there participated not only
the Indochinese states but also Russia, Red
China, Britain, France, and the United States.
The agreements ended the fighting between
the French Union forces and the Vietminh
in Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam. These
states were to become independent countries,
with Vietnam partitioned at the 17th paral-
lel into two zones pending general free elec-
tions to be held by January 20, 1956.
The cease-fire agreement was signed by the
military commanders. But in addition, the
Geneva Conference issued a final declara-
tion, dated July 21. This declaration con-
tained the following principles of settlement,
One of the principles was that the cease-fire
prohibited the "introduction into Vietnam
of foreign troops and military personnel as
well as of all kinds of arms and munitions."
The Geneva Declaration went on to say that
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160006-6 _
April 5, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 6699
"the military demarcation line is provisional
and should not in any way be interpreted as
constituting a political or territorial bound-
ary." Furthermore, the declaration said that
"general elections shall be held in July 1956
under the supervision of an international
commission * * *."
The United States did not sign the final
declaration. But the Under Secretary of
State, Gen. Bedell Smith, made a unilateral
declaration which said that the United
States supported the agreements and that
"in connection with the statement in the
declaration concerning free elections in Viet-
nam, my Government wishes to make clear
its position which it has expressed in a
declaration made in Washington on June 29,
1954, as follows: 'in the case of nations now
divided against their will, we shall continue
to seek to achieve unity through free elec-
tions supervised by the United Nations to
insure that they are conducted fairly'"
The United States encouraged the Diem
government in Saigon to refuse to hold? the
elections of 1956, almost certainly for the
quite practical reason that they would have
been won by the Communists.
Considering the essentials of the 1954
agreements, it is not easy to understand
what it means to say now that "we seek no
More than a return to the essentials of the
agreements of 1954." I am afraid it means
that in the diplomatic conduct of the war in
Vietnam, the diplomatists have not been do-
ing their homework.
ON BREAKING THE DIPLOMATIC
DEADLINE IN VIETNAM
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, on
Sunday, March 28, the New York Times
published an excellent editorial on the
dilemma which confronts us in Vietnam.
The editorial is entitled "Something
More Than Bombs." As this editorial
cogently emphasized:
Military pressure alone?which implies a
demand for unconditional surrender?is un-
likely to swing the balance in the Hanoi
leadership toward a negotiated settlement.
Positive American proposals, which suggest
a viable future for North Vietnam are the
essential complement.
In an article which was published in
the New York Times on March 29, Robert
Kleiman, a member of the editorial board
of the Times, who has just returned
from an extensive tour of the Far East,
pointed out:
And it Is even possible that persuasive
proposals might find a respone in the Com-
munist world. Clearly, before any further
stepup in the American air offensive in North
Vietnam, the time has come to devise and
set in- motion a political strategy that, for
the first time will take priority over military
tactics.
I ask unanimous consent that these
? two excellent excerpts from the New York
Times be printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
and the article were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the New York Times, Mar. 28, 1965]
SOMETHING MO4E 'THAN 130UPS
The limited American air war against
? North Vietnam is now entering its eighth
week. It is not too soon to ask what it has
accomplished?and why it has not accom-
plished more.
The aim of the continuing air offensive,
accompained by threats of further escalation,
was to persuade the North Vietnamese COM-
mUnists to halt their armed infiltration into
South Vietnam. When it was undertaken,
one of President Johnson's highest advisers
predicted that the Communists' will to fight
would be weakened in two months. So far,
there is no indication that he was right; on
the contrary, there clearly has been a stiffen-
ing of Communist positions as Secretary
Rusk has admitted.
The Soviet Union has announced that arms
aid is on its way to North Vietnam. More
important, a direct Soviet-American con-
frontation in southeast Asia through the
use of Soviet "volunteers" In North Vietnam
has been publicly threatened by ,the top
Soviet leader, Communist Party First Secre-
tary Brezhnev.
The Vietnamese and Chinese Communists
have stiffened their positions even more.
Hanoi, which a few weeks ago privately in-
dicated agreement to French and United Na-
tions proposals of negotiations?while refus-
ing a cease-fire?now rejects such proposals.
Backed by Moscow, the North Vietnamese
insist that there can be no talks while Amer-
ican bombing continues. Peiping has taken
the most extreme position of all. It insists
there can be no negotiations before the "com-
plete, unconditional" withdrawal of Amer-
ican troops from South Vietnam. The
Vietcong, which shows some signs of inde-
pendence from Hanoi, has enthusiastically
adopted the Peiping line.
Meanwhile, the American bombing?not to
mention use of nonlethal gas?has signifi-
cantly alienated world opinion. Concern
about the danger of a major war is wide-
spread. Equally important, there is profound
puzzlement about Washington's objectives
and tactics.
The trouble is that President Johnson, a
master of domestic politics, had until last
week seemed to forget that war is politics
too, even if pursued by "other means." He
launched a military offensive, but neglected
his diplomatic offensive.
Now the President has promised American
aid for "wider and bolder programs" of re-
gional economic development benefiting all
of southeast Asia, including North Vietnam.
Despite its vague terms, this promise indi-
cates that Washington is beginning to face
up to the need to offer its opponents in
southeast Asia a diplomatic, political, and
economic exit from the military cul-de-sac
in which we as well as they are now en-
trapped.
Persuasive peace proposals can be a po-
litical weapon not only toward world opin-
ion, at a time when Americans are bombing
Asians, but in presenting moderate Com-
munists with an alternative they can sup-
port within the Communist camp. That
camp is divided, not only along national
lines but within each national capital.
And nowhere are the divisions more critical
than in Hanoi.
Neither the Vietcong nor the Chinese
Communists can be swayed by the bombing
of North Vietnam, which causes them no
direct pain. They are pressing to intensify
the war. The Vietcong, particularly, has
made major military gains in recent months
and sees every successive Saigon coup as an-
other nail in the coffin of its enemies. It
will not be easy for Hanoi, in these circum-
stances, to shi: course and seek a negotiated
settlement, even with Soviet backing.
Military pressure alone?which implies a
demand for unconditional surrender?is un-
likely to swing the balance in the Hanoi
leadership toward a negotiated settlement.
Positive American proposals, which suggest
a way out and a viable future for North
Vietnam, are the essential complement.
President Johnson's statement last week
could be the precursor of proposals offering
Hanoi, once peace is restored, access to the
rice of South Vietnam, trade wjth tate West,
an end of the embargo and diplomatic boy-
cott that Washington and Saigon have im-
posed since 1954, and entry to international
development assistance. Area-development
schemes covering the entire Mekong Valley
could be pushed. These, linked with con-
crete proposals for negotiations and firm
offers of a phrased American withdrawal
from South Vietnam in accordance with the
Geneva agreements, could not fail to influ-
ence events.
An immediate Communist response might
not be forthcoming. But the words would
be heard both within the Communist re-
gimes and outside. World opinion would be
rallied, That support will be needed, espe-
cialy if the war in Vietnam is about to enter
a new and more virulent phase.
[From the New York Times, Mar. 29, 19651
VIETNAM: THE INEXPLICABLE STRATEGY
(By Robert Kleiman)
PAtus.?Washington's policy of bombing
North Vietnam while avoiding negotiations
is sowing confusion among America's friends.
To cross east Asia, India and the Soviet Union
to this NATO capital in Europe is to hear
repeated questioning of the purposes and
tactics of American policy.
There is worry about Soviet or Chinese
intervention that would escalate the conflict
into a major war. There is concern that the
bombing will bring about a Sino-Soviet
rapprochement. There is disquiet that
Soviet-American and other East-West talks
leading toward a d?nte are grinding to a
halt. And there is skepticism everywhere
that the bombing by itself will force Hanoi
to halt its infiltration?the stated American
objective?or persuade the Vietcong to give
up their winning battle in South Vietinkm.
OBSCURE U.S. GOALS
But what most disturbs the Allies and
friendly neutrals?especially the British and
Indians, who would like to mediate?is the
lack of definition of American objectives.
Even full explanations delivered privately
by special envoys from Washington seem to
leave American intentions so opaque that
there is little of interest to communicate to
Moscow. Peiping of Hanoi, where 'London and
New Delhi both maintain diplomatic mis-
sions.
The lucid chairman of the State Depart-
ment's Policy Planning Council, Walt Rostow,
spent several days recently explaining Wash-
ington's thinking to high foreign office offi-
cials of a dozen NATO countries. These
conversations, on the sidelines of the semi-
annual seminar of the Atlantic Policy Advis-
ory Group in Reinhartshausen, West Ger-
many, overshadowed the European issues on
the regular agenda. But, when it was all
over, the European policy planners felt little
more enlightened than before. The con-
sensus was that the United States urgently
needed to clarify its purposes, both privately
and publicly. Mr. Rostow was urged to carry
this Message hack to Washington.
HARRIMAN IN INDIA
An even less successful encounter occurred
earlier this month in New Delhi. Roving
Ambasador Averell Harriman spent many
hours skillfully explaining American policy
on Vietnam. He received a sympathetic if
noncommittal hearing from Prime Minister
Shastri. But he clashed with Foreign Min-
ister Swaran Singh, who urged negotiations
and a new Geneva Conference, as did other
high Indian officials.
The incident shows that even Washing-
ton's most prestigious Ambassador has dif-
ficulty obtaining support abroad for a policy
that resists negotiations while bombing
North Vietnam, The Indians are clear that
their interests parallel those of the United
States in trying to prevent domination of
southeast Asia by Communist China, but
they do not agree with all the tactics Wash-
ington is employing for this purpose.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 :/CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160006-6
6700
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE April 5, 1965
The Indians were told that the Wilted
States would welcome their help in exploring
Communist intentions and in explaining
American views, particularly during Shastri's
forthcoming visit to Moscow. The key point
was to make it clear that the United States
was not going to negotiate until Hanio had
stopped its aggression. The Indians were
urged to stand with Washington in apposing
the Franco-Soviet proposal for a conference
without preconditions. The United States,
Mr. Harriman emphasized, could not agree
to a conference without adequate conditions.
What, asked the Indians, are the American
conditions? At that point President John-
son's special envoy-his hands obviously tied
by his White House instructions, or lack of
them-had to reply that it was premature to
explain this, but that Washington wanted
India's support for the principle that there
must be conditions.
The Indians said they had been informed
of Soviet plans to provide North Vietnam
with surface-to-air missiles, technicians, and
fighter aircraft manned by Soviet personnel.
And they warned that Moscow would not
pursue bilateral negotiations for a detente
while American bombing continued.
The Indians believe there is a serious
threat of war stemming from the possibility
that Russia may take over the air defense
OX North Vietnam. In using negotiations
they argue that, once the conference date is
set, a cease-fire effective before the talks
begin will be more easily obtainable.
As the major power in Asia threatened by
Communist Chinese aggression, the Indi-
? a= believe that the United States should
take the initiative in proposing a conference,
stating its conditions and objectives clearly.
Some suggest that Washington take the dra-
matic step of announcing that it would stop
bombing North Vietnam for 2 or 3 weeks
pending a CommWaist, reply and cessation of
major Communist military operations. This
Would expose whether Hanoi and Moscow
were serious in stating that the main oh-
Stacie to negotiation was the bombing of
North Vietnam.
PEACE OFFENSIVE NEEDED
Undobutedly, there are other ingenious
formulas that would permit the United
States to open a long-neglected peace of-
fensive. Proposals for an 'honorable nego-
tiation," now evoked by President Johnson
is an objective, woulci help refute the image
the United States has been acquiring in Asia
as "the white aggressor on colored soil." In
Europe, it would reply to such charges as
that of the New Statesman that Washing-
ton "has now forfeited all right to British
sympathy over Vietnam" because of a "sav-
age intensification of the war * * accom-
panied by an apparent refusal to contem-
plate negotiations in any farm."
And it is even possible that persuasive pro-
posals might find a response in the Commu-
nist world. Clearly, before any further step-
up in the American air offensive in the
American air offensive in North Vietnam, the
time hap come to devise and set in motion a
political strategy that, for the first time, will
take priority over military tactics.
THE fRHEAT TO AMERICA'S SOIL
CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
behalf of the Senator from Wisconsin
[Mr. NELSON], I ask unanimous consent
that there be printed in the RECORD a
statement which he has prepared on the
subject "The Threat to America's Soil
Conservation Programs."
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR NELSON-THE THREAT
TO AN:maces SOIL CONSERVATION PROGRAMS
I am deeply concerned over the Budget
Bureau's proposals to sharply reduce Fed-
eral support for soil and water conservation
practices in rural areas. This is shortsighted
budgetnaaking.
It would result in a serious cutback in the
important work of the 3.000 soil and water
conservation districts in this country. And
it would reduce support for individual farm-
ers participating in cost-sharing soil and
water saving practices.
Ironically the proposed reduction comes
at a time when the President is eloquently
pleading for the preservation of America's
natural resources-its water, soil, ? forests,
open spaces, wilderness, and scenic beauty.
No other program in American history has
made such an important contribution to the
husbanding of the land. No other program
strikes more directly to the heart of resource
management. We ought now to be expand-
ing the program, not contracting it.
The soil and water conservation districts,
which all are locally managed, have provided
outstanding leadership for soil and water
conservation in rural America since the
1930's. They are the stewards of soil and
water resources on the 70 percent of our
Nation's land that is privately owned.
The conservation record of the soil and
water conservation districts in my State is
among. the finest in the Nation. We in Wis-
consin were particularly gratified a few weeks
ago when Secretary Freeman signed an
agreement with a new district encompassing
Menominee County. That agreement for
technical, credit, costsharing, research, and
educational assistance brought the last of
Wisconsin's 36,150,000 acres into a soil and
water conservation district.
I have been disturbed in recent months
by the suggestions of some of our budget-
makers that conservation is responsible for
some of the overflowing granaries that re-
sult from the high productivity of our land.
Good conservation practices do make land
more productive. But that is hardly a valid
criticism. Efficient crop production is only
one of the soil and water conservation ob-
jectives stated by the 1964 Yearbook of
Agriculture:
"To control soil erosion at all times and
prevent soil damage in the future.
"To use the better soils, wherever crops
can be grown efficiently, for greater net gain
per acre. The aim is to help the farmer
reach a level of income and standard of
living closer to that of managers in indus-
trial enterprises.
'To convert land least suitable for cultiva-
tion to pastures, forestry, recreation, and
wildlife and other uses in which the soil is
not disturbed.
"To protect and hold in reserve soils not
needed but potentially suited to cultivation
until there is a demand for farm commod-
ities from them or until they may be needed
for the balancing of efficient farm units."
This same publication shows that the
acreage converted by soil conservation dis-
trict cooperators to leas intensive long-term
uses exceeded 21,500,000 acres in this coun-
try in the 10-year period ending in 1961.
The cost to the taxpayers has been extremely
small in contrast to the sums required to
retire or divert land under other programs.
I am concerned, too, by the proposal to
cut conservation cost-sharing funds by
$100 million at a time when we should be
accelerating conservation and resource de-
velopment program on privately owned
land. This cost-sharing helps pay for ter-
races, surface waterways, striperopping, and
other soil- and water-saving practices.
This cut is in appropriations recommended
for the Agricultural Stabilization and Con-
servation Service for cost-sharing, under ;he
agricultural conservation program. This
cost sharing, also a locally administered pro-
gram, gives farmers the added incentive
needed to push ahead with the work of con-
serving our natural resources.
But it is the proposal to cut by $20 million
the Federal funds available to the Soil Con-
servation Service, and to have this agency
raise this same amount by charges to farm-
ers, that I find most objectionable. This
proposal to charge for this technical assist-
ance and put the proceeds into a revolving
fund would be a serious blow to a very valu-
able conservation program. The Govem-
ment should not charge farmers for help in
designing, laying out, and adopting soil and
water conservation practices on the land.
This is an investment in preserving one of
this Nation's most valuable capital assists,
its soil.
Since this revolving fund idea was pro-
posed I have received reports from every one
of the 72 soil and water conservation (lis-
tricts in my State. I have received petitions
from a large number of county boards. .and
I have had a flood of letters from private
citizens, both rural and urban.
All of these reports, petitions, and letters
oppose the revolving fund proposal. They
reflect a feeling of concern that the Federal
Government's commitment to this long-
time conservation activity is being down-
graded. They express fear that a longtime
conservation policy is being reversed.
Under present law the Soil Conservation
Service provides technical assistance to these
districts through a memorandum of under-
standing with the Secretary of Agriculture.
This technical assistance is provided with-
out cost to eligible farmers and landowners,
who are called "cooperators." Except for
these services, the districts obtain their sup-
port from State, local, or private sources.
Approval of the revolving fund idea wculd
cut the Federal Government's contribution
to soil and water conservation in Wisconsin
by $314,249 in the coming fiscal year. It
would eliminate Federal support for 4a of
the 88 Soil Conservation Service technicians
now available to advise and assist the 72
districts in my State.
I submit at this point the breakdown in
terms of both man-years and dollars that
this proposed cutback would mean for the
next fiscal year in Wisconsin's 72 soil and
water conservation districts:
County
Man-years
1)011 irs
lit District:
Kenosha
Racine
Rock
Walworth
20 District:
Columbia
cane
Dodge
Green
Jefferson
34 District:
buffalo
Crawford
Grant
Iowa
Jackson
Juneau
La Crosse
Lafayette
Monroe
Pepin
Pierce
Richland
Sauk
Trompealeau
Vernon
sth District:
Calumet
Fond du Lac
Green Lake
Oanukee
Sheboygan
Washington
Winnebago
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300160006-6
0.5 3,574
.4 2,536
.5 3,738
.6 4,454
.8 5,484
1.1 7,674
.7 1,081
1.0 7,538
1.0 0,589
1.1 8,214
.8 5,776
1.2 8,383
1.1 8,054
.8 5,407
.7 4,730
.6 4,412
.15 6(112
.9 6,540
.7 4,666
1.1 8,271
.7 4,956
1.0 0,904
.7 4,803
3.2 8,468
.6 4:171
.8 5,688
.2 1,671
.3 2,140
.4 2,794
.6 4,051
.6 4,105
April 5, 1965 Approved EtnitiefigialgA/0111k6A/bRE)9M3pRit5pk000300160006-6 Al6175'3
A Woman Legislator's View on
Consumer Protection
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. MELVIN R. LAIRD
OF WISCONSIN
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 5, 1965
. ?
Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Speaker, the gentle-
woman from Washington, CATHERINE
MAY, recently delivered a notable ad-
dress to the 38th annual convention of
the Soap & Detergent Association. The
speech, entitled "A Woman Legislator's
View on Consumer Protection," is a
forthright expression by an eminently
forthright person and contains all of the
elements that make the gentlewoman
from Washington [Mrs. MAY] an effec-
tive and articulate legislator?humor,
candid analysis, and good, common-
sense.
I commend the address by the gentle-
woman from Washington [Mrs. MAY],
delivered on January 28, 1965, to 'the
attention of all my colleagues and under
unanimous consent include it in the
RECORD at this point.
The speech referred to follows:
A WOMAN LEGISLATOR'S VIEW ON CONSUMER
PROTECTION
(By Hon. CATHERINE MAY)
'I have been asked to speak to you today as
a congressional housewife on the subject of
the consumer versus Congress. I do so in the
full realization that the main problem on
your mind today concerning the American
housewife is how in the dickens to keep her
from Wondering where the suds went. But
that's your problem and Madison Avenue's.
feel I have a few problems of my awn in
speaking to this group today. I have come
here with a mild suspicion that you good
people may have asked me to speak in the
belief, that my views on public affairs corre-
spond in some degree with your own. My
speech will concern itself with a theme that
I have been reiterating over and over this
past year before groups similar t9 your own
and I suspect some of you in the audience
have already suffered through one or two
versions of it. In any case, I am assuming
that most of you have divined my political
and economic orientation from those speeches
of the past year.
But I must remind you that, since I last
spoke in your interest area, a rather violent
political upheaval has shaken our country
from coast to coast. As a result of that politi-
cal upheaval I stand before you today as a
member of the "Whooping Crane Society,"
i.e., a survivor Republican. And, as such, I
feel compelled to admit honestly that there
are growing indications that the Republican
Party may not be as dominant today in the
Nation's affairs as it was in the heyday of
Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Dwight D.
Eisenhower,
This last year we made a major blunder.
We transgressed a political axiom: Never ask
a question in public unless you know in
advance what the answer will be.
? We Republicans -asked our countrymen,
"Why not victory?"
The answer came roaring back, "You're
short 16 million votes, that's why not vic-
tory."
? 1Vlaybe we should have stood in lied.
So, let there be no mistake about it?I
atand before you today minus a union card
in the Great Society. In addition, I humbly
confess I may never qualify ;for membership
because I am having so much difficulty un-
derstanding some of the messages that are
being sent up to us on Capitol Hill by major
spokesmen for the Great Society. As I am
sure you know, they are telling us that
America is a paradise lost, to be federally re-
gained. Within the context of one public
statement we are told that American people
are poverty ridden, ignorant, pressed into
slums, our water poisoned, our air polluted,
our food contaminated, and our cosmetics
defiled. But, at the same time, thank good-
ness, in only 4 enlightened years we have
become the richest, strongest, best educated,
and healthiest people in all the world. Obvi-
ously, this means we must embark upon
a realistic and businesslike program?in
short, frugally extravagant and cautiously
bold?for only through liberal conservatism
can we ever achieve chronic deficits that are
fiscally sound.
In addition to being very busy trying to
understand the "blueprint for the grand de-
sign," I have, since the calamitous day of
November 3, also been much involved with
the "sage of good fellowship" that has been
going on in the Republican Party as we im-
mediately began, in traditional Republican
style, to close our ranks and build party
unity. You know, those fellows who say the
Republican Party is dead and gone just
haven't been reading the newspapers. We
Republicans haven't had such fun sine the
cadets at The Citadel, in Charleston, lofted
the first shells into Fort Sumter 103 years
ago.
The sport we have been having among our-
selves makes the uncertain probings of Sec-
retary McNamara in Vietnam look like a
friendly, dynastic game of touch football.
Never before has so small a party so greatly
bled.
Clearly we Republicans are vital and
strong?so much so, to paraphrase Thomas
Jefferson, we are drenching the tree of lib-
erty with the blood of our own patriots.
Considering all this, if I seem a bit edgy
on your platform today, put yourself in my
position: A fellow Republican might be in
the hall.
And now, quickly before you think I am
trying to make a partisan speech here to-
day, I am going to bring in mention of the
Democrats. Maybe we Republicans do have
a little family spat now and then. Maybe
we do dote on party slack fill and on frac-
tional political weight. But, really, this is
as nothing as compared to our political com-
petitors who wear the brand L.B.J. The
Democratic Party is having great troubles
with truth in packaging. And, furthermore,
the Democrats are detecting a little fraticide
in their own party. With Lyndon to the
right of them, HUBERT to the left of them,
into the valley of 68 will charge BOBBY and
TEDDY.
As I said when I began my remarks, a
significant political upheaval has occurred
since I began stressing the theme and phi-
losophy that I have been asked to repeat
here today. I feel, therefore, that in order
to preclude any possibility of misunder-
standing, I owe it to you to make this very
clear:
If you think I shall go on resisting Federal
intrusion into areas constitutionally and tra-
ditionally reserved to the States, the com-
munities and individual citizens; if you have
asked me here on the supposition that I shall
continue to oppose Federal harassment of
private enterprise; if you count me among
those pledged to fight the cult of consumer-
itis and politics in the pantry?and deter-
mined also to defend the intelligence of
American housewives and uphold their free-
dom of choice; if you expect me, in these re-
marks today, to decry paternalistic govern-
ment and the baleful doctrine of bureau-
cratic infallibility?then, my friends, I must
in all candor tell you this: Relax, your ex-
pectations, will be relaxed.
And, in this context I will now make some
Comments as a Member of Congress concern-
ing the shape of things in your industry's
areas of immediate concern.
To begin with (though, admittedly, my
congressional crystal ball is often clouded)
I think you are home free on water pollu-
tion. Though, naturally, Congress will want
representatives of your 'industry to retestify
on the progress you have made.
This victory you have fashioned yourselves,
by your own aggressive and foresighted ef-
fort, through the creation of the new biode-
gradable detergents. I warmly congratulate
you of the soap and detergent industry on
this achievement valuable to our Nation and
important to yourselves. The best way any-
one has ever devised to forfend Federal in-
tervention is to remove the excuse by fore-
handed action.
And, this brings me to the heart of my
speech (no pun intended). Or, rather, the
speech I have been giving so often about the
virulent outbreak of consumeritis in Con-
gress over the past few years. To recap I
shall quote myself in placing before you
some of the viewpoints I have been stress-
ing.
I have been saying that I am opposed to
further extension of Federal regulation into
the marketplace. I have been expressing my
Mann that since coming to Congress I have
noted that the voices of the self-appointed
champions of the consumer have become
evermore vocal and militant in their de-
mands for investigations and hearings and
new Government authority to set up rules
and regulations in the field of the free
market. These apostles of regimentation of
the marketplace have been out in full cry
for 3 years. In spite of the overwhelmingly
ample Government safeguards that already
exist certain people in Government, aided by
specially set up organizations, keep insisting
that Mrs. American housewife and her con-
sumer husband are wandering, baffled, un-
comprehending, and empty headed through
dangerous clip joints, i.e., better known as
supermarkets, being constantly robbed by
Simon Legree, the storekeeper. Bills have
been introduced in Congress that cannot help
but imply that manufacturers of food and
fiber products are taking every possible ad-
vantage of the consumer through deception
in sizes and weights of packages and with
misleading label information printed on
them. Another Government agency, charged
with consumer protection, has been urging
housewives, through many means of com-
munications plus public meetings, to submit
their complaints to the Government concern-
ing things that displease them at the buying
counter.
