CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE AND HOUSE RE: USE OF US FORCES IN LAOS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP71B00364R000300070001-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 38
• Document Creation Date: December 12, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 5, 2001
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: September 18, 1969
• Content Type: OPEN

s 107$4, ,Approved For Relentnylat CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
SSIONM, RECORD?SENATE September 18, 1969
treatment of drug abuse and the reha-
bilitation of narcotic addicts in correc-
tional and penal institutions. In cooper-
ation with schools, law enforcement
agencies, courts, and other public and
private agencies, special efforts should
be made to assist such programs aimed
at juveniles, youth offenders, and young
adults.
A comprehensive program of this type
would also provide services for outpa-
tient counseling of former narcotic ad-
dicts?including employment, welfare,
legal, education, and referral assist-
ance?in cooperation and coordination
with the welfare and rehabilitation de-
partments of local political subdivisions
within the State.
It would, in addition, establish en-
lightened, comprehensive programs of
public education about the prevention of
drug abuse and narcotic addiction. My
bill would commit the Federal Govern-
ment to a major role in meeting these
pressing needs.
The use and abuse of marihuana and
the stringent criminal penalties appli-
cable to violations of laws governing its
possession and use present a special
problem.
Some authorities say that 50 percent
of college students have tried marihuana
at least once. Dr. James L. Goddard,
former head of the Food and Drug Ad-
ministration, has stated that 400,000
Americans may be using it regularly. We
must clear away the haze of misconcep-
tion and establish, once and for all, the
facts about the dangers inherent to
marihuana use and abuse.
My bill creates a Marihuana Study
Commission for this purpose. The Com-
mission would be composed only of per-
sons with experience in the medical,
mental health, and social problems at-
tendant to marihuana use. It would be
1pcated in the Office of the Assistant
Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare for Health and Scientific Af-
fairs. It would make a full study and re-
port in 18 months of marihuana use and
especially on the physiological and psy-
chological effects of infrequent, tempo-
rary, and long-term marihuana use.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be received and appropriately re-
ferred.
The bill (S. 2921) to assist State and
mtmicapal governments and nonprofit,
private organizations in providing for
the development of programs and the
construction, maintenance, operation,
and staffing of facilities for the preven-
tion, treatment, and rehabilitation of
drug addicts, and in reducing the inci-
dence of crime and delinquency related
to narcotic drug addition and drug abuse,
and for other purposes, introduced by
Mr. QooDELL (for himself, Mr. Case, Mr.
GRAVEL, Mr. HOLLINGS, Mr. INOUYE, Mr.
JAVITS, Mr. METCALF, Mr. MILLER, Mr.
NELSON, and Mr. PERCY) was received,
read twice by its title, and referred to
the Committee on Labor and Public
Welfare.
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. President, the
choice before the American people on
the issue of crime, is to make either
sound, reasoned judgments; or decisions
based on emotion, misinformation, and
slogan. The first course is difficult awl
frustrating, but the second is dangerous
and dishonest.
These three bills or any other legisla-
tion are not the whole answer. These is-
sues are the logical outgrowth of dra-
matic change in our society which must
be confronted in a larger sense, by the
Congress, the States, our local commu-
nities, and the people themselves.
A poet once wrote, "there are a thou-
sand hacking at the branches of evil to
one who is striking at the root."
The root of the crime problem is grow-
ing through the foundation of our society.
I call upon the Congress today to strike
at it, to cut it back, and to help build a
new, more rational, and more civilized
social order by seriously committing us to
the rebuilding and reorienting of our
criminal justice institutions in America.
ROCKY MARCIANO
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, earlier this
month Rocky Marciano was laid to rest
after a tragic plane crash in Iowa
claimed his life.
I am deeply saddened by the loss of
this man, who was a hero to millions
throughout the world.
Rocky Marciano was a fighter whose
success was nonpareil. He climbed
through the ropes 49 times and emerged
each time wearing the victor's laurel,
having won in a style that was never ele-
gant or classic, but always courageous.
He was a gentle man and an acutely
sensitive one. His opponents were
amazed at his gentleness outside the ring.
He was respected by all of them and
loved by many of them.
On the night of the most important
victory of his young life, Rocky Mar-
ciano was heartbroken because the man
he had defeated was his boyhood idol, Joe
Louis. Joe Louis never forgot Rocky's
apology for having defeated him.
In a time of antiheroes, Rocky was
truly a great American hero. As the son of
an Italian immigrant, his life was a
model for those Americans who believe
that a man, by dint of hard work, can
achieve his goals. Throughout his life he
remained a devoted son, husband, and
father. One of the reasons he gave for
his ring retirement was so that he could
spend more time with his parents, wife,
and children.
Many retired champions have been
deluded by the quick glory and easy
adulation received in sport. They have
confused easy success in sport with easy
success in life.
Unfortunately, some have been unable
to stand up to the challenges of life.
Rocky Marciano was never confused
In making the transition. He brought to
his retirement the best qualities of his
ring career: courage, perseverance, and
dedication. He succeeded beyond all ex-
pectations.
As he began his retirement years he
knew that success in life would be meas-
ured not by foes vanquished but by
friendships gained. And Rocky Marciano
had thousands of friends.
His hometown newspaper, the Brock-
ton Enterprise made the most appropri-
ate assessment of,tbe loss of this great
Mant It said:
The Golden age of boxing died twice. Once
in April, 1956, when Rocky Marciano retired
and for the second time in a plane crash in
Newton, Iowa.
Rocky Marciano exemplified all that
is best about sports.
He translated all the painfully learned
lessons of courage, respect, and persever-
ance to a code of conduct which made
him admired and honored among men.
CORRECTION OF THE RECORD
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent to correct the per-
manent RECORD of yesterday's proceed-
ings, on page S10736, in the first line
of the second paragraph following insert
"15. Constitutional Processes," by sub-
?
stituting the word "He" for the word "I".
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, the correction will be made.
USE OF 'U.S. FORCES IN SUPPORT 71
LOCAL FORCES OF LAOS AND
THAILAND.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, yester-
day, by a vote of 86 to 0, the Senate ap-
proved an amendment to section 401 of
the Defense procurement bill, whose pur-
pose, as I explained during the debate,
was to prohibit the use of any funds au-
thorized by this bill, or under any other
act, to support U.S. forces in combat in
support of local forces of Laos and Thai-
land. This is our constitutional- right.
Although the distinguished manager of
the bill, Senator STENNIS, would not
agree with my _interpretation, I do not
see how anyone could have failed to rec-
ognize its purpose?which is, as Senator
MANSFIELD stated succinctly?to keep the
United States from backing into other
wars without the authority of Congress.
In today's New York Times, there is a
report of "a series of secret military op-
erations in the last 3 weeks where Ameri-
can backed troops have seized two stra-
tegic areas of Laos long held by pro-
Communist forces." The report from
Vientiane went on to say:
American participation in both the Plaine
des Jarres and Ho chi Minh Trail campaign
now extends to the field level, the sources
said. They confirmed that United States
planes of Air America, Continental Air Serv-
ices and the United States Air Force?were
flying reinforcements, supplies and arms to
advanced areas, while American Army officers
and agents of the CIA were advising local
commanders. So far, there has been at least
one confirmed American battle death in Laos.
It occurred last week when an Americ A
genr was iiieci ov gunfire at an advanced
post.
Mr. President, it is ironic that on the
very day following the Senate vote we
should have a report of the use of Ameri-
can forces in combat in support of local
forces in Laos.
pol-i1"2""a""sanart is correct, but the patn of evergs
as indicated by Ithis morning's aril; p
fn New York Times shows a yew
g simIlarity to the way we became
involved in the war in Vietnam.
In view of this report, and in view of
the Senate's action of yesterday, I would
hope that the distinguished chairman of
the Armed Services Committee and the
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : RECORD? SENATE 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL SENATE T0793
such assistance. Not less than 25 percent
of the funds would be required to be
utilized for study in subjects related to'
professional diagnostic and treatment
services.
Title II would also provide for the crea-
tion of a Presidential Advisory Council
on Criminal Justice Professions Develop-
ment. It would require an annual assess-
ment of criminal justice manpower needs
by the Attorney General. And it would
authorize a national criminal justice pro-
fessions recruitment program.
Corrections education is another area
which is in dire need of new initiatives
as a tactical necessity in achieving the
To-Tiger range strategic objectives of cor-
rectional rehabilitation. Title Da of my
bill would provide f?the training and
utilization of speclaliy trained teachers
for use in correctional 'nstitutions and in
delinquency interventio programs in the
local community.
The Education Prof 'ons Develop-
ment Act of 1967 would b amended to
allow the Teacher Corps to'carry on, on
a fully funded basis, a prog m in this
area which it is successfully cbriducting
on a demonstration basis at thespresent
time. The title also provides for rekarch
and demonstration projects in cor'rec-
tions education services.
Title IV provides for coordination
the chief executive of the State of all
activities of State planning agencies
working in the area of crime control, of-
fender rehabilitation and juvenile de-
linquency control under and pursuant to
various Federal laws. Provisions are ex-
tensive coordination at the Federal level
are also set forth.
In addition, it provides for the crea-
tion of an Office of Technical Assistance
for Crime and Delinquency Prevention
in the Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, which would aid and advise
States in establishing and organizing
planning agencies, prepare model State ?
plans, and propose comprehensive goals.
Title V provides a 4-year $280 million
program of assistance to the States for
the renovation and construction of mod-
ern correctional rehabilitation facilities.
Criteria would be established by the At-
torney General after consultation with
the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare. The planning agencies operat-
ing in each State pursuant to the Omni-
bus Crime Act would prepare and execute
a plan for the modernization of existing
facilities and the construction of new
corrections and detention facilities
throughout the State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be received and appropriately re-
ferred.
The bill (S. 2919) to assist State and
local criminal justice systems in the re-
habilitation of criminal and youth of-
fenders, and the prevention of juvenile
delinquency and criminal recidivism, by
providing for innovative programs of
vocational training, job placement, coun-
seling, correctional education services,
corrections systems manpower acquisi-
tion, the establishment of regional Crime
1"eliriamiq Cehters, a national
it'al-Wstffe 15F6Ta1offs- retrilltment
program, and for other purposes, intro-
duced by Mr. GOODELL, was received, read
twice by its title, and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 2920. PREVENTIVE DETENTION ACT
Mr. GOODELL. Mr. President, the
Preventive Detention Act seeks to lower
the level of violent crime by authorizing
the pretrial detention in Federal court
of certain repeat criminal offenders, who
may be considered to be dangerous to
the community-at-large.
Like so many issues in the administra-
tion of criminal justice, the subject of
preventive detention is charged with
emotion. There is wide disagreement as
to its advisability as a matter of policy
and as to its constitutionality.
My proposal is both constitutional and
advisable, in view of a demonstrated
challenge to the public safety by many
repeat offenders who commit violent
crimes while on bail, probation or parole.
In this situation the law should be broad
enough, and sensible enough to protect
the larger and quite legitimate interest
of society as a whole.
It has been stated that any preventive
detention provision cannot be reconciled
with the defendant's right to the pre-
sumption of innocence. In fact, the pre-
sumption of innocence of an accused
accrues in the courtroom at the time of
trial. This is not to sa$ that the pre-
sumption is only a presumption of going
'forward with the evidence. If the pre-
ption remains inviolate at trial, its
ful \purpose is served. There is not pre-
sumption of innocence during the pre-
trial process of bringing a defendant to
permig veryilretrial detention to prevent
fact that we have always
escape Of d defendant pending trial in-
dicates thae?the presumption of inno-
cence accrues at the time of trial and is
not necessarily 'Violated by pretrial de-
tention.
The public is prbT to
outraged that
today the law canno operate detain
o
this category of repeat'Tnders who, by
any standard of comm sense, poses a
which he lives. And of cour , that com-
munity
serious danger to thevmmunity in
e
is usually a ghetto 'community
where most crime goes unrepOrted. My
bill would accomplish these 1Sirposes
without violating the rights an
accused. -
The bill would authorize, with cake-
fully drawn safeguards, the preventiVe
detention of persons who have been ad-
mitted to bail or placed on probation or
parole, and charged or convicted as the
case may be, with a particular kind of
felony and who, during such period, are
charged with a second felony of the same
kind.
Both charges must be felony offenses
"involving the use of a dangerous weapon
or deadly physical force resulting in seri-
ous bodily injury to another." The opera-
tive elements of this key phrase are statu-
torily defined.
In my bill, the issue of pretrial deten-
tion must be resolved, by a three-judge
panel of the U.S. District Court. Also,
the bill gives the court authority, in lieu
of imposing detention, to impose condi-
tions upon the release of the defendant,
including a condition requiring him to
return to custody after hours.
My bill also deals with the first of-
fender who is charged with a felony of-
fense "involving the use of a dangerous
weapon or deadly physical force result-
ing in bodily injury to another." While
pretrial detention is not authorized in the
bill in this situation, there are conditions
which may be imposed upon the release
of the person charged, including a re-
quirement that he report to a probation
or parole officer or a U.S. marshal
not more than once every 24 hours,
disclosing his activities, whereabouts, as-
sociations, conduct, travel, and place of
abode during the pretrial period.
The bill sets out appellate procedures,
mandatory penalties for bail jumping
and creates an additional offense for
committing an offense while on release.
The bill specifically requires civil com-
mitment of persons detained pursuant
to this statute, and provides that the de-
tention order expires within 30 days, with
authority for a 10-day extension, for
goad cause shown. It recognizes the
principle that such persons must be
guaranteed an expedited preference for
trial.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill
will be received and appropriately re-
ferred.
The bill (S. 2920) to amend the Bail
Reform Act of 1966 to authorize con-
sideration of danger to the community
In setting conditions of release, to pro-
vide for pretrial detention of dangerous
Persons, and for other purposes, intro-
duced by Mr. GOODELL, was received, read
twice by its title, and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
S. 2921. DRUG ABUSE SERVICES AND MARIHUANA
STUDY ACT OF 1969
Mr. GOODFITN.. Mr. President, recog-
nizing that there is a clear and demon-
strable relationship between narcotics
addiction and the high incidence of
crime, I am also introducing legislation
today designed to require the Federal
Government to assume the responsibil-
ities in this area which it has for so long
evaded.
My third bill, "The Drug Abuse Serv-
ices and Marihuana Study Act of 1969,"
would provide a 5-year $350 million pro-
gram to assist States, units of local gov-
ernment, and nonprofit, private orga-
nizations in the prevention and treat-
ment of drug abuse and the rehabilita-
tion of drug addicts.
It would provide for a comprehensive
rogram within each State designed to
eet the costs of constructing, equip-
pi and operating treatment and re-
hab1,itation facilities, including post-
hosptt,alizatlon and after care neighbor-
hood habilitation centers for narcotic
addicts. \
Provisio is made for the recruitment,
training, a? utilization of "community
narcotic prevention and rehabilitation
officers" to se?ve with and under the di-
rection of professional medical, psychi-
atric and social welfare personnel in
narcotic addiction treatment and re-
habilitation programs. I believe that it
has been demonstrated beyond question
that former addicts can and must play
a major role in narcotic rehabilitation
programs of all kinds.
The bill will also authorize the fund-
ing of programs for the prevention and
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved For Re
September-1 1969 CONG kagSeagfAli1lab96-RDWAGN64R000300070001-7 S 10795
.1-, KE
distinguished chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee would look into the
situation and report to the Senate their
findings. This Is a matter of the most
serious concern. During the debate, I
asked several times Whether our forces
are engaged in combat in Laos or Thai-
land, but no clear answer was given. I
think the situation calls for full hear-
ings, a reply from the executive branch,
and a full discussion by the Senate.
I ask unanimous consent that the ar-
ticle from the New York Times be placed
in the RECORD at the conclusion of my
remarks.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
U.S.-BACKED LAOS TROOPS CAPTURE Two REBEL
AREAS
THA/ FORCE ALSO USED
(By T. D. Allman)
VIENTIANE, LAOS, September 17?In a series
of secret military operations in the last three
weeks, American-backed troops have seized
two strategic areas of Laos long held by pro-
Communist forces.
In northeast Laos, rightist forces, stiffened
by Thai soldiers and officers, have seized the
Plaine des Janes, a strategic area 105 miles
north of here. The plain had been held by
the Communist since 1964. In central Laos,
similar forces have pushed east along
Route 9.
INTEGRATED PLANNING REPORTED
Reliable sources confirmed today that Lao-
tion Government troops, with heavy United
States air and logistic support, had taken
Ithang IChal, until recently the site of a
Chinese Communist diplomatic mission, and
Sepone.
In addition, Laotian troops have seized the
town of Muong Phine, also in central Laos,
and the towns of Muong Phanh, Xieng
Ehouanguille, Ban Ban, Ban Lat Sene and
Phong Saran?all in the Plaine des Jarres
area.
Well-informed sources today said that the
successes were the result of fully integrated
American-Laotian military planning and the
most intense American bombing ever seen in
Laos. So far, the advances have met little
resistance, leading military observers to be-
lieve that the offensives caught the Commu-
nist-led Pathet Lao and their North Viet-
namese allies by surprise.
The sources said Laotian units, some made
up largely of Royal Thai soldiers in Laotian
uniforms, had moved onto the plain and west
along Route 9 atter round-the-clock bomb-
ing had leveled several towns and scattered
small defending forces.
The offensives, planned late last month art
conferences in Long Cheng in northeast Laos
and at Savannakhet in central Laos, appear
designed to deal the Communists a serious
blow as United States troops are withdrawn
from Vietnam.
The thrust into northeast Laos?where
during the last years the Government posi-
tion had steadily deteriorated--eounteracts
rebel military victories that seemed to dis-
credit the neutralist Laotian Premier, Prince
Souvanna Phouma.
In June, North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao
troops seized Muong Soul, a neutralist base,
northwest of the plain.
GOAL IS HO CHI MINH TRAIL
The thrust across central Laos, according
to well-informed sources is an attempt to
use Laotian and That troops to cut the Ho
Chi Minh Trail and reduce North Vietnamese
Infiltration into South Vietnam.
"In a very real sense, the war in Vietnam
is now being fought in Laos," said one dip-
lomr tic source today. He said the American-
Laotian thrust toward the South Vietnamese
border might provide the Nixon Administra-
tion with reduction in infiltration to justify
large-scale troop withdrawals from South
Vietnam.
United States B-52 strikes along the Lao-
tian sections of the trail have increased
greatly in the last two weeks, the sources
said. They said as many as 500 sorties a day
were being flown over Laos and that the in-
crease in bombing in Laos was part of the
reason for the lull in the air war in South
Vietnam.
American participation in both the Plaine
des Jarres and Ho Chi Minh Trail campaigns
now extends to the field level, the sources
said. They confirmed that United States
planes?of Air America, Continental Air
Services and the United States Air Force?
were flying reinforcements, supplies and arms
to advanced areas, while American Army offi-
cers and agents of the Central Intelligence
Agency were advising local commanders. So
far, there has been at least one confirmed
American battle death in Laos. It occurred
last week when an American CIA agent was
killed by gunfire at an advanced post.
SENATE VOTES A CURB
(By John W. Finney)
WASHINGTON, September 17.?The Senate
unanimously adopted an amendment today
ostensibly designed to prevent American
troops from being committed to combat in
Thailand or Laos.
Whether the amendment would have such
effect was disputed by the Defense Depart-
ment and Senator John Stennis of Missis-
sippi, chairman of the Senate Armed Services
Committee.
The amendment was offered by Senator
John Sherman Cooper, Republican of Ken-
tucky, and approved by an 86-to-0 vote after
a confused debate that left the amendment
open to widely different interpretations.
The amendment, to a 820-billion military
authorization bill, specified that none of the
funds could be used for American combat
support of "local forces" in Thailand or Laos.
His purpose, Senator Cooper declared, was to
"prevent, if from moving step by step into
war in Laos or Thailand, as it did in Viet-
nam."
Senator Stennis argued that the Cooper
Amendment would apply to only 82.5-billion
in military aid for Thailand and Laos, as well
as South Vietnam. Thus, he contended, the
amendment would impose no restriction on
the use of other military funds to support
combat operations in Laos or Thailand.
In this contention Mr. Stennis was sup-
ported by a Defense Department memoran-
dum that he read to the Senate. The memo-
randum said that under the amendment the
current military aid to local forces in Laos
and Thailand could be continued and the
amendment would "have no impact on the
use of funds for support of U.S. forces in
Laos or Thailand."
Throughout the debate ran an element of
uncertainty over whether American forces
might already be committed in Thailand and
Laos without any official acknowledgment by
the Administration and without any specific
approval by Congress.
At one point, Senator Cooper questioned
whether "the President and the Secretary
of Defense don't want it [the amendment]
because we already have forces fighting in
Laos or Thailand."
The Senate action came as dispatches from
Laos reported important military gains by
Laotian Government forces, with United
States air and logistical support, against the
Pathet Lao, Communist-led guerrillas.
Senator Cooper?without any specific con-
tradiction by Senator Stennis?said "I think
we are fighting there." But he noted that
neither the Pentagon nor the State Depart-
ment had ever told Congressional commit-
tees that., American troops were engaged in
combat in Laos or Thailand.
45,000 TROOPS IN THAILAND
The United States has 45,000 troops in
Thailand, with American bases there used
for bombing operations in South Vietnam.
Except for an incident a few years ago in
which American "pilots" were flying heli-
copters carrying Thai troops, there has been
no public indication that American troops
were assisting Thai forces in operations
against insurgents.
In Laos, the United States conducts bomb-
ing operations against enemy supply lines
leading into South Vietnam. The Central In-
telligence Agency Is known to provide logis-
tic support to the neutralist Government,
but again there has been no official confir-
mation that American troops are providing
combat support.
Under a recently disclosed contingency
plan signed in 1946, the United States agreed
to supply combat troops to help Thailand
resist attack through Laos.
The Nixon Administration, however, has
made clear that It is not necessarily bound
by the plan, and the effect of the Senate
adoption of the Cooper Amendment could
be to further vitiate the effectiveness of the
controversial agreement by the Johnson Ad-
ministration.
For all the confusion today, it seemed ap-
parent that Senator Cooper had taken the
Senate one step toward using its control
over funds to prevent the Administration
from committing the nation to war in Laos
or Thailand without approval by Congress.
As the majority leader, Senator Mike
Mansfield, summed it up at the conclusion
of the debate:
"The purpose is well known?to see that
we do not back into another Vietnam in Laos
or Thailand."
Senator Stennis said he supported the pur-
pose of the Cooper amendment, although he
believed it ineffective as phrased. Thus a
more restrictive amendment may be offered
to the appropriations bill when it reaches
the Senate floor this fall.
A national commitments resolution voted
by the Senate in June called on the Admin-
istration not to comment American -troops
to foreign hostilities without "affirmative ac-
tion" by Congress. The Cooper amendment
was seen as a further manifestation of the
rising demand in the Senate for a check
on the foreign policy powers of the executive
branch, particularly on the wax-making pow-
ers.
OUTRAGE
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. Presi-
dent, Army Sp5c. Michael Maxwell of
Columbus, Ohio, has been fired as war
news editor of the American Forces
Vietnam Network in a dispute over mili-
tary censorship of war news. Maxwell
was relieved of duty last night after he
Informed his superiors he had been in-
terviewed by CBS news about censor-
ship. During the interview a reporter
asked Maxwell whether there was cen-
sorship of the news he broadcasts to
American GI's.
My answer to that would be an unequivo-
cal yes. There is censorship of the news. It
comes from two levels?the United States
Command Office of Information and also
from the administration of our station here
in Saigon. Some examples recently: The
statement of Vice President Ky, Vice Presi-
dent of Vietnam that there would be an
American troop withdrawal. He stated the
figure of 40,500 men. This story was not aired
on AFVN radio for 24 hours.
Lt. Col. James Adams, the officer in
charge of the Vietnam network of the
American forces of South Vietnam, aP-
parently took a dim view of Specialist
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 ? CIA-RD_P711300364M0300070201 7
S 10796 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SEN- zeplarber 18, 1969
Maxwell's industry and enterprise in in-
sisting upon factually reporting to our
officers and men in Vietnam important
news even if it involved statements of
Vice President Ky regarding pending
withdrawal of American forces from
South Vietnam.
Specialist Maxwell, who is 21 years old
and has had previous professional ex-
perience as a news reporter, is now clean-
ing M-16 rifles at network headquarters.
This, because he complained of censor-
ship of the news that he is permitted to
broadcast to our Armed Forces. His su-
perior officer ordered this honest, experi-
enced reporter, Specialist Maxwell, re-
lieved of his position and assigned to the
labor of cleaning M-16 rifles.
Our GI's in Vietnam are entitled to
hear the news without censorship from
some officious Pentagon propagandist.
-Here is another example of Army brass
dealing unjustly with an American en-
listed man.
CALIFORNIA DISASTER RELIEF
ACT OF 1969?CONFERENCE RE-
PORT
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I submit
a report of the committee of confer-
ence on the disagreeing votes of the two
Houses on the amendment of the Sen-
ate to the bill (H.R. 6508) to provide
assistance to the State of California for
the reconstruction of areas damaged by
recent storms, floods, and high waters.
I ask unanimous consent for the present
consideration of the report.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The re-
port will be read for thelnformation of
the Senate.
The legislative clerk read the re-
port.
(For conference report, see House pro-
ceedings of September 17, 1969, PP.
H8006-H8008, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD.)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the present consideration of
the report?
There being no objection, the Senate
proceeded to consider the report.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that such legislative and
staff assistants as may be needed be
granted the privilege of the floor dur-
ing the consideration of this conference
report.
The PRESIDING OrriCER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I am pleased
to report that the conferees appointed
to consider H.R. 6508, a bill to provide
assistance for the State of California,
have agreed upon the terms of a con-
ference report which adjusts the differ-
ences in the bills previously adopted by
the House and the Senate. On July 10,
when the Senate passed H.R. 6508 in
amended form, it substituted for the text
of the bill the language of S. 1685. The
latter is a bill the Senate had adopted
on July 8 to provide additional disaster
assistance for areas suffering a major
disaster.
I might add that S. 1685 was a part
of the results of a continuing 4-year
stua which the Senate, through its
CconXte"-i Public Works, has been
conducting to Irirrarriri:Walto rxiiRe
the disaster relief laws of this country
more equitable. It has been my good
fortune to sit on more than one con-
ference committee since I came to the
Senate; but I can honestly say that I
have never been a member of a confer-
ence which did more to resolve major
differences between the two Houses, or
whose efforts will have a more construc-
tive impact upon the people of our coun-
try. The chairman of the Senate Com-
mittee on Public Works, the Senator
from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH),
though not a member of the conference
committee, was hovering in the back-
ground, actively helping the conferees
resolve their differences. The Senator
from Virginia (Mr. Sporra), whose State
was flooded in the most recent Camille
catastrophe; the Senators from Missis-
sippi (Mr. EASTLAND and Mr. STENNIS) ,
whose State was also greatly affected;
the present Presiding Officer of the Sen-
ate (Mr. ALLEN) and his colleague from
Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN) , were all ex-
tremely helpful in compiling data to be
of assistance, not only to their States
and their citizens, but also to those
throughout the country who may be
similarly affected. The ranking Republi-
can member of our committee, the Sen-
ator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) , who
sat on the conference, as did the Senator
from North Dakota (Mr. YOUNG) and
others, were extremely helpful to the
conference, and I should say to this body
that when the final hour came for filing
our decision, we had tremendous cooper-
ation from the conferees for the House
of Representatives, who put aside the
differences they had with the original
Senate bill, as we tried to do with our
differences with their legislation, and we
proceeded constructively.
The House bill was concerned solely
with the California diaster of last winter.
The Senate bill would have created a
permanent general disaster relief pro-
gram, such as we have been working on
for 3 or 4 years. The conferees com-
promised these differences by placing a
time limit on the applicability of the
legislation and incorporating much of
the Senate bill's overall approach to dis-
aster relief. As agreed upon, the bill now
would apply to any major disaster oc-
curring during the period June 30, 1967
through December 31, 1970.
I should also point out that there was
general agreement on the overall philo-
sophy that we wanted not only a national
bill, applicable to any part of the Na-
tion that might be confronted with a
disaster, but also that this should be a
bill that had no terminal point; so that
as soon as the Senate and the House of
Representatives committees are able to
do so, they can hold hearings, hopefully
joint hearings. At that time it is hoped
that the terminal date agreed upon can
be removed, so the States will not have
to come to the Senate and the House
of Representatives after each disaster,
but rather, when disaster strikes, there
will be legislation already on the books
to deal with it.
No funds are specifically authorized
by this bill because there is no way of
estimating what the cost might be. The
'filial -estimates from Hurricane Camille
are not in, and, since the bill will be in
force for the next 16 months, we rely
on the Appropriations Committees, Con-
gress, and the President to assure that
the necessary funds will be supplied as
they are required
As approved by the conferees, the bill
contains 11 operative sections which
would provide the following?and I might
say I recognize the tediousness of enu-
merating some of these facts in a con-
ference report, but because there were
significant changes and significant re-
conciliations between differences that
'existed in the two bills, and because we
pare now, this afternoon, writing legis-
lative history which may be looked to at
some future time, which is not recorded
anywhere else, I hope my fellow Senators
will bear with me for this repetition:
First, 50-50 matching grants to States
for the permanent repair and reconstruc-
tion of non-Federal streets, roads, and
highways;
Second, readjustment of timber sale
contracts and grants for removal of tim-
ber from private land;
Third, additional time for public land
entrymen to comply with legal require-
ments;
Fourth, Federal loan adjustments;
Fifth, grants to States for disaster
planning;
Sixth, appointment of Federal coor-
dinating officers for major disaster
areas;
Seventh, temporary shelter for disaster
victims;
Eighth, food stamp program to be
made available during and after dis-
asters;
Ninth, assistance to individuals un-
employed as a result of a major disaster;
Tenth, fire control on publicly or pri-
vately owned forest or grasslands; and
Eleventh, grants for removal of debris
from private lands.
The first conference session was held
on August 12, 1 day before Congress re-
cessed for 3 weeks. Within a few days
thereafter Hurricane Camille wreaked
great loss of life and property upon the
gulf coast of Mississippi and other States,
especially Virginia. Shortly after the
Congress reconvened on September 3,
S. 2853 and S. 2854, bills to provide
special relief for the victims of this ter-
rible catastrophe, were introduced by
Senators EASTLAND, STENNIS, RANDOLPH,
ALLEN, BYRD of Virginia, BYRD of West
Virginia, ELLENDER, LONG, SPARKMAN,
SPONG, and THURMOND.
Although these bills were not specific-
ally before the conference for considera-
tion, they further emphasized the need
for additional legislation to aid the many
communities and thousands of people
who incurred losses in this major dis-
aster.
Graphic portrayals of the destruction
and suffering were provided by those
Members and staff who visited the afflict-
ed areas to see on the scene what had
happened. In addition the conferees in-
vited the representatives of several Gov-
ernment departments and agencies which
are directly concerned with relief work
to report on their activities in this most
recent disaster.
I think it is fair to say that we really
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved For Release 2001/11/01? CIA7RDP71.R00264R000300070001-7
September 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SE.N.A1.11 S 10867
might be known someday as a "steel." My
point, however, is this: Who is considering
What effect a loss of nickel would mean?
I am convinced a role exists for Federal
Government in establishing a coordinated
materials policy. This is not a role of dic-
tating usage of materials; we aren't going to
tell anyone when they can use a material
and when they can't. Rather, the Govern-
ment can prove helpful, I believe, by provid-
ing inventories of world supplies of mate-
rials, assistance to the research into alter-
natives to materials that are in short supply
or prove particularly damaging to the en-
vironment, and promotion of economic meth-
ods for re-cycling discarded products back
into our economy.
We may achieve answers by creating bottles
that dissolve when broken or cans that de-
grade, sharply curtailing the growth of our
national garbage heap. We may be able to
build cars for quick and profitable disposal,
instead of tossing them onto a vacant lot to
rust away.
The discovery of more efficient ways to
produce materials that do not persist in the
environment following use, might go far
toward reducing the $3.4 billion we as a
nation spend yearly for garbage in our urban
areas.
In addition, we must begin to look at the
trash heaps of our nation as mines that
are as potentially as valuable as the Corn-
stock Lode. As just one example, a typical
ton of municipal waste contains a third of
the heat potential of a ton of coal, a fact
that could prove very useful when we create
high-temperature incinerators.
The materials problem must be faced from
two ends: before the material leaves the
ground and after it has completed its useful
life.
This week, or early next week--following
the period of mourning over the loss of
Senator Dirksen, I hope to introduce an
amendment to S. 2005, an amendment to
create a Presidential Commission on Ma-
terials Policy. The two-year Commission
would have broad authority to pursue these
questions of how to coordinate materials
policy toward a goal of environmental en-
hancement, and then report to the Congress
with suggestions for action.
This amendment is the outgrowth of two
very knowledgeable reports on materials
policy I have had the good fortune to receive
in the past couple of years. The first was a
survey published by the Committee on
Public Works in January, 1968. The second,
which was far more detailed, was just re-
cently published by the committee. It is
entitled, Toward A National Materials Policy,
and was prepared by a group of some of the
nation's most prominent experts in the ma-
terials field. The report digs deeply into the
subject, and comes to these conclusions:
"We should insure an adequate supply of
all types of materials needed in appropriate
balance for our production requirements,
both in peace and during national emer-
gencies; we should husband our resources
by efficient processing techniques and by
the use of commonly available materials as
alternates for materials that may become
short in supply.
Future concerns will involve the ability of
the materials and energy retource base to
support national and world aspirations for
economic growth, and the implications for
the economy of periodic changes in the rela-
tive prices of various materials.
We need to develop new materials with
novel properties to satisfy the more stringent
demands of advanced technologies.
Finally, it is of the utmost importance
that, from the initial stages of production
of materialt through their ultimate use and
disposal, we conduct our operations and
activities in such a way as to minimize pol-
lution of air and water and to avoid des-
poliation of the environment, both physi-
cal and biological. By the way, I have
brought a couple dozen copies of the report
with me, and I would be delighted to share
them with any of you, and I solicit any
thoughts and observations you might have
after you read the report.
Solid wastes have been a public problem
long before the advent of our industrialized
society. Near the coast of Maine, there is a
huge pile of clam shells left beside the
Damarscotta river by some long-ago tribe of
Indians. These Indians, no better than we,
had no place to dispose of their used shells,
so they threw them onto a giant heap, that
today has become a tourist attraction.
Today's wastes are not to picturesque. But
they still can be the source of some humor,
as that report I mentioned at the start of
my talk indicates.
It was prepared by George Dutcher, direc-
tor of the Public Works Department of New
Castle County in Delaware, and it contains a
page of cartoons. One carries this headline;
"Collecting refuse will one day carry great
prestige and affluence," The drawing shows
a dejected son telling his father that he Just
flunked the Department of Sanitation test.
"You know what that means, son," the Fa-
ther reprimands the youngster. "Medical
School."
The fact is that both are dealing with
man's health and his survival as a civilized
being. Man surrounded by piles of garbage
is little better than man surrounded by an
epidemic of plague. We defeated plague. I
feel confident we can master our solid waste
problems as well.
Thank you.
?1
rCOMBAT INVOLVEMENT OF U.S.
TROOPS IN LAGS AND THAI-
LAND
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I was not
able to be present on the floor when my
colleague, Senator COOPER, made his
statement concerning the report of the
combat involvement of U.S. forces in
Laos, which was carried on the front
page of the New York Times. I wish to
inake it unmistakably clear that I shue
.ihe deep concern expressed- by Senator
COOPER. iy.L Wlsh to support wO all the
1.3=a, my command his cq or R fa
explanation and mvestigation of the
events behind this gravely bonen
i.u.s.11...
As a cosponsor of the Cooper amend-
ment?which seeks specifically to forbid
this type of combat involvement of U.S.
troops in Laos and Thailand?and as one
Senator who has repeatedly voiced his
concern over the danger of U.S. involve-
ment in Vietnam-type wars in Laos and
tabs.Thailand. ; believe this matter requires
the closest scrutiny of the Senate.
is based on a thorough and well-docu-
mented study of the status of school de-
segregation programs which was also re-
leased with the statement. The study
shows a dismal picture of delay with
permanent harm done to the thousands
of children involved.
The statement also calls for Senate
rejection of the Whitten amendments,
designed to reinstate freedom of choice
plans and thereby to impede meaning-
ful desegregation. I agree with the Com-
mission's position, and urge the support
of my colleagues on the Appropriations
Committee for striking the Whitten
amendments.
I ask unanimous consent that the
statement by the Civil Rights Commis-
sion, together with the additional state-
ment of Vice Chairman-designate Horn
be printed at this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON FEDERAL
ENFORCEMENT OF SCHOOL DESEGREGATION,
U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, SEPTEM-
13ER 11, 1969
Two months ago, the Attorney General and
the Secretary of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare announced a number of changes in the
manner in which their Departments would
in the future enforce the laws requiring de-
segregation of elementary and secondary
schools. The statement of the Attorney Gen-
eral and the Secretary of HEW affirmed a
commitment "to the goal of finally ending
racial discrimination in schools, steadily and
speedily. . . ." Prior to this announcement,
the Commission, in telegrams to the Presi-
dent, the Attorney General and the Secretary
of Health, Education, and Welfare had urged
that no action be taken to slow the pace of
school desegregation.
The Commission withheld any public com-
ment on the July 3 announcement until the
staff of the Commission had had a chance to
complete a thorough analysis and until the
Department of Justice and the Department
of Health, Education, and Welfare had had
an opportunity to take action consistent with
their statement.
"Since July 3, the House of Representatives
has passed the Whitten Amendment, a meas-
ure that would restrict the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare's ability to
enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 by requiring it to accept freedom-of-
choice plans for school desegregation and
may well affect the acceptability of freedom-
of-choice plans in the courts as well. The
amendment was not opposed by the Admin-
istration in the House."
