Congressional Record Appendix, February 1966 (delegate list incl. Francisca Fanggidaej)

=== [Page 1] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 A898 gary journalism, but has always been, and probably still is, a hawk in the Vietnamese debate. He tells us that ‘the Nation’s armed services have almost exhausted their trained and ready military units, with all available forces spread dangerously thin in Vietnam and elsewhere. * * * The commitment of more than 200,000 men to Vietnam, supported by strong air and naval forces, and the cnaintenance of two divisions in Korea, more ian tive in urope, and of smaller units elsewhere, including the Dominican Republic, nave reduced the forces in the United States lo a training establishment.” This report poses for the President the onormously difficult question of how much longer he can overrule the Joint Chiefs of Siaft on a limited mobilization of Reserve forces. It also poses the question of whether Secretary Rusk realizes what he is saying when he tells us we have some 40 unilateral military commitments and that we must be prepared to fulfill them all. How can the American people have contidence in an administration which expands its commitments to the extent that Secretary Rusk expands inem in the face of the condition of the iwilitary forces? Mr. Baldwin’s article raises the question, too, whether Secretary Rusk realizes what he is saying when he keeps telling us that the credibility of all our alliances all over the world is at stake in South Vietnam. Can he really believe that our value as an ally in tanrope rises when we have to draw more and. more trained men out of our Armed Forces in. Isurope and replace them with untrained men? Mr. Rusk has entangled himself in the error of failing to realize that it is not what the Unitcd States is willing to do but what in fact it is willlng and able to do which determines the credibility of any one of its alliances. 1 vo MAAN AIRED ABE EU asin oe Settled Policy wat GH. HALE BOGGS LOUISIANA IN ‘THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 14, 1966 Mr. BOGGS. Mr. Speaker: U.S. policy in the Vietnam war appears to be definitely settled for the time being— ‘YVhe Times-Picayune of New Orleans declares, Xt is one of building up military and ecoromic strength in South Vietnam and. though it may take years, to exterminate or penish the Vietcong— he newspaper states. And it adds: President Johnson has now indicated the siefinitive shape of the policy by saying that he had the overwhelming backing of the country and of Congress for the course the adniinistration is pursuing. he editorial declared: Why we are in Vietnam, it seems to us, is becoming better understood. ‘The short rea~- sou: To stop aggression. But it is not merely to stop the attempted take-over of the Vietuurmese. I: is even more to raise a barrier to the almust limitless plans of the Peiping jteds to spread their wars of liberation as fast as they can find opportunities * * *. A long CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX war in Vietnam carries with it some hazards. But the hazards of failing to meet the challenge now are probably much more grave. Here is a thought-provoking article on an issue of national concern and I am making it available for the Recoro, where others can study it in depth: [From New Orleans (La.) Times-Picayune, Feb. 14, 1966] U.S. Viet Poticy SenmMs Seri.:p U.S. policy in the Vietnium war appears to be detinitely settled for the time wecing. It is one of building up miiltary and economic strength in South Vietnam and, hough it may take years, to exterminate ur banish the Vietcong. President Johnson has now ind?:ated the definitive shape of the policy by seving that he had the overwhelming backiny of the country and of Congress for the course the administration is pursuing. He avers that there is little or no difference between that policy and what main witnesses oave said before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “No one wants to escalate the war * * * no one wants to surrender and pull out,’ he said. As, we read it at the moment th: outlook is this: A long gruelling war with yradually rising pressure on the Communists but also restrictions on escalation that might result in a bigger war; intensified efforts to eliminate the guerrillas combined with economic improvement projects to lift the spirit of the Vietnamese in the villages and strengthen their will to thrust out the Vietcong infiltrators. The economic-morale problem won't be solved in « month or a year but it has to be a. part of a winning war (and «fter war) strategy. Experts believe that the job can be done if it is pursued with the d-termination that should mark all aspects ot the war effort. This country will pursue its driv. for negotiations to end the hostilities. Nothing promising has yet developed. Uniil it does, there is mo alternative to getting on with the war business. The “quit Vietnam" element in ihe United Hlaies has been having its say. rom here out it probably will be looked or: with increasing disapproval wherever it is shown to interfere with the deadly serious war effort. Why we are in Vietnam, it secms to us, is becoming better understood. ‘i'he short reason: To stop aggression. But it is not merely to stop the attempted tokeover of the Wietnamese. It is even more to raise a parrier to the almost limitless pking of the Peiping Reds to spread their wars of liberation as fast as they can find opportunities. There is nothing secret about the: ¢c Chinese sponsored national liberation front. as standing policy with the Mao regime an: its satellites. Any success with i; in Vietr.om would probably open up a bag of troubles in areas outreachirng southenst Asia. A long war in Vietnam carries with it some hazards. But the hazards of faili‘i to meet the challenge now are probably much more grave, ce etm 8 MINED cake enna me CHANGE OF RSSIDENC Senators, Representatives, and Delegates who have changed their residences will please give information thereof to the Government Printing Oflice, that their addresses may be correctly given in the REcorpD. February 22, 1966 LAWS RELATIVE TO THE PRINTING OF DOCUMENTS Either House may order the printing of 2 document not already provided for by law, but only when the same shall be accompanied by an estimate from the Public Printer as to the probable cost thereof. Any exccutive department, bureau, board or indcpendent office of the Government submitting re- ’ ports or documents in response to inquiries from Congress shall submit therewith an estimate of the probable cost of printing the usual number. Nothing in th's section relating to estimates shall apply to reports or documents not exceeding 50 pages (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 140, p. 1938). Resolutions for printing extra copies, when presented