A VERY GRAVE ERROR, OR HIGH-LEVEL IRRESPONSIBILITY?

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160029-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 7
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: December 29, 2004
• Sequence Number: 29
• Publication Date: August 13, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

1964
Approved For Fase 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403F200160029-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 18737
do not shrink from this responsibility-I
welcome it. I do not believe that any of us
would exchange places with any other people
or any other generation." And democracy
has prevailed because of the faith and cour-
age displayed by. our President Lyndon B.
Johnson when he addressed a grief-stricken
Congress and Nation on November 27, 1983:
"This is our challenge-not to hesitate, not
to pause, not to turn about and linger over
this evil moment, but to continue on our
course so that we may fulfill the destiny that
history has set for us."
This affirmation has been proclaimed anew
by every generation of Americans. It does
not promise prefabricated solutions to the
complex problems of democratic government.
It recognizes that the essence of politics is
the asking and reasking of the most difficult
of all questions: What is justice? What is
right? We can never seek these answers and
never govern ourselves successfully on the
basis of generalities, half-truths, and
myths-no matter how superficially appeal-
ing they may be.
As one who has served in local govern-
ment-the mayor of a city of over one-half
million people, Minneapolis, Minn.-I believe
I have some appreciation of the importance
of local government in our Federal system.
Those of us who have served at the local level
come face to face with the tough dally prob-
lems of the relationship of government to the
people.
And make no mistake about it, when the
people think of government, they are pri-
marily thinking of that government which
touches their lives-the police and fire de-
partments, the health and transportation
services, the education and cultural facilities,
and, yes, even the property taxes and the sales
tax.
American Government is more than
Washington. American Government is
Washington, the State capitol, the county
court houses, the city and village halls, the
town meetings, and the thousands of inde-
pendent separate governmental authorities
that range from port authorities to sewage
systems, from metropolitan airports com-
missions to the local school boards.
No nation in the world has had as much
experience in self-government as ours. If
there is one area of human activity in which
we can claim superior knowledge and greater
experience it is in the field of representative
self-government. I salute those public offi-
cials-elected and appointed-who serve on
the front line of public service and who all
too often go unappreciated and unrewarded.
We are, however, exposed to some of the
most remarkable notions about the role of
the Federal Government in relation to the
States, counties, and localities.
We have heard the shopworn phrases
about "Washington's ever eager fingers of
bureaucracy" grabbing responsibilities which
supposedly have been defaulted by local gov-
ernments. We are exposed to the same
tired misconceptions of a pitiless Federal es-
tablishment solely "obsessed by the enlarge-
ment of its role and its personnel" and
trampling over the rights of a helpless popu-
lace. We are told of certain unnamed people
who "seek solutions only by concentrating
more and more power in fewer and fewer
hands."
These tired complaints demonstrate a most
profound misunderstanding of the dynamics
of the American federal system. As pro-
fesshonals in the increasingly difficult task
of governing our counties, you know that
State, county, and local government is not
about to collapse from any merciless on-
slaught from Washington.
Indeed, the facts demonstrate that in
recent years expansion of American govern-
ment has occurred primarily at the State and
local levels as these. governments have strug-
gled with the gigantic task of governing
America. Financial and employment figures
tell much of the story. Since 1946, for
example, State, county, and local govern-
ments and their budgets have grown more
rapidly than the Federal Government despite
our national commitments to national de-
fense, space exploration, nuclear develop-
ment, veterans' benefits, postal service, and
welfare programs. While Federal spending
has increased 46 percent over this period,
State, county, and local expenditures have
soared by over 400 percent. Federal taxes
per capita have increased almost 75 percent,
but State, county, and local taxes have
jumped 213 percent. The Federal debt has
risen by slightly more than 10 percent in the
past 18 years; State, county and local debt
has climbed by more than 400 percent.
This is not criticism; it is a factual analysis
that tells the story of a growing and demand-
ing America. The willingness of our State,
county, and local governments to assume a
greater share of our common burden deserves
explicit recognition and commendation. So,
let's stop suggesting that the localities have
either sold out or caved into the Federal
Government. This is one Senator who con-
siders them very much alive.
To those who say that the Federal Gov-
ernment is taking over our local govern-
ments, I can only point out that the num-
ber of Federal employees has declined about
10 percent since 1946-while employees of the
State, county, and local governments have
risen by over 100 percent. Not long ago the
ratio of Federal employees was 19 per thou-
sand of the total U.S. population; today that
number has fallen to 13 per thousand. Of
these 13, 5 are located in the Defense De-
partment, 3 in the Post Office Department,
and 1 in the Veterans' Administration. The
remainder-about 600,000 employees-com-
prise about 100,000 persons less than it takes
to operate the Bell Telephone System.
Government has indeed grown since World
War II-right from the grassroots of Amer-
ica. And why has this remarkable growth
taken place? I'am sure you know the reason
far better than I. Government has grown
because America has grown. You see and
feel America develop and grow every month-
every year.
I came to the U.S. Senate in 1949. Since
then, the United States has added people
equal to the entire present population of
Great Britain and we contin ae to grow at the
rate of 3 million new persons each year.
These people have needed roads, housing,
jobs, police and fire protection, water and
sewer systems, transportation facilities and
the whole range of essential services which
comprise good government in the 20th cen-
tury.
The country is now gripped by an indus-
trial and technological revolution which,
when coupled with our population growth,
requires us to create 300,000 additional jobs
each month just to stay even in terms of
unemployment percentages. Life expectancy
has increased from 49 years in 1900 to 70
years today; 1,000 people per day reach the
age of 65. In 1950 there were 2.3 million
students in institutions of higher learning;
by 1970 there will be 7 million-more than a
300-percent increase. We are still lacking
60,000 classrooms in elementary and second-
ary schools if we want to eliminate over-
crowding. Each year 100,000 qualified high
school graduates fail to attend college be-
cause they lack the necessary funds. Can
responsible government simply ignore these
social and economic realities? Of course
not.
Those persons who denounce the response
of our Federal, State, and local governments
to these forces remind me of the Kansas
farmers who tried In the 1860's to lynch a
weatherman because he correctly predicted
a tornado.