A National Commission on Food Marketing
was created in the last Congress. I am a
member of this Commission. I am proud to
have been appointed to it. But, I have not
been proud of some of the irresponsible state-
ments that have been made concerning its
purposes. This Commission is barely begin-
ning its study in the very important field of
learning more about how our modern mar-
keting system works to get food from farm
to table. Yet, these statements imply that
conclusions have already been reached and
these conclusions, Of course, assume that
there will be a scandalous expos?f dishonest
practices by the manufacturers and the mid-
dleman. This Commission could provide
our country with one of the most important
and helpful studies ever made by a congres-
sional commission. But, only if it is allowed
to work in an atmosphere of openminded
and honest inquiry without prejudgment.
This type of governmental and political
activity, over such a long period, has re-
sulted in creating many misleading Impres-
sions and it is no wonder that a lot of good
people are being fooled into joining the hue
and cry for legislative action in Congress.
Because of my concern, about a year ago, I
set myself the task of trying to do what I
could to balance propaganda with perspec-
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
M654 Approved For Itteivattggdpin :altapf)62131044eRM800160006-6 April 5, 1965
tive. To try and get through to the Amer-
ican public, particularly women, with the
warning that they should always take a good
look at what the government may be doing
to them while it says it is doing something
for them.
I have been using the famous truth-in-
packaging bill as Introduced in the Senate
last year as one example. This bill, as you
know, would give the Federal Government
the right to dictate weights and other stand-
ards for product containers. Here is a bill
that has been recommended by the Presi-
dent's Consumer Advisory Council and one
which is being supported by the Assistant
Secretary of Labor, Mrs. Esther Peterson, in
her position as Special Assistant to the Presi-
dent for Consumer Affairs. And, don't ever
mistake it, at first glance it has tremendous
appeal for any American shopper. Why
shouldn't a woman be entitled to adequate
information printed on the label which would
help her decide on one can of beans over
another can of beans, or one package of
detergent over another package of deter-
gent? She should have good labeling but I
just happen to think that the company that
produces that product should provide the
labeling information for his package, and
1 also think that the American housewife is
entitled to something more flexible and
something more informative than a Federal
yardstick used in Washington, D.C. Just
as I think that the product manufacturer
should have the flexibility to package his own
product in the way that will make it most
competitive in the market place when Mrs.
Housewife comes in to select. Of course,
this gives him the freedom to mislead his
prospective customer if he wishes to do so.
But, heaven help him if he does. To quote
myself again:
All the Government officials and all the
government laws in the world are as nothing
compared to the impact Mrs. America has
on Mr. Manufacturer and on Mr. Storekeeper
when she makes up her mind to buy one
brand over another. And when she makes
that decision, no power on earth can save the
businessman OT the producer of the product
who made the mistake of displeasing her.
She has done and is doing a wonderful job
in needling, inspiring and in regulating
American business enterprise.
And, to reward her, I want to protect her.
Not with more government regulations and
laws--I want to protect her freedom of
choice."
'Now I know that you in this group today
are on my side in this battle. The big ques-
tion is how are we doing as we face the 89th
Congress in the year 1965? It ain't good.
Our legislative difficulty is not concerned
with the truth or the cogency of our shared
views. Frankly, I think the American peo-
ple, once they had the facts, would be with
us in overwhelming majority. But, we are
hampered by the disproportionate publicity
of the opposing views (and, if I weren't try-
ing to be a diplomatic lady, I would say at
this point?where were some of you guys
these last 3 years?") combined with the dis-
proportionate political division in Congress.
In both Houses of Congress every Republican
is now flanked by two Democrats. Each one
of the 20 House committees and nearly all
Senate committees are 2-to-1 Democrat Add
this to these facts: The Democratic platform
promised enactment of the packaging and
labeling bill?last year the President de-
manded its enactment?labor has made this
item a legislative "must"?four Members of
the House have already reintroduced last
year's Senate bill?and the report from the
? Senate side is that this year Senator HART
will try to have his bill sent to the Senate
Commerce Committee where it is presumed
that it has a greater chance for favorable
action.
It would seem indeed that the consumeritis
virus has a very fertile congressional field
In which to work these days.
So, where do we go from here? Well, I
would like to end this message today by shar-
ing a few thoughts on this and with your'
permission, offer some advice.
First, I repeat that the best defense against
FederalaskullAuggery is for you yourselves to
clean up any known trouble areas which can
be seized upon to justify the use of the Fed-
eral shoillelagh.
Deceit of any kind in the marketplace, even
in isolated instances, is indefensible. I know
you have patiently stated time and time
again that you feel exactly the same way. I
know we are agreed also that marketplace
chicanery is not the rule but the exception.
But where you can?wherever you can?if
you of industry will yourselves root out these
problems, correct them and prevent their re-
currence, you will have done the best pos-
sible thing to keep your enterprises free of
public criticism and restraint.
Second, you cannot imagine how disheart-
ening and confusing it is to your friends in
public life when industry, with its cherished
anarchy, comes to us with a label of con-
flicting voices. Believe me, labor unions
march up Capitol Hill lockstep and in un-
breachable phalanx on every issue of real im-
portance. As one who in private life has
known the problems of business firsthand, I
understand how difficult it is to achieve har-
mony on any issue that cuts across the great
complex of individual companies?but again,
where and when you can, you should strive
for unity on the overriding issues. For only
then can your views become clearly compre-
hended by people in Government; only then
can your combined power and influence be
brought fully to bear; only then can you de-
velop an effective counterpoise to the relent-
less forward march of the disciplined col-
lectivistic forces arrayed against you.
As for specific legislation?such as the Hart
have never seen a legislative fight
lost until the vote has been counted. In
other words, if you will move tirelessly and
vigorously and in concert with industries
allied with you on this issue, you have no
xeason to be defeatist about it. Here, I must,
of course, enter this reservation; all bets are
off if the President, who is virtually en-
throned politically, moves this legislation
front and center. Be has, with this Con-
gress, a whim of steel.
Third, you of industry should unify your
position on this legislation to the maximum
possible degree and then advance that posi-
tion in the proper places with all the per-
sistence and energy you can command.
Fourth, you should move in many media,
and continuously, to bring the pitfalls of
this legislation home to the American people
and thereby counteract the claims of its
proponents.
Finally. I very earnestly repeat this sug-
gestion: Do your best?your very, very best?
all Of the time, to pinpoint the areas that
invite criticism, and then move with the
kind of boldness and decisiveness you have so
commendably demonstrated in the pollution
area to purge yourselves of error.
It would overtax your patience if I at-
tempted now to cover the many other areas
that give you concern?antitrust probabili-
ties for example, and taxation, restrains on
advertising, and enlarged regulatory powers
for such agencies as the FTC and FDA.
But all of it can be lumped into this one
generalization: In Congress, due to the 1964
election, all systems are "go." Restraint in
the National Government at this point is
the restraint the President is disposed to
exercise. Our system of checks and balances
has become a blank check with an unlimited
balance. That part of business leadership
which in the last campaign helped to saddle
America with unbridled executive power
might well burn a few candies before the
altar of making 1,13.J. stand for "let's be
judicious." I wish them luck.
And, my friends, for all of you I wish much
more than luck. I wish you continuing
prosperity in an environment of freedom kept
hospitable to vigorous and healthy compe-
tion. Those of us in public life who IlLve
pledged ourselves to the preservation of a
system of free enterprise will, I assure you,
stand firm in the frontline of the battle to
save our system. May it be your disposi-
tion, now and in the future to do no less.
May S 0 S become your battle cry as well as
our own.
Now I must ask you, please, to excuse me.
I just glimpsed a Republican. If I don't
stop right now, he may get away.
Thank you for your courteous attention.
U.S. Language School Readies Service-
men for Oversea Posts?Monterey
Center Gives Short Vietnamese Course;
Student Tries Albanian on "Denti3t"
ws..1 ENSION OF RE KS
OF
HON. BURT L. TALCOTT
Or CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 5, 1965
Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, our
most important and everlasting military
victories will be won with "words" more
than guns. Today we send troops
abroad inferiorly "armed" if they cannot
communicate with our allies and ene-
mies. To speak another language is to
be "twice armed."
No school anywhere teaches oral com-
munication better than the Army Lan-
guage School.
A recent article by Glynn Mapes, of
the Wall Street Journal, tells some of
the story of the Defense Language In-
stitute, Monterey branch. All Members
should know this extraordinary school
well.
U.S. LANGUAGE SCHOOL READIES SERVICEMEN
FOR OVERSEA POSTS--MONTEREY CENTER
GIVES SHORT VIETNAMESE COURSE; STUDENT
TRIES ALBANIAN ON "DENTIST"
(By Glynn Mapes)
MONTEREY, CALIF.?Seated in a dental
chair, a U.S. Army private hesitantly asks :
"A eshto e nevojshme te na'a hiqni dhem.?
bin?" That's Albanian for "Must you pull
my tooth?"
Back comes the answer in Albanian: "Me
duket se po," which means, in plain English:
"I'm afraid so."
Fortunately, the soldier's toothache is no
more real than his dentist, a Navy seaman
equipped with a pair of dental pliers. This
visit to the dentist is just a training exercise
at 'the Defense Language Institute (DLI)
school here, where the soldier, the sailor, Land
thousands of other American servicemen are
being taught languages they will use on
oversea assignments.
The make-believe dentist's office is part of
Realia City, several buildings at the DLI
school with rooms fixed up to resemble harks,
shops and restaurants. While an instructor
stands by watchfully, students act out var-
ious roles in these settings, ad libbing in
the foreign tongue they are studying. "In
this way we allow the students to actually
apply their language skills in realistic sur-
roundings," says Yukata Munakata, a mem-
ber of the faculty.
THIRTY-THREE LANGUAGES
The Realia City exercises are designed to
supplement classroom instruction at the
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Axil-- 5 , 9651 ApprovectkficallEMONM1NeoRk5-11DAIPERliffe000300160006-6
steadily expanding Monterey school. Found-
ed in 1941 to teach Japanese to Army in-
telligence agents, the school now offers in-
struction in 33 languages and dialects spoken
by more than 75 percent of the world's pop-
ulation. This year its 500 civilian teachers
will train about 3,700 servicemen, up from
2,400 in 1960.
The DLI, which is run by the Army for all
the services, is headquartered at Anacostia,
District of Columbia. A branch there trains
about 200 students a year and several thou-
sand other students are farmed ant on a
contract basis to Syracuse, Yale, and Indiana
Universities and to commercial language
schools. But DLI's biggest single facility is
at Monterey.
The number of servicemen studying a par-
ticular language at Monterey tends to reflect
U.S. involvements overseas, so now the school
is getting a good many students assigned to
learn Vietnamese. About 1,000 servicemen
will get training in Vietnamese this year,
five times more than the number 5 years ago.
To handle this heavier load, school officials
have set up a 12-week subfluency course
aimed at building a primarily military vocab-
ulary in the southern, or Sargon, dialect.
This condensed program glosses over the
Hanoi dialect of the north and the nuances
of Vietnamese culture which are normally
covered in the standard year-long course.
STRATEGIC SWAHILI
There's also a considerable buildup in the
number of students studying Swahili, a com-
mon torigu for nearly 40 million East Afri-
cans. "Swahili is not just another peculiar,
exotic tongue," says Milan G. P. de Lany,
chairman of the Swahili department. "It's
now among the top 10 languages of the world
in strategic importance." Most graduates of
the Swahili course are assigned to U.S. em-
bassies and consulates in East Africa where
they work with their African counterparts,
or serve as interpreters.
In its classrooms, DLI gives precedence to
speaking and understanding a language
rather than to reading and writing skills.
"Whether he likes it or not, a student must
first memorize phrases and learn the sounds
of, the language," says Shigeya Kihara, di-
rector of DLI's research and development
program.
From the first day of -class students are
encouraged to speak the new language con-
stantly; as their vocabulary grows, they en-
counter written forms. The time lag between
speaking and writing might run a few weeks
for Spanish or French but stretches to sev-
eral months for some Oriental languages
whose calligraphy?the writing of the thou-
sands of symbols?is an art in itself.
No one who hasn't finished high school can
get into a DLI course and nearly 85 percent
of the students have been to college. There
are no draftees at DLI; most students se-
lected to attend have volunteered for a type
of duty which requires foreign language
ability.
Enlisted graduates often wind up with one
of the Defense Department's intelligence or-
ganizations. There, many of them translate
foreign military documents.
Some officer graduates go on to universities
to study the political and social climate of
the country whose language they've learned.
Then they are assigned to that country as
"foreign area specialists." But most officer
graduates are sent immediately to one of the
nearly 50 countries where 'U.S. Armed Forces
are stationed for service as attaches or as
staff members of military advisory groups.
Instructors say that some of DLI's poorest
students have turned into outstanding grad-
uates, "In these few cases," says research
director Kihara, "we must Wait until the men
put their training to work in the field before
we can see the proof of our teaching
methods."
He cites Maj. Joseph Hennigan who was
assigned to the Korean Armistice Commission
after completing a DLI course in Korean last
year. "He was an extremely poor student
here, but now he speaks Korean like crazy
and rebutts the North Koreans in their own
language," Mr. Kihara says proudly.
As the Monterey student body grows, DLI
has been having trouble finding enough qual-
ified instructors. Both the Vietnamese and
Swahili department now are seriously un-
dermanned. The institute hopes to solve
this-problem by an intensified recruitment
drive among the large foreign student popu-
lation in the United States.
Once hired, a new instructor is required,
as part of his training, to study a language
that is as foreign to him as the language he
teaches will be to his students. With future
Russian teachers studying Burmese and
Turkish recruits taking Serbo-Croatian,
school officials believe all concerned will get
a student's eye view of linguistics.
Use of Gas in Combat Remains Cloude
01
Issue
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. F. BRADFORD MORSE
OF MASSACHUSETTS
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 5,1965
Mr. MORSE. Mr. Speaker, yesterday
the Washington Post published an article
by Howard Margolis which represents, in
my judgment, one of the most thought-
ful analyses of the implications of the
use of gas by United States or South
Vietnamese forces that I have seen.
It appears from Mr. Margolis' re-
searches that there is conflict within the
administration as to the possible effect
of our use of even nonlethal gas. As he
points out an argument can be made
that "any use of gas in combat neces-
sarily involves a serious risk of escala-
tion."
I commend this article to the attention
of my colleagues:
USE OF GAS IN COMBAT REMAINS
CLOUDED ISSUE
(By Howard Margolis)
U.S. endorsement of the use of riot-control
gases in Vietnam is being interpreted by
many subordinate military and civilian offi-
ciffis as a step toward the general approval
of the use of nonlethal gas warfare.
Whether this was the intent of recent
statements by the President and the Secre-
taries of State and Defense is not clear.
Their statements were much more nar-
rowly worded, stressing that only commer-
cially available riot-control gases were used,
and then primarily in situations where ap-
propriate to save civilian lives, not for gen-
eral combat.
From what was said, officials opposed to
promotion of nonlethal gas see the adminis-
tration as backing away from a position it
had stumbled into.
But officials favoring the promotion of the
gases appear to view these same statements
as a diplomatic retreat in the face of the
sharp public reaction around the world, but
nevertheless a step toward the adoption of
a progas position.
The central issue is the risk that promo-
tion of the use of nonlethal gas might break
clown inhibitions against general gas war-
fare.
No one could be found in the administra-
tion who seems to favor the use of lethal gas.
A1655
Equally, almost no one seems opposed to
bringing down political inhibitions against
the use of nonlethal gases, provided there
could be assurance that there would be no
escalation to poison gas.
What the opponents of such a policy ques-
tion is how a reliable line is to be enforced
against the use of poison gas once the gen-
eral idea of gas warfare has been accepted.
Those favoring the use of the gases see
them as a substitute for bullets and bombs
and napalm and hence a step toward more
humane means of warfare.
Those opposed doubt that use of such
gases would, on net, make warfare much
more humane. More important, they fear it
would have the contrary effect by eroding
inhibitions on the use of poison gases, which
are a singularly undiscriminating and cheap
means for mass slaughter.
None of the officials interviewed who were
knowledgeable about the subject appeared to
believe that the lines presently laid down by
the administration were very likely to hold.
Several of those favoring the use of gas
stated that the real line lay between gases
that are known to be nonlethal and experi-
mental gases about which there is still doubt.
In their view, nominally nonlethal secret
gases are not yet classed with "riot control
agents" simply because there is not yet suffi-
cient proof they are nonlethal.
In this view, the line delineated by Secre-
tary of State Dean Rusk and Secretary of De-
fense Robert S. McNamara between civilian
and military gases seemed at best unenforc-
ible and at worst meaningless.
According to a military riot-control man-
ual, for example, the vomiting gas included
by Rusk and McNamara in the tear as
family will make its victims violently sick,
with a splitting headache, for periods of up
to 24 hours.
So it can readily be argued that secret
military gases that merely put people to sleep
for 24 hours are more humane than vomiting
gas, and that the real distinction is that
there is not yet adequate evidence that all
those put to sleep will wake up.
To officials favoring the use of gas, the
essential problem is to overcome irrational
public distaste for the idea of gas warfare by
educating the public to understand that the
gases that would be used, unlike those of
World War I, would not kill or impose perma-
nent injury.
A general who was interviewed stated that
he believed there was no chance at all that
use of nonlethal gas would lead to the use of
- lethal gas.
A higher ranking civilian official was less
emphatic. But he felt there was no question
but that a clear line could be drawn today
between permissible and nonpermissible
gases?nonlethal and lethal?and that if, in
the future, this line were blurred it would
be possible to go back to the no-gas position.
Officials opposed to the encouragement of
gas doubted that any such line could con-
fidently be expected to hold.
The problem, in this view, is the pressure
that would exist on combatants to use the
strongest gases they thought they could get
away with, as the Vietnamese chose to use
vomiting gas rather than ordinary tear gas.
The pressure would presumably be much
stronger when both sides are using gas.
Thus, an argument can be made that any use
of gas in combat necessarily involves a seri-
ous risk of escalation first to gases that oc-
casionally cause lasting injury, or occasional
death to victims exposed to unusually heavy
concentrations, and then to outright killing
gases.
Although the likelihood of such escalation
cannot be determined, opponents of a pro-
gas policy judge the risks sufficiently severe
to outweigh any realistic military or humane
advantage of promoting the use of gas.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved Eor?Beinggiffl.ROOdedebRI:113gRiklifik000300160006-6
April 5, 1965 wiNu
' ebauchery in Sehna-Montgomery March
EXTENSION OF REMA?rats
OF
HON. JAMES D. MARTIN
OF ALABAMA
IN THE ROUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 5, 1965
Mr. MARTIN of Alabama. Mr. Speak-
er, eyewitness accounts continue to come
In attesting to the debauchery and im-
morality which was a part of the Selma-
to-Montgomery march. The incidents
Which were so much a part of the march
have disgraced the .entire country and
put a label of shame upon those who
Would tolerate indecencies for whatever
reason.
I hope the clergymen who were pres-
ent and clergymen throughout America
will rise up to condemn the activities
which took place and the kind of people
who were responsible for the activities as
well as those who excuse them.
' The following news story from the
Huntsville News, Huntsville, Ala., tells
the story of the march as seen by one
of the State troopers who was there:
TROOPER TELLS OF MARCHERS' DEBAUCHERY
(By Hollice Smith)
State Trooper Capt. Lionel Freeman, who
returned here this week after being in Selma
and Montgomery for 8 weeks, said he saw "a
little bit of everything" while assigned there.
Activity carried on at night was "something
scandalous," stated Captain Freeman, head
of the Huntsville district of State troopers.
Sex acts between Negroes and whites oc-
curred on the ground in Selma every night
for about two and a half weeks prior to the
march to Montgomery, ?the veteran State
trooper said.
Captain Freeman said he witnessed some of
this activity and heard numerous reports
from news reporters and photographers.
Some of the reporters from northern papers
were among the observers. "We asked them
if they wrote about the immoral activities
that went on. Some said they did, but that
it was cut out before it got in their papers."
While assigned to keep the Negroes in a
certain area in Selma with the "Berlin rope,"
r Captain Freeman said he witnessed one sexual
relationship where a priest stopped a couple
and made them "come up to the front line
by the rope." The couple had been about 30
rows behind the rope.
Asked if it seemed to bother the priest,
Captain Freeman said "not too much.'
? The trooper said he could not do anything
about the act because he, as well as other of-
ficrs, were there only to retain and keep the
demonstrators from going up town.
He described a majority of the white per-
sons participating in the marches as filthy,
dirty, and beatniks.
The marchers "purposely mixed," the
trooper related. "They absolutely tried to get
ts to harm them. One tried to get officers to
knock the devil out of him by saYing he was
going to sleep with a white woman that
night" and by making other similar
statements.
The Marchers knew the troopers and other
officers were 'there tO restrain them 'from
running wild, Captain Freeman exiolained,
and many of them seemed to take advantage
of that. They didn't seem to try tio hide
their immoral activities, he added.
About 2, hours before the Reverend James
Reeb of Rbeton was beaten, Captain Freeman
&cid he and a large group of other persons
Saw two white Men iRessed as priests walk
across U.S. Highway 80, each holding hands
with two Negro girls?about 14 to 16 years of
age. This sort of stuff may have triggered the
beatings, the officer said.
He continued that he did not think half
of those dressed as priests were actually
priests. Captain Freeman reported that 31
persons dressed as priests went upon a side-
walk in front of the capitol building steps in
Montgomery about 10 o'clock one night and
said they wanted to pray. They were retained
on the sidewalk?and kept off the capitol
steps. They stayed until about 3 a.m. "Some
of them used some of the most vile language
I have ever heard,;' the trooper captain
stated. "If they were priests, they need to go
back to schools."
Some of the white beatniks in the group
told officers they were being paid $10 a day,
being fed three meals a day, and allowed to
sleep with a female companion.
Captain Freeman said, "Some of our in-
vestigators knew some of the marchers to be
card-carrying Communists."
He was in Montgomery when Mrs. Liuzzo,
of Detroit, was killed about 20 miles west of
the capital while shuttling marchers from
Montgomery to Selma.
There were 35 troopers from the Huntsville
district assigned to the Montgomery and
Selma area. Twelve of that number were
from Madison County. Only Cpl. C. H.
Lowery and Trooper H. P. Sexton were left
to carry on duties of troopers in Madison
County.
"Dear Uncle Sam"
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. RALPH J. SCOTT
OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 5, 1965
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. Speaker, under leave
to extend my remarks, I would like to
include in the RECORD two letters, one
addressed to me and another to "Uncle
Sam," by one of my young constituents,
concerning the tragic death of her
brother, Owen Lawson, in the service of
our country in South Vietnam. The clos-
ing sentence of her letter to "Uncle
Sam," I have found, expresses the feel-
ings of a substantial number of my con-
stituents:
WOODSDALE, N.C., March 31, 1965.
Hon. RALPH J. SCOTT,
Congress of the United States, House of Rep-
resentatives, Washington, D.C.
DEAR SIR: My family wishes to thank you
for your kind expression of sympathy occa-
sioned by the loss of our son and brother in
Vietnam.
Please accept the enclosure which expresses
just how I feel about the crisis in Vietnam
and our loss.
Yours truly,
VICKIE LAWSON.
AN OPEN LETTER TO UNCLE SAM
vr OODSDALE, March, 1965.
DEAR UNCLE SAM: I am 14 years old and in
my second year in high school. Today, I re-
turned to school after attending the funeral
of my brother on yesterday. I am not able
to concentrate on my lessonioecause my heart
is so heavy with grief. Only 4 years ago he
was at the same place preparing for his
future. He had achieved his goal of becom-
ing an aircraft mechanic, but he only had
a chance to enjoy it for a short length of
time.
?He was killed on February 10, in a hotel
blast at Qui Nhon, South Vietnam, as a re-
sult of a sneak attack by the Communist
A1649
forces. Uncle Sam, I cannot tell you how
sad this incident has made my family and
me even though he did die a hero's death.
As time passes we know that God will light-
en our hearts, but if this situation is allowed
to go on at the pace it is going now, there
will be many more families throughout the
United States whose hearts will be heavy,
because they have lost a son or a brother in
Vietnam. Uncle Sam, is it worth the price
that these young boys are paying? How
many more young men will be cut short of
their goals because of Vietnam? How many
more young ladies like my sister-in-law will
be made widows in their late teens and early
twenties by this war? How many children
will not remember or know their fathers be-
cause they have been taken away from them
by this war?
How many more families will receive the
dreaded telegram that we received? It was?
even worse for us because we had seen the
debris of the hotel in the news even before
we were notified and every time there was a
knock at the door, we hated to open it be-
cause we thought it was a message from you
that he was among the casualties at Qui
Nhon. Finally, we did receive the Unwanted
message.
Uncle Sam, I'm very young, and I don't
understand all the diplomatic treaties that
control our relations with other countries.