to either House, shall be referred immediately to the Committee on House Administration of the House of Representatives or the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate, who, in making their report, shall give the probable cost of the proposed printing upon the estimate of the Public Printer, and no extra copies shall be printed before such committee has reported (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 133, p. 1937). GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS FOR SALI Additional copies of Government publications are offered for sale to the public by the Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 20402, at cost thereof as determined by the Public Printer plus 50 percent: Provided, That a discount of not to exceed 25 percent may be allowed to authorized bookdealers and quantity purchasers, but such printing shall net interfere with the prompt execution of work for the Government. The Superintendent of Documents shall prescribe the terms and conditions under which he may authorize the resale of Government publications by bookdecalers, and he may designate any Government officer his agent for the sale of Government publications under such regulations as shall be agreed upon by the Superintendent of Documents and the head of the respective department or establishment of the Government (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. T2n, Supp. 2). RECORD OFFICE AT THE CAPITOL An office for the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD with Mr. Raymond F. Noyes in charge, is located in room H-112, Hause wing, where orders will be received for subscriptions to the Recorp at $1.50 per month or for single copies at 1 cent for eight pages (minimum charge of 3 cents). Also, orders from Members of Congress to purchase reprints from the R«ecorp should be processed through this office. CONGRESSIONAL DIRECTORY The Public Printer, under the direction of the Joint Committee on Printing, may priut for sale, at a price sufficient to reimburse the expenses of such printing, the current Congressional Directory. No sale shall be made on eredit (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 150, p. 1939). PRINTING OF CONGRESSIONAL RECORD EXTRACTS It shall be lawful for the Public Printer to print and deliver upon the order of any Senator, Representative, or Delegate, extract: from the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, the person ordering the same paying the cost thereof (U.S. Code, title 44, sec. 185, p. 1942). Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 2] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 addressed a letter to the President of the District Board of ‘Commissioners, in which he transmitted a draft of a bill which had been prepared by the Board of Optometry in cooperation with the District of Columbia Department of Occupations and Professions, the Optometric Society of the District of Columbia, and the American Optometric Association. It was designed to improve the District law as it pertains to the practice of optometry. The bill I have proposed contains all of the essential provisions of the Board’s draft. As pointed out in Dr. Ephraim’s letter, there is nothing in it that is not now contained in the laws of one or more of the States. The purpose of the revision is to bring the standards of practice in the city of Washington up to a level which exists in most of our States and will provide adequate protection for the visual needs of persons seeking vision care within the District of Columbia.. As the Nation’s Capital, we have visitors from all over the world and from every part of our country. They are entitled to the same high standards for the practice of optometry which prevail in their home communities. Mr. Speaker, that is the purpose of the bill which I have introduced. I hope that it will receive prompt and favorable action by the House District Committee and the House of Representatives itself.; J THOSE WHO COUNT ~’ (Mr. HULL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include an editorial.) America has the courage, the will, and the resources to defend the frontlines of freedom against the tide of Communist aggression. These words appeared recently in an editorial in the Philadelphia Inquirer, which properly believes that America’s purpose and commitment in Vietnam were made a matter of formal public record in the historic Hawaii meeting. Meanwhile, the.newspaper states: With Vice President Humpnurey accompanying the South Vietnamese leaders back to Saigon on the first leg of an extensive diplomatic mission to rally the forces of freedom in Asia, the implementation of policies agreed upon at Honolulu is underway. Even as the war goes on, the Inquirer believes: There will be an acceleration of cooperative programs by American and South Victnamese officials to improve the economy of South Vietnam, raise the living standards, fight hunger and disease and build the foundations of a democratic, self-governing society. The Inquirer is convinced that: The United States, in alllance with South Vietnam, holds the trump cards—in milltary power, in economic resources, and in the moral issue of self-determination versus Communist enslavement. This is an impressive, forthright summation of the situation and I would like to make it avallable to others by having it printed in the Recorp. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE THE DECLARATION OF HONOLULU America’s purpose in Vietnam, and America’s commitment to the South Vietnamese Government and people, have been made a matter of formal public record in the historic conference at Honolulu. With the return of President Johnson and his advisers to Washington, and with Vice President HuMPHREY accompanying the South Vietnamese leaders back to Saigon on the first leg of an extensive diplomatic mission to rally the forces of frecdom in Asia, the implementation of policies agreed upon at Honolulu is underway. What, precisely, are these policies proclaimed jointly by the United States and South Vietnam? Essentially, they are a mutual resolve to frustrate Communist attempts to conquer the territory and people of South Vietnam by armed aggression and terrorism. The Red assaults will be counterd by defensive military action, of whatever intensity is required and for as long as necessary. Tireless efforts to achieve a negotiated peace will continue. Meanwhile, even as the war goes on, there will be an accelerdtion of cooperative programs by American and South Vietnamese officials to improve the economy of South Vietnam, raise the Mving standards, fight hunger and disease, and build the foundations of a democratic, self-governing soclety. How, it is being asked in some quarters, are these noble goals of freedom and peace and democracy—so solemnly proclaimed in the Declaration of Honolulu—to