Also since that time, court orders have
been entered and desegregation plans ac-
cepted which in our opinion postpone mean-
ingful desegregation from 1969 to 1970, and
the Secretary of HEW and the Department of
ustice have taken the unprecedented step
of requesting the courts to postpone effective
school desegregation in Mississippi from this
school year to 1970 and have also accepted
delays in South Carolina and Alabama. To be
sure, administrative actions were taken by
HEW during the past several years and again
this year to postpone school desegregation in
various districts. These were made under the
standards of the Guidelines and only under
most exceptional circumstances. But it
should be emphasized that what we are con-
cerned with here is the Government's going
into court at its own initiative and asking
affirmatively for a postponement.
At the time the procedures were an-
nounced, the Attorney General is reported
to have said that he preferred that the Na-
tion watch what he did rather than focus on
U.S. CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION
STATEMENT ON PUBLIC SCHOOL
DESEGREGATION
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, last Fri-
day, in a timely and eloquent statement,
the members of the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights urged a more active com-
mitment to the goal of public school
desegregation. Pointing out that the
Commission had not commented on the
revised guidelines announced on July 3,
the members now characterize that
change in policy as "a major retreat in
the struggle to achieve meaningful
school desegregation." Their conclusion
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S10868
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SEN ATE ,S'opf ember 1R, /969
what he said. It is with this in mind that
we find ourselves especially disheartened by
ilie recent actions of HEW and of the De-
pertinent of Justice in the eases in Missis-
sippi, South Carolina. and Alabama. For the
iliet time since the Supreme Court ordered
schools desegregated, the Federal Govern-
ment has requested in court a slow-down
to the pace of desegregation This request is
particularly difficult to uniserstand since as
recently as July 3 the Secretary of HEW and
o Attorney General annoii :wed that delays
itt desegregation beyond September 1969
w.iuld be granted only where a school dis-
trict sustained "the heavy factual burden
at proving that compliance with the 1969-
au time schedule cannot be achieved. . . ."
- 1,1 Mississippi, however, the Secretary of HEW
end the Attorney General urged delay on
their own initiative. In South Carolina and in
Alabama. the Government took other action
in delay desegregation. Certeinly those who
Imes placed their faith in t he processes of
liiw cannot be encouraged.
We acknowledge that the Department of
Justice, in some areas, hoe sought court
orders compelling desegregateon this Fall,
iieght such suits have been filed in Georgia.
Cut each of these suits was necessitated when
the school district reneged ori a promise
already made to HEW. One can only specu-
late on whether the July a statement and
the Government's action in Mississippi en-
couraged this reneging.
telt the problems caused by these new
procedures and recent actioiie, however, are
likely to be dwarfed by the probable effects
of the Whitten Amendment, if passed by the
Senate and approved by the President.
Our analysis of the new nrocedures and
recent actions has now been isompleted. and
a copy is attached to this Po itement. Based
upon it, we make the following findings:
1. The new procedures and recent actions
Involving Federal efforts to bring about
school desegregation appear la be a major
retreat in the struggle to achieve meaning-
ful school desegregation. See pp. 31 to 56
of the Report.
2. The statistics purportiee to show the
present extent of school deseesegation which
were contained in the July 3 ieint statement
of the Attorney General and cif the Secretary
of the Department of Health. Education, and
Welfare give an overly optireietic, mislead-
ing and inaccurate picture of the scope of
desegregation actually achiesed. In fact, in
a number of Southern States telatively little
desegregation of elements aer :mid secondary
schools has been accomplisheil in the last 15
years. See pp. 8 to 12,35 and 3ii of the Report.
:1 One of the major fallacies in the claim
of substantial desegregation is that many
districts have 'Violated the terms of the as-
surances they have signed, or of the court
orders that have been entered against them,
Adequate personnel is neceestry to police
compliance. Congress has ordered HEW to
treat the North and the South equally in its
enforcement efforts. As a result of this Con-
gressional directive, the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare has recently
reduced the number of its peresnnel working
i'or desegregation of elements i y and second-
ary schools in the Southern and Border
States, and has increased the iiiimber of its
personnel working on such meiblems in the
North and West. In the past: we have found
that its staff was inadequate to police the
compliance of school districts in the South,
and the reduction in personieil can be ex-
pected to further restrict its sempliance ef-
forts in that region. Although HEW has re-
quested 75 additional ern iiloyees from
Congress, it is unlikely that tlieee additional
personnel will be sufficient it remedy this
problem. See pp. 9 to 13, 30, and 47 to 51 of
iihe Report.
1 court orders to desegree oc have not
.einerally been as effective a ineans of de-
segregating elementary and secondary
schools as administrative proceedings backed
by the threat of a fund cutoff. One reason
Is that a number of Federal judges in the
South have been unsympathetic to the ne-
cessity of eliminating racial segregation in
elementary and secondary schools. As a re-
sult, they have been insensitive to the re-
quirements of the appellate courts which
Congress has set over them, and have by
their direct actions and tolerance of the ac-
tions of others significantly retarded the
pace of school desegregation in the cases
before their courts. In addition, it is more
difficult, under current law, to enforce a
school board's compliance with a court order
than it is to enforce, by the threat of with-
holding Federal funds, a school board's com-
pliance with an HEW-approved voluntary
plan. See pp. 31 to 46 of the Report.
Accordingly, emphasis upon court orders
rather than administrative proceedings as
the vehicle of Federal efforts to desegregate
schools can be expected to slow the pace of
school desegregation. The situation is fur-
ther aggravated by the limited Department
of Justice personnel available to bring law-
suits as well as the laudable newly an-
nounced policy of extending desegregation
efforts from the South into the North and
West. See pp. 47 to 51 of the Report.
5. Although use of the threat of withhold-
ing Federal funds has proved to be the most
effective means of enforcing school deseg-
regation, the actual termination of funds,
when not followed by Department of Justice
litigation to enforce immediate desegrega-
tion, reportedly results in disproportionate
harm to black students and their teachers.
We recommend that the Department of Jus-
tice promptly bring lawsuits to require im-
mediate desegregation as soon as a district's
Federal funds have been finally terminated.
We also recommend that Title IV of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 be amended to permit the
Department of Justice to initiate school
desegregation suits without the necessity of
receiving a specific complaint?as is now the
requirement. See pp. 31 to 33 of the Report.
6. Since passage of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, Congress has given inadequate support
to HEW's attempts to enforce school desegre-
gation?appropriations have been limited and
some unnecessary restrictions placed on
HEW's operating procedures. In part, the in-
adequancy of HEW's enforcement efforts in
the past five years stems from the inadequacy
of this support. HEW's request for additional
personnel is now pending before the Senate
and we urge its approval.
7 Passage of the Whitten Amendment,
which would require the acceptance of free-
dom-of-choice plans, would slow or halt the
progress of school desegregation. We believe
that there is a serious chance that its passage
would reverse some of the limited gains al-
ready made. See pp. 25 and 26 of the Report.
8. As we had previously found in our 1967
report, Southern School Desegregation: 1966-
67, freedom-of-choice, since it places the full
burden of desegregation upon the shoulders
of black parents and their children- -those
who are politically, economically, and socially
least able to bear it?is not an effective means
of desegregating elementary schools in the
Southern and Border States. See pp. 14 to 26
of the Report.
Because freedom-of-choice requires affir-
mative action by black parents before their
children can attend an integrated school,
Its use, as a practical matter, has encouraged
local white citizens to engage in campaigns
of intimidation and economic retaliation
against black parents willing to take such
action. Similarly, white students and teach-
ers frequently harass and punish the black
children whose parents have chosen to send
them to the formerly white-attended school_
cimeequently, many black parents are lit-
eridly afraid to send their children to for-
merly white-attended schools; as to them,
the "freedom" to choose the school their chit-
dren will attend is illusory. See pp. 20 to 23 of
the Report.
Fifteen years have passed since the Su-
preme Court decided that the right of black
children to attend the same schools attended
by other children was guaranteed by the
Constitution. Five years have passed since
Congress, in the Civil Rights Aot of 1964, also
declared that segregation violated the law of
the land, But segregation is more than just
simply a violation of the law. In 1967, we.
issued a Report, Racial Isolation in the Pub-
lic Schools, which concluded that racial iso-
lation, whether caused by de jure segrega-
tion, discriminatory housing patterns, OT
other factors, resulted in serious educational
harm to the children of minority groups.
Conversely, integration significantly boo led
the educational achievement of these chil-
dren. If this Nation truly respected the rule
of law, if it truly cherished each of its chil-
dren, the last vestiges of segregated educa-
tion would have disappeared years ago. In-
stead, segregation continues as the pattern,
and not the exception, of education in rnsny
States.
At this point, we can do no more than
echo the words written recently by Justice
Black: ". . There are many places still
in this country where the schools are either
"white" or "Negro" and not just schools for
all children as the Constitution. requires. Ia
my opinion there is no reason why euch a
wholesale deprivation of constitutional rights
should be tolerated another minute."
Similarly, we agree with Federal Judge
Hoffman that: "For an American who is de-
voted to his country and wants to believe in
the intelligence and good-will of its citizens
it is very painful to contemplate and difficult
to understand continued resistance to school
desegregation."
While progress has been slow, the motien
has been forward and this is certainly no
time to create the impression that we iire
turning back but a time for pressing forward
with vigor. This is certainly no time for giv-
ing aid and comfort, even unintentionally,
to the laggards while penalizing those who
have made commendable efforts to follow the
law, even while disagreeing with it. If any-
thing, this is the time to say that time is
running out on us as a, Nation. In a word,
what we need most at this juncture of our
history is a groat positive statement regard-
ing this central and crucial national problem
where once and for all our actions clearly
would match the promises of our Constitu-
tion and Bill of Rights.
Thus, we are deeply concerned over the
directions recently being taken in Federal
efforts to desegregate elementary and second-
ary schools. We are committed to the purpose
for which this Commission was created: to
act as an objective, bipartisan factfintling
agency and to continually apprise the Presi-
dent and the Congress of the facts as we see
them. We speak out now since we believe
our Government must follow the moral and
legal principles and promises on which our
Constitution and laws are based and meet
the high expectations to which the people
of this country have addressed themselves,
Rev. THEODORE M. HESBURGH. C.S.C.,
Chaim an.
STEPHEN HORN_
Vice-Cit aim u-de.Ognstc.
FRANKIE M. FREEMAN,
HECTOR P. Gaeta& M.D
Meurace B. MITCHELL,
ROBERT S. RANKIN,
HOWARD A GLICKSTEIN.
Staff Direct at -designate.
ADDITIONAL STATEMENT BY VICE-CHAIRM AN-
DESIGNATE HORN
Civil rights is a national problem. Progress
and blame can be shared by those in all three
branches of our Government under several
administrations :ind by people int all parts
our country.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Seplemlgr 17, 1Wroved F9PiktCPLIVASititi-A111/W4EceliilikOPMNTOM4R000300070001-7
not have the economic resources to afford
any such compensation program.
Only within a restored, prolonged, assured
balance of peace and balance of economic
survival can the current situatior? gradually
settle down so that Arabs may come to a more
realistic assessment. Only then can Arabs
within cease fire lines take advantage of the
economic possibilities of cooperation with'
Israel. Only when it is clear that the arms
supplied by Soviets to Egypt, and other dis-
tant countries, cannot reverse the present
balance of peace, will the Arabs closer to the
scene-Jordan and Lebanon with their mod-
erate governments, the Palestinians inside
and outside the cease fire line with their
interest in rejoining families-come to the
fore. Only then can we expect a step-by-step
enlargement of the pragmatic cooperation
that miraculously goes on even now, as
Illustrated by the thriving trade between
West Bank and Israel, as well as West Bank
and Jordan, and the Palestinian students re-
turning for summer vcations under Israeli
occupation with their families.
The folly and callous irresponsibility of
Nasser policy may some day become fully
apparent to Arab audiences. It is a policy
that has preached war for 17 years and led to
defeat twice. It is a policy that concentrates
such massive efforts on armaments that they
dwarf the expenditures on the Aswan dam. It
is a policy that holds no realistic hope for
anything but senseless Arab and Israeli suf-
fering in the years ahead. The alternative is
a policy of mutual respect and cooperation.'
Even with small beginnings of de facto ac-
commodation, it could produce a gradual
increase of understanding between two long
divided Semitic border peoples each proud
of their ancient religion and literature, each
with an economic challenge of a better future
In a desert that human skill and dedication
can convert into a garden of growth for
Arab and Jew alike.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House has passed the bill (S. 757) for the
relief of Yvonne Davis, with an amend-
ment, in which it requested the concur-
rence of the Senate.
The message also announced that the
House had passed the following bills, in
which it requested the concurrence of
the Senate:
H.R. 1695. An act for the relief of Alfredo
Caprara;
H.R. 2260. An act to confer jurisdiction
on the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Wisconsin to hear, determine, and
render judgment on the claim of Emma Zim-
merli against the United States;
H.R. 2407. An act for the relief of Elbert
C. Moore;
H.R. 2458. An act for the relief of Frank
J. Enright;
H.R. 4634. An act for the relief of Law-
rence Brink and Violet Nitschke;
H.R. 8694. An act for the relief of Capt.
John T. Lawlor (retired);
H.R. 9477. An act to provide for the dis-
position of judgment funds of the Confed-
erated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reser-
vation;
H.R. 9910. An act for the relief of Han-
nibal B. Taylor;
HM. 10356. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Iris 0. Hicks;
MR. 11060. An act for the relief of Victor
L. Ashley;
H.R. 11503. An act for the relief of Wylo
Pleasant doing business as Pleasant Western
Lumber Co. (now known as Pleasant's Log-
ging & Milling, Inc.); and
H.R. 11890. An act for the relief of T. Sgt.
Peter Elias Gianutsos, U.S. Air Force (re-
tired).
ENROLLED BILLS SIGNED
The message further announced that
the Speaker had affixed his signature to
the following enrolled bills and joint
resolutions, and they were signed by the
Vice President:
S. 83. An act for the relief of certain civilian
employees and former civilian employees of
the Bureau of Reclamation;
S. 85. An act for the relief of Dr. Jagir Singh
Randhawa;
S. 348. An act for the relief of Cheng-huai
Li;
HM. 4658. An act for the relief of Bernard
L. Coulter;
S.J. Res. 149. Joint resolution to extend
for 3 menths the authority to limit the rates
of interest or dividends payable on time and
savings deposits and accounts;
H.J. Res. 250. Joint resolution authorizing?
the President of the United States of America
to proclaim September 17, 1969, General von
Steuben Memorial Day for the observance and
commemoration of the birth of Gen.
Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben; and
H.J. Res. 775. Joint resolution to authorize
the President to award, in the name of Con-
gress, Congressional Space Medals of Honor
to those astronauts whose particular efforts
and contributions to the welfare of the
Nation and of mankind have been excep-
tionally meritorious.
HOUSE BILLS REFERRED
The following bills were severally read
twice by their titles and referred, as
indicated:
H.R. 1695. An act for the relief of Alfredo
CaTirara;
.R. 2260. An act to confer jurisdiction on
the U.S. District Court for the WeStern Dis-
trict of Wisconsin to hear, determine, and
render judgment on the claim of Emma Zim-
merli against the United States;
H.R. 2407. An act for the relief of Elbert C.
Moore'
H.R. 2458. An act for the relief of Frank J.
Enright;
H.R. 4634. An act for the relief of Lawrence
Brink and violet Nitschke;
H.R. 8694. An act for the relief of Capt.
John T. Lawlor (retired) ;
HR. 9910. An act for the relief of Hannibal
B. Taylor;
H.R. 10356. An act for the relief of Mrs..
Iris 0. Hicks;
H.R. 11060. An act for the relief of Victor L.
Ashley;
HR. 11503. An act for the relief of Wylo
Pleasant doing business as Pleasant Western
Lumber Co.) now known as Plea,sant's
Logging & Milling, Inc.); and
11.11 11890. An act for the relief of T. Sgt..
Peter Elias Gianutsos, U.S. Air Force (re-
tired); to the Committee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 9477. An act to provide for the dis-
position of judgment funds of the Con-
federated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Res-
ervation; to the Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs.
CONCLUSION OF MORNING
BUSINESS
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
ing business is concluded.
S10731
AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA-
TIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1970 FOR
MILITARY PROCUREMENT, RE-
SEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, AND
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF MIS-
SILE TEST FACILITIES AT KWAJ-
ALEIN MISSILE RANGE, AND RE-
SERVE COMPONENT STRENGTH
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Chair lay
the unfinished business before the Sen-
ate notwithstanding the hour.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will report.
The LEGISLATIVE CLERK. A bill (S. 2546)
to authorize appropriations during the
fiscal year 1970 for procurement of air-
craft, missiles, naval vessels, and tracked
combat vehicles and to authorize the
construction of test facilities at Kwaja-
lein Missile Range, and to prescribe the
authorized personnel strength of the Se-
lected Reserve of each Reserve compo-
nent of the Armed Forces, and for other
purposes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Mississippi?
There being no objection, the Senate
resumed the consideration of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to amendment No.
165 of the Senator from Kentucky (Mr.
COOPER).
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
RECESS SUBJECT TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I have
consulted with the majority and minority
leaders, and after consultation I make
this motion.
I move that the Senate stand in recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(At 1 o'clock and 20 minutes p.m., the
Senate took a recess, subject to the call
of the Chair.)
At 1 o'clock and 56 minutes p.m., the
Senate reassmbled, when called to order
by the Presiding Officer (Mr. CANNON in
the chair) .
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator from Kentucky is recognized.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, what is
the pending business?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pend-
ing business is amendment No. 165 of-
fered by the Senator from Kentucky.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, on Au-
gust 12, I offered in the Senate an amend-
ment to clause (2) of section 401, title
IV of S. 2546. After some debate, I with-
drew the amendment, as it had not been
printed, and as several Members of the
Senate expressed a desire to have more
time for its consideration and some
wished to join as cosponsors. The record
of the debate may be found on pages
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S 10732 Approved For RetEgmEoltkOlg10011upkeEMC1130g164W03000700#107embf, 41, 7. I p
9776-9783 of the CONGRE&a!ONAL RECORD,
.11.1.9,-ust 12, 1969. I gave notice that I
would introduce again the amendment
when the Senate convened i-ifter recess.
The amendment I offei :id on August
12 was directed to clause '2) of section
401. Its purpose was to prot iibit the use of
-iited States in
i-orces in Laos
the Armed Forces of the th
combat in support of local
and Thailand.
Title IV?General Pre
2546, as reported by the So
tee on Armed Services, res
IC?GENERAL PIL ,
401. Subsection (a)
Public Law 89-367 approved
480 Stat. 37), as amended, is
to read as follows:
"Funds authorized for a.
tile use of the Armed Force.
;States under this or any (3/1-
gaborized to be made available
purposes to support: (1)
other free world forces in Vie
forces in Laos and Thailand:
costs, during the fiscal yee
terms and conditions as the a.
i:ortee may determine."
1)ii August 12, section ,101 was modi-
fied by amendments oilfired by the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FuLsinom)
which were agreed to by the Senator
from Mississippi (Mr. i3TENNIS), the
manager of the pending bill, and the
Senate. Its present text I as follows:
f-Trd; to exceed 82,500,000,00i-1 of the funds
authorized for appropriation for the use of
tirle Armed Forces of the Unia,?d States under
this or any other Act are aathorized to be
made available for their stated purposes to
aupport: (1) Vietnamese and other free
world forces in Vietnam, (2 local forces in
Laos and Thailand; and for related costs,
during the fiscal year 1970 on such terms
and conditions under PreJential regula-
Li?11:3 as the President may determine.
isions of S.
'tate Commit-
ds as follows:
.tsioNS
section 401 of
larch 15, 1966
,reby amended
ropriation for
of the United
.1' Act are au-
or their stated
letnamese and
nam, (2) local
and for related
1970 on such
.cretary of De-
i'ne Senate will note that the present
language of section 401 pi ivide that?
Vends authorized for the ] e of the Armed
Forces of the United State under this or
any other act are authcrri:-,-d to be made
available for their stated o'.rposes to sup-
port: (1) Vietnamese and her free world
i'.,1;ps in Vietnam, (2) loch' forces in Laos
and Thailand. and for reit, costs.
The words "to support': are of opera-
tive importance. They apply and are di-
tiected equally to Vietnaiii, where the
United States is engaged in war, and to
Laos and Thailand, whein we are not
informed that we are en 'aged in war.
Section 401 makes no di unction as to
the kinds of support whien are author-
ized to the forces in Vietietin and to the
local forces in Laos and Tt anland.
The United States is at war in Viet-
ilani. The United States ist-ovides equip-
ment, material and suppiiiis, training?.
billions of dollars?everylliing necessary
tor the conduct of war to support South
Vietnam, its forces, and other allied
forces in South Vietnam. nut the United
states has provided far p r()ater support.
rit has sent over 500,000 of its men and
many women to fight, to ,-alffer wounds
and injury, and to die.
The language of section 401, as modi-
led, speaks for itself. Its literal meaning
k (sear, and the languatie itself is the
eine and decisive source to arovide inter-
tied of the legislative intent of see-
tion 401. Under this test, section 401 can
be interpreted to direct that the kinds of
support provided to:' First, Vietnamese
and other free world forces in Vietnam
can be provided to local forces in Laos
and Thailand.
The amendment which I offer reads as
follows:
On page 5. line 14, strike out "to support:
(1)" and insert in lieu thereof "(1) to sup=
port".
On page 5, line 15, strike out "(2) 1.7.
forces in Laos and Thailand; and", and
in-
'ac'rt in lieu thereof "(2) to support local
forces in Laos and Thailand, but support to
such local forces shall be limited to the
providing of supplies, materiel, equipment.
and facilities, including maintenance there-
of, and to the nroviding of tralnine for such
local forces, and (3)".
The amendment would provide and
make a distinction between the kinds of
support that the United States shall give
to South Vietnam and the kind of sup-
port we would make available in Laos
and Thailand.
If the amendment is adopted, section
401 will read as follows:
TITLE IV?GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC, 401. Subsection (a) of section 401 of
Public Law 89-367 approved March 15, 1966
(80 Stat. 37), as amended, is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"Not to exceed $2,500,000,000 of the funds
authorized for appropriation for the use of
the Armed Forces of the United States under
this or any other Act are authorized to be
made available for their stated purposes: (1)
to support Vietnamese and other free world
forces in Vietnam, (2) to support local forces
In Laos and Thailand, but support to such
local forces shall be limited to the providing
of supplies, materiel, equipment, and facili-
ties including maintenance thereof, and to
the providing of training for such 1
forces, and (3) for related costs, during th
fiscal year 1970 on such terms and conditions
under presidential regulations as the Presi-
dent may determine."
I desire to make the purpose and the
interpretation of the amendment specific
and clear, It draws a distinction be-
tween the use of funds authorized to
support Vietnam and other free world
forces in Vietnam and funds authorized
to support local forces in Laos and
Thailand. It would limit strictly U.S.
ort orJO?l forces in Laos and
tie the types of aid designated
by the amendment and for related costs.
The amendment is intended to declare
that funds authorized under this or any
other_act...thall not_ iae used to engage or
commit _the Armed
States in combat, hostility, or war in sup-
peantantoonalqrnese
It is intended to prohibit st---FiT17:117....y
sUcn use of tunas aumorizen. congress
tia-K tins constitutional authority under
article I. section 8 of the Constitution.
It is perhaps the only clear authority
which Congress has to deal with such
a situation.
It is estimated that 45,000 of op'
Armen forces- are statienecrin Thailand.
T=ATglulow that our forces are now
engaged in combat in Laos or Thailand
in support of local forces. I hear from
various sources that some are engaged
in combat in Laos and Thailand against
insurgents, but I must say I have no
personal knowledge, that it is correct. As
? i
I recall from hearings I have attended.
both in the Committee on Foreign Re-
lations and the -Committee on Armed
Services, jeleaveessot heard any official
of this cd4ntry say that we are erigaea
in. hostilities in Laos or -Thailand. If they
are so erig_agea, -rue amenamefft lS lir
raided to deny their continued ust?Tti
cciniibA, support-57=7"5=171-111TM
countries.
4.n blunteet, terms, the amendment i,
offered with the purpose of preveriring.
if ossible the united 't,titesn
? I
S e? ? s
Thai an., as d in Viet-n,.
During the course of tile debate on
August 12, objections were raised to the
amendment, and since that time Ques-
tions have been directed to me concern-
ing its full meaning,
The distinguished Senator from Tizani
(Mr. TowEit ) suggested that the amend-
ment would prohibit U.S. forces in Thai-
land from engaging in combat for then
self-defense_ or the defenw of
leases or other U.S. facilities?. I assume
the same argument would be directed to
U.S. forces in Laos. This argument is
patently incorrect, on its face. Of course
the U.S. forces, wherever they are, ear
defend themselves as a matter of right,
as a matter of commonsense, and as a
matter of international law; and, con-
stitutionally, the President, as C, mi
in Chief, has, the authority to
take whatever measures are necessary te
assure the defense of U.S. forces.
I am sorry the Senator from Texas ie
not in the Chamber at this time.
to emphasize again that this amendment
in no way would prevent our force-,
wherever they are, from defending them-
selves.
have been asked if in ai
support of U.S. forcesew
nam an o er ree worrd To-rces ist
Vietnam sue as ?om o'er
na e al and ?
recte agariisf the HO
enemyforces MchV.lethai
ft:
nd in Laos aloin e o M' '-
answer mot 7 ; - ment
would no o is t sue comsat ac wales
0 P. orc s. It a a 1pws lnas
be about Vietnam, we are at war in Viet-
nam. The Commander in Chief, tto)
President, has control of that situation,
as a constitutional matter, and if in 'fact
operations originating in Thailand were
used to assist our Armed Forces and
other forces fighting, in Vietnam, my
amendment would not prevent such op-
eration, clause (1) of section 401, would
not be affected by the amendment I offer
But with respect to clause 12), it must
be clear that the amendment is 'intended
1 tel the en a ement ot
U.S. Armed Forces in combat, in suonort
af Laos or Thailand Ideal forces notti
in Laos and Thailand.
The distinguisreil Senator from . ari-
zona. Senator GOLDWATER_ in a very val-
uable contribution to the debate, asked
the amendment I offer would prohibit,
U.S. forces in the installation of radar
and other facilities to assist local force.
in Laos and Thailand. My answer is "No.' '
The amendment is intended to prni-!ibit
the use of eel- Armed Fornes in rn
o: ha
4 II I
? ?
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved For RelgasgffriRk6.10J_DPsitfin64R000300070001-7
Septemte-r 17, 1969 CONuiths S 10733
in support of local forces in Laos and
Thailand. But I make this point. The
stationing of large U.S. forces in Thai-
land?estimated at 45,000 and their use
in many types of military activity, lo-
gistic and otherwise?even though short
of actual combat, increase the possibility
of the United States becoming involved
in a local war without the authority of
the Congress Our tr000s in Thailand
andja_i_49222.uld
be withdrawn as
ossle.
It was said in the debate an August 12
that there is no intention to use our
rmed Forces in Laos or Thailand in
combat in support of their local forces.
There is no reason, then, why it should
not be spelled out in section 401, as I
propose.
The distinguished Senator from Mis-
sissippi (Mr. STENNIS) said that it would
be a monstrous act for the Executive to
use the language of section 401 as au-
thority to engage our forces in war either
in Laos or Thailand. I am sure that it is
the purpose of the President of the United
States that the United States shall not
become engaged in war in Laos or Thai-
land. He has outlined his policy for
Southeast Asia?that the countries of the
area must assume greater responsibility
for their defense. He has said "no more
Vietnams." I would think it would be
helpful to the President, and his ad-
ministration, if Congress would make
this policy clear to give him support on
the policy he has announced.
Just a short time ago, on June 25, the
Senate adopted by a vote of 70 to 16 the
4.1249212,1sannajtmeesoluitop., a res-
o u ion which Senator FULBRIGHT and
I had prepared as a substitute for his
original resolution. I shall read the reso-
lution.
Whereas accurate definitions of the term
"national commitment" in recent years has
become obscured: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That (1) a national commitment
for the purpose of this resolution means the
use of the armed forces of the United States
on foreign territory, or a promise to assist a
foreign country, government, or people by
the use of the armed forces or financial re-
sources of the United States, either imme-
diately or upon the happening of certain
events, and (2) it is the sense of the Senate
that a national commitment by the United
States results only from affirmative action
taken by the Executive and legislative
branches of the United States Government by
means of a treaty, statute, or concurrent res-
olution of both Houses of Congress specifi-
cally providing for such commitment.
While it had no constitutional effect,
it ex ressed the sense of the Con ress
a cons 1 u lona y e 'rme. orces 9.
the United States alOttra ran -De used
abroad or their use promised, in suppors
es of other e. - - ?
? ? : airdligliMlio ? ? - 1. ?t
I 1111110
?
and the Congress.
It may be argued, and I have read some
articles to that effect, that the United
States is bound by the terms of the SEA
TO Treaty to engage in the defense of
Laos and Thailand. If this argument sug-
gests that the United States is bound to
engage in combat activities in either of
these states in their support, I answer by
saying that the terms of the treaty do not
so provide. Article IV of the treaty,
which deals with aggression by means of
armed attack against a party or "in
any way other than by an armed at-
tack," requires a determination by each
party as to the action that it will take
"in accordance with its constitutional
processes." These words "constitutional
processes" are controlling, so we must ask
what does the term "constitutional proc-
esses" mean?
In accord with our national commit-
ments resolution?and in accord with the
testimony of the late Secretary of State
John Foster Dulles, given at the time the
SEATO Treaty was being considered?
except in case of emergency or immedi-
ate attack?I insist that in situations
such as exist in Laos and Thailand
Where we are not at war, as far as any
constitutional determination by the Ex-
ecutive or the Congress is concerned,
"constitutional processes" means the
joint action of the Executive and the
Congress. If we are not to be committed
in many places throughout the world to
engagement in armed conflict, which can
lead to war as it has in Vietnam, the
Congress must assert its authority.
The war in Vietnam is a fact. We can-
not affect it constitutionally except by
cutting off appropriations for its support
or repealing the Gulf of Tonkin Resolu-
tion. I do not believe the Congress is
ready to do so when the young men of
our country are fighting loyally and
bravely. But, surely we do not want to
move, or rather back into, war in Thai-
land or Laos step by step as occurred in
Vietnam. We have the constitutional
power now to forbid the use of funds un-
der this bill or any other act for the en-
gagement of the Armed Forces of the
United States in combat, in hostilities, in
armed conflict, in war, in support of local
forces in Thailand and Laos.
Mr. President, I do not degrade the
efforts of the people of Laos or Thailand
to maintain the type of government they
want in their countries, but I do say that
no President of the United States, nor the
Secretary of Defense, nor military com-
manders have the right to send this
country into war, another war, except in
those cases where the constitutional au-
thority is clear. I am sure that President
Nixon wants no new war but the Senate
and the Congress must discharge its re-
sponsibilities.
It may be said that I am giving too
great importance to the language of sec-
tion 401. I do not think so. It is the first
test of the attitude of the Senate toward
the national commitments resolution ap-
proved this year almost unanimously. In
a larger sense, it is the duty of the Con-
gress, which represents the people, to
prevent the engagement of the United
States in war unless it is essential to the
security of the United States.
Mr. STENNIS and Mr. PEARSON ad-
dressed the Chair.
Mr. COOPER. I yield to the Senator
from Mississippi first. ?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I ap-
preciate the Senator from Kentucky
Yielding to me.
Mr. President, may we have order?
May we have the attention of all Sena-
tors, Mr. President?
The PRESIDING Ok,k10ER (Mr.
CRANS in the chair) . The Senate will
r. President, I believe
e issue hat I think is being presented
S ame-narnent and e ?
as the atten-
ulgence of Senators.
First, I wish to commend the Senator
from Kentucky very highly for the work
he has done on this matter, which also
represents my sentiments and my posi-
tion. So I do not have any...caagias.xdpi
him on that at all.
I do believe, though, that, because of
the nature and history of this section of
the bill, that the Senator's amendment
would not affect our support of our
troops. With the knowledge I have about
this matter, I am inclined to agree to the
amendment 'Mt is now woraea?Mt-TM
me make an explana ion first.
direa the attention of Senators to
title IV of the bill and remind them that
this is the old foreign military aid. In
the old days it came out of the Foreign
Relations Committee and was handled
by them in the form of a broad authori-
zation bill. The Foreign Relations Com-
mittee still handles the regular foreign-
aid bill. But this item here got into the
bill just a few years ago as a special
foreign assistance that goes to the
Southeast Asian countries.
Frankly, I think and I hope that next
year, if it is still in the Armed Services
Committee, and it can well be there, that
it can be handled as a separate bill where
the issues will be clearer, with hearings
held on it, and then it can come to the
Senate for debate on its own merits.
But now it is stuck in here as a brief
section of the authorization bill. It re-
lates to the $2.5 billion, but only about
$150 million of that $2.5 billion is really
for items found in the bill now before
the Senate. It authorizes that much
hardware for these purposes. In the
other part of the $2.5 billion, that will
come through the regular DOD appro-
priation bill?items that do not require
any authorization except the authoriza-
tion we find in the appropriations bill
itself. It authorizes the program and au-
thorizes the expenditures of the money
at the same time.
Thus, we keep those two items in mind.
Then, also, this program which origi-
nated in 1950-51, in all the years of
history and even down to this minute,
the money that goes to support our
troops, wherever they are throughout the
world, comes from the regular authoriza-
tion bill for our troops. They have never
been paid or supplied out of this special
military aid bill that goes to the various
foreign countries. I do not think that
relationship is disturbed one bit.
At the expense of repetition, it has
always been true, through all these years
down to now, including last year, that.
the language was as it was when we
brought the bill in here. Foreign aid for
local troops has always been kept sep-
arate, and our military forces, wherever
they are, are paid altogether from an-
other fund.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
10734 Approved For Releas.e,20,41/11a1, ; CIA-RDP71B00364R000300070001-7
t)iNutcr.1(fiNA,1 RECORD-- SENATE September "1" 7, Pio
Th:! reason I say that I am willing to
lake the amendment as vvritten now is
ihat I do not believe the language dis-
turbs that situation about our troops in
^ tever country they are found.
7^Iov; let us get right down to the lan-
e tiage. As the amendment reads now
with the present Cooper amendment
^ ritten into it, it states "not to exceed"
$2.5 billion."
Funds authorized for appi,:priation for the
01 the Armed Forces of the United
The reason that is termed there is
that they will take this money, except
ior $180 million, out of i he money bill
that goes to support ow troops, but it
leaves our troops supported by that fund
Just the same.
?or the use of the Armed Forces of the
ignited States under this or any other act -
"This act" means exactly what it says
lu the bill we are debatine. "Any other
:wt" means the appropriation bill. There
are a lot of items in that appropriation
bill that do not have to be expressly au-
thorized except by the teims of the bill.
So those words there "or any other act"
cater to our regular apt)! opriation bill
and the language is:
Authorized to be made al.tilable for their
ted purposes, to support 'pie. Vietnamese
aud other free world forces is Vietnam?
That is in Vietnam?
nopoort Vietnamese and ider free world
Tees?
T. suppose that means It.' Philippines
Val,rea, and Vietnam.
Two, local forces in Lam and Thailand,
mit support to such local for, 's shall be lim-
ited to the providing of supplies, materiel,
co:lion-tent, and facilities, including main-
tenance thereof, and to the providing of
tr,dning for such local force, Three, for re-
lated costs?
That is what it means---items directly
related there,
during the fiscal year 1970 i,r1 such terms
ioi conditions
liat is under Presideniiid regulation
es the President, may determine.
Now it is inescapable to me that that
leaves the funds applicable strictly to
those local forces, that seything that,
!toes to U.S. forces in those countries, or
anywhere else around the world, are paid
of regular appropriatlons for those
purposes.
just add this: The Senator from
Kentucky is a very go,:x1 man with lan-
guage and he can write Well I have had
some experience in draftne legislation,
but there is just a basic difference here
as to our conclusions. I bell eve that this
language was debated a day or a week
and I would have this conehision. Per-
haps I would have what he has now. The
would be divided on it. Latald
to see the langeugt.tisken .,-.76-laii-
afe-free, With the understanding that we
wc;i0, ,_ALt exIntta_aad
historyol. Met
on o rea y gr ncl it slowtaadl
!tie up ilitfi a memoranclutn?E.s to ti
e hat 1 6 ' ., ? ? 1Cajl,-.
no ',dad to submitIhat to the
would agree that section 401 applies to
the kinds of support that can be pro-
vided the two categories of countries
designated in clauses (1) and (2) ; is
that not correct?
Mr. STENNTS, T beg the Senator's
pardon?
Mr, COOPER,. Section 401. Its purpose.
is to provide means whereby, one, forces
fighting in Vietnam can be aided and,
two, local forces in Laos and Thailand.
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct.
Mr. COOPER. That is the purpose.
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct.
Mr. COOPER. That is the purpose o
section 401 On August 12 when the Sen-
ator from Arkansas (Mr. FITLBRIGHT) of-
fered an amendment to limit, funds au-
thorized for the two purposes, to $3 bil-
lion, the Senator from Mississipi modi-
fied the Fulbright amendment by pro-
viding $2.5 billion.
Is the $2.5 billion available to support
the forces in Vietnam, and local forces
in Laos and Thailand?
Mr. STENNIS. It will be available if
appropriated.
er. COOPER. If appropriated is cor-
reMr. STENNIS. Yes. just for the pur-
poses outlined here.
Mr. COOPER. How would the Senator
define the purposes outlined here? In
other words, what will the conferees be
talking about in conference? I shall not
be there, as I am not a member of the
Armed Forces Committee.
Mr. STENNIS. To support the local
forces in Vietnam, Thailand. and Laos.
Mr. COOPER. Yes, the section is de-
signed to provide support to those coun-
tries. Clause 1 says nothing about the
kinds of support provided to Vietnam.
The language of section 401 would make
available to Laos and Thailand the same
kinds of soimort that are being provided
IU Vietnam. Is that not correct, from
the language?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, just looking at the
language. It is a part of the cost of the
war, but the war as a whole is costing
us $29 billion a year, which I think in-
cludes the cost of the support of their
local forces.
Mr. COOPER. Section 401, as reported
from the Armed Services Committee.
speaks of fonds authorized by this or
any other act.
Mr, STENaTITS. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. I have drawn my
amendment to provide that funds under
this or any other act which may be made
available for Laos and Thailand must be
restricted to the kinds of aid I have de-
signated.