I suggest that it is time to talk sense to the
American people. It is time to ask this
fundamental question: What should be the
appropriate roles of the Federal, State,
county, and local governments in terms of
the social and economic realities of 1964?
Can we devise methods and procedures
whereby the unique capabilities of each level
axe used to the fullest? Will each segment
of our Federal system be prepared to allocate
the human and economic resources neces-
sary to get the job done? These are ques-
tions worthy of a free people determined to
make democracy work.
In seeking these answers, one fact stands
out above all others: the respective levels of
government in the American system are part-
ners in a common enterprise. The basis for
this truth has been recognized since the
dawn of our Republic. Writing in the Fed-
eralist Papers (No. 46), James Madison noted
that "the Federal and State governments are
in fact but different agents and trustees of
the people." In our democracy the people
are masters at all levels. If this is true, and
I believe it is, it makes little sense to drive
a wedge between the people and the govern-
ment at any level.
Government and people are collaborators
in the common cause of securing the na-
tional interest, not mutual antagonists con-
tending against one another for power and
glory.
Without bothering to wrap all of this up
in fancy political theory, we have attained a
sound and workable modus operandi for our
Federal system. No one advocates running
everything from Washington. Indeed, the
major Federal agencies have delved an im-
mense amount of decisionmaking to their
State and regional offices which are generally
run by local individuals. Most Federal pro-
grams are administered on terms highly
favorable to the States and localities: the
Federal Government provides a substantial
portion of the money, demands certain mini-
?mal standards, and the rest is left to the
wisdom and abilities of local officials.
The development of these methods and
procedures has proceeded for many decades,
during the ascendancy of both major parties,
and is about as bipartisan an operation
as the observance of the Fourth of July.
"Beginning with the Kestenbaum Commission
in 1954, the Joint Federal-State Action Com-
mittee in 1957, and continuing with the
permanent Advisory Commission on Inter-.
governmental Relations, established by act
of Congress in 1959, the question of Federal
relationships has received-and is receiving-
detailed and searching reexamination. The
Senate and House have subcommittees
specifically charged with similar responsibili-
ties. Topics ranging from government In
metropolitan areas to periodic reassessments
of Federal grant-in-aid programs have re-
cently occupied the Senate subcommittee of
which I am proud to be a member. All of
these bodies are constantly exploring for ways
to improve what is already a remarkably ef-
fective system of intergrovernmental rela-
tions.
As President Johnson proclaimed so elo-
quently in his address at the University of
Michigan on the great society: "The solution
to these problems does not rest on massive
programs in Washington, nor can it rely
solely on the strained resources of local au-
thority. They require us to create new con-
cepts of cooperation, a creative federalism,
between the National Capital and the leaders
of local communities."
Let's look at some specific situations.
You-as county officials-and I- as a former
mayor of Minneapolis-have direct knowledge
of the severe limitations on the revenue re-
sources of our local governments.
As many of you know, for many years I
have been concerned with the revenue losses
accruing to county and municipal govern-
ments due to tax-free Federal properties. I
have attempted to devise an equitable for-
mula of Federal payments in lieu of taxes.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160029-0
 18738 Approved f MffiR (/ 2/J&CW-DP 3R000200160029 Rugust 13
This effort to devise such a formula should
be resumed in the 89th Congress.
Consistent with the requirements of na-
tional defense, the Federal government
should advocate fiscal and monetary policies
and sponsor action programs to Increase local
tax revenues. The Kennedy-Johnson ad-
ministration has been doing just this
through the tax cut, the investment tax
credit, and accelerated depreciation
schedules,
These policies have produced the longest
sustained period of economic growth in 110
years, a factor which certainly enhances the
revenue resources of governments at all levels
in our Federal system.
There is, of course, one problem of special
urgency and Importance now confronting
our country. The Issue of civil rights and
racial justice challenges the wisdom, abili-
ties, and resources of our Federal, State, and
local governments to an extent not equaled
by any other issue of this century. And its
resolution will only be possible through the
unique relationship of partnership and co-
operation which characterizes the American
system.
In passing the civil rights bill we sought
to create a framework of law wherein men
of good will and reason could attempt to
resolve peacefully the difficult and emotional
issues of human rights. Passage of the bill
certainly did not solve these problems, but it
did establish certain channels and procedures
to make their solution more probable.
As county officials, you know that most of
this burden rests upon the shoulders of our
local governmental officials. Only when
communities and States are unable to meet
their responsibilities set forth in this act is
direct Federal action authorized. This Is
surely within the best traditions of our
American system.
Every responsible public official has the
obligation to see that civil peace is main-
tained across this land. No solutions to these
terribly difficult problems are possible in the
midst of chaos, violence, and disorder. As I
have stated on numerous occasions: Civil
wrongs do not make civil rights.
But neither can we afford to believe that
by driving angry mobs from the street we
are touching the festering sores of unem-
ployment, dilapidated and overcrowded hous-
ing, drug addiction, and hopelessness which
afflict the ghetto areas of our large urban
centers.
We speak of restoring civil peace to our
cities, and so we must. But let it be a peace
with justice. Let us understand that we can
no longer postpone the massive problem of
restoring our decaying cities in both a ma-
terial and spiritual sense. We can no longer
afford the luxury of pretending that the
problem is unreal, or that It will somehow
go away, or that the people trapped In these
ghettos rather enjoy their misery.
No responsible public official suggests that
the States, counties, and cities are prepared
to command the financial and human re-
sources needed in this historic job of urban
restoration. Without the active cooperation
of the Federal Government, we can never
achieve the massive programs of academic
and vocational education, job training, youth
work, mass transportation, alum eradication,
recreational and community development
which are essential in saving our cities. This
is a job we postpone only at our gravest
peril.
There is one area of responsibility which
is the special task of the Federal Govern-
ment; namely, to preserve our national se-
curity during these trying years of the cold
war.
I am shocked that any candidate for the
Presidency could stand on this platform and
assert that "we are disarming ourselves and
demoralizing our allies" I find it difficult
to believe that any candidate for high public
office could be so tragically misinformed
about our defense posture to suggest that
"our guard is dropping in every sense."
In an attempt to close the information
gap which must have contributed to such
misleading statements, let me summarize the
facts about the administration's record In
bolstering our national defense.