be achieved when the Communist North Vietnamese refuse to negotiate and when the South Vietnamese vow never to recognize the Red Vietcong? There is no clear answer because, in our judgment, it is the wrong question. The walling voices of woe, who call constantly for an American surrender in Vietnam, manage always and very conventiently to overlook the problems confronting the Communists. The United States, in alliance with South Vietnam, holds the trump cards—in military power, in economic resources, and in the moral issue of self-determination versus Communist enslavement. We believe that Ho Chi Minh and his comrades in Hanol are the ones who ought to be worrying the most about escalation of the war—and we suspect they are. America has the courage, the will, and the resources to defend the front lMnes of freedom against the tide of Communist aggression, Let this be the message Vice President HUMPHREY conveys, ALLOWANCE OF TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR MOVING EXPENSES (Mr. RONCALIO asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure to introduce a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code to avoid tax discrimination against the construction worker. These builders of America have been truly the forgotten and neglected people of our generation. Too often their needs have been given a back seat to the less meritorious demands of more. entrenched groups. Specifically, the inequity which I hope to correct is in the allowance of deductions for moving expenses for workers of the trades and crafts of the construction industry. 3321 The Internal Revenue Code provides a general rule that: There shall be allowed as a deduction moving expenses * * * in connection with the commencement of work by the taxpayer as an employee at a new principal place of work. (Internal Revenue Code 217.) This is a good principle, Mr. Speaker, and it has general application for almost everyone except those who need it most—the construction worker. The code goes on, in its conditions for allowance of the deduction, to provide time limitations and other requirements which virtually eliminate the construction worker. In short, the effect is that the worse a construction worker needs this deduction, and the more he really deserves it—the less his actual chances are of obtaining it—Internal Revenue Code, section 217 (c) (2). This, Mr. Speaker, is the inequity my bill is designed to correct and it is my sincere hope that my colleagues will see its merit and offer their active support for this amendment. FOOD FOR FREEDOM (Mr. TODD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) - Mr. TODD. Mr. Speaker, President Johnson said in his food-for-freedom message: A balance between agricultural productivity and population is necessary to prevent the shadow of hunger from becoming a nightmare of famine. This last week, at the gracious invitation of Chairman Coo.Lrey of the House Committee on Agriculture, I was privileged to hear 10 distinguished experts submit their predictions and then offer their recommendations as to how this “nightmare of famine’ might be avoided. Their recommendations fell into two broad categories, as I understood them: First, Make every effort to reduce rates of population growth. Second. Make every effort to increase agricultural productivity in these same lands faced with the blight of famine closing in over them. Every witness emphasized that there was no apparent means of providing adequate food for those who have joined the banquet of life while the population explosion becomes more violent. The last witness, Prof. Theodore Schultz, of the University of Chicago, urged that adequate American agricultural resources be devoted to providing food for those now starving; that we follow the recommendations of the President in assisting our friends to modernize their agriculture; and that we allocate a portion of the funds received from the sale of food for freedom to family planning and birth control activities. I offered this last idea to the House in a speech made following the President’s message. Since then, I have explored it more fully, and considered it in the light of the remarks of these outstanding experts which have appeared before the distinguished Committee on Agriculture. I should like to offer it in more detail Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 3] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 53 13 Bo22 today, so that it may be further discussed and improved. On February 14, the gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Coo.ry] introduced the food-for-freedom bill, H.R. 12785. Scetion 103'b) of title I includes a provision that the President may determine that foreign currencies may be received us payment for food for freedom in orcer to implement certain purposes defined by subsections (a), (b), (c), and (e) of section 304, I suggest that section 103 (u) be extended to include a new subsection (1) of section 304. t suggest that to section 304 be added 2 new sudsection (i), which might read as follows: Mor financing programs emphasizing maternal, child health and nutrition, and family planning services, and research activities related to the problems of population growth, for which purpose not less than fifteen per centum oi the currencies received pursuant io Litle I shall be available, through and under the procedures established by the President upon request of the country with which the agreerment is made: Provided, That the President is wuthorized to carry out the foregoing provisions of this subsection through any agency of the United States, or any international agency and/or organization of which the United States is a member, and which he determines is qualified to administec such activities, This would mean that food for freedom would be used twice: one, to help fill crapty stomachs now; and twice, to avoid cripty stomachs in the future. This is the basic merit of the idea. Now Iet us explore the idea in somewhat more detail. It suggests providing a total family service—to the mother, to her children, and to the entire family group. itis directed to the health, wellbeing, and happiness of allof them. And if the program were implemented as a unit—directed to the mother, father, and the children, it would achieve its greatest effcetiveness at the least cost. Ye. WH. Sebrell, Jr., director of the School of Nutrition Sciences at Columbia University, testified before the committee: Protein calorie malnutrition Is actuclly one of the jargest causes of the death of chiidren. It is estimated that 70 percent of the children in developing areas suffer from malnutrition and upward of 3 million children die annually from malnutrition, largely of this type. ‘his fact is hidden because these deaths often are recorded us being from diarrhea, parasites, and infectious disenses. If these children were well nourished. they would not die of the intercurrent diseases. In those millions it dces not kill, malnutrition permanently impzirs their growth and probably causes irreversibie mental and emotional damage. ‘Ihe mother's ignorance is of the greatest importance to the nutrition of the small child ir. that she does not recognize that the child is suffering Irom malnutrition. My provision would look to this child heulth and nutrition probiem. It would look to tire health of the mother. And it sould provide her, if she wished, information on family planning and birth eantrol, so that she and her husband might space and number their family in the manner in which they feel they could best support it. Therefore, this provision would assist the parents, and offer them personal heip. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE It would assist the children, now being, and those unborn, to better realize their potentials, and it would move to eliminate the social and pclitical instability which accompanies hunger and frustration. What of the other part of the problem—providing more food for the total increases in population which will occur, even if family planning programs are given a great push. In his message, President Johnson said: Many of the developing countries urgently need to give a higher priority to improving and modernizing their own production and distribution of food. Section 103 of title I of the bill introduced by Chairman CooLey says “take into account efforts of countries to help themselves toward a greater degree of self-reliance, especially in providing cnough foed to meet the needs of their peope, and the resources required to attein that objective.” The bill is intended to help increase the agriculture productivity of nations as rapidly as possible—which is the other side of the coin. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe the addition of the section I have suggested would round out this important legislation, aud make it a total attack on hunger, deprivation, and the terror of famine. Today, unlimited population growth is on a collision course with limited food supply. Only total attack will avert disaster. OUR FRIENDS, THE FEDS (Mr. WELTNER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WELTNER. Mr. Speaker, my friend Opie L. Shelton, executive vice president and general manager of the Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, has long since established himself as a man of uvousual clarity and vision. One of his many services to Atlanta and the State of Georgia is his continuing attempt to effect a realistic attitude toward the Fed-~- eval Government. I laud his most recent effort, an article in the February issue of Atlanta magazine. It is a forceful presentation, and I include it at this point in Une CoNncRESSIONAL RECORD: [From the Atlanta Magazine, February 1966] Our FRIENDS, THE FEps (By Opie lL. Shelton) he reason Atlanta has becoyne partners with the Federal Government in so many projects is that Geargia’s State government has fwiled to enter the world of reality where tier cities are concerned. ‘ne oid county unit system, one of the Breatest calamities any State ever experienced, was the prime villain. 11 placed the absolute control of State goverr.ment in the hands of people who were openly antagonistic to the cities. Atlanta was their favorite whipping boy. ‘Today Atlanta receives less financial assistance trom the State than any of the largest 25 cities of the Nation. Nven though the county unit has heen abolished (courtesy of the Federal Governmert) many of the people who run the State still think in county unit fashion. They still don’t understand the problem, nor do many of them seem to want to understand. Georgia has moved from a rural to an February 2!, 1966 urban society, but so far as the State government’s reaction to urban needs are concerned one might think we were still living in a cotton-dominated economy. The State highway department is a good example. If it had not been for the Federal Government we wouldn't have even the pitifully few major thoroughfares we have today. That department’s philosophy hus been so politically-oriented that the cities have becn systematically shunted aside when the highway tax dollar has been divided. State government that isn’t responsive to the needs of its cities is soon going ta find itself * * * useless * * *, America will double its population by the year 2000, we are told, and better than 90 percent of that growth is going to be in urban areas. The Federal Government appears to uaderstand these simple facts of life. And that is why Atlanta and every other growing city is forced to beat a path to Washington. A city that is treated as an unwanted child must, of necessity, scek a foster parent. Most of the people who yell loudest about States’ rights and cry havoc about big Federal Government are those who have done the least to exercise the responsibilitics that go along with States’ rights. They are phonies and frauds to the core. If State governments are to survive they had better take inventory and begin to exercise better Judgment in their treatment of their cities. SUBCOMMITTEE ON REGULATORY AGENCIES OF THE SELECT COM- MITTEE ON SMALL BUSINESS Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Regulatory Agencies of the Select Committee on Small Business have permission to sit this afternoon during general debate; and I make the same request for Wednesday and Thursday of this week. The SPEAKER pro tempore. objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. Without WATCH THE TROJAN HORSE (Mr. MONAGAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 roinute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Speaker, Senator Kennepy and others would have us welcome the Vietcong into the process of settling the fighting in Vietnam by inviting them to be a part of any future government there. Ilistory indicates that this course would be full of danger. In this connection, it is appropriate to quote the words of the distinguished historian, Samuel Eliot Morison, in his recently published ‘Oxford History of the American People.” Writing about the Iron Curtain and the diplomatic mistakes which the Allies made at the close of the war, he says: The final mistake was the assumption that a joint regime, Communist and non-Communist, would work in defeated or liberated countries, like the “popular front’ governments before the war. Later, he says: The' event proved that no popular front with Communists could have any other result but a Communist Party takeover, It is clear that we must proceed carefully in this respect. This does not mean Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 4] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 Kabriel said Belton shouted out, “It’s your duty to get