Mr. STENNIS. The limitation put into
effect by this amendment would apply
to this bill. "Any other act," as the Sen-
ator said, would be the appropriation
bill, but it would be subject to this very
language here?to be available for the
stated purposes, and these are the stated
111 n here now.
. On August 12 I spoke
at sot e .1. I provided the Senator
with a copy of the amendment. The Sen-
ator understands that what I am trying
to do is to prohibit the use of our Armed
s-losond Senator !rise, Kentucky. , Forces fighting in support of Laos and
T think Op Senator j Thailand. Of course. we know that in
Laos government forces and the Pathet
Lao have been fighting. The Pathet Lao
may be assisted by North Vietnam or
China, but is an example of local forces
'fighting in Laos.
We know that insurgent forces have
been harassing government forces in the
northern part of Thailand for some time,
and the local forces in Thailand are
ttrying to defend against and defeat
them.
My amendment is deal ned to prohibit,
I the use of our Armed Forces in combat
I support of local forces in Laos or Thai-
land, and to keep them out of situations
in which they might become engaged in
combat which could lead into war in
Thailand or Laos, as it did in Vietnam.
The language means our forces cannot
e used in combat in support of loca.,
forces, unless an emergency arose where
the President's constitutional authorita
would come into play, except by the joint
authority of the executive and Congress?
If the Senator agrees that we are not in
difficulty on the language?what is the.
problem? Are we fighting in Laos and
Thailand?
Mr. STENNIS. Let me answer the
Senator "Yes" and "No." In my mind, I
am certain the Senator's language would
not prohibit the United States, if it saw
fit, to otherwise permit U.S. troops to
fight in Laos and Thailand, because this
act does not relate to it. If they fought
with the Thais, they would be paid for
and supplied out of our regular appro-
priation bill. U.S. soldiers anywhere are
supported through these other channels.
Mr. COOPER. I ask the Senator if he
opposes the proposal I am making in so
far as this bill is concerned. Would he
oppose my proposal that our forces
should not be fighting in support of local
forces?
Mr, STENNIS. Let me answer that in
two prongs. The first is that the Sen-
ator's language just does not go to the
point of cutting off hinds for the soldiers
of the United States of America. Second,
I frankly think that, if we are going to
pass an act that involves such a marked
policy and a limitation on the Presi-
dent?I think we have the authority to
do it, but if we are going to do it?it
ought. to have the careful study of the
appropriate committees, the Foreign Re-
lations Committee for one and hearings
in which the executive branch of the
Government would be entitled to be
heard and all sides considered. On the
military aspects of it and the money for
it, if the Senator wanted a recommenda-
tion out of the Armed Services Com-'
mittee, that would be applicable. But
when such policymaking is involved. I
think we ought to consider the recom-
mendations, have a bill, debate it here,
and then make a decision. I shrink from
Its just coming out of the floor here with
such a far-reaching policy in the form
of an amendment to this bill, in spite of
the ability of the Senator and his great
dedication and experience.
Mr. COOPER. It has not come out
of the floor. This subject has been de-
bated.
Mr. STENNIS. It came up on the floor,
then.
Mr Coopta? Yes tt ba s,' leen del 'ii
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Sei)tember 17, 143131-"ed (olqdittAIn911414Rief?ittgalVAPREIV4R000300070001-7 S 10735
whenever treaties, executed and devel-
oped by the executive branch, have come
to the Congress.
When the Korean treaty came before
the Congress, I remember the valuable
and proper questions the Senator raised.
The Senator and I asked, in 1954, what
the words "constitutional processes"
meant. The Senator expressed the same
opinion as I, that, except in case of an
emergency, "constitutional processes"
means that the executive shall come to
the Congress for authority. My amend-
ment does not affect that emergency
powers of the President. If the troops are
in another country and the President
of the United States believes a situation
has arisen which demands their de-
fense, of course he has the constitutional
power to provide for their defense. If our
soldiers defend themselves, they are
within international law. It is the right
of self-defense.
I do not know that we will engage in
a war in Laos and Thailand, but while
there is the possibility that we might
become engaged, and before we become
engaged should we not take steps to
reduce that possibility by declaring that
only through the constitutionl process
of joint authority, shall John Jones in
Company A of the 10th Infantry Regi-
ment, in whatever army, be sent into
battle in Laos and Thailand, in support
of local forces, against insurgents?
I cannot go back into all the details. I
have read the testimony of Secretary
Dulles before the Senate at the time the
SEATO Treaty was being considered.
The report of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee on the SEATO Treaty states
that Secretary Dulles said that it was not
intended to put land forces on the main-
land of Asia, and that the Executive
would come to the Congress for authority
if it became necessary to engage in war.
He said what the Senator has said and
what I have said: In case of an emer-
gency affecting the security of our forces,
the President has the constitutional au-
thority to defend them.
Why do we not learn the lesson of Viet-
nam? I voted for the Tonkin Bay resolu-
tion. I said on the floor that day in sub-
stance that the resolution would give the
President great power, and that "He
might take actions which lead us to war."
I voted for it, nevertheless because I be-
lieved he would be judicious and I have
supported appropriations. But I do not
intend to vote for another such proposal
whether by resolution, treaty or statute
unless we have sufficient facts to show
that the security of the United States is
threatened.
This bill will become a statute. It does
not have the great impact of a declara-
tion of war, but it has legal authority.
I do not believe President Nixon will do
anything reckless. I believe he wants the
United States out of war in Vietnam, but
we have also our responsibility to do what
we can to prevent new wars. Why will we
not do it? Has the Secretary of State or
the President of the United States, or his
Office, or the Secretary of Defense, said,
"Do not pass such legislation, we have
people fighting in Laos and Thailand,
and we do not want to endanger them"?
If our Armed Forces are fighting in Laos
or Thailand in support of local forces,
in domestic conflicts?we should be told.
If they are fighting in Laos or Thailand
in support of local forces, I want to say
there has been no authority given by the
Congress for such fighting; and I have
never heard a President of the United
States, President Kennedy or President
Johnson, and certainly not President
Nixon, say we are engaged in some kind
of hostilities in support of local forces in
Laos or Thailand.
On August 12 we raised this question.
A great many members of the Armed
Services Committee took part in that de-
bate including the distinguished Sena-
tor from Mississippi. The Senator from
Texas (Mr. TowEa) and the Senator
from Arizona (Mr. CrOLDWATER) and
others also took part in that debate.
Is the administration against this
amendment?
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I promised to yield first
to the Senator from Kansas.
Mr. STENNIS. Does the Senator
from Kentucky want me to answer that
question?
Mr. COOPER. Yes.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I have
not discussed this with the Secretary of
State. I have not discussed it with the
President of the United States, nor with
the Secretary of Defense or any of his
representatives. We have a memorandum
here from the Department of Defense
on all these amendments. We need it,
generally, on all amendments, for our
information.
But here I am standing on the lan-
guage. I understand the language better
than I did on August 12. I feel the same
way about not wanting to get into war,
but I am satisfied here that the Sena-
tor's language will not touch the point,
as I see it, that he expects it to touch.
I am willing to take it to conference, and
have additional men consider what the
language means.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator knows my
respect for him; I do not have to tell
him that I am not trying to harass the
Senator in any way.
Mr. STENNIS. No, I know that.
Mr. COOPER. But I have stated what
I intend for it to mean. It is my amend-
ment, and I can state the intention of
its legislative effect. What does the Sen-
ator from Mississippi consider it to
mean?
Mr. STENNIS. I have a very brief
prepared statement here, and on my
time I shall read that statement. I could
read it now; it is brief. It deals with the
language, as I have said, and the Chief
of Staff here tells me that the memoran-
dum we have from the Department of
Defense is along the same lines as to the
language.
But I do not have to have anyone
advise me on the way this thing looks,
as to this language. I am just being
frank with the Senator.
Mr. COOPER. I thank the Senator and
I am being frank.
I have promised to yield to the Sena-
tor from Kansas.
Mr. PEARSON. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from Kentucky. I lis-
tened to his speech and his very helpful
colloquy with the Chairman of the
Armed Services Committee.
I should like, just in a capsule manner,
to ask the Senator from Kentucky
whether or not my understanding of his
amendment is correct, which would be
that U.S. forces which are now in Thai-
land and Laos may remain there under
the Senator's amendment; and that
they, particularly the Air Force units in
Thailand, may participate in the war
in South Vietnam. Is that correct?
Mr. COOPER. That is correct, and I
say it for this reason: The war in South
Vietnam is a fact.
Mr. PEARSON. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. I do not think we can
constitutionally override the Commander
in Chief from doing what he considers
best in the conduct of the war such as the
direction of troops, the support of the
troops that are fighting, or the use of
troops in other countries to support our
forces and allies in South Vietnam.
Mr. PEARSON. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. Once we got into war,
the President is Commander in Chief; I
do not think we have any constitutional
authority except by refusing appropria-
tions, or rescinding the Tonkin Bay
resolution.
Mr. PEARSON. And those troops in
Laos and Thailand may defend them-
selves, is that not correct?
Mr. COOPER. Of course.
Mr. PEARSON. And we may, under
this amendment, furnish materiel and
costs and related aid to local forces; but,
under the amendment, those U.S. troops
aiding local forces would be withdrawn,
and no further U.S. involvement by
troops would be permitted, under this
amendment, in controlling the costs for
local forces in those two countries?
Mr. COOPER. The Senator's statement
is correct.
Mr. PEARSON. That leads me to put
the question to the Senator as to whether
or not the words "local forces"?and I
address this question to the distinguished
chairman also?are military words of
art, and whether they have a precise
meaning. Does the term include con-
stabulary, police, regular forces, or what
is the Senator's interpretation of the
term "local forces"? I think that goes to
the heart of the real meaning of what
the Senator from Kentucky intends to
do.
Mr. COOPER. Yes. Let us speak of
Thailand, for example. I would consider
them to be Thai forces, fighting in Thai-
land against insurgents who are at-
tempting, I assume, to overthrow the
Government of Thailand.
Mr. PEARSON. And our involvement
is therefore contingent upon authority
of Congress, pursuant to the Consti-
tution?
Mr. COOPER. That is correct; and the
same would apply in Laos: Laos forces
fighting in Laos, against insurgents in
Laos.
I might say, the report of the com-
mittee when SEATO came before the
Senate spells this out perhaps better
than I can do it. It quotes the language
of Secretary Dulles, and I shall put it
in the RECORD. Dulles testified before the
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71B00364R000300070001-7
Release,2,Q01/1,1141AiCkettablBOWRQ00300070001-7
s 10736 Approved For
)NtAttssio NATE
Neptembcr 17. 1949
Foreign Relations Committee on Janu-
ary 25, 1955. Section 1501 the report, en-
titled, "Constitutional Proresses," reads
af-7, follows:
(aiNSTITITTIONAL I
I he course of the hear tiro on Januar;
In the committee gave co deration to a
auggestion by one of the v nesses that a
reservation be attached to tjaJ treaty which
would prohibit the use of United States
ground, air, or naval forces HJ any defense
iaa ion unless Congress, by a declaration of
war, consented to their us. Against corn-
cool "This prJoisal. led to it
anarahing discussion in exec-ire session. It
was :malty rejected as throwing open the
entire controversial topic the relative
orbit of Dower between the executive arid
ihe legislative branches. It had been for
this very reason as noted ahose, that the
exeitutive branch adopted in "constitu-
tional processes" formula. When pressed for
an indication of what the eh r :an comported.
Mr. polies assured the cornno lee that those
words were used with the anderstanding
that the President Would cella', to Congress
].KA case of any threat of danger -
unless the emergency were Jo great that
prompt action was necessary io save a vital
itt forest of the United states,
toteript in that event?
the normal process would be a act through
Congress if it were in session and if not in
:iesion to call Congress.
The committee ultimately J-Jol.veci that it
W,rild serve no useful purl- .e to seek to
develop the meaning of "constitutional
processes" he.yorid this staratnent of Mr
?,). that connection, it is re tiled that the
committee, referring to the 1.,a, of the same
in the North Atlanta, Treaty, ob-
served in its report:
The (imeaty in no way affeet. the basic di-
vision of authority between the President
md the Congress as defined 11-, the Constitu-
tion, In no way does it alter the constitu-
tional relationship between them. In par-
ticular. it does not increakio decrease, or
change the power of the Pre.-. lent as Com-
mander in Chief of the Armed 'Ponies or im-
pair the full authority of Congress to de-
clare war (Ex. Rept. No. B.. -it Cong.. 1st
mr President, that was tile statement
of Mr. Dulles as to the einstitutioned
procedure intended by the SEATO treaty,
t made several stater Icmts--public
statements, reports to the iiountry, and
reports to Congress?to that effect.
in Vietnam, we did not follow that
procedure. I do not want to see us make
a mistake in Laos or Thalia id. Thailand
is a party to the treaty. La tis comes un-
der its protection by the tertqracol. How-
ever, Laos has said at one tioint that it
does not want to be under the protec-
tion of the treaty.
What is wrong. I again sok. with try-
ing to make sure that in this bill we use
iror constitutional power, and responsi-
bility to prevent, if passible, another
awful war?
Mr, PF,ARSON. Mr. President. does the
Senator mean by "local for any in-
ternational armed forces within the
jurisdiction of the Goverrunit at of Laos or
'ehailand?
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct.
That is within the jurisdiction. The
treaty has no application. Acoording to
an understanding of the 'United States
rata-int against Communist forces.
PEARSON. "Local footes" may be
words of art.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, does the
Senator from Kentucky mean to say
that his use of the term "local forces"
in Thailand includes 'United States of
America forces in Thailand?
Mr. COOPER. No, not at all.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, will tite
Senator yield?
Mr. COOPPirt I yield,
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I should
like to have the attention of the Senator
frian Mississippi, because I think my
Question rn y hear on some of his con-
cern.
Let, me eel til out to the Senator from
'Kentucky that, there is nothing at all
wrong with what he is trying to do. The
f..7nator asks what is wrong with trying
to do this. There is nothing wrong at all.
I would guess that most of us share
los objective. I can understand the reluc-
tance of the Senator from Mississippi to
agree to the language as it is, because
the mere fact that we share the objec-
tive does not mean that we would use
the same language.
I shall ask some questions which I
LI ink will bring out what I am talking
a,bout.
As I understand the Senator, if his
were adopted, it would not prevent us
from continuing our bombing activities
hi Laos.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is correct,
My amendment would go only to clause
(ll. It would not affect clause (1) .
Mr. MILLER. I point out that the
bombing activities in Laos can have a
two-pronged effect. The bombing of a
logistical supply point in Laos could have
the result of helping the South Viet-
namese situation, or it could have the re-
sult of helping the Laotians in their
fight against North Vietnamese aggres-
sion. It could be a mixed result.
Mr. COOPER. I understand that com-
plication and possibility. No one would
suggest that we would have the bombers
operating over there as they are if it
were not to aid our forces and other
forces in Vietnam.
If the Air Force or the commanding
general maintains operations in connec-
tion with supporting forces in Vietnam,
it would not be -affected.
Mr. MILLER. In other words, the fact
that there might be a mixed result would
not affect this situation.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator Is correct.
Mr. MILLER. I do not know whether
the Senator has visited our bases in
Thailand. I have.
Mr. COOPER. I have not visited them,
Mr. MILLER. It, is not hard for me to
visualize, in the case of some of them,
that our troops and our Air Force per-
sonnel on those bases could be threat-
ened by guerrilla or insurgent action,
either by guerrillas or insurgents of the
North Vietnamese or action of another
character. Further, as I understand it,
the security of those bases is left pri-
marily to the local forces in Thailand.
Therefore, in providing that security, if
there were a guerrilla or an insurgent
attack, the local forces would be fighting
against the guerrillas or insurgents.
I wonder if in a, situation like that. we
should not be permitted, as far as the
protraetion of the IT S. tomes is con-
cerned, to. conduct bombing or strafing
attacks. I hope that the Senator would
agree that we should be able to do that.
I am concerned that perhaps the lan-
guage as it is may not permit that ac-
tion, I point out that in such a situation,
it is a very real possibility.
Mr. COOPER, The Senator is correct.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, the Sena-
tor certainly would not say that we
should not be permitted to support local
forces which were providing security for
our own fares
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I will an-
swer the Senator in the same manner as
I answered a .similar question with re-
spect to what, action our Armed Forces
should take to provide for their own se-
curity or to provide support for the
forces of Laci; and Thailiiind. Obviously
that ,airbase is an American facility. Our
bombers leave from there.
I was surprised when the Senator from
Texas (Mr. Tovvria) suggested we could
not defend our troops. Of course our
troops could defend themselves and de-
fend that base. And if Thais were fight-
ing in defense of the base, of course our
troops would continue to fight.
That is not what I am talking about. I
am. talking about whether we have made
a decision to engage our forces in a new
war, against an insurgency, or insurrec-
tion.
The record of the SEATO Treaty
states that it was not to be intended for
the parties under the treaty to enter do-
mestic situations. I ask the Senator from
Iowa: If the governmental forces of
Thailand were fighting insurgents, it
would be a local conflict, would it not?
Mr. MILLER. If insurgents or guerril.-
las were seeking to attack one of our
bases, and they ran up against Thai
guards who were providing security tor
that base, it would seem to me that the
situation would be such that if we wanted
to protect the security of our base, we
had better go in and help the guards.
Mr. COOPER. We could do that with-
out question. I do not think any Senator
would not agree that we could do that. Of
course we could.
I am glad the Senator asked the ques-
tion, and I respect him for it, but I do
not want to have attention diverted?I
am sure the Senator does not so intend?
from the purpose of the amendment,
which I explained on August 12, and
about which I am speaking about today.
Mr. MILLER. No one is trying to divert
attention any more than anyone might
believe that the Senator from Kentucky
is inclined to believe that such a situa-
tion could not happen. There is nothing
wrong with what he is trying to do. He
is to be commended for what he is trying
to do.
All I am seeking to do is to make sue
of the intention of the amendment, and
I have already indicated my general
agreement with it.
The Senator from Mississippi has said
that he is willing to take the amendment
to conference and let the language be
worked out, if there are problems. I
thought I could be helpful in reconciling
the two viewpoints by pointing out that
there could be a problem in the language
93 drawn, T eiti not -?e Wn reasonql-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
September 17, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE S 10737
men cannot get together in the Chamber
or in conference and bring about that
result.
Mr. COOPER. I thank the Senator
from Iowa. He has been very courteous
and helpful.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the Sen-
ator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. CASE. I should like to think that
the Senator from Kentucky and the Sen-
ator from Mississippi are differing only
upon a relatively minor or peripheral
manner suggested by the Senator from
Iowa. I do not think they are. I think
the difference goes deeper. I not only
support the objective of the Senator from
Kentucky, but I support his attempt to
accomplish his objective on this subject.
I think there is that difference between
the Senator from Mississippi and the
Senator from Kentucky. The Senator
from Mississippi, I think, agrees with
the objective, but not on this bill. I
would not want us, who have to vote on
this matter, to have any doubt about
what we are voting on.
May I ask this of the Senator from
Kentucky and have the Senator from
Mississippi agree or disagree: If we adopt
the amendment of the Senator from
Kentucky, we are saying to our Govern-
ment, "You cannot use any money pro-
vided by this bill or by any other bill-
appropriation bill, authorization bill, or
anything else-for the support of Amer-
ican Armed Forces in local conflicts in
these two countries."
Mr. COOPER. That is correct.
Mr. CASE. And the Senator from Mis-
sissippi would rather have it understood
that, because of the historical way in
which the foreign-aid military appro-
priation came into this bill, the Senator
from Kentucky's amendment would have
a lesser effect. I think I am correct in my
understanding. The Senator from Ken-
tucky wants to go the whole way, as he
has just indicated, applying not only to
the money authorized by this bill but
also money provided by any other bill.
Mr. COOPER. Of course. Otherwise,
the amendment would have no meaning
at all.
Mr. STENNIS. I think the Senator
from New Jersey put the question aptly.
The position of the Senator from Mis-
sissippi is that, regardless of our intent
or purposes or wishes, the language be-
fore us does not carry out the objective
as stated by the Senator from Kentucky
and the Senator from New Jersey, and
it will not accomplish the purpose.
Mr. CASE. I would argue that.
Mr. COOPER. I would be willing if the
Senator would produce language which
would accomplish this purpose, which
would prohibit our forces from becom-
ing engaged in local war in Laos or Thai-
land.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if it is
going to be done, it certainly should be
done in language that by no means is
uncertain. So, when the time comes for
me to obtain the floor, even though I will
be brief, and partly in repetition, I will
put one, two, three, or four points I have
in mind to back up my position.
Mr. COOPER. I should like the Sen-
ator
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator from Ken-
tucky has been very kind to yield.
Mr. COOPER. I should like the Sena-
tor to spell out, if he will, why the lan-
guage is not effective. If he agrees with
me on the purpose-of Congress using
its constitutional authority to prevent
the use of our troops in combat in Laos
or Thailand-I should like to have his
views upon the principle; and if he has
a better method of providing us with the
means, we will be in agreement.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I re-
spond to the last part of the Senator's
question. Regretfully, there is not a large
attendance of Senators in the Chamber
at this time. What I say is not important,
but what someone says about this bill is
important. I believe we are reaching the ?
last stages of the debate, and this
amendment raises one of the most far-
reaching questions that have been raised.
It is a highly important and involved
question.
My point now, however, is that this
language is not sufficient to reach the
Senator's objective. I make the further
point that, to me, it is tragic for a matter
of this kind to be settled by the Senate
without the benefit of any recommenda-
tion before it of any committee that
studied the matter, or without the sug-
gestions of the President of the United
States and others. But if the Senate
wants to do that, I have no further com-
plaint.
Mr. President, if it is the intent to
prohibit money in this bill or any other
bill from being used to support our
troops in any country, anywhere, it will
just take positive, direct language that
says so, and these are the reasons why I
have reached that conclusion. Let me
make the following points regarding the
pending amendment of the Senator from
Kentucky to title IV of this bill.
First, it is important that there be
an explanation of the legislative back-
ground of this entire matter. As Senators
know, prior to 1966, the support for coun-
tries in Southeast Asia as contemplated
in this amendment was a part of the
military assistance legislation and, of
course, was handled by the Committee on
Foreign Relations. Beginning in 1966,
however, military assistance for South-
east Asia has been funded as set forth
in title IV, under which any funds au-
thorized to the Department of Defense
may be used for the stated purposes.
It should be kept in mind that this is
the present authority under which all
assistance in terms of supplies, gas, oil,
and so forth, is extended to the South
Vietnamese Army and the other free
world forces in Vietnam. In addition, it
is the authority under which we support
local forces in Laos and Thailand-local
forces. That is the entire subject matter
of this section. This section is a child
of the old legislation before the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations on Military Aid
for Foreign Countries. It was transferred
to the Committee on Armed Services
solely because the war took on such im-
portance and it became such an appreci-
able part of the military budget. When
we say "the other free world forces in
Vietnam," as already stated, that means
other forces, such as Koreans and others,
who are fighting for our side.
As reported by the committee, the lan-
guage in the bill this year is identical to
that reported in prior years. When this
matter came up before, I stated that it
had been discovered that this was open-
end legislation, and the committee want-
ed to put a ceiling on it and proposed a
ceiling lower than did the Senator from
Arkansas. He adopted the committee's
substitute, and it became known as the
Fulbright amendment.
We already have had one floor amend-
ment, as Senators may recall, when, on
August 12, an amendment which I sup-
ported limited this assistance to $2.5
billion. That amendment was adopted.
The important fact of this amendment
is that the funds under this title in the
past-and as I interpret in this amend-
ment-always have been limited to funds
for the support of forces in Vietnam or
other local forces. To me, it is impossible
to read any other meaning, into these
words, as proposed by the Senator, espe-
cially in view of this historical back-
ground.
This title never has been a limitation
on the use of funds for the U.S. forces.
This amendment does not say that it is
a limitation on funds for the U.S. forces.
The law and the logic and the system
and the reason are that our forces are
supported, wherever they are, by our di-
rect appropriations. If you are going to
change that, the Senator is going to have
to change it to direct language. We do
not have that direct language before us.
Mr. President, on August 12, I had
printed in the RECORD a table showing
expenditures for fiscal year 1968, fiscal
year 1969, and anticipated expenditures
for fiscal year 1970. The total for this
year was slightly over $2.2 billion.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that that table be printed in the
RECORD at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
GURNEY in the chair) . Without objection,
it is so ordered.
The table, ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, is as follows:
ESTIMATED AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN MILITARY FUNCTIONS
BUDGET FOR SUPPORT OF FREE WORLD MILITARY
ASSISTANCE FORCES IN VIETNAM, LAOS, AND THAILAND
AND RELATED COSTS, FISCAL YEAR 1970 BUDGET
INCLUDING THE AID/DOD REALINEMENT
[In millions of dollars)
Fiscal Fiscal Fiscal
year year year
1968 1969 1970
Military personnel:
Army 118.0 114.2 116,3
Navy .8 .6 .1
Marine Corps 15. 0 14. 8 14. 2
Air Force .2 .2 .2
Total, military
personnel 134.0 129.8 130.8
Operation and maintenance:
Army 605. 8 708. 0 632. 8
Navy 43. 3 47. 5 53.7
Marine Corps 6. I 10. 7 10. 3
Air Force 55. 0 131. 8 157. 1
Total, operation and
maintenance 710.2 898.0 853.9
Procurement:
Army 552. 5 1, 243. 5 927. 3
Navy:
Other procurement 5.8 10.2 4.2
Shipbuilding and
conversion 4 5 6. 5 3. 4
PAMN-Navy air-
craft and missiles .2
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S 10738
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE Septembet 17, 1.91;9
ESTIMATED AMOUNTS INCLUDED IN M,L(TARY FUNCTIONS
iluDGET FOR SUPPORT OF FREI WORLD MILITARY
AtSiSTANCE FORCES IN VIETNAM.1,,05,-AND THAILAND
AND RELATED COSTS, FISCAL YEAR 1970 BUDGET
INCLUDING THE AID/DOD REALINIIMMT ?Continued
(In millions of dollarsi
Fiscat
Fiscal
year
1969
Fiscal
year
1970
Procurement?Continued
Marine Corps
68.5
50.8
88.3
Air Force:
Aircraft procure-
ment
36.1
88.1
103.9
Missile procure-
ment
.1
Other procurement
67.4
85.4
114.4
Total, procure-
ment
734.9
484.5
1,241.7
PA dry construction:
Army
1.3
Iii 7
Navy._
1.9
3.3
Air force...
9.0
1.5
Intel military con-
struction
12.6
15 5
Cried total
1,591.7 2
527.8
2,226.4
ij.itr. STENNIS. Mr. President, not a
dime of that money went Li support U.S.
forces, wherever located, and not a dime
of this money is going for that purpose,
according to the way the language is
written now. I refer to the money we
are talking about in this hill. Common-
sense says that; the Senator from Missis-
sippi does not have to say n. That is the
situation. If we are going to change the
rule about U.S. Armed Firms support
money it will have to be seelled out.
This title has never been a limitation
on the use of funds for fl U.S. Armed
sees. As I interpret the matter, the
purpose of the amendment of the Sena-
-tor from Kentucky is to niake certain
that within this limitation f $2.5 billion
Un; support for the local forces will be
limited to the purposes stated in his
amendment which would be only for sup-
plies, equipment, materiel, facilities,
training, and related costs.
think the amendment is unobjection-
able since it spells out the type of local
support which would be authorized. I
again emphasize, however that the en-
tire title IV with its legishitive history
and purpose does not operate with re-
spect to funds used for U.S. forces which,
of course, are provided for elsewhere in
the Department of Defe-h,ie appropri-
ations.
When this language can.' , in from the
Senator from Kentucky cMr. CoopEal
in my capacity as chairman of the com-
mittee I asked that the Senator's
language and a very good letter that he
wrote each Senator be split to the De-
partment of Defense for comment.
now have before me a letter which T
did not have before me when I was mak-
ing my remarks awhile ago. I refer to the
comment that we received from the Sec-
retary of Defense when / sent to him the
latest amendment and letter by the Sena-
tor from Kentucky.
In order to identify it, tile memoran-
dum states:
cm, page 5, line 14, strike o "to support:
?" and insert, in lieu :era( "(11 t.
Rpm-
1-1-1n, here is the langtia;:e ot the De-
partment of Defense:
T_Tnder the terms of this amendment and
Within the amount specified ($21/2 billion
limitation imposed by the-Pulbright amend-
ment) current activity in support of the local
forces in Laos and Thailand could be con-
ft is our considered opinion that in line
with the language, legislative history and
intent of this entire section, such amenda-
tory language would have no impact on the
use of funds for the support of U.S Forces
i it Laos and Thailand.
Mr. President, so that all the material
may be before the Senate, I ask unani-
mous consent to have printed in the
RECORD the letter from the Senator from
Kentucky dated September 15. 1969, to-
!tether with a copy of the proposed
amendment and the statement from the
secretary of Defense.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
rid. Sat -r AT ,
Washington, D.C., September 15, 1969.
-5555 SENATOR : On August 12 I offered an
amendment to clause (2), Section 401, Title
IV of S. 2546, now pending before the Senate.
its purpose was to restrict the use of the
funds appropriated under Section 401 in
support of "local forces in Laos and Thai-
land" to equipment, materiel, supplies and
training of such local forces and, to prevent
the use of the armed forces of the United
States in combat in support of local forces in
Laos and Thailand.
After some debate, I withdrew the amend-
ment as several members had suggested they
wanted additional time for its study. I stated
that I would introduce such an amendment
when the Congress reconvened in September.
The debate may be found on pages S 9776-
9783 in the Congressional Record of August
12.
1 will introduce the enclosed amendment,
or one substantially similar on Monday. Sep-
tember 15 and will ask that it be made the
pending business at the first opportunity.
The amendment would not affect clause (1).
or restrict the support of Vietnamese or other
free world forces fighting in Vietnam. It
would prohibit the use of funds for the en-
gagement of the armed forces of the United
2.litaites in combat in Laos and Thailand in
support of local forces of Laos and Thailand.
Tts purpose is to prevent, if possible, the
United States from becoming involved in a
domestic war in Laos and Thailand, without
the authority of the Congress.
If you should desire to become a cosponsor
of the amendment, I would appreciate very
much if you would advise me or have a mem-
ber of your staff contact Mr. Will Haley on
telephone extension 2542.
With kindest regards, I am
Yours sincerely,
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
On page 5. line 14, strike out "to support:
(11" and insert in lieu thereof "(1) to sup-
port".
On page 5, line 15, strike out "(2) local
forces in Laos and Thailand; and", and in-
sert in lieu thereof "(2) to support local
forces in Laos and Thailand, but support to
such local forces shall be limited to the pro-
viding of supplies, materiel, equipment, and
facilities, including maintenance thereof,
and providing of training for such local
forces, and (3)".
PROPOSED NEW READING OF TITLE EV
(a) Not to exceed $2,500,000,000 if the
fonds authorized for appropriation for the
USC or the Armed Forces of the United States
odder this or any other Act are authorized
to be made as. for their R111,104-3
icr-
poses: (1) to support Vietnamese and other
free world forces in Vietnam, (2) to suppeet
local forces in Laos and Thailand; but, stip-
port to such kicat forces shall be limited to
the providing of supplies, materiel, equip-
ment, and faci i ties, Including trial nhan a iice
it it erect, and to the providing of training for
such local forces, and (3) for related co-ts,
during the fis,ial year 1970 on such tenni;
and condition, tinder presidential reginiii-
Lions as the neon:lent may determine.
-
!'-',TATEMEN'r or rooptiet AmissreimENT its
FEN SE CI.AUsE let, SiirTION -PH OF S. 2546
"On page 5. line 14, strike out "to sop-
port: (1)" and insert in lieu thereof " 11 to
sitnport".
"On page 5, line 15, strikc out "(2) logal
forces in Lam and Thailand, and-, and in-
sert in lieu thereof "(2) to support local
forces in Laos and Thailand, but support to
such local forces shall be limited to the pro-
viding of s pp lies, materiel. equipment, end
facilities, including maintenance thereof,
and to the providing of training, for sitch
Under the ternis PI this amendment :old
within the amount stieciDed ($2'I billion
limitations imposed by the Fulbright amend-
ment) current activity in support of he
local forcet Laos 5tid Thailand could be
continued.
It is our considered opinion that in line
With the language, legislative history end
Intent of this entire section, such amenda-
tory language would have no impact on tie
-us.o of funds for the support of U.S. Forces in
Laos and Thailand.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr, President, in view
of that situation, and my only purpose is
to try to get the meaning of the language
before the Senate, I submit again to
the Senate that the language does not
go far enough to carry the point.
I am willing, as I have said, to take it
to conference, and if anyone can get any
stronger meaning or get something dif-
ferent out of it I would be glad to con-
sider it although I hesitate trying to
write such a policy as this on the floor of
the Senate with six or eight Senators
present in the waning part of the bill
that is not directed primarily to the
Southeast Asian war, I think it would be
a poor time to do it and really it should
not be done at all.
I have the greatest respect for the
Senator's proposal. I call to the atten-
tion of the Senator from Kentucky that
a few days ago he was kind enough to
give to me and he had printed in the
RECORD language that is much more spe-
cific. I do not have the page number of
the RECORD. It was on Friday of last
week.
At that time the Senator asked that it
not be offered as an amendment: he did
not expect to call it up at that time. He
then proposed language as follows:
On Page 5, line- 17_ strike out plot-,
marks and insert in lieu thereat the
following:
The foregoing provision shall not be con-
strued as authorizing use of the Armed
Forces of the United States to engage in
battle in support. of local forces in Laos and
Thailand.
Now, there is a positive negative.
Tar. COOPER Mr President, will the
senator yield?
Mr, STENNIS_ I have quoted that Ian-
"cage for the purpose of illustratint, that
I think the &'na tor must hart' iarctuit4e
that fioes at L'ast this far.
I yield to the Senator fu 'tin Ken
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
? -
September 17, 1
0111.1.
roved FebSidtaLsgsfeglA1p/WIE~,DPSTIEME4R000300070001-7 S10739
Mr. COOPER, Mr. President, as in the
case of a great many other provisions in
the defense bill, it is difficult to prepare
an amendment that will reach the mat-
ter effectively.
I considered the types of amend-
ments?one of interpretation or one
dealing with authorizations. The Senator
is correct. I did at first intend to submit
the amendment placed in the RECORD. _
The Senator will remember I came to
him a few days ago, and gave him a copy
of the language I have introduced. I told
him that after studying the first amend-
ment placed in the RECORD, I believed
that it raised constitutional questions.
Mr. STENNIS. Yes.
Mr. COOPER. I could attach that lan-
guage at the end of the amendment be-
fore us. If the Senator thinks it is
needed, I will offer it to be attached to
this amendment. However, it is an en-
tirely different matter.
The Senator knows we can provide
statements for the bill spelling out our
legislative intent, but then the Executive
can say, whatever the Senate said was
its intent, I have my constitutional pow-
ers which I will exercise."
The Senator knows the constitutional
way, where we have authority, is through
authorizations and appropriations.
If the Senator would prefer, I could of-
fer this language and then we could vote
on them together or separately.
Mr. STENNIS. The Senator can offer
his language and I will comment on it af-
ter he has offered it.
If the Senator puts in the language
"or go to war in any circumstances in
these two countries without a declaration
of war by Congress" that will bring it to
Issue and there would not be any question
about it.
Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Mississippi yield?
Mr. STENNIS. I yield.
Mr. CRANSTON. I have been repeat-
edly startled during the course of this
debate, which began on August 12, to
hear the Senator from Kentucky repeat-
edly state that he does not know whether
we are in combat presently in Laos and
Thailand.
It would seem to me that whether we
are in combat in Laos and Thailand,
other than the bombing type of combat
referred to, would not be a matter of
military security as to our safety, because
certainly the Communists know whether
we are involved in combat with them
there. Also, rather obviously, this would
not be a partisan matter, at least from
my point of view since, if we are in com-
bat there, it began before President
Nixon entered the White House and it
was not started by him.
I would therefore like to ask the chair-
man of the committee, first, if he, in his
capacity, knows whether we are in com-
bat in those places and, second, whether
he can share that information with us,
if he has it.
Mr. STENNIS. Well, I say this to the
Senator, that if there is any combat
there on any scale at all, or any reason-
able scale, I know nothing about it. No,
I do not know anything about it. There
might be some skirmishes or something
like that going on, but it is not anything
that has been recognized that I know
anything about. We are there, as the
Senator knows, in some of those places,
but I do not have anything that I can
report. I do not have anything on it, I am
sorry.
Mr. President, just one word further.
This is what I lay before the Senate. This
is the best I can do with it. I shall sup-
port the language of the Senator as he
has presented it in his amendment, and
as it is now written, for the reasons I
have stated. I do not think that I can
support any direct language here,
though, because it raises so many
points?I mean, in the form of an
amendment. I cannot support that, be-
cause it involves, really, so many com-
plicated points that I would want the
counsel, frankly, of others who have even
more responsibility. I would want to
know what the President of the United
States thinks about it, for one thing. I
am not putting him on the spot, of
course. But this thing is so sensitive and
so serious over there. I would like for us
to be out of there entirely. I know that
is the Senator's hope, too. His purposes
are the highest, but on a bill like this,
with limited debate and consideration,
I could not support the amendment.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator is speak-
ing to the amendment which we---
Mr. STENNIS. Yes. I support the
amendment as presented by the Senator
in its present form. This other language,
though, does raise constitutional ques-
tions, as the Senator says. The one he
had last Friday.
Mr. COOPER. Then I must ask a few
questions of the Senator. I do not under-
stand his position. It is probably my
fault. I am sure that it is. Does the
Senator say he is willing to support
the language which I placed in the REC-
ORD; is that correct?
Mr. STENNIS. No. I said that if that
language put in last Friday and also
the positive declaration here that the
President is not to authorize any activity
there except by a declaration of war by
Congress, I think those will Just have to
be debated more and considered more
before I would vote for- them. I am sure
that I will wind up voting for one of
them, perhaps.
Mr. COOPER. I did not say declara-
tion of war?
Mr. S.V.N.,NNIS. I said that.
Mr. COOPER. I know.