The administration has Invested a total of
$30 billion more for fiscal years 1962--65 than
would have been spent if we continued at
the level of fiscal year 1961, the last year
of the Eisenhower administration.
What have these additional $30 billion
procured for America's Defense Establish-
ment:
A 150-percent Increase in the number of
nuclear warheads and a 200-percent increase
in total megatonnage In our strategic alert
forces.
A 80-percent increase in the tactical nu-
clear force in Western Europe.
A 46-percent increase in the number of
combat-ready Army divisions.
A 44-percent increase in the number of
tactical fighter squadrons.
A 76-percent increase in airlift capability.
A 100-percent increase In funds for general
ship construction and conversion to modern-
lze our fleet.
An 800-percent increase In the Department
of Defense special forces trained for counter-
insurgency.
Today we have more than 1,100 strategic
bombers, 800 fully armed and dependable
ICBM's deployed on launchers (30 times the
number we had in January 1981), 288 Polaris
missiles deployed In 18 nuclear submarines
(compared with 32 mlesles available In 2
submarines In January 1961), 18 combat-
ready Army divisions (compared to 11), 79
tactical fighter squadrons (compared to 55),
and a planned Navy fleet of 883 ships (com-
pared to 817 proposed In the budget in fiscal
year 1081).
Funds expended for military research and
development have increased by 50 percent
over the level prevailing during the last 4
years of the Republican administration.
On June 3, 1964. President Johnson
summ up the situation quite succinctly
with this statement: "In every area of na-
tional strength America today is stronger
than It has ever been before. It is stronger
than any adversary or combination of ad-
versaries. It is stronger than the combined
might of all nations in the history of the
world."
It was precisely this massive array of bal-
anced military forces which permitted Presi-
dent Johnson to select the appropriate
response to the outrageous attack on our
destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin. President
Kennedy had demonstrated similar firmness
and skill during the Cuban missile crisis of
1962. But prior to 1981 this Nation lacked
a credible limited war capability and thereby
ran the grave risk of being unable to muster
the type of military response which punished
an aggressor but avoided the risks of all-out
nuclear war.
Today this Nation is prepared to meet any
type of military threat to our national secu-
rity. Our allies understand this fact-and so
do our enemies.
There is one final area-the war on pov-
erty-which cries out for the full involve-
ment and participation of all segments of
the American system. The war on poverty
is crucial because it involves the meaning of
one cherished word-"America." We hear
much these days about the need to encourage
individualism and self-reliance--and these
qualities are important components of the
American character. But let us never forget
that America has--from its very begin-
nings-possessed another national trait
which sets us apart from all other peoples:
a profound sense of obligation to assist the
less fortunate in this country and around
the world. This is the essence of the word-
"America"-and the heart of the democratic
faith.
The Statue of Liberty standing in New
York Harbor symbolized this feeling to the
millions of immigrants who came to make a
new life on these shores. We now have the
opportunity to provide a similar beacon .of
hope to those 35 million Americans who find
themselves aliens in our prosperous and af-
fluent society.
The Congress won the first battle of the
war on poverty by passing President John-
son's Economic Opportunity Act of 1984.
This legislation is founded squarely on the
American principles of federalism; all levels
of government will have an opportunity to
participate in Implementing the broad range
of programs included In the act. In partic-
ular, the community action programs au-
thorized in title II will rely heavily upon
the expertise, experience, and skill of our
local units of government.
But this legislation is only the beginning.
The war on poverty is related intimately to
our crusade to build the great society which
President Johnson described with these
words:
"The great society rests on abundance and
liberty for all. It demands an end to poverty
and racial injustice. The great society is a
place where every child can find knowledge
to enrich his mind and to enlarge his talents.
It is a place where the city of man serves
not only the needs of the body and the de-
mands of commerce, but the desire for
beauty and the hunger for community.. ? 0
But most of all, the great society is not a
safe harbor, a resting place, a final objective,
a finished work. It is a challenge constantly
renewed, beckoning us toward a destiny
where the meaning of our lives matches the
marvelous products of our labor."
This is a vision which merits the total
commitment of every American. This Is a
vision worthy of our faith that man does
possess the courage, wisdom, charity, and
love to govern himself. And-never forget-
the great society will be a product of all levels
of our Federal system, laboring together
in pursuit of this common goal. Not Fed-
eral against State or county against munici-
pality, but one free people joined in common
cause to give new and richer -meaning 'o that
glorious word-America. } y`,_j
V
A VERY GRAVE ERROR, OR HIGH-
LEVEL IRRESPONSIBILITY?
(Mr. FOREMAN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute, and to revise and extend his re-
marks and to Include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. FOREMAN. Mr. Speaker, last
Friday, and again on Tuesday, in dis-
cussions before this body, I took issue
with the President of the United States
over his preemption of this country's re-
taliatory attacks upon Communist Viet-
nam's PT boat installations in the Gulf
of Tonkin. My question was directed at
the propriety of the President's action
in announcing our retaliatory air at-
tacks 1 hour and 39 minutes before the
attack actually started.
By such action, the President is guilty
of at least one of two very serious mis-
takes: First, he made an almost unbe-
lievable technical error in timing; or,
second, he and his White House advisers
made a very irresponsible, grandiose
political play to the American public to
gain a prime television audience. I cer-
tainly prefer to believe the first. But in
either case, It is hard to conceive of a
more flippant, Irresponsible attitude to-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160029-0
 1964
proved For Re'
18739
GRESSIONAL RECORD BOHOUSEQ 00160029-0
ward the realities of both war and for saw a splash approximately 3 miles from
eign policy, being shown by persons in the harbor entrance, which could have been
such high offices, All America should be the downed Skyhawk. A 60-second beeper,
concerned over the facts surrounding and which is normally activated when a chute
hidden in this matter, opens, was heard over the radio, but there
has been no confirmed report of the sighting
Because certain members of this body of a parachute. Lt. (jg.) Everett Alvarez
have questioned my remarks in this mat- Jr., of San Jose, Calif., previously reported as
ter, even to the point of questioning their missing, was the pilot of this plane.
authenticity, I take this time to, point A second aircraft from Constellation, an
by point, substantiate the critical facts. A-1 Skyraider was lost due to antiaircraft
I will also discuss some of the facts as fire during the attack on Loo Chao. No
presented by the Pentagon, the White parachute was seen and the aircraft was ob-
House, the national news services, and 6o f the served f LocC Chao into the sea in the vicinity
the Estuary.
the commander of th
tt
ki
e a
ac
ng force
involved; and further explore the ex-
tremely grave questions that this irre-
sponsible action has raised.