up to the captain,” crawled over to the reluctant radioman, grabbed the apparatus and moved up under fire to his captain. Spriggs has used him as his radioman ever since. “Belton in his conduct and bearing has been above average as a soldier and a valuable asset,” Sprigg said. “He has worked in very well socially and he has got along with the men. “I am personally satisfied that he now honestly believes his actions in the past have’ not been consistent with being a soldier or a man, “I personally wrote to the commanding general recommending that he be promoted and his sentence romitted, Belton has seen men fight and die for his country, and he has felt the honor that comes when you do fight.” Spriggs tried to promote Belton 2 months ago, but the Army wanted to wait longer. Spriggs was told he must be absolutely sure Belton had changed his ways. “T told Belton he deserved to be promoted,” Spriggs said. I knew he was happy. I knew he felt he had made it.” a,) SHRDLU (Mr. HOSMER asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Recorp and to include extraneous matter.) Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, many Federal Government employees availed themselves of the retirement benefits which were theirs provided they retired by the end of December 1965. Perhaps it is the loss of well-trained oldtimers in the printing business which is causing the Government Printing Office difficulties in preparing thc CONGRESSIONAL RECORD. Whatever the problem, I call attention to the garbled form in which my extension of remarks appeared in the RecorpD -on February 7, 1966, page A545, entitled “Nuclear Nonproliferation Resolution,” and on February 8, 1966, page A613, entitled “Special Report on Vietnam.”: I ask unanimous consent that these two statements be reprinted correctly at this point in the Recorp and the permanent bound Recorp be corrected accordingly: From: Representative Craic Hosmer, chairman, Committee on Nuclear Affairs. To: House GOP Conference. Subject: Senate Resolution 179 urging negotiation of a nonproliferation treaty. Tomorrow the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy will take testimony from Secretary of State Dean Rusk on Senate Resolution 179 and companion bills in both Houses which urge the negotiation of a treaty banning the spread of nuclear weapons. Negotiations toward this end currently are going on in Geneva at the 17-Nation Disarmament Conference. Present members of the nuclear club in order of seniority are the United States, United Kingdom, U.S.S.R., France, and Red China. Sidewalk estimators claim 10 to 20 more countries could achieve nuclear weapons if they want to spend the money to do so. The most frequently mentioned candidates for membership are India, Israel, and the United Arab Republic. The Russians also talk much about their dread of West Germany getting the bomb even though it does not appear to be doing anything about it. Senate Resolution 179 undoubtedly will pass. It is doubtful the Joint Committee on No. 29-———-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE Atomic Energy can find any persuasive witnesses favoring the spread of A-bombs and H-bombs, Politically being proproliferation is about the same as being pro-sin and antimotherhood. Therefore passing the resolution will be something of a pious platitude. It could achieve significance, however, if it is amended as follows: 1. To recommend that the nonproliferation agreement be accomplished by amendment of the existing limited test ban treaty; and 2. To recommend that the limited test ban treaty be further amended at the same time to permit the peaceful use of nuclear explosives. Present terms of the limited test ban treaty make these uses practically impossible. The United States has a real need to dig a second Panama Canal and using nuclear excavating techniques will make the second canal economically feasible. We will have other projects requiring these techniques, so will many other countries even including the U.S.8.R. For mankind’s benefit it is time the peaceful nuclear explosives’ locker be unlocked. This is a way to do it. SPECIAL REPORT ON VIETNAM (By Congressman Craic Hosmer) “Vietniks’ demand we get out of Vietnam. Mothers wonder why their sons are sent there. The President wants to negotiate. Military leaders want a victory. Most Americans believe we should see it through. There are many questions about the war. What is the country like? Half the size, but similar in shape, population, and coastline to California. It’s rugged—mostly thick tropical forests, dense mangrove swamps, and concealing rice paddies. Vietnam is more a collection of small villages and hamlets than a strong nation to which the people give allegiance as we do to our country. The people are very poor. Until recently their only contacts with their Government were visits from the tax collector with no benefits in return. Along with Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam, South Vietnam was created from French Indochina after France’s 1953 defeat in Dienbienphu. Who are the Vietcong? The Vietcong are strong Communist forces seeking to selze South Vietnam with the same war of liberation strategy used successfully in Cuba. Following 1953, the North Vietnamese Communist dictatorship of Ho Chi Minh saw the south as ripe for takeover by this means. The war now is in its 12th year. Red China, just to the north, encourages the aggression by supplying great amounts of munitions, How do the VC fight war of liberation? Strictly according to Communist doctrine. Cadres of VC politica! organizers and disciplined military units infiltrated South Vietnam. Glittering Red promises of a better life recruited thousands of South Vietnamese into VC. ranks. Where promises falled, threats were used. Systematic terrorlsm began. Village chiefs, school teachers and officlals were murdered wholesale.