Mr. STENNIS. I said that.
Mr. COOPER. It could be done in
other ways but I want to go back to
the amendment which I have intro-
duced and ask the Senator, what is his
trouble with it? Is it because the amend-
ment is written to apply to all other acts
or is it?
Mr. STENNIS. I am talking about
the amendment now before the Senate.
Mr. COOPER. Yes.
Mr. STENNIS. I am agreeing to that
amendment and I will vote for it; but it
is my duty to point out what I thought
the limitations were on the meaning. I
will vote for it. I will ask other members
to vote for it.
Several Senators addressed the Chair.
Mr. COOPER. Just one moment. The
Senator stated that in his view it would
not accomplish its purpose and that I
should state what its purpose is? It is
to prevent our Armed Forces from
getting into a war in Laos and Thailand.
Why does it not accomplish that purpose?
Mr. STENNIS. The language does not
go far enough. It does not prohibit the
use of funds there?appropriated
money?to our Army or our other Armed
Forces in those countries. To cut it off,
we have to be more specific.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator under-
stands, does he not, that this amendment
does not in any way interfere with the
use to which our Armed Forces may be
put in these countries, other than com-
bat, in support of Laos and Thailand.
The Senator does not say that this
amendment is trying to limit?
Mr. STENNIS. No. I do not think that
it?I think the Senator wants it to do
that and expects it to and believes that
it will. But I do not agree with him. I
do not think it has any effect in that
field.
Mr. COOPER. In what field?
Mr. STENNIS. In the field of our troops
and their activity there.
Mr. COOPER. The language of sec-
tion 401 deals with funds authorized in
this bill or any other acts to the Armed
Forces of the United States; does it not?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes, with the ceiling on
it of $2.5 billion.
Mr. COOPER. I will repeat. Section
401 provides for the authorization of
funds to the U.S. Armed Forces, whether
in this bill or any other bill.
Mr. STENNIS. No.
Mr. COOPER. If we cannot agree on
that, I do not know what we can agree
on. If we cannot agree to the language
of the title itself, which spells out clearly
that that is what it is for?
Mr. STENNIS. May I call the Sena-
tor's attention to the first line of that
amendment, which says, "not to exceed
$2.5 billion of the funds authorized for
appropriation for the use of the Armed
Forces of the United States."
That refers to. the huge appropriation
bill which will come before the Senate in
a few weeks, providing for $77 odd billion,
and that is all appropriated for the use
of the Armed Forces of the United States.
This act would let some of it go for these
purposes.
Mr. COOPER. But section 401 refers to
all the funds that may be appropriated by
this bill or other acts to the Armed Forces
of the United States. It refers to that,
does it not?
Mr. STENNIS. Yes; $2.5 billion worth
of it.
Mr. COOPER. It refers to all acts.
Let me retrace what happened on the
Fulbright amendment, with the assist-
ance of the Senator from Mississippi and
his consent, as a parallel to this situation.
The Senator from Mississippi and the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. PULBRIGHT)
agreed, and the Senate agreed, that only
$2.5 billion under this or any other bill
could be used for the purposes of clause 1
and clause 2.
Mr. STENNIS. That is correct.
Mr. COOPER. The Senator from Mis-
sippi found it a very good vehicle to pro-
hibit the funds under the use of this bill
or any other bill, except the $2.5 billion,
to those forces. Now, logically, I am fol-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S 10740 Approved For Reletam2daggiWeARIEV000344M91900070001-7
NeptenApv 1? 9r!)
lowing the Senator's precedent. That is
that with respect to local forces in Laos
ia Thailand, the funds authorized under
this act or any other act?just as the
Senator from Mississippi used?cannot
lie used for combat in support of Laos or
..fliailand.
What has mystified me is that the
,-jenator from Missis,slooi has used this
vehicle section 401?and I say it with re-
act?for the purposes for which he
tiereeci. 1 go_ further provide that, under
this or any other act, any funds author-
ized to the U.S. Armed Forces cannot be
,iariud. to put them in battle in Laos or
' ifiailand in support of those forces.
fl is absolutely logical.. The Senator
11-orn Mississippi used the method. I say
that with great deference. Now when I
oc000seci to use it by amendment, the
Senator from Mississippi says it is inef-
fective; it does not mean what it says.
Yet he is willing to accept it. I say this
with great respect.
t simply cannot see how the Senator
from Mississippi used this method on Au-
tiust 12 and now says it cannot be used
tor the purpose I propose. I would like
Lie Senator to tell me why he could use
this method on August 12 and why he
Objects to it today when I offer an
amendment?
TyIr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I think
the answer is simple. We were using it
en August 12 to authorize the use of this
looney for the local forciis in countries
at Southeast Asia, but We limited the
amount that could be used that way to
$2.5 billion and it is liroited further by
saying it had to be for stated purposes.
Then we set forth the putitoses. So those
are two limitations there.
I read a sentence that is a part of the
history of this act, which was sent to us
hefore the bill was written up.
Title IV. Section 401. The eeetion (meaning
1.0 ) is needed because otherwise there would
a.(1() authority to use fu di appropriated
. the Department of Defense to support
than U.S. forces,
This language is necessary in order to
authorize the use of funds appropriated
for the U.S. forces in sutiport of those
I: i Vietnam and Laos and Thailand.
That is why there has to be some Ian-
silage here. This is spelled out more or
less in what I call military language. It
could have been written in a different
teem. but it has a clear and distinct
meaning and history. HOW (gyer, the Sen-
ator from Kentucky believes that his
lauguage is broad enough to cover his
purposes, so he can vote for it. I do not
lailleve it is broad enough eo I am going
tio vote for it.
As I said, if it can be pointed out
where either one of us is (Sear or wrong,
ehall be glad to hear it.
Mr. President. that is ad the service
eon render to the Senate at this time. In
present form. I support, the amend-
-lent for the purposes stated.
Me COOPER. Mr, Pr orient, I have
etated what my purpose is I believe the
laiiiinage of the amendment shows
tilearly that it intends that purpose; but
can see that the Senator from Missis-
- disagrees with me. The Department
an is more likely Jo follow his
than mine. I see on the floor Sem-
ator Cook. Senator CRANSTON, and Sen-
ator JAVITS, who are. cosponsors of the
amendment. What I say and what they
say is the proper source of interpretation
that can be provided to the amendment.
The Senator can question our interpre-
tation, but we can speak with the pur-
pose and legislative intent of our amend-
ment. Of course, it could be only aca-
demic, because if we get into a war, it
would not make much difference and
would do very little to help.?
stand on the amendment, T will ask
for a rolleall vote. I want it clearly un-
derstood that T consider its purpose is to
prohibit, to prevent, the use of any funds
appropriated by the Congress of the
United Stateis to the Armed Forces of the
United States, for sending our Armed
Forces into war, armed Conflict, com-
bat?whatever it may be called?in Laos
and Thailand, That is my intent, and I
stand on it, and li know my cosponsors
will support me.
few minutes ago the Senator from
California said he did not understand
why I did not know we were fighting in
,Laos and Thailand. I know only rumor.
I do not recall that anyone from the
State Department or the Defense De-
part came before the Foreign Relations
Committee, or any other committee I
have been associated with, and said, "We
are ensaging in combat in Laos against
the PathettLao," or, "We are engaging in
Thailand against the insurgents.
To make my point, if we are engaged
in war and combat in those two coun-
tries, the Executive has the duty to tell
Congress and tell the American people.
If we are not now engaged in war, or
have not proceeded to the point where
it would be difficult to disengage our-
selves, then I say again, it is my belief,
at least, that no President of the United
States has the constitutional authority
to put us into war there without the au-
thority of Congress.
The President has great constitutional
powers. It our troops are attacked, he
has the risht, to defend them. If our fa-
cilities are attacked, he has a right to
defend them. But unless an emergency
situation arises, we have no right to be
engaged in ?win? without, the consent of
Congress.
I have tried to draw upon the experi-
ence of the war in Vietnam, one which
has caused this country great anguish,
and has caused Members of this body
anguish. Many have lost loved ones in
the war; but the fact that any in the
Senate have lost loved ones is of no
greater importance to them than any
other individual in this country may ex-
perience in the loss of ones he held dear.
If Congress never intends to do any-
thing about these situations, why make
all this protest after the fact? Why all
the speeches about it? Why all the hopes
expressed that we want to get out of
Vietnam: and yet, when we have a
chance, if there is danger of another
war, to prevent it, we do not stand to-
gether on it?
I thank the Senator. I am willing to
yield back the remainder of my time,
Mr MILLER Mr. President?
Mr, STENNIS_ Mr President, I believe
I have the floor
For the reasons I have already 'fated,
and for those that have been expressed,
that this language offered by the Sena-
tor from Kentucky clearly, in My rnind,
does not it o to the issue that he agues
about, support for U.S. troops in Thai-
land or Laos. I do no believe It Woliid.
have any effect, but I am willing to take
the amendment to conference and seek
such ad.ditional heist as may COMe from
any other source in considering it. theta
Mr. Pre iident. in c.,nclusjoi. F ask
unanimoue consent to have pritlitii in
the RECORD a short statement comprisine
the legiSlative hi: lory cif title IV I yield
the floor.
There being no objection, the ?Sate -
trient was txrdered to he orinteiS tit
RECORD, as follows,
:LPGISLATIVE HISTOR or Tim: IV- Si,
OF Fate WoRte FORt Ia IN V/ET a NT
Section section authorizee sep-
arate and Hater appropriations action th,-it
would make Department of Defense e ppre_
priations a. liable liar the support of Souill
Vietnamese and Other Free World irerees in
Vietnam, haeluding local forces in La ,-,,s ard.
and Thailaed, and for related costa This
authorization permits such appnipria;tion
action whet her the funds are authorized for
appropriation under this or any other act,
For instance. it authorizes the Procureenet,l,
and RDT&E funds authorized under this
act to be made available for these purposes
and it also enthorizes the military personni-il
and operation and maintenance type (ands
(the appropriation of which is atUle,rize(.1
under other permenent law) to lee made
available for these purpoees.
This authorization is not new, Sander
language hi ee been carried each year el tile
authorizattoi is and appropriations acts for
the Department of Defense beginning le
fiscal year The 'cation is needed hr am'
otherwise there would be no authority o use
funds appropriated to tile Department et
Defense to eapport other than U.S. fr,roes.
This limited merger of tidingfu of support
of allied for as in a combat area with that
of United Ste tas forces engaged in the eame
area is simile( to the practice followed darin
the Korean War.g;
There is al, additional provision of perma-
nent law related to this ,qection vzioieb re-
quires the Secretary of Defense to re,. '1. to
the Congresr the value of support Firm:died
under these ,itithorMes at, the end 0 each
quarter.
RELATED cc 'a
Within the following policy is Ice died
the types of costs that are eontempiatea to
be charged to military functions approlria-
Lions under t provisions 0( this sot-este in-
cluding "relai ed costs".
1. Basic Policy. Each proposed agr,ement
will be appr,)eed by the Secretary iir the
Deputy Seer'' ary of Defense, and cost- car,
be charged to military functions appropria-
tions only wiien (a) they are provided l'er ii
such an agreement, and (hi they nieei the
criteria described in paragraphs 2 ilea e
below.
2. Costs in Vietnam. All costs incurred in
Vietnam for tl-ie support of Vietnamese and
other Free Weld Forces, except regniai pay
and allowances, may be charged to milOary
functions appropriations. These costs arc: the
same types (pi those incurred in Vietnam for
the support U.S. Forces md, in add' on
may include icasontrhie allowances :for 'az-
arduous duty aay or Aber cotitlemen is tia-t.
are incurred 'or personnel in Vietnam mu
that would net be incurred if the persw-, net
were not in Vietnam.
tbeieted fslx, ru.....iate6 cost, ar,
()StS directly"elated to Free World Feree&-
deeibeeed or
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : Cl
September 17, 1.969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENA
incurred wholly or substantially outside of
Vietnam. These costs would be charged to
military functions appropriations.
Examples of related costs
a. Specialized training to prepare for op-
erations in Vietnam, e.g., jungle training.
b. Specialized individual and organiza-
tional clothing and/or equipment required
for operations in Vietnam but not normally
provided for in allowances authorized in
home country, and which would be deployed
with the units to Vietnam or provided in
Vietnam.
c. Standard individual and organizational
clothing and/or equipment required to fill
shortages to authorize allowances, which
equipment would be deployed with the units
or furnished after arrival in Vietnam.
d. Equipment and supplies and out-of-
home country costs (training) for establish-
ment or improvement of LCC's directly re-
lated to the support of forces deployed, but
excluding improvement or expansion of fa-
cilities (operational, maintenance, supply, or
training) within the home country.
e. Preparation for shipment, and trans-
portation of supplies, materials and equip-
ment of the forces to be deployed, including
resupply that is provided only from the home
country.
f. Transportation of forces deployed to
Vietnam, and transportation of replacement,
rotation or evacuation of such forces.
g. Overseas duty allowances, death gra-
tuities, and wounded-in-action benefits ac-
cording to the practices of the country in-
volved.
h. Hospitalization and other medical
treatment of Vietnam casualties in U.S. mil-
itary facilities outside Vietnam except that
in home country present arrangements for
treatment of non-U.S. patients in U.S. med-
ical facilities would remain in effect with the
respect to costs chargeable to MAP funds.
1. When the forces return to the home
country, costs of replacing lost equipment
and supplies so that the forces are as well
equipped as, but no better equipped than,
when they arrived in Vietnam.
j. Reconstitution of the forces deployed in
Vietnam.
k. Increase in readiness levels of forces re-
maining in the home country through added
equipping levels, strength or equipment
modernization.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
"SEC. 401. Subsection (a) of section 401
of Public Law 89-367 approved March 15,
1966 (SO Stat. 37), as amended, is hereby
amended to read as follows:
"Funds authorized for appropriation for
the use of the Armed Forces of the United
States under this or any other Act are au-
thorized to he made available for their
stated purposes to support: (1) Vietnamese
and other free world forces in Vietnam, (2)
local forces in Laos and Thailand; and for
related costs, during the fiscal year 1970 on
such terms and conditions as the Secretary
of Defense may determine."
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
A. Authorization
1. Fiscal Years 1966-1967
This authorization was included as sec-
tion 401 of Public Law 89-367, 89th Congress,
March 15, 1966, at the request of the De-
partment of Defense.
Senate Report No. 992 dated February 10,
1966, pp. 11-12.
House Report No. 1293 dated February 18,
1966, pp. 2 and 4.
Senate Hearings before Senate Armed
Services and Appropriations Committees on
S. 2791 and S. 2792, January and February
1966, pp. 7, 35, 44-45.
House Hearings before House Armed Serv-
ices Committee HR. 12334 and Ha. 12335,
pp. 4875, 5241.
2, Fiscal Year 1968
Section 301 of Public Law 90-22,-90th Con-
gress, June 5, 1967.
Senate Report No. 76, March 20, 1967, pp.
24-25.
House Report No. 221, May 2, 1967, pp.
37-38.
3. Fiscal Year 1969
Section 401 of Public Law 90-500, 90th
Congress, September 20, 1968.
Senate Report No. 1087, April 10, 1968, pp.
23-24.
House Report 1645, July 5, 1968, pp. 21-22,
B. Appropriations
1. Fiscal Year 1966
This language was included as section
102 of Public Law 89-374, 89th Congress,
March 25, 1966 as requested by budget
amendment included in House Document No.
362 submitted by the President January 19,
1966.
House Report No. 1316, March 11, 1966,
p. 14.
Senate Report 1074, March 17, 1966, pp.
26-27.
Harings-Supplemental Defense Appropria-
tions for 1966 on Ha. 13516, pp. 10, 27, 50,
119-121, and 150.
2. Fiscal Year 1967
Section 640(a) of Public Law 89-687, 89th
Congress, October 15, 1966.
House Report No. 1652, June 24, 1966, p.
32.
Senate Report No. 1458, August 12, 1966,
p. 55.
3. Fiscal Year 1968
Section 639(a) of Public Law 90-96, 90th
Congress, September 29, 1967.
House Report No. 349, June 9, 1967, p. 60.
4. Fiscal Year 1969
Section 537(a) of Public Law 90-580, 90th
Congress, October 17, 1968.
House Report No. 1735, July 18, 1968, p. 60.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I send to
the desk an amendment to the pending
amendment, and ask that it be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE CLERK. The
Senator from Iowa (Mr. MILLER) pro-
poses an amendment to Cooper Amend-
ment No. 165 as follows:
On page 2, line 2, after the word "limited,"
insert the following: "except where protec-
tion of United States personnel is directly
concerned,".
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I have dis-
cussed this amendment with the primary
author of the amendment, Mr. COOPER.
I wish to emphasize again that I think
he speaks for most of us, if not all of us
in the Senate, in stating the objective. I
certainly share it, and I believe the Sen-
ator from Mississippi shares it. Our prob-
lem is whether or not the language would
achieve the objective.
I recognize the desirability of having
this matter considered in conference,
with many conferees looking at it. The
only thing that concerns .me as of now
is that we do not face up to the problem
that could arise from the standpoint of
Providing security for our bases in Thai-
land. It is a real problem, and the secur-
ity, as I understand it, is to be provided
by local forces.
My amendment would cover that situ-
ation. I think if we are dealing with
something like this, that is as sensitive
as this is, it must be related to what is the
reality over there, not what it was 10
S 10741
years ago or what it may be 10 years
from now, but what it is today.
I think we would not want the Senate
to go on record in such a fashion as to
cause members of our Armed Forces serv-
ing in Thailand to think that we have
forgotten about them.
I suggest to the Senator from Ken-
tucky that this language squares exactly
with what his policy is, as deevloped
during our colloquy. I believe it squares
with the position of the Senator from
Mississippi as well; and it may help get
this problem resolved to the satisfaction
of both Houses.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, I am
perfectly willing, if the Senator wishes,
for him to offer it himself and have it
voted on. I am willing to make it a part
of my amendment, but I think he should
offer it. I shall support his amendment.
Mr. MILLER. We could have a sepa-
rate vote on it, or, the Senator from
Mississippi may be is agreeable. Is the
Senator from Mississippi agreeable to the
amendment?
Mr. STENNIS. What is the position of
the Senator from Kentucky?
Mr. COOPER. I said it was all right.
The Senator from Iowa has inserted, on
the second page, I believe, after the word
"limited," the words "except"-
Mr. MILLER. Let me read the language
for the Senator from Mississippi; per-
haps he did not hear the clerk read it.
On page 2 of the Cooper amendment,
after the word "limited", would be placed
the following language:
except where protection of the United
States personnel is directly concerned,"
That covers the situation at the Thai
bases that the Senator from Mississippi
heard discussed between the Senator
from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and my-
self.
Mr. STENNIS. Has the Senator from
Kentucky accepted it?
Mr. COOPER. I will accept it-
Mr. STENNIS. I see no objection.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, I move
the adoption of the amendment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Is it an amendment
or part of the original amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. This is an
amendment to the amendment.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Accepted by the
author of the amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is
right.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Does the Senator
from Kentucky wish to modify his
amendment to that effect?
Mr. COOPER. It is his amendment. I
think he wants a voice vote on it.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, a point
of order. I understood the distinguished
Senator from Kentucky had accepted
this amendment.
Mr. COOPER. I said I would support
it. I do DIA know whether I said I would
accept it.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair will state that unless the Senator
from Kentucky has modified his own
amendment, the Senate must take ac-
tion upon the amendment to the amend-
ment offered by the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. MILLER. May we have the ques-
tion, Mr. President.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S-10742 Approved For Relem2a1M/ EMRA-MA00364R000300070001-7
Sep
s EN ATtember 17 1969
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
tmestion is on agreeing to the amend-
ment to the amendment of the Senator
from Kentucky offered by the Senator
f itorn Iowa.
The amendment to the amendment
Was agreed to.
'Jr. MANSFIELD. Mr President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr, STENNIS. Mr. President, a par-
hi inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. STENNIS. WIU the Chair state
the question?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
question now is on agreeing to the
amendment of the Senator from Ken-
tucky, as amended by the amendment of
the Senator from Iowa.
Mr. DOMINICK. Mr, President, I .itist
want to make sure that I understand
what is going on here, and I am not
aura that I do, even as a member of the
committee, after having been here and
listened to this colloquy
What we are doing. as I gather, is
amending the general provisions on page
5 of the bill.
What page 5 does is authorize funds
which have been appropriated for the
use of the support of American troops,
to be able to put those in one fiscal sys-
tem, so we can support local troops.
T am frank to say I cannot see any
difference between the wording in the
hill as it is now constituted and the
wording of the bill as it would be if the
amendment of the Senator from Ken-
tucky were agreed to. What I am trying
to find out is, what is the difference?
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield to me?
Mr. DOMINICK. I am happy to yield.
Mr. STENNIS. If the Senator is asking
Me, I do not think there is any dif-
ference.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. 1-insident, will the
enator yield?
Mr. DOMINICK. I say also that
we have the additional factor that there
Is a limitation of $2.5 bilhon, which does
oat show up in the wording of the bill.
hilt which is apparently oa,rt, of the act
under Public Law 89-37,
So what we are sayith. is that we are
.'iaiumbering the paragT ;iphs numbered
1, 'A, and 3, and sayb7w that our own
1.roops in Laos and Thaliand can protect
.1-temselves against that and that the
Htiter funds in the rriesure are going
o he used for supplier, facilities, and
Iraining, all of which, thought, came
vii bin the wording of the stated pur-
uses support of local forces.
:1(), with all due respect, I wonder why
we have to have a rollcali vote on it.
Nfr. COOPER. Mr. Preident, the Sen-
dor and T differ on the interpretation,
1_.nd I stand by my own views, purposes,
;Ind interpretation. I think my amend-
Taeut would apply not cffly to this act,
tut to other acts that ma involve money
i:' such purposes.
The Senator from Mirissippi says he
to vote and that he will vote
:-,mendinent, 1wHcome nis sun-
M INICK. Mr 'i-esident, I am
also ready to vote.
Mr. MANSFIELD, Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. COOPER. I yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, there
is one thing that the Senator from Ken-
tucky does not do, and that is to speak
with a forked tongue.
I think the intent of the amendment, is
very well known and very clear to the
membership of the Senate. The main
purpose of the amendment is to see that
we do not back into another Vietnam by
way of Laos or Thailand.
Mr. STENNIS. That purpose is un-
challenged all the way throughout the
debate.
Mr. COOPER. Mr, President, I do not
want to delay the vote. However, with
reference to the long debate had on an-
other amendment which the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. HART) and I, along
with other Senators, sponsored and also
with reference to the debate on the
amendment today, and in all respects, I
Pay my tribute to the Senator from Mis-
sissippi. He does not need my tribute. He
has been fair and just. As always, I am
grateful for having worked with him.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
join the Senator from Kentucky in what
he has to say about the Senator from
Mississippi who has had a grueling job
in connection with the pending bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Kentucky, as amended.
On this question the yeas and nays have
been ordered, end the clerk will call the
roll.
The aesiei ant legislative clerk called
the roll.
Mr. KENNEDY. I announce that the
Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNU-
SON) is absent on official business.
I also announce that the Senator Ar-
kansas ( Mr PULRRIGHT) , the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. HART). the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. LoNo), the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. McGEE), the Sen-
ator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH
and the Senator from Texas (Mr. YAW-
aogouGH are necessarily absent.
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Washington
(Mr. MAGNUSON) , the Senator from Ar-
kansas (Mr. PUIRRIGHT) , the Senator
from Michigan (Mr, HART) , the Senator
from Louisiana (Mr. Loam), the Senator
from Wyoming (Mr. McGEE), the Sen-
ator from West Virginia (Mr. RANDOLPH)
and the Senator from Texas (Mr. YAR-
BOROUGH.I would each vote "yea."
Mr, SCOTT, I announce that the Sen-
ator from Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) ,
the Senator from New York (Mr. Goon-
ELI. ) and the Senator from California
(Mr. MURPHY ) are necessarily absent.
The Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY )
is absent on official business.
The Senator from Vermont (Mr.
PROUTY ) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Maryland (Mr.
MantrAs) is detained on official business.
If present and voting, the Senator from
Arizona (Mr. GOLDWATER) , the Senator
from Maryland (Mr. MATHIAS) , the Sen-
ator from California (Mr. MURPHY) , the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. PEEcv), the
Senator from New York (Mr. GOODELL)
and the Senator from Vermont (Mr,
PROUTY ) would each vote "yea."
The result was announced?yeas
nays 0, as follows:
[No 90 Leg.]
AS-86,
Aiken
Allen
Allott
Anderson
Baker
Bayh
Bellmon
Bennett
Bible
Boggs
Brooke
Burdick
Byrd, Va.
Byrd, W. Vs
Cannon
Case
Church
Cook
Cooper
Cotton
Cranston
Curtis
Dodd
Dole
Dominick
Eaglet?,
Eastland
Ellender
Ervin
Full-night
Goldwater
Goodell
Hart
Long
Fannin
Fong
Gore
Gras'el
Gratin.
Gurney
Hansen
Harris
Hart ke
Hatfield
Holland
Hollings
Hruska
Hughes
Inc it ye
Jack 40n
Javim
Jordan, N.C.
,lord an, Idaho
Ken nedy
Mansfield
McCarthy
McClellan
McGovern
McIntyre
Me t
Miller
Mondale
Montoya
86,
Moss
Mundt
Muskie
Nelson
Packwood
Pastore
Pearson
Pell
Proxmire
Iti Wort
Russell
Saxbe'
Schweikyr
Scott
Smith
Sparkma,
Spong
Stennis
Stevens
Symington
Talmadge
Thurmohd
Tower
Tydinga
Williams, N.J.
VVilliams, Del.
Young, N. Dak.
Young, Ohio
NAYS-
NOT VOTING-13
Magnuson
Mathias
McGee
Murphy
Percy
Prouty
Randolph
Yarborough
So Mr. COOPER'S amendment (No. 165 ) ,
as amended, was agreed to.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I move
to reconsider the vote by which the
amendment was agreed to.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I move to lay that
motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. COOPER, Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the names of the
Senator from Kansas (Mr, PEARSON) , the
Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FuLinnenr) ,
and the Senator front Maryland (Mr.
MATHIAS) be shown as cosponsors of the
amendment, as modified, just voted upon
by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
MESSAGE FROM 1HE HOUSE
A messaee front the House of Rep-
resentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House
had passed the bill (S. 499) for the relief
of Ludger ,J. Cossette, with an amend-
ment, in which it requested the concur-
rence of the Senate.
The message also announced that the
House had passed the joint resolution
S.J. Res. 26) to provide for the develop-
ment of the Eisenhower National Historic
Site at Gettysburg. Pa., and for the pur-
poses, with amendments, in which it re-
quested the concurrence of the Senate.
The inessa.ge further announced that
the House had disagreed to the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (
13194) to amend the Higher Educe tion
Act of 1965 to authorize Federal market
adjustment payments to lenders with
respect to insured student loans when
necessary itt the lieht of economic eon-
talons, in order tit assure that students
will have reasonable access to such
for finanein9 edne
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
November 12, 1969Pt1313MAGIFIVSMIXIREVA1 -:?WPAK1B9PWRIA130007 0001 -7 E 9529
Chinese military aid to Hanoi; nothing about
withdrawal of North Vietnamese forces from
South Vietnam.
It is evident that these types of profes-
sional anti-war organizers are interested in
one thing?attempting to dictate the foreign
policy of our government from the streets.
There is a definite dividing line between
those sincere people across the nation who
want to see an end to this war and those who
see in this turmoil a chance to grab for
power. President Nixon pointed that out
clearly.
A great deal is heard about the organiza-
tions such as the one mentioned above. But
we would like to quote from another or-
ganization, "Citizens Committee for Peace
With Freedom in Vietnam." It was founded
in 1967 by the late President Dwight D.
Eisenhower, former President Harry S.
Truman and former Sen. Paul H. Douglas of
Illinois.
The committee said last week:
"Hanoi is fighting on three battlefronts?
in Vietnam, in Paris, and in American public
opinion. The enemy's only remaining chance
for total victory Lies here in the United
States?in the pressures of American public
opinion."
We hope the American people will also
recognize this fact and support the President
in his sincere and determined efforts to bring
about an honorable peace.
CONGRESSMAN HORTON SEESZA9?
AS FIRST TESTING GROUND FOR
NIXON DOCTRINE
HON. ROBERT T. STAFFORD
OF VERMONT
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, November 12, 1969
Mr. STAFFORD. Mr. Speaker, in his
speech on November 3, the President re-
ported to the Nation his thinking on
what policy future U.S. foreign involve-
ments should be based on.
He spelled out in welcome terms the
meaning of the new Nixon doctrine of
U.S. foreign policy which will be aimed
at helping our free world allies to help
and to defend themselves.
Two days ago, in a speech before the
Rochester Association of the United Na-
tions, our colleague, the gentleman from
New York, expressed strong support for
this new direction in foreign policy. He
went on to cite the present situation in
Laos as one where the tenets of this new
doctrine should receive their first real
test.
Congressman HORTON made several
points in his Rochester speech which I
feel should be brought to the attention
of the Congress and the public. Mr.
Speaker, I would like to insert at this
point in the RECORD the full text of his
remarks:
FIRST TESTING GROUND?LAOS
(By Hon. FRANK HORTON )
This meeting of the R.A.U.N. Board comes
at a time of both great optimism and great
pessimism about the future of U.S. foreign
policy as it relates to peace in the world.
On the one hand, the great national de-
bate over Vietnam has grown into a symbolic
popularity contest between peace marchers
and telegrams on the President's desk. But
the heat of this debate has caused many
Americans to overlook the essential change
In the Vietnam debate in the days since
President Nixon took office. We are no longer
debating whether or not to bomb the North.
The debate is now focused, between those
who seek quick but gradual withdrawal from
Vietnam, leaving behind a strengthened
South Vietnamese Army and Government,
and those who seek withdrawal immediately
without regard for the consequences in
Southeast Asia. It is no longer a debate
"whether to get out," it has now turned into
a discussion of "how to get out, and how
quickly."
Despite the lack of dramatic withdrawal
announcements in President Nixon's speech
a week ago, I am convinced that he feels our
involvement in Vietnam and the policy as-
sumptions on which that involvement was
built are wrong. Whether or not you
think the President is moving fast
enough toward withdrawal, the American
people who feel we can no longer police
the world alone must welcome at last, a
President who is taking a hard look at the
way we have carried out the policies of con-
tainment of communism which were forged
under President Truman over 20 years ago.
With all of the despair, pessimism and
frustration our nation feels with each pass-
ing day of war and bloodshed in Asia, I feel
there is great reason for optimism about
the future of American foreign policy. Last
Monday, the President underscored the im-
portance of the policies he announced last
summer in Guam and Manila which he called
the "Nixon Doctrine." unlike the Monroe
Doctrine, the Truman Doctrine and the
Eisenhower Doctrine, the Nixon Doctrine is
not founded on a threat or promise of land-
ing U.S. Marines on the shores of allies in
threatened regions of the world. Instead, it
seems genuinely to be a self-help doctrine,
offering material, economic and equipment
aid to free world governments threatened by
invasion or by communist guerrilla wars. But
the Doctrine specifically states that the
threatened nation and her regional allies
will have to stand in their own defense, with-
out reliance on U.S. troops.
I think that if the President's speech could
have been given last week without the emo-
tional backdrop of the Vietnam war, his
enunciation of new guidelines for the way
in which America will honor her treaty com-
mitments would have been loudly and pub-
licly acclaimed.
There is particular significance in the
Nixon Doctrine for the concept which under-
lies United Nations peacekeeping.
As you know, for three straight Congresses,
I have sponsored resolutions that would put
the United States on record as favoring use
of the U.N. as a multi-lateral peacekeeping
establishment. My particular resolution
which this Board has endorsed, calls for the
setting up of a peacekeeping force made up
of earmarked units from U.N. member na-
tions. My resolution takes the further step
of asking the United States delegation to
the U.N. to offer, as a measure of our sin-
cerity, an American support unit of 1,000
men earmarked for U.N. peacekeeping duty.
I am sorry to have to report at this time,
that despite the number of Congressmen and
Senators who have co-sponsored similar res-
olutions, neither the House Foreign Affairs
nor Senate Foreign Relations Committees
have scheduled hearings thus far.
I am firmly convinced that with the rising
pitch of nationalism within every region of
the world, we have just seen the beginnings
of regional "brush-fire" wars. We cannot
continue to gamble with the safety of the
world by juggling a balance of power in each
region with tugs of war between the great
powers. The ideal solution would be to in,ove
immediately to a truly international peace-
keeping structure, centered around the U.N.
Obviously, competing international interests,
and a festering cold war will prevent this
from happening overnight?just as it has
stymied U.N. peacekeeping progress up to
now. But I think any steps that are taken
toward making responses to brush-fire wars
multilateral, are steps in the right direction.
That is why I am so encouraged by the
Nixon Doctrine, and why it will be crucial in
the months and years ahead to see how it is
carried out. By removing the pledge of quick-
ly and massively deployed U.S. troops as the
first line of defense of the free-world's outer
boundaries, we can take a major steP .d.
de-fusing potential military confrontatio
between the great powers.
By putting our allies around the world?
in Europe, in Asia and in Lain America?on
notice that the responsibility for providing
well-trained manpower to presreve freedom
will be theirs, and not ours, we accomplish
several positive results. First, we remove the
complacent dependency on American mili-
tary might that has lulled the Western world
into laxity and de-emphasis on self-defense.
Second, we encourage the development of
regional treaty organizations which are truly
regional. Instead of sharing only a mutual
dependency on U.S. intervention, the new
generation of treaty organizations will, of
necessity, involve active and proportional
military participation by all member nations
seeking to benefit from the regional defense
umbrella. In SEATO there must come about
a strong, well trained alliance, manned by
the free nations of Southeast Asia and par-
tially supplied and trained by the U.S. NATO,
too, will have to revert to a more truly mutual
alliance if the Nixon Doctrine is carried out
to its full implications.
Another benefit of implementing the Nixon
Doctrine would be a gradual lessening of the
proportion of the Free World's defense bur-
den that will have to be borne by American
tax dollars. If our military establishment
does not actually shrink in the years to come.
I think at least that its rapid rate of growth.
in this decade can be stopped or slowed to a
trickle as the world becomes convinced that
the President is serious in pursuing this new
policy direction.
This brings me to the final, and disturbing
point of my message. How serious is our gov-
ernment about implementing this new and
hopeful policy guideline? Because the 91st
Congress, more than any of its predecessors,
is closely scrutinizing every aspect of U.S.
foreign and military policy, and because this
Administration is making an honest effort to
level with the public on foreign policy moves
(as evidenced by the President's speech last
week), we know a great deal more today about
our foreign interests and maneuverings than
we have in the past. One outgrowth of this
is the growing public awareness and concern
over recent events in Laos. I believe much of
this concern is justified. On October 15,
moratorium day, I ended a speech on Viet-
nam policy with the following warning:
The clouds which hang today over Laos
look ominously like those which shadowed
Vietnam five years ago. Reports that Ameri-
can advisors are there in substantial num-
bers are disturbing if they mean that the
Vietnam experience is being recycled a few
hundred miles northwest of Saigon. If we
have not already learned the lesson that the
nature of our military commitments must
change in a world-wide context, let us learn
it now before a new Vietnam is born in the
wake of this tragic war.
When I was in Vietnam in January of
1968, the members of my Military Operations
Subcommittee were fully briefed on U.S.
military operations in Laos. At that time,
there was very heavy infiltration along the
Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos by the North Viet-
namese, and we were trying to slow it down.
with bombing raids along this jungle corridor
as part of our war effort in South Vietnam.
Recent reports indicate that the number
of U.S. advisors in Laos, today is believed to
be over 1,000. The main mission of these
men is to advise the Royal Laotian Army of
Prince Souvanna Phouma. At the same time,
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved Ear.Retea$e 24011111/01 ? CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
14; 9530 RECORD ? Extensions of Remarks Noverpher 12 198-()
?
is believed that there are 50.000 North Viet-
en mese in the portions of I,a0s,controlled by
Ale Communist Pathet Lao
Our present role has recently been said to
-include activities by the Central Intelligence
Agency in funding and tniining an army of
elea tribesmen in Northere Laos. This army
-.Aid to be the best tn.:lied and equipped
-communist force in Laos. While the
..ate Department has not officially disclosed
Ow functions oi our person tel in Laos, it is
elem. that we have uncle! ,ken in a major
,.eav to help stave off tb advance of the
.eethet Lao, which today tet eater's the neu-
tralist government of Prince Souvanna
!Mourne- Under the Geriev., accords of 1962,
iereign intervention in rue ;/?aliist Laos was
prohibited. This understam 1.g, has been vio-
lated by everybody, from 'Ire Soviet Union
and Chinese who have heleed to equip and
rain the Pathet Lao and North Vietamese
in Laos, to our own counties which found it
necessary to take steps to limit the use of
l.aos as a sanctuary for ,-einmunist troops
and supplies destined for Smith Vietnam.
The question we are faced with in Laos is
of whether we should desert the neutralist
government to face alone the risks of a
Pathet Lao takeover. We ae fee that commu-
nist takeover of Laos would h as undesirable
es total Viet Cong victory 1;1 South Vietnam.
rent the serious question heee Is how can we
etrengthen the neutralist e,vernment with-
mit getting involved in =ether Vietnam, in
a nation which is a less Ittractive Asian
battleground than South Vietnam itself?
if that is possible.
Laos can become either he Guadalcanal
or the Waterloo of the Nixon Doctrine, If our
unilateral intervention, Cia flfiestine or not.
continues to grow?then the dependency of
the Laotians on America will 'row along wits]
It , We cannot permit this ' e happen. Other
Southeast Asian nations?reirticularly Thai-
land?have a vital interest oi preserving the
neutral status of Laos. I weold think that
India, the major neutralte power, would
have an interest in discome;ging the take-
over of fellow Asian neutralie s.
Two steps must be taken immediately be-
fore the situation in Laos becomes a fait
accompli for irreversible U.S intervention.