On Tuesday, August 4, following the
unprovoked attack, by the Communist
Vietnamese PT boats upon the U.S. de-
stroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy, the
President made a television announce-
ment to the American people. The
announcement was made at 11:36 p.m.,
eastern daylight time. in his announce-
ment, the President said:
Repeated actions of violence against the
Armed Forces of the United States must be
met not only with alert defense, but with
positive reply. That reply is being given
as I speak to you tonight. Air action is
now in execution against gunboats and cer-
tain supporting facilities in North Vietnam
which have been used in these hostile opera-
tions.
The events of that historic night were
reported in the August 7. edition of the
Washington Post as follows:
The President went on the air to announce
what was happening at 11:36 p.m., e.d.t., parent military success, but the outcome
_ . _
Tuesday. and talked for a . , ,.. - .
t 12
ference that some=of the action had already
taken place.
The grave question arises, "Would our
fliers have been captured or killed if the
enemy had not had the opportunity of
forewarning?" Yes, the parents, the
wives, and the families of the American
boys that were killed or captured in
those air strikes are going to be asking a
grave and penetrating question, "Would
we have our own son, or husband or dad-
dy if the planned attack had not been an-
nounced an hour and 39 minutes ahead
of time?" Americans will ponder this
question and others, in the days and
weeks ahead.
A GI soldier leaking information to the
enemy 1 hour and 39 minutes in advance
of a raid would be tried for treason, and
he could expect grave and serious con-
sequences.
A study of these time differentials
raises many questions. What if bad
weather or other conditions had caused
a lengthy delay in our attack? Would
we then have met Chinese Communist
moment, and the apparent success of the
venture 1-1
Now the facts are that the initial at- situation
that seemsttorme to ispelloirre-
tack, the attack on Quang Khe, the sponsibility at the highest level. Cer-
southernmost PT boat base, did not com- tainly, the Pentagon's and the White
mence until 1:15 a.m., eastern daylight House's awkward attempts to cover up
time. The first attack on the northern- this horrendous blunder only go to prove
most base, Hon Gay, did not take place how extremely irresponsible this un-
until 3:45 a.m., eastern daylight time, a fortunate television announcement really
full 4 hours and 9 minutes after the was.
President's nationwide television an- Secretary of Defense McNamara, in
nouncenient. This time schedule is what appeared to be a most feeble at-
available through the Secretary- of De- tempt to explain away this deplorable
fense's Pentagon office. The final attack, occurence, issued a list of reasons why
a restrike on PT bases at Vinh, was at the President's television announcement
4:45 a.m., eastern daylight time. This was made at the time it was. He said:
was over 5 hours after the President's By that time [President's TV program]
television announcement, U.S. naval aircraft had been in the air and
The Pentagon news report on the at- on their way to their targets approximately
tacks states: 1 hour. Hanoi, through its radar had then
Aircraft attacking Hon Gay experienced received indications of the attack.
moderate to heavy antiaircraft fire during Even the most naive must ask, How did
the attack from numerous
tions. * * * Also, all operating
guns ati ara Mr. McNamara know that our planes had
all of the patrol craft were fired throughout been picked up by the North Vietnamese
the attack, radar? In fact, a statement by Rear
The Communists had the opportunity Adm. Robert B. Moore, commander of
of over 4 hours notice of the impending the task force that led the raids, indicates
attack 4 Hon Gay. another situation. He said on August 10,
Theon
Secretary's statement continues: in an interview with United Press Inter-
national, that in his opinion, our planes
one (1) A-4 Skyhawk from Constellation had not been detected by the enemy
was shot down by antiaircraft fire during the radar at the time of the President's prime
attack on Hon Gay. The pilot reported he
was hit after completing, his second attack television performance. In addition,
on the patrol boats in Hon Gay Harbor, news reports from the scene of action-
He indicated that his plane was uncontrol- reported by Newsweek magazine, Mon-
lable and that he was ejecting. Witnessing day, August l0-states.
pilots, who were, also being subjected to The first attack group, six F-8's from the
heavy antiaircraft fire, indicated that they Ticonderoga, flew low under the storm clouds,
hoping to cross up enemy radar. They suc-
ceeded.
Secretary McNamara further excused
the preemption by saying:
The time remaining before the aircraft ar-
rived over their targets would not permit the
North Vietnamese to move their boats to
sea or to alert their forces.
But we know from the Secretary of De-
fense's own reports that the Communists
were at their antiaircraft batteries, and
surely all must agree that it does not take
an hour and 39 minutes to move a mod-
ern automated PT boat, even with a crew
as small as two or three men, and pos-
sibly, some boats had been moved.
Further, Mr. McNamara said,
It was important that the people of our
country learn of the manner in which their
Government was responding to the attacks
on its vessels from their President, rather
than from Hanoi, which was expected to an-
nounce the attack at any moment.
Here, it is apparent that the Secre-
tary is caught up in his own web of de-
ception, for the North Vietnamese would
not, or could not, have announced the
attacks for at least an hour and 39 min-
utes. They had not even been attacked.
Most certainly, by the time they could
have made the announcements, most
Americans would have been in bed and
out of view of their television screens.
In addition, I cannot believe that any
American is so suspicious or desirous of
immediate military information that he
would jeopardize the lives and safety of
American boys fighting to protect the
honor of this Nation.
The Secretary of Defense further said:
It was desirable that the North Vietnamese
Government and others be told as soon as
possible the character of the attack.
In answer to this, I say that a tele-
phone call to the appropriate embassy
here in Washington, D.C., at the begin-
ning of our first attack, would have been
sufficient to notify Hanoi and Peiping of
our limited intentions. There seems lit-
tle reason to give our Communist ene-
mies a full hour and 39 minutes to pre-
pare defense against, and to shoot down,
attacking American planes.