But what I would like to know is what
happened on that fatal day. February 10,
when the hotel was bombed? How did the
Vietcong get paat the guards and the pro-
tective fence to plant this bomb? Was it a
lack of troops or were we depending on the
South Vietnamese to stand guard for us?
Although I am young, I believe my coun-
try can prevent the spread of communism in
South Vietnam in a much better way than
it is doing. As I see it now, five or six young
men are sent over in the disguise of "advis-
ers," killed and replaced by five or six more
only to be killed. Uncle Sam, I have read
in the paper and seen in the news where Rus-
sia is sending ground-to-air missiles to North
Vietnam. I believe that the United States is
the strongest Nation in the world military-
wise, and that it can protect its interest in
South Vietnam in the same way that the
Russians are now doing.
Uncle Sam, if we are going to remain in
South Vietnam, please send enough troops
and equipment over there so that we can
fight on the level with the Communists.
When the first issue of our paper came out,
my heart swelled with pride when I read the
alumni news, "Former Student Assigned
Vietnam Duty." This headline had referred
to Owen, my 21-year-old brother. Imagine
my feeling as we are editing this issue's
alumni news, "Former Student Killed In
Vietnam Duty." Just a few short days be-
tween the issues.
I should like to close, Uncle Sam, by say-
ing, please fight like the Nation we are, if we
must fight, or bring our loved ones home.
A grief-stricken young girl.
VICKIE LAWSON.
House Un-American Activities Committee
and the Klan
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN
OF NEW YORK
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 5, 1965
Mr, RYAN. Mr. Speaker, the House
Un-American Activities Committee's an-
nounced intention to investigate the
Ku Klux Klan has raised many ques-
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
A1650 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX April 5, 1965
tions as to whether this cOmmittee is the
proper one to carry on such an investi-
gation. On March 31, flie New York
Post published an eclitOrlal coHcerninff
this proposed investigation whial 1..uTge
all gily colleagues to readd, and consi.der?
The editorial follows:
HOUSE UN-AMERICAN ACTIVITIES COMMITTEE
AND THE 1CLAN
The decision of the BOUBB Un-American
Activities Committee to launch a "searching
Investigation" of the activiges .of the Ku
Klux Klan warrants no capricious cheers,
The HouSe tin-American Activities Com-
mittee has traditionally. been. unable V? dis-
tinguish between opinion and act, between
unorthodox ideas and incitements to terror
and violence. It has operated on the crude
theory that radical ideas will protests were
a product of an international Cornin?unlst
conspiracy. Its files and inquiries have, in
fact, been used to bolster the wild KKK-con-
tention that the civil rights movement" is a
Communist plot.
Vlaat the committee tiny/ turns its atten-
tion to the KKK is hardly reassuring.
Dangerous as Klan violence is, detestable
as are its doctrines, any Moves to coinbat the
organization must accord fullest protection
Of due process to Klan witnesses and scru-
pulously refrain from infringing upon the
rights of free speech and association.
-The House Un-American Activities Com-
mittee, as the record has shown, is incapable
Of conducting such an inquiry.
LeesWiwi is needed to combat Klan-in-
oired Violence. But it is essental to
tinguish between stamping out KKK terror-
ism and outlawing the Klan.
Any effort to do the latter will inevitably
revive the problems encountered in enforc-
ing the Smith Act, where It has proven vir-
tually impossible to root out a political or-
ganization without infringing upon the in-
dividual rights guaranteed by the Constitu-
tion. There is the additional practical prob-
lem: the Klan can circumvent efforts, to out-
law it by simply setting up business under a
new name at a new address or enlisting
under the banner of the Birch'Society.
The target is not private prejudice but
Overt systematic terror--the murders, whip-
pings, vandalism and harassments to which
civil rights workers, supporters and sympa-
thizers have been rejected.
There is everything to be said for the ad-
ministration plan to increase the penalties
and broaden the scope of the 1870 statute.
This prohibits efforts to violate the civil
rights of any person. Putting new and
sharper teeth into this statute is a meaning-
ful proposal which should be urgently con-
sidered by a congressional committee.
*But the House Un-American Antivities
Committee is not the group to undertake
this serious business. There are far more
responsible congressional bodies to which
the mission can be entrusted.
Voting Rights
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA
OF HAWAII
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATI.VES
Monday, April 5, 1965
Mr. MATSTJNAGA. Mr. Speaker, in
our fair State of Hawaii people of differ-
ent races take pride in the fact that they
haVe Proven that racial pr,ejudices can be
overcomq. Whenever _b-italerance reap
its ugly head anywhere Abe people of
Hawaii rise to protest. So it was that
the Mani Hoard of Supervisors adopted a
resolution denouncing the violent action
taken by governmental authorities
against the civil rights marchers in
Selma, Ala.
The resolution follows:
Whereas civil rights demonstrators in
Selma, Ala., who have been trying to organize
an orderly and peaceful march from Selma
to lVfontgoinery for the purpose of obtaining
voting rights have been harassed, intimi-
dated, coerced, brutally beaten, and even shot
at by Alabama police officers; and
Whereas the rest of the people of the
United States, and people throughout the
world, have been appalled by the vicious and
cruel conduct of the government authorities
In Alabama in their treatment of the civil
rights demonstrators, and
'whereas said civil rights demonstrators are
only asking that they be given the same
right to vote as other free Americans; and
Whereas President Lyndon B. Johnson has
requested Congress for the swift passage of
new voting rights legislation to assure Ne-
groes and other minority the right to vote:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved 14 the Board of Supervisors of
the County of Maui, That it does hereby go
on record denouncing the violence used by
Alabama governmental authorities against
the civil rights demonstrators; and be it
further
Resolved, That the members of Hawaii's
congressional delegation be urged to vote for
the swift passage of new voting rights legis-
lation; and be it further
Resolved, That certified copies of this reso-
lution be transmitted to Senator Milani L.
Foisro, Senator DANIEL K. INourE, Represent-
ative Sissnx M. Msasuwass, and Representa-
tive PATSY T. 11/1INK Washington D.C.
South Africa: A Bright Spot on a Dark
Continent
EXTENSION OF REMARKS
OF
HON. J. ARTHUR YOUNGER
OF CALIFORNIA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Monday, April 5,1965
Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Speaker, on
March 5 of this year, South African
Ambassador, H. L. T. Taswell, addressed
the Commonwealth Club of California
In San Francisco on the subject "South
Africa: A Bright Spot on a Dark Con-
tinent."
I am sure all of the Members of the
House and those who read the CONGRES-
SIONAL BEcORA will be particularly inter-
ested in the comments which Ambassa-
dor 'raswell made:
SOUTH AFRICA: A BRIGHT SPOT ON A
DARK CONTINENT
, During the last few months, the American
flag has been torn to pieces and defiled in
certain countries in Africa and Asia. There
have been violent demonstrations against
American embassies, and abuse has been
hurled at the American Government.
I am sure you will have noted that none
Of these violent anti-American demonstra-
tions have taken place in my country, the
Republic of South Africa. We in South Africa
remain friendly and well disposed toward the
United States of America, and anxious to
strengthen the natural bonds of friendship
we have with you.
Many of those who have been hurling abuse
at America are the very ones who have been
so rigorously maligning and criticizing us in
recent years.
DEVELOPMENTS IN AFRICAN COUNTRIES CAUSE
CONCERN
I have entitled my talk today, "South
Africa: A Bright Spot on a Dark Continent."
Let us take a look at some of the things
which have been happening in certain other
parts of Africa during the past year or two.
In many newly independent African states,
the Story has been one of the establishment
of one-party dictatorships, of the suppres-
sion of justice and freedom of the press, of
falling standards of living, health, and ecu-
cation, of collapsing economies.
In one country, the white non-Arab Of il-
lation has dwindled since independence from
1.2 million to 100,000 as a result of shocking
and ruthless discrimination.
Not so long ago, a small African island state
received its independence in what was termed
a classical handover of authority. Only a
matter of days later, its government was cn-
posed by armed revolution which resulted in
the slaughter of hundreds of Arabs and
Asians. A Communist regime took over, A
satellite tracking station operated by the
United States was forced to close down.
In three independent African countr es
there were mutinies in the armies. Unable
to cope with the situation themselves, their
African governments had to invite wlite
troops to come in to restore order.
Serious border clashes took place betwesn
several African countries, resulting in ma ly
people being killed or wounded.
Tribal warfare in a central African country
resulted in the slaughter of an estimated
8,000 men, women, and children.
The recent barbarous atrocities committed
by rebel forces in the Congo have made tie
civilized world shudder with horror. Thou-
sands of people were shot or savagely beaten
to death. They included many whose only
crime was that they could read and write, and
accordingly fell into a class termed the intel-
ligentsia, which the rebels wished to extermi-
nate. The loss of life in the Congo revolt is
put at 40,000.
REACTION TO AMERICAN-BELGIAN RESCUE
OPERATION
You will, I am sure, recall the details of the
humanitarian operation undertaken in 1V3-
vember 1964, to rescue the American and
other white hostages who were held and
threatened with death by the rebels.
America and Belgium were roundly con-
demned for the operation by Communist
sources, and particularly by the Red Chinese.
But isn't it most significant that so many
African states took a line that so closely fol-
lowed the Communist one?
For several years we in South Africa larvie
been warning against Communist penetra-
tion and subversion in Africa. Our warnings
have fallen on ears not BO deaf as unwillir,g
to hear.
Every month now brings fresh evidence
that we have been right.
In the last 5 years there has been a mol,t
marked expansion of Communist influenc e
In Africa. Russia is now represented in
about 21 African States, European Commu-
nist countries in about the same number.
Red China is represented in about 16.
Roughly one-third of Peiping's total diplc-
matie missions abroad are in Africa. Com-
munist China is extending its influence wit a
financial aid, with arms, guerrilla training,
and direct subversion. Chinese policy is
based on color. It is antiwhite.
In recent years we have been accused of
being out of step with developments on the
rest of the continent. But let me ask this
question. With development in so many
parts of Africa taking the turn they have,
who would want to be in step with them?
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
*4441"1111001110
Approk013416or Release 2003/10/1CaRtiGREgSMIONEIBIOCIO3a01-60Met,
of communist and American troops is
another. And? the devastation of mil-
lions through nuclear war, from which
there would be no real victor, is an ever
present possibility.
Mr. Speaker, there is no question in
my mind that the only reasonable, sane
arid productive course of action is nego-
tiation. But let us be sure of our
grounds. Let us be sure that we have
something to negotiate. And let us re-
call that the history of the world is
replete with examples of disaster when
negotiations were conducted from weak-
ness. For weakness breeds contempt
and the Communists have Made clear
their contempt for weakness.
Negotiations like the tango, further-
more, take two, and to date the Com-
munists have indicated no desire and
no willingness to remove the barriers?
the aggression, the subversion and the
terror?to meaningful discussions.
If the Communists can be persuaded
to leave their neighbors alone, then peace
is possible in South Vietnam and all of
southeast Asia. For as the Washington
Post stged on March 31:
The United States, on its part, wishes only
a free and independent South Vietnam and
North Vietnam, in the end, surely would
have its essential purposes served best by a
friendly, viable and productive neighbor
from which the United States and all other
foreign troops had departed. .
The attainment of peace and inde-
pendence, which are our abiding goals,
has ,not and never will be easy. It re-
quires patients, perserverance and per-
sistence. But it is possible if we, in the
words of John Kennedy, never negotiate
out of fear, but never fear to negotiate.
Mr. Speaker, I call our colleagues' at-
tention to the thoughtful article in the
Washington Post of March 31, which I
have already referred to briefly, and urge
that it be read by all who are concerned
with this most critical of problems:
A TERRIBLE WAR
The shocking terrorist attack on the U.S.
Embassy in Saigon was hardly needed to
demonstrate what a brutal and barbaric
struggle is taking place in South Vietnam.
That was already well known. Still, we need
to note that this barbarous attack upon un-
armed men, and women, children, civilian
employees and bystanders, American and
South Vietnamese alike, was made by forces
that have been protesting the methods of
the South Vietnam troops in battlefield sit-
uations.
What is going on in South Vietnam is a
war in which every living person is a com-
batant, in which no man, woman or child
has any sanctuary, in which there can be no
peace fOr anyone. It is not surprising that
this sort of war can be waged most effectively
by those who acknowledge no rules or re-
straints.
The Government of the United Stales,
.as it is frequently advised by many of its
own people and by its friends abroad, is in
a very disagreeable and difficult situation.
Agreement doel not extend very far beyond
this self-evident conclusion. We know we
are in a very difficult predicament. We know
how we got there. The numerous advisers
who pour their counsel on the Governmeqt
are not so prolific with suggestions as to how
we Can alter our situation without ineurrMg
risks and inviting dangers as bad or worse.
The Government is advised that 'it should
negotiate?but all he powers with whom it
might negotiate have let it be known that
they are unwilling to negotiate until the
United States withdraws and leaves the Coun=
try to the victors. The appeals for nego-
tiation need to be addressed first to Hanoi,
to Peiping, and to the Vietcong. There can
be negotiation, no doubt, when they wish to
negotiate but it is difficult to see how any-
thing can be done as long as the departure
of the forces of the United States is made
a precondition to settlement.
The United States also is reproached for its
failure to delineate its policy to South Viet-
nam. The reproach might be more aptly
stated as a reproach for a policy that is dis-
liked. That policy is to live up to our com-
mitment to the South Vietnamese people,
whom we have pledged to support as long
as they wish to struggle for their independ-
ence and freedom. Those who dislike this
policy, and the acknowledged distress and
discomfort in which it has involved us, owe
the Government, in all candor, an explana-
tion of the alternative policy which they
would pursue so that its discomforts may be
examined. It is mischievous to simply de-
nounce the situation at which we have ar-
rived, the predicament that we are in and the
policy to which we are committed without
offering any specific alternative proposals.
The essence of policy decision is in having a
choice between available courses of action.
Let the terms of the alternatives be made
known. If there is a better course that this
country can pursue with honor surely those
In authority would be glad to learn of it.
It ought to be emphasized however that
there are no time machines available. The
events of the past 10 years cannot be extin-
guished. The future begins tomorrow and
not yesterday or on some yesterday 10 years
ago on which we might have elected to stay
out of South Vietnam. The critics of the
policy of the United States can be most help-
ful by suggesting what ought to be done next
Instead of proposing what should have been
last year or 10 years ago.
In spite of the accelerating violence of the
battle, the primary and legitimate interests
of the major powers involved actually do
permit a great deal of maneuver. Surely
those interests, sooner or later, will assert
themselves. The United States, on its part,
wishes only a free and independent South
Vietnam. North Vietnam, in the end, surely
would have its essential purposes served best
by a friendly, viable, and productive neighbor
after the United States and, all other foreign
troops had departed. These are not irrecon-
cilable purposes and after more or less de-
struction of life and property no doubt
they will be put upon the negotiating table.
It is too bad it could not be sooner rather
than later.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300160006-6
A.pril 5, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
There being no objection, the address
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as,follows:
ADDRESS BY Mn. ROGER SAVARY, SECRETARY
GENERAL, INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF
AGRICULTURAL PRODUCERS AT THE 63D AN-
NUAL CONVENTION OF THE NATIONAL FARM-
ERS UNION, CHICAGO, ILL., MARCH 1965
The International Federation of Agricul-
tural Producers had its beginnings some 20
years ago when the decision was taken to
broaden the original British concept of a
federation of the farmers' unions in com-
monwealth countries and to set up instead,
a world body including at the start the na-
tional organizations of farmers in European
and North American countries.
There were two major reasons why the
response to the pall to establish a world
farmers' union was received with such
favor: The first one was that the experience
of the thirties had clearly demonstrated that
laissez-faire could no longer be expected to
restore even a semblance of balance on agri-
cultural markets but also that no strictly
national policy was likely to achieve an ac-
ceptable farm situation in a world where
recourse to export and import control and
to widespread governmental subsidies had
become almost universal; the second reason
was that the establishment of the Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Na-
tions (FAO) had raised great expectations in
two directions. It was widely anticipated
that governments through FAO would
promptly evolve a network of international
\ agreements designed to achieve an orderly
marketing of the major agricultural com-
modities on a world basis; and it was equally
hoped that a successful attack would be
made on the problem of under nourishment
and malnutrition in underprivileged areas
of the world.
IFAP was an immediate success. The
most striking feature of its first conferences
was a realization of the extent to which
farm leaders the world over agreed on a few
fundamental principles and willing to try
to reconcile their differences in the mutual
interest of their members.
In the early years of the federation the
Major problems of world agriculture were,
of course, to reconstitute the production
potential of farms in all the areas which
had suffered directly or indirectly of war
operations. These were the years of the
Marshall plan and the European recovery
program; the years when European farmers
were catching up on technical developments
which had taken place while they were
starved for information and requisites. The
concept of productivity became better un-
derstood and great strides made everywhere.
At the same time world farm leaders real-
ized clearly that agriculture was the most
vitally interested economic sector in a rapid
gro'Wth of the world economy.
In the long run, expanding markets for
food would emerge primarily in those areas
where people's diets are grossly inadequate
and the only way to transform their exist-
ing needs into effective demand was a
stepped-up rate of their economic expansion.
IFAP Was, r believe, the first international
nongovernmental organization strongly to
endorse the United Nations programs of tech-
nical assistance and economic cooperation.
It was also instrumental in convincing gov-
ernments to conclude major commodity
agreements under which, in particular, an
expanding wheat trade at stable iiries
be-
can'ie possible. "
In the early fifties, however, structural
surpluses of a few commodities began to
hang over world markets and the problem
of their utilization became topical. While
controversies among exporting countries
were taking an unpleasant turn, farmers'
No. 60 21
organizations in IFAP unanimously recom-
mended and promoted the adoption of inter-
national principles of surplus disposal and
the establishment under FAO auspices of the
Washington Consultative Subcommittee
which is still being used as a clearinghouse
and as a. watchdog body. Simultaneously,
IFAP was active in promoting multilateral
schemes for the utilization pt surplus skim
milk power to improve the milk supply of
large Asian cities.
Meanwhile, the extraordinary advances
made in this country's agriculture com-
bined with the unprecedented generosity
of the American people to launch the gi-
gantic food aid programs of the Eisenhower
and Kennedy administrations. But, IFAP
remained convinced that a multilateral ap-
proach involving all nations would be pref-
erable and worked assiduously to propagate
that idea. After many disappointing at-
tempts, the United Nations in 1961 approved
the world food program through which food
supplies are used, under international man-
agement and supervision, to accelerate the
economic development of the less developed
countries. This program was an experi-
mental one and it is due for renewal and ex-
pansion at end of 1965. IFAP has combined
its influence with that of the International
Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)
and the International Cooperative Alliance
(ICA) to put pressure to bear on govern-
ments and insure its continuation as a ma-
jor tool in the global war against under-
development.
The world farming community, which
IFAP was established to represent, consists
primarily of producers who do not enjoy the
benefits of advanced technology and do not
as a rule harvest embarrassingly large crops.
Although the stage of development reached
by many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin
America is not yet such that active and rep-
resentative organizations of farmers have
emerged, many such organizations have
joined IFAP during the last few years. They
have IF'AP's active support in their endeav-
ors to secure a more satisfactory standing
for agriculture in national development
plans and technical assistance programs,
more substantial incentives to increased pro-
duction, and more acceptable conditions for
the agricultural producers. FAO's Freedom
from Hunger Campaign, now in its fifth
year, was launched to dramatize the magni-
tude of this problem and it is significant
that the first campaign coordinator was the
Secretary General of IFAP who has the
honor of addressing you this evening.
I could, as you may well imagine, elab-
orate at length on these activities of IFAP
as well as on many others which have left
their mark in the contemporary world: the
extraordinarily successful record of our Eu-
ropean Regional Committee where the very
first proposal for a common agricultural pol-
icy originated and where in spite of political
developments beyond their control?produc-
ers' representatives of all European countries
continue to collaborate in harmony; the
similar meetings held, on this side, among
Canadian, United States and Mexican mem-
ber organizations; the activities of our
Standing Committee on Agricultural Coop-
eration; those of our newly established com-
modity committees, and many others. But,
I would now like to turn to another aspect
of farmers' organizations work through IFAP,
which can be described as a continuing
search for a better understanding of their
mutual interests and common problems.
That phase of IFAP's activities concerns
the complex issue of how best to achieve and
insure a reasonable level of prosperity for
viable family farms in the context of a rap-
idly industrializing economy.
One of the common beliefs held by farmers'
organizations the world over is a conviction
6741
that there can be no substitute for the
unique contribution made to civilization, de-
mocracy, and a balanced society by the indi-
vidual farm operator. And their common
experience is that that irreplaceable form of
free human enterprise is gravely threatened
today.
Leaving aside the predicaments of agricul-
tural producers in those countries whose
governments have adopted totalitarian sys-
tems Which are seldom concerned with the
welfare of the rural popul4tions, we can see
clearly that farmers today are often con-
fronted with the alternative menaces of ruth-
less liquidation and economic colonization.
But, we can also see that they need to watch
carefully many other aspects of the present
evolution.
To cure all the difficulties confronting
agriculture in a rapidly expanding industrial
economy (the least of which is not the
tendency of nonfarm prices to increase year
after year under the combined influence of
cost inflation and demand inflation with the
nonfarm sector, notwithstanding the latter's
loud claims of ever-improving productivity) ,
many economists in this, as well as in other,
countries have a panacea to offer: drastically
reduce the agricultural population.
Everybody is naturally agreed that there
is an unavoidable relationship between the
progress of productivity per man inherent on
the implementation of new techniques and
a decline in agriculture's manpower require-
ments. But, there can be no such agreement
on three crucial points: the pace which is
socially desirable and economically profitable
for such transformation; the extent to which
they should be allowed to proceed?in other
words, the minimum acceptable size of the
farm population in a given country; and the
policies best suited to insure a smooth transi-
tion from the ways of farming of yesteryear
to those of decades to come.
This is not the time to discuss these
issues in depth. But, it is perhaps relevant
to note that those who advocate the urgent
and radical transformation of farming pat-
terns seem to be less concerned with the
extent to which, and the ways in which,
this could be achieved without unacceptable
hardships for millions of farm families and,
isdeed, for the local and national communi-
ties as a whole, than with the solution of
fiscal and political problems. Problems
which the increasing prosperity of the West-
ern economies would seem to have reduced
to quite manageable proportions.
The threat of liquidation concerns farm-
ers in practically every country and the
formulation of positive instead of negative-
policies to size up rationally and to cope
constructively with adjustment in agricul-
tural population numbers is a challenge of
our time.
But, the need will remain as these policies
are being evolved and implemented?and
long after they have alleviated current diffi-
culties?to maintain the safeguard of farm
supports. This is precisely what the pro-
ponents of a drastic rationalization of farm-
ing patterns prefer to ignore. On this vital
issue, virtually every farm organization has
adopted similar policies and this creates
across boundaries one of the strongest links
among them.
Adjustment problems in agriculture have,
during the last few years, taken a new dimen-
sion with the spread of "contract farming."
Because centralized management of the vari-
ous phases of the foOd productive processes?
all the way from the industrial supply of
agricultural requisites to the retailing of
precooked meals?makes for greater effi-
ciency and higher profitability, hundreds of
thousands of farmers in Europe as well as
North America have become involved in
gigantic economic operations over which
they so far exert little or no control.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDF'67600446R000300160006-6
6742 CONGRESS'1011, cdbATi
At the same time, the trend toward larger
production units has introduced within the
agricultural sector competitors which have
little hesitation to jeopardize traditional
farmers' markets and to manipulate them to
their immediate advantage even at the risk
of compounding an already precarious sup-
-ply-demand position.
Concentration in the supply, processing,
and marketing sectors, vertical integration
and contract fanning are progressive every-
where by leaps and bounds. The farmer
when he does not realize in time the dangers
of these transformations and does not work
almost frantically to establish and strengthen
producer-controlled cooperatives or bargain-
ing organizations before nonfarm interests
secure an entire control of this sector of
activity is bound to become a helpless cog
in the new agri-business complex. these
spectacular developments have originated in
this, the most advanced and capitalized
economy in the World. But, they have be-
-come a major 'subject of preoccupation of
farm Organizations everyWhere. Active con-
sultations among them is an important cur-
rent task in lEAP.
Even where the farmer succeeds?as a ma-
jority of them fortunately do?to safeguard
his existenee, freedom, and independence to
become a member of a fair cooperative un-
dertaking or to be associated in dignity with
S contractual complex, present trends in
agriculture demand a .careful reconsidera-
tion of a number of traditional concepts.
The field where the farm operator is in
a position to exert fully his initiative and
freedom of choice tends to narrow year after
year. The management adviser and his
linear programing virtually select his lines
of production for him, the soil specialist tells
him how to work and fertilize his land, the
'crop and livestock specialist tells hina how
to produce to best advantage, and the man-
ager of the marketing cooperative finds an
outlet for his products.
In these new circumstances the farmer can
only remain an imaginable and intellectually
active entrepreneur when he broadens his
horizon arid takes an active part in the
formulation and implementation of farm or-
ganizations policies. This vital function of
farmers associations is increasingly recog-
nized and a subject of fruitable consultation
among them.
Farmers have to struggle harder than ever
to maintain a degree of influence in the
sinmageisaent of public affairs. With the re-
duced influence which is the consequence
cif their declining numbers, they must learn
to live in. a society where major politico-
economic decisions Affecting their well-being
Will increasingly be taken by representatives
of the urban people. Their organizations,
therefore, have no snore pressing task than
that of projecting a true image of today's
farmer.