We must call for an immediate session of
the 1962 Geneva signatories who originally
guaranteed the neutral stet.; of Laos. The
alarming increase in North Vietnamese troops
in Laces makes such a mee Mg that much
more urgent. The communie;a are now in a
position to allow world opiniee against Amer-
ican intervention in Southeeet Asia to feed
on the publicity Laos is now eetting here at
home. Calling for a new meeting of the
Geneva signatories could set ve to point up
the real danger that the nen ral regime may
face in a short time.
Second, we must take iminedia lc steps to
de-Americanize the Wester,-. military aid
and personnel in Laos while the numbers
are small, The free Asian gr, ,rnments must
decide among themselves whether Laos is
vital to their own well-beine end if SO, they
must, with our material hen._ lake steps to
replace the Americans now 1,.eping to build
11,notian defenses.
.lay making Vietnamization of the Viet-
nam war his primary objee five. President
Nixon is forming the corners roe of his new
foreign policy in Laos, he hae he chance to
build on this foundation at early stage.
Whether or not the struggle in Laos explodes
into a neutralist war against h P Pathet Lao
and North Vietnam, we must -:(et be caught
in the same position in which found our-
selves in Vietnam in 1964.
urge your support for the e steps to re-
Mee? direct American intervee! ion in Laos
ee directors of the Rochester -,.-sociation for
,a, Hefted Nations, you are le a position to
- lead public opinion on I. go policy in
ee Rochester area. I firmly heeelle that the
Nixon Doctrine is a very rre .,ningful and
welcome step away from the dangers of
"red button" confrontation and toward the
eventual goal of truly international peace-
keeping through the United Nations. I hope
you will lend your support to this vital ele-
ment of the President's policy.
Public acceptance and recognition of the
Nixon Doctrine new policy goals will help
to demonstrate to our allies around the globe
that the American people and their govern-
ment are sincere in setting this new course.
If this support is forthcoming soon enough,
it could help immensely to establish this
doctrine as the basis for free world foreign
policy for years to come.
CLOSING THE WORLDWIDE LEARN-
ING GAP: AN IMAGINATIVE PRO-
POSAL FROM AMERICAN INDUS-
TRY
HON. DANTE B. FASCELL
OF FLORIDA
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Wednesday, November 12, 1969
Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, during
the closing days of October, a very sig-
nificant conference took Place in San
Francisco. Arranged as part of the 50th
anniversary celebration of the Institute
of International Education, the confer-
ence had a single, challenging objec-
tive?a workable program of educational
-assistance to developing nations involv-
ing private enterprise in cooperation
with the United States and foreign gov-
ernments.
Cochaired by Mr. Ernest C. Arbuckle,
chairman of the board of Wells Fargo
Bank, and Mr. 0. Meredith Wilson, di-
rector of the Center for Advanced Study
in the Behavioral Sciences, the confer-
ence featured a number of prominent
speakers from industry, the academic
sector, foundations, foreign countries,
and the U.S. Government. Their pres-
entations suggested new and exciting
dimensions for social development-
oriented programs of American and
multinational firms operating in the de-
veloping countries.
One of the most interesting presenta-
tions at the conference was delivered by
Mr. C. W. Robinson, president of Mar-
cona Corp.. which firm has a long and
inspiring record of supporting education
in Latin America.
Fully conscious of the important role
which education plays in the processes
of development, and of the great and
urgent need to close the worldwide learn-
ing gap, Mr. Robinson urged American
and multinational firms to contribute
of their own resources to the accomplish-
ment of that objective.
He said:
I urge every multi-national corporation to
adopt a "fair sharing" approach in its for-
eign operations as is becoming increasingly
common in domestic affairs. We accept with
only minor grumbling, the cost of Insurance
protection against fire, earthquake, and other
natural calamities. I now propose a "business
survival" insurance policy; this to be based
on an annual contribution to an educational
foundation in each developing nation equal
to 1 per cent of the investment in that
country . .
Mr. Speaker, I believe that Mr. Robin-
son's thoughtful romnrks will Drove of
considerable interest to my colleagues
and I am, therefore, placing them in the
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD at this point:
CLOSING THE WORLDWIDE LEARNING GAP
LESSONS FROM BUSINESS INVESTMEN 5 IN
EDUCATION IN DEVELOPING NATIO T', s
(Address by Charles W. Robinson
Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen. I
feel honored to be able to participate in
this conference dedicated to the exchange
of ideas on "Closing the Worldwide Learn-
ing Gap". It has brought together here
in San Francisco distinguished repreeent i-
-rives of education, government and private
enterprise from throughout the world This
evidences the importance which we all SI-
each to this key problem in the elimination
of inequities between so-roiled developed arid
developing nations.
I have been asked to share with you iny
views on business responsibility and op-
portunity in the field of international (edu-
cation. I must confess that I was in a state
of shock when I received a copy of the prc-
gram and found that I was to be the lead
off speaker with a subject entitled "Leesors
from Business Investments in Education in
Developing Nations". This poses a real ehai-
lenge as it implies that I am to pravicie
you with a solution to a problem which we
haven't yet defined However, I would like
to discuss with you some convictions which
I have gained from direct exposure to the
problem of encouraging education in e de-
veloping nation. I do this, however, not t.
suggest any one solution, but rather in an
effort to bring the problem into clearer
focus.
There are many ripples on the sea, most of
which soon disappear back into the sur-
face; however, every now and then one ap..
peas at the right time and it continues to
build into a giant swell eventually to crash
on a distant shore. The need to encourage
and support worldwide education as as
essential step in closing the "economic gap"
represents just such it ripple?an idea whose
time has conic. We are at a crossroads where
the way in which we deal with the human
resources in the developing nations will de-
termine whether we are to be successful in
controlling the explosive ferces in our world
today.
Some of you may recall an advertieing
campaign conducted by one of our zipper
manufacturers some thirty years ago Each
ad contained a photograph of an item ol
personal clothing improperly secured by the
use of buttons. In these ads there was ale ays
the question, are you suffering from gapoeis?
There was the obvious suggestion that the
affliction could be cured by replacing but-
tons with a zipper.
Today, our world is se ffering from a
serious case of gaposis: however, we have a
"zipper" in the form of international educa-
tion which is essential for the ultirmite
cure.
We are fortunate to have represemed in
this two-day conference, leaders from ; he
three fields of education, government ,mod
business. I say fortunate because I feel that
the solution of our problems in internatioeal
development calls for coordination of effort
between these three groups. it's what I mu tat
refer to as the new "alliance for progree,-,
if that expreseion had not come intoil
repute.
Others might refer to it as an "unliely
alliance" to the extent that representeilees
of business are involved. For this reason it is
appropriate that I confess my personal Ines
In order that you may place my views in
proper perspective. I am President of Me r-
cona Corporation, a multinational company
with operations in mining and shipping
throughout the world. This has led to deep
involvement in both developing and devel-
oped nations. I confess to profit motives but
with what T view as 1,,n2: rn#., ori,nt,tt
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
December 19,
19APproved F6ORiffdifsVsSM/?111/tRECtirkrADPWITAIA4R000300070001-7 S17
icit and surplus countries restore balance
in their international accounts. The U.S.
and British currency plans drafted during
the Second World War provided for far-
re-aching international control over the eco-
nDmic policies of deficit and surplus coun-
tries. But in negotiations before the Bretton
Woods Conference of 1944 these provisions
were removed because of differences over the
relative emphasis on the responsibilities of
deficit and surplus countries?and because
of the fear that too explicit qualifications of
economic sovereignty would prevent approval
of any plan by Parliament and Congress.
The Bretton Woods compromise ruled out
adjustment by exchange controls or by freely
fluctuating exchange rates. But it said very
little about how adjustment was to be
achieved. The hope was that, with the aid of
resources from the International Monetary
Fund, deficit and surplus countries could be
relied on to correct a "fundamental dis-
equilibrium" within a relatively short time
by reasonable domestic policies and by oc-
casional changes in exchange rates. But the
system hasn't worked that way.
One way to improve the international ad-
justment process would be to give interna-
tional agencies the kind of influence over the
economic policies of deficit and surplus
countries that was envisaged in the original
U.S. and British currency plans. There could
be, for example, more regular and systematic
consulation among senior government offi-
cials so that international adjustment is
given greater weight in national policymak-
ing. More progress could also be made in the
adjustment of national policies on military
spending, foreign aid, and private capital
flows to help reduce imbalances of payments.
In the years. immediately ahead, however, it
is unlikely that the adjustment problem will
be fully resolved by measures of this kind.
Economic sovereignty dies hard. Deficit and
surplus countries are reluctant to sacrifice
domestic economic objectives for external
balance; even when prepared to do so, they
do not always have the policy instruments
available to get quick results. And there are
limits to their willingness to adjust foreign
spending in the interest of payments balance.
For these reasons? the international com-
munity is taking a new look at easing the
adjustment problem through greater flexi-
bility in exchange rates. The present "ad-
justable peg" system of the International
Monetary Fund permits changes to take
place, but only after the political leaders or
a country find them necessary to cure the
fundamental disequilibrium. For reasons of
prestige or domestic politics, national leaders
are frequently reluctant to devalue or re-
value a currency; as in the case of the pound
sterling and the mark, they tend to postpone
changes too long and to make them only
after a currency crisis has developed.
In an effort to provide a greater measure
of flexibility, the United States and other
3ountries are now exploring an idea known
the "crawling peg," under which a cur-
..ency could move up or down one or two -
.ercentage points a year through a series
of tiny changes every week or so. The changes
vould occur in response to a formula, thus
tking the responsibility off the shoulders
4 political leaders. Another suggestion be-
ig studied is to permit exchange rates to
,.uctuate within a "wider band"-2 per cent
on either side of parity rather than the 1
oer cent allowed under the present system.
Although some have argued that greater ex-
change flexibility will unsettle the confi-
dence of international traders and investors,
a modest combination crawling peg and
Wider band should appeal to the financial
community as a desirable substitute for the
present arrangement. After all, a substantial
risk of a very small rate change may be pref-
erable to the small (but far from negligible)
possibility of a very substantial change that
exists at present, particularly if the new sys-
tern makes exchange and trade restrictions
less likely and eases the adjustment prob-
lem of a troubled world economy.
Various technical, economic, and political
questions on the subject are now being
studied by the International Monetary Fund.
If the study yields a sufficient measure of
agreement, the matter will be taken up in
the "Group of Ten"?the key financial coun-
tries that negotiated the agreement on paper
gold. If all goes well, a new plan for greater
exchange flexibility could be ready for ap-
proval at the annual meeting of the Interna-
tional Monetary Fund in September 1971.
Technical as this matter may seem, it could
determine whether the United States can
balance its international accounts without
resorting to harmful trade and payment re-
strictions or a straight jacket on domestic
growth. This is why many (though by no
means all) key advisers in the Nixon admin-
istration consider the crawling peg the No. 1
priority for international monetary reform.
The fourth area where action is needed is
reduction of trade barriers so that the
United States can solve payments problems
in a climate of trade freedom rather than
trade restriction. The challenges to U.S. trade
policy have never been greater than today.
We have lost our traditional export surplus;
key sectors of American industry, such as
steel and textiles, are demanding increased
protection against a flood of competitive im-
ports. The Common Market continues a pro-
tectionist agricultural policy that threatens
U.S. farm exports. Our exports of manufac-
tures are also obstructed by a host of non-
tariff barriers?for example, tax systems or
government purchasing arrangements that
discriminate in favor of home production.
The refusal of our European trading partners
to grant full equality to Japan as a trading
partner has forced us to take a dispropor-
tionate share of low-cost goods. And little
has been done to remove trade restrictions
in Europe and the United States on the ex-
ports of the less-developed countries.
An appropriate strategy to cope with these
challenges will probably have to unfold in
two stages. The first stage, covering the next
two or three years, should be used for modest
but not unimportant action?fighting off
protectionist demands, starting an Interna-
tional assault on non-tariff barriers, and
adopting "housekeeping" trade legislation
to enable us to complete and safeguard the
work of the Kennedy Round of tariff rene-
gotiations. The second stage, which could
begin in 1971 but is more likely to have
to wait until 1973, should involve the launch-
ing of a bold new approach to the reduction
of trade barriers on a world-wide basis. The
best method would be a free-trade treaty
calling for annual percentage reductions in
industrial tariffs across the board (for ex-
ample, reductions by 10 per cent a year for
ten years) and the complete elimination of
non-tariff barriers.
Adoption of such a plan would eliminate
or at least reduce the discrimination against
American exports resulting from the Euro-
pean Common Market and the European
Free Trade Area--a discrimination that could
grow to very serious proportions if the two
groups merge or make a special trade ar-
rangement without U.S. participation. More-
over, a free-trade treaty could provide for ac-
celerated reductions in trade barriers on
behalf of less-developed countries.
The clearing away of barriers to exports
and imports, however, will not be sufficient
to assure cooperation between governments
in support of free trade. Thanks to the
growth of multinational companies, the
United States now reaches foreign markets
more through foreign-based production than
through exports. We need to consider new
ways of dealing with the problems that arise
when, for example, the United States seeks
to force on foreign subsidiaries of American
corporations U.S. balance-of-payments con-
r
aaa
trols, U.S. concepts of competition, or U.S.
regulations on. trade with communist coun-
tries, or when there is discrimination against
such firms by host governments.
At the very least, the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), established in
1947, should be a forum for discussion of
such problems, and GATT could be amended
to include some general principles in this
area. Looking further ahead, we might en-
visage the registration and supervision of
multinational corporations by an interna-
tional agency. The problem of the multina-
tional corporation can be made more man-
ageable, of course, if these corporations be-
come multinational in fact as well as name?
with foreign participation in ownership and
management of the parent company as well
as in ownership and management of the for-
eign subsidiary.
These ideas add up to an ambitious agenda
for the reshaping of international economic
policy. It is far from certain that we will
have the wisdom and the will to implement
them?to curb our inflation without sliding
into depression; to develop a more equitable
system of international reserve management;
to devise a new arrangement for the timelier
adjustment of exchange rates; to negotiate
an effective regime of free trade. Yet, we
have no choice except to try. At stake is our
ability to realize our most valued domestic
and international objectives in the years
ahead.
THE LAOS-THAILAND AMENDMENT
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, today's
Washington Post contains an editorial
commenting upon our vote last Monday
which would bar the use of appropri-
ated money to finance the introduction
of American ground combat troops into
either Laos or Thailand.
The editorial is not only very favorable
in its reaction to our vote amending the
Defense Department appropriation bill
to bar funds for introduction of combat
troops into either of these two Asian
countries, but also urges the Nixon ad-
ministration to accept "all reasonable
moves in the direction of restoring con-
gressional control over foreign commit-
ments"?including the resolution of the
Senator from Maryland (Mr. MAnnAs)
which would repeal the Gulf of Tonkin
joint resolution.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the editorial be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SENATE BIDS FOR LOST POWER
Once more the Senate has expressed its
deep distrust of what has been going on in
Southeast Asia. Its 73-17 vote to forbid the
use of defense funds "to finance the intro-
duction of American ground combat troops
into Laos or Thailand" grew out of fear that
the current limited military operations in
those countries might escalate into large
scale war. That is what happened in Viet-
nam. The Senate wants to make sure that
it will not happen again in Laos or Thailand.
The significance of the action is not
changed by the fact that the White House
approved the wording of the amendment in
advance. It has been obvious ever since Sen-
ator Cooper won unanimous approval of a
somewhat similar restriction in September
that restraints of some kind would be ap-
plied. When the Kentucky Senator again
pressed his amendment this week, acting
through Majority Leader Mansfield because
of the illness of his mother, the Senate shied
away from his language, which was deemed
to be ambiguous. But the bipartisan substi-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
7356 Approved For ReieftgelAM14494AnteLWABOckA4IVIOp30007009;le-T,
isee torroducad by Senator ? touch looks in
the same direction. Prestintsbly it would
lesave the military free to bomb access trails
e test by the North Vietnarne-te in Laos and
to give air support to the Royal Laotian
es Only American groun. ombat troops
in the two Southeast Asian -tuntries would
lorbidden if the confer toe committee
att,toid accept this Senate amendment,
the action on Monday ma,. well contain a
eloe as to what the Senate will do when
the more comprehensive WO Alas resolution
comes before its possibly next rear. Logically
tile Mathias resolution shoeld have pre-
ceded the Church amendmet for it, is de-
signed to wipe out the basis for American
intervention in Laos and The eind while ap-
proving the presidential pone of liquidating
trizi war in Vietnam. It is welt to remember
that the so-called Tonkin (dtlf resolution,
winch Senator Mathias would repeal, is not
restricted in its terms to Viet earn, Rather, it
ilms Congress on record as favoring a free
hand for the President in the use of Ameri-
can armed forces "to assist ,ttiy member or
protocol state of the Southsost Asia Col-
lecsAve Defense Treaty rogue ts ing assistance
in defense of its freedom."
Taalland is a member of f-',FATO. Laos Is
a protocol state under its Isom, although
that mercurial country once refused to ac-
cept any protection through HEAT?. If the
Tonkin Gulf resolution is ret. sled and if a
policy of withdrawal from Viri nam is form-
ally approved by Congress, ssesumably the
President would have to go I, Congress for
authority for any operations by American
armed forces in Laos or Ph land not im-
mediately connected with ths war.
rehere are, of course, substas ial gray areas
Lhat cannot be suddenly wteeti out when
Congress decides to reclaim Its "ower to con-
trol limited wars during the 'tquidation of
a war. In Laos, for exarettle, the Com-
munists violated the Gens- t, agreemeni.
iroot the start by giving mill' ,ry aid to the
1'4.1U:et Lao, and the United e. stes long ago
iiatight to counteract that me), by providing
iirptipment and training ft, the Royal
Laotian Army. This cannot be suddenly
wiped out without serious sses to the
cause of stability in that c, ntry. Never-
eideless, all reasonable moves it the direction
of restoring congressional ,'ontrol over
Ameriean foreign commitmes s. should be
-velcomed, The administratt,,,t would do
well to accept the bread ts,licy of the
tites resolution as ?Aso .t nee to the
,set tares that it will not engagt, oi secret and
tinatli-Rorized military operati. els anywhere.
rifFiUM TO MAINTAIN o':. IMPORT
PROGRAM
Mr. PEARSON. Mr. Pre lent, I am
deeply disturbed by newspa..iir stories of
yesterday and today to thy effect that
the cabinet task force on oil imports has
decided to recommend to It President
that the present oil import 0, iota system
be replaced by a tariff mechanism. I
would hope that these prrrs accounts
are not accurate and that the task force
has not made and will not in the future
inake a final decision to recommend the
abolishment of the mandator,: oil import
program, because I am firmly convinced
that such action would not iinly be dis-
astrous to a great number id- small do-
mastic producers and inland refineries
mit contrary to the long-rarae interests
p1 the Nation as a whole.
The present mandatory irniiort control
program was initiated by President El-
aetillower in 1959 after the, voluntary
eiiniroi approach proved inadequate. It
ds im;ed on the very proper and sensi-
mlosition that such mantrols were
needed to preserve a healthy domestic
petroleum industry for purposes of na-
tional security.
Mr. President, it would seem to me
that the demands of national security
still require a healthy domestic oil and
gas industry and that an effective import
quota program is necessary to assure the
accomplishment of this goal. We must, it
seems to me, maintain a ratio between
domestic and imported supplies which
will enable the domestic industry to meet
the essential national demand.
Mr. President. most all agree that
there are weaknesses and inequities in
the present mandatory oil import con-
trol program. But to say as much is not
to say that it should be abolished. We
need to refine it and to improve it. We
should not abolish it.
GOOD CONSERVATION START I NOW
LET US FINISH IT
Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are
hearing much these days in the Halls of
Congress about improving the quality of
the environment. I agree that solving
environmental problems is essential to
the future welfare of the Nation.
But all is not bad in this world_ Some
good things are going on. Everything
that is being done in the field of soil
and water conservation has a definite
bearing on the environment. Much good
soil and water conservation work is being
done in Kansas and throughout the
Nation.
An appraisal of this work in Kansas
was made in an editorial published in
the Wichita Eagle-Beacon of December
7. It appeared under the headline,
"Good Conservation Start?Now Let Us
Finish It." I ask unanimous consent that
the editorial be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
GOOD CONSERVATION START?NOW LET US
FIN/SH IT
In the midst of seemingly unsolvable prob-
lems, it's good for Americans to take an oc-
casional backward look, to see what happened
with problems that loomed up discouragingly
years ago.
Back in the 1930s, when Kansas was i,he
center of the dust bowl, and when dust
storms blackened the sun and invaded homes,
there were many who sincerely believed that
Kansas was doomed, that the first explorers
were right when they called it "the great
desert."
It's refreshing more than three decades
later, to take a look at the state's beautiful
countryside and clear skies. The doomsayers
were wrong. But it wasn't chance that saved
Kansas and other dust bowl states, it was
hard and concerted work. That was well
brought out when the Kansas Association
of Soil Districts held its annual convention
here.
Kansas has one of the leading conservation
programs in the nation, a federal Soil Con-
servation official, William B. Davey of Wash-
ington, D.C.. told the Kansas meeting. It has
more miles of terraces and diversions, and
more acres of grass waterways than any
other state. One-fourth of the national total
of stubble mulching of cropland is prac-
ticed here, Kansas leads the nation in the
proportion of federal cost-sharing assistance
devoted to permanent conservation meas-
ures. Its progress in small watershed devel-
opment "has been inspiring."
Tt's nice fin httS lhe pleasant thou, a 4
19, 949
something accomplished, as in Kansas' soil
consrvation effort. But in America today,
there isn't time to bask. There are too MR/ly
other pressing problems to he solved.
Another speaker to the conservationtsts,
Richard C. Lougmire. pointed out that that,
must look ahead to solving the big conser-
vation problems dealing with non-agrieul-
tural usage. With the growing population,
there will be more land needed for recrea-
tion, homes, schools, transportation and res-
ervoirs. There will be more water used. There
will be more need than over for soil conserva-
tion, and for anti-pollution efforts to keep
waterways clean and usable
:Fre urged rural soil conservationists to offer
their expertise in leading to a rural-urban
cooperative effort to solve these problems.
It will take all the people working together,
he pointed out, and it's going to take a lot. of
federal money. Rural conservation was ac-
complished by federal-state funding. New
conservation needs pose a task of even larger
proportions. and will demand even greater
funding.
It's a good idea. It's certein that if Amer-
icans determine to solve their problems of
conservation, they can do It.
After all, how long has it been since we've
seen a dirty, choking, mile-high dust, storm
sweep across Kansas?
PERU'S MILITARY REVOLUTION
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, over the
past 5 days the Washington Post has
published a series of articles written by
Post foreign correspondent John M.
Goshko on the Peruvian military revolu-
tion?now 14 months old--which has had
such impact on Latin America,
The Post has provided a great service
in running this series. Mr. Goshko's ar-
ticles go far toward dispelling some of the
mystery of the Peruvian revolution. He
has given us considerable background
into the personalities of the generals who
made the revolution and a firsthand look
at the nationalism--pervading not only
Peru, but much of the rest of Latin Amer-
ica as well?which bears such a remark-
able resemblance to Nasserism. In addi-
tion, these articles dispel some of the
myths that surround the Peruvian ex-
periment with revolution, notably tile
regrettable idea that there is no possi-
bility for this country to work out an ac-
commodation with the Peruvian Govern-
ment to our mutual best interests.
I ask unanimous consent that the ar-
ticles be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the articles
were ordered to be printed in the RECoat,,
as follows:
AMERICAS WATCH PERU'S GENERALS
(By John M. Go,slOsco
niMA.---Throughout Latin America tdac
one cannot talk to politicians, soldiers, dip-
lomats or intellectuals without hearing
strange new word ?"Per t anis m o ." It meat:
Peruvianism, and it refers to the forces s
work in this Andean country since Oct, '
1968, when the armed forces overthrew
civilian government and replied it with
military regime tinder the presidency of Geir
Juan Velasco Alvarado.
Like other Latin military juntas, th s
Velasco regime immediately proclaimed it
"revolutionary government" committed to
the transformation of Peruvian political, so-
cial and economic life. But where other Laint
juntas have been proceeded to maintain tile
status quo, the Velasco government bell.) verb
strirtlingly different fashion
Despite the threat of .iiirioris eCorionnic re-
prisals from Washington, it liegan by ex
'uniting he A nieric,f1 Titter 'u'
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
December 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE S 17115
As a matter of fact, I was the member
on the committee who thought that we
should provide $375 million for military
assistance, rather than $350 million.
This would allow for any unusual con-
ditions in Korea. However, the majority
did not agree with me.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator is cor-
rect. I remember that, and I very much
appreciate the fact that the Senator is
a cosponsor of the amendment.
The Senator will remember another
item that was changed in the last amend-
ment with respect to international mili-
tary headquarters, so that actually it
worked out that the $31 million that we
thought was going to be devoted to pay-
ing for our participation in these facili-
ties may now be taken from other funds.
So, this item is larger for the purpose
if assistance to Korea than we orig-
nally thought.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, as a result
.1 some of our decisions on the amounts,
he administration will have the 2-year
xtension it desired.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, will the
ena tor yield?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I am also
. member of the committee and took
Art in the deliberations. There is the
3onverse of the proposition which
should be established. I would not myself
wish?and I hope that my chairman
would not?to inhibit the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, if in its judgment this
was required, from doing what the Ap-
propriations Committee did?based upon
a foreign policy judgment or a clash of
wills with the administration.
We really have two principles at stake
here. One is the principle of authoriza-
tion by the legislative committee, in
which I am all with my chairman. The
other is the principle of some indepen-
dent role by Congress in respect of the
foreign policy of the Nation. I would
not wish, by anything that the chairman
said here, to foreclose us from that
privilege.
In this particular case, as the Sena-
tor from Vermont (Mr. ArKEN) has said
so eloquently, the committee came to the
judgment that a purse of money, as it
were, for this purpose was the most de-
sirable in our Nation's interest. In an-
other given situation, we might or we
might not. I would hope that we would
not make this some major policy prece-
dent which would limit our own judg-
ment in respect of what ought to be done
as a Foreign Relations Committee.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The committee has
expressed itself on many occasions, as
the Senator knows. But when we are
dealing with countries which are very
sensitive in this area and very jealous,
as one knows, whenever the committee
felt very strongly about a matter of this
kind, it usually dealt with it in a report
or in the form of a consultation with the
administration, and did not put it into
the law.
Over the years?it is not recent?that
has been the general practice, and by
large I think it has been successful.
There may have been some cases in
which it was not.
Mr. JAVITS. That is my feeling. But I
still would not want to shut the door in
a given case to giving us full legislative
authority. I can hardly conceive of how
we could do any less. There may be a
situation in which, to assert the inde-
pendent judgment of the committee, we
might have to name a country, and I
would not want the Senate to feel?for
myself?that this would be denied to us
by the position we take here.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. In the conference
report this year, the Senator well knows
we did this in the case of Israel, which
is, I would say, an exception to what is
generally a good rule.
Mr. JAVITS. I thank my colleague.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield the floor,
Mr. President. I am ready to vote.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. AL-
LEN in the chair) . The clerk will call the
roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
THE SECRET WAR
Mr. FULBRIGHT, Mr. President, ex-
tensive newspaper stories on American
activities in Laos are no substitute for
the administration, which formulates
and undertakes those activities, making
a full disclosure to the American people
about a war it has undertaken to fight.
In the first place, newspapermen do
not have access to all the facts?they can
report what they are told directly, or in-
directly through rumors; they can report
what they see. The results of reporting
efforts?as seriously as they may be un-
dertaken?are oftentimes nowhere near
the truth in fact or tone and thus mis-
leading as those of us in public life, writ-
ten about all the time, should be the first
to acknowledge.
Today's Wall Street Journal, in its ex-
tensive article about Laos, illustrates my
case.
"The war here costs the United States
about $200 million a year," the story says.
It is my hope that when the declassified
record is released from Monday's execu-
tive Senate session it will still contain
the amount for Laos in the Defense ap-
propriations bill which you all will recall
was many times that figure.
Today's article almost casually relates:
In the past six months, these bombings of
(northern Laos not connected to the Vietnam
war) have increased at least tenfold. These
bombers fly out of Thailand.
Those two simple sentences have great
import to the American process. How
many sorties come out of Thailand to
bomb north Laos? Under what authority
are they undertaken? What understand-
ings exist with the Thais to permit this
and with the Lao that require them to
be secret? Does any President have the
right to undertake such activities?
Questions such as these cannot be de-
bated in a newspaper because no news-
paper can get the answers. The Senate
should debate them and the people
should be able to listen for it is their
money and the lives of their sons that are
involved.
As bothered as I am about the lack of
facts, I am more concerned about the
tone of articles such as today's on Laos.
The headline reads: "The Secret War,
U.S. Role in Laos Is Big. But Another
Vietnam Is Not Likely To Develop."
Mr. President, that attitude about
Laos, fostered by administration officials
who are pressing the secrecy about our
activities, shows a complete lack of un-
derstanding about the Vietnam war ex-
perience.
Have we become so callous about
death and war that unless it promises to
involve 500,000 of our men and kill 30,-
000 we can calmly pass it off as under
control or in "low profile."
The writer of today's article wrongly
cites $200 million as the yearly cost of
the Laos war and then chalks it off cav-
alierly as "less than America spends on
1 week's fighting in neighboring Viet-
nam." It is nothing to be concerned
about, he implies, as if that $200 mil-
lion were not desperately needed in this
country for a myriad of Government
programs.
I mention this not because I want to
attack the writer of the article. I do it
because I know this is the attitude of the
foreign policy officials in our Govern-
ment who push our Laos policy with that
argument and whose judgment is cloud-
ed by the ability to get funds and au-
thority in the shadow of the Vietnam
debacle.
Mr. President, in more ways than not
Laos has already turned into a Vietnam
if you consider the latter a war we under-
took where we could not win and fear to
lose; if you consider it a war we began
at a low level of involvement and failed
to comprehend the enemy's ability to es-
calate in pace with us; if you consider it
a war where we have become tools rather
than the allies of a regime that could
not govern without us; if you consider
that there was for a time no limit on
the escalation we were willing to under-
take; and if you consider It an involve-
ment we never should have undertaken
in the first place.
Laos will never become a Vietnam in
only one major way?the number of Lao-
tians killed will never equal the number
of Vietnamese for there are only 3 mil-
lion Lao to begin with.
I would suggest, however, that for
Americans there is one element of our
Laos involvement that makes it worse
than Vietnam.
Until now, Laos, because of the official
secrecy surrounding it, has offered a
precedent to administration planners?
military and civilian alike?who feel it
their mission to oppose with force of
arms what they believe are Communist
incursions anywhere in the world
whether we have a treaty commitment
or not, without recourse to Congress.
It is for that reason that I wish the
secrecy policy on Laos to end. In that
sense I believe the administration should
be talking no more Lao along with no
more Vietnams.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at this point in the
RECORD the article to which I have re-
ferred, written by Mr. Peter R. Kann,
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S17116
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
CONGRE.;SIONAL RECORD SENATE Iiecctber 18, 1969
datelined Vientiane, o Al published in the
Wall Street Journal of December 18.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be pril: ed in the REcoRo,
us follows:
lhss sf.c.RFT WAR! U.S, n,LE IN LAOS TS BIG,
_HUT ANOTHFIl VIETNA'..v IS NOT LIKELY TO
DEVFLOP?AnirrracA rr.ANCES AN ARMY,
COMMITS No PIGHTINt? \UN; U.S. JETS AND
PILOTS Usen?THE W MY: NORTH VIET-
NAM
(By Peter Ft F(ann )
VIENTIANE, LAOS.?Gt-t- yang Pao is a
yoc.ky little former SerV, -? rtt in the French
errny who now heads e elandestine, U.S.-
lucked army of mounteiii tribesmen here.
izesplendent in a fancy eeld uniform and
n-decked by so many medals that he al-
most appears armor-ptee et, he sits for an
o terview.
Are U.S, jets bombing le fans? he is asked.
N, he says. though his e-lee is periodically
_Or wrtea out by U.S. jem flying overhead.
,i,re his troops armed With U.S.-made M-16
;hies? he is asked. No, he says, though the
eery men guarding him a:" carrying Males.
ere U.S. helicopters supp a ting his war ef-
.Ort? he is asked. No, he says, though he
nerds e U.S. chopper aim(' concluding the
The interview says name of life in Laos.
minis Southeast Asian eine --try is a comic-
eoera kingdom playing leiet to a tragedy.
liven their choice, the thriei million Laotian
-,:eople would prefer to de -se under a pans-
eel., much like the three- eeaded elephant
imeelazoned on their natine il flag. But they
see involved in a war, a v- is that has been
'.1esiely imported by outside -.avers who won't
even admit to being at war,
'fele war periodically me s es headlines in
emerica, as it 'has this in etia The Senate
Monday decreed that no he eiej in a big new
defense appropriations bill an be used to
nuance introduction of A-nerican ground
eorn hat troops into Laos or enailand, a stand
endorsed by President Nixoe The President,
;yikeci at a press conference lest week about
the U.S. role in Laos and the people are
entitled to know everything that they pos-
Melt, can"?and then he said ttle.
ANOTHER VIETNAM TnITTKEIY
Au8i-, what is going on here? There is a
war. The U.S. la deeply involved. But another
Vietnam. Is unlikely. The wee here is like a
aecondary act in a threeernie circus, with
Vietnam, of course, in the i" ter ring. This
to- or war is less costly, leas lierce and less
itO cresting than the main ac' But it's worth
gloating at now and then.
at war here posts the L about $200
minion a year, which is less ellen America
-spends on one week's fighting .n. neighboring
Vietrism. It is being fought iii the air and
on the ground. The air war 1.- being carried
mit hi( U.S. planes and U.S. e-elots, who are
immhing the North Vietnarnen, supply route
into South Vietnam. This Pneiident Nixon
edmits publicly. U.S. pilots as, are bombing
areas in the rest of Laos, and us President
Nixon doesn't admit publicly In the past
ax months, these bombings ef other areas
have increased at least tenfold 'These bomb-
ors fly out of Thailand.
The ground war is not be; -4 fought by
Tr.S. imops, and sources say It ;A inconceiv-
Mie that U.S. combat soldiers will ever be
;ont here. Rather, the ground war is being
:aught by the Armee Clandestiee, or AC, the
\leo mountain tribesmen under the corn-
main( of Gen, yang Pao. The e army, esti-
mated at anywhere from I5,0o0 to 40,000
-nidiers, is fully financed by the U.S., though
mity a few hundred U.S. militale "attaches"
seri cite agents are on hand te oversee the
-'aeration. (The discrepancy in troop esti-
'''"re`; t,r; typical of the shadily,' nature of
r in Laos.) The U.S. pay trains and
tile AC; it, provides r.,.. AC with
helicopeer mobility and tactical bombing
support.
Americans plan and direct operations?at
least at staff level. The army is hard-fighting,
especially by Laotian standards, and it has
Suffered heavy casualties. In the past year
alone, 11 a'. of its men have been killed or
wounded_
rkiE ENEleIY: NORTH VIETNAM
The enemy here is the North Vietnamese,
The Laotian Community Party (Neo Lak
Hak Sat) and its fighting arm, the Pathet
Lao, have been waging a "liberation war"
ever since Laos achieved its independence in
1954 after the defeat of the French at Dien-
bienphu. But these days the Paula Lao are
supported-- indeed, very nearly supplanted by
the North Vietnamese, By U.S. estimate,
there now are 50,000 North Vietnamese Army
(NVA) troops here. 35,000 of them in combat
units.
The Laotian war is inextricably wound up
with the war in Vietnam, yet the two situa-
tions are almost reverse images in several
key respects. In Vietnam, the war is being
fought largely for control of population; here
the war is being waged mainly for territory.
In Vietnam, the U.S. often finds itself fight-
ing a conventional war against the enemy's
guerrillas; here the U.S.-backed troops are
the guerrillas and the North Vietnamese
often find themselves fighting a conventional
war,' neltetentee their discomfort,
Dilatedgets here say neither side in close
to holding a winning hand In this war, and
many of them question whether either side
really wants to "win." Hanoi is generally
considered to be using Laos just as a pawn
in its efforts to achieve a favorable outcome
in South Vietnam, The U.S., not really con-
cerned about "winning hearts and minds" or
"nation building" or even wiping out the
Pathet Lao, rather seems to be waging a
defensive or delaying action aimed at stymie-
ing North Vietnamese moves here until such
time as peace is achieved in Vietnam. Peace
in Laos will then naturally follow, these
diplomats assert,
NO LONG-TERM COMMITMENI
Since the U.S. doesn't admit its military
involvement here, it can hardly brag about
ally successes, But, in the view of a number
of non-U.S. diplomats here, the American in-
volvement has paid reasonable dividends at
a bargain price,
The -U.S. has proved capable of organizing
a guerrilla army that is more at home in
Laotian terrain than are the North Vietnam-
ese. these diplomats say. U.S. air power,
they add, ha?; proved effective against enemy
troops and positions, such as on the Plaine
des Jarres, a strategic high plateau that
had been in Communist hands from 1961 un-
til bombing raids in August. And, say de-
fenders of U.S. action here, there is no long-
term commitment to involvement in the
fighting here.
The U.S. campaign is being curried out
precisely the way a counter-insurgency war
should he fought, say these defenders (not
all of whom are Americans), The U.S., they
assert, should continue to do exactly what it
is doing until Hanoi decides to talk instead
of fight
But, at the moment, nobody is really win-
ning and nobody is losing here?except, of
course, the Laotians. a charming, gentle peo-
ple who deserve, but perhaps don't expect,
better. There are no reliable statistics on
anything in Laos, but it's estimated that up
to half a million people have become war
refugees since 1962. Hardest hit have been
the mountain tribesmen of the north, many
of whom now subsist on bags of rice dropped
from U.S. planes.
The Laotians, whose country has been a
battleground for years. are a peace-loving
people. ''The Lem him just aren't warlike.
Their idea of ;var is avoiding, not. seeking
.;011; ' ;- -; ee !hirooenn Mph-nets
Royal Laotian army, says one Western mili-
tary officer, "Is without a doubt the worst
army I have ever seen?it makes the South
Vietnamese army look like Storm Troopers."