Indeed, by this weak and illogical ex-
planation, the administration seems to
be saying to the mothers and wives of
American fightingmen, "We are sending
your sons and husbands to fight for their
country, but we are informing the enemy
of our action, so they can have their
guns ready to shoot down your boys
when they arrive."
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I support ac-
tion taken to demonstrate our willing-
ness and determination to stand firm and
strong against the Communist aggres-
sors. But I cannot understand, condone,
or tolerate the irresponsible and unwise
action taken by this administration last
Tuesday night, in announcing our mili-
tary intentions a full hour and 39 min-
utes before the actual attack; nor can I,
or will I, tolerate such action which
thrust unnecessary dangers upon
American fighting men.
I have been calling and working for a
positive foreign policy since the begin-
ning of this administration. If we are
to prevent escalated war and further hos-
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160029-0
 18740
Approved Oft Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B0p"3R000200160029-0
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOL , - august 13
tile provocations, the United States must
make it unmistakably clear to the Com-
munist aggressors that we will not back
down in the defense of American lives
and freedom, and further, we are pre-
pared to use whatever force necessary to
maintain this firm foreign policy.
I wish to Include news release No. 579-
64, from the Office of the Department of
Defense with the time schedules dis-
cussed. Further, I have all other mate-
rial and releases, herein referred to, on
file in my office:
SUMMARY O} CARRIrR AIR STRrKEs AGAINST
TARGETS IN NORTH Vm'rs4AM
Following are the results, based on latest
reports. of the 84 attack strike sorties flown
from the U.S. Navy aircraft carriers U.S.S.
Ticonderoga and US.S. Constellation to Ave
targets in the Gulf of Tonkin, North Viet-
nam:
(a) Of the some 30 patrol craft sighted
during the attacks, It is estimated that 25
patrol boats were destroyed or damaged.
(b) Ninety percent of petroleum storage
facility at Vinh destroyed.
(c) Seven antiaircraft installations in
Vinh area destroyed or severely damaged.
The U.S.S. Ticonderoga aircraft conducted
three of the attacks against North Vietnam
patrol boat concentrations and their associ-
ated support facilities. One strike was on the
boats and facilities located at Quang Khe.
The second and third were on additional
boats and activities at Phuc Lot and on the
petroleum storage area located at nearby
Vinh. In addition, there was also a restrike
made on the Vinh oil storage area.
The Quang She attack, which took place
at 1:15 a.m.. e.d.t., was accomplished by six
F-8 Crusader jets. The strike at Phuc Lot, in-
cluding the nearby oil storage area at Vinh,
was conducted at 1:25 a.m., e.d.t., by six 7-8
Crusaders, six A-4 Skyhawks, and four A-i
Skyraider aircraft. Ten A-4 Skyhawks and
four F-8 Crusader jets participated in the
restrike at Vinh at 4:45 a.m., e.d.t. An esti-
mated eight storage tanks were set ablaze
during the first attack on Vinh. From two
to four additional tanks were set ablaze dur-
ing the second raid.
Moderate antiaircraft fire was encountered
during the first strike on Vinh and twomutt-
aircraft positions near the oil storage area
were attacked and destroyed. During the re-
strike, a heavier concentration of antiaircraft
was encountered and an estimated Ave guns
of a six-gun position were subsequently de-
stroyed.
One Crusader aircraft sustained flak dam-
age during the first attack on Vinh but pro-
ceeded safely to Danang. South Vietnam.
Navy aircraft from the carrier Constella-
tion began a simultaneous attack on the re-
maining two targets, Hon any and Loc Chao
at 3:45 a.m., e.d.t. Ten A-4 Skyhawks, two
F-4 Phantoms, and four A-.l Skyraiders,
participated in the attack on lion Gay. Five
A-4 Skyhawks, three F-4 Phantoms, and four
A-1 Skyraiders participated in the raid on
Loc Chao.
Five patrol craft were sighted during the
attack on Hon Gay and It was estimated that
all five were destroyed. At Loc Chao, two
of the six patrol craft sighted were seriously
damaged. Both attacks lasted 25 minutes.
Aircraft attacking Hon Gay experienced
moderate to heavy antiaircraft Are during the
attack from numerous gun positions on the
hill overlooking the harbor. Also, all op-
erating guns aboard all of the patrol craft
were fired throughout the attack. The Navy
aircraft utilized 2.75-inch rocket and 20-mil-
limeter strafing attacks at both Hon Gay and
Loc Chao.
One A-4 Skyhawk from Constellation was
shot down by antiaircraft fire during the
attack on Ron Gay. The pilot reported he
was hit after completing his second attack
on the patrol boats In Hon Gay Harbor. Ire
indicated that his plane was uncontrollable
and that he was electing. Witnessing pilots,
who were also being subjected to heavy anti-
aircraft are, Indicated that they saw a splash
approximately 3 miles from the harbor en-
trance, which could have been the downed
Skyhawk. A 60-second "beeper" which Is
normally activated when a chute opens was
beard over the radio, but there has been no
confirmed report of the sighting of a para-
chute. Lt. (jg.) Everett Alvarez, Jr., of San
Jose, Calif., previously reported as missing,
was the pilot of this plane.
A second aircraft from Constellation, an
A-i Skyraider was lost due to antiaircraft
fire during the attack on Loc Chao. No
parachute was seen and the aircraft was ob-
served to crash into the sea in the vicinity of
the Loc Chao Estuary.
A third aircraft from Constellation, an A-1
Skyraider was hit by antiaircraft fire in the
vicinity of Loc Chao but made a safe retur
to the ship with minor damage. V
THE THE VIETNAM SITUATION AND THE
RADAR CLAIMS
(Mr. HOSMER (at the request of Mr.
FOREMAN) was given permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point In the
RECORD).
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, the ad-
ministration of our Government has of-
ficially claimed that President Johnson's
announcement of U.S. Navy reprisal
against North Vietnamese PT boat bases
1 hour and 39 minutes before it began
did not provide the North Vietnamese de-
fenders opportunity for a prior warning.
The administration officially claims that
at the time President Johnson spoke our
aircraft already had been picked up on
North Vietnamese radar.
At an air speed of 500 miles per hour a
jet aircraft travels approximately 825
miles in 1 hour and 39 minutes. If the
naval aircraft were that far away, it ob-
viously would have been impossible to de-
tect them and Identify them as intend-
Ing an attack.
