THE DIRECTOR

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 24
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 24, 2005
• Sequence Number: 32
• Publication Date: October 5, 1971
• Content Type: FORM

NCLAI d For
11/21: CIA-RDP73BL0, 9 b hJ 2-9 U SECRET
ROUTh4G AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT, (Optional)
FROAAs
EXTENSION
NO.
L
i
l
ti
C
l
eg
s
a
ve
ounse
DATE
5 October 1971
TO, (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
OFFICER'S
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
R
RECEIVED
FORWARDED
INITIALS
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
1.'
The Director
Attached for your information
is the Congressional Record
2.
coverage of the debate on the
Symington amendment.
l i
t
f
i
t
P
eres
assages o
spec
a
n
3.
are marked or underscored.
There are no references to
4,
an investigation of the Agency.
Stennis in his closing state-
ment refutes much of what
?
Symington says about the
unavailability of information on
b.
expenditures in Laos. He also
maintains that the Symington
amendment does not add any
7.
power to the Congress' legisla-
tive control, that what has been
going on in Laos has not violated
8.
any law, and that nothing wrong
has been done.
9.
John M. Maury
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
61 Q U` MTE C) SECRET [] CONFIDENTIAL ^ us ONLY
^ UHCLA.Ss1 FI Ern
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9
 IS. 15762 Approved For fi lM R(a P7-3BHM` R0005000300Vt9ober 4, 1971
Mr. ALLOTT. Now, Mr. President, I
am ready, if the distinguished Senator
from Mississippi, the chairman of the
committee, is ready, and I am perfectly
willing to ask for a quorum call to be
taken out of both sides. I want to be
sure that we have a recorded vote on
this matter, and when we have enough
Senators in the Chamber, we can ask
for yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas
and nays have previously been ordered.
Mr. ALLOTT. If they have been or-
dered, Mr. President, I think we should
have a short quorum call. I suggest the
absenceof a quorum,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk'
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
Me PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLOTT. If it is agreeable to the
chairman of the committee, the man-
ager of the bill, I am willing to yield
back the remainder of my time, if he is
willing to yield back his, and we can
then proceed, the yeas and nays having
been ordered, to vote on amendment
No. 430.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if there
is no one who wishes time, I am ready
to yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. ALLOTT. I yield back the re-
mainder of my time.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENT-
SEN). All remaining time having been
yielded back, the question is on agree-
ing to the amendment No. 430 of the
Senator from Colorado, as modified. On
this question, the yeas and nays have
been ordered, and the clerk will call
the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that the
Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Bull-
DICK), the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. BYRD), the Senator from Idaho (Mr.
CHURCH), the Senator from Missouri
(Mr. EAGLETON), the Senator from Mis-
sissippi (Mr. EASTLAND), the Senator
from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator
from Michigan (Mr. HART), the Senator
from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE), the Sen-
ator from South Carolina (Mr. HoL-
LINGS), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr.
HUMPHREY), the Senator from Louisiana
(Mr. LONG), the Senator from Washing-
ton (Mr. MAGNUSON), the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), the Senator
from Connecticut. (Mr. RISrcoFF), the
Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Mc
? INTYRE) , the Senator from Alabama
(Mr. SPARKMAN), and the Senator from
Nevada (Mr. CANNON) are necessarily ab-
sent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE), the Senator
from New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA), and
the Senator from Georgia (Mr. TAL-
MADCE) are absent on official business.
I further announce that, if present
and voting, the Senator from North
Dakota (Mr. BURDICK), the Senator from
Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from
Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), the Sen-
ator from Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE), the
Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBI-
coFF), the Senator from New Hampshire
(Mr. MCINTYRE), the Senator from In-
diana (Mr. HARTKE), the Senator from
Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), and the
Senator from New Mexico (Mr. MoN-
xoYA) would each vote "yea."
Mr. SCOTT. I announce that the Sen-
ator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT) is absent
on official business.
The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr.
BELLMON), the Senator from New Hamp-
shire (Mr. COTTON), the Senator from
Kansas (Mr. DOLE), the Senator from
Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN), the Senator
from New York (Mr. JAVITS), the Sen-
ator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY), and the
Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER) are
necessarily absent.
The Senator from South Dakota (Mr.
MUNDT) is absent because of illness.
The Senator from Tennessee (Mr.
BROOK), and the Senator from Con-
necticut (Mr. WEICKER) are detained on
official, business.
If present and voting, the Senator
from Tennessee (Mr. BROCK), the Sen-
ator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE), the Sen-
ator from New York (Mr. JAVITS), the
Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY), and
the Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER)
would each vote "yea."
The result was announced-yeas 65,
nays 4, as follows:
[No. 247 Leg.]
YEAS-66
Aiken
Fannin
Nelson
Allen
Fong
Packwood
Allott
Gambrell
Pastore
Anderson
Goldwater
Pearson
Baker
Gurney
Pell
Bayh
Hansen
Proxmire
Beall
Harris
Randolph
Bentsen
Hatfield
Roth
Bible
Hruska
Saxbo
Boggs
Hughes
Schweiker
Brooke
Inouye
Scott
Buckley
Jackson
Spong
Byrd, Va.