It is not true that public opinion is spon-
taneously inimical to farmers' interests. On
the contrary, there remains a fundamental
appreciation. in every urban dweller's con-
science of the role of the food producer.
But, that reserve of good will is being
Whittled away by unfair descriptions of the
true conditions. Farmers are being de-
nounced as responsible for rising costs of
-living even though their share of the con-
sumer's dollars spent on food is steadily de-
clining and the residual share in the over-
all expenditure for taal,private consumption
has become almost negligible. They are
being accused of pilfering the State treasury
through subsidies and grants when these
expenditures are only a fraction of huge
eltate budgets and an inadequate redress for
the way in which economic factors are
stacked against the little man in a system
largely controlled by large concentration of
Interests.
I understand that a congressional inquiry
is underway which should throw light on
these corners of the food economy where the
real profits are made and I trust that it will
be of as much interest to an farmers' orga-
nizations as was a few yeare ago the report
issued by the Royal Canadian Commission
investigating the same subject.
Many people are asking me whether the
notion of an international brotherhood of
agriculturalists is not deceptive. Are not
farmers of the various countries primarily
competitors? Conflicts of interests between
them would seem to rule out a community
of interests.
The little I have been able to say of the
major facets of IPAP's work already indicate
that there is a substantial community of in-
terests among farmers in a- number of the
major fields of contemporary economic
policy.
But farm leaders in IFAP do not shy away
from a frank confrontation of those issues
which may tend to divide them. It must be
realized in the first place that individual
farmers within a nation, still more than
farmers of different countries, are competi-
tors. This is the very foundation of a free
economy. It has never precluded the suc-
cessful and beneficial operation of farmers'
unions. International competition per se is
not therefore a factor which should rule out
the possibility of active international cooper-
ation.
International competition, to be sure, dif-
fere, greatly from competition on a national
market. The main difference consists in the
fact that producers in different countries are
included in very dissimilar economic en-
vironments and operating under completely
distinct laws and policies. A situation
which calls for a substantial degree of gov-
ernment control. But, we have seen that
the operation of market forces at national
level is universally government-controlled in
the agricultural sectors. Similarly, there is
an almost unanimous recognition nowadays
of the need for a policy of orderly marketing
at the international level. to that extent,
national and international problems are not,
therefore, different in nature and there is
room for an international agricultural
policy.
What exactly such a policy should be re-
mains, of course, a matter of continuing de-
bate. The important underlying prinicple,
from farmers' standpoint, is that that de-
bate must take fully into account all the
factors which are recognized as relevant in
the national context. It would obviously be
inconsistent to apply a double standard to
national arid international policies. If a de-
gree of price stability, acceptable farm in-
comes, smooth adjustment to changes,
protection of the farmer against abuses of
superior bargaining power by its economic
partners, the imperatives of a rational tqwn
and country planning, and many other fac-
tors are relevant to the formulation of a na-
tional farm policy, these same factors can-
not be deliberately ignored in evolving an
international policy.
This is the crucial point on which all farm-
ers' organizations are agreed. The following
excerpt from the policy report of the last
IFAP Conference puts it in a Minimum num-
ber of words:
"It would be wrong to pass judgment on
the merits of national farming policies by
reference to an olersimplified concept of an
international division of labor. But, a con-
strifetive approach demands that the validity
of the principles on which each country
bases its policy decisions must be constantly
reassessed. Internationally, it is clear that
regular examinations among countries of
their national agricultural policies is neces-
sary."
Farmers' organizations irs IFAP are ear-
April 5, 1365
nestly working in that direction. Assiduous
and painstaking efforts are made by ell to
study and to understand the problems of the
other national farming communities. As a
result of these activities, I can confidently
say that there is today a much greater degree
of mutual understanding and good will
among farm leaders the world over then in
any period of history.
During recent months, however, we have
witnessed a disquieting tendency, on the part
of governments engaged in difficult and pro-
tracted trade negotiations, to enlist the sup-
port and to appeal to the loyalty and alleged
self-interest of farmers' organizations who
are pressed to give uncritical endorsement
to rigid negotiating positions which often
fail to recognize, as does IFAP policy, ''the
primary aim to seek, nationally and inter-
nationally, an improvement on the levels of
income for agriculture so that they compare
more favourably with those in other economic
sectors." I do not believe that such tactics
enhance the chances of a successful outcome
of trade negotiations which are already re-
duced by the unfortunate tendency of press
reports to describe the progress of these ne-
gotiations on terms of which would be more
appropriatefor a world boxing chainplonship.
In order to whittle away the efficiency of
and, if possible, to destroy national farm
policies, it is a time-honored practice for
those interests which are not particularly
ansical toward the farming industry to play
upon the differing outlook of small and com-
mercial farmers; of crop and livestock pro-
ducers; of farmers in various States and
areas. The same tactics may prove equally
detrimental to the future of the world farm-
ing community as a whole.
In these circumstances it is all the more
encouragiing to see that U.S. farmers remain
strongly united under the enlightened lead-
ership of such international figures as your
universally respected president, James G.
Patton, and his successor to the presidency
of IFAP, the Grange's national master, Her-
schel D. Newsom. One of the purposes of
my visit to this convention was to bring you
the message of good will of the farmers of
the world who have learned so much from
the pioneering developments achieved by
tT.S. farmers and who look forward to further
progress in the direction of an even closer
partnership among all of those who will re-
main engaged in the most noble callir g on
earth.
Mr. MO day's issue of
Newsweek, dated April 12, 1965, the in-
comparable Walter Lippmann nally
made my speech for today in opposition
to the shocking American war and its
continuation in Asia. He says in his
article, entitled "Nearing the Brink in
Vietnam":
While the American press is free to report
and comment on Vietnam, our people are
receiving very little official guidance and help
in understanding the portentous events
which are happening. Officially, we are be-
ing told that we are now involved in E, war
between two separate nations, North Viet-
nam and South Vietnam, and that our task
is to put enough pressure on the North Viet-
namese to make them cease and desist from
taking part in the war at the other end of
the country of Vietnam.
The official interpretation is one of those
half-truths which can be grossly misleading.
The half of the truth which we are being
told. is that North Vietnam is sending some
men and officers, is helping to supply, and is
probably directing the strategy of the civil
war in South Vietnam. The half of the
truth which is being neglected is that in a
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA1RDP67B00446R000300160006-6
April 5, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
very large part of South Vietnam the resist-
ance to the Viet Con g has collapsed.
Yet, it is the state of the war' in South
Vietnam which is of critical importance to
the United States. It is On that 'above all
that we need to fix our attention. For it is
in South Vietnam that disaster impends, and
it is the effort to forestall the disaster that
brings us very near to becoming involved in
a land war of great proportions. It is there
that we are being pressed to engage several
hundred thousand American troops and to
face the prospect of at least a partial mobil-
ization in this country to support and sus-
tain those troops.
Under the heading, "Official Theory
Versus Actual Events," Walter Lippmann
continues:
The argument for making South Vietnam
a second Korea is growing louder in the
lobbies and corridors of Washington. The
argument is being made because the offici-1
theory of the problem in South Vietnam has
been confounded by events. The theory,
which was propounded by Gen. Maxwell
Taylor when he persuaded President Ken-
nedy to enlarge Our intervention, was that
with enough arms, more money, and some
American military advisers, the South Viet-
namese could create an army able to subdue
the Viet Cong 'rebellion. Until a year ago,
more or less, this was the theory on which
our excellent Secretary of Defense rested his
hopes and his plans, and staked his reputa-
tion as a political prophet.
The theory has not worked. Our side has
been losing steadily the control of the coun-
tryside. It has failed to win the allegiance
of the peasants, who are not only the ma-
jority of the nation, but are the one and
only source of military manpower. Today,
the principal highways north and south,
east and west, have been cut by the Viet
Cong, and the cities where our clients are
holed up are being supplied by air and by
sea. The South Vietnamese Army has not
surrendered, but it has so little will to fight
and has such a high rate of desertion that
we can no longer count on South Vietnamese
soldiers even to supply sentries for American
air bases and installations.
The basic character of the war has changed
radically since President Johnson inherited
it from President Kennedy. It used to be a
war of the South Vietnamese assisted by the
Americans; it is now becoming an American
war very inefficiently assisted by the South
Vietnamese. In fact, it would not be much
of an exaggeration to say that the South
Vietnamese, who have good reason to be
War-weary, are tending to sit on the side-
lines while we, who have promised to "win"
the war, are allowed to show how we can
win it. ,
Under the heading "Numbers Not
Enough," Lippmann continues:
For a time the warhawks in this country
argued that a certain amount of bombing?
a "clean" war in the air rather than a "dirty"
war on the ground?would do the trick. But
it has not done the trick. All wars, and
particularly civil wars, are won or lost on the
ground.
It is evident enough now that the South
Vietnamese ground forces are unable and
unwilling to fight the war effectively. They
may have a superiority in numbers over the
VietcOng of 5 to 1. That is not nearly enough
in guerrilla wars where a ratio of 20 or 50 to
1 is not always enough. And so we are being
confronted with two dismal prospects. The
first is the Landing of American soldiers for
an interminable war ou?the ground against
the inexhaustible masses On the Asian con-
tilient. The second prospect is the bombing
of the populated cities in North Vietnam.
This would bring down on us the oppro-
brium of almost all the world and also the
risk that we would compel Russia and China
to join in opposing us.
Having skated our prestige on the out-
come of the civil war which is being lost
in South Vietnam, we may find ourselves
with a choice between the devil of defeat in
South Vietnam and the deep blue sea of a
much wider war in Eastern Asia. That choice
could perhaps be avoided if we remember in
time that when there is no military solution
to a conflict, there must be negotiation to
end it. In such a situation, only fools?
I repeat, only fools?
will go to the brink and over it.
ANTI-U.S. CHILL PERVADES RUSSIA
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that an article by
Drew Pearson which appeared in today's
Washington Post, entitled "Anti-U.S.
Chill Pervades Russia," be printed in the
RECORD at this point.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington Post, Apr. 5, 19651
ANTI-U.S. CHILL PERVADES RUSSIA
(By Drew Pearson)
Moscow.?A week in Moscow gives you the
definite impression that the United States
and the Soviet Union may be on a collision
course.
In terms of climate the snow is melting,
the sun is out, the huge snow plows are be-
ing laid up for the winter, the more daring
daffodils are poking their noses out from
under the slush.
But politically the climate is the opposite.
The freeze is on toward the United States
and daily it is getting more frigid. With
each bombing of North Vietnam, each state-
ment justifying the use of gas, each photo
of Vietnamese children burned by napalm,
the situation gets worse.
This is my third trip to the Soviet Union
in 4 years, and never before have I found
criticism toward the United States so in-
tense.
The first visit was in the summer of 1961
when the Berlin wall had just been built,
Russian and American tanks were rumbling
on both sides of the wall, President Kennedy
had sent 50,000 extra troops to West Ger-
many and Khrushchev had sent about twice
this many to East Germany. A false step
could have started war.
But the attitude of Soviet officials toward
the United States was not as harshly critical
as it is now.
SOVIET-UNITED STATES FRIENDSHIP
My second visit was in the stuntner of 1963
for a second interview with Khrushchev, this
time shortly after the signing of the nuclear
test ban treaty. The Russian people were
then glowing with praise of the United
States.
After that interview I took a sheaf of press
cables to the Soviet telegraph office in Socchi
to wire collect to New York. I expected a
long wrestle with the cable officials?almost
Inevitable in an Eastern country when you
haven't cleared your collect press privileges
with the foreign office.
The lady in charge read the first cable re-
garding better relations between the United
States of America and the U.S.S.R. and re-
marked: "Anything we can do to help peace I
am for." She sent the cables collect, thereby
trusting a strange capitalist newsman for
about $300.
When I went to the only radio station in
Socchi?Government owned?to make a
transcription for use in the United States,
the manager was glad to accommodate me.
I asked the charge. "Nothing," he replied,
6743
"if you will make a broadcast about your
visit to Socchi."
Today this would not and did not happen.
Much of the good will built up by the test
ban treaty, the friendship so carefully culti-
vated by exchanges of professors, students,
scientists, and officials during the past 10
years, is out the window.
There are several reasons for this resump-
tion of the cold war. The most overriding
and important is the fact that the United
States has embarrassed the Soviet with the
Chinese over North Vietnamese bombing and
coexistence.
For approximately 5 years the Chinese have
been telling the Russians that coexistence
would not work.
Today as a result of our bombing of North
Vietnam, the Chinese have been really rub-
bing it in. With almost every bombing raid,
they have been saying, "We told you so."
IS UNITED STATES A PAPER TIGER?
Before I left Washington, officials were ar-
guing that the United States was doing the
Russians a big favor by bombing North Viet-
nam, a policy that demonstrated we were not
a paper tiger, that we were a force the Com-
munist world had to reckon with.
It hasn't worked this way at all. There
was never any thought in the Russian mind
that the United States was a paper tiger.
The entire Soviet structure knew?especial-
ly after the Cuban missile crisis?that we
could not be pushed around when our own
defenses were threatened.
But bombing a small country on the op-
posite side of the globe where American se-
curity is not involved, in defense of a nation
that in the last year has had an average of
one change of government per month, doesn't
help the Russians demonstrate to the Chi-
nese that we are no paper tiger.
It helps the Chinese demonstrate that we
are aggressive bullies. As one Russian put
it: "It's like a big boy at school smashing
a small boy in the face. All the sympathy
Is for the small boy."
In the Kremlin there are powerful forces
that never liked Khrushchev's pro-American
policy now exerting their influence against
the United States. It is this that makes the
situation, in Moscow so dangerous and could
lead to a collision course with the United
States.
Mr. MORSE. Drew Pearson has just
come back from Russia. He gives an
account in this article of the chill that
pervades the Soviet Union vis-a-vis the
-war being conducted by the United
States in South Vietnam.
Members of the Senate have heard
me say for many months that we are
headed for a massive war in Asia. I
make the statement that we are gallop-
ing toward that massive war in Asia and
that thousands upon thousands of Amer-
ican boys are going to be involved in the
next 12 months if the course of action of
this administration is not changed.
CANADA AND THE ASIAN CRISIS
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, the press
reports of Prime Minister Pearson's visit
with the President recently left the im-
pression that Mr. Pearson sought to ex-
press concern about events in Asia with-
out actually doing anything about them.
I regret that Canada has not seen fit to
act under the United Nations Charter
to bring about an end to the fighting in
Vietnam, by bringing the matter to the
attention of the Security Council of the
General Assembly. Canada signed the
charter. But Canada has no boys in
South Vietnam. It is one thing for the
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10; CIA-RDP,67500446R000300160006-6
6744 COiN.GlittSSIONAL itECd1ID SENNA April 5, 1965
Prime Minister of Canada to come to
the United States and make certain sug-
gestions to the President, but I most re-
spectfully say to him that I believe that
Canada has a clear obligation, as a sig-
natory to the United Nations, to lay be-
fore the United Nations an official re-
quest that the United Nations take juris-
diction over this threat to the peace in
Asia. Mr. Pearson's suggestion for a
temporary pause in the air raids in the
north seemed to be intended more for
Canadian home consumption than for
serious consideration in Washington.
Nor does he seem to have pressed it seri-
ously. Mr. Pearson has long been closely
associated with the United Nations and
Is known as one of its greatest friends.
It is that knowledge which he could now
bring to bear on the Vietnamese problem,
and I hope that he will find ways to do
so
There is nothing to prevent the Prime
Minister of Canada from making a for-
mal request for United Nations inter-
vention in behalf of peace in the Asian
crisis. It shotild be obvious to all that
there is not the slightest chance of bi-
lateral negotiations between the United
States and North Vietnam. "
We have reached the point where a
third party force must be brought in to
conduct the negotiations. Let me say to
the Prime Minister of Canada that we
are going to have to count upon others
In the world now?not partisans and the
Parties to the war?to use their good of-
fices to bring to bear upon this crisis the
eXisting procedures of international law
for bringing about a conference table
meeting whereby, with the nonpartici-
pants sitting at the head of the table,
and the partisans on both sides, an at-
tempt will be made to save mankind
from a holocaust which can develop
quickly into a third world war.
Many people do not realize?although
it was brought out by implication in
Drew Pearson's column today?that
what the United States is doing in
North Vietnam is shooting fish in a bar-
rel, killing people in a country which has
no air defense and is almost helpless
against air attack.
Is it not interesting that we cannot get
out of the Pentagon, at the very moment
I speak, any statistics on the number of
civilians in North Vietnam who have
been killed? Is it not interesting that
we do not get into the United States the
pictures of the killing by American
planes in North Vietnam, but we can see
them in foreign newspapers.
Of course, the fact is, we are not tell-
ing the American people the truth.
There is no attempt to give the Ameri-
can people the full story of what is being
done in North Vietnam by the United
States.
'Therefore, Mr. President, once again
on the floor of the Senate I plead?as I
Shall continue to plead, as I pleaded last
Friday night at the coliseum in Portland,
-Oreg., before over 5,000 fellow Ameri-
cans, and I shall plead next week in a
series of speeches across this land?that
the American people recognize that only
they can change the warinaking policies
of this Government.
I say to the American people that they
must rise up peacefully, through public
opinion, to save the thousands and thou-
sands of Americans who wl11 otherwise
die in an unjustifiable awl unnecessary
war. The American people must stop
the administration from its substitution
of jungle law and military might, this
time practiced not by Russia but by the
United States, instead of keeping faith
with our ideals of substituting the pro-
cedures of international law at the con-
ference table in an attempt to prevent
the ever-increasing danger of a third
world war starting in Asia.
ADDRESS BY JAMES G. PATTON AT
PRESENTATION TO VICE PRESI-
DENT HUMPHREY OF AWARD FOR
OUTSTANDING SERVICE TO AGRI-
CULTURE
Mr. MONDALE. Mr. President, not
long ago James G. Patton, president of
- the National Farmers Union, made an
excellent speech in which he presented
to the Honorable HUBERT H. HUMPHREY,
Vice President of the United States, the
1965 award for outstanding service to
agriculture. It is with pardonable pride
that the State of Minnesota claims
Huscar H. HUMPHREY as its own; and,
for this reason, I ask unanimous consent
that Mr. Patton's speech be printed at
this point in the_CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.
There being no objection, the speech
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY AND FOOD FOR PEACE--
THE_EMERGENCE OF A MAN AND AN IDEA
(Statement by James G. Patton, president of
National Farmers Union, in making 1965
Award for Outstanding Service to Agricul-
ture to -the Honorable HUI3ERT H. HUM-
PHREY, Vice President of the United States,
Mar. 15, 1964)
The Biblical admonition to "feed the
hungry" is as old as Christianity itself?it
has stirred the hearts of countless men and
women down through the centuries?among
them the tillers of the soil and the keepers
of the flock.
Food for peace is one of the great advances
of human history, not because this genera-
tion of Americans created a new idea, but
because this was the first generation which
had the capacity as well as the desire to abol-
ish want and hunger.
Tonight, we are honoring a man who has
helped the Nation and the world understand
Its unique opportunity.
Year by year and session by session since
he first came to the Senate, this man has
pleaded with the Nation to understand how
it could use food to help establish the climate
for peace.
He has expounded?he has proposed?he
has needled our conscience?he has chided
us for our lack of Christian perception?but
ever and always, he has pleaded with a com-
placent America to open up its heart.
WE) are sure that there are .a hundred rea-
sons why National Farmers Union should
wish to honor Vice President HUBERT H.
HUMPHREY.
American farmers will remember many
things about HUBERT HUMPHREY.
They know him as a great friend and ex-
ponent of the family farm system.
They know him as an apostle of coopera-
tion: as a defender of the farmer committee
system; as a tower of strength for the REA
program; as the originator and sponsor of
scores and scores of significant farm hi Is in
his 16 years in the Senate; as a foremost
strategist and floor leader in the fight for
many farm bins; as a tireless and pers1,3tent
worker for better public understanding of
agriculture.
Yes, farmers know very well how HUBERT
HUMPHREY has responded to the needs of
agriculture.
We hold him close to our hearts in Farmers
Union?because of what he has done and
what he has stood for.
Today, because National Farmers Union
has always been motivated_ by the quest for
peace and justice in the world?not only dur-
ing and after World War I?not only during
and after World War II?but during all the
tense years of hot and cold wars since that
time--we wish to honor him for his leader-
ship in the evolution of the food-for-peace
program.
"Without food and nourishment foi the
children of Asia, there can be no real peace
in the world," Husnar HUMPHREY said early
in 1949.
In the great drama of world history, China
had slipped into the Communist orbi,:. A
new young Senator from Minnesota ateps
onto the stage, and within a few weel:s of
having arrived in Washington, is warning
that India needs food.
India was in fact desperately seeking food.
It was seeking to barter mica, manganese and
other raw materials for a million tons of
wheat. The negotiations broke down.
The leaders of India proposed the purchase
of wheat on long-term credits. Again no
agreement was reached.
Early in 1950, Senator HUMPHREY appealed
on the Senate floor: "What is the most im-
portant problem of the Government of India
today? It is food. Who has the food? We
ought to get down on our hands and knees
and pray to God to forgive us our sins?for
here on the eastern coast of our land are
Liberty ships-10,000-ton freighters loaded
with wheat which the Commodity Credit
Corporation has purchased.
"The wheat is stored up while over there
you have people who are dying of hunger,
with' the Communists on top of them., with
their government almost tottering. What are
we doing? We are sitting around saying we
cannot get along with Pakistan, or with this
country or with some other country."
By August 1950, conditions had grown
worse in India and HUMPHREY proposed an
Immediate opening of negotiations to make
60 million bushels of wheat available for
famine relief.
"Here would be a grand gesture of good-
will -and basic humanitarianism, a firm
cementing tie between our nations, and one
of the most significant steps we could take
for the preservation of world peace and demo-
cracy," HUMPHREY said. He conferred with
the Secretary of State and his staff to t7 to
pave the way for an agreement.
"This would be good foreign police, it
would be a good neighbor policy, it would be
sound and prudent policy to make available
to this great country some of the foodstuffs
which we have in our warehouses at the pres-
ent moment."
Later in the same year, Senator HUMPHREY
sought to rally support for the Javits reso-
lution to extend food assistance to India.
But, the effort was destined to continue well
into 1951 and reach a conclusion only after
Soviet Russia had delivered 50,000 tons of
wheat to India and China had offered rice.
Senator Smith of New Jersey sponsored
an emergency food aid bill for India, and
in speaking for the bill, Senator HUMPHREY
said:
"I am appealing today that the great
American Nation answer those basic needs
before it is too late. What India is asking
Is not 300 tanks. She is not asking for arms
aid. She is not asking for money to develop
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For,Rel9ase 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300160006-6
April 5, 1965 'CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 6727
do not get a wilderness system started, the
outdoor recreation job partly done, and then
find that this interest has subsided.
We have?as a nation?paid attention to
resource problems on a crisis basis. We are
alerted to the water crisis, the timber crisis,
the pesticide crisis, the strip mine crisis.
I have no question that it, is the squeaking
crisis which gets the oil. But is it the
wisest way for a nation to develop and man-
- age its resources for 190 million today and
330 million by the year 2000? I think not.
A Council of Resource and Conservation
Advisers mighthelp to avoid the potential
wastefulness of reaction only in the face of
crisis. It might enable decisionmakers to
take more initiative in advance of a severe
resource problem rather than after it has
ballooned to massive proportions.
The Council would be an arm of the execu-
tive branch, but it would serve all of Gov-
ernment in much the same fashion as the
Council of Economic Advisers. The Council
of Economic Advisers does not create national
economic policy, but it gathers the informa-
tion and dots the advance thinking essential
to the shaping of enlightened policy. It is
still up to political leaders to create and
implement tax and fiscal policy. By the
same token, Members of, Congress and Cabi-
net officers would still be left with the re-
sponsibility to make sound conservation
policy.
But the Council of Resource and Conserva-
tion Advisers would _help chart the way
toward appropriate conservation Measures.
It would let us know where we stand and
where we should be heading.
The need for such a continuing high-level
examination of natural resource matters was
In the mind of the National Academy of
$ciences when it recently said:
"It is evident that optimization of natural
resources for human use and welfare cannot
be achieved by fragmentary and sporadic at-
tention given to isolated parts of the prob-
lem, but that the issues involved must be
made the subject of a permanent, system-
atic process of investigation, recording and
evaluation, carried on continuously in refer-
ence to the total perspective."
This kind of evaluation should be applied
to all decisions affecting natural resources?
particularly when they are irretrievably lost,
once used or altered by man. The proposed
high dams on the Lower Colorado River are
a case in point. Before more dams are au-
thorized, some of us want to know if the
power to be produced is really economic and
necessary or whether it is included as a way
which has worked elsewhere and ,may now
be the only way to finance the central Ari-
Zona project.
The most desperately needed resource in
the Colorado River basin is water itself.
Some experts are advising storage in aquifers
in that area to avoid losses to wind and sun.
The economics of further storage of sur-
face water for power?even in relatively
narrow reservoirs?is open to serious ques-
tion, even without a charge for evaporation
and recognizing that water has certain peak-
ing capacity values over other sources of
power.