The Royal Laotian army is a hodgepodge
of rightists, neutralists and simple opportu-
nists that has been fighting the Pathet Leo
off and on since Dienbienphu. The fighting
has continued despite the Geneva accord of
1952, which was reached after the Royal
Laotian government had come even closer
than usual to total collapse. The accord
called for a neutralized Laos under a tripar -
tite regime led by a largely figureheiid king
and a neutralist prime minister. The agree-
ment also called for removal of all foreign
military forces from Leos,
A POOLSTDE essesseiree
The Royal Laotian army and the Pailie
Lao continue to fight, though the war nOth'
has been largely taken over by lhe .North
Vietnamese and the U.S.-backed army of
tribesmen. Laotian men are in short supply
and the two ragtag armies contain youths
as young as 13 years old. The manpowei
shortage is such that defectors from tie
Pathet Lao sometimes are simply issued nev
scraps of uniforms and immediately assigner
to a Royal Laotian army unit.
The Laotians seem content to accept thin
lot. The men in the Royal Laotian army ear.
2,350 kip, or less then $6 a month. The Pathe
Lao coneripis earn even less and often who
up little more than beasts of burden, pa-kite
supplies for the North Vietnamese troop.
here. (The mountain tribesmen in the U.S
Armee Clandestine make considerable
more than the men in either local army.)
"The Lao are a very easy people. They work,
remain poor. accept it and are happy. In
either countries, they would strike or revolt,
but not here. We are lucky they are Laotians,"
one cynical Laotian general says of les coun-
trymen as he sips Scotch beside the swim-
ming pool of his villa os the outskirts to
Vientiane.
There seems to be remarkably little aware-
ness of social injustice emcee most Laotiane.
perhaps because the poor here have always
been poor and have not yet approached the
stage of "rising expectations." Laos, roughly
the size of Oregon and the shape of Califor-
nia, remains basically a feudal country run
by a score of elite families who divvy up the
most important and lucrative government
jobs and business concessions,
This elite doesn't want to share its riches.
The king, for example, refused to let workers,
from the American Agency for International
Development resettle hapless war refugees
on unused royal lands until the America is
promised to build roads to one of the royal
family's private. profit-making timber ceri-
cessions.
AN ANTICORRUPTION 'DRIVE"
The Laotian government barely exists,
much less tune; ions, outside the larger towns.
The occasional programs or policies launched
by the central government generally sink
without a trace. One European diplomat re-
counts a recent anticorruption drive: -rbey
sacked three postal employes, who were
promptly re,;et,ett. in another ministry Its 't
of drive."
Prince Souveena Pheinna. the neutralist.
prime minister. earlier this year announced
plans for a dynamic new neutralist political
party. But, saes one diplomat here,
emerged for a few weeks as a debating eine
and then disbanded." There is an annuel
effort at military reform; "Once a year, some
rich old colonels. who used to be bright yolin
colonels. presere; a sweeping reform plan
Which is accepted. ignored and forgotten. Ano
everyone is happy." says a Westerner here.
There are Americans and others here who
believe that the lackadaisical Laotian gov-
ernment is living ,es borniwed time. Someday
they ;illy if not ei a year then m a decode.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
December 18, 1969 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
deal from life, and when that happens the
Pathet Lao will be the beneficiaries.
Few observers here doubt that if the
Laotians were left alone they somehow could
settle their differences, at least for a time.
On the face of it, peace in Laos should be far
easier to achieve than peace in Vietnam.
Animosities between Communists and anti-
Communists in Laos are not nearly as in-
tense as in Vietnam.
The Laotian king is accepted as titular
head of the country by all contending groups.
The Geneva settlement of 1962 is still basic-
ally acceptable to the Communists. Souvanna
Phouma, the aristocratic and autocratic
prime minister around whom the Geneva
accord was shaped, probably could again
make himself acceptable to the Communists
by some subtle political maneuvering. (Be
has deftly managed to survive a series of
plots, counterplots and coups among various
rightest and neutralist factions since he
came to power, though once an American am-
bassador had to rescue him from an out-
house where he had been unceremoniously
confined by disident generals.) Indeed, in
name at least, a coalition government, in-
cluding Communist ministers, still exists
here.
A IVIASOR BATTLE IS EXPECTED
And yet fighting continues here?and at a
quickened pace. It is the dry season here
now, which is the fighting season, and there
is talk that within the next few months
the North Vietnamese will launch a major
attack against the 'U.S.-backed Armee Clan-
destine. The attack, if it comes, will be as
much for political as for military reasons,
sources say. The Armee Clandestine is the
only effective anti-Communist force in Laos,
and the propaganda value of its defeat would
outweigh the military value.
The consensus among diplomats here is
that if Hanoi decided on a full-scale effort
to take over Laos, using several crack divi-
sions of the North Vietnamese Army, the
effort probably would succeed. "If they're
willing to put in the resources they can take
anything they want in this country?or all
of it," says a senior U.S. official.
There are many theories on how the U.S.
would react to such an attack, but no one
suggests that Washington would send in
ground combat troops. Most sources doubt
that Hanoi will try to overrun the country,
however. For one thing, the North Viet-
namese would have to divert heavy assets
from the more important war in Vietnam.
For another, the North Vietnamese are out-
siders here and could hardly look like any-
thing but an army of foreign conquerors
If they marched, say, into Vientiane.
HANOI'S POSITION
Hanoi has made some gains in fighting
here. Last March at least 10 NVA battalions
were used to capture the relatively (for
Laos) important military center of Muong
Soui, in north central Laos. This was widely
viewed as military escalation.
But Hanoi cannot be entirely pleased with
its current role in Laos. To influence the
future political shape of Laos (when the time
comes to form a new coalition government).
the Cor,munists must take and occupy ter-
ritory. This requires main-force units, not
guerrilla fighters. To jolt the U.S. position
in the fighting in Vietnam or the talking in
Paris, the Communists need dramatic vic-
tories like Muong Soul.. This also requires
main-force units. _
But North Vietnam is finding it difficult
to move these soldiers and their supplies. To
move rice and arms and men, the NVA must
depend on the few roads that twist through
Ole rugged mountains. To mount major mili-
tary campaigns, the NVA must use as stag-
ing areas the few easily traversible plateaus
like the Plaine des Jarres. But roads and
flatlands are vulnerable to U.S. air power.
As the fighting drags on, the unfortunate
Laotian people try to get by as best as pos-
sible. They can't really ignore the war. Their
plight may best be summed up by the monu-
mental arch that bestrides the main avenue
of otherwise unmemorable Vientiane.
Begun nearly a decade ago, the arch has
grown in tiers, like some whimiscal wedding
cake, encompassing the wildest fancies of
waves of Laotian artisans and swallowing up
tons of LLS.-donated cement destined for
more practical projects. This rococo master-
piece, replete with every imaginable archi-
tectural superfluity, remains, of course, un-
finished.
But its name was changed recently?from
Monument to Victory to Monument for the
Dead.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had disagreed to the amend-
ments of the Senate to the bill (H.R.
14794) making appropriations for the
Department of Transportation and re-
lated agencies for the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1970, and for other purposes;
agreed to the conference asked by the
Senate on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses thereon, and that Mr. BOLAND,
Mr. MCFALL, Mr. YATES, Mr. MAIION, Mr,
MINST1ALL, Mr. CONTE, and Mr. Bow, were
appointed managers on the part of the
House at the conference.
FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AND RE-
LATED PROGRAMS APPROPRIA-
TIONS, 1970
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 15149) 'Mak-
ing appropriations for foreign assistance
and related programs for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, and for other
purposes.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, have the
Yeas and nays been ordered?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. They
have not.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I would like the
yeas and nays ordered.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, in view of
the statement by the Senator from Ar-
kansas that he desires to have the yeas
and nays, I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. FULBRIGHT, Mr. President, I ask
for the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. DODD, Mr. President, I strongly
oppose the pending amendment.
I believe it would be interpreted as an
unfriendly attitude on the part of the
Senate if we strike from the appropria-
tion bill the item earmarking $50 mil-
lion for military aid to South Korea,
There is overwhelming justification
for this appropriation.
First, there is the fact that the North
Korean Communist government main-
S 17117
tains a massive military establishment
and that it continues to engage in nu-
merous provocative and warlike actions
directed against the Republic of South
Korea and against the U.N. forces there.
The warning signs have been out for
some time now. Within the past 2 years
there has been the seizure of the Pueblo,
the attempted assassination of President
Park, the shooting down of an unarmed
American plane 100 miles at sea and,
within the past week, the hijacking of a
South Korean passenger plane.
Second, there is the fact that, de-
spite the grave peril on their awn fron-
tiers, our South Korean allies have con-
tributed 50,000 men to the Vietnam war.
These forces have borne themselves with
remarkable effectivn.ess and courage,
and they have carried a heavy share of
the battle. Moreover, on a per capita
basis, the South Korean contribution in
manpower substantially exceeds our own.
Third, there is the fact that the au-
thorization reported by the Senate-
House conferees is already $75 million
below the figure requested by the ad-
ministration, as essential to our national
security interests.
Mr. President, if this amendment car-
ries, it will seriously undercut our entire
position in the Far East.
It would be an affront to our South
Korean allies.
It would directly increase the danger
of war in Korea by encouraging Kim II
Sung, the mad Communist dictator of
North Korea, to believe that we are
ready to abandon our South Korean
allies.
Mr, President, I am very reluctant to
get into this discussion. I wish it had
never taken place.
What the Senator from Arkansas has
said about leaving the allocation of mili-
tary aid funds to the discretion of the
President makes a great deal of sense.
It may be better in most cases to do it
in that way, rather than on a country
by country basis. I am sure the President
would exercise his great care and cau-
tion in allocating such aid.
What troubles me is that this discus-
sion is going to be interpreted, particu-
larly in the Far East, as a lack of sym-
pathy on the part of the Senate with the
problems of South Korea.
I hope I am mistaken about that, but
I fear I am not. For that reason, I think
we are in a most unfortunate posture.
South Korea has been our ally, has
fought with us on her own territory, and
she is fighting with us in Vietnam. These
facts alone, I think, make many of us feel
a special concern for that little country
in the Far East.
My own view is that one of the worst
things that could happen to us would be
the belief?on the part of the Asians,
in particular?that there is a lack of
sympathy in the United States for the
Government' of South Korea.
I am fearful that if this amendment
is adopted, that is exactly what will hap-
pen.
I do not know why the administration
asked for this item. I assume it did.
If I may have the attention of the
Senator from Arkansas, I should like
to ask him a question.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S 17118
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
CONGRESSIONA.T, RECORD? SENATE December 18, 1969
The PRESIDING OFF (FR. The Sen-
ator from Connecticut wishes to ask a
question of the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. DODD. I do not know and I wish
1.hr Senator could tell Sr.:' if the admin-
cation asked for this It. 01?
Mr. FULI3RIGHT. Tha, item was not.
'there is a very substant,s1 sum already
lit the bill..
Mr. DODD, I know that
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Th is a very sub-
stantial sum already in the bill that they
recommended. This was out in by the
louse Appropriations Cceemittee with-
oat any budget request.
Mr. DODD. I thank t. ? Senator for
that information.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The, s nothing in
the report to justify it.
Mr. DODD. I understse that. I do
not know how it got there.
t hope the Senator w-W give me his
inaction to what I have sail, .
I feel that the people in he Far East-,
ern area will say that the is a change/
and that we are unsympnlietic to tho
plight of those people.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I do tee think thei
I s any basis for that.
Mr. DODD. I do not irly that th?
Senator is unsympathetic te he Koreans.
I do not know any Senator who is. But
am afraid that will be la interpreta-
tion placed on the Senator', mendment,
and that our enemies will ,nake a lot of
They will taunt our Sou' ,1 Korean al-
lies and say, "There are :y4i American
friends. They obviously do at consider
you very important. As sont. they can
dump you, they will do so,"
It would be a tremendous, tropaganda
boon for our enemies. I hope am wrong,
but I am dreadfully afraid it would
be exploited by them and encourage
them to rash action. For th reason, I
wish we could somehow den with this
matter without this kind t-C All amend-
ment.
Mr. President, I have said everything
. can say about this matter. know that
Inc chairman of the Cornme ee on For-
eign Relations said it is not !, ls purpose,
;rind I am sure it is not, to itathibit fur-
ther military aid to South Korea. He
mid that, in recommending a otal auth-
orization of $350 million in military aid,
ine administration wants ti 'it amount
of. money in Korea to dispose as it sees
This may be true in a f&' ",al sense,.
it I say again for the re 'd, and I
hope for the interest of Sena ?ars, that if
this amendment is agreed to I ould have
profound political impact.
Instead of underscoring t-e : determi-
eation to help South Korea defend it-
self against North Korean in anmunist
aggression, this amendment might sug-
eest to North Korea that we ,'re grow-
- indifferent to the fate of nouth Ko-
sea; and the North Korean Ctoununists
in consequence, would probei*, become
ore belligerent in their atilt, i,te toward
noun). Korea, hijack more pn nes, sink
,e(q*F. ships, and shoot down m,-: e planes.
loi is my great fear. For f it. reason
Itink it. would be a dreadie7 mistake
to the proposed am' ' --!!nent at
c:rmueal juncture.
Since the amendment already ap-
proved makes it essential that the fig-
ures in the appropriation bill conform
with those agreed to by the authorization
conferees, there is no economy of any
kind to be effected by approving the
pending amendment.
The only real purpose accomplished
by this act would be political. It would
be anti-South Korean, and it would be so
interpreted by our friends and by our
enemies.
I urge the defeat of the amendment.
The brave South Korean people, who
have suffered so much for their own free-
dom and who have fought so courageous-
ly on our side, ter than this.
Mr. MILL . Mr. President., I rise in
ps9.iiteh-
o the amendment.
s my privilege to visit the Re-
lc of South Korea in 1966 and, again,
Noveniber of 1969. On both occasions I
lad an opportunity to see with my own
eyes the equipment being used by the
military services of the Republic of South
Korea and also to be informed by our
own intelligence sources of the nature
of the military threat posed by the North
Korean Communists.
Also, as all of us should know, the
orth Korean leaders are among the
ost hostile and aggressive Communists
in he world. Not a week goes by without
an cident provoked by North Korea?
chile around the DMZ or along the
shore - f South Korea, and many of these
inciden have resulted in the death of
our own American soldiers and of our
South Ko an allies.
The situ tion has grown increasingly
hostile and dangerous, particularly be-
cause the N rth Korean military forces
oppositi
It
1)-
are equipped
and aircraft.
tinue to avoi
other way?fo
be deterred fr
Mon and latin
public of Sout
military equip
that of North
point at issue i
And it come
ate wishes to
war?of a t
' h the latest in weapons
r South Korea to con-
attack?or, to put it an-
North Korean leaders to
m making a miscalcula-
hing an attack, the Re-
Korean simply must have
ent equal in quality to
orea. That is what the
all about.
down to this. If the Sen-
n an increasing risk of
by North Korea on our
ally, South, Korea, then vote for this
amendm If the Senate does not wish
to do , then vote down the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ques-
tion is on agreeing to the amendment of
the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the vote take
place on the pending amendment not
la ter than 5 minutes from now.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears no objection,
and it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that on any further
amendments, if there are any further
amendments, there be a time limitation
of 30 minutes, to be equally divided be-
tween the sponsor of the amendment and
the manager of the bill.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection?
Mr. FONG. Mr. President. the mananer
of the bill, the Senator from Wyoming
Mr. MeGEE). probably would like to
speak. May he be given as much time as
he wishes to speak?
Mr. MANSFIELD. On the pending
amendment?
Mr. FONG. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered,
Mr. FONG. Mr. President, in South
Korea we have a very reliable, strone,
and dependable ally. She has sent 40.-
000 troops to Vietnam. She is also will-
ing to have America store nuclear weap-
ons there when we remove them front
Okinawa. She has in every respect been
a very strong ally of the United States.
Although the administration did not
ask for this item it has come to us ann
it has been reported favorably from the
committee. I think we should not delete
it. If we delete it, it would suggest to
South Korea that maybe she is no1 the
strong ally we think she is. I ask Senators
to vote against the amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the
Senator from Wyoming desire to speak
on the amendment?
Mr. MeGEE. How much time is re-
maining?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Unani-
mous consent was given that the vote
take place not later than 5 minutes from
that time, which was approximately a
minute and a half ago, except that per-
mission was given for the Senator from
Wyoming to speak.
Mr. MeGFIE. Mr. President, I have no
extensive remarks to make. I intend to
oppose the amendment for the very rea-
son I think the need in South Korea for
these additional funds has been clearly
demonstrated? The Department of De-
fense made it very clear that the funds
would be put to good and constructive
use, and inasmuch as the House Com-
mittee on Appropriations as well as the
House authorizing committee had in-
cluded these funds in the original sum
that this body would be well advised to
stand by these allies.
Therefore, f oppose the pending
amendment.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. MeGEE. I yield.
Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, I wish to
ask the Senator if it is not a fact that to
strike out this provision, as the amend-
ment suggests now, would certainly be
a clear. indication that we do not intend
to support South Korea which has really
been our strongest ally in the Far East.
Mr. MeGEE. The Senator is exactly
right and it comes at a very critical mo-
ment when all kinds of pressures are
being exerted to try to split or create
defects in the ranks. I think it is
im-
portant.
Mr. CANNON. We are doing everything'
to help them up on the border and, in
turn, they are helping us in South Viet-
nam by providing troops. They provide
the only substantial number of troops be-
side our own that are in Vietnam, out-
side of the South Vietnamese. I think it
would be unfortunate if we took tins
precipitate action now to strike an ap-
parent assist to South Korea from the
bill because it could be misinterpreted as
a departure from assisting- a country that
has been a great ally.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S16964 Approved For liote464115561CIN/AL:IMAVDP71-BMT6W*00300074SeitiV7ther 17, 1969
ruling prevail because the Court's con-
stitutionally based mandate is the higher
authority. To avoid this problem I be-
lieve that those sections of the Whitten
amendments pertaining to freedom of
choice should be modified to prevent the
possible conflict, and I would support a
reasonable modification.
I am not altogether sure, however, that
the amendment offered by the distin-
guished senior Senator from Pennsyl-
vania (Mr. Scorr) is the proper ap-
proach. As several Senators have stated,
if the phrase "except as required by the
Constitution" is added to this statute,
then there is no apparent reason why it
should not be added in every case. Clearly
the Constitution is the higher authority
and we cannot amend or infringe upon
the Constitution in any congressional act.
In addition, the amendment offered by
Senator SCOTT goes further than is re-
quired in applying not only to freedom-
of-choice plans but also to the remain-
ing language in the Whitten amendments
concerning busing and the abolishing of
schools.
For these reasons I shall vote against
the amendment offered by Senator SCOTT.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, the dis-
tinguished junior Senator from South
Carolina (Mr. HOLLINGS) , is absent from
the Senate today because of illness.
He has prepared a statement with
respect to sections 408 and 409 of H.R.
13111 that he would have made today
before a vote was taken on the Scott
amendment to those sections.
I ask unanimous consent that Senator
HOLLINGS statement be inserted in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, RS follows:
Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I would op-
pose any change in the Health, Education
and Welfare appropriation bill as it relates
to Section 408 and 409 on the issue of forc-
ing any school district to take any actions
involving the busing of students, the abolish-
ment of any school or the assignment of
students to a particular school as a condi-
tion precedent to obtaining Federal funds. As
the bill now reads, the individual school
districts of our nation are free to develop
their education programs in the interest of
quality education and the best economics
within a framework of constitutional safe-
guards. That policy should be maintained and
I would, therefore, oppose any change that
would work economic hardships for no con-
structive educational purpose. No one op-
poses the premise that our government
should seek to insure quality educational op-
portunities for our youth but I would hope
that no one would use education as a tool
to force issues that are not needed and are
in no way constitutionally required.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time
having expired, the question is on agree-
ing to the amendment of the Senator
from Pennsylvania. On this question, the
yeas and nays have been ordered, and
the clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the
roll.
Mr. JACKSON (when his name was
called). On this vote I have a pair with
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. RUSSELL) .
If he were present and voting, he would
vote "nay"; if I were at liberty to vote,
I would vote "yea." Therefore, I with-
hold my vote.
The rollcall was concluded.
Mr. RANDOLPH (after having voted
in the affirmative). On this vote, I have
a pair with the Senator from South Car-
olina (Mr. HOLLINGS) . If he were pres-
ent and voting, he would vote "nay";
if I were at liberty to vote, I would vote
"yea." Therefore, I withdraw my vote.
Mr. MAGNUSON (after having voted
In the negative) . On this vote, I have a
pair with the Senator from Hawaii (Mr.
INouyz). If he were present and voting,
he would vote "yea"; if I were at liberty
to vote, I would vote "nay." Therefore, I
withdraw my vote.
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. I an-
nounce that the Senator from New
Mexico (Mr. ANDERSON) , the Senator
from South Carolina (Mr. HOLLINGS),
the Senator from Hawaii (Mr. INovzz),
the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr.
KENNEDY) , the Senator from Georgia
(Mr. RUSSELL) , and the Senator from
Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON) are necessar-
ily absent.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from Massa-
chusetts (Mr. KENNEDY) , and the Sena-
tor from Missouri (Mr. SYMINGTON)
would each vote "yea."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Coopta)
Is absent because of illness in his fam-
ily.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The result was announced?yeas 52,
nays 37, as follows:
[No. 247 Leg.]
YEAS-52
Aiken Harris Packwood
Bayh Hart Pastore
Bellmon Hartke Pearson
Boggs Hatfield Pell
Brooke Hughes Percy
Burdick Javits Prouty
Case Mansfield Proxmire
Church Mathias Ribicoff
Cook McCarthy Saxbe
Cranston McGee Schweiker
Dodd McGovern Scott
Dole McIntyre Stevens
Dominick Metcalf Tydings
Eagleton Mondale Williams, N.J.
Fong Montoya Yarborough
Goo dell Moss Young, Ohio
Gravel Muskie
Griffin Nelson
NAYS-37
Allen Fannin Murphy
Allott Fulbright Smith, Maine
Baker Goldwater Smith, Ill.
Bennett Gore Sparkman
Bible Gurney Spong
Byrd, Va. Hansen Stennis
Byrd, W. Va. Holland Talmadge
Cannon Hruska Thurmond
Cotton Jordan, N.C. Tower
Curtis Jordan, Idaho Williams, Del.
Eastland Long Young, N. Dak.
Ellender McClellan
Ervin Miller
PRESENT AND GIVING LIVE PAIRS, AS
PREVIOUSLY RECORDED-3
Jackson, for.
Randolph, for.
Magnuson, against.
NOT VOTING-8
Inouye Russell
Kennedy Symington
Mundt
Anderson
Cooper
Hollings
So Mr. SCOTT'S amendment was agreed
to.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the amend-
ment was agreed to.
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, I move
to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. SCOTT. Mr. President, now the
Senate has made its position clear re-
garding the constitutional limitations of
the Whitten amendment. And we have
gone so far as to specify the language
which fits those constitutional limita-
tions. The next step will be taken in the
conference committee.
Mr. President, it is my earnest hope
that the Senate conferees will stand firm
in upholding the language of these pro-
visions in the conference.
We have labored hard here to achieve
provisions which state the clear intent
of the Congress without turning our
backs on the requirements of the consti-
tution. I trust that these hours of labor
have not been in vain.
Indeed, if the conference committee
fails to sustain the Senate position on
these amendments, and accedes to the
earlier language or an approximation of
it, I may be compelled to ask the Senate
to vote its refusal to concur in the con-
ference agreements. Such a request
would be painful, the more so because of
the lateness of the legislative year, but
It would be painful, too, to have such an
Important Senate vote as the one just
concluded, be nullified in conference.
LAOS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
Monday, there was an exchange between
the distinguished Senator from Arkan-
sas (Mr. FuLaaionr) and me relative to
whether the kingdom of Laos had re-
nounced its adherence to the Southeast-
ern Asia Treaty Organization, otherwise
known as SEATO.
I indicated that I thought only Cam-
bodia had stated it would not be under
the SEATO umbrella and that Laos was
still in that category.
Under the corollary to the SEATO
agreement at Manila in 1953, I find that
I was wrong and that the distinguished
chairman of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee was right and that in the Neutral-
ity Agreement Laos did declare its in-
tention to not recognize the protection
of any alliance or military coalition in-
cluding SEATO.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the Declaration on the Neu-
trality of Laos be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the docu-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
DECLARATION ON THE NEUTRALITY OF LAOS
The Governments of the Union of Burma,
the Kingdom of Cambodia, Canada, the
People's Republic of China, the Democratic
Republic of Viet-Nam, the Republic of
France, the Republic of India, the Polish
People's Republic, the Republic of Viet-Nam,
the Kingdom of Thailand, the Union of So-
viet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and
the United States of America, whose repre-
sentatives took part in the International
Conference on the Settlement of the Laotian
Question, 1961-62;
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
eeember 17, Affgooved ForGENTICtaF26110/111.11.1Ralt30IMP-7-10901313-#R000300070001-7 s 16963
1;ructively perpetuate this artificial di- thereof which would allow to the De-
vision in our public schools? partment of Health, Education, and
Schools are designed to educate, to Welfare some of the flexibility it pres-
itrepare young people for the world which ently enjoys. We still have a long way
will face them as adults. An education to go if we are to end deliberate sense-
hich is ethnocentric, in this day and gation in America and achieve a more
.sge, is an irrelevancy and an anachro- rational use of our educational resources.
eism. It matters not whether the group But I believe that the substitute lan-
being taught is black or white, whether gua.ge will better enable this Government
Lie school is a one-room structure or to fulfill its promise to the youngest gen-
multimillion-dollar edifice, whether eration of Americans, and to the future
science consists of cutting up worms or of America as well. I strongly urge its
using an 80-inch telescope, the heart of adoption.
tea t educational system, which is to Mr. BAKER. Mr. President, in 1954 in
to-oaden the horizons of youth and give to a unanimous 9 to 0 decision the Supreme
young people the experience of question- Court of the United States ruled that
lite and challenging and finding aswers separate school systems are inherently
hor themselves to the puzzle, and the unequal and in violation of the equal
esople which surround them?that heart, protection clause of the Constitution.
mtr. president, has been lost. Realizing the widespread disruption and
have heard it argued that school massive administrative problems that
desegregation is unnecessary because no were bound to occur, the ? 'Crourt
one has "proved" that a black child sit- subsequently declaredttf?in imple-
nee next to a white child gets a better menting this decisien the courts and
education. Of course, the scientific school district,se throughout the country
"eroof- is not available. No :me has were to probeed with all deliberate
-aticlied the relative learning capacities speed. In November 1969, 15 years later,
rj students in mixed schools, as opposed the Supreme Court ruled that the time
'u all-white or all-black schools, over a for rail deliberate speed had elapsed and
long enough period of time. No one has that school districts must desegregate
been able to compare the develooment of?And desegregate now.
learning skills in a well-equipped as oPe? Before discussing briefly my views on
posed to a Poorly equipped institutif the Whitten amendments, I would like
-aver a sufficient length of time, eithe to make a few general remarks. First,
And for anyone who has tried to mak, I am hopeful that in light of the Supreme
stineralizations. there are always the ex- \ Court ruling in November and the final
eeptitms which disprove the
But I submit, Mr. President, that the
evidence we need is all armpit us. It
in the high dropout and ueemploY-
etent rates of Negro youths in e ghet-
tos. where perhaps the worst t :itication
nt, the country is systemically di:qiensed.
IL is in the low literacy rates--and even
tniteracy rates?of black and Spanish-
American youngsters. It is in the lower
earning capacity of Negroes and Mexi-
ran Americans. It is in the lack of un-
a-standing, exhibited in appalling
amounts by persons of both races, which
presently divides this Nation. The root
st the problem should be clear Ameri-
ems simply do not understand each
tii lier. And they will not understand each
oilier as long as 92 percent of the black
eitildren in Mississippi are assigned to
shools which are 99- or 100-percent
ack: or as long as 35 percent of the
e bite children in New Jersey attend
hoots which have a similar b-leentage
white enrollment.
Mr. President, given condition. in this
seentry and the world, I regrst deeply
sty weakening of the guideline estab-
:ed by the Department of Health,
t'litcation, and Welfare for the .nforce-
nt of equal educational opportunities.
want to see the so-called Whitten
an stricken entirely t om the
U. and from the memory of all Ameri-
e :lie. Even more, I want to see the day
e 'ion legislation to enforce equal oppor-
esnities is no longer necessary, when
tnericaris will of their accord see the
Jo iustice and inadequacies inherent in
ration, and will take steps to o'er-
'pie this unequal practice.
But the choice before us today is
,e nether to retain the original language
narrowly passed by the House of Repre-
:, -datives, or to adopt a modification
ction of the Congress in these amend-
ments, school districts in the State of
Tennessee and elsewhere will take action
to resolve equitably the problems that
still exist. For over a decade we have
witnessed a continuing-series of disputes
in the courts, with the a *nistrative
branch of our Government, d, occa-
sionally, in the streets. My most rious
regret is the considerable amount dis-
ruption that has occurred to the hool
systems that have been involved.J I do
not believe that this accrues to te ed-
ucational benefit of any child, wjlite or
black. For this reason I am hop
h
all school districts in Tennessee nd else-
where will be able to get abo the more
important business of ed,zbating our
children. I know that the 4roblems are
still difficult, but it call,- e done.
My second point ofe'a general nature
concerns the decisions of the Supreme
Court in this area. We believe in a sys-
tem of law and in the enforcement of the
laws of our land. Rulings of the Supreme
Court, adopted pursuant to the Court's
interpretation of the Constitution, are
the law of the land, and they must be en-
forced accordingly. A decision based on
the Constitution must be administered
even though many may differ with the
decision the Court has reached. To fail
to pursue this course of action would re-
sult in the breakdown of our entire sys-
tem and would violate the most funda-
mental principles upon which our Consti-
tution is based.
Third, regardless of what the law is in
this area, I believe that it should be en-
forced in an even-handed manner in the
North and South alike. I object to rigid
enforcement in the Southern State while
at the same time de facto segregation is
permitted to go unchallenged through-
out the norhern areas of our country,
The Whitten amendments directly re-
late to the desegregation problem and
involve the use of freedom-of-choice
plans and the busing of school children.
The Congress has considered these mat-
ters on earlier occasions and has in at
least two previous statutes distinguished
between ending segregation through as
of students without regard to
race and any attempt to bring about ar-
tificial integration. These statutory pro-
visions state that desegregation does not
mean the assignment of students to pub-
lic schools in order to overcome racial
imbalance.
The existence statutes do not empower
any Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare official or any court to issue
any order seeking to achieve a racial bal-
ance in any school by requiring the trans-
portation of pupils from one school to
another in order to achieve such balance
or by forcing a student to go to a school
against the wishes of his or her parents
in order to achieve such balance. Stated
more simply, the statutes have provided
that Federal school funds must be with-
held if a school system refuses to de-
segregate its school system but must not
be withheld to achieve a racial balance.
I have previously voiced my views on
the matter of busing schoolchildren and
on this point I support the Whitten
amendments without reservation. I do
not believe that children should be bused
past schools in the proximity of their
homes for any reason. I do not believe
that Federal funds should be withheld
to force the busing of schoolchildren;
conversely, neither do I believe in the
busing of children to avoid the desegre-
gation of a school system. Rather, I be-
lieve that on this matter of desegregation
the Federal Government should require
only that school district lines be drawn
fairly, reasonably. compactly, and with-
out regard to race and that all school-
children should, insofar as practicable,
attend the school closest to their homes.
Those sections of the Whitten amend-
ments concerning freedom-of-choice
plans present a more difficult problem.
These plans permit parents to send their
children to whatever school the parents
select. In its interpretation of existing
statutory provisions and the equal pro-
tection clause of the Constitution, the
Supreme Court has struck down free-
dom-of-choice plans when they are used
as a subterfuge to avoid desegregation.
Presumably any freedom-of-choice plan
that legitimately achieves the objective
of desegregation and terminates the ex-
istence of a dual school system would.
under Supreme Court rulings, be valid.
The effect of these sections of the
Whitten amendments, as I understand
them, would result in the imposition of a
double standard in some instances. On
the one hand would be the Supreme
Court decision holding that those free-
dom-of-choice plans that do not result
in desegregation are constitutionally
invalid. On the other hand would be the
congressional act providing that all free-
dom-of -choice plans, presumably includ-
ing those that do not result in desegre-
gation, are valid. This would result in a
dilemma for the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare and would re
cadre. I believe that the Supreme colot
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
December 17, 1A3Proved
.M S16965
Welcoming the presentation of the state-
ment of neutrality by the Royal Government
of Laos of July 9, 1962, and taking note of
this statement, which is, with the concur-
rence of the Royal Government of Laos, in-
corporated in the present Declaration as an
integral part thereof, and the text of which
is as follows:
"The Royal Government of Laos,
"Being resolved to follow the path of peace
and neutrality in conformity with the in-
terests and aspirations of the Laotian people,
as well as the principles of the Joint Commu,-
nique of Zurich dated June 22, 1961, and
of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 in order
to build a peaceful, neutral, independent,
democratic, unified and prosperous Laos,
"Solemnly declares that:
"(1) It will resolutely apply the five prin-
ciples of peaceful co-existence in foreign re-
lations, and will develop friendly relations
and establish diplomatic relations with all
countries, the neighboring Countries first
and foremost, on the basis of equality and
of respect for the independence and sover-
eignty of Laos;
"(2) It is the will of the Laotian people
to protect and ensure respect for the sover-
eignty, independence, neutrality, unity, and
territorial integrity of Laos;
"(3) It will not resort to the use or threat
of force in any way which might impair the
peace of other countries, and will not inter-
fere in the internal affairs of other countries;
"(1) It will not enter into any military
alliance or into any agreement, whether mili-
tary or otherwise, which is inconsistent with
the neutrality of the Kingdom of Laos; it
will not allow the establishment of any for-
will not allow the establishment of any
foreign military base on Laotian territory,
nor allow any country to use Laotian
territory for military purposes or for the
purposes of interference in the internal af-
fairs of other countries, nor recognise the
protection of any alliance or military coali-
tion, including SEATO.
"(5) It will not allow any foreign inter-
ference in the internal affairs of the King-
dom of Laos in any form whatsoever;
"(6) Subject to the provisions of Article
5 of the Protocol, it will require the with-
drawal from Laos of all foreign troops and
military personnel, and will not allow aoy
foreign troops or military personnel to be
introduced into Laos;
"(7) It win accept direct and unconditional
aid from all countries that wish to help the
Kingdom of Laos build up an independent
and autonomous national economy on the
basis of respect for the sovereignty of Laos;
"(8) It will respect the treaties and agree-
ments signed in conformity with the inter-
ests of the Laotian people and of the policy
of peace and neutrality of the Kingdom, in
particular the Geneva Agreements of 1962,
and will abrogate all treaties and agreements
which are contrary to those principles.
"This statement of neutrality by the Royal
Government of Laos shall be promulgated
constitutionally and shall have the force of
law.
"The Kingdom of Laos appeals to all the
States participating in the International
Conference on the Settlement of the Laotian
Question, and to all other States, to recognise
the sovereignty, independence, neutrality,
unity and territorial integrity of Laos, to
conform to these principles in all respects,
and to refrain from any action inconsistent
therewith."
Confirming the principles of respect for
the sovereignty, independence, unity and
territorial Integrity of the Kingdom of Laos
and noninterference in, Its internal affairs
which are embodied In the Geneva Agree-
ments of 1954;
Emphasizing the principle of respect for
the neutrality of the Kingdom of Laos;
Agreeing that the above-mentioned prin-
ciples constitute a basis for the peaceful
settlement of the Laotian question:
Profoundly convinced that the independ-
ence and neutrality of the Kingdom of Laos
will assist the peaceful democratic develop-
ment of the Kingdom of Laos will assist the
peaceful democratic development of the
Kingdom of Laos and the achievement of na-
tional accord and unity in that country, as
well as the strengthening of peace and secu-
rity in South-East Asia;
1. Solemnly declare, in accordance with
the will of the Government and people of
the Kingdom of Laos, as expressed in the
statement of neutrality by the Royal Gov-
ernment of Laos of July 9, 1962, that they
recognise and will respect and observe in
every way the sovereignty, independence,
neutrality, unity and territorial integrity of
the Kingdom of Laos.
2. Undertake, in particular, that
(a) they will not commit or participate in
any way in any act which might directly or
indirectly impair the sovereignty, independ-
ence, neutrality, unity or territorial integ-
rity of the Kingdom of Laos;
(b) they will not resort to the use or threat
of force or any other measure which might
impair the peace of the Kingdom of Laos;
(c) they will refrain from all direct or
indirect interference in the internal affairs
of the Kingdom of Laos;
(d) they will not attach conditions of a
political nature to any assistance which they
may offer or which the Kingdom of Laos
may seek;
(e) they will not bring the Kingdom of
Laos In any way into any military alliance
or any other agreement, whether military
or otherwise, which is inconsistent with her
neutrality, nor invite or encourage her to
enter into any such alliance or to conclude
any such agreement;
(f) they will respect the wish of the King-
dom of Laos not to recognise the protection
of any alliance or military coalition, includ-
ing SEATO;
(g) they will not introduce into the King-
dom of Laos foreign troops or military per-
sonnel in any form whatsoever, nor will they
in any way facilitate or connive at the in-
troduction of any foreign troops or military
personnel;
(h) they will not establish nor will they
in any way facilitate or connive at the es-
tablishment in the Kingdom of Laos of any
foreign military base, foreign strong point or
other foreign military installation Of any
kind;
(i) they will not use the territory of the
Kingdom of Laos for interference in the in-
ternal affairs of other countries;
(j) they will not use the territory of any
country, including their own for interference
in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of
Laos.
3. Appeal to all other States to recognise,
respect and observe in every way the sover-
eignty, independence and neutrality, and also
the unity and territorial integrity, of the
Kingdom of Laos and to refrain from any
action inconsistent with these principles or
with other provisions of the present Declara-
tion.
4. Undertake, in the event of a violation or
threat of violation of the soverenignty, inde-
pendence, neutrality, unity or territorial in-
tegrity of the Kingdom of Laos, to consult
jointly with the Royal Government of Laos
and among themselves in order to consider
measures which might prove to be necessary
to ensure the observance of these principles
and the other provisions of the present De-
claration.