Jordan, N.C.
Stafford
Case
Jordan, Idaho
Stennis
Chiles
Mansfield
Stevens
Cook
Mathias
Symington
Cooper
McClellan
Taft
Cranston
McGovern
Thurmond
Curtis
Metcalf
Tunney
Dominick
Miller
Williams
Ellender
Moss
Young
Ervin
Muskie
NAYS-4
Fuibright
Kenned
Smith
Stevenson
y
NOT VOTING-31
Bellmon
Gravel
Mondale
Bennett
Griffin
Montoya
Brock
Hart
Mundt
Burdick
Hartke
Percy
Byrd, W. Va.
Hollings
Ribicofl
Cannon
Humphrey
Sparkman
Church
Javits
Talmadge
Cotton
Long
Tower
Dole
Magnuson
Weicker
Eagleton
McGee
Eastland
McIntyre
So Mr. ALLOTT'S amendment (No. 430)
was agreed to.
Mr. DOLE subsequently said: Mr.
President, this morning I was unavoid-
ably detained in returning to Washington
from Kansas and narrowly missed the
rollcall on the amendment sponsored by
the distinguished senior Senator from
Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT). Had I been
present it would have been my privilege to
join with the overwhelming majority of
my colleagues in approving the Senator
from Colorado's proposal to provide sub-
stantial pay increases to members of the
armed services. Having voted in favor of
the earlier, Senate-passed version of the
pay increase, I was gratified that Senate
approval of this measure was achieved
today.
It is important to keep in mind that
raising military pay scales is a matter of
high national priority for two very crucial
reasons. First, by increasing the pay of
our men and women in uniform we fulfill
an obligation to recognize and reward the
contributions they are making to the
maintenance of our national defense, In
many cases their pay is woefully inade-
quate and totally unjustified in terms of
the responsibilities they bear and the
obligations they owe to themselves and
their families. And second, by putting
military pay in closer competition with
civilian wages we take a significant step
toward ending the draft and creating an
all-volunteer military force. For, only
by making a military career attractive
and secure monetarily, can we hope to
draw to it the type of individuals needed
to fulfill the requirements of modern na-
tional defense.
I commend the Senator from Colorado
for his leadership in seeking to upgrade
the pay scales of the Armed Forces and
for his longstanding concern and devo-
tion to the men and women who wear
the uniform of the United States so
proudly and with such great distinction
to themselves and their Natign.
ORDER FOR STAR PRINT OF S. 2620
Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that a star print be ordered
for S. 2620, the East-West Trade Ex-
change Act of 1971, introduced by the
Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNU-
SON) on Thursday, September 30, 1971.
Due to an inadvertence, -an incorrect text
was attached when the bill was intro-
duced for referral,
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
BENTSEN). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
MILITARY. PROCUREMENT AU-
THORIZATIONS, 1972
The Senate continued with the con-
sideration of the bill (H.R. 8687) to au-
thorize' appropriations during the fiscal
year 1972 for procurement of aircraft,
missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat
vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons,
and research, development, test, and
evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to
prescribe the authorized personnel
strength of the Selected Reserve of each
Reserve component of the Armed Forces,
and for other purposes.
AMENDMENT NO. 434
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.
STEVENSON). Pursuant to the previous
order, the Senate will now proceed to the
consideration of amendment No. 434 by
the Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMING-
TON), which the clerk will report.
The,assistant legislative clerk read as
follows:
The Senator from Missouri (Mr. SymiNc-
ToN) proposes amendment No. 434 as fol-
lows:
At the end of the bill add a new section as
follows:
"SEc. 506. (a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no funds authorized to be
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9
 Ap ed For Rele jAMLb'W N a DO2 i1405D0030032-9 0 Ito i vts
October 4, fr
ropriated by this or any other ace in ay, 1110 11,100"111111 a 6?N=w--?- - - vested. Those facts prove conclusively
be bligated or expended in any amount in eded to call the roll.
exce of ~20o,000 00a for the purpose df r M? ALLOTT. Mr. President,14 ask that there has been a continuing and
carryi 1g out directly or indirectly any ecb- una fmous consent that the o - er for growing American involvement.
nomic r military assistance, or any opera- the orum call be rescinded. The only conclusion that can be drawn
tion, p ject, or program of any kind, orj"for The RESIDING OFFICEWithout would appear to be that if there is to be
providin any goods, supplies, materials, any limit on the increasing cost and
ObjeCti it is so ordered.