The closest kind of study should be de-
voted to a detailed comparison of alternative
energy sources for generating electricty. The
Four Corners region of New Mexico, Arizona,
Colorado and Utah is underlaid with large
deposits of coal. Some of that mineral
abundance is now being used to generate
electricty at quite favorable costs. There
are other proposals in the talking stage for
additional co0J-fired,plants at the mineheads
of the Southwest.
While conservationists may look upon coal
as a bulwark against encroachment on the
Grand Canyon, they rebel against its use to
produce kilowatts at certain other places. r
The banks of the St. Croix River are echoing
to the sounds Of battle between those who
want the economic advantages of a larg
coal-burning electric plant and those wh
fear the blighting of our loveliest spring-fe
rivers. .
Jobs _and a bigger tax base are tangible?
a community can measure and feel that in
come. But what of the so-called intan-
gibles?a clear stream for fishing or boating
or just for looking at. They become less
intangible when measured against the cost
of restoration?if restoration is even possible
And, of course, recreation makes jobs and
produces taxes.
If coal barges, slag piles and warm water
from the plant will despoil the river, is
there an alternative that will give the area
electricity and payrolls without scenic and
recreation damage? An atomic reactor
offers a possible answer. It would avoid ugly
slag heaps, high stacks and barge traffic. It
would not pollute the atmosphere and it
might be possible to avoid heating the river
water. I think you are going to find that
atoms for conservation make sense in many
situations.
I was interested to read in the Bulletin of
the Atomic Scientists the account of the
fight over the Bociega Head power reactor.
Your club had something to do with the
Withdrawal of the reactor project. Un-
equipped with all the details of that dispute,
I would not attempt to plead the case for
either side,
But I would counsel you not to reject
nuclear reactors in all cases out of a fear
that these powerplants can behave like
bombs or that they will spew radioactive
wastes into the atmosphere. Rather I would
hope that the Sierra Club and other conser-
vation groups will view the atom as an
ally in the cause of intelligent resource
development.
"Not blind opposition to progress but op-
position to blind progress" is a principle that
may serve us well in this matter.
While I have been close to the conservation
movement for many years, I have long had a
continuing involvement with atomic energy.
I am optimistic about the alliance of the
atom and conservation. Linked with desali-
nization plants, atomic energy will help pro-
vide additional water. In some areas, atomic
power may lessen the need to lay bare hill-
sides to get at coal seams. Reactors will firm
up hydropower so that large volumes of water
do not waste into the sea without being pro-
ductive. Atomic fuel will lessen airpolluting
smog. And atomic energy can extend the
fossil-fuel resources of the country.
Albert Schweitzer has said, "Man can
hardly even recognize the devils of his own
creation." But I believe that we are coming
-to recognize the problems posed by rapidly
advancing technology. Like the genie in the
lamp, technology can be used to enhance the
quality of life or leave it barren. We will
seek its blessings.
I foresee an intensification of the conflicts
between what some label progress with a
capital P and others call progress with a
question mark. We are going to hear more
and more "payrolls or picknickers." In the
cities and suburbs the roadbuilders who want
to pave over woodlands and level neighbor-
hoods those who ask: Is
there a better way to move people in metro-
poles?"
As I suggested in Santa Fe last fall, "All
the angels are not on the side of the conserva-
tionists." But these problems demand our
concern; how they are resolved will determine
to a large extent the character and atmos-
phere of American life for generations.
Although the battle must be waged wilder-
ness by wilderness, river by river, park by
park, we must see conservation in its total
dimensions. We must master technology
for the broadest common good. We must
improve the system of decisionmaking as
egards resdurces.
"Those who will not remember the past,"
said Santayana, "are condemned to relive it"
e But we do remember; how one landscape
o has been torn and defaced the name of
d industry while another has been preserved
for posterity almost as the Lord left it ages
ago. We remember the struggles to bring
- beauty to our cities, to save beauty along
our shores, and to find beauty in the depths
of a quiet forest where not tree has fallen
save as the Master has decreed. Surely in
this conference we can agree that no great
. problem is settled until it is settled right,
and holding that belief, can dedicate our-
selves "Tb the cause that needs assistance
and the dd that we can do."
WAL
.1v1
LIPPMANN CONTINUES TO
SPEAK CLEARLY ON VIETNAM
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, the
clearest and most persistent commen-
tator on the deepening Vietnamese crisis
is Walter Lippmann. He has clearly
exposed the fallacies of our Vietnam
policy and the dangers in our present
course.
The current issue of Newsweek maga-
zine includes another of Mr. Lippmann's
lucid analyses, entitled "Nearing the
Brink in Vietnam." I ask unanimous
consent that -the article be. printed at
this point in the RECORD; and I trust
that Members of Congress and others
will carefully read and ponder the
article.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From Newsweek magazine, Apr. 12, 1965]
NEARING THE BRINK IN VIETNAM
(By Walter Lippmann)
While the American press is free to report
and comment on Vietnam, our people are
receiving very little official guidance and
help in understanding the portentous events
which are happening. Officially, we are be-
ing told that we are now involved in a war
between two separate nations, North Viet-
nam and South Vietnam, and that our task
Is to put enough pressure on the North Viet-
namese to make them cease and desist from
taking part in the war at the other end of
the country of Vietnam.
The official interpretation is one of those
half-truths which can be grossly misleading.
The half of the truth which we are being
told is that North Vietnam is sending some
men and officers, is helping to supply, and
Is probably directing the strategy of the civil
war in South Vietnam. The half of the
truth which is being neglected LS that in a
very large part of South Vietnam the resist-
ance to the Vietcong has collapsed.
Yet, it is the state of the war in South
Vietnam which is of critical importance to
the United States. It is on that above all
that we need to fix our attention. For it is
in South Vietnam that disaster impends,
and it is the effort to forestall the disaster
that brings us very near to becoming in-
volved in a land war of great proportions.
It is there that we are being pressed to en-
gage several hundred thousand American
troops and to face the prospect of at least a
partial mobilization in this country to sup-
port and sustain those troops.
OFFICIAL THEORY VERSUS ACTUAL EVENTS
The argument for making South Vietnam
a second Korea is growing louder in the lob-
bies and corridors of Washington. The argu-
ment is being made because the official theory
of the problem in South Vietnam has been
confounded by events. The theory, which
was propounded by Gen. Maxwell Taylor
when he persuaded President Kennedy to en-
large our intervention, was that with enough
arms, more money, and some American mili-
Appr-oved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300160006-6
6728 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE- April 5, 1965
_
tary advisers, the South Vietnamese ebuld For 21/2 months, Mr. Thomas W. Ot- All too often there appears little under-
create an army able to subdue the Vietcong tenad, of the St. Louis Post Dispatch, standing of the maturity and restraints re-
rebellion. Until a year ago,--thore or less, this surveyed the political attitudes of West- quired of those who would be world leaders.
was the theory on Which ma eXcellent Sec- Remarked an exasperated diplomat at the
ern European countries. xennedy round tariff negotiations in Ge-
plans, and staked his reputation as a politica
Sec-
retary of Defense rested MI hopes and his
l In Paris, London, Rome, Bonn, Geneva
neva, "Everyone wants power but few want
prophet. and Brussels, Mr. Ottenad talked with responsibility." Policies frequently seem
The theory has not worked. Our side has more than 150 diplomats, government based on narrow self-interest rather than
been losing steadily the control Of the COUH- officials and military leaders, European broad common interest.
tryside. It-has failed to win the allegiance and American, to assess the major dif11- Europe clings to patterns of the past tie
-
of the peasants, who -are not only the Major- culties of the Western alliance, spite their failures and despite the need:. of
ity of the nation, but are the one and only I believe that every thinking Amen- a new age. The only break with tradition
source of military manpoWer. Today, the has been the successful Common Market. It
can should be concerned about the drift has brought an important measure of inte-
principal highways north and south, east and . di
west, have been cat by the Vietcong, and the and aivision in the policies of the West. gration to European economic life. Its prom-
cities Where our clients are holed up are be- Therefore, I ask unanimous consent ise of political unity, however, appears to
ing supplied by air and by-sea. The South that Mr. Ottenad's seven articles appear- have been stifflecl, at least for many years.
Vietnamese Army has net turrendered, but ing in the St. Louis Post Dispatch corn- One of the most deadly dangers facing
it has so little will to fight and has such a mencing the week of March 21 be printed the western alliance is the appearance of a
high rate of desertion that we can no longer i?...n the RECORD zu neo-nationalism in Europe and a neo-isola -
the ECORD at this point. tionism in America.
count on South Vietnamese soldiers even to
supply sentries for American airbases and There being no objection, the articles Officials in Europe agree almost unani-
installations, were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, mously that a tendency toward nationalistic
The basic character of the war has changed as follows: rivalries has stirred to life again after haying
radically since President Johnson inherited [From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch, laid dormant for many years. The principal
it from President Hennedy. 'ft used to be a Mar. 21,19651 blame is placed on French President Charles
war of the South Vietnamese assisted by the CRISIS OF CHANGE IN EUROPE: DIVISIVE IN- de Gaulle. His rejection of Great Britt.i/l'S
Americans; it is now becoming an American FLUENCES THREATEN ATLANTIC ALLIANCE-- application for membership in the Eureopean
war very inefficiently assisted by the Sotith HOPES FOR WESTERN EUROPEAN POLITICAL Economic Community in January 1963 blcily
Vietnamese. In fact, it would not be muchUNITY AND FOR CLOSER RELATIONS WITH damaged the fragile spirit of coopera tion
that was beginning to develop. His action
of an exaggeration to say that the South UNITED STATES FADE AS NATIONALISTIC
Vietnamese, who have good reason to be warRIVALRIES AND BALANCE-OF-POWER POLITICS has led to nationalistic retaliation by others.
Weary, are tending to sit on the sidelines INCREASEThe apparent awakening of a new isola-
while we, who have promised to "win" the tionist sentiment in the United States is
ow w
war, are allowed to show he can win it. (By Thomas W. Ottenad) equally worrisome. Mounting frustration
. Rum, MARCH 20.--The divisive crisis of over heavy responsibilities abroad could lead
NUMBERS NOT ENOUGH. change has spread a pall of uncertainty to demands that America sever its ties with
For a time the warhawks in this ,country over the Western alliance. On both sides of Europe. Some experienced observers believe
argued that a certain amount of bombing? the Atlantic powerful forces are at work, that De Gaulle's repeated attacks on the
a "clean" war in the air rather than a "dirty" tugging at the United States and Europe, United States are deliberately designed to
war on the ground?would do the trick. But threatening to wrench them apart and rais- fan this flame.
it has not done the trick. All wars, and ing fears for the future. Differences over Vietnam and America's
particularly civil wars, are won or lost on At stake are such vital issues as the exist- financial problem are causing serious friction
the ground. ence of the Atlantic community, the stability in the Western camp.
It is evident enough now that the South of Europe, the control of nuclear weapons America's escalation of the war in Vietnam
Vietnamese ground forces are unable and and the precariously peaceful balance of has been received cooly in Europe. The
Unwilling to fight the war effectively. They terror that now exists between the West and United States is charged with failing to con-
may have a superiority in numbers over the the Soviet Union. sult its allies about its action. At the game
Vietcong of 5 to 1. That is not nearly enough Torn by what may well be its most severe time, Europe has shown little interest in pro-
in guerrilla wars where a ratio of 20 or 50 to strain since World War II, the Western alli- viding greater assistance to the United States
1 is not always enough. And so we are being ance faces a disturbing challenge: Can Amer- in South Vietnam.
confronted with two dismal prospects. The ica and Europe maintain some kind of effec- In the financial field, concern over Amer-
first is the landing of Anierican soldiers for tive relationshipfor their mutual good or are lea's balance-of-payments deficit and gold
an interminable war on the grotind against they. going to drift apart into increasingly outflow has been aggravated by French ac-
the inexhaustible masses on the Asian con- independent courses regardless of the conse- tions that could affect the dollar. France
tinent. The second prospbct is the bombing quences1 has begun to convert an increasing percent-
of the populated cities in North Vietnam. For the past 9 weeks the Post-Dispatch age of its foreign currency reserves, together
This would bring down on US the opprobrium has been discussing this and related ques_ with all new dollar earnings, into gold.
of almost all the world and also the risk tions with government officials, diplomats. While there is little shortrun danger, the
that we would compel Russia and China to military leaders, businessmen, academicians action comes at an awkward time. The U.S.
join in opposing us. and others throughout Western Europe. The stockpile of gold has dropped below $15 bil-
Having staked our prestige on the outcome picture that emerges from these conversa- lion, and any large-scale demand for gold
of the civil war which is being lost in South tions, most of them off the record, is not an could be embarrassing.
Vietnam, we may find ourselves with a ehoiceA related source of disagreement is in-
encouraging one.
between the devil of defeat in South Viet- creased investment in Europe by American
It is plain that hopes for unifying Western
Viet-
nam and the deep blue sea of a much widerbusiness firms. Some European bus' ness-
Europe politically and allying it more closely
war in eastern Asia. That choice contd per-with the United States have been weakened men and others, fearful of American com-
haps be avoided if we remember in time thatpetition want the practice curbed.
in the past few years. Europe appears to be
when there is no military, solution to a con- turning once again in the direction of na- The Europe that is taking shape today is
filet, there must be negotiation to end it. tionalistic rivalries and balance-of-power a curious blend of the old and the new.
In such a' situation, only fools will go to the politics, which have proved to be disastrous The pattern of the past shows most clear-
brink arid over it. . in the past. ly in the political sphere. Throughout
\
rest guesses are that the Western alliance Western Europe there is general agreement
will not collapse. In time, however, it could that any hope for forming a United :States
tFECT OF NATIONALisn C POLI- become badly fragmented. Its defense mech- 'of Europe has been put off, perhaps indefin-
ES ON EUROPEAN tnsrrry AND anism, too, may be seriously weakened, es- itely, by De Gaulle's hostility. The French
LATIONS OF THE WESTERN pecially if the threat of French withdrawal leader opposes political integration and
WORLD from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization clings to Europe's tradition of independent
materializes, states linked loosely by treaties providing
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. in t
Presiden, only for consultation and coor dination.
,_ Conversations with Officials in Paris, Lon-
recent -StatementS I have expressed my don, Rome, Bonn, Geneva and Brussels lead This opposition has brought a sharp change
concern about the effects nationalistic to some rather unflattering observations in European attitudes.
policies were having on European unity about current European attitudes. For ex- A few years ago many thought Europe
and the relations of the Western World. ample, there is a preoccupation among some might at last be ready for political federa-
e - statesmen with scoring personal triumphs tion. Now the prevailing belief, even among
A firsthand retort from the European rather than with solving world problems. the most deeply committed federalists, is
capitals brings disturbing fresh-evidence Repeatedly one hears, "If such-and-such a that if there is to be any movement V, must
that this spirit of nationalism, darnag-be first in the direction advocated by De
policy prevails, it will be 'a victory for Prime
ing to the paramount hope for world Minister X, but if so-and-so happens, it will Gaulle.
peace, is nevertheless permeating the be a triumph for Prime Minister Y." Which In the field of defense policy, there is
countries of the Atlantic alliance, course is the better one seems of less interest, the same argument for a return to the past.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10.: CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
April 5, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 6729
De Gaulle opposes integration of military
forces. He wants to revise and loosen the
NATO alliance. Instead of a unified allied
defense, he favors individual military forces
under national control. His argument is
this sphere has not been as widely accepted
as his view on political unity.
Agricultural policy is another major area
in which Europe appears to be following the
path of yesterday. The Common Market
Is erecting high, protective tariff walls around
its farming community.
In contrast to these hangovers from the
past, the most dynamic thrust toward the
future is provided by the Common Market
itself. Except in agricultural matters, the
six-nation European Economic Community
has followed progressive, forward-looking
economic and trade policies. Since its es-
tablishment in 1958 it has become the most
powerful force working toward economic and
eventually political integration in Europe.
The treaty of cooperation adopted by
France and Germany in January 1963 rep-
resents a break with the past in one sense,
but also constitutes a potential hazard.
Many officials believe that Europe and the
world will benefit if these two ancient en-
emies can end their hostilities.
On the other hand, if the agreement leads
to a combined Franco-German effort to dom-
inate the Common Market, the EEC's goal of
a broader, integrated community may be
jeopardized. So far, the treaty, which calls
for efforts to reach common agreement on
foreign and defense policies and other mat-
ters, has produced few tanglible results.
Twenty years after World War II, Europe
remains a continent In transition. Its final
destination is far from clear. Some expe-
rienced diplomats fear that if it reverts to
the pattern of loose national alliances it will
never reach the goal of political union.
Others, however, are confident that it will
move on eventually.
One who remains optimistic about the
ultimate outcome is Dr. Walter Hallstein,
the respected president of the Commission
or executive agency of the Common Market.
In his office in Brussels, the cheerful Hall-
steins sounded like the university professor
he once was as he told the Post-Dispatch:
"We need patience, determination and the
willingness to advance in small steps. We
integrationists always have felt that a small
step, even a very small one, is better than
none."
He raised a warning finger and his face
became grave. "There is only one thing that
is out of the question," he said emphatically.
"That is that we should fail to reach deci-
sions and take action of some kind."
It is this pragmatic approach that is being
followed by those who hope to see Europe
move ahead. Under consideration by the
Common Market are separate but similaf
plans by Germany, Italy, and Belgium. All
all for expanded consultation among the six
EEC members and for the drafting of plans
Cor increased political union. The proposals
Ire expected to be discussed later, this year.
Any action, however, is likely to be extremely
Limited.
Perhaps the most explosive of all the im-
mediate issues facing the free world is a
bitter controversy over how to handle its
nuclear defenses. The dispute has far-
reaching ramifications, for it threatens not
Drily to split the Atlantic alliance but also
to endanger relations between the West and
the Soviet Union.
At the core of the argument is the multi-
lateral nuclear force proposed by the United
States. The plan contemplates creation of
an apied. etLef up to 25 surface ships
armed with Polaris nuclear missiles and
manned by mixed crews from participating
nations. It has been cooly received. Prin-
cipal supporters are Germany and Italy.
Principal opponents are France and Great
Britain.
Underlying the dispute is a serious dilem-
ma that the West has not yet solved. On
the one side, some experts believe that Ger-
many and other non-nuclear members of the
alliance may be tempted to break away and
seek atomic weapons of their own if they
are not given a larger voice in nuclear af-
fairs. On the other, creation of the MLF or
something like it may well antagonize the
Soviet Union, intensify the cold war and
jeopardize hope for reaching agreements on
disarmament and the control of nuclear
weapons.
The problem is aggravated by the highly
independent course followed by France,
which is developing its own nuclear striking
force. Critics assail the French policy as both
cynical and dangerous.
They point out that the principal purpose
of the small French force de frappe or strik-
ing force is to trigger American nuclear
power if the United States appears hesitant
to act. In conversation with the Post-Dis-
patch a French official conceded that this
was the purpose of the French force. He
thought it unlikely, however, that the actual
firing stage would ever be reached.
Those who fear the dangers of nuclear
proliferation are horrified by the French
attitude on this question. France argues
that, except for Germany, any nation tha
wants nuclear weapons and can produce them
should have them. In a bland dissent from
most opinion, a French official said his gov-
ernment saw little danger in expanding the
"nuclear club." He predicted that Japan,
India, Italy, and perhaps two or three other
nations would eventually develop nuclear
weapons.
EUROPE'S BIGGEST PROBLEMS
The difficulties confronting the 'United
States and Western Europe cover a wide
range. The major issues, their causes and
possible solutions will be discussed in sub-
sequent articles in this series. In summary,
the principal problems are:
Atlantic Alliance: Jeopardized by serious
disagreements, many of them stemming from
the intransigent attitudes of French Presi-
dent Charles de Gaulle.
Political union: Western Europe may never
achieve it; if it does, it may not be for 25 to
50 years.
Nuclear defense: No decision is likely this
year on the controversial multilateral nu-
clear force (MLF) proposed by the United
States.
Future of NATO: Serious trouble if France
withdraws, as expected, some time after 1969.
French policies: De Gaulle's concept of
loose national alliance appears to be politi-
cally unstable and militarily dangerous.
Britain's role: No interest in uniting with
the continent despite continuing economic
difficulties.
Germany: Many fear it may again become
a threat to peace if it is not kept tightly tied
within the Western alliance.
Agriculture: The Common Market's highly
protectionist policy promises difficulty for the
United States and others.
Kennedy Round Table negotiations: Mov-
ing slowly; sizable reductions are likely in
industrial tariffs, but agricultural levies are
a stumbling block.
The divisive tendencies in the Western al-
liance make little sense to those who favor
continued close relations between the
United States and Europe. Viewed objec-
tively, they say, a separation' would mean
more losses than gains for both partners.
For Europe it would mean the loss of
American military power, on which it relies
for its ultimate security. The extent of Eu-
rope's dependence was underscored by an al-
lied military leader who told the Post-Dis-
patch:
"There is no group of nations in Europe
that can provide adequate nuclear protec-
tion for themselves without American par-
ticipation and resources. Even if Britain is
included, there is no combination that can
mount the deterrent needed to hold the So-
viet Union in check."
For America the hazard of separation lies
in the possibility that an estranged Europe
might seek to play the United States against
the Soviet Union. Those who believe such
a development is possible point to De
Gaulle's long-standing determination to
make Europe a "third force" in world affairs.
Shortly before he returned to power in 1958,
the French leader wrote that his objective
was:
"To bring together the states along the
Rhine, the Alps and the Pyrenees into a
political, economic and strategic group?to
make of this organization one of the three
world powers and if necessary one day the
arbiter between the Soviet and Anglo-Saxon
camps."
In fairness to De Gaulle, it should be said
that even his critics believe he would not de-
sert the rest of the free world if a major
crisis developed between East and West.
The air of unease that envelops the West-
ern alliance is the outgrowth of a variety of
changes in world affairs in recent years. The
nations of Western Europe, nearly prostrate
after World War II, have regained economic
and military strength. Understandably, they
want a greater voice in international coun-
cils. They seek to end their dependence on
the United States.
At the same time, tensions between the
East and West have relaxed. The turning
paint may well have been the Cuban missile
crisis in October 1962. Since then the Com-
munist offensive against the West has eased
appreciably. The Soviet Union has been pre-
occupied with problems of its own?at home,
among the Communist satellites in Eastern
Europe and with Red China.
The military picture has changed drasti-
cally, too. Russia's formation of a power-
ful nuclear force ended America's monopoly.
The development of long-range missiles has
made it possible for both the United States
and the Soviet Union to strike directly at
each other, reducing the value of bases in
Europe.
The prospect of devastating retaliation,
however, has created a balance of terror. The
result is that fear of nuclear war has sub-
sided. Repeatedly a visitor in Western Eu-
rope hears this confident appraisal, "No one
is going to start a nuclear war unless it is
through accident or miscalculation."
These changes have thrown the Western
alliance, completely unprepared for it, into
a new era. Differences that were tempo-
rarily submerged in the face of common
danger and common need have come to the
surface again. Maneuvering for individual
advantage has resumed.
Since the end of World War II America
has sought to build a united and prosperous
Europe and to link it closely with the United
States to form a powerful combination in
world affairs. Now with Europe in transition
this basic policy is being tested.
Questioning voices are being raised, sug-
gesting that Europe need not unite. The
need for close relations with the United
States also is being reexamined. In some
quarters the concept is under sharp attack.
There are two major factors that may tend
to push Europe in the direction of greater
internal unity and continued cooperation
with the United States. One is the unifying
force of the Common Market. Its integrated
economic policies are exerting a powerful,
although indirect, influence toward eventual
political union.
The other factor is America's nuclear
power. Europe's clear realization that its
safety depends on U.S. military strength is a
strong deterrent to severing its ties with
America.
American and European diplomats with
whom the Post-Dispatch talked agree that
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
6730 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 5, 1965
the current, trying period calls for patience
and persistent effort if the Western alliance 1
is to be preserved. It also calls for excep-
tional American delicacy. For while Arneri-
can leadership is resented in many quarters
of Europe, informed officials say it is badly
needed. Without it, they warn, Europe still
seems incapable of making important de-
cisions.
In their Search for the future, the Western
allies are enjoying the luxury of dissent.
Divergent views, conflicting interests, rival
schemes create a babel.
The mood recalls the theme of the final-
volume of Sir Winston Churchill's history of
the Second World War: "Bow the great de-
mocracies triumphed and so were able to re-
sume the follies which had so nearly cost
them their life."
[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post -Dispatch,
Mar. 22, 196M
VISION OW UNITED EUROPE DIMS?DE GAVLIE
Thrives CHANGE WILL TAKE AT LEAST 50
YEARS?MANY EXPERTS tswever. Pi:zee:qv
SETUP IS UNSTABLE, MXLITARILT DANGEROVS?CALL IT THREAT TO PEACE
(By Thomas W. Ottenad)
PARIS, March 22.?Europe has turned its
face against the future.
The vision that has gleamed fitfully since
the end of the war, of a 'United States of
Europe, is growing dimmer. In its place
there shines again the old image of a Eu-
rope that is a loosely knit alliance of inde-
pendent and jealous nations.
This is regarded by some European lead-
ers as an extremely disquieting development,
fraught with grave risks. It may endanger
world peace, for many eXperts believe that
the kind of Europe which appears to he
emerging will be politically unstable and
militarily dangerous. Compounding the
hazard is the prospect that it may take half
a century before Europe can move on to a
more stable and rational order.