Contrarily, if the aircraft were within
credible radar range they must have been
maneuvering on varying courses during
the 1 hour and 39 minute period from
which it would have been impossible to
Identify them as Intending an attack.
Both yesterday and the day before yes-
terday I called on the administration
from this forum to explain this obvious
defect in Its claim. No explanation has
been made. Again, I call for an explana-
tion.
BEEF IMPORTS
(Mr. BATTIN asked and was given
permission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his re-
marks.)
Mr. BATTIN. Mr. Speaker, in its lead
editorial this morning, the Washington
Post In effect argues that the American
cattle industry Is expendable in the In-
terests of larger foreign trade policy ob-
Jectives.
This editorial reflects an attitude all
too prevalent in the higher policymak-
Ing echelons of the Johnson administra-
tion. For as I have pointed out many
times in the past, the crux of our Na-
tion's beef Import problem lies in our
Government's failure to look after the
Interests of domestic producers as for-
eign countries protect their domestic
economic interests.
In my speech of August 4, I stated that
while our domestic beef industry has
been under growing economic assault
from foreign producers, notably those of
British Commonwealth nations, the
Johnson administration has failed to
take the firm steps necessary to safe-
guard our vital national economic in-
terests.
Is It too much to ask-
I said in that speech-
that this administration be willing to protect
American cattlemen as other countries
protect their own?
In this regard, I cited British im-
position of direct tariff increases as a
means of enforcing beef import controls.
Actually, the British have relied on
methods other than direct tariffs to en-
force such controls in the interests of
market stability in that country. In fact,
according to the authoritative study of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Foreign Agricultural Service, an agree-
ment was reached last year, 1963, for at
least one beef-producing country com-
pletely to curtail shipments into Britain
to stabilize cattle prices there.
Obviously, the affected producing coun-
try might be expected to face a surplus
problem unless the U.S. market provided
a substitute for lost British trade. In
this way, stabilized British cattle prices
could result in further market instability
in the United States. By my point here
is not to criticize such an agreement, for
the British are within their rights to at-
tempt to stabilize their domestic markets.
This supports my primary point on Au-
gust 4 that the British have never hesi-
tated to take whatever domestic eco-
nomic steps they felt necessary to protect
their own economy.
British Commonwealth nations have
constructed a veritable maze of trade
barriers, both direct tariff and nontariif
In nature, to protect their livestock and
meat industries. The Foreign Agricul-
tural Service cites Instance after in-
stance of Australian and New Zealander
prohibitions and inhibitions against meat
produced In the United States.
In fact, a combination of such barriers
protects over 50 percent of the affected
industries of these British Common-
wealth areas, although both Australia
and New Zealand are among the largest
beef exporters in the world.
Once again, I cite these arguments not
to dispute the right of other countries to
impose such domestic restrictions as they
believe are needed to protect their native
producers. Rather, all I am asking is
that our own U.S. Government exercise
equal rights in seeking to stabilize our
own beef market here.
In this regard, I find it strange that
some spokesmen for Britain and British
Commonwealth countries, as well as the
Common Market countries, argue against
our right to protect our domestic inter-
ests in the way they protect their own.
For whether the British and other for-
eign nations curtail U.S. products by
means of direct tariff or Indirect non-
tariff barriers, when they object to U.S.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160029-0
 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160029-0
MISSING PAGE
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT MISSING PAGE(S):
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160029-0
 Approved For Relee 2005/02L10 : CIA e66B~D4ffl000700160029-0 ~g743
1964 CONGRESSIONAL RECD - HO
other country to exploit our markets
with impunity and that any complaint
if it runs counter to a Johnson admin-
istration policy is not only unwarranted
but unjustified. This editorial is cer-
tainly unfair to a great industry of the
United States and with your permis-
sion Mr. Speaker, I wish to have it printed
in the RECORD as it appeared in this
morning's edition of the Washington
The success of the Kennedy round of
tariff cutting negotiations and, indeed, the
position of the United States in world trade
will be seriously jeopardized if the House fol-
lows the Senate in imposing rigid quotas on
imported meat products.
A very sharp increase in the output of
Choice beef has driven down domestic prices,
enveloping the producers in a painful cost-
price squeeze and causing many of them to
incur losses. The economic distress of the
cattlemen is real, but in ascribing their
plight to imports and in demanding that
Congress impose rigid quotas on virtually all
imported meat products, they are the vic-
tinle of a delusion that could undermine
this country's international trade policies.
If -this country were importing grain fed,
Choice grade beef, one might be able to make
a our against imports as the cause of the
distress. But virtually all of the imported
beef is of the grass fed "manufacturing
grade," the low-priced type used for ham-
burger and luncheon meat products. These
products, being in a much lower price class,
do not compete directly with Choice grade
domestic beef.
If the House goes along with the Senate
and the quotas are imposed, the cattlemen
will not obtain an ounce of relief in the shape
of price increases. Relief will not come before
beef production is reduced by culling out
cows and bulls and slaughtering more calves
for veal. But the undesirable side effects of
imposing quotas would be instantly mani-
fested. Consumers' in the lowest income
brackets, those living in poverty, would be
deprived of inexpensive meat, a point made
by the League of Women Voters and other
consumer groups in opposing the quota bill.
And there would be instant retaliation
against U.S. exports, especially by Australia,
New Zealand, Ireland, and Mexico, the four
allies which are signatories to the recently
established voluntary quotas on beef.
Total cash exports of U.S. agricultural
products are now running at the rate of $4.6
billion a year and imports of meat products
are running at the rate of $280 million. The
question which the Members of the House
of Representatives must cooly consider is
whether it is worth jeopardizing $4.6 billion
In agricultural exports in order to stop a
$280-million trickle of meat imports. They
have to decide whether it is worth offending
our allies and violating the General Agree-
ment on Tariffs and Trade in an effort to
assist the cattlemen that is rated no chance
of success by either logic or experience.
H.R. 1839, the meat quota, passed as a rider
to a House bill, hasbeen sent to a House-
Senate conference committee where there is
little chance of reaching a compromise that
would not conflict with established trade
policies of the United States. Hopefully, this
bill will be defeated on the floor of the House,
and in the event that it passes, killed by a
Presidential veto.