personnel, or advisers in,
r se vices
_ _ ..r.,
r,.. ..:.;.,...+ r move scope of our involvement in Laos, it will
,
Mr
a
hi
b
w-_ _
y
=? ~-
hat the w e
year endin, June 30, 1972. titutional
? (b) In omputing the X200,000,000 1;m- was agree to be reconsl Bred. by means of its cons right to
station on bligation and expenditur au- Mr. STEI~NIS. Mr, P1~ sident, I move appropriate, with understanding, the
thority una r subsection (a) of this s ction to lay that otion on t 11e table, funds necessary to conduct war,
in fiscal yea 1972, there shall be included Mr. PASTO E. Mr. president, I move It is now clear that for years the Con-
in the comp ration the value of anyit/goods, to lay the mo 'on on :the table. gress has been appropriating money in
supplies, ma Crisis, or equipment p ovi The PRESI NG FFICER. Another the blind to finance this Laotian war. We
to, for, or o behalf of Laos in sugh fiscal al
year by gift, Iloration, loan, lease, 2r other- amendment is n ng at the moment, have not had knowledge of how much spent; nor
wise. For th purpose of this st bseotion, and it will take animous consent to
haveywe was knowledge being of how any
vises to, fan r on behalf of Laos, ut in no unanimous consent that I may move
case less than 3 1/3 per centum of Mike amount reconsider the tote 11 which the amend- I offer today is to place the Congress in
a position to exercise its constitutional
the United Sates paid at the time such
reed to
a
t
.
was
g
gen
goods, supplies materials, or equipment were The PRES ING ICER. Is there responsibilities with regard to U.S. ac-
acquired by th United States. I
(c) No fun s may be obugated or ex- objection to the reque t of the Senator tivities in Laos; an objective which can
pended for. any f the purposestdescribed in from Color do? The 'C air hears none, only be achieved provided the Congress
subsection (a) if this section in, to, for, or and it is s ordered. places some overall ceiling on the amount
tio to rahl 9 of money that can be spent in Laos and
_
ar beginning
e h
?--?,
ye
mo
iS ther
in any
t
o
after June 30, 10t72, unless such funds have Mr. PASTORE. I so mov also takes steps
been specifically authorized ~?y law enacted The Motion to lay on t e table was after the fact, the nature of ou>:acti es
after the date of nactment,of this Act. In in Laos.
. no case shall spp in any ainount in excess agMr ALLOTT. Mr, Preside\j_l. uggestUntil now, there has been no ceiling
of the amount t spe be by ailthorized by law whatever on the amounts this Nation
for any iscal year i i bligated or expended th0 Eybsence Of a quorum.
for any such purpo a during such fiscal year. Tl1e PRESIDING OFFICEa clerk could spend in this war; indeed, there
"(d) The o s oY s bsections (a) sea wiV call the roll. ?~^ has been little information available
shout ,.. hat. our representatives have been
obii
--
d
ditur
o vase
-
spe
Ceded LV call ulna. roll.
g` '- ?
funds to carry out co bat air operations Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Presider I ask . declared Laotian, war to the American
over the so-called 11o Chi Minh trails in
us consent that the ordc?r for taxpayer have risen steadily as our in-
i
mo
unan
southern Laos, and vlr areas immediately"
adjacent to such trail , pt' United states miii ~-~11d -----? - volvement in Laos-both our direct in-
tart' forces. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With ut volvement and our indirect involvement
"(e) After the dot of enactment of thi objection, it is so ordered. through the use of Thai troops-has
Act, whenever any request is made to. th CONTROL OF THE COST OF THE SECRET WAR IN steadily deepened.
Congress for the appigpriation of funds fo LAOS I believe that many in this chamber
will be surprised, even now, to learn the
use in, for, or on behhlt, of Laos for any fists Mr. SYIVlINQ. Mr. President, to-
year, the President,sh' 11 furnish a written degree of the rise in the costs and our
report to the Congress explaining the pur day auld propose for the Senate's activities, year s year.
pose for which sue fu ds are to be used i consideration a revised version of an
such fiscal year. p amendment to the military procurement The figures on the cost of the military
(f) The President s -all ? submit to th authorization bill which I proposed erigi- assistance program that were obtained
Congress within lrty d ys after the end o pally during consideration of the bill by by the staff of the Subcommittee on U.S.
each quarter oft
ch s al year ins the Armed Services Committee. Security Agreements and Commitments
with the fiscal /year whi h begins July 1, This amendment, with one exception, Abroad from our officials in Laos do pro-
1971, a writte)}l report s sowing the total v,ould establish a ceiling of $200 million vide one index,
a In 1963, the year in which the military
half of amount La ,'osfuEi rlsuxing the the prepxeein, erring for, qurartton of eorbe- by on U.S. expenditures in Laos during the
.. _ sag,...., 1972 for economic airl miii- ~;~+ar,ne nrnmram hpeon flip staff was
clude in suo report a genes 1 breakdown of tart' assistance, and all other U.S. aCtivi- told that the cost-the amount actually
the total amount expended describing the ties. That exception would be costs con- spent-was $11.9 million.
different p1irposes for whi such funds nected with combat air operations by During the following year, 1964, the
were expel ded , and the tot amount ex- U.S. forces over the Ho Chi Minh trail cost rose to $21.4 million.
needed for/such purpose.a ? area in Southern Laos.