The fundamental question of how Europe
is to organize itself is one in a series of trou-
blesome issues facing the Western alliance.
Others include:
Difficulties in relations between the Unit-
ed States and Europe; a revival a the spirit
of nationalism ; the divisive effect of France's
independent actions; shanp differentes over
nuclear defense policy, and a threat by
France to withdraw from the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization.
Taken together, these problems constitute
one of the most severe internal strains the
Western allies have experienced. Borne diplo-
mats in Europe think it is even worse than
the Suez crisis in 1956 when Britain and
France split openly with the "United States.
Said one gloomily:
"The issues are more fundamental this
time. There are baSic disagreements over
how the Western Alliance should be orga-
nized and how it should function. If the na-
tions of Europe fail to integrate their Politi-
cal and defense policies, the alliance may
begin to break up. Europe may be split from
the United States and from the rest of the
World."
At the heart of the current controversy is
the question of whether the countries of Eu-
rope, after centuries of bickering and fight
-
lag, are at last ready to move toward a
political union in which individual differ-
ences are subordinated to the common good.
Or are they going to continue the tradftional
practices of patchwork alliances and power
politics?
In American terms the choice lies between
,the federalists and the States righters. In
European terms It is between the Eurocrats,
who have been working energetically' for a
United States of Europe, and the Oat:Mists,
or followers of Gen. Charles de Oaulle. The
French President is the chief exponent of a
policy of loose alliances.
The fight between these forces has swung
n favor of the Gaullists. A visitor who
travels through Western Europe talking to
diplomats, politicians, and others repeatedly
hears:
"Any hope for unifying Europe politically
has been put off for many years. If we are
to progress at all, the first step will have to
be nothing more than an alliance between
existing states. A true federation, if it ever
comes, can only develop later."
This attitude has been created chiefly by
De Gaulle. His uncompromising opposition
to unification in either the political or mili-
tary field has convinced even the Eurocrats
that federation is out of the question at
present.
This represents a fundamental change in
mood. After World War II there were many
Who believed that a new and unified Europe
not only must, but could be created. One
of the first was the late Sir Winston Church-
ill. In 1946 in a famous speech in Zurich
he said "we must build a kind of united
states of Europe."
Under the leadership of Churchill, Robert
Schuman, Jean Monnet, and others, a num-
ber of moves were made toward unifying Eu-
rope. In 1952 the European Coal and Steel
Community was established, creating a com-
mon market for coal, iron ore, and scrap
among France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, the
Netherlands, and Luxembourg.
In 1958 the same six nations joined in
forming the European Economic Community
and the European Atomic Energy Commu-
nity. These three organizations provided a
measure of supranational integration, chiefly
in the economic field. In the defense field,
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, set
up in 1949, provided limited unification in
military policies and operations.
The Eurocrats had won the first round
in the fight for Europe's future. There were
many who thought that Europe might soon
be able to move directly into political federa-
tion.
De Gaulle smashed that hope in January
1963 when he vetoed Britain's application
for membership in the Common Market.
Since then he has shown that he is willing
to go to almost any length to block the for-
mation of a political union.
"The second round in the battle has been
won by the Gatillists," a French official re-
marked accurately.
There is general agreement now that pros-
pects for achieving political unity in Western
Europe have been postponed for many years.
one of the best-informed sources in Europe,
a man who has been in the center of the
movement for unity since its start but who
asked that his name not be used, gave this
view: ,
f"Back at the very beginning some of us
made a private prediction. We thought it
would take about 40 years to complete the
drive for unification, to produce a true
United States of Europe with a federated
government and a popularly elected Euro-
pean Parliament.
"That was 15 years ago. So we have 25
years to go." He paused reflectively for a
moment. "Yes," he said decisively, "I still
think we can do it in another 25 years."
Other forecasts are less optimistic. De
Gaulle reportedly believes that it will be
50 years before Europe can begin even to
consider a federal union. He thinks it will
take that long to develop a feeling of "Euro-
peanis" which he regards as a prerequisite to
closepolitical cooperation.
Despite this discouraging outlook, those
who believe that Europe should unite are
trying to keep the spark alive. Plans aimed
at achieving a greater measure of political
integration have been put forward by Ger-
many, Italy, and Belgium. In essence, they
call for the six members of the Common
Market to consult regularly on foreign pol-
icy and other problems and to try to de-
velop a plan for some kind of political union.
These are timid schemes. No one expects
them to lead to political federation. They
are, in fact, not much more than warmed-
over versions of the old Fouchet plan This
proposal, which was advanced by De Gaulle
and was considered in 1961, was dropped
after other members of the Common Market
objected that it did not go far enough to-
ward political union.
The argument over European political or-
ganization is important to the Atlantic Alli-
ance because, in the judgment of some com-
petent students, it involves Western security.
They believe that the Gaullist approach has
such serious shortcomings that it is extreme-
ly hazardous.
"National alliance and balance of power
politics failed to preserve the peace in the
past," remarked one worried official. "In
a nuclear age they are even more hazardous."
Another critic warned that the De Gaulle
concept might encourage a revival of German
militarism. "The French approach," he said,
"is almost sure to weaken NATO or even
dissolve it. If that happens the German
Army, which is the most powerful in Western
Europe, might be set free from direct West-
ern control. The consequences of such an
event could be extremely dangerous for world
peace."
Of all the strains facing the Western Alli-
ance, one of the most severe stems from
the increasingly difficult problem of main-
taining close relations between the United
States and Europe. Differences have devel-
oped over a variety of issues.
The United States, for example, has sought
to have the prospering countries of Western
Europe take on a larger share of the bu -den
of foreign aid. It would welcome greater
European help, too, in critical trouble spots
like Vietnam. Although there has been some
response from Europe, it has fallen far short
of American hopes.
For their part, many Europeans want a
larger voice in Western defense councils.
They think that the Atlantic Alliance needs
revision. They feel also that the United
States is losing interest in Europe.
Other cgsagreements have arisen over tariffs
in negot5tions at the Kennedy round in
Geneva and over the agricultural policy of
the Common Market.
These and other developments have raised
serious doubt as to whether the long-sought
objective of closer transatlantic ties is any
longer a realistic goal. Some officials in Eu-
rope believe that a contemplated partnership
between the United States on the one side
and a cohesive Europe on the other cannot
be expected for many years. Even more re-
mote, in their view, is a tighter, interated
Atlantic union of the kind advocated by the
United States from time to time.
A well-informed American official in Paris
said, "I don't think we can expect to achieve
any partnership arrangement while De Gaulle
is in power. There has to be more European
unity before we can move in this direction.
Yet France blocks nuclear integration and
political union, the two developments that
would help to make a partnership possible."
Even Great Britain appears to have reser-
vations about an intimate Atlantic union,
despite its longstanding "special relation-
ship" with the United States. In London a
high-ranking foreign official made it plain
that this country regards as impractical and
unwise the kind of Atlantic "interdepend-
ence" that the late President John P. Ken-
nedy advocated in a speech on July 4, 1962.
Furthermore, there is a widespread belief
among Europeans that the United States is
not ready for a truly integrated Atlantic
union. The day for an Atlantic-"community
has not come," observed a Frensh diplomat.
"The United States in particular is not ready
to accept a system in which it would have to
relinquish some of its sovereignty."
Germany and Italy, the major pnapcnents
of European political union, also are the
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
April 5, 1965 Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 6731
strongest advocates of closer ties between
Europe and the United States.
A potentially grave problem for the West
ern alliance lies in the apparent reemergenc
of a spirit of nationalism among European
nations, Government officials and others
agree that this feeling, which created tension
in the 19th and early 20th centuries, is on
the rise again.
Of particular significance, sources in Bonn
concede that nationalistic sentiment in Ger-
many has increased in the last few years.
They offer some reassurance, however, to
those who wonder if this powerful, energetic
nation may again endanger world peace.
They say the sentiment has not taken the
aggressive form of the earlier German nation-
alism -that played an important part in bring-
ing on World Wars I and
Informed officials differ as to the im-
portance of the nationalistic feeling they see
in Europe. "I think it has become quite
serious," remarked one student of European
affairs. It has become increasingly evident
in fields like defense and foreign policy. De
Gaulle's constant harping on France's na-
tional prerogatives has led others to demand
equal national rights."
A French official offered a contradictory
view. He said, "The feeling of national exist-
ence and national awareness has increased
in recent years. But there hasn't been any
growth of the dangerous kind of nationalism
that all of us worry about." He disputed the
general view that De Gaulle's veto of Britain's
application for membership in the Common
Market caused the revival of national feeling.
Perhaps the best appraisal was given by an
expert in Brussels. "It really is too early to
tell how deeply this feeling runs," he ob-
served. "We don't know yet whether it is
just a passing phase or the beginning of a
new nationalistic era in Europe."
The strains that afflict the Western alli-
ance have been sharply intensified by the
highly independent course pursued by
France.
The overall effect of these policies, say De
Gaulle's critics, has been highly divisive He
has encouraged disunity among the Western
allies. His repeated attempts to reduce Amer-
ican influence in Europe jeopardize the basic
concept of Atlantic cooperation. His only
:oncern, say his detractors, is to increase
Prance's power and prestige regardless of the
:ost to the alliance.
In the final analysis, the varied problems
iressing on the Western allies pose the seri-
als question of whether they can find an
ffective way to provide for the security of
he world and the well-being of their peoples.
From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post Dispatch,
Mar. 23, 19651
ITLANTIC FILLIES STAY ON SIDELINES DESPITE
THREAT TO NATO POSED BY DE GAULLE'S
INTRANSIGENCE?SENSE OF URGENCY FOUND
LACILINCr?NUCLEAR FORCE DISPUTE PERSISTS
AS STRONG U.S. LEADERSHIP IS AWAITED
(By Thomas W. Ottenad)
PARIS, March 23.?In Bonn a German of-
itcial seemed remarkably unconcerned about
the danger that France might withdraw
'rom the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
"We should not worry too soon about
;hat," he remarked, with a wave of the hand.
'It's probably just a threat. Besides, noth-
ing is likely to happen for several years."
In Rome an Italian diplomat was equally
casual about the deep split in the Western
alliance over nuclear defenses. "It's up to
Britain and the United States to solve the
problem," he said.
But neither Britain nor the United States
Is moving forcefully.
In London a British official observed, "We
might be just as happy if nothing at all were
clone about nuclear defenses," And in Paris
an American representative at NATO head-
quarters said, "We're maintaining our inter
est, but the next move is up to our allies."
- A visitor who travels through Wester
e Europe talking with government leafier
military officials, and others comes away wit
a clear impression that the Western allianc
appears to be drifting idly while major de
fense problems pile up.
Although both the alliance itself and th
balance in East-West relations may be af
fected, there is no discernible sense o
urgency in either the United States or West-
ern Europe about common military difficul-
ties. On both sides of the Atlantic it is al-
most as if everyone was waiting for someone
else to make the first move.
There is disagreement as to whether this
lack of action is wise. Some informed offi-
cials think a cooling-off period is needed
because of sharp differences of view. Others
fear that the pause will provide an opening
for France to push forward with its anti-
Amen
- able French diplomat told the Post-Dis-
patch:
n "Basically, we object to the military inte-
, gration that NATO provides. We think the
h system should be revised so that each nation
e is responsible for its own defense. Of course,
- there would be consultation and coordina-
tion, perhaps even a commander in chief and
e a skeleton staff for emergencies."
- This official insisted that France would
1 maintain a defense alliance with the West
even if France withdrew from the operating
structure of NATO. Many military experts
believe, however, that the loose military ar-
rangement advocated by the French is in-
adequate for the needs of a nuclear age.
The nuclear controversy confronting the
Western alliance centers largely on the mul-
tinational force proposed by the United
States. This plan, which calls for a new
allied fleet of 25 nuclear-armed surface ships
manned by mixed crews from participating
nations, has not been received enthusiasti-
cally.
Its principal supporters are Germany and
Italy. France opposes it. Britain has pro-
posed an alternative Atlantic Nuclear Force.
Broader in scope, the British plan would in-
clude manned bombers and land-based mis-
siles and would eliminate or downgrade the
multinational concept.
The nuclear issue appears stalled at pres-
ent. The principal reason is that the Ger-
mans are reluctant to act until after their
national elections next September.
Other major factors in the delay are cool-
ness in Britain, together with the possibility
of an election there this year, and a sharp
switch in the American attitude. The United
States, which last year was pushing strongly
for early approval of the multinational force,
is following a new tack. It started last De-
cember when President Johnson ordered an
end to American pressure, in effect putting
the next step up to Britain and Germany.
Conversations with European representa-
tives indicate that they are reluctant to move
Without strong American leadership. The
views of many Europeans were expressed by
a German official who told the Post-Dispatch:
"It is absolutely essential that the United
States enter the process more actively very
soon. It is impossible for Europe to make
a decision by itself when this is such an
American project and the United States plays
rolesuch an important in t.
Mr. Johnson has not indicated whether he
intends to reassert American leadership.
There are hints, however, from American
officials in Europe that the United States is
maintaining a discreet but active interest in
the project.
They deny emphatically that America has
abandoned the multinational concept. Al-
though there is a widespread belief in Europe
that "MLF is dead," many well-informed
sources are convinced that a compromise will
be reached eventually.
They think a solution can be found by
adopting a modification of the border British
scheme and including in it the multinational
surface fleet advocated by the United States.
"I know the British say they will not par-
ticipate in the MLF," observed a diplomat
with long experience in European affairs.
'But I think they would join if they were
offered the opportunity to get in without
any cost other than contributing, say, 500
ailors to the multinational crews."
There are strong indications that an ar-
=gement of this type might be acceptable
to Germany. Officials in Bonn said repeatedly
hat they see "room for a compromise" in
he British position.
The basic U.S. objective of integrating its
military forces with those of Europe for the
om.rnon defense of the West is under ques-
ion today.
With De Gaulle as the leading spokesman,
divisive doctrine is being pushed. It would
campaign.
The military issues facing the Western
Allied are difficult ones: a controversy over
the organization of nuclear armaments; the
danger that France may get out of NATO;
demands for an overhaul of the NATO struc-
ture; the need for nuclear missiles to replace
manned bombers that are becoming obso-
lete, and friction between Greece and Tur-
key, the guardians of NATO's southeastern
flank.
By far the most troublesome are the
French attack on NATO and the nuclear
dispute. Each has caused heavy strain. Un-
less skillfully dealt with, either could wreck
the Western alliance.
European officials agree that no decisive
action is likely soon on either issue.- There
is a belief that the problem of organizing
the West's nuclear defenses will not be taken
up again in any serious fashion before the
end of 1965 or early in 1966. As for the
NATO question, no steps are likely until
France actually moves to leave the alliance,
a development that may come 4 years from
now.
The French threat to withdraw is the cli-
max of a continuing attack on NATO that
goes back at least to 1958. Gen. Charles de
Gaulle, who was then premier, resented not
being consulted when Britain and the United
States dispatched troops to Jordan and Leb-
anon. In September of that year he pro-
posed a drastic reorganization of NATO
His plan called for additional French rep-
resentation in the NATO command structure.
It contemplated also a three-power director-
ate composed of France, Britain, and the
United States to consider far-reaching polit-
ical questions. When his scheme failed to
make any headway, he announced that
France would oppose the system of NATO
financing under which each country makes
contributions to the Organization in propor-
tion to its wealth.
Since then, De Gaulle's record of anti-
NATO actions has grown rapidly. He refused
to allow American missile bases and stock-
piles of 'U.S. nuclear weapons for NATO
forces to be placed in France. He declined
to put the French Mediterranean fleet under
NATO control. In 1963 he withdrew from
NATO 19 French vessels assigned to defend
the English Channel. Today France has
only two army divisions in NATO, the small-'
est active contribution of any major member
of the alliance.
The French attack now includes a demand
for reorganization of NATO, together with a r
veiled but not very subtle threat to with-
draw from the military organization. The t
general belief among European experts is t
that if France does decide to get out, the
move will come in 1969, when the NATO
treaty becomes open to renunciation.
Although De Gaulle has not specified how t
he wants NATO reorganized, the outlines of
the Frelleh position are clear. A knowledge- a
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300160006-6
673'2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
April 5, 1965
rely on America for ultimate support but mending that the multinational force be in- are convinced that it is not the best way to
wduld place immediate responsibility for Eu- eluded in any nuclear defense scheme that protect peace. They see it as nothing more
ropean security in European hands. may be worked out by the allies, than a revival of the nineteenth century pat-
De Granite would like to see Western Europe Under the pressure of conflicting military tern of unstable power pacts.
organize its defenses around the French nu- policies, the NATO organization today faces "We mistook this approach for statesman-
clear deterrent, the force de frappe. So far, one of the gravest tests it has endured since ship once before," remarked one skeptic, ' All
however his neighb have shown little in- the North Atlantic Treaty was signed in it proved to be was a path to near suicide
, ors Washington A ril 4 1949 Unless the differ- Critics see much to worry about in actions
tenet in this idea.
"Why should we?" asked one German offie ences are resolved, the alliance could be frag-
cial rather caustically. "De Gaulle intends mented, perhaps even broken up,
to retain full control of his force without The results would be both serious and far-
giving anyone else a voice in it. We would be reaching. Warned one high-ranking allied
completely dependent on him." military officer, "If NATO collapses, there will
Scene skeptics question hether the other be a mad scramble by many nations to estab-
nations of Western Europe could rely on lish their own independent nuclear forces,
France to come to their defense in all circum- The nuclear race will be on in deadly
stances. They point out that De Gaulle's rec- earnest." es
ord is one of intransigent independence ?
that shows little concern for others. "What [From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch,
assurance is there that he would use his nu- Mar. 24, 1965]
clear weapons to defend the rest of US?" DE GAULLE TRIES To MAKE FRANCE LEADER OF
asked one European critic. EUROPE ST CREATING FALSE IMAGE Or IT AS
The puny size of the French force, corn- GREAT POWER?Hz ANTAGONIZES FRIENDS AS
pared with American might, makes the idea WELL AS ENEMIES, CAUSES SERIOUS DISSEN-
even more unattractive to many Europeans. sane IN WESTERN ALLIANCE
Informed sources say the force de frappe now (By Thomas W. Ottenad)
censists of fewer than 20 bombers, each carry-
ing a relatively small 80-kiloton bomb. PARIS, FaeNce.?Gen. Charles de Gaulle is
Later, it is expected to reach a total of 50 the powerful magnifying glass through which
planes or more. American experts say that
France sees itself and its role in world ,,
at-
most of the French fleet could be destroyed fairs.
before reaching its targets by the Soviet The image that the imperious French lead-
SAM-3 missile, designed especially to bring er holds up is one in which France glitters
down low-flying planes. grandly as a mighty world power, but the
In time the French bombers are to be re-
reality behind the reflection is far less im-
placed with missiles and nuclear-armed pressive.
sub-
marines. The French hope to have by 1970
On any scale of power, France is not all
a nuclear arsenal equaling 2,000 times the that De Gaulle would make it seem to be.
power of the first atomic bomb dropped
Big by European standards, it is nonetheless
on
smaller than Texas. Its nuclear arsenal?
more than 40 percent of the nuclear stockpile Hiroshima. Belt this total anion/its to no
sarcastically dubbed the farce de frappe by
its critics?is small and of doubtful effec-
the United States has in Germany alone.
tiveness. There is no longer an oversee
small And there are big domestic needs the United States has a rather hollow ring
such as substandard schools,and housing. in military terms, for it is clear that he is
Yet none of these shortcomings prevents relying on United States power to protect
De Gaulle from acting as if France were the France.
equal of the Soviet Union and the United This was made plain in a debate in the
taken by DeGaulle in the six years he nas
been in power. Their dossier begins with his
veto in January 1963 of Great Britain's ap-
plication for membership in the Common
Market. This action, many Europeans agree,
has had incalculable effects in slowing a
movement toward political union and in re-
viving a dangerous spirit of nationalism.
France frequently has exerted a divisive in-
fluence by following policies contrary to
those of its allies. Thus it is the only major
nation besides Communist China Uiat re-
fused to sign the limited nuclear test ban
treaty in 1963. In addition to Red China,
it is the only principal country not pareici-
pating in disarmament negotiations in Ge-
neva. Like Russia, it has refused to pay its
share of the cost of United Nations peace-
keeping operations in the Congo.
France is the only Western nation to ex-
tend diplomatic recognition to Red China
since the Korean War. It has made the
American position in the Far East more diffi-
cult by opposing the war in Vietnam. Like
Russia, France has proposed neutralizatic n of
Southeast Asia.
The French have shown marked cordiality
to the Communist bloc. A five-year trade
agreement recently concluded with the Soviet
Union will provide long-term credits for the
Russians. Similar agreements have been
made or are in the offing with other Soviet
satellites. France has a trade pact with
North Viet Nam also.
De Gaulle's insistence that France and
To practical Europeans, the American g empire. Both the economy and army are
are impressive. Europe must be completely independent of
European officials repeatedly indicated that
they preferred to rely on the United States
for their ultimate defense. Many would like
a stronger voice in joint defense matters,
leading eventually perhaps to a veto over the
use of American nuclear' weapons. An ar-
rangement of this type has been suggested by
some American officials as a desirable goal.
Generally, however, they have recommended
that a greater degree of European political
unity must be achieved first.
Germany occupies a key position as the
West wrestles with military problems.
Under the Paris agreements of 1954 making
it a member of NATO, Germany renounced
the right to manufacture nuclear weapons
although not the right to employ them.
German officials as well as other competent
observers in Bonn say the nation has no
interest in obtaining Control of nuclear
weapons. They warn, however, that this
sentiment, could change. The best way to
forestall such a possibility, in their judg-
ment, is to give Germany a larger voice in
nuclear affairs in the Western alliance. This
is the principal purpose of the proposed
multinational force.
France is exerting heavy pressure in an
effort to kill German support for the multi- wants U.S. troops and weapons removed. He
national force. It has warned that partici- sentiment among the Frencla public.
opposes the North Atlantic Treaty Organize-
nation in the multinational fleet would Jeop- tion and the Multilateral Nuclear Force pro- If France has its way, Europe's relations
ardize chances for German reunification with the United States will be made as (Us-
' posed by the United States. He is hostile to
The French have also threatened that any American investment in Europe. He has tent as possible short of an actual break.
hope of European political unification, which adopted financial policies that might seri- One of the clearest expositions of De Gaulle's
Germany strongly supports, would be weak- views came in a television address to the
ened if the multinational force is set up. ously affect the dollar.
The second hallmark of French policy is nation last New Year's eve.
These are potent threats, but the Germans insistence on the sovereignty and primacy of Pronouncing a "declaration of indepen-
say they Will not be frightened off. "We will the individual European state. France favors dence" from the United States, he aeserted
not change our position despite France's op- a scheme of loose political alliances, provid-
that "we intend to be our own =eters."
position," an official in Bonn said firmly. ing for consultation and co-ordination, but France, he said, would reject any supra-
"Wee have a right to demand a voice in leaving each nation free to do as it pleases. national, multilateral or Atlantic ystem.
nuclear affairs. It opposes any effort at present toward po- He has argued repeatedly that anything but
"We believe in an integrated, suprana- litical federation in Europe. the most distant relationship will inevitably
tinned defense organization. And we are Although De Gaulle frequently is given bring Europe under domination by the United
ready to fight for our beliefs." credit for special preworld affairs, critics be- States.
Like the Germans, officials in Italy indi- lieve that his philosophy of national alli- "The most disturbing factor about De
eated that they, too, will remain firm in de- ances is anachronistic and dangerous. They Gaulle's attitude," remarked one American
States. A master of the iron-nerved bluff,
he has used his considerable intelligence, ex-
perience and Gallic shrewdness to try to
push his nation into a dominant position in
world affairs.
Apparently as heedless of friends as of
enemies, he has followed an increasingly in-
dependent, intransigent and sometimes ca-
pricious course. French policies frequently
have been tangential, or even in direct op-
position, to those of other Western nations.
The 74-year-old French leader has clashed
sharply with the United States, antagonized
other friendly countries and caused serious
dissension in the Western alliance. His ac-
tions have blocked hopes for political union
in Western Europe and, say some critics, may
even jeopardize world peace.
His objective is clear. It is to make France
the leader of Western Europe and to make
Europe a "third force" between the United
States and the Soviet Union.
To do so he seeks, first of all, to reduce
American influence in Europe. Thus he
French National Assembly last December.
Arguing the need for France's independent
nuclear deterrent, Prime Minister Georges
Pompidou nonetheless conceded the limita-
tions of the small force de frappe. It would
be "quite insufficient for achieving ultimate
victory," he remarked, and therefore "the
alliance remains a necessity." In blunter
language, this means that from a military
standpoint French independence is a myth.
Relations between France and the *United
States are, in the view of many experts in-
terviewed by a Post-Dispatch reporter in a
9-week trip through western Europe, at one
of their lowest points. There are wide dif-
ferences on fundamental issues ranging from
Vietnam and the Congo to defense policy
and the future of Europe and the Western
alliance.
A French official conceded that there was a
deep cleavage between France and America,
but suggested that perhaps the low point had
been passed. Other observers are encour-
aged by a sharp decline in anti-American
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Jpril 5, 1965 Approved Fe451?ediaesENE/a6IMDPROA0H6R000300160006-6
lplomat, "is that he misinterprets our poll-%
ies. This is particularly true when he
rgues that the United States seeks to dein-
nate Europe and when he questions the
Megrity of our promises to defend trie na-
tions of Europe."