5. The present Declaration shall enter into
force on signature and together with the
statement of neutrality by the Royal Gov-
ernment of Laos of July 9, 1962, shall be re-
garded as constituting an international
agreement. The present Declaration shall be
deposited in the archives of the Governments
of the United Kingdom and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, which shall fur-
nish certified copies thereof to the other sig-
natory States and to all the other States of
the world.
In witness whereof, the undersigned
Plenipotentiaries have signed the present
Declaration.
Done in two copies in Geneva this twenty-
third day of July one thousand nine hundred
and sixty-two in the English, Chinese,
French, Laotian and Russian languages, each
text being equally authoritative.
PROTOCOL TO THE DECLARATION ON THE
NEUTRALITY OP LAOS
The Governments of the Union of Burma,
the Kingdom of Cambodia, Canada, the Peo-
ple's Republic of China, the Democratic Re-
public of Viet-Nam, the Republic of France,
the Republic of India, the Kingdom of Laos,
the Polish People's Republic, the Republic of
Viet-Nam, the Kingdom of Thailand, the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and North-
ern Ireland and the United States of America;
Having regard to the Declaration on the
Neutrality of Laos of July 23, 1962;
Have agreed as follows:
Article .1
For the purposes of this Protocol
(a) the term "foreign military personnel"
shall include members of foreign military
missions, foreign military advisers, experts,
Instructors, consultants, technicians, ob-
servers and any other foreign military per-
sons, including those serving in any armed
forces in Laos, and foreign civilians con-
nected with the supply, maintenance, stor-
ing and utilization of war materials;
(b) the term "the Commission" shall mean
the International Commission for Supervis-
ion and Control in Laos set up by virtue of
the Geneva Agreements of 1954 and com-
posed of the representatives of Canada, India
and Poland, with the representative of India
as Chairman;
(c) the term "the Co-Chairmen" shall
mean the Co-Chairmen of the International
Conference for the Settlement of the Laotian
Question, 1961-1962, and their successors in
the offices of Her Britannic Majesty's Prin-
cipal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics respectively;
(d) the term "the members of the Con-
ference" shall mean the Governments of
countries which took part in the Inter-
national Conference for the Settlement of
the Laotian Question, 1961-1962.
Article 2
All foreign regular and irregular troops,
foreign para-military formations and foreign
military personnel shall be withdrawn from
Laos in the shortest time possible and in any
case the withdrawal shall be completed not
later than thirty days after the Commission
has notified the Royal Government of Laos
that in accordance with Articles 3 and 10 of
this Protocol its inspection teams are present
at all points of withdrawal from Laos. These
points shall be determined by the Royal
Government of Laos in accordance with Arti-
cle 3 within thirty days after the entry into
force of this Protocol. The inspection teams
shall be present at these points and the
Commission shall notify the Royal Govern-
ment of Laos thereof within fifteen days
after the points have been determined.
Article 3
The withdrawal of foreign regular and
irregular troops, foreign para-military forma-
tions and foreign military personnel shall
take place only along such routes and
through such points as shall be determined
by the Royal Government of Laos in con-
sultation with the Commission, The Com-
mission shall be notified in advance of the
point and time of all such withdrawals.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
December 17, /roved FollOWORliS21037A110/tECIDTERORZIMMEI4R000300070001-7 S16965
Welcoming the presentation of the state-
ment of neutrality by the Royal Government
of Laos of July 9, 1962, and taking note of
this statement, which is, with the concur-
rence of the Royal Government of Laos, in-
corporated in the present Declaration as an
integral part thereof, and the text of which
is as follows:
"The Royal Government of Laos,
"Being resolved to follow the path of peace
and neutrality in conformity with the in-
terests and aspirations of the Laotian people,
as well as the principles of the Joint Commn-
nique of Zurich dated June 22. 1961, and
of the Geneva Agreements of 1954 in order
to build a peaceful, neutral, independent,
democratic, unified and prosperous Laos,
"Solemnly declares that:
"(1) It will resolutely apply the five prin-
ciples of peaceful co-existence in foreign re-
lations, and will develop friendly relations
and establish diplomatic relations with all
countries, the neighboring Countries first
and foremost, on the basis of equality and
of respect for the independence and sover-
eignty of Laos;
"(2) It is the will of the Laotian people
to protect and ensure respect for the sover-
eignty, independence, neutrality, unity, and
territorial integrity of Laos;
"(3) It will not resort to the use or threat
of force in any way which might impair the
peace of other countries, and will not inter-
fere in the internal affairs of other countries;
" (4) It will not enter into any military
alliance or into any agreement, whether mili-
tary or otherwise, which is inconsistent with
the neutrality of the Kingdom of Laos; it
will not allow the establishment of any for-
will not allow the establishment of any
foreign military base on Laotian territory,
nor allow any country to use Laotian
territory for military purposes or for the
purposes of interference in the internal af-
fairs of other countries, nor recognise the
protection of any alliance or military coali-
tion, including SEATO.
"(5) It will not allow any foreign inter-
ference in the internal affairs of the King-
dom of Laos in any form whatsoever;
"(6) Subject to the provisions of Article
5 of the Protocol, it will require the with-
drawal from Laos of all foreign troops and
military personnel, and will not allow any
foreign troops or military personnel to be
introduced into Laos;
"(7) It will accept direct and unconditional
aid from all countries that wish to help the
Kingdom of Laos build up an independent
and autonomous national economy on the
basis of respect for the sovereignty of Laos;
"(8) It will respect the treaties and agree-
ments signed in conformity with the inter-
ests of the Laotian people and of the policy
of peace and neutrality of the Kingdom, in
particular the Geneva Agreements of 1962,
and will abrogate all treaties and agreements
which are contrary to those principles.
"This statement of neutrality by the Royal
Government of Laos shall be promulgated
constitutionally and shall have the force of
law.
"The Kingdom of Laos appeals to all the
States participating in the International
Conference on the Settlement of the Laotian
Question, and to all other States, to recognise
the sovereignty, independence, neutrality,
unity and territorial integrity of Laos, to
conform to these principles in all respects,
and to refrain from any action inconsistent
therewith."
Confirming the principles of respect for
the sovereignty, independence, unity and
territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Lane
and noninterference in it, internal affairs
which are embodied in the Geneva Agree-
ments of 1954;
Emphasizing the principle of respect for
the neutrality of the Kingdom of Laos;
Agreeing that the above-mentioned prin-
ciples constitute a basis for the peaceful
settlement of the Laotian question:
Profoundly convinced that the independ-
ence and neutrality of the Kingdom of Laos
will assist the peaceful democratic develop-
ment of the Kingdom of Laos will assist the
peaceful democratic development of the
Kingdom of Laos and the achievement of na-
tional accord and unity in that country, as
well as the strengthening of peace and secu-
rity in South-East Asia;
1. Solemnly declare, in accordance with
the will of the Government and people of
the Kingdom of Laos, as expressed in the
statement of neutrality by the Royal Gov-
ernment of Laos of July 9, 1962, that they
recognise and will respect and observe in
every way the sovereignty, independence,
neutrality, unity and territorial integrity of
the Kingdom of Laos.
2. Undertake, in particular, that
(a) they will not commit or participate in
any way in any act which might directly or
indirectly impair the sovereignty, independ-
ence, neutrality, unity or territorial integ-
rity of the Kingdom of Laos;
(b) they will not resort to the use or threat
of force or any other measure which might
impair the peace of the Kingdom of Laos;
(c) they will refrain from all direct or
Indirect interference in the internal affairs
of the Kingdom of Laos;
(d) they will not attach conditions of a
political nature to any assistance which they
may offer or which the Kingdom of Laos
may seek;
(e) they will not bring the Kingdom of
Laos in any way into any military alliance
or any other agreement, whether military
or otherwise, which is inconsistent with her
neutrality, nor invite or encourage her to
enter into any such alliance or to conclude
any such agreement;
(f) they will respect the wish of the King-
dom of Laos not to recognise the protection
of any alliance or military coalition, includ-
ing SEATO;
(g) they will not introduce into the King-
dom of Laos foreign troops or military per-
sonnel in any form whatsoever, nor will they
In any way facilitate or connive at the in-
troduction of any foreign troops or military
personnel;
(h) they will not establish nor will they
In any way facilitate or connive at the es-
tablishment in the Kingdom of Laos of any
foreign military base, foreign strong point or
other foreign military installation of any
kind;
(i) they will not use the territory of the
Kingdom of Laos for interference in the in-
ternal affairs of other countries;
(j) they will not use the territory of any
country, including their own for interference
in the internal affairs of the Kingdom of
Laos.
3. Appeal to all other States to recognise,
respect and observe in every way the sover-
eignty, independence and neutrality, and also
the unity and territorial integrity, of the
Kingdom of Laos and to refrain from any
action inconsistent with these principles or
with other provisions of the present Declara-
tion.
4. Undertake, in the event of a violation or
threat of violation of the soverenignty, inde-
pendence, neutrality, unity or territorial in-
tegrity of the Kingdom of Laos, to consult
jointly with the Royal Government of Laos
and among themselves in order to consider
measures which might prove to be necessary
to ensure the observance of these principles
and the other provisions of the present De-
claration.
5. The present Declaration shall enter into
force on signature and together with the
statement of neutrality by the Royal Gov-
ernment of Laos of July 9, 1962, shall be re-
garded as constituting an international
agreement. The present Declaration shall be
deposited in the archives of the Governments
of the United Kingdom and the Union of
Soviet Socialist Republics, which shall fur-
nish certified copies thereof to the other sig-
natory States and to all the other States of
the world.
In witness whereof, the undersigned
Plenipotentiaries have signed the present
Declaration.
Done in two copies in Geneva this twenty-
third day of July one thousand nine hundred
and sixty-two in the English, Chinese,
French, Laotian and Russian languages, each
text being equally authoritative.
PROTOCOL TO THE DECLARATION ON THE
NEUTRALTTY OF LAOS
The Governments of the Union of Burma,
the Kingdom of Cambodia, Canada, the Peo-
ple's Republic of China, the Democratic Re-
public of Viet-Nam, the Republic of France,
the Republic of India, the Kingdom of Laos,
the Polish People's Republic, the Republic of
Viet-Nam, the Kingdom of Thailand, the
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and North-
ern Ireland and the United States of America;
Having regard to the Declaration on the
Neutrality of Laos of July 23, 1962;
Have agreed as follows:
Article I
For the purposes of this Protocol
(a) the term "foreign military personnel"
shall include members of foreign military
missions, foreign military advisers, experts,
instructors, consultants, technicians, ob-
servers and any other foreign military per-
sons, including those serving in any armed
forces in Laos, and foreign civilians con-
nected with the supply, maintenance, stor-
ing and utilization of war materials;
(b) the term "the Commission" shall mean
the International Commission for Supervis-
ion and Control in Laos set up by virtue of
the Geneva Agreements of 1954 and com-
posed of the representatives of Canada, India
and Poland, with the representative of India
as Chairman;
(c) the term "the Co-Chairmen" shall
mean the Co-Chairmen of the International
Conference for the Settlement of the Laotian
Question, 1961-1962, and their successors in
the offices of Her Britannic Majesty's Prin-
cipal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
and Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics respectively;
(d) the term "the members of the Con-
ference" shall mean the Governments of
countries which took part in the Inter-
national Conference for the Settlement of
the Laotian Question, 1961-1962.
Article 2
All foreign regular and irregular troops,
foreign para-military formations and foreign
military personnel shall be withdrawn from
Laos in the shortest time possible and in any
case the withdrawal shall be completed not
later than thirty days after the Commission
has notified the Royal Government of Laos
that in accordance with Articles 3 and 10 of
this Protocol its inspection teams are present
at all points of withdrawal from Laos. These
points shall be determined by the Royal
Government of Laos in accordance with Arti-
cle 3 within thirty days after the entry into
force of this Protocol. The inspection teams
shall be present at these points and the
Commission shall notify the Royal Govern-
ment of Laos thereof within fifteen days
after the points have been determined.
Article 3
The withdrawal of foreign regular and
irregular troops, foreign para-military forma-
tions and foreign military personnel shall
take place only along such routes and
through such points as shall be determined
by the Royal Government of Laos in con-
sultation with the Commission, The Com-
mission shall be notified in advance of the
point and time of all such withdrawals.
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
roved EgrisftimmektQA/11 imialgiA)ReisPiatigk4R000300070001-7
Deem- ber 17, 1966PP S 16967
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield for the purpose of
clarification?
Mr. MANSFIELD. I yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I be-
lieve this colloquy belongs in the record
of the proceedings had in the executive
session on Monday. That portion of the
record is in the process of being cleared
and this colloquy will be a part of that
record, will it not?
Mr. MANSFIELD. It could be a part
of that record. And it could also be made
part of the public record.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I assume that will
be made public also.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the colloquy just
had between the Senator from Arkansas
and me be made a part of the record
compiled during the executive meeting
of the Senate last Monday at the appro-
priate place so as to show the question
asked and the denial made and the af-
firmation now made.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I
want to make it clear that this relates to
whether there is any legal or constitu-
tional justification for the war in which
we are engaged in Laos at the present
time. And this point is a very significant
one.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Rep-
resentatives, by Mr. Bartlett, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the House
had passed the following bills of the
Senate, severally with an amendment, in
which it requested the concurrence of the
Senate:
S. 65. An act to direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey sand, gravel, stone,
clay, and similar materials in certain lands
to Emogene Tilmon of Logan County, Ark.;
S. 80. An act to direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey sand, gravel, stone,
clay, and similar materials in certain lands
to Enoch A. Lowder of Logan County, Ark.;
S. 81. An act to direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey sand, gravel, stone,
clay, and similar materials in certain lands
to J. B. Smith and Sula E. Smith, of Maga..
Sine, Ark.;
S. 82. An act to direct the Secretary of
Agriculture to convey sand, gravel, stone,
clay, and similar materials in certain lands
to Wayne Tilmon and Emogene Tilmon of
Logan County, Ark.;
S. 2523. An act to amend the Community
Mental Health Cetners Aot to extend and
improve the program of assistance under
that act for community mental health cen-
ters and facilities for the treatment of al-
coholics and narcotic addicts, to establish
programs for mental health of children, and
for other purposes:. and
S. 2809. An act to amend the Public Health.
Service Act so as to extend for an additional
period the authority to make formula grants
to schools of public health, project grants
for graduate training in public health and
traineeships for professional public health
personnel.
The message also announced that the
House had passed the following bill and
joint resolution of the Senate, each
with amendments, in which it requested
the concurrence of the Senate:
S. 740. An act to establish the Cabinet
Committee on Opportunities for Spanish-
Speaking People, and for other purposes; and
S.J. Res. 154. A joint resoltuion to author-
ize and request the President to proclaim
the month of January of each year as "Na-
tional Blood Donor Month."
The message further announced that
the House had passed the following bills,
in which it requested the concurrence
of the Senate:
H.R. 110. An act to amend section 427(b)
of title 37, United States Code, to provide
that a family separation allowance shall be
paid to a member of a uniformed service
even though the member does not main-
tain a residence or household for his de-
pendents, subject to his management and
control;
H.R. 386. An act to amend title 37 of the
United States Code to provide that a family
separation allowance shall be paid to any
member of a uniformed service assigned to
Government quarters providing he is other-
wise entitled to such separation allowance;
H.R. 1497. An act to permit the vessel Mar-
pole to be documented for uso in the coast-
wise trade;
H.R. 6971. An act to require a radiotele-
phone on certain vessels while navigating
upon specified waters of the United States;
H.R. 7264. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Pearl C. Davis;
MR. 8021. An act to amend, title 37,
United States Code, to authorize a disloca-
tion allowance under certain cirpumstances,
certain reimbursements, transportation for
dependents, and travel and Irsportation
allowances under certain ?fret stances, and
for other purposes; -
H.R. 8022. An act to amend title 37, United '
States Code, to authorize travel, transporta-
tion, and education allo ances to certain
members of the unifoservices for de-
pendents'rt7z schooling, a for other purposes;
H.R. 8100. An act for the relief of the
Burrowes Manufacturing Corp.;
MR. 9001. An act for the relief of William
Patrick Magee;
H.R. 9366. An act to change the limita-
tion on the nuinber of apprentices author-
ized to be employees of the Government
Printing Office and for other pin-poses;
H.R. 10650. An act conferring jurisdiction
upon the United States Court of Claims to
hear, determine, and render judgment upon
the claim of Philip J. Fichman;
KR. 13448. An act to authorize the ex-
change, upon terms fully protecting the
public interest, of the lands and buildings
now constituting the "U.S. Public Health
Service Hospital at New Orleans, La., for
lands upon which a new U.S. Public Health
Service Hospital at New Orleans, La., may be
located;
H. R. 13630. An act to extend certain ex-
piring provisions of law relating to voca-
tional education;
H.R. 14213. An act to amend sections 5580
and 5581 of the Revised Statutes to provide
for additional members of the Board of
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution;
H.R. 14289. An act to permit El Paso and
Hudspeth Counties, Tex., to be placed in
the mountain standard time zone; and
H.R. 14733. An act to amend the Public
Health Service Act to extend the program
of assistance for health services for domes-
tic migrant agricultural workers and for
other purposes.
ENROLLED BILLS AND JOINT
RESOLUTION SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
following enrolled bills and joint reso-
lution, and they were signed by the Act-
ing President pro tempore:
S. 1108. An act to waive the acreage lim-
itations of section 1(b) of the act of June
14, 1926, as amended, with respect to con-
veyance of lands to the State of Nevada for
Inclusion in the Valley of Fire State Park;
S. 2734. An act granting the consent of
Congress to the Connecticut-New York Rail-
road Passenger Transportation Compact;
S.3169. An act to amend the Atomic En-
ergy Act of 1954, as amended, and for other
purposes; and
S.J. Res. 90. Joint resolution to enable the
United States to organize and hold a diplo-
matic conference in the United States in fis-
cal year 1970 to negotiate a Patent Coopera-
tion Treaty and authorize an appropriation
thereof.
HOUSE BILLS Rhio.N.,RRED
The following bills were severally read
twice by their titles and referred, as
indicated:
MR. 110. An act to amend section 427(b)
of title 37, United States Code, to pro-
vide that a family separation allowance shall
be paid to a member of a uniformed service
even though the member does not maintain
a residence or household for his dependents,
subject to his management and control;
MR. 386. An act to amend title 37 of the
United States Code to provide that a family
separation allowance shall be paid to any
member of a uniformed service assigned to
Government quarters providing he is other-
wise entitled to such separation allowance;
H.R. 8021. An act to amend title 37, United
States Code, to authorize a dislocation al-
lowance under certain circumstances, certain
reimbursements, transportation for depend-
ents, and travel and transportation allow-
ances under certain circumstances, and for
other purposes;
H.R. 8022. An act to amend title 37, United
States Code, to authorize travel, transporta-
tion, and education allowances to certain
members of the uniformed services for de-
pendents' schooling, and for other purposes;
to the Committee on Armed Services.
H.R. 1497. An act to permit the vessel
Marpole to be documented for use in the
coastwise trade;
H.R. 6971. An Act to require a radio-
telephone on certain vessels while navigat-
ing upon specified waters of the United
States; and
H.R. 14289. An act to permit El Paso and
Hudspeth Counties, 'Tex., to be placed in
the mountain standard time zone; to the
Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 7264. An act for the relief of Mrs.
Pearl C. Davis;
H.R. 8100. An act for the relief of the
Burrowes Manufacturing Corp.:
H.R. 9001. An act for the relief of William
Patrick Magee; and
H.R. 10658. An act conferring jurisdiction
upon the United States Court of Claims to
hear, determine, and render judgment upon
the claim of Philip J. Fichman; to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary.
H.R. 9366. An act to change the limitation
on the number of apprentices authorized to
be employees of the Government Printing
Office, and for other purposes; and
H.R. 14213. An act to amend sections 5580
and 5581 of the Revised Statutes to provide
for additional members of the Board of
Regents of the Smithsonian Institution; to
the Committee on Rules and Administration.
H.R. 13448. An act to authorize the ex-
change, upon terms fully protecting the pub-
lic interest, of the lands and buildings now
constituting the U.S. Public Health Service
Hospital at New Orleans, La., for lands upon
which a new U.S. Public Health Service Hos-
pital at New Orleans, La., may be located;
11.11. 13630. An act to extend certain ex-
piring provisions of law relating to vocational
education; and
H.R. 14733. An act to amend the Public
Health Service Act to extend the program of
assistance for health services for domestic
migrant agricultural workers and for other
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S 16968
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE December 17, 1969
purposes; to the Committee on Labor and
Public Welfare.
MESSAGES FROM PRESIDENT
Messages in writing from the President
of the United States submitting nomin-
ations were communicated to the Senate
by Mr. Leonard, one of his secretaries.
EXECUTIVE MESSAGES REFERRED
As In executive sesaires, the Presiding
Officer laid before the Senate messages
from the President of the United States
submitting sundry nominations, which
were referred to the appropriate com-
mittees.
(For nominations this day received,
see the end of Senate proceedings.)
DEPARTMENTS OP LABOR AND
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WEL-
FARE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS, 1970
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill Mouse Resolution
13111) making appropriations for the De-
partments of Labor and Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1970, and for other
purposes.
AMENDMENT NO 142
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I call up
amendment No. 142 and ask that it be
stated.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment will be stated.
The LEGIsLAVIVE CLERK. The Senator
from Alabama (Mr. ALLEN) offers the
following amendment:
On page 56, after line 24, insert the
following:
"Ssc. 410. It is hereby &Oared to be the
sense of Congress that the freedom of choice
of parents to choose the public primary and
secondary schools to which they shall send
their children (subject to age, academic, and
residence requirements) Is an inviolate right,
the protection and maintenance of Which
Is part of the public policy of the United
States."
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
YOUNG of Ohio in the chair). The Sen-
ator from Alabama is recognized.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, may we
have order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order. A continuing order
is in effect throughout the afternoon
that all attaches must be seated in the
rear of the Chamber or leave the Cham-
ber. They may not come on the floor
otherwise.
The Sergeant at Arms will enforce that
order throughout the afternoon.
Mr, MAGNUSON. Mr. President, a
parliamentary inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator will state it.
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, I un-
derstand that the so-called Allen amend-
ment is subject to a time limitation.
The PRESIDING OtatesCER. The Sen-
ator is correct. There is a tittle limitation
of 30 minutes to the pending amendment,
15 minutes to each side.
Mr. MAGNUSON. And the time is
divided between the Senates from Ala-
bama and the Senator from Washington.
The PRESIDING ONPICER. The Sea-
ator is correct.
Mr. GRIFFIN. May I respectfully in-
quire of the chairman of the committee
if he is opposed to the pending amend-
ment?
Mr. MAGNUSON. Yes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
The Senator from Alabama is recog-
nized.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask for
the yeas and nays on my amendment.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, I ask unan-
imous consent that the name of my able
and distinguished colleague, the senior
Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN) ,
be added as a cosponsor of the amend-
ment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. President, at this
time I eld 3 minutes to the distin-
guished
STENNIS
Mr. S
lighted
on beha
Mr. Pr
announc
the freed
choose the
schools to
children, su
residence req
right, the prot
which is a part
the United States.
Mr. President, a
my mind the vivid
privilege, with the s
nator from Mississippi (Mr.
. Mr. President, I am de-
have an opportunity to speak
of the Senator's amendment.
'dent, this amendment merely
that, as a policy of Congress,
of choice of parents to
ublic primary and secondary
hich they shall send their
'ect to age, academic and
ementa, is an inviolate
Ion and maintenance of
the public policy of
in there comes to
ture of this very
htest exception
only, the very privilege that is enjoyed
pThey have
all over the United States by all thearents, except in the Sou.
absolute freedom of choice 411 all those
areas and in the States abott which I
spoke and gave figures, with ftp restric-
tions and no limitations. New York has
frozen this in granite?the right -of their
Parents to make this choice.
Say what we will, it is a fact of life, and
I believe there never will be a rigid ap-
plication of taking away these rights
from the people throughout the United
States. I bow for the time being to -the
will of the Senate. I have no reaction.at
all to my colleagues. That is their buSi-
ness. But to try to laugh this off or
make jokes about it or to say that j
a handful of districts are affected by tile
last amendment, is an error of fact.
So I plead for all the parents outsist
the South to continue to have this choice.
It is freedom from force more than it
is freedom of choice, and we in our area
have recognition of this great principle,
too.
So I am delighted to swPOrt the
amendment of the Senatgefrom Ala-
bama. I commend him fgr the long hours
and the diligent work fie has put in on
this matter during the relatively few
months he has been in the Senate. The
Senator from Alabama has made a con-
tribution in many other ways, also.
Mr. ALLEN. I thank the distinguished
Senator from Mississippi.
Mr. President, specific limitations on
the powers of the Department of Health,
Education and Welfare with respect to
issuing orders and drawing up plans de-
signed to achieve balance in public
schools have no effect whatsoever when
public schools are administered by Fed-
eral district courts.
Federal courts assert a power to order
whatever may be required in the way of
closing schools and busing pupils to
achieve racial balance in public schools.
Federal courts simply exercise total and
complete discretionary powers over every
phase and aspect of public school admin-
istration. School plans adopted by Fed-
eral courts to achieve racial balance are
enforced by injunctions directed to local
Public officials and the threat of confisca-
tory fines and imprisonment without
benefit of trial by jury. In short, the Su-
preme Court of the United States learned
how to run schools just as their prede-
cessors in the recent history of totali-
tarian tyranny learned to run trains on
time.
Mr. President, this amendment is de-
signed to give the Supreme Court of the
United States and all Federal courts a
valid reason for adopting a commonsense
approach to cleaning up the intolerable
mess it has created in public school sys-
tems throughout the United States.
While the amendment is to the appro-
priations bill for the Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, it is as
much for the benefit of Federal courts
It is quite simple and to the point. It adds
a section to HR. 13111 which provides as
follows:
It is hereby declared to be the sense of
Congress that the freedom of choice of par-
ents to choose the public primary and sec-
ondary schools to which they shall send their
children (subject to age, academic and resi-
dence requirements) is an inviolate right,
the protection and maintenance of which is
part of the public policy of the United States
Mr. President, this amendment in-
forms the Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare and the Supreme
Court that freedom of choice in matters
affecting the health, safety, and welfare
of their children is an inviolate right of
parents, the maintenance of which is
public policy of the United States. There-
fore, if enacted, any future action, order,
or decree in contravention of this right,
as it relates to a parent's choice of
schools their children shall attend, will
be contrary to national public policy as
determined and established by Congress.
Mr. President, why should it be neces-
sary to establish national policy on this
subject? The reason is that the 'U.S. Su-
preme Court has traversed a circuitous
path from an original decision which
held that State legislatures did not have
the power to compel segregation in pub-
lic schools, to a decision on June 2, 1969,
which held, in its necessary effect, that
the Constitution of the United States
imposes an affirmative duty on State leg-
islatures and subordinate units of State
governments to compel integration of
races in public schools to the extent nec-
essary to achieve racial balance.
Mr. President, I invite the attention of
Senators to this decision and to my anal-
ysis of it which is in the CONGRESSIONAL
RECORD of June 17, 1969, on page S6541.
Mr. President, for 15 years, no one
could know with certainty what the Su-
preme Court meant by the term despessa
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
6 bkpyroved F ot108,1teLesg9810A10
Deceiri :ber i kECORIRDP70191033VAR00030007 000 1 -7 S 16809
ments is another matter. We refer to the $6-
billion social security bonanza attached to
the bill. With the steady rise in living costs.
Congress must of course raise social security
payments. But the country ismply cannot
afford a 15 per cent jump at this time plus a
boost in the minimum payment from $55
to $100 a month for single persons and $160
for couples. The only reason for attaching
these plums to the tax-reform bill was to
make it more difficult for the President to
reject them. Even if the House insists on
separating the social security benefits from
the tax bill, the proposed addition to $6 bil-
lion to social security spending will continue
to complicate the fiscal picture.
It is the combination of this costly gesture
with the revenue-slashing Gore amendment
which has put the Senate in the posture of
throwing discretion to the winds. One esti-
mate is to the effect that the combination
will change the prospect of a $3-billion sur-
plus in fiscal 1971 Under the Finance Com-
mittee bill to a $7.5-billion deficit. In the
face of continued inflationary pressures this
amounts to an abdication of responsibility.
The Senate is entitled to a good deal of
credit for some of its refining amendments.
It voted to permit fOundations to continue
financing voter registration drives under
proper restrictions and eliminated the Fi-
nance Committee's 40-year limitation on the
life of foundations. No doubt some of its
other changes in a highly complex bill will be
found worth saving, but it has thrown an
enormous burden on the conference commit-
tee to produce a bill that will be acceptable
to the White House and to the country.
The major task of the House-Senate con-
ferees will be to restore the bill to its origi-
nal objectives of screening out the inequities
of the present law. This can be readily ac-
complished without siphoning off the reve-
nue that is needed for expanded educational,
social and environmental programs and with-
out feeding the fires of inflation. The reckless
nature of the Senate's spree has thrown an
extraordinary burden on the conferees, who
Must still try to produce a respective tax-
reform bill.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I note
that the Washington Daily News had a
similar editorial in its edition of Decem-
ber 12, strongly criticizing the so-called
tax reform bill. The title of its editorial
is "Tax Bill or Goody Tree?" I ask
unanimous consent that that editorial
from the Washington Daily News be in-
corporated in the RECORD as a part of my
remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
TAX BILL OR GOODY TREE?
When the tax bill just passed by the Sen-
ate came from the House of Representatives
last summer it was reasonably well qualified
for the title it carried, "Tax Reform Bill."
But as it emerged from the Senate, after
the spirit of Santa Claus generally had pre-
vailed, it looked more like a Christmas tree
than a "tax reform" measure.
The Senate littered the bill with amend-
ments, most of them giving somebody or
other a tax break.
The bill now goes to a conference commit-
too which will attempt to compromise the
Senate's inflation-spurring, deficit-making
version with the House version.
But Sen. Russell B. Long, chairman of
the Finance Committee, said it will be "em-
barrassing" for him to take the bill to the
House conferees "and tell them we've loaded
$11 billion on their bill."
Others estimate that the loss of revenue
from the Senate version could run as high as
$14 billion.
The Senate raised Social Security benefits
15 per cent, instead of the 10 per cent pro-
posed by President Nixon. It voted to raise
the personal exemption of $600 to $700 next
year and $800 in 1971. It would reduce the oil
and gas depletion allowances from 271/2 per
cent to 23 per cent, 3 per cent higher than
the House proposed. Repeal of the investment
credit tax, voted by the House, was watered
down in the Senate version to give special
tax breaks to some corporations, such as the
oil interests operating in Alaska.
The Senate added a $326 per student tax
deduction for taxpayers with youngsters in
college, and a host of other provisions for
particular interests which only a Philadel-
phia lawyer can untangle.
The bill, of course, is not entirely without
virtue. For instance, both houses agreed
that private foundations must be more tight-
ly regulated to deserve tax exemption. And
while they differed on methods, both ver-
sions of the tax bill require foundations to
spend their money and serve the purposes
for which they were avowedly set up.
But by and large the Senate made a
shambles of the bill passed by the House.
And if this measure should survive the
compromise committee in substantially the
form adopted by the Senate, President Nixon
would have no logical choice except to carry
out his threat to veto it, Because the bill,
as it now stands, would seriously cripple Mr.
Nixon's effort to slow down inflation and
positively wreck any hope of getting the
government budget in balance.
But meanwhile there is ground for hope
that Rep. Wilbur D. Mills, chairman of the
House Ways and Means Committee, and his
House colleagues will be stout enough and
persuasive enough in the compromise com-
mittee to strip the bill of much of its costly
gingerbread.
The government, and the taxpayers them-
selves, simply cannot afford the Senate's
Christmas tree in the present state of gov-
ernment finances and when inflation is still
a long way from being effectively restrained.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, I wish
that we could reach the time, as ex-
pressed in these editorials, when the
Senate would act responsibly on a tax
bill.
Apparently we suffer from a frustra-
tion here in the Senate because of the
fact that the Constitution does not Per-
mit us to initiate tax measures; and
when we do get a tax measure, we show
that frustration in rather unlimited de-
gree, as we did in the two instances
which I have already cited in my re-
marks.
Mr. President, my real purpose today
Is to express the strong hope that the
conference committee, representing the
senior members of the appropriate com-
mittees of the two Houses, will come
back with a bill so improved that we
can all gladly support it, and call it a
tax reform bill without calling it a "so-
called" tax reform bill, or a tax reform
bill with a question mark after the word
"ref orm ."
Mr. BYRD of West Virginia. Mr. Presi-
dent, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER, Without
objection, it is so ordered.
THE BIPARTISAN AMENDMENT IN
SUPPORT OF THE PRESIDENT'S
POSITION ON LAOS AND THAI-
LAND
Mr. Gaiall'IN. Mr. President, par-
ticularly in the wake of Vice President's
AGNEW'S criticism of some of the news
media, there has been considerable dis-
cussion of, and focus upon, the objectivity
of news reports. It will be recalled that
some particular concern was indicated
earlier with respect to the New York
Times and the Washington Post.
Although I hesitate to single out these
particular newspapers again, I wish to
indicate my considerable displeasure with
the coverage this morning in both the
New York Times and the Washington
Post of an action that took place yester-
day on the floor of the Senate.
A headline in the Washington Post this
morning reads, "Senate Acts To Curb
Asia Role." The story under that head-
line refers to the amendment cospon-
sored yesterday by the Senator from
Idaho (Mr. CHURCH) and the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT) relating to
policy with respect to the introduction of
United States combat troops in Thailand
and Laos.
The first point I should like to make is
that the headline is misleading. The
Senate did not take any action to "curb"
an Asian role. The intent and the plain
meaning of the amendment ultimately
adopted by the Senate yesterday was to
reaffirm the existing role and existing
policies of the United States with respect
to Thailand and Laos.
Moreover, I notice in both of the re-
ports two disturbing and rather signifi-
cant ommissions. First, there is no refer-
ence whatever to the fact that this par-
ticular amendment was a bipartisan
amendment. The only sponsor indicated
in the two reports is the distinguished
Senator from Idaho (Mr. Climien) ?who
deserves and should receive full credit for
the leadership role that he played in con-
nection with the presentation and dis-
cussion of the amendment. But equally
Important, to the American people, is
the completely ignored and unreported
fact that it was a bipartisan amendment.
Indeed, the amendment was drafted?
and I think most of the people on the
Senate floor and those who were watch-
ing from gallery were aware of the fact
that it was drafted right here in the
Republican cloakroom. In fact, the prin-
cipal Senators involved in its drafting,
along with the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH) were the Senator from Colo-
rado (Mr. ALLOTT) and the Senator from
New York (Mr. JAviTs) ; and as soon as
the Senator from Idaho obtained the
floor and received recognition to offer the
amendment, he acknowledged immedi-
ately the cosponsorship of those two
Republicans.
The second significant and disturbing
omission from the reports in both news-
papers is the fact that the opening lines
of the amendment were these: "In line
with the expressed intention of the Pres-
ident of the United States."
The amendment was not long. In fact,
it was very short. It seems to me that it
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S16810 Approved For Reemtiggm. chsrgqpziBOQ364R000300070001-7
1%-rA-A-AW SENATE December 16, 1(169
could have been reported in full. But
omitted were those very significant in-
troductory words, which make it clear
that what was intended, was a positive
statement on the part of the Senate re-
affirming the declared policy of the
administration. The omission of these
words leaves the reader of these news-
papers with the opposite impression?
that the Senator was Ming a slap at
the administration, which certainly was
not the case.
This is most unfortunate. Whether
or not it was intended by theme who wrote
the stories, that is the way it appears
in print, and in my opinion, some notice
of it should be taken. Follow log a meeting
with the President and ethers at the
White House this morning. I can report
to my fellow Senators that the President
is pleased with the amendment, and he
recognizes that it is in accordance with
his announced policies.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. GRIFFIN. I am happy to yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. The Sena far has men-
tioned very appropriately That the meas-
ure adopted yesterday to which he has
referred was a bipartisna moasure. There
is no question about that. But I wish he
would also take note of the tact that the
measure of which it was Slianly a clari-
fication was also a bipartLan measure.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is awl rect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ator's time has expired.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator
from Michigan may pfteeed for 5
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HOLLAND. It was offered by the
Senator from Kentucky lalfr. COOPER),
who was called away by a serious illness
in his family, and by the Majority leader,
the Senator from Montana Mr. MANS-
So the entire approach to his difficult
question, both the original approach and
the clarifying approach ultimately
adopted, was bipartisan; and I am glad
that the Senator has called attention
to the fact that the action was com-
pletely bipartisan.
Mr. GRIFFIN. The Senator makes an
excellent point.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the BEcolia perti-
nent portions of the two newspaper arti-
cles to which I have referred,
There being no objection, the excerpts
from the articles were ordered to be
printed in the RECORD, as follows:
From the Washington Post, nye. 16, 19691
That Aces To Cults AsiA ROLE---SsNATE Vores
$693 BILLioN IN DEFENSE FUNDS
(By Warren Unna and Richavi Homan)
The Senate, after almost throe hours of
stormy and unusual secret debat fa yesterday
voted 73 to 17 to bar use of new defense
funds "to finance the introductian of Amer-
iean ground combat troops hi Laos and
Thailand."
The Senate then went on to approve a
$69.3-billion appropriation for military
,pending during the current fiscal year. This
eaas $637 million less than an Appropriations
;erasure already heavily cut by the House.
'ate, House had slashed Pentaga a spending
requests by $5.3 billion.
The final Senate vote on the appropria-
tions bill Was 85 to 4. It came after the Sen-
ate rejected a new effort to kill the Nixon
administrations safeguard anti-ballistic mis-
sile program.
The restriction voted on U.S. military ac-
tivities in Laos and Thailand came after
Chairman J. W. Fulbright (D-Ark.) of the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee insisted
that the bill's floor manager give the admin-
istration's reasons for wanting to spend $90
million for U.S. military assistance in neutral
Laos. This sum was described as a $16.7 per
cent increase over last year.