The P ESIDING OFFICE . The time . We now know that for' at least 10 years In 1965, that cost reached $40.8 mil-
on the amendment is' limited to 5 hours. ' the U.S. Government has been conduct- lion; in 1966, $59.7 million, and in 1967,
Who yi lds time? ing a war in Laos. I might add, inasmuch $80.8 million.
th
ca1
ear 10171 the coat had
fi
e
s
y
rulvli,r;u>; D.
Mr. Mr. re"sent fore the Committee on Foreign Relations risen to $162.2 million.
/ NSFIELD. Mr. Pres, will la._x h.. .....n _,.+ c,,_ f;oan, 10172 ,x,h;lp
MANSFIELD "gr. Preside t, I ask that the functioning 01 tfns war gas peen -million in new opllga> Ionai au>uor1 y, bile
una)'iimous consent that James owen directed by the Central Intelligence Armed Services Committee has been told
stein, Richard Moose, and, Ka erine Agency. We have been using funds pro- that the program cost-that is the
.~.,~ ,,... n........:..
r-a
pa
ers and aggro- ,high. actually ,trill be spent
a
x
y
-
i (M
Mi
r.
sled ADVL1at1VL 1LV111
ssour
MINGTON) be granted the privil ge of thorization of the Congress; and largely In other words, the cost of military as-
a.
hout
- --
41 11VV1 dUllllg Ulle deVa~e Vll Ya1G -"-"""'-'--
-
a endment. Ously without the consent-of either the' cal year 1963 and fiscal year 1965; dou;
uggest the absence-of a quorum w - -' behind a screen of official secrecy. as large as it was in the fiscal year 1967;
W ill call- the roll. . regarding the participation of this Na- when it all began in secrecy 9 years ago.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9
 i irk Approved For Release 20094 4/22VJ IG c- ~0296R0005a0030032-9
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield so that I may ask a
question?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to the Senator from Rhode Island.
Mr. PASTORE. I would like to ask the
distinguished Senator from Missouri
whether this limitation would in any way
impede or contribute to the danger of our
troops that are being Withdrawn from
Vietnam. The argument would be made
and I wonder what the Senator's reaction
would be to that question.
Mr sYMTN rO . I would say to my
able friend from Rhode Island that we
have been careful to exclude the bomb-
ing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in order
that we would not be justifiably criticized
for doing anything to affect the. with-
drawal of our troops from Vietnam. The
position taken by the administration in
this matter is that any limitation of any
kind on what we are doing over there is
wrong.
I worry about this a great deal. The
Prime Minister of Laos, who is currently
in town, asked the People's Republic of
China to build roads in northern Laos
for him, and they are now doing so.
Therefore, in areas adjacent to where
our bombers and fighters are operating
in northern Laos, we are running the
danger of hitting some' of those thou-
sands of Red Chinese in northern Laos.
Our operations in northeren Laos have
little to do with the operations going on
in southern Laos, hundreds of miles
away and, therefore, are separate from
our operations in South Vietnam.
Few, if any, Members of this body
could have been aware of the steadily
mounting cost of our military program in
Laos, because before this year the actual
costs of the total program had never
been assembled and presented to the
Congress; or even to the Armed Services
Committee.
Armed Services Committee in terms of
a new authorization of $125.8 million. At
roughly the same time, two members of
the staff of the Subcommittee on U.S.
Security Agreements and Commitments
Abroad of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee were in Vientiane; and there
learned that the estimate of the 1972
military assistance program actually be-
ing planned for Laos was nothing like
the $125.8 million, but actually was
$252.1 million, just twice the amount de-
scribed to the Armed Services Commit
tee.
Prior to ,this year, the only figures
available to Senators, even on a classi-
fied basis, for the cost of the U.S. Lao-
tian operations were the amounts of the
classified requests for new obligational
military assistance authority and the
public figure for the AID program. The
total of these two figures revealed a cost
much greater than anything the public
could have known, but this amount was
still only a portion of what was actually
being spent in Laos.
In the fiscal year 1971, for example,
as noted above, $117 million in new ob-
ligational authority was requested for
military aid and $52 million for eco-
nomic aid, for a total of $169 million. Fol-
lowing the secret session of the Senate,
in which I discussed the report of-our
subcommittee staff,' the Secretary of
State acknowledged in a press confer-
ence on June 15 that the total of U.S.
expenditures in Laos, excluding U.S. Air
orce operations in both northern Laos
and the Ho Chi Minh Trail area, was not
in the realm of $169 million, but was ac-
tually more than double that, "in the
neighborhood of $350 million."W
twice the amount reviousl iven on a
classified basis to the few em ers
the Senate.
Although, as mentioned, the Secretary
did not give figures for the cost of air
operations in either northern Laos or
the Ho Chi Minh Trial area, in testi-
mony before the Armed Services 'Com-
mittee on this year's defense authoriza-
tion bill, it was revealed that U.S.
expenditures in Laos will actually total
$490.2 million in this fiscal year. That
figure includes $143.4 million for U.S.
air support excluding the Ho Chi Minh
Trail area.