Another American official questioned the
sincerity of De Gaulle's argument that Amer-
ica might fail to respond to a threat to
Europe. "This is just a rationalization to
support his claim that France must have
its own independent nuclear force," this
source remarked.
In its relations with its neighbors, France
is out of step on the question of European
political union. .Of the six members of the
Common Market, experts say, only France
opposes political federation. De Gaulle re-
fuses to accept any movement toward politi-
cal integration through the Common Market.
He insist that its method of integrating na-
tional policies into a larger, common frame-
work works only in the economic field.
As a pattern for the looser arrangements
they favor in the political field, the French
point to the treaty of cooperation they ne-
gotiated with Germany in January 1963. Sig-
nificantly, even French officials concede that
the pact has not worked well. Yet they argue
that the same consultative approach could
be used successfully on a broader, more diffi-
cult scale involving much of western Europe.
France's relations with Germany have
cooled noticeably in the year and a half since
Konrad Adenaur, De Gaulle's close friend,
bowed out as Chancellor. The two countries
have been at odds over the proposed MLF,
the level of grain prices in the Common Mar-
ket and tariff policy.
The atmosphere improved somewhat last
December when Germany agreed to a sched-
ule of grain prices for the Common Market.
A month later De Gaulle and Chancellor Lud-
wig Erhard held an amiable meeting. De
Gaulle agreed to Erhard's request for new
discussions concerning German reunification
and EuroPean political union. So far as
could be be learned, however, the agreement
did not involve the substance of either diffi-
cult issue; it was only a decision for further
discussions.
Among the few who have the opportunity
to talk to De Gaulle, there is general agree-
ment as to how he views East-West relations.
These sources say the French leader believes
that both the Eastern and Western blocs have
lost some of their cohesiveness with the eas-
ing of world tensions in recent years. As the
troubled waters recede, De Gaulle is casting
about every device, including bluffs and
threats, in an effort to enhance France's
position.
He is convinced that the Communist bloc
Is slowly changing, moving gradually toward
a more peaceful posture externally and
toward greater freedom internally. Through
this kind of development, he is said to be-
lieve, an overall European settlement may
eventually be achieved. The reunification
of Germany in turn depends on a solution
to broader European problems. In the
Guallist view, neither will be attained for
many years to come.
The French people pride themselves on
their realism and logic, yet to American ears
some of their arguments on international
Issues have an incredible ring.
One of the most illogical sounding is their
thesis that America seeks to dominate Eu-
rope. If the United States wanted to subju-
gate Europe, it could easily have done so af-
ter World War LI, when Europe was nearly
prostrate, say critics of the French view.
Equally difficult to follow is their rationale
on. the dangers of nuclear proliferation.
They profess to see little hazard in the de-
velopment of additional nuclear forces. But
at the same time hy complain that the
proposed MLF would involve dissemination
, No. 60-20
of nuclear weapons and is therefore
dangerous.
Most astonishing of all was the argument
against NATO advanced by one highly intel-
ligent French diplomat. Be said that French
officers lose their sense of national identity
when thrown into NATO's integrated com-
mand structure. Yet, he said, the same
thing does not seem to happen to American
or British military men.
Difficult ally though he is. De Gualle has
made immense contributions to his country's
well-being. In the 1940's as leader of the
Free French forces he helped his people
regain their self-respect after their country
had been overrun and occupied by Germany.
In the 1950's he brought the bloody and dis-
astrous Algerian war to a close.
Since his election as President in 1958,
France has enjoyed a period of political sta-
bility far different from the governmental
chaos that had prevailed for so long. A
nation that seemed on the verge of civil war
only a few years ago now appears remarkably
tranquil. France has also enjoyed rising
prosperity marred only by inflation.
De Gaulle is expected to seek his second
consecutive term as President in elections
late this year, probably in December. Po-
litical observers agree that he is almost cer-
tain to be elected, for there is no effective
political opposition. The outcome of the
election could be influenced by a recession
that appears to be developing.
Most experts in Paris doubt that De Gaulle
will serve out another full 7-year term. They
believe that he will resign, perhaps after
calling for a constitutional amendment to
create the new position of Vice President.
Prime Minister Pompidou is regarded as the
most likely heir-apparent.
De Gaulle underwent a prostate operation
last spring. Since then he has shown little
difficulty in carrying the burdens of his of-
fice despite his advanced age. Last Septem-
ber he made a 20,000-mile trip through Latin
America, visiting 10 countries and making
about 50 speeches.
Even if De Gaulle should die in office, most
experts doubt that there will be a political
upheaval of the type that might have oc-
curred a few, years ago. They regard as
entirely unlikely any move by the military
to seize power, or development of a dictator-
ship of either the right or left. The selec-
tion of a successor will be made in orderly
fashion, they say. They warn, however, that
this rosy outlook could change if a severe
economic collapse should occur.
Qualified observers here are convinced that
De Gaulle's international policies have broad
support, or at least, acceptance, among the
French people. They doubt that there will
be any sudden or dramatic change in French
programs after he leaves the presidency. The
tone may become more moderate, but the
basic philosophy is likely to remain much
the same, said one expert.
"De Gaulle has more political stature than
any French leader since Napoleon. The leg-
acy of his political thinking is likely to
remain for a long time," he said.
[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch,
Mar. 25, 19051
AGR/CULTURAL TARIFFS POSING PRINCIPAL
STU1VIDLING BLOCK IN TRADE TALKS AT
GENEVA?EUROPEANS HOPE MAJOR CUTS IN
INDUSTRIAL DUTIES WILL OFFSET LACK OF
PROGRESS ON FARM GOODS
(By Thomas W. Ottenad)
PAR/S, March 25.?In an 18th century Swiss
villa looking out on the snow-covered Alps
a European trade expert leaned forward in
his chair.
"Progress in the Kennedy round is slow,"
he remarked. "The big stumbling block is
agricultural tariffs. They probably will not
6733
be cut by very much. Industrial duties,
however, are likely to be reduced substan-
tially."
This hopeful but cautious view of the com-
plicated trade negotiations
Geneva is widely shared in Europe. As the
Kennedy round moves into a critical stage,
two other basic facts also have become clear:
The United States apparently has written
off most hope of winning major concessions
on agricultural trade from the European
Economic Community, or Common Market.
Its hopes now rest with other nations.
A highly protective trade policy that is
developing in the Common Market will en-
able it virtually to exclude foreign farm
goods at will.
The discussions at Geneva, the largest,
most ambitious trade negotiations ever un-
dertaken, are named for the late President
John F. Kennedy. Mr. Kennedy sponsored
the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 that made
the Kennedy round possible.
More than 40 countries are participating
in the negtoiations that seek to liberalize
and expand trade among the 64 nations that
are members of the General Agreement of
Tariffs and Trade (GATT). Negotiators are
trying to make reciprocal cuts of up to 50
percent in tariffs and to lower other barriers
to world trade. Thousands of industrial and
agricultural products are involved.
The Kennedy round has been underway
since May 1963. So far, no final, major re-
sults have been achieved. Most of the time
has been spent in discussing how to nego-
tiate, rather than in actual bargaining.
Prospects are that it will be at least another
year before the job is completed.
The present atm,osphere in. Geneva is dis-
turbed and uneasy. European nations are
unhappy about a number of American poli-
cies, including a 100-percent increase in tar-
iffs on glass and carpets.
The United States is worried about Euro-
pean barriers to agricultural trade. Great
Britain's 15-percent surcharge on most im-
ports caused widespread ill will, although
this condition should be remedied somewhat
later this month when the levy is to drop by
one-third. Uncertainty over political rela-
tions between the United States and Europe
also affects the negotiations.
Despite hazards, knowledgeable officials
such as W. Michael Blumenthal believe the
Kennedy round can be carried through to a
successful conclusion. The 39-year-old econ-
omist who heads the American negotiators
at Geneva, told the Post-Dispatch:
"We already have offers of industrial tariff
cuts that e better than anything ever
achieved before." While Blumenthal gave
no figures, most experts expect the Kennedy
round to produce reductions in industrial
tariffs averaging 30 to 35 percent.
This would be far short of the original
goal of a 50-percent cut across the board.
Nonetheless, it would undoubtedly be the
most important international tariff reduction
ever made. By way of comparison, the "Dil-
lon round" completed in 1962 produced a
cut variously estimated at 4 to 8 percent in
American tariffs and covered only one-fifth
of the Nation's trade.
The agricultural half of the Geneva nego-
tiations is far less promising.
"It is the toughest part of the negotia-
tions," remarked Blumenthal. "We will just
have to wait and see what the EEC offers."
Any cuts that may be achieved are likely
to be smaller than those on industrial goods.
Some experts fear that the agricultural con-
troversy might even wreck the conference.
The more general belief, however, is that a
solution will be found that will avoid a
breakup.
Although the Kennedy round is concerned
immediately with commercial trade policy,
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP671300446R000300160006-6
6734 CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD ? SENATE April 5, 19,36
it has other far-reaching implications. Tt is June 30, 1962, U.S. sales under these pro- 8 percent of dutiable industrial imports, with
a challenge with important potential bene- visions amounted to $470 million, an additional 11 percent excluded from the
fits, It is, in essence, a test of the ability The EEC plan calls also for world conunod- current negotiations. The EEC puts its total
of Western Europe and the United States to ity agreements to stabilize prices on grains, at 19 percent.
cooperate. If they can succeed it Geneva, beef, and some other products. The United Negotiation on the exceptions list will in
they may have a better chance for reach- States is amenable to this idea. It has, in volve tough bargaining. Final agreement
ing common decisions on broader and more fact, proposed a world grains agreement, which will, in effect, determine the size cc.
difficult questions like trade with the Corn- but wants it to include guarantees for shar- the average reduction in industrial tariffs, is
munist bloc and relations with the less de- ing markets. not expected for some time.
veloped nations of the world. In defense of the MDS officials of the COM- A long list of other problems remains to
Failure would be another serious blow to mon Market say that a new concept is be dealt with in the negotiations, but none
the concept of transatlantic partnership, al- needed in dealing with agricultural trade, is regarded as insuperable. The most im-
ready undergoing severe buffeting in the They say subsidies and other elements of portant include:
fields of defense policy and political rela.- support must be considered, as well as tariffs. Providing tariff concessions to less-de vel-
tions. It might also put in jeopardy the They believe that binding all these compo- oped countries without demanding full
continued existence of GATT, the major in- nents under a GATT agreement would be a reciprocity; handling "disparities," or cases
ternational organization dealing with tariffs progressive step because it would prohibit in which there are wide differences beta een
and trade problems, any country from making unilateral changes tariffs levied by two countries on the same
The final outcome of the Kennedy round in its support levels. They argue also that product; reducing nontariff barriers to
will turn largely on whether a solution can freezing farm supports at their present rates trade, and dealing with an effort by some
be found in the next few critical months would, in effect, amount to a reduction be- Western European nations to have cla ties
to the serious agricultural problem now fac- cause it would halt the increases that have on steel and Iron exempted from the gen-
ing negotiators at Geneva. occurred in recent years. eral 50-percent cut.
The task is a difficult one, compounded by Under questioning, however, EEC spokes- Heartening progress has been made within
domestic political and sociological considera- men concede that the MDS and a related the last week on several issues. An agree-
tions which are involved in the farm problem variable levy system already being used on ment has been worked out to admit two
on both sides of the Atlantic. There are some farm imports into the Common Market Soviet satellites, Poland and Czechoslovc.lcia,
deep and fundamental differences between will not improve access to EEC markets for to the Geneva negotiations. A plan has also
the United States and the Common Market, other nations. They acknowledge also that been developed under which poorer nations
the largest traders in the negotiations. their plans will make price competition dif- of the world will be asked merely to offer
As the world's leading exporter of agricul- ficult for outsiders, will boost farm produc- some "contribution to the objectives of the
tural products, the United States wants freer tion within the Common Market, and may trade negotiations" in exchange for tariff
access to the markets. of the EEC and other reduce their purchases of American corn- concessions from wealthier countries.
big importers of farm goods. It wants prOtec- modities. ii,c-T on the difficult agricultural issue,
dye trade barriers lowered and would even Although the United States so far has re- agreement has been reached for submitting
like a guaranteed share of foreign markets. fused to accept the MDS, some officials in initial offers affecting farm trade by April 26.
In contrast, the EEC has an extremely Geneva think its position is softening. In- The first proposals are to deal with grains.
backward and inefficient farm industry. Al- formed sources suggest that America may At the request of the EEC,- plans affecting
though it has only 46 million acres of land eventually agree to a variation of the MDS other agricultural products will not be out-
under cultivation, or one-tenth the American as the basis for an accord on grains and re- lined until next fall.
total, it has twice as many farmworkers. hated products. The next few months will be crucial in de-
Leaders of the EEC believe protection is Those in a position to know believe that termining Whether the Kennedy round can
needed to encourage modernization of agri- the United States is ready to give up its move on to a successful conclusion. There
cultural methods and to cope with political original hopes of gaining a larger portion may be trouble if the Common Market's farm
. pressure exerted by the European farm bloc, of the EEC farm market through the Geneva offers, expected to be based on MDS, do not
These considerations underlie a con- negotiations. Instead, its principal objec- contain some liberalizing element.
troversial agricultural trade formula which tive now is said to be to hold its present The United States appears firm in is
the Common Market has advanced at Geneva. share, amounting to annual sales of about ing that any agricultural plan must -meet
Known as the "Montant de Soutien," (MDS) $1.1 billion, the basic objective agreed to by all partici-
or "amount of support," the proposal is This development would force the United pants in the Kennedy round last May. This
highly technical. In simplest terms its States to look elsewhere for increased farm calls for providing "acceptable conditions of
essence is this: sales to meet its often-stated objective of access to world markets for agricultural prod-
The margin of support provided for farm achieving improvement in both agricultural ucts in furtherance of a significant develop-
products by each country would be corn- and industrial trade in the Kennedy round. ment and expansion of world trade."
puted and then frozen at its present level. It appears likely that this will be the strategy American negotiators have said that the
This amount, plus a variable surcharge when of American negotiators at Geneva. original /NODS plan did not meet this goal.
necessary, would be added to the price of It has been learned that in their The agricultural problem is one of two
cheaper farm imports. In the case of corn- efforts to boost 'U.S. farm trade, American major hazards that could cause the Kennedy
modities entering the EEC from the United negotiators are counting on gaining tariff round to fail.
' States, this would increase the lower import concessions from such countries as Japan, The other is the possibility that French
prices at least to the level of the Common Canada, and the United Kingdom. These President Charles de Gaulle might blow up
Market's relatively high-priced domestic three nations are important markets for the negotiations. Many observers c.oubt
farm products or perhaps a little higher. American farm commodities. In 1963 they that France wants a major success at Geneva.
American criticism of the MDS was purchased $1.7 billion worth of agricultural They believe that De Gaulle might t:y to
summed up succinctly by one negotiator in products from the United States, or about torpedo the conference if he thinks that
Geneva, who said, "It is highly protective. It half a billion more than was bought by the such a move would aid his campaign to in-
creates an autarchial system. It aims at Common Market. crease French influence in world affairs.
producing as much as possible inside the The Post-Dispatch learned that at least "I don't really think he will do it," said
EEC under a system of complete price one of the three, the United Kingdom, ex- one informed expert who reflected the views
protection." pects to offer substantial concessions on agri- of many. "But nobody except De Gaulle
"It prohibits price competition because no cultural trade to the United States at ever knows what he may do."
matter how cheaply an importer can pro- Geneva.
duce, the import levy would make it impos- Although industrial negotiations in the [From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post-Dispatch,
Bible for him to underbid European pro- Kennedy round have moved far more rapidly Mar. 26, 19651
ducers." than those affecting agriculture, they, too, LABOR'S PROGRAM FOR BRITAIN IS H013BL RD BY
American negotiators are disturbed par- remain far from completion. Negotiators TENUOUS HOLD IN PARLIAMENT AND TRADI-
ticularly by the possibility that the MDS now are at work on the crucial job of re- TION?DRASTIC MODERNIZATION SAID TO BE
concept might replace more favorable tariff ducing the size of so-called exceptions Has NEEDED re COUNTRY IS TO MAINTAIN STATUS
arrangements now in effect. At present presented last November 16 by the United IN NUCLEAR AGE
GATT guarantees enable a number of States, the EEC, Japan, and members of the (By Thomas W. Ottenad )
American agricultural commodities to enter Eurogean Free Trade Association. The lists Prins, March 26.?In London's Trafalgar
the Common Market either duty free or sub- consist of items that would be excluded Square an astute student of British affairs
ject to fixed tariffs ranging up to 28 percent. wholly or in part from the general, 50 per- glanced at the statute of Lord Nelson, hero
Under flied rates, low-cost foreign producers cent tariff cut that forms the working hypo- of the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805 and a
can compete with domestic goods, a possi- thesis for the Geneva negotiations. symbol of the lost age when Great Retain
bility that would be virtually foreclosed un- Of all major trading nations, the United dominated much of the world.
der a system of variable duties. Kingdom presented the shortest list of ex- "The British," he said, "still claim the
At present, fixed tariffs or duty-free guar- ceptionc amounting to about 5 percent of privileges of the mighty, but they sc:e no
antees cover about 45 percent of all American its dutiable industrial imports. The United longer mighty. They have lost much of their
farm exports to the EEC. In the year ended States estimates its proposed exceptions at power, and I doubt they will ever regain it.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 :_CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
lpril 5, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
"This country's problem comes down to
habits and traditions. In many ways it is an
uncompetitive culture. In many ways it
isn't interested in progress. It hasn't moved
fast enough to keep up with the modern
world,"
This unhappy judgment is shared by many,
including friends, enemies, and even some
British.
Britain, they say, is no longer a first-rate
world power. Indeed, they believe it may
not be able to maintain a second-class posi-
tion unless it is willing to modernize its econ-
omy, its society, and its entire structure.
There is a new battle of Britain to be
fought and a new government to lead it.
How is the Labor government elected last
October 15, and headed by Prime Minister
Harold Wilson, likely to go about it?
Clearly the Laborites hope to turn the
country in a number of new directions. In-
formed 'sources both in London and on the
Continent believe' the party's program will
follow these major guidelines:
On foreign affairs?continued intimate
relations with the United States; new ef-
forts to relax East-West tensions; little in-
terest in any form of European unity or
Atlantic partnership that would submerge
British identity; no new attempt to join the
Common Market.
On Western nuclear defenses?would not
really mind if no new steps were taken for
quite a while.
On economic matters?Labor is determined
to put more growth, technology, and gov-
ernment?into the British economy. -
On social welfare?wants broad reforms in
education, housing, and other fields, coupled
with greater social security benefits, but on
the whole no revolutionary change.
It is extremely doubtful whether the Labor
government can act effectively on any mean-
ingful program. With its precarious ma-
jority in Parliament whittled to three seats,
it dares little more than Caretaker functions.
The problem facing the British is corn-
polinded by the continuing difficulties of the
pound sterling. Although not so dramatic
as last year's spectacular run on the pound,
pressure continues, raising the possibility
that additional financial measures may be
required.
Sharpest differences between the Laborites
, and the Conservatives who had ruled Britain
for 13 years are expected in the role of the
Government and in the Laborites' attitude
on social and economic questions.
Wilson and his colleagues intend to play
an active, influential role in many areas of
society. In matters ranging from land specu-
lation to the price of butter and the nation's
whole economic future, the Government
plans to take a forceful part, leading, cajol-
ing, pushing, and persuading although prob-
ably not directly compelling.
To achieve social change the Laborites
are ready to use powerful economic tools.
This attitude shows plainly in revisions be-
ing made in tax policy. At one end of the
ladder, a new capital gains tax is intended to
redistribute part of the nation's wealth.
Many think this move is long overdue, for
the gap is still enormously wide between the
priVileged few and the working classes.
Nearly three-fourths of all personal wealth
is owned by 7 percent of the population; half
the amount is concentrated in the hands of
less than 2 percent of the people.
At the lower end of the scale, new tax in-
creases are designed to pay for what the
Laborites call the largest expansion of social
security benefits since the system began in
1948. Ord-age pensions will rise by about
18 percent this year, giving typical elderYy
Married couples, paymen.ts of about $18 a
Week.
Changes by the Laborites probably will not
revolutionize society overnight. This is pre-
cluded by a broad national consensus in
Britain on many basic goals. There are large
areas of practical agreement between the
Tories and the Laborites.
Most experts doubt that there will be any
really radical changes in fundamental British
purpose. Thus the Labor Party is not going
to try to get rid of private business any more
than the Conservatives tried to get rid. of
socialized medicine.
Similarity between the two parties shows
up most strongly in foreign policy. Basic
ideas are much the same, although Labor is
regarded generally as more anti-European.
This may be true, but it also is true that the
Conservatives were highly ambivalent on the
question of Britain's relation to the rest of
Europe.
Conversations with high Government offi-
cials as well as with experts outside the Labor
Party indicate clearly that the Laborites have
no enthusiasm for the idea of a federated
Europe. "Why should we want to join
Europe?" a Cabinet member asked in sur-
prise. "We're not Europeans."
Some leaders of the party would find much
more acceptable French President Charles de
Gaulle's idea of a loose alliance of national
European states, each still clutching tightly
its cherished, if antiquated, national sov-
ereignty.
Similarly the Laborites favor a three-cor-
nered Atlantic partnership among the United
States, Europe, and Britain. They have no
liking for a two-way partnership between the
United States an an integrated Europe that
would include Britain.
In both these areas the Labor Party is at
odds with the United States. America has
favored true integration for Europe over De
Gaulle's looser concept, and it has looked
toward a two-member Atlantic partnership.
A third area of disagreement concerns
Western nuclear defense policy. The Labor
government has firmly opposed the American
proposal for a multilateral nuclear force
(MLF) for the Western alliance. Although
Wilson has suggested as a substitute a
broader Atlantic nuclear force (ANF), in-
formed sources believe he really would not
mind if his plan died just as, in the British
view, the MLF already has.
Differences between the United States and
Britain have been sharpened by mounting
British concern over American policies in
southeast Asia. The leftwing of the Labor
Party has become increasingly restive at the
U.S. expansion of the war in Vietnam. Dis-
closure this week that various forms of non-
lethal gas have been used in South Vietnam
has generated new controversy in Britain.
There are increasing demands that Britain
disassociate itself from American policy in
Vietnam.
Britain's concern over Vietnam is intensi-
fied by its own problems in the Far East.
It is heavily committed to support Malaysia
in its struggle against guerrilla attacks by
Indonesia. Producing about one-third of the
world's rubber and tin, Malaysia is an im-
portant economic prize where there are heavy
British investments.
Labor Party foreign policy places heavy
emphasis on efforts toward disarmament and
against the spread of nuclear weapons. Un-
like the Conservatives, the Laborites are
ready to give up Britain's own independent
nuclear deterrent and depend on American
military power. Their effort is complicated,
however, by the MLF.-ANF controversy.
Diplomats who have watched Wilson
closely say he has two major objectives in
foreign policy: one is to seek new ways of
reducing East-West tensions; the other is to
direct Western attention increasingly to the
Middle and Far East, where he believes the
problems are more pressing than they are in
gurope.
By all odds the most imperative challenge
facing the Labor Party is the herculean task
of revitalizing and modernizing Britain's
antiquated and sluggish economy.
6735
One of Wilson's first moves in this area has
been to try to cut Government spending on
defense. This is mirrored in his effort to
avoid the expensive MLF and to junk new,
high-priced weapons such as the TSR-2
bomber.
This could be extremely significant if he is
willing and able to go far enough. If he
could shift the country's concentration of
money, scientists, and teahnologists away
from defense and into badly needed civilian
export industries, the effects would be far
reaching. But the job is both difficult and
politically dangerous.
To deal with immediate crises in the bal-
ance of payments and pound sterling, the
Government has been forced into a variety
of short-term measures. These have in-
cluded unprecedented international borrow-
ing of $3 billion, a temporary 15 percent sur-
charge on most imports, and a hike in the
basic bank rate from 5 to '7 percent.
The basic need is to increase exports and
boost the rate of economic growth. Labor
has pinned its hopes chiefly on Government-
led efforts to plan the national economy,
check the rising spiral of prices and wages,
and prod both business and unions into bet-
ter performance.
In the field of economic planning, top
British officials talk privately of a scheme
similar to the one used successfully in France
since 1946. Such a program would set tar-
gets for economic growth, together with pro-
duction goals for major industries. It would
not be compulsory, but might offer financial
incentives to encourage cooperation. This
concept is considerably more ambitious than
the limited approach to planning that was
made by the Tories.
A new Ministry of Technology has been
established to encourage industrial moderni-
zation. A new Ministry of Economic Affairs
is to do long-range planning and find ways
of' strengthening industries that are most
inefficient. A new agency to review price and
wage increases may be given some indirect
regulatory authority in an effort to hold the
inflation line. And a variety of incentives
are being considered to stimulate exports.
These are difficult measures to carry out.
More important, there is a serious question
as to whether they are adequate for the size
and complexity of Britain's staggering eco-
nomic ailment.
A few figures tell the story. There have
been recurrent financial crises?three in 7
years; repeated balance-of-payments defi-
cits?seven in the past 12 years--with one
of the worst last year; persistent trade defi-
cits?six in 7 years.