LEO SZILARD'S 10 COMMANDMENTS
(Mr. O'HA1 ,A of Illinois asked and
was given permission to extend his re-
marks at this point in the RECORD and
to include extraneous matter.)
No. 158-10
Mr. O'HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker,
on June 1, 1964, I announced from the
well of the House the death of Dr. Leo
Szilard, and noted the grief of the Nation
at the passing of this famed nuclear sci-
entist who, working with Enrico Fermi
and others under the grandstands at
Stagg Field at the University of Chicago
campus, achieved the first atomic chain
reaction. He was a great man in every
sense and I was enriched by his personal
friendship.
Today I received a letter from Mrs. Leo
Szilard, 2380 Torrey Pines Road, La
Jolla, Calif., with a translation of her
husband's "10 commandments" which
he wrote in German a number of years
ago and by which he always abided. Be-
cause of their great and moving interest
to so many persons in every part of the
world, I am extending my remarks to
include Mrs. Szilard's letter and the "10
commandments" of her famed husband.
DEAR MR. O'HARA: Many years ago, while
still in Europe, Leo wrote his own "10
commandments." He wrote them in German
and was never satisfied with any attempts
at translation; he considered them untrans-
latable. They were therefore published only
in the German edition of his book, "The
Voice of the Dolphins," and are known only
to a few.
To me they repersent his true "last will
and testament," and I want to share it with
our friends whose kind words and deeds have
given me so much comfort after Leo left
me: I got him back a little bit reflected, as
it were, in the mirror of his friends.
On this occasion, for those of our friends
who do not read German, a colleague and
friend of Leo at the Salk Institute has
kindly prepared the enclosed translation' at
my request.
Thank you for your wonderful tribute of
June 1.
Sincerely,
GERTRUD W. SZILARD.
TEN COMMANDANTS
1. Recognize the connections of things
and the laws of conduct of men, so that you
many know what you are doing.
2. Let your acts be directed toward a
worthy goal, but do not ask if they will
reach it; they are to be models and examples,
not means to any end.
3. Speak to all men as you do to yourself,
with no concern for the effect you make, so
that you do not shut them out from your
world; lest in isolation the meaning of life
slips out of sight and you lose the belief
in the perfection of the creation.
4. Do not destroy what you cannot create.
5. Touch no dish, except that you are
hungry.
6. Do not covet what you cannot have.
7. Do not lie without need.
8. Honor children. Listen reverently to
their words and speak to them with infinite
love.
9. Do your work for 6 years; but in the
seventh, go into solitude or among strangers,
so that the memory of your friends does not
hinder you from being what you have
become.
10. Lead your life with a gentle hand and
be ready to leave whenever you are ?alled.
VIETNAM
(Mr. GROVER (at the request of Mr.
SCHWEIKER) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. GROVER. Mr. Speaker, last week,
the President made a difficult but neces-
sary decision to strike back at the North
Vietnamese torpedo boats and their
bases, following several instances of un-
provoked attacks by the North Viet-
namese upon certain of our naval units
in international waters.
This decision was one which the Con-
gress almost unanimously supported and
it was one which met with the approba-
tion of the American people.
Many of us are very disturbed, how-
ever, and concerned with the sequence of
the timing of the announcement by the
President 90 minutes prior to the actual
engagement and have found the expla-
nation by the Defense Department en-
tirely unsatisfactory.
Accordingly, I have requested the
Armed Services Committee to commence
an investigation to determine the extent
to which the security of this operation
may have been compromised and who
was responsible for advising the Presi-
dent in the matter.
My letter to the gentleman from Geor-
gia, Chairman VINSON of the Armed
Services Committee, reads as follows:
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES,
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
Washington, D.C., August 13, 1964.
The Honorable CARL VINSON,
Chairman, House Armed Services Committee,
House Office Building,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The developments in
southeast Asia, which provoked U.S. action
in the Gulf of Tonkin last week found Con-
gress practically unanimous in support of
the decision of our Commander in Chief,
President Johnson.
Many Members of Congress, however, are
very concerned about the apparent serious
breach of security attending the event of our
retaliatory attack upon the torpedo boat
bases in North Vietnam and the nationwide
TV announcement made by the President
last week-11/2 hours before the air strike.
As a former Air Force communications and
security officer, having served incidentally in
China during World War II, I am personally
shocked that the Defense Department did
not coordinate its operations and communi-
cations and advise the President so this
announcement would have been timed to
protect the security of the air strike.
An explanation has been given that it was
desirable to have the news given first to the
American people by the President and not
by the Hanoi or other Communist news
media. It was also stated that North Viet-
namese radar had picked up our planes when
the announcement was made. Aircraft with
500-miles-per-hour-plus speeds can travel
750 miles in an hour and one-half. Radar
doesn't pick up aircraft at such distances.
The obviously unsatisfactory coverup
with such conflicting pronouncements from
the Pentagon by Secretary McNamara and
others should be immediately investigated
by the Armed Services Committee.
Sincerely yours,
JAMES R. GROVER, JR.,
Member of Congress.
PROTESTING SQUANDERING OF
TAXPAYERS' MONEY
(Mr. McINTIRE (at the request of Mr.
SCHWEntER) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160029-0
 18744
00k AVN
Approved Fo g s1uNAL RE RRDP6uO00403R000200160029-OAugust 13
Mr. McINTIRE. Mr. Speaker, I would
like to add my voice to those in this
House who already have protested the
squandering of the taxpayers' money,
year in and year out, in what euphemis-
tically is referred to as the foreign aid
program. In all probability this body
will again have the foreign aid bill for
consideration, and I feel it is time to
delve deeply into the uses to which this
money is to be put. Before voting more
foreign aid,.we should consider how the
billions of dollars which have been shov-
eled into the program over the past years
have been applied.
I view the foreign aid appropriations
as one of the most blatant examples of
wasted tax money. I do not contend
that all the money has been wasted; most
certainly somewhere in all the billions
that have been poured into the coffers of
well over 100 nations since the end of
World War II some good has been ac-
oomplished. I believe it is proper that
we should offer aid to certain nations for
cerain specific needs. But I cannot sup-
port this annual giveaway program that
rewards dictators and fosters the most
horrible forms of oppression; I cannot
condone funneling millions of dollars
into countries whose political philosophy
is inimical to the most elementary Ideas
of freedom.