It is clear, therefore, that the Senate
has been kept in the shadows as far as
actually knowing how much we are
spending in Laos is concerned. It is clear
also that the public has been kept com-
pletely in the dark.
Prior to this year the only figure the
public knew was the annual cost of the
economic assistance program, which has
been running at about $52 million a year
since the fiscal year 1969.
Think of that, Mr. President, We live
in a democracy where the people have
the right to know. Actually, we have
spent over $1.5 billion in Laos, if we count
the bombings of the Ho Chi Minh Trails;
yet the only figure the American people
knew about was $52 million.
Those few members of the press and
public who have followed this subject
closely might have learned from reading
the published hearings of the Subcom-
mittee on U.S. Security Agreements and
The actual costs were, of course, read- -
ily available to the executive branch had
they chosen to share them with the Con-
gress. Instead they presented only esti-
mates of obligations against single year
authorizations.
Each year for the past few years the
Senate Armed Services Committee has
been asked to recommend to the Sen-
ate the authorization of specific amounts
for military assistance to Laos; and the
committee has regularly complied, ap-
parently in the belief that the amounts
of new obligational authority requested
constituted at least a rough index of
the size of the program involved.
We now know just how wrong that
assumption was. In presenting its justi-
fication for authorizations to support
free world forces: in' Vietnam, Laos, and
Thailand in the fiscal year 1970, the De-
fense Department told the Armed Serv-
ives Committee that it needed $74.2 mil-
lion for military assistance to Laos; but
the recently declassified figure for the
actual cost of the Laos military assist-
ance program was $146.4 million.
For the fiscal year 1971, $117.3 mil-
lion was sought; but the actual costs
that year were $162.2 million.
On May 6 of this year Defense Depart-
ment witnesses discussed the Lao mili-
tary assistance ? program. before the
Commitments Abroad that military as-
sistance costs in Laos for fiscal year 1970
were estimated by Defense officials at
about $90 million. It subsequently de-
veloped that they were $146.4 million;
and there were no official figures gen-
erally available to the `Congress or the
public for total U.S. expenditures in any
previous fiscal year prior to the Secre-
tary of State's admission, which he made
last June 15, that costs for the last fiscal
year in that little country, and exclusive
of any air operations, were "in the neigh-
borhood of $350 million."
Not only was the cost of our Lao oper-
ations concealed before this spring, but
the scope and character of the war--and
the details of our participation in it-
were not . acknowledged until recently.
In a statement on March 6, 1970,
President Nixon provided the American
people with what he described as a "pre-
cise description of our current activities
in Laos." According to the President, the
pertinent facts were:
First. The United States was providing
regular and irregular Lao forces with
equipment, training, and logistics
support.
Second. The United States was con-
ducting air operations to interdict the
Ho Chi Minh Trail, reconnaissance
flights in northern Laos; and, on request
from the Lao Government, combat sup-
port missions for Lao forces.
While this description of our activities
in Laos went beyond previous acknowl-
edgments of such activities, it glossed
over the following details which subse-
quently came to light through the work
of our Commitments Subcommittee:
First. Most of the war in Laos is co-
ordinated through and by the American
Embassy in Vientiane.
Second. The United States trains,
arms, and feeds the Lao Army and Air
Force. -
Third. The United States, through the
Central Intelligence Agency, trains, ad-
vises, pays, supports, -and coordinates an
irregular army, elements of which are
deployed in four of the five military re-
gions in Laos.
Fourth. The United States, through the
Central Intelligence Agency, and in coop-
eration with the Thai Government,
trains, pays, supports, and coordinates a
growing force of Thai soldiers in Laos.
Fifth. In addition to interdiction oper-
ations over the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the
U.S. Air Force flies hundreds of combat
air missions throughout Laos in close
support of Lao regular and irregular
ground combat forces. These missions are
also coordinated by the American Em-
bassy in Vientiane. Included in this
American air effort are strikes by B-52
bombers in northern Laos, far from the
Ho Chi Minh Trail area.
There is considerable doubt in my own
mind whether the Congress, if presented
with a straightforward proposal to spend
half a billion dollars to carry on such ac-
tivities, would have agreed to do so; but
insofar as we can determine, no congres-
sional.committee, before this year, was
ever given any comprehensive picture of
our operations in Laos. The two commit-
tees of the Senate most directly involved,
the Armed Services and Foreign Rela-
tions Committees, have been given only
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9
 oproved For Reieas M/*112*?ACIA-LR{ nBDa296Rfl00500030032-9 0' 1k-, w
October .4.,
a partial and, therefore, misleading, pic- peoted dry season offensive by. the North if members of the staff of the commit-
ture of what has been going on in that Vietnamese early next month. ments subcommittee had not made an
country. Mr. Arbuckle notes that- extended actual visit to the area in ques-
The history of Thai forces in Laos pro- This will more than double the current tion. Following a report of their findings
vides an excellent example. It is a history force of between 5,000 and 6,000 That army to a secret session of the Senate on June
replete with missing pages-written in troops deployed in Laos. 6, with subsequent inquiries by Armed
large part in invisible ink. President, I am a member of the Services and Foreign Relations for addi-
During the last session of the Congress, Mr. tional details of expenditures in Laos,
a law was passed prohibiting U.S. sup- Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, executive branch witnesses again ap-
and I heard the debate in that commit- eared before the Armed Services r Viep tnamesto provide military support and that committee, which was ultimately the true dimensions of the Laos program
assistance to the Government of Cam- made. law, passed by both Houses and began to emerge for the first time.