Economic growth has been slow and un-
certain. The Labor Party estimates that if
British growth had just kept pace with that
of the rest of Europe since 1951, national
income last year would have been a third
higher, an extra $2.2 billion.
Exports are vitally needed, but in 1963
only 29 percent of British manufactured
goods were sent abroad, the lowest level in
10 years. Britain's share of total world ex-
ports of manufactures has dropped steadily
since 1953.
The causes for this economic malaise have
their roots deep in a maze of sociological and
economic factors that are not easy to change.
One astute observer expressed the views of
many when he remarked:
"The British are slow to change, probably
too slow. Many of their methods are not
modern. They are hampered by restrictive
labor practices and inefficient management.
Some factories, schools, and public facilities
are hopelessly out of date.
"Furthermore, the economy rests on a pre-
cariously narrow base. There are few raw
materials aside from minerals. Britain must
import, manufacture, and export in order
to live. To do so profitably, it must com-
pete. But it has lost markets and become
less competitive."
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
6736 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE April 5, 1965
What is needed, say many, is nothing less
than a national will to make drastic, funda-
mental changes. What is needed, as Prime
Minister Wilson said recently, is "the spirit
of Dunkirk."
No doubt there will always be an England.
The question is?what kind.
[From the St. Louis (Mo.) Post Dispatch,
Mar. 28, 1965]
COMMON MARKET HELD BEST HOPE OF ENDING
EUROPE'S NATIONALISM?ECONOMIC COM -
MUNITY, Now 7 TEARS OLD AND APPARENTLY
IN SOUND CONDITION, EXERTS INDIRECT
POLITICAL FORCE THAT MAY EFFECT GREAT
CHANGES
(By Thomas W. Ottenad)
Pains, March 27.?The European Common
Market is becoming an increasingly powerful
force in world affairs. Through its concept
of integrating national policies into a broad-
er, supranational framework, it is exerting a
significant influence on both economic and
political life in Europe and the world.
It already has pulled the economies of its
six-member nations into a close and co-
hesive relationship. In time they may merge
into one economic entity in which a common
European policy will replace individual, na-
tional goals.
, The power of the European Economic
Community is making itself felt far beyond
Its bound,aries. It is exerting heavy influ-
ence on world trade, international monetary
policy, tariffs, economic relations and agri-
cultural and industrial life.
It also has become a major although in-
direct political force that may greatly affect
the future shape of Western Europe. The
"Eurocrats" at the head of the Common Mar-
ket are among the strongest advocates of
European unity and close partnership with
the United States. Although both of these
undertakings appear to be stalled, leaders of
the EEC are fighting to keep them alive and
to protect the limited progress that has been
made.
They are working for the day when the
Common Market can be expanded into a true
political federation, leading the way toward
a United States of Europe. Until that distant
dawn, they are pushing ahead, confident
that through greater economic integration
they also are slowly but surely tying the knot
of political union.
In this effort is the bright promise of the
EEC. By all odds the most imaginative, for-
ward-looking political development in Eu-
rope since World War II, it offers the best
hopes for some day ending the national
rivalries of this ancient continent and mov-
ing to a more rational and stable pattern of
cooperation and unity.
After 7 years of troubled existence, the
EEC appears today to be in sound condition.
It seems to have recovered from the shock
and paralysis that griped it 2 years ago
after France vetoed Britain's application to
join the Common Market.
At EEC headquarters in Brussels there is
an air of confidence and assurance that was
lacking after the French action. Top officials
believe there is no longer any danger that
the organization can be destroyed.
The Common Market now is moving toward
its goals of creating first a customs union,
then a full economic union and eventually
a pOlitical union of its six members?France,
Germany, Italy, Belgium, the Netherlands
and Luxembourg.
Outstripping its original timetable in a
number of fields, it is far ahead of schedule
in its drive toward formation of a customs
union. The job is nearly three-quarters
complete. It looks as though it will be fin-
ished by July 1, 1967.
By that time, 21/2 years ahead of schedule,
there is a good chance that the Con non
Market will have achieved the two traditional
hallmarks of a customs union?free internal
movement of trade and a common tariff pol-
icy in dealing with the rest of the world.
Progress toward both these objectives has
been impressive. All quota restrictions on
industrial goods moving from country to
country inside the EEC have been eliminated.
Original internal tariffs prevailing when the
Common Market came into existence in 1958
have been cut by 70 percent. This means
that articles traveling between any two coun-
tries within the Common Market now are
subject only to 30 percent of the national
duties in force before the EEC was formed.
The task of eliminating internal tariffs is
now 40 percent ahead of the schedule out-
lined in the Treaty of Rome, which created
the Common Market.
This freer climate has contributed to a
phenomenal increase in business among the
six members of the EEC. Intramarket trade
leaped by nearly 130 percent between 1958
and 1963, climbing to 15.7 billion. Of course,
not all of this gain is due merely to reduc-
tion of trade barriers. Much of it is the
result of rising prosperity and the emer-
gence of a mass consumer's market, which
Europe previously lacked.
The task of creating a single schedule of
external tariffs is moving forward rapidly.
Each nation in the Common Market has its
own duties, but they are being moved grad-
ually toward a common set of levies that
will apply to all. The job is now 60 percent
complete.
For most goods the common external tar-
iffs will be based on the arithmetical average
of the national duties that were in force one
year before the EEC came into being. The
change will result in lower trade barriers in
France and Italy, both high-tariff countries.
It will mean higher walls in Germany and
the Benelux nations, traditional free traders.
The movement toward a common external
tariff has been accompanied by substantial
Increases in trade with the rest of the world.
Between 1958 and -1963, imports by Common
Market countries from the rest of the world
rose by 53 percent, reaching a total of $24.6
billion. By comparison American imports in
1963 amounted to $17 billion. The EEC is
the world's biggest customer.
By mid-1967 it is possible that the Com-
mon Market will have completed measures
allowing the free movement of labor, capital,
and business within the EEC. A common
agricultural policy, which already covers 86
percent of the community's farm output,
may be fully operative by that time, too.
Beyond the stage of a customs union lies
the broader, more difficult goal of unifying
the entire economies of the members of the
Common Market. This will require a variety
of actions, including steps to prevent price-
fixing or other restrictive business practices
and to harmonize manufacturers' taxes.
Also needed are common policies to re-
place national programs in transportation
and foreign trade, together with coordina-
tion in labor matters and financial alai's.
Initial steps have been taken in many of
these areas. Experts in Brussels attach spe-
cial importance to progress that is being
made toward dealing with economic and
financial matters on a community-wide basis.
Last April in what constituted the first act
of community economic policy, the six na-
tions agreed on a common approach in com-
batting inillation. They also made a start on
economic planning and on strengthening the
structure of their financial and monetary
cooperation.
Some European officials think the eventual
result may be the formation of an EEC
monetary union. A powerful but indirect
impetus in this direction stems from the
common grains price set last December by
the community. The fixed price makes it
extremely difficult for individual members
of the community to revalue their currencies
unilaterally.
If a monetary union should evolve, making
it possible for the EEC to act as a single
powerful unit, it would have far-reaching
significance in international financial mat-
ters. What form the union might take is
open to speculation. It might set fixed
rates of exchange among the six, provide for
pooling of n?tional monetary reserves and
take other steps.
It might, say some enthusiasts, even lead
to creation of a common EEC currency to
replace the present national systems. Re-
marked one EEC official, "A few years ago it
would have been impossible to talk of a corn?
mon currency. Now no one even seems up-
set when the idea is mentioned."
Beyond the economic sphere there gleams
dimly the greatest of all the promises offered
by the EEC: the prospect of political union
for Western Europe. Only limited progress
has been made in this field. Further ad-
vances may be stymied for many years be-
cause of French President Charles de
Gaulle's opposition to political integration.
Even though direct political action may be
impossible, leaders of the EEC believe that
progress in the economic field is serving to
push Europe toward greater unity. They in-
sist that important economic decisions are,
by their very nature, political.
Emphasizing this theory, Dr. Walter Hall-
stein, president of the Common Market, told
the Post-Dispatch, "The community is half
political. We are not in business. We are
in politics.
"We are pooling national policies con-
cerning the economic field. We are already
an economic and social policy union. What
is in the air now is the second half of the
work of the big book of European unifica-
tion in this century?the union of foreign
and defense policies."
There is a dispute over whether direct po-
litical activity is a legitimate function of the
Common Market. The French are inclined
to argue that it is not. They point out that
the Treaty of Rome makes no specific pro-
vision for political integration.
While this is true, it is also true that there
has been one underlying objective ever s nee
the current movement to unify Europe be-
gan in 1950 with the "Schuman declaration"
that led to establishment of the European
Coal and Steel Community. The continuing
goal of leaders of this effort has been event-
ual political federation. At times even the
French have appeared to accept this premise.
Perhaps the greatest political value of the
EEC lies in the strength and dedication of
Its leaders. They are determined to prevent
the permanent creation of the kind of Eu-
rope that many of De Gaulle's critics believe
he favors: a limited alliance cut off from in-
timate connections with the United States.
"We may have to move in the direction of
De Gaulle's concept of loose alliances," laid
one high-ranking official of the EEC. "But if
we do, the move will be temporary in nature
and it will not be anti-American in char-
acter." Be paused a moment, then added
forcefully:
"There is no chance that the other five
members of the EEC would join a Europe
that is closed, inward-looking and anti-
American. The choice that must be made
Is between a new Europe one that is united
but open, outward-looking and intimately as-
sociated with the United States?and the
old Europe?one that continues to be divided
and disunited."
A number of recent actions have con-
tributed to the new strength of the Common
Market. Chief among them was establish-
ment of a common grains price last Decem-
ber. The decision ended a dangerous in-
ternal battle between France and Germany.
It also opened the way for broader economic
and political cooperation.
Earlier this month initial agreement was
reached on a plan for merging the EEC ind
Its two sister organizations, the European
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Appro ed'For Release 2003/10_/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
April 5, 1965 doianiels Hanna May
)avis, Ga. Hansen, Idaho Need's
No. 60-4
?
TEAS-375
Davis, Wis. Hansen, Iowa
Dawson Hansen, Wash.
. de la Garza Hardy
Delaney Harris
Dent Harsha
Denton Harvey, Ind.
Derwinski Harvey, Mich.
Devine Hathaway
Dickinson Hawkins
Dingell Hays
Dole Hebert
Donohue Hechler
Dorn Henderson
Dowdy Herlong
Downing Hicks
Dulski Holifleld
Duncan, Oreg. Holland
Duncan, Tenn. Horton
Dwyer Hosmer
DyaI Howard
Edmondson Hull
Edwards, Calif. Hungate
Ellsworth Huot
Erlenborn Hutchinson
Evans, Colo. Ichord
Everett Jacobs
Evins, Tenn. Jarman
Fallon Joelson
Farbstein Johnson, Calif.
Parnsley Johnson, Okla.
Farnum Johnson, Pa.
Fascell Jonas
Feighan Jones, Mo.
Findley Karsten
Fisher Karth
Flood Kastenmeier
Flynt Kee
Fogarty Keith
Foley Kelly
Ford, Gerald R. King, Calif.
Ford, King, N.Y.
William D. King, Utah
Fountain Kirwan
Fraser Krebs
Frelinghuysen Kunkel
Friedel Laird
Fulton, Pa. Landrum
Fulton, Tenn. Langen
Latta
Leggett
Lennon
Lindsay
Lipscomb
Long, La.
Long, Md.
Love
McCarthy
McClorY
Gray McCulloch
Green, Oreg. McDade
Green, Pa. McDowell
Greigg McEwen
McFall
McGrath
McMillan.
McVicker
Macdonald
Machen
'Mackay
Madden
Mahon
Marsh
Martin, Ala.
Martin, Mass.
Martin, Nebr.
Michel
Miller
Mills
1Viinish
Mink
Minshall
Mize
Moeller
Monagan
Moore
Morgan
Morris
Morrison
Morse
Morton
Mosher
Moss
Multer
Murphy, Ill.
Murphy, N.Y.
Murray
Hatcher
Nedzi
Nelsen
O'Hara,l11.
O'Hara, Mich,
O'Konski
Olsen, Mont.
Olson, Minn.
O'Neal, Ga.
O'Neill, Mass.
Ottinger
Patman
Patten
Pelly
Pepper
Perkins
Philbin
Pike
Pimie
Poage
Pod
Pool
Powell
Price
Pucinski
Purcell
Quie
Andrews,
Glenn
Mends
Ashley
Baldwin
Betts
Boggs
Boland
Bonner
Brademas
Bray
Byrnes, Wis.
Callaway
Caller
Clawson, Del
Cohelan
Daddario
Diggs
Dow
Quillen Smith, Va.
Race Stafford
Randall Stalbatun
Redlin Stanton
Reid, Ill. Steed
Reid, N.Y. Stephens
Reif el Stratton
Reinecke Stubblefield
Reuss Sullivan
Rhodes, Ariz. Talcott
Rhodes, Pa. Taylor
Rivers, Alaska Teague, Calif.
Roberts _ Thomas
Robison Thompson, La.
Rodino Thompson, Tex.
Rogers, Colo. Thomson, Wis.
Rogers, Fla. Todd
Rogers, Tex. Trimble
Ronan Tuck
Roncalio Tupper
Rooney, N.Y. Tuten
Udall
Ullman
Utt
Van Deerlin
Vanik
Vigorito
Waggonner
Walker, N. Mex.
Watkins
Watts
Weltner
Whalley
White, Idaho
White, Tex.
Whitener
Whitten
Widnall
Williams
Willis
Wilson, Bob
Wright
Wyatt
Wydler
Yates
Young
Younger
Zablocki
Rooney, Pa.
Rosenthal
Roudebush
Roush
Roybal
Rumsfeld
Ryan
Satterfield
St. Onge
Saylor
Scheuer
Schisler
Schmidhauser
Schneebeli
Schweiker
Scott
Secrest
Selden
Senner
Shipley
Shriver
Sickles
Sikes
Sisk
Skubitz
Slack
Smith, Calif
Smith, Iowa
NAYS-0
NOT VOTING-55
Edwards, Ala.
Fino
Gibbons
Grabowski
Helstoski
Irwin
Jennings
Jones, Ala.
Keogh
Kluczynski
Kornegay
MacGregor
Mackie
Mailliard
Mathias
Moorhead
Nix
Passman
Pickle
Resnick
Rivers, S.C.
Roosevelt
Rostenkowski
St Germain
Smith, N.Y.
Springer
Staggers
Sweeney
Teague, Tex.
Tenzer
Thompson, N.J.
Toll
Tunney
Vivian
Walker, Miss.
Wilson,
Charles H.
Wolff
So (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and
the bill was passed.
The Clerk announced the following
pairs:
Mr. Keogh with Mr. Byrnes of Wisconsin.
Mr. Boggs with Mr. Mends.
Mr. Thompson of New Jersey with Mr.
Mailliard.
Mr. Jennings with Mr. Betts.
Mr. Kluczynski with Mr. Del Clawson.
Mr. Wolff with Mr. Springer.
Mr. Bonner with Mr. Mathias.
Mr. Tenzer with Mr. Finn.
Mr. Helstoski with Mr. Bray.
Mr. Roosevelt with Mr. MacGregor.
Mr. Daddario with Mr. Smith of New York.
Mr. Gibbons with Mr. Callaway.
Mr. Rivers of South Carolina with Mr.
Glenn Andrews of Alabama.
Mr. Charles H. Wilson wlth Mr. Walker of
Mississippi.
Mr. Staggers with Mr. Edwards of Alabama.
Mr. Brademas with Mr. Ashley.
Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. Grabowski.
Mr. CeIler with Mr. Nix.
Mr. Irwin with Mr. Diggs.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
N.
Moorhead with Mr. Dow.
Toll with Mr. Tunney.
Jones of Alabama with Mr. Vivian.
St Germain with Mr. Resnick.
Pickle with Mr. Boland.
Cohelan with Mr. Sweeney.
Rostenkowski with Mr. Mackie.
Kornegay with Mr. Passman.
The result of the vote was announced
as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the
table.
PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Speaker, when
the roll was called on H.R. 7064, I was on
my way from the office, having been
avoidably detained.
Had I been present, I would have
voted "yea."
PERSONAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Mr. COHELAN. Mr. Speaker, on roll-
calls 62 and 63 I was necessarily detained
on business in the Senate. If I had been
present, I would have voted "no" on H.R.
980, a bill to provide for the return of
obscene mail, and "yes" on H.R. 7064,
a bill to amend the Foreign Service
Building Act.
Mr. Speaker, I would particularly like
to explain my position on H.R. 980.
agree that a man should be able to
protect his family from "morally offen-
sive" mail matter; from mail that is "ob-
scene, lewd, lascivious, inCLecent, filthy,
or vile."
But I disagree and disagree strongly
with the bill which was before us today;
just as I disagreed with its predecessor
in the previous Congress.
Mr. Speaker, the plain and admitted
purpose of this bill is prior censorship.
As such it poses serious constitutional
doubts, for prior restraint on publications
has always been condemned by the
courts.
The Supreme Court, as a matter of
fact, in several decisions, including Roth
v. United States, 364 U.S. 476, and Jaco-
bellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184, has ruled that
material which is not obscene enjoys the
freedom of the press. But the committee
itself has stated that the legislation is
intended to suppress material which un-
der court decisions is not per se obscene.
In addition to jeopardizing materials
which enjoy constitutional protection of
freedom of the press, this bill could seri-
ously restrict the flow of otherwise legiti-
mate information.
To a segregationist, literature of the
NAACP or of CORE might indeed be
considered "obscene" or "lewd" or "las-
civious" or "indecent" or "filthy" or
"vile." As such, he could effectively de-
mand the Post Office to stop Its delivery,
even though it is clearly protected by
the 1st amendment to the Constitution.
Conversely, the same constitutional
denial would exist if those who favor full
civil rights for all Americans were to
judge, as they might very likely, mate-
rial from the Klu Klux Klan or the White
Citizens Councils as "obscene" and de-
mand its censorship.
These and other points have been care-
fully considered by the Department of
Justice and the Post Office Department.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6
6606 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE April 3,19f
Both have strongly recommended against
the passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, considering these reser-
vations and the constitutional denials
contained in this bill, and considering the
limiting conditions which suspension of
the rules imposes, I believe that this bill
should not have been passed today. I am
very hopeful that the other body will
give it the same consideration they gave
It a year ago which was to very wisely
let this unconstitutional, unwise, and
unnecessary bill die a natural death.
TREASURY, POST Or ICE, AND
EXECUTIVE OFFICE APPROPRIA-
TION BILL, 1966
Mr. STEED. Mr. Speaker, I move that
the House resolve itself into the Commit-
tee of the Whole House on the State of
the Union for the consideration of the
bill (H.R. 7060) making appropriations
for the Treasury and Post Office Depart-
ments, the Executive Office of the Presi-
dent, and certain independent agencies
for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966,
and for other purposes; and pending that
motion, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that general debate continue
not to exceed 3 hours, the time to be
equally divided and controlled by the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr.
comrsi and myself.
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Okla-
homa?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from Oklahoma.
The motion was agreed to.
IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE wi-rocE
Accordingly, the House resolved it-
self into the Committee of the Whole
House on the State of the Union for the
Consideration of the bill, H.R. 7060, with
Mr. BLATNIK in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
By unanimous consent, the first read-
ing of the bill was dispensed with.
The CHAIRMAN. 'Under the unani-
mous consent agreement, the gentleman
from Oklahoma rMr. STEED] Will be rec-
ognized for 11/2 hours, and the gentle-
man from Massachusetts [Mr. CONTE]
will be recognized for 11/2 hours.
Mr. STEED. Mr. Chairman, I yield
myself such time as I may require.
Mr. Chairman, I come here today in
charge of this bill for the first time, hav-
ing been chosen to succeed the gentle-
man from Virginia, Mr. Gary, who so
ably produced and presented this bill
each year for such a long time. I realize
I have a very heavy responsibility and a
very large pair of shoes to fill. In addi-
tion to the fact that I am new as chair-
man of this subcommittee, we also have
a new ranking minority member and four
new members of the subcommittee. Be-
cause of the newness of so many of us to
these new responsibilities, I would ask
the House to indulge me for just a mo-
ment while I express my personal appre-
ciation to the members of my subcom-
mittee for the wonderful cooperation
and assistance they have given me in
this heavy job of preparing this bill and
bringing it here today. They have
worked hard and shown interest beyond
the call of duty and have given me such
fine cooperation and help that I feel I
should publicly express my appreciation
to them.
Mr. Chairman, the bill which we bring
here today is characterized by two major
factors. It represents an increase over
the appropriation for the same depart-
ments of the Government for last year
of $366,061,000. We have, of course, al-
lowed the $255 million that was added
to the cost of these departments by the
pay raise voted by the Congress last year.
This is an automatic cost. Then, in ad-
dition to that, we have allowed $111,-
061,000, which is our best estimate of the
normal workload increases that these de-
partments are mandated to carry out.
Most of the agenciesnanced in this bill
are susceptible to woTkload increases be-
yond their control. However, since most
of them are old and experienced agencies
of the Government, it is not too difficult
to measure the additional cost factors
that these workload increases impose
upon them.
In total, in the bill this year, we rec-
ommend $6,604,404,000. That compares
with appropriations for the same agen-
cies, to date, of $6,238,343,000. We con-
sidered a budget estimate this year total-
ing $6,708,510,000, an increase of $470
million over the current year. We re-
duced this request by $104,106,000. Re-
duced to percentages, this means that we
have actually reduced the request by
1.55 percent, which, on its face, is a very
modest reduction. However, we call the
attention of the House to the fact that
these agencies traditionally bring in
tight budgets, and it is not easy to make
substantial cuts. Because they are old
and experienced agencies, their func-
tions are well spelled out and, with due
deference and credit to those who are in
charge of these agencies, they are very
careful in the requests they make of the
Congress for funds. We are very proud
to have the opportunity to work with
these people and to observe firsthand the
wonderful job which we feel they are
doing and the candor and manner in
which they have presented their requests.
We have allowed an increase over the
current year for the two major reasons
I cited, which amounts to a net growth
of 5.87 percent in the next fiscal year
over the current fiscal year.
Allowing for the pay increase costs
I think you will find that the rest of this
increase is well accounted for in the
natural growth factors that these agen-
cies experience. For instance, in the
Post Office Department, they are having
almost a 4-percent increase in mail vol-
ume at this time over last year. They
estimate that there will be a continuing
increase during the next fiscal year of
some 3 percent. In the case of the Post
Office Department their cost accounting
system tells them that when there is a
1-percent increase in mail volume it
will add between $12 and $13 million to
the cost of operating the Department.
There are two other major items of in-
crease. In the section dealing with the
Treasury Department we have increased
the acquisition, construction, and im-
provements fund for the Coast Guard
by $16 million over the previous yee
The House, of course, is -aware that ti
Coast Guard has a very serious replac
ment problem in capital ships, aircrai
and shore installations. This fund w.
gradually increase for the next sever.
years; it must increase if they are ev(
to get the kind of replacement they mu:
have to carry on the farfiung funetior
of this great and important agency.
In addition, we have added $28 milli?
to the Internal Revenue Service. W
hope that will pretty well finish the tas
of equipping this great agency with th
automatic data processing equipmen
they need to automate their activitie,
in order to cope with the very sulostan
tial increase in workload.
Most of this increased workload is the
result that a growing Nation and a grow-
ing economy automatically create anc
I think they are a good, healthy sign.
In summary, in the Treasury Depart-
ment, there is a total increase over the
current fiscal year of $52,852,000. Of
this amount $30 million is allowed for
pay increases. The other $22,852,000 is
for increased workload.
For the entire bill there was a request
for a total of 25,578 additional jobs. We
allowed 9,413 or 37 percent of the re-
quest. We disallowed some 16,000 job
requests.
In the case of the Treasury Depart-
ment, they requested 5,025 jobs. We al-
lowed them 2,762 or 55 percent.
In the case of the Post Office Depart-
ment, where most of the additional job
requests are contained, they asked for
a total of 20,520 jobs and we have al-
lowed 6,625.
Mr. Chairman, I want to take just a
minute to make a comment about this
Item. Of this request for 20,520 jobs
by the Post Office Department, some
5,000 are needed for the natural increase
in mail volume, which the committee has
approved. The remainder were asked
for in order to convert temporary posi-
tions to permanent positions. We know
that the overtime and the temporary
employee problem of the Post Office De-
partment has been growing for years.
Mr. Chairman, we have encouraged
the Department to try to do something
about this. This year they wanted to
convert 15,000 temporary jobs into
permanent jobs. However, after going
into the matter with them, the commit-
tee felt they had not developed the pro-
gram far enough for us to grant that en-
tire request this year. We have provide
funds to convert 1,300 of these tempo.
rary positions to permanent status ii
order to give them an opportunity b
take care of the most urgent overtim
and temporary employment problem:
In addition, of course, we have allowe
funds to continue the employment of th
remaining temporary employees.
Mr. Chairman, at our request, the De
partment has developed a considerabl
amount of statistical information wit
reference to this job situation since tl:
hearings. However, I feel that comic
erably more study is going to have
be done before the problem can be full
resolved. There will always be need fc
overtime and temporary employment i
the Post Office Department.
Approved For Release 2003/10/10 : CIA-RDP67600446R000300160006-6