Today, because of the haphazard
methods which have been used to indis-
criminately spread billions of dollars all
over the world, we find ourselves helping
countries, at the expense of our own
economy, on the other side of the Iron
Curtain.
Today, we are caught up in our own du-
plicity, for we find ourselves the bankers
of opposing forces throughout the world.
Instead of breathing the air of freedom
and economic assistance, the program
has generated conditions of armed hos-
tility between nations who should be
good neighbors. Pakistan and India,
for instance, both receive qur aid, and
they face each other in unconcealed
enmity. We help Nasser and the rotten
prison state of Haiti, and Sukarno and
other Communist-oriented nations have
accepted the American dollar while
sneering at "Uncle Sap." Our plan ap-
pears to have neither identity nor sen-
sible direction, for these are not the only
examples of how foreign aid has crippled
the cause of freedom.
I cannot help but wonder just how
Americans must feel about the deposed
leaders of countries who milked the
foreign aid cornucopia for millions of
dollars, these taxpayer dollars ending up
In these leaders' Swiss bank accounts.
It must be difficult for Americans living
on low incomes to understand why their
Government throws more money into
wasteful efforts when, all the while, they
must worry over the price of bread. But
the giveaway continues, and too often
the money of our American people is ac-
cepted with undisguised disdain, and
lines the pockets of officials rather than
solving economic problems.
The President is asking for more than
$3 billion for foreign aid. Yet, still in
the pipeline, in available funds, is the
staggering sum of more than $7 billion
waiting to be given away. But this is
not all. The poor citizen of the United
States is paying more than $3 billion in-
terest a year on the money the Govern-
ment has borrowed for its foreign aid
plans.
The U.S. Government is borrowing
money at a rate of interest four times
as great as the interest It is asking in
return for loans which may not even be
repaid. If this Is sensible or responsible,
then we live in an unusual era.
On top of this, there are so many people
involved in the giving away of the tax-
payers' money that one wonders if any-
one knows what Is going on. There are
more than 70.000 people being paid to
dispense these billions, and there are 26
Federal agencies working at it. Roads
have been built that lead to nowhere and
Cadillacs have become the symbol of the
recipients of foreign aid-while people
starve within sight of such opulence and
live under the terror of gestapolike po-
lice states.
I would suggest that a few changes
should be made in our foreign aid pro-
gram. First, cut the number of person-
nel involved in the program by at least
50 percent-they will not be missed by
our taxpayers.
The second step should be a complete
reanalysis of the way foreign aid funds
are being used. Let foreign aid be on
a project basis, and let the projects-
each and every one of them-be approved
by the Congress of the United States.
With the $7 billion already in the pipe-
line, I see no reason to appropriate an-
other $3 billion at this time. I cannot
see any reason for going deeper into debt
by paying interest on money which is
standing around unused.
I would like to see an end to foreign aid
funds being given to dictators and to
support economies which are socialistic,
communistic, or just plain unrealistic.
The American people expect their Gov-
ernment to operate on sound fiscal prin-
ciples, so why should they not expect
their Government to ask the same of
other countries whom we assist?
The forces of democratic government
are waging a life-and-death war with
communism throughout the world-why
should not the American people demand
that their tax money be used to support
only those nations which offer their citi-
zens something more than oppression
and varied stages of slavery?
Is it too much to ask that the billions
of dollars the American people have
given to help others should be used on
projects that offer help for those who
most need it, rather than end up in the
pockets of the greedy and dishonest?
TRADE EXPANSION AMENDMEN'T'S
(Mr. MOORE (at the request of Mr.
Scuwracxa) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Speaker, on June
25 of this year, I joined with more than
50 other Members of this House, includ-
Ing members of both parties, in intro-
ducing a bill to amend the Trade Expan-
sion At of 1962.
The proposed legislation would prevent
further tariff reductions under the au-
thority of the Trade Expansion Act in
all instances in which imports have, in
the past 5 years, demonstrated their
competitive advantage In the domestic
market by capturing a liberal share of
it. Under these circumstances, it is
clear that the existing tariff is not re-
pressive, nor is it in need of another
cut, let alone one of 50 percent. To slash
the tariff would be to invite disaster for
many of our industries, with no redeem-
ing benefit to offset the damage. The
proposed legislation would prevent this.
It has often been said by the free trade
doctrinaires that the superior American
industrial prowess, based on advanced
technology and heavy capital investment,
has nothing to fear from import com-
petition. This is an unfortunate hold-
over from classroom economic theories
that have not been tested In the market-
place.
Mr. Speaker, the view of the price-
profit system, which was so darkly
frowned upon In recent years, was the
outgrowth of narrow considerations
dreamed up by highly emotional atti-
tudes.
Profits were condemned as the quest of
purely selfish interests and not ap-
plauded for what they are-the energy
fuel of the private enterprise system.
Wages were correctly regarded as the
principal foundation of purchasing
power, but their dependence on a lively
business activity was not correctly as-
sessed-It was because of complete failure to
understand the American productive
system with its complex interdependence
among certain uniquely American crea-
tions of the technological, regulatory,
merchandising, and economic mecha-
nisms, that the free-trade philosophy
was foisted on this system with the in-
temperate Impatience that we still wit-
ness. It has had one very distinct effect;
namely, the flight of American capital
abroad in search of competitive oppor-
tunity. These investments are needed
at home; and as a result of flight abroad,
they are becoming more rare In the
domestic market.
Mr. Speaker, I offer for the RECORD a
discussion of this subject in a paper that
probes into hitherto' neglected corners
of economic and psychological factors.
It brings together a combination of con-
siderations that have been overlooked
but that explain the uniqueness of the
American economic system. It throws
much needed light on the vulnerability
of this system to external forces that
threaten the grounds of its confidence
in the future.
The paper was presented to the com-
mittee on resolutions of the Republican
National Convention, July 9, 1964, in
San Francisco. Its author is O. R.
Strackbein. chairman of the Nation-
Wide Committee on Import-Export Pol-
icy. The analysis is an eyeopener. I
commend it to the attention of my col-
leagues.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200160029-0