The restrictive amendment, introduced by
Sen. Frank Church (D-Idaho), modified an
earlier motion by Senate Majority Leader
Mike Mansfield (D-Mont.) and Sen. John
Sherman Cooper (R-Ky.) to prevent U.S.
funds from being used to provide anything
but supplies and training to "local forces"
In Laos and Thailand.
"I voice my apprehension over continuing
administration silence over policy in Laos,
where our military involvement appears to
be growing rather than declining," Fulbright
told the Senate in a secret-session statement
he later released to reporters.
"As in Vietnam, the Nixon administration
Inherited a Laotian policy, the senator
acknowledged.
Fulbright's charges came in the wake of
a secret series of investigations a Senate For-
eign Relations subcommittee has been con-
ducting into the extent of U.S. military in-
volvement in Laos. Until now, the adminis-
tration has insisted on such a sanitized pub-
lic version of the transcript that Fulbright
said his committee decided it would be only
"misleading" to publish it.
In his televised press conference last week,
President Nixon said there were "no Amer-
ican combat troops in Laos." But the Presi-
dent did acknowledge for the first time that
the United States is engaged in interdiction
of the Ho Chi Minh Trail from North to
South Vietnam?"as it runs through Laos."
Previously, the United States had acknowl-
edged "armed reconnaissance" flights over
Laos.
Yesterday's Senate action indicated that a
vast majority of the senators now believe
there is either much more than that in-
volved, or that there is about to be. once
the secret session was over and the doors
were open to the public, the senators, by the
tone of their debate, made it plain that they
now were aware of U.S. air sorties into Laos.
And Fulbright, in reading them a series of
letters he has received from military and AID
personnel, as well as from relatives of those
killed and missing in Laos, apparently but-
tressed this Senate awareness.
The $90 million military-aid figure had
been a tightly held secret until Sen. Allen
J. Ellender (D-La.), floor-managing the de-
fense appropriation bill for the hospitalized
Richard B. Russell (D-Ga.), chairman of the
Appropriations Committee, let the cat out of
the bag.
The $90 million was only the Appropria-
tions Committee's recommendation. It was
not known hoar much the Pentagon actually
sought. Mender cryptically referred to it as
going for the purpose of support of the Roy-
al Laotian Army."
It was then that the Senate decided to go
into its closed-door executive session after
overruling a suggestion from Sen. Barry
Goldwater (R-Ariz.) to debate it out in the
open.
The $90 million represents only part of the
money that the United States spends in
Laos.
Under this year's foreign aid bill, Laos is
to get $36.3 million in nalitary "supporting
assistance," as well as $11.9 million in tech-
nical assistance. In addition, there is sus-
picion of an additional sum included in the
secret CIA budget for the support of Laos'
"secret army."
From 1955, when the United States took
over much of the French role in Laos, until
1961, ther.S. gave $01 million in military aid
and $263.9 million in economic aid to Laos.
In 1962, the Geneva accords were worked out
guaranteeing Laos' neutrality and providing
for the withdrawal of both North Vietnamese
and U.S. troops. Further U.S. military ex-
penditures were marked secret.
The U.S. troops were withdrawn from Laos,
as per agreement. But President Nixon em-
phasized in press conference last week that
some 50,000 North Vietnamese troops are
believed to still be in Laos.
In Thailand, which also was included in
yesterday's Senate restriction against U.S.
ground troops, the United States has had a
total of 48.000 Air Force and Army personnel.
On Sept. 30, the White House announced it
would out this figure back by 6,000 by next
July 1?with no appreciable loss in what Was
termed combat capacity.
[From the New York Times, Dec. 16, 1969]
SENATE OPPOSES A GI ROLE IN LAOS?VOTES
TO BAR COMBAT UNITS IN THAILAND TOO,
BUT FINAL BILL 11.1.Ay DROP Cults
(By John W. Finney)
WASHINGTON.?The Senate, after a secret
debate on American military involvement in
the war in Laos, voted today to prohibit the
commitment of American ground combat
troops in either Laos or Thailand.
The prohibition, approved by a vote of 78 to
11, was written into a $69.3-billion defense
appropriations bill.
Whether the prohibition would be retained
In the compromise appropriations bill that
will now be drafted by a Senate-House con-
ference committees appeared doubted. But
Senator J. W. Fulbright, Democrat of Arkan-
sas, expressed the view that, at least, he had
succeeded in bringing to the attention of the
Senate what he described as "our escalating
military activities in Laos."
Before approving the Pentagon budget for
the current fiscal year, the Senate once again
refused?this time by a decisive margin--to
delay deployment of the Safeguard antibal-
listic missile system.
The Senate's first full-scale debate on the
Laotian war was provoked by a group of
critics of the Vietnam war on the Senate For-
eign Relations Committee, but by senator
Fulbright, the committee chairman, and Sen-
ator Mike Mansfield of Montana, the Demo-
cratic leader.
Asserting that the United States was escal-
ating its military activities in Laos, the group
sought to use the defense appropriations bill
to force the Nixon administration to relax
its policy of secrecy on American military ac-
tivities in Laos as well as to place some Con-
gressional restraints on further military in-
volvement in that Southeast Asian country.
Faced with the continued opposition of the
Appropriation and Armed Services commit-
tees, the group was not cormaletely success-
ful in its efforts.
RARE SECRET SESs/ON HELD
It did succeed in forcing the Senate into
a rare secret session for a discussion of the
largely secret American military role in Laos.
During the discussion the Administration
for the first time supplied .to the Senate as
a whole * * * information on American
military activities in Laos, including details
on how American planes were carrying out
bombing strikes in northern Laos in support
of the Royal Laotian Government forces.
When it came to legislative restraints, how-
ever, the group was forced to beat a series
of retreats and the Senate wound up approv-
ing a compromise limited to prohibition of
ground combat troops in Laos and Thailand.
The compromise, put together by Sena for
Frank Church, Democrat of Idaho, specified
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA:RDP711300364R000300070001-7
.-,?
Decem-ber 16, 1#0proved FceaglefffliS2DDWAILMECUREDP-73HINAIBBRO00300070001-7 S 16811
that none of the funds in the defense ap-
propriations bill "shall be used to finance
the introduction of American ground combat
troops into Laos or Thailand."
The United States has military advisers,
including Army Special Forces units, sta-
tioned in Laos to assist Laotian Government
forces as well as a 36,000-man private army
largely supported by the Pentagon and the
Central Intelligence Agency. In addition, at
the request of the Royal Laotian Govern-
ment, American planes are flying armed re-
connaissance missions in Laos.
TROOPS IN LAOS DEN/ED
The Administration, however, has repeat-
edly insisted?as President Nixon did most
recently at his news conference last week?
that the United States has no combat troops
in Laos.
During the course of the Senate debate,
however, it was emphasized by Senator Mans-
field and Senator P'ulbright that United
States Air Force planes stationed in Thai-
land were carrying out bombing missions
against the pro-Communist Pathet Lao and
North Vietnamese troops in northern Laos
in support of Laotian Government forces. At
one point in the debate preceding the secret
session, Senator Mansfield said the number
of sorties by Air Force planes based on Thai-
land had "increased considerably in recent
months."
Much of the debate revolved around the
issue of whether the Senate, through amend-
ments in the defense appropriation bills,
should attempt to restrict or prevent such
air combat missions.
The Church proposal was offered as a sub-
stitute for a broader amendment sponsored
by Senator John Sherman Cooper, Republi-
can of Kentucky, The Cooper amendment,
designed to prevent an American combat in-
volvement in Laos, specified that none of the
defense appropriations "shall be used for the
support of local forces in Laos or Thailand
except to provide supplies, material, equip-
ment and facilities, including maintenance
thereof, or to provide training for such local
forces."
COOPER'S MOTHER STRICKEN
In the absence of Senator Cooper, whose
mother suffered a stroke in Kentucky, the
amendment was offered by Senator Mans-
field.
During the course of the debate some dif-
ferences of opinion developed over whether
the Cooper amendment would prevent con-
tinuation of the air combat missions.
Senator Fulbright?as did aides of Senator
Cooper?interpreted the amendment as pro-
hibiting such air support. But Senator Mans-
field, noting that the Laos war presented a
"dangerous and delicate" situation "tied
closely to the war in Vietnam," said it was
"a moot question" whether the amendment
would prevent bombing missions that osten-
sibly were being conducted against North
Vietnamese troops in Laos.
Mr. MeCLELLAN. Mr. Senator, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. GRiriviN. I am happy to yield to
the Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. McCLELLAN. I recall, too, that
during the course of the discussion of
that amendment, the question was asked
and the information was given to the
Senate that the President had so ex-
pressed himself, and that in fact the
amendment as finally agreed to was act-
ually in support of what the President
had already announced.
Mr. GRIFFIN. That is right.
Mr. MeCLELLAN. That certainly had
something to do with the vote that it
received. I, for instance, have never been
one who wanted to pass legislation in
this field, or take action, that would be
calculated to embarrass the President or
hinder or hamper him in trying to find
a solution to the Vietnam problem.
Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the Senator
very much. At a time when we desper-
ately need unity, it is unfortunate that
in a situation when we have unity, it is
sometimes reflected in the press as dis-
unity, or as though there were differ-
ences with the President which in reality
do not exist.
I wish to mention also, Mr. President,
that the distinguished Senator from Ten-
nessee (Mr. BAKER) a Republican, and
the distinguished Senator from Cali-
fornia (Mr. CRANSTON) , a Democrat, who
were not mentioned earlier, were also
cosponsors of the amendment.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I would
like to talk very briefly on the remarks
of the Senator from Michigan. I think
they very adequately describe how gaps
can appear in the credibility of all Gov-
ernment officials in the minds of the
American public When a matter has been
handled as loosely as the matter was
handled yesterday by the two news-
papers which have been mentioned, the
New York Times and Washington Post.
There is no question that, by the re-
sult of the carrying of the motion to
table the Mansfield-Cooper amendment
with the prestigious name of the major-
ity leader on it?and it was not an ac-
tion against him?that it would have had
to have h_ad the effect that the Senate
was pretty much of a mind on what it
wanted.
Mr. President, reading from page
16760 of the RECORD of yesterday, I
read again the amendment;
On page 46, between lines 8 and 9 in-
sert a new section as follows:
In line with the expressed intention of
the President of the United States, none of
the funds appropriated by this act shall be
used to finance the introduction of Ameri-
can ground troops into Laos or Thailand
without the prior consent of Congress.
Mr. President, I heard no Senator on
the floor?and I was present during the
entire debate on the matter yesterday?
take any position contrary to that. I
think that states the almost unanimous
position of the Senate that we do not
desire to seek ground combat troops in-
troduced into Laos.
However, it implies that this was a
strike against the administration. It is
particularly annoying to me. I regard
myself as a supporter of the present
administration, as I was of the adminis-
trations of President Kennedy and
President Johnson, in the foreign re-
lations area, particularly.
I think it does an injustice to the
President. And I think it does an in-
justice to the U.S. Senate.
The matter of the cosponsorship is,
of course, another matter. It puts a com-
pletely different complexion on the ac-
tion which the Senate took yesterday
In which the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH), the junior Senator from Cali-
fornia (Mr. CRANSTON) , the senior Sena-
tor from New York (Mr. JAms), the
junior Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
BAKER) , and the senior Senator from
Colorado all joined.
I think it was a very worthy effort and
one which contributed and will contrib-
ute very greatly to delineating the re-
lationship between the Chief Executive
and Congress.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had passed, without amendment,
the following bills and joint resolution of
the Senate:
8. 2734. An act granting the consent of
Congress to the Connecticut-New York Rail-
road Passenger Transportation Compact;
S. 3169. An act to amend the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and for
other purposes; and
S.J. Res. 90. Joint resolution to enable the
United States to organize and hold a diplo-
matic conference in the United States in
fiscal year 1970 to negotiate a Patent Coop-
eration Treaty and authorize an appropria-
tion therefor.
The message also announced that the
House had disagreed to the amendments
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 15090)
making appropriations for the Depart-
ment of Defense for the fiscal year end-
ing June 30, 1970, and for other pur-
poses; agreed to the conference asked by
the Senate on the disagreeing votes of
the two Houses thereon, and that Mr.
MAHON, Mr. SLKES, Mr. WHITTEN, Mr.
ANDREWS of Alabama, Mr. FLOOD, Mr.
SLACK, Mr. ADDABBO, Mr. LIPSCOMB, Mr.
MINSHALL, Mr. RHODES, Mr. DAVIS of Wis-
consin, and Mr. Bow were appointed
managers on the part of the House at
the conference.
The message further announced that
the House had passed the following bills
in which it requested the concurrence of
the Senate:
H.R. 9654. An act to authorize subsistence,
patients; withoutcharge, to certain air evacuation
HR. 10124. An act to amend section 2401
of title 28, United States Code, to extend the
time for presenting tort claims accruing to
persons under legal disability;
HR. 13407. An act to consent to the
amendment of the Pacific Marine Fisheries
Compact;
H.R. 13816. An act to improve and clarify
certain laws affecting the Coast Guard;
H.R. 13959. An act to provide for the strik-
ing of medals in commemoration of the many
contributions to the founding and early
development of the State of Texas and the
city of San Antonio by Jose Antonio Navarro;
HR. 14464. An act to amend the Act of
August 12, 1968, to insure that certain facili-
ties constructed under authority of Federal
law are designed and constructed to be ac-
cessible to the physically handicapped;
H.R. 14789. An act to amend title VIII of
the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended,
relating to the Foreign Service Retirement
and Disability System, and for other pur-
poses;
H.R. 15095. An act to amend the Social
Security Act to provide a 15-percent across-
the-board increase in benefits under the old-
age, survivors, and disability insurance pro-
gram; and
HM. 15166. An act authorizing additional
appropriations for prosecution of projects in
certain comprehensive river basin plans for
flood control, navigation, and for other pur-
poses.
The message also announced that the
the House had agreed to the concur-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S 16812 Approved For RepaisiangsgibiglucitegftfleogNigi1030007099geTryttree 1969
rent resolution (H. Con. Res. 454) calling
for the humane treatment and release of
American prisoners of war held by North
Vietnam and the Natibnal Liberation
Front, in which it requested the con-
currence of the Senate.
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The message further announced that
the Speaker had affixed his signature to
the bill (H.R. 11711) to amend section
510 of the International Claims Settle-
ment Act of 1949 to extend the time
within which the Foreign Claims Settle-
ment Commission is required to com-
plete its affairs in connection with the
settlement of claims against, the Govern-
ment of Cuba, and it was signed by the
Vice President.
HOUSE BILLS REFERRED
The following bills were severally read
twice by their titles and referred, as indi-
cated:
H.R. 9664. An act to authorize subsistence,
without charge, to certain air evacuation
patient; to the Committee on Armed
Services.
H.R. 10124. An act to amend section 2401
of title 28, United States Code, to extend the
time for presenting tort claims accruing to
persons under legal disability; and
H.R. 13407. An act to consent to the
amendment of the Pacific Marine Fisheries
Compact; to the Committee on the Judi-
ciary.
H.R. 13816. An act to improve and clarify
certain laws affecting the Coast Guard; to
the Committee on Commerce.
H.R. 13959. An act to provide for the strik-
ing of medals in commemoration of the many
contributions to the founding and early de-
velopment of the State of Texas and the city
of San Antonio by Jose Antonio Navarro; to
the Committee on Banking and Currency.
H.R. 14464. An act to amend the act of
August 12, 1968, to insure that certain facil-
ities constructed under authority of Federal
law are designed and constructed to be ac-
cessible to the physically handicapped; and
H.R. 15166. An act authorizing additional
appropriations for prosecution of projects in
certain comprehensive river basin plans for
flood control, navigation, and for other pur-
poses; to the Committee on Public Works.
H.R. 14789. An act to amend title VIII of
the Foreign Service Act of 1946, as amended,
relating to the Foreign Service Retirement
and Disability System, and for other pur-
poses; to the Committee on Foreign Rela-
tions.
HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION
REFERRED
The concurrent resolution (H. Con.
Res. 454) calling for the humane treat-
ment and release of American prisoners
of war held by North Vietnam and the
National Liberation Front, was referred
to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
CHANGE OF REFERENCE OF S. 3244
AND S. 3245
Mr. HARRIS. Mr. President, on yester-
day, S. 3244 and S. 3245, bills introduced
by me having to do with judgments in
favor of the Sac and Fax Tribe of In-
dians, were referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary.
I am informed by the Parliamentarian
that the new procedure is that the bills
should be referred to the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs.
I ask unanimous consent that the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary be discharged
from further consideration of these bills
and that they be referred to the Commit-
tee on Interior and Insular Affairs.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
WASHINGTON AREA
TRANSPORTATION
Mr. BYFtD of Virginia. Mr. President.
I ask unanimous consent that I may be
permitted to proceed for 6 mfnutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD of Virginia. Mr. President,
I am delighted that this year's appropri-
ations bill for the Department of Trans-
portation makes a start on the rapid
transit system for the Washington area.
The Federal contribution provided for
the Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority is not only welcome
but overdue. It permits a start on what
I believe to be one of the most important
transit systems in the United States.
No one who has occasion to travel in
the District of Columbia, northern Vir-
ginia, and suburban Maryland can doubt
the need for this system. The present
congestion is nearly intolerable, and un-
til adequate public transportation is pro-
vided, it can only get worse.
Those of us who have urged this transit
system for the past several years have
high hopes that it will provide at least
part of the solution for the tremendous
traffic problems facing the National Capi-
tal area.
But while we have high hopes, I think
we must admit that fulfillment is not
going to come quickly. The Transit Au-
thority's own estimates indicate that the
first inner city lines are 3 to 5 years away,
and extensions into the suburbs will not
come for 7 to 10 years. Experience with
construction schedules of major public
works suggests that these estimates are
optimistic.
The colossal traffic jams caused by the
recent bus strike show that the area is
alarmingly close to strangling in its own
traffic. Even under normal conditions, the
congestion on the bridges between north-
ern Virginia and the District of Columbia
is fearsome at peak traffic hours.
I believe that right now is the time to
explore the possibility of improving the
area's public transportation.
If a decade or more passed before any
major improvement is made, we may
come to the point where there will be a
sign on the Virginia side of the Potomac
bridges saying, "Washington: You Can
Not Get There From Here."
I do not believe that day need come. I
think effective action to improve public
transportation?specifically, rail transit
using existing lines?can be taken almost
at once.
I would not for a moment suggest that
the Metro system be held up to accom-
plish short-range improvements. On the
contrary, I think every effort should be
made to build the new system as rapidly
as possible.
At the same time, I believe that short-
run action should be taken. This would
not lead to curtailment of the subway
system; it would riot even serve exactly
the same areas. And in the long run, it is
quite possible that service using existing
lines would be needed as a permanent
supplement to the Metro Transit system.
A number of studies have been made of
ways to exploit existing rail lines to pro-
vide commuter service. The problem has
been investigated by the Northern Vir-
ginia Transportation Commission, the
National Capital Transportation Agency,
and the Washington Metropolitan Tran-
sit Authority itself.
Last year, the Senate Public Works
Committee issued a study incorporating
many of the previous investigations and
making specific recommendations for rail
service. I believe the time has come to
take action on the committee's report or
on some alternate proposal to furnish
augmented rail transit over existing
lines.
A large-scale, cooperative effort will
be required if the Public Works Com-
mittee study, or some feasible alternative,
is to be implemented.
Leaders of the communities must be
involved.
Officials of the railroads and the rail-
road brotherhoods must be involved.
The Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority and transportation
agencies in the localities must be in-
volved.
The U.S. Department of Transporta-
tion must be involved.
Clearly, this is not a simple undertak-
ing. It is a major effort.
But the penalties of failure to act
are severe, and the rewards of success
could be enormous. I believe the effort
must be made. I offer whatever assis-
tance my own office can reasonably pro-
vide:
Working together, we can take the first
steps. Let us hope that next year we can
begin the actual work and funding that
is necessary.
We are already late.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that a brief excerpt from the Senate
Public Works Committee report of July
19, 1968?Document No, 117, 90th Con-
gress, second session?together with a
commentary, be printed in the RECORD
at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
COMMUTER ZONE
STEPS FOR ACT/ON
(1) That a commuter rail service be in-
stituted within 1 year having the following
characteristics:
Trains operating on a through-routed basis
between Germantown, Md., and Manassas,
Va., and between Baltimore, Md., and Quan-
tico, Va.
Trains serving some of the existing on-
line stations as well as several new collec-
tion stations to be constructed, all stations
to be provided with adequate parking and
highway facilities.
Trains providing downtown Washington
accessibility with stops at Union Station
plus one or two new stops that will be con-
structed along the existing right-of-way be-
tween the Bureau of Engraving and South
Capitol Street. The new stops are key essen-
tials to successful patronage of the system.
A feeder-bus network utilizing a combina-
tion of new, specialized shuttle service and
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
S16846
Approved For It.3 11041190L: aftWIBRMAIKO030007Q9Paekber 16, 1969
deed, because the crisis is SO serious in the
organization and delivery of health care,
there are many who argue that we must
make improvements here first, before we can
safely embark on national health insurance.
I believe the opposite is true. The fact that
the time has come for national health in-
surance makes it all the more urgent to pour
new resources into remaking our present
system. The organization and delivery of
health care is so obviously inadequate to
meet our current health crisis that only the
catalyst of national health insurance will
be able to produce the sort of basic revolu-
tion that is needed if we are to escape the
twin evils of a national health disaster or
the Federalization of health care in the
Seventies. To those who say that national
health insurance won't work unless we first
have an enormous increase in health man-
power and health facilities and a revolution
in the delivery of health care, I reply that
suntit we begin moving toward national
health insurance, neither Congress nor the
medical profession will ever take the basic
steps that are essential to reorganize the sys-
tem. Without national health insurance to
galvanize us into action, I fear that we will
simply continue to patch the present system
beyond any reasonable hope of survival.
The need for comprehensive national
health insurance and concomitant changes
in the organization and delivery of health
care in the United States is the single most
important issue of health policy today. If
we are to reach our goal of bringing ade-
quate health care to all our citizens, we
must have full and generous cooperation
between Congress, the Administration, and
the health profession. We already possess
the knowledge and the technology to achieve
our goal. All we need is the will. The chal-
lenge is enormous, but I am confident that
we are equal to the task.
SECRECY ABOUT ACTIVITIES
IN LAOS
Mr. PULBRICrl-IT. Mr. President, the
Senate debate yesterday, both during the
open and the closed sessions, took us a
little closer to the goal of removing the
official secrecy in which our activities in
Laos have been cloaked since the Ken-
nedy administration.
The awkward and fragile nature of
that secrecy becomes more apparent as
pieces of our activity in Laos gradually
emerge for public view. The President
himself last week added to the public's
knowledge with the statement that, in
his words, "we are also interdicting the
Ho Chi Minh Trail as it runs through
Laos." I do not believe that an Ameri-
can official prior to that time had pub-
licly acknowledged that activity.
?Yesterday, the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. ELLENDER), as acting floor manager
of the Defense Appropriations Act, stated
that that measure includes "approxi-
mately $90 million for the support of the
Royal Laotian Army." That represented,
I believe, the first time a figure had been
publicly disclosed.
My point today is that these are facts
the American public deserves to have
before it just as the Senate deserved to
have the full details of our operations
in and over Laos yesterday in order to
deal responsibly with the proposed legis-
lation before it.
The President's statement about in-
terdiction and Senator ELLENDER'S mili-
tary assistance figure were both incom-
plete. Therefore, both statements were
unfortunately misleading if used to im-
ply a total description of what we are
doing in Laos or the cost to the Ameri-
can people of our activities there.
I would hope that the administration
will seriously study yesterday's Senate
debate and reconsiders its position on
continuing the secrecy of our Laos in-
volvement. As the Senator from Arizona
(Mr. GOLDWATER) put it yesterday dur-
ing the open session:
I was in Thailand two days ago and there
are no major secrets there as to what we are
doing.
Mr. President, unlike Senator GOLD-
WATER, the people of the United States
cannot go to Thailand to get the facts
on what we are doing there and in Laos.
The time has come for their Govern-
ment to tell them?directly and with the
detail that permits them to understand
that policy which clearly involves both
war and peace and the spending of
American lives and dollars.
PAUL PETZOLDT, MOUNTAIN MAN
Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, in an age
of increasing creature comforts and the
luxuries of civilization, there remains a
need for the true men of the outdoors?
for those who will use the challenges of
nature to temper the new generation.
Such a man lives in Lander, Wyo. His
name is Paul Petzoldt. He runs the Na-
tional Otitdoor Leadership School, whose
campus is the Wind River Mountains of
Wyoming. He teaches outdoor life, con-
servation, and survival as perhaps no one
else 0fin or does. But more, what he
teaches is confidence?a badly needed
commodity always. Life magazine, in its
current issue, profiles Paul Petzoldt and
his school, and writer Jane Howard, in
that article, sums up his message to his
students when she writes:
Petzoldt keeps saying he is no missionary,
but Somehow he transmits an evangelistic
message: you are more and better and
stronger than you ever thought you could be,
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that Jane Howard's article entitled
"Last Mountain Man? Not If He Can
Help It," published in Life, be printed in
the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
LAST MOUNTAIN MAN??NOT I' HE CAN
HELP IT
(By Jane Howard)
If I could choose somebody to be stranded
with on a desert island, or to get me out of
any dilemma from a flat gre to the charge of
an enraged bull moose duTing a lightning
storm, I would instantly and-confidently ask
for Paul Petzoldt.
I'd have good reason. For one thing, Pet-
zoldt is reassuring just to look at, reminding
one as he does of Santa Claus, Falstaff and
Hercules. Ile is six feet one inch tall, weighs
240 pounds and has gigantic circumflex brows
over slightly slanted blue eyes. He is also
transfixing to listen to, using words like alp-
englow, timberline and scarify to tell of
nearly 62 years of adventure?set not only in
Wyoming, where he lives, but the Himalayas,
the Alps and even flatlands and offices.
More to the point, Petzoldt would get us
both out of there, wherever "there" might be,
with more finesse than anyone I know of.
We'd end up safe, warm, and a little sorry it
all was over, because adventure is to Petzoldt
what hymns are to a choirmaster. It has been
not only his livelihood but his delight ever
since 1924, when the first pair of dudes hired
him to guide them up the Teton mountains.
"I guess I've never been afraid to try any-
thing," he says, and I guess he's probably
right.
But he is not merely intrepid. Besides his
gusto for skirmishes with the elements, he
has a militant reverence for the natural
world, as those whom he ushers into the
wilderness soon learn. Once he made two boys
walk back 12 miles to pick up a couple of
pieces of tinfoil.
Petzoldt legends abound. He holds the
world record for spending the longest con-
tinuous time at an altitude of more than
20,000 feet without artificial oxygen. He has
Invented a widely used system of signals for
rope climbers, started the first mountain-
eering guide service in the United States, and
probably made more first ascents of moun-
tains than anyone in this country.
He knows the Tetons and the wind River
Mountain Range the way a good cabbie knows
The Bronx. Once, when nobody else dared
climb to the top of the Tetons to investigate
a plane crash, he and a ranger made a three-
day ascent in a whiteout blizzard, to discover
23 corpses. Another time, when a hapless
parachutist had been trapped for a week atop
a 5,117-foot volcano plug, Petzoldt led the
rescue.
Once he skied seven days in howling winds
and ?30? weather, to dig through 10 feet
of snow in search of uranium, only to find
himself the victim of a hoax: the rock sam-
ple that had sent him off turned out to
be from the Belgian Congo. Once he stayed
in an Arizona canal all day to avoid walking
barefoot on the sizzling rocks. He has also
been known to kill an elk with a pocket-
knife, walk a tightrope, and disguise him-
self as a Sikh potentate during an anti-
Western street riot in Calcutta. He has
played water polo and football, raised
alfalfa, hopped freights, and been a chef, a
fur trapper, a downhill and slalom ski cham-
pion, a traveling lecturer, a golfer, a used
car salesman and a dude rancher.
"Once," says an old friend "Paul and Gene
Tunney nearly came to blo:ws in my living
room in an argument over Chinese politics.
I had to strain to keep them apart, because
I wasn't at all sure Gene would win." Once
Pertzoldt bicycled all the 400 miles from Basle
to Antwerp without a centime in his pocket.
Once he gave some thought to running for
Congress. Earlier he yearned to be a rodeo
rider, "but a horse named Appendicitis
changed my mind about that." Never mind.
If someone told me Petzoldt had a blue ox
named Babe or could literally leap tall build-
ings with a single bound, I wouldn't be too
surprised.
Now, at a point in life when most men face
retirement, Petzoldt is plunged into an in-
volving new venture. His National Outdoor
Leadership School, founded in 1965 and af-
filiated with the University of Wyoming and
Kansas State Teachers College is growing so
fast it keeps him in the mountains all but
four or five nights every summer and ab-
sorbs his year-round attention. The NOLS
campus, in Wyoming, is the rugged Wind
River Mountain Range, some of which has
never been accurately mapped.
NOLS students, mostly in their teens and
twenties, flock by the hundreds from all over
the country and the world for five-week
courses. Divided into patrols of 12, they
carry everything they will need in backpacks
that can weigh more than 40 pounds. There
Is no weaving of lanyards, no compulsory
singing of jolly songs around campfires. The
students eat what they carry and find and
catch, sleep in tents, and read topographical
maps so they can plot their own 500-mile
itineraries up and down through arctic and
tundra zones, learning as they travel to
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7
December 16, 13 roved Frez?q6AtitR9A1/011tEE&BDID7s1MR3A1R000300070001-7 S16845
of national health insurance. The first com-
prehensive compulsory national health insur-
ance was enacted in Prussia in 1854.
Throughout the Twentieth century, proposals
have been periodically raised for an. American
program, but never, until recently, 'ti,7 al great
chance of success.
National health insurance was a major
proposal of Theodore Roosevelt during his
campaign for the Presidency in 1012. Shortly
before the First World War, a similar proposal
managed to gain the support of the American
Medical Association, whose orientation then
was far different than it is today. During the
debate on social security in the Thirties, the
issue was again raised, but without success.
Today, the prospect is better. In lsrge part
it is better because of the popularity at Medi-
care and the fact that many other eceat na-
ionel health programs have been suceessfully
launched. The need for national health in-
surance has become more compelling, and its
absence is more conspicuous. In part, the
prospect is good because the popular demand
for change in our existing health system is
consolidating urgent and widespread new
support for a national health insurance pro-
gram as a way out of the present oriels.
For more than a year, I have been privileged
to serve as a member of the Comna ttee for
National Health Insurance, founded by
Walter Reuther, whose goal has been to mobi-
lize broad public support for a national
health insurance program in the United
States. Two months ago in New York City, the
Reuther Committee sponsored a major con-
ference, attended by officers and representa-
tives of more than 65 national organizations,
to consider a tentative blueprint for a na-
tional health insurance program. At the time
of the conference, I commended Mr. Reuther
for the extraordinary progress his Committee
has made. I look forward to the future de-
velopment of the program. Already, it offers
one of the most attractive legislative pro-
posals that is likely to be presented for our
consideration next year in Congress.
We must recognize, therefore, that a great
deal of solid groundwork has already been
laid toward establishing a national health
insurance program. It is for this reason that
I believe it is time to transfer the debate
from the halls of the universities and the
offices of professors to the public arena?to
the hearing rooms of Congress and to the
offices of your elected representatives.
Early next year, at the beginning of the
second session of the 91st Congress. I intend
to introduce legislation proposing the sort
of comprehensive national health insurance
legislation that I believe is most appropriate
at the current stage of our thinking. The
mandate of the Medicaid Task Force in the
Department of Health, Education and Wel-
fare has been expanded to investigate this
area, and I urge the Administration to pre-
pare and submit its own proposals.
Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas has
told me that, as Chairman of the Senate
Subcommittee on Health, he will schedule
comprehensive hearings next year on na-
tional insurance. Our immediate goal should
be the enactment of legislation laving the
cornerstone for a comprehensive health in-
surance program before the adjournment of
the 91st Congress. This is an issue we can
and must take to the people. We can achieve
our goal only through the mobilization of
millions of decent Americans, concerned
with the high cost and inadequate organi-
zation and delivery of health care in the
nation.
Last week on the floor of the Senate, we
wisnessed the culmination of what has been
one of the most powerful nationwide, legis-
lative reform movements since I joined the
Senate?the taxpayers' revolution. It now
appears likely that by the end of this month,
there will be /aid on the President % desk the
best and most comprehensive tax reform
pill in the history of the Federal income tax,
a bill that goes far toward producing a more
equitable tax system.
We need the same sort of national effort
for health?we need a national health revo-
lution, a revolution by the consumers of
health care that will stimulate action by
Congress and produce a more equitable
health system.
Because of the substantial groundwork
already laid, I believe that we can agree on
three principles we should pursue in pre-
paring an effective program for national
health insurance: ..
First, and most important, cur guiding
principle should be that the athount and
quality of medical care an individual re-
ceives is not a function of his income. There
should be no difference between health care
for the suburInVand health care for the
ghetto, between' health care for the rich and
health care 4r the poor.
Second, tl program should be as broad
and as com ehensive as possible, with the
maximum f ee choice available to each
health consu er in selecting the care he
receives.
Third the cos of the program should be
borne on a prograasive basis related to the
income level of thoslawho participate in the
program.
I believe there is no naed now to lock \our-
selves into a specific meth d of financing the
Insurance program. There re distinct ad-
vantages and disadvantages sto each of the
obvious alternative financin
have been proposed?financin
eral revenues of the Treasury,
credits, out of Social Security
n
or out of another independe
that could be created specificall
purpose.
At the present time, I lean toward
csa of financing that would be based
eral Treasury revenues, with suflicien
antees to avoid the vagaries of the
priations process that have plagued th
gress so much in recent years.
I recognize the obvious merit of th
credit and social security approac
particular, Social Security financing
the important advantage that it Is a
anism that Americans know and trus
the thirty-five years of its existence,
Security has grown into a program tha
the abiding respect and affection of hun
of millions of Americans. In 1966, it d
strated its capacity to broaden its la
by its successful implementation
Medicare program. To many, therefo e, So-
cial Security is the obvious vehicle o em-
brace a program for national heal insur-
ance, and soothe the doubts and spicions
that will inevitably besiege th program
when it is launched.
At the same time, however, we must recog-
nize the obvious disadvantanes of Social
Security financing. Under theaSocial Security
system, the payroll tax is heavily regressive.
The poor pay far too hig a proportion of
their income to Social Sec ty than our mid-
dle or upper income izens. Today, at a
time when Congress 1 about to grant major
new tax relief to al come groups, I believe
it would be es ally inappropriate to fi-
nance a n I health insurance program
through the conventional but regressive pro-
cedures of Social Security, rather than
through the progressive procedures of the
Federal income tax laws.
I wish to make clear, however, that I am
not now rejecting an approach that would
finance national health insurance by a mod-
ified approach through the Social Security
System. By the use of payroll tax exemptions
arid appropriate contributions from the Fed-
eral Government, it may be possible to con-
struct a program that will build in the sort
of progression that all Americans can ac-
cept. The important point here is that we
must discuss these possibilities in a national
methods that
out of gen-
out of tax
rust Fund,
t
st fund
for the
meth-
n gen-
guar-
Pro-
Con-
-tax
In
ffers
eh-
. In
? cial
has
reds
on-
Iron
the
forum, and weigh the alternatives in the
critical light of open hearings and national
debate.
We must be candid about the costs of na-
tional health insurance. In light of our
present budgetary restrictions, the price tags
applied to the various health insurance pro-
grams are too high. They range from about
$10 billion for "Medicredit," the AMA pro-
posal, to about $40 billion for the Reuther
proposal. It is therefore unrealistic to sup-
_ppm at a total comprehensive program can
be Jamie all at once.
We can all gee. however, that it is time
to begin. In light of the fiscal reality, the
most satisfactory approach is to set a goal
for full implementation of the program at
the earliest opportanity. I believe that the
goal should be 1975, The legislation we enact
should reflect our firm ccroamitment to this
target date. HalfWay through the decade of
the Seventies, we should have a comprehen-
sive national health insurance program in
full operation for all Americans.
I have already stetted my view that legisla-
tion establishing the progeam should be en-
acted next year. In January, 1971, we should
begin to phase-in a program that will reach
out to all Americans by the end. of 1975. To
meet that timetable, we should establish
coverage in the firet year-1971--for all in
pre-school -Children, and adolescents
in elementary and secondary schools. In each
of the following four years, we should expand
the coverage by approximately ten-years age
groups, so that by the end of /9'75, all per-
sons up to age 65 will be covered by the pro-
gram, and the existing Medicare program can
be phased in completely with the new com-
prehensive insurance.
The idea of phasing in children first should
receive wide support, both from the popula-
tion as a whole and from the medical pre,-
fession as well. As a nation today, the United
States is the wealthiest and most highly de-
veloped medical society in the world, but we
rank 14th among the major industrial na-
tions in the rate of infant mortality, and
12th in the percealage of mothers who die
in childbirth. In mite air our wealth and
technology, we have tolerated disease and
ill-health in generations of our children. We
have failed to eliminate the excessive toll of
their sickness, retardatiort, disability and
death.
Equally important, we are already close to
the level of manpower needed ta implement
a national health Insurance program for our
youth. American Medicine is equal to the
challenge. We have a solid tradition of excel-
lence in pediatric training, with a strong and
growing supply of experienced pediatricians,
pediatric nurses, and allied manpower.
Moreover, by beginning our new program
with youth and child care, it will be easier
for the medical profession to implement the
changes in the delivery system that must ac-
company any effective national health in-
surance program. And, the changes that we
make in the delivery system for pediatric
care will give us valuable experience and
insights into the comparable but far more
difficult changes that will be necessary in the
delivery of care to adults as the insurance
program is phased in over subsequent yeare.
Finally, by phasing in the insurance pro-
gram over a period of years, I believe we can
avoid a serious objection that will other-
wise be raised?that national health Insur-
ance will simply exacerbate our current in-
flation in medical costs by producing even
greater demand for medical care without
providing essential changes in the organiza-
tion and delivery system.
We know from recent experience that
changes in the organization and delivery of
health care in the United Statea will come
only by an excruciating national effort.
Throughout our society today, there is per-
haps no institution more resistant to change
than the organized medical profession. In-
Approved For Release 2001/11/01 : CIA-RDP71600364R000300070001-7