signed by the President, and I know that The justification then presented for
dia or s bo
s this l." The intent the qspon- what we were doing there was an effort an expenditure of $490.2 million was es-
tion. of this heir specifiisc beyond d purposes ques- ue to prevent such activities as Thai troops sentially the same as that offered in May.
fop. One of their specific in Laos. No different explanation was offered to
to preclude U.S. financing of Thai forces ces In addition to the highly dubious
to fight in Laos. legality of our paying for these Thai sol- justify an increase in the military as-
Despite. the passage of this law, it has sistance program to $221.2 million than.
diers in the face of the legislation passed that presented in May when the program
now become public, information
fthat in last year, there are the policy risks en-
there are thousands of Thai fighting ght was being described in terms of $125.8
tailed by drawing the Thais, to whom we million.
Laos. The executive branch now forces, acknowl- have ?a defense commitment under year after year the Defense Depart-
edges though the claiming presence they are all these "volunteers" al-" SEATO, into more direct conflict with ment has had enough excess ma oney and serving under Lao military command. the North Vietnamese. would also seem to be something material available to support program
The Department of State has also There much larger than that authorized-some-
recently acknowledged, in a letter which grossly out of line about the costs to the times twice as large. Similarly, there was
I will ask be printed in the Record at American taxpayer of these Thai merce- no explanation, whatever, offered as to
the conclusion of these remarks, that naries. While I am not at liberty to make how the anticipated costs of the Thai
most of these Trai have served in - public the exact figures involved, I can mercenaries-a category of expenditure
the Thai Army; that the units in ques- tell the Senate, on the basis of testimony not even mentioned in the earlier ses-
tion are formed in Thailand and include by the U.S. Ambassador in Laos before sion had been computed.
volunteer officers and NCO's who have the Foreign Relations Committee, that It was acknowledged that the per mail
severed their connections with the Thai the proposed expenditures for supplying cost of the Thai was somewhat higher
armed forces; that there are Thai of- Thai soldiers to fight -in Laos in fiscal than that of the Lao irregulars, but there
fivers, including a general, stationed in year 1972 are 25 percent higher than the was no emphasis of the fact the real
Thailand who perform liaison functions proposed military assistance program for ratio is 33 percent more money for less
with the Lao government; and that the . the Royal Lao Army itself-30 percent than half as many Thai troops as Lao ir-
Thai units in Laos Include an "artillery higher than the cost of the Lao irregu- regular troops, both of which groups we
capability composed of individuals with lars-and this despite the fact that the finance and train. This fact did not be-
previous artillery experience." number of Thai soldiers involved is far come clear until administration witnesses
At no point in the State Department less than a quarter and less than half the. testified before the Foreign Relations
letter is the claim made that the Thai in strength of the total strength of the Lao Committee Rater on the same day.
it ex- Army the Lao irregulars. There are many other gaps in this
i
N
s
or
question are ethnic Lao.
plained why some of these Thai have This brief review of the major facts effort to justify. a half a billion dollars
said, in various interviews with journal- which underlie current U.S. operations for Laos, exclusive of the trails. To the
ists-where we get most of our new in- in Laos should be sufficient to demon- best of my knowledge, at no point have
i strafe why the time has come for the the costs of the CIA operations in Laos
Th
a
formation-that they are regular
army troops who were asked to accept Congress to place at least some restraints been explained as a separate item to any
special assignment in Laos for extra pay. - upon the conduct of this undeclared and congressional committee. Neither has the
The administration has now acknowl- uncontrolled war. nature of U.S. air operations in northern
edged publicly that the cost of this extra The amendment which I offer, there- Laos ever been fully described to any
pay, as is true of the other expenses in- fore, would place a limit of $200 million committee.
volved in this program of Thai forces on all U.S. expenditures in Laos, ex- As noted earlier, the President has re-
being sent to Laos, are borne by the elusive, I emphasize, of the air opera- ferred to combat support missions which
United States. tions over the Ho Chi Minh Trails area. have been flown at the request of the
Up to now, however, the administration This amount is sufficient to cover all Royal Lao Government, The fact is that
has refused to make public any additional amounts which the executive branch re- the U.S. Air Force is engaged in an
details as to the specific numbers of Thais quested and justified at the outset of the around-the-clock campaign of intensive
now involved, or the number it is planned Armed Services Committee's considera- combat operations of all sorts through-
to have involved in the future, Nor has tion of this bill this year. out Laos, ranging from the stationing of
it said any more about the arrangements Since the time when the committee forward air controllers and aircraft to
for recruiting, organizing, directing and initially considered the Southeast Asia B-52 strikes in the northern portion of
financing these forces. portion of the military procurement au- Laos, hundreds of miles from the Ho Chi
Nevertheless, the executive branch is thorization bill, for this fiscal year, the Minh Trails, and far closer to the bound-
now asking the Congress, in this bill to administration has agreed that the cost ary of the People's Republic of China.