‘ Kill-and-hide tactics—so effective in Vietnam’s concealing terrain—were used by VC military units to capture much of the country. Final victory was to be capped by consolidating guerrilla bands back into regular military regiments for the last battles. Why haven’t the VC won? For two reasons: First, millions of South Vietnamese would rather be dead than Red. They've fought back desperately and valiantly. Second, the United States has helped them fight. To begin with, by supplies and military advisers and now directly with over 160,000 men and more coming every day. Early this summer the tide of battle began to change. Now it’s the VC who suffer setbacks. Why is the United States fighting? For at least three strong reasons: (1) Born in free~- 3325 dom, our country cares for the freedom of others. (2) Should South Vietnam fall, so will Laos and Cambodia—then Thailand, Malaysia, Burma, and Indonesia. Ultimately all of Asia—the Philippines, Formosa, Korea, Japan, and New Guinea—could pass behind the Bambo Curtain. We fought World War II to keep the Far East from domination by a single, determined aggressor who would force qur first line of defense back to the Pacific coast. We fight in Vietnam for the same reason. (3) Castro got away with his war of liberation.. If we don’t defeat this one; the Communists surely will start more of them all over Latin America, Africa and elsewhere in the world. U.S, troubles will be endless, What we are doing in Vietnam is morally right, militarily sound and geopolitically’ correct. How do U.S. forces fight? At sea Navy Task Force 77’s carrier aircraft share with the U.S. Air Force an around-the-clock harassment of North Vietnam, bombing and strafing anything that moves on roads, rails, or trails. In South Vietnam they blitz suspected Vietcong concentrations. They are on immediate radio call to aid friendly units engaged on the ground. The Navy also hunts and sinks Vietcong shipping in South Vietnam's inland waterways and along the coastline. Its guns fire at enemy units ashore. A U.S. naval officer assists the captain of each Vietnamese Navy ship. On land the Vietcong enemy wears no uniform and assumes many disguises. He may be anywhere—a laborer or farmer by day, a guerrilla at night. There are no front lines. One is seldom out of range of the fighting anywhere in South Vietnam. The U.S. Army and marines fight independently and in cooperation with Vietnamese forces to search out and destroy the enemy. Often the Vietcong cannot be identified until he fires at you. How is U.S. morale in Vietnam? It’s tops—ashore, afloat, and in the air. A fighting day may last 16 to 20 hours—our men are glad to take it. They know their job and its importance. They want to win and are determined to do so. I talked with many wounded in field hospitals. They want to recover quickly and get back to their fighting units. They feel the demonstrators at home stab them in the back as they face the enemy and are as hostile to them as the Vietcong. Do planners in Washington try too much to run the war? Most probably. The volume of instructions to generals and admirals on the spot is tremendous. They know as much about fighting this kind of war without letting it get out of hand as Washington does. They know the circumstances at hand much better.’ It ‘would stem wiser to give them more authority while still reserving top policy decisions to the Pentagon. What would happen if we pulled out of Vietnam? Our resolve and action is the keystone of free world resistance to Communist aggression all over the world. Pull out that Keystone and everything collapses. Red China and the U.S.S.R. get a green light to take over most of the world. Why not declare war, bomb Hanoi, blockade the north, etc.? Wisdom of these actions must be kept under constant review. For the present we do a good job destroying supplies from Red China and reinforcements from North Vietnam. Also, supplies from the U.S.S.R. and other bloc countries are coming in less quantity than might be expected. Should we escalate in North Vietnam, it would give Ho Chi Minh cause to call on his allies for more effective help. Thus, these are two sides to the coin when contemplating these possible actions. We want the best one up. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 5] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3326 Should we use atomic weapons? In my judgment this amount of force is not needed uvainst targets in North Vietnam and the lceation of friendly forces and people in South Vietnam is too close for their safe use. itow about using nonlethal gases? These agents, sich as tear gas and nausea gas, could be used very effectively. Example: clean out enemy caves and tunnels with nonlethal gas instead of lethal explosives. A lot of killing could be avoided and the work ol our forces made easier. The gas here suggested for use does not kill and does not ieuve lasting aftereffects. It is unlike World War I’s deadly gases which created so much howror, Do we ‘ight cold war along with the hot? {nceed we do. Renlizing this is the key to understanding why military victory over the Vietcong is only part of the job in Vietnam. Ta win final victory and get out we must create a strong nation there—stable aad able to tuke care of itself militarily and in oLher ways. ‘This means convincing the peopie that Communist promises are hollow-— that the better life comes from their own free government and alliance with the United Siates. Sfow do we tight cold war? In addition to lighting, every one of our servicomen does somethinyr to make the people’s lives better. As they lsberate a village they bring in food aid medical supplies; they help rebuild schools, roads and other public services. This is done through and in cooperation with Vietnamese Government officials. It fenches the latter how government should serve the people. It demonstrates to the gouple that real benefits-—-not just hollow promises--toilow allegiance to their own government. It also demonstrates to the Vietcong vhey have chosen tne wrong side— many are defecting from the Communist sida. We also have in Vietnam many hundreds of dutlicuted U.S. civilians In the U.S. Information Service and AID mission. ‘hey risk their lives duily to carry the war for men’s minds to the rice roots—right inside enemy strongholds. They also help build up the country’s economy to make it self-sustaining. ‘They often fly through heavy barrages of antiaircraft fire to drop millions of leaflets urging surrender of the Vietcong and rallying the people to their government. An important part of their ammunition is relief supplies for the people bought by contributions from Americans. When will we win in Vietnam’? No one cat. predict when or how the military war willend. Right now it looks like the Vietcong e.fort will intensify for a while, then it could peter ous after some months—but terror tactics will continue much longer. Final vietory will take a long time. We must win the cold war too. ‘That will be when Vietnam not onty is peaceful, but when a strong uniion is welded together-—uble to care for ifselY against the enemy and to provide a decent lile ior its people. Whatcin we at home do to help the cause? {1) Use this document and other data to convinee doubters of the importance of @imerica’s stake in Vietnam. (2) If you know a serviceman there. write him ycur appreciation for his bravery and sacrifice— siuy Lhe came thing to his family here at home. (4) Ln addition to your regular clonation to tnited Crusade, consider a contribution earmarked for “Vietnamese relief” fo an oreanivation such as CARE or Catholic Rellet. nS CBN ME Fm eee MOUNT VERNON (Mr. SAYLOR asked and was given permission to extend tis remarks at this point in the Recorp and to include ex- Lrancous matter. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, with the celebration of George Washington's birthday, I must call the attention of the Congress to a series of recent editorials emphasizing the imminent danger to the view from Mount Vernon if Congress does not act during this session. ‘These excellent editorials testify to the efforts of my colleague, the sentleman from Maryland, Hervey Macrien, to prod the administration and the Congress into fulfilling the commitment made in the early 1960's with the passage of Public Law 87-362, to save the view fvom Mount Vernon. This law was introduced by Senator CLINTON ANDERSON in the Senate and by the gentleman fro: Colorado, Chairman Wayne ASPINALL, ind myself in the Fouse. With the passage of that la‘v—-without a dissenting vote-—the Accokerk Foundation under the presidency of cur beloved colleazue, the gentlewoman irom Ohio, F'RancES BoLtTon, along with the Alice Foreuson Foundation, agreed to donate to the Federal Government, without cost, about half the land needed to protect the view. Beyond that, over 130 priva‘e landowners have, without cost, donated scenic easements to the Denartment of the Interior to further this effort to save the view from Mount Vernon. The State of Maryland has passed pionecring tax reform legislation recognizing the public purpose of these donations, and the Prince Georges County has passed the first local scenic space laws in the land, giving tax credits to the donors. This is the greatest joining together of private, foundation, county, State, and Federal cfforts to preserve cur heritage for the people of this Nation. Tiere is the one shining example of a project where everyone has done his part—except the Federal Government. Unless the Federal Government acts now—at this session of Congress—this ereat pilot project will dismally fail. Other States, counties, organizations, and idividuals throughout the Nation, who have watched the development of this unique project, may well be discouraged in their efforts. Fortunately, my colleague. the gentlemen from Maryland, Hervey MacHeEn, who took office in January 1965, and who represents the area in Maryland opposite Mount Vernon, has placed before us a bill to get the Federal Government moving again. This bill provides for the increases in land prices due to the Govermment procrastination in purchasing the remaining acreare needect. We have been constantly reminding the Congress and the executive that further delays and proevrastinaiion will be the death knell of this project to which so many have devoted so much. Congressman MaAcHEN deserves our full support in this campaign to complete this task so well begun. ‘Vo lose all that has been accomplished would be a real tragedy. The loss would be not only of the millions of dollars worth of lands and rights in lands being patriotically donated without cost, but also the loss of the pilot project in which Federal funds are outweighed by foun- February 21, 1966 dation and private donations, and the protection of natural beauty of a large area is accomplished without increased expense, dislocation of families, and attendant problems. Congressman MacHEN fully said: Tf we can show the country how we can carry out an experiment in cooperative and coordinated scenic protection such as this program at Piscataway Park opposite Mount Vernon, we are setting the stage for a great movement across the country. has thought- If the Congress does not act on Congressman MacHen’s bill this session, we will have failed. We cannot wait longer for the Department of the Interior to make up its mind whether or not to support the President’s year-old program to make the Potomac a “model river of scenic and recreation valucs for the country.” Let us move quickly to do our part, as indicated in these recent editorials: [From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star, Dec. 15, 1965] THREAT AT PISCATAWAY Back in 1961 Congress leaped at a rare opportunity to preserve forever, at moderate Federal cost, more than 1,100 acres of choice shoreline property along the Potomac near Maryland's Piscataway Creek—directly across the river from historic Mount Vernon. In brief, this remarkable deal provicied that the Federal Government need buy only about half the newly authorized Piscataway Park. The remainder, it was understood, would be acquired entirely by private donation. And the 1961 law also authorized the Park Service to seek scenic eascincnts—- also free—restricting obtrusive development in a vast area of an additional 2,596 acres contiguous to the park. Well, the private part of the bargain has progressed. with phenomenal success. Thus far, private foundations have actually donated or committed themselves to donate some 499 acres for the park. Scenic easements have been contributed by more than 120 landowners, involving about 900 acres of land. 'These generous donations are conditioned, however, as might be expected, on the firm understanding that the Government mect its obligation. And the sad fact is that the time when these donations may bein to revert from Federal control is rapidly approaching. For the Government has not held up its end. Thus far, only 97 acres have bcen bought—largely because the figure authorized for expenditure by Congress in the 1961 act has proved to be grossly inadequate, Before further funds will be appropriated, the authorization needs to be increased some $2.5 million. Representative Hervey Macnen is leading the sensible legislative fight for the increase, and seems to have met a stone wall. The latest frustration surprisingly came from the conservation-minded Interior Department itself, which the other day recommended to Congress that the Machen bill be “deferred”’ pending the outcome of “a broad study” of all of Interior's land-acquisition programs. T'he presumption is that the study will wind up early next year. But there is no assurance of that, and, even if there wcre, any loss of time at this stage of the Piscataway project constitutes a threat. diis a needless threat. Instead of his wishywashy approach, Secretary Udall should be beating the drums for the Machen bill. With assurance that the Federal Government intends to carry out its agreement, there is every reason to believe that other donations of land, and many more denations of case- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 6] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3324 ing war threatened this Nation, the Coast Guard found it necessary to expand as rapidly as possible, and thus the Coast Guard Reserve came into being. With the outbreak of war in Europe in September 1939, Coast Guard ships,. planes, and stations were ordered to carry out extensive patrols to insure that merchant ships in our waters did not violate the neutrality proclaimed by President Roosevelt. The next summer the Coast Guard began its