authorize additional funds so as to con- of U.S. operations in Laos in the coming In short, none of the above activities
tinue, even expand, this program of Thai year-again exclusive of air operations has as yet been described to Congress in
forces in Laos; in fact, based on what over the Ho Chi Minh Trails area-is sufficient detail-nor has the derivation
we can learn, three times as many addi- nearly $500 million-$490.2 million to be' of the costs of these activities yet been
tional Thais are to be financed for fight- exact-of which $221.2 million will be ex- explained in a manner which would sup-
ing in Laos, which will require three pended for the military assistance pro- ,port any such appropriation. In effect,
times as much U.S. money in the fiscal gram. Note that in May the estimated all that Congress has been told is that
year 1972 as was used for this purpose amount of new money need for the fiscal. the United States is conducting many
in the fiscal year 1971. year 1972 military assistance program in more programs in Laos than were known
In an article in the September 23 issue Laos, as presented to the Armed Services before; therefore, twice as much money
of the Washington Evening Star, written and Foreign Relations Committees, was is required.
from Vientiane by Tammy Arbuckle, he $125.8 million. This new information which has come
reports that- I believe it entirely fair to assume that to light, coupled with the now universal-
American official sources confirmed that' this new figure for the cost of our Lao op- ly admitted serious economic problems
12,0.00 Thais will be available to meet the ex- erations would not have come to light we face here at home, makes me even
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9
 1 ,166Approved For Releas 2 y fi R[ QQ FJP ,?QQA30032-9 October 4, 1971
less willing than before to continue ex-
penditures in Laos at this steadily high-
er level. I believe that any American pol-
icy in Laos which costs more than $200
million to support is too expensive, or,
too dangerous, or both.
This belief is reinforced by the ac-
knowledgement of administration wit-
nesses before Armed Services that, not-
withstanding all we are currently doing
in Laos-there could not be a more im-
portant point-the North Vietnamese
and the Pathet Lao presently have the
capability, if they so chose, at any time
to complete their takeover of Laos.
In the face of this admitted fact, the
Laste and futility of this effort becomes
11 too apparent.
Surely, Congress has the right to re-
ceive from the executive branch justi-
fication for specific additional authori-
zation requests, plus an explanation of
the reasons why such additional author-
ity is needed. Section (e) of my amend-
ment would establish a requirement for
a written explanation of the purposes for
which any future funds for Laos are re-
quested.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed at this point in the
RECORD the text of the amendment.
There being no objection, the amend-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
SEC. Gob. (a) Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, no funds authorized to. be
appropriated by this or any other Act may be
obligated or expended in any amount in
excess of $200,000,000 for the purpose of
carrying out directly or Indirectly any eco-
nomic or military assistance, or any opera-
tion, project, or program of any kind, or
for providing any goods, supplies, materials,
equipment,, services, personnel, or advisers
in, to, for, or on behalf of Laos during the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1972.
(b) In computing the $200,000,000 limita-
tion on obligation and expenditure authority
under subsection (a) of this section in fiscal
year 1972, there shall be included in the com-
putation the value of any goods, supplies,
materials, or equipment provided to, for, or
on behalf of Laos in such fiscal year by gift,
donation, loan, lease, or otherwise. For the
purpose of this subsection, "value" means
the fair market value of any goods, supplies,
materials, or equipment provided to, for, or
on behalf of Laos, but in no case less than
331ya per centum of the amount the United
States paid at the time such goods, supplies,
materials, or equipment were acquired by the
United States.
(c) No funds may be obligated or expended
for any of the purposes described in subsec-
tion (a) of this section in, to, for, or on
behalf of Laos in any fiscal year beginning
after June 30, 1972, unless such funds have
been specifically authorized by law enacted
after the date of enactment of this Act. In
no case shall funds in any amount in excess
of the amount specifically authorized by
law for any fiscal year be obligated or ex-
pended for any such purpose during such
fiscal year.
(d) The provisions of subsection (a) and
(c) of this section shall not apply with re-
spect to the obligation or expenditure of
funds to carry out combat air operations
over the so-called Ilo Chi Minh trails in
southern Laos, and over areas immediately
adjacent to such trails, by United States
military forces.
(e) After the date of enactment of this
Act, whenever any request is made to the
Congress for the appropriation of funds for
use in, for, or on behalf of Laos for any fiscal'
year, the President shall furnish a written
report to the Congress explaining the pur-
pose for which such funds are to be used in
such fiscal year.
(f) The President shall submit to the
Congress within thirty days after the end
of each. quarter of each fiscal year, begin-,
ping with the fiscal year which begins July 1,
1971, a written report showing the total
amount of funds expended in, for, or on
behalf of Laos, during the preceding quarter
by the United States Government, and shall
include in such report a general breakdown
of the total amount expended, describing the
different purposes for which such funds were
expended and the total amount expended
for such purpose.
Mr. SYMINGTON. In addition to es-
tablishing a requirement for written
explanations in connection with any fu-
ture fund requests for Laos, section (c)
of the amendment would prohibit the
obligation or expenditure of funds for
any purpose 'after the date of enactment
of the amendment unless such funds
have been specifically authorized by law.
As noted earlier, in the past the .
amounts of money specifically identified
in requests to Congress as being for use
in Laos have constituted only a portion
of the total cost of U.S: opera-
tions in that country. The purpose of
section (c) of the amendment is to Insure
that Congress knows when it is author-
izing or appropriating money for this
country; and, conversely, to prevent the
diversion to Laos of funds appropriated
for other purposes.
Mr. President, what is wrong with
that? What is wrong with our being told
as to what they did with the money re-
quested, particularly if they did not do
with it what was asked for when It was
authorized and appropriated? In my
opinion, that could well be the basic
thrust of my remarks.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield, so that I may ask three
or four questions to clarify the amend-
ment somewhat?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am happy to yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator's amend-
ent affect the expenditures now being
arried out by the CIA in Laos?
Mr. SYMINGTON, That would be cov-
ered by the amendment,
Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator think
that would affect the operations of the
IA?
Mr. SYMINGTON. In Laos?
Mr. AIKEN. Yes.
Mr. SYMINGTON Inasmuch as the
ecretary o l en`se-testifled that he was '
conducting no military operations in
aos, the only conclusion I can draw
from that, based on my experience, is
that the Centro Intelli_genee Agency is
ondQatm their operations under #1
i'rection of the State I)epartiiieii aii'c
unds or such, o ei atioi a1 a In Ii ti d
i.tl~i , l aer
ever. AIKEN. I understand that a great
many more Laotians now live in Thai-
land than remain in their home country
and than considerable recruiting is done
in Thailand for the purpose of strength-
ening the comparatively weak forces
they have at home. Would this amend-
ment also apply to the recruiting now
done in Thailand if such recruits were
paid by the United States?
Mr. SYMINGTON. The word "ethnic"
is the only way, I say to my able friend,
that the administration can justify what
it is doing on any basis. Otherwise, it is
clearly breaking the law.
I would say if there were people who
had lived in Thailand for a period of
years and the United States claimed
that, because their grandfather or their
great-grandfather originally came from
Laos, we could, therefore, under the law,
pay, train, and finance them to fight in
Laos, that interpretation of the -law is
certainly in violation of the interest of
the Congress.
Mr. AIKEN. I understand that about
three or four times more Laotians are
now living in Thailand than the number
living in Laos, and the Laotian Army
depends on them for the Laotian forces
to maintain their numbers--I do not
know for sure though.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I believe that the
figures the Senator presents are correct,
Mr. AIKEN. How would this amend-
ment affect the air cover which is now
provided for the Laotians in the Plain
of Jarres, which I believe is considered a
crucial area in that country?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, be-
fore answering that, I would like to men-
tion that at no time has the executive
branch ever contended to me or to the
subcommittee that the so-called volun-
teers are ethnic Lao; and, based on
other testimony we have received, I think
that might be difficult for them.
Mr. AIKEN. They are Laotian in the
same sense that a third or fourth gen-
eration European living in America now
is loyal to the old country, their great-
grandfather's country. Is that correct?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I believe so.
In the statements by the Secretary of
Defense and the Under Secretary for
Political Affairs, before the Armed Serv-
ices Committee, there was considerable
discussion of the Thai forces in Laos,
about how they are all volunteers-that
was the big word-and how they have
severed their connection with the That
Armed Forces. But there was no mention
whatever of the fact that they are ethnic
Lao. I think if the Senator looks at the
record, he will see that because what
they have done Is pretty clear, they have
constantly raised new justification for it.
Mr. AIKEN. Frankly, I do not know,
and that is why I raised the question. I
also asked about the air cover for the
Plaine of Jarres, which is considered a
crucial area in defense of the whole
country,
Mr. SYMI ,QIQN. I think that any
suppolha# yang Pao can get he will
welcome. Therefore, any support we
give-including in the Plaine of Jarres-
would be better for him. I do not think
it would have much to do with the ques-
tion of whether the country will exist as
a country under the present government,
because, as mentioned, we have had testi-
mony that any time the North Vietnam-
ese and the Pathet.Lao under Souvanna
Phong, want to take the country over,
they can do so.
Mr. AIKEx_ N~,The reason I asked is that
there`reems to be some apprehension
that they would take the country over
quickly if Laos lost the protection of our
Air Force over the Plaine of Jarres.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9
 Apploved For Release-WO5M9-121