port security operations under the revised Espionage Act of 1917 and the newly enacted Dangerous Cargo Act. On November 1, 1941, the Coast Guard was orderéd to operate as part of the Navy. The next month Pearl Harbor was bombed, and we were in the war. AS jn World War I, a big part of the Coast Guard’s task was antisubmarine warfare. Coast Guard cruising cutters and convoy escorts helped with the battle of the At- Jantic as they sank 11 U-boats. At the same time, more than 4,000 survivors of torpedoings and other enemy action were rescued from the Atlantic and Mediterranean by Coast Guardsmen. But there were losses too. The cutter Hamilton went down while in tow after being torpedoed off Iceland. The Acacia was sunk in the Caribbean; Escanaba, Leopold, Muskeget, and Natsek in the Atlantic; Serpens in the Pacific. Only two of the crew survived Escanaba—no one, on board Muskeget, Serpens, or Natsek. More than 90 percent of those who went down with these vessels were members of the newly established Reserve component of the Coast Guard. When she was desperately needed for convoy duty in the North Atlantic and was thrown into the breach to help stem the mounting losses to German submarines, the Escanaba was based at Grand Haven, Mich. The members of her crew and their families were a valued and highly respected part of that small community. The tragic loss of the Escanaba with all but two of her crew was a deep and personal tragedy to that entire region. Today, those men _ are still mourned in Grand Haven. Each year, memorial exercises are conducted there, in memory of the Escanaba and the gallant men who perished when that vessel went down. Many more reservists manned landing craft that hit the invasion beaches with. assault troops at Guadalcanal, Anzio, Tarawa, Attu, north Africa, Salerno, Makin, Kwajalein, Eniwetok, Normandy, southern France, Luzon, Guam, Saipan, Iwo Jima, Okinawa—the Coast Guard Reserve made all those stops and a lot in between. At the conclusion of the war the Coast Guard had 802 vessels of its own and in addition was manning 351 Navy and 288 Army craft. Total personnel had reached a peak of approximately 174,000 and of that number more than 150,000 were Coast Guard reservists who had entered the service for wartime duty. Many of that number formed the nucleus for the establishment of our regular peacetime Reserve and are still serving with Reserve components. Others have completed their 20 or more years of satisfactory service and, having reached the age of 60, are CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE now retired under the Reserve Retirement Act.. Through its intensive and well-organized training program the Coast Guard Reserve is today a highly trained and efficient organization which, I am confident, that if called to the. defense of this Nation, would prove to be both ready and reliable and once again would serve with honor and distinction. I am extremely proud to be a member of this organization and honor it here on its 25th anniversary. U jv BOYCOTTING SHIPS OF NATIONS SUPPLYING NORTH VIETNAM (Mr. CHAMBERLAIN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr, CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Speaker, the action taken on February 18, 1966, by the Maritime Trades Department of the AFL-CIO in proposing a boycott of ships of nations which permit any of its flag vessels to carry or supply goods to North Vietnam clearly reflects a deep concern about this intolerable situation. Tt is indeed tragic that the administration.-has remained so indifferent that it has become necessary that individual efforts be undertaken to pressure our Government into halting this aid and comfort to our enemy. The recent administration action prohibiting vessels which engage in trade with the Hanoi regime from carrying U.S. Government financed cargoes, while certainly necessary, is clearly insufficient to bring about an end to free world traffic into the harbor of Haiphong. If the administration is not sufficiently concerned to stop this trade then it is clearly the responsibility of the Congress to do so. Legislation to close our ports to those helping to supply North Vietnam is now pending before the Congress and should receive our early and favorable consideration. Mr. Speaker, this is a simple issue, and I predict that if the administration continues to abdicate its responsibility of leadership it will continue to be shoved into doing whatever necessary to stop this trade. POSTSCRIPT ON A SOLDIER (Mr. CALLAWAY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.) Mr. CALLAWAY. Mr. Speaker, on October 6 of last year I rose on the floor of this House to express my regret and deep concern over a soldier from the had gone on a self-imposed hunger strike protesting his assignment. to Vietnam on the grounds that he disagreed with our policy there. On that day, Mr. Speaker, the world had heard a great deal about this soldier, Pvt. Winstel Belton, and relatively little about the newly formed ist Air Cavalry. But how things have changed since October 6. Over the past months the world has learned about the 1st Cavalry. Its victories, its bravery, and its sacrifices are well known and are February 21, 1966 now a matter of record; while the story of Private Belton has been out of the news entirely. But, Mr. Speaker, while he has been out of the news, a great change has come over this soldier. He has distinguished himself in the service of his-country, he has won honor on the battlefield, and has earned a promotion to private, first class. Therefore, I think it only fitting that I insert in the Recorp the very gratifying postscript to the story of Winstel Belton, as reported last week in an article from the Atlanta Journal: Soupmmr Woo WENT on STRIKE Wins Honor ON BATTLEFIELD (By Peter Arnett) Ben Cat, SovurH VierNaM.——Six months ago a university graduate named Winstel R. Belton staged a ‘7-day hunger strike at Fort Benning, Ga., to dramatize his distaste for being drafted and his refusal to fight in Vietnam. Thursday a big, proud smile flashed across Belton’s face as he was promoted to private, first class, on a battlefield in South Vietnam. Looking just as proud was his company commander, Capt. R. E. Spriggs of Mexico, N.Y., a professional soldier who hated everything Belton’s hunger strike had stood for, Spriggs was furious last November when he returned to his unit after recovering from a bullet wound to find Belton assigned there. Spriggs said Thursday he would take the 26-year-old Winslow, Ariz., soldier into compat with him anytime, anywhere. Belton arrived in Vietnam with a 12month suspended jail sentence hanging over his head because of his hunger strike in mid-August. A court-martial had given him a bad conduct discharge, total forefeiture of pay and the jail sentence. But he was also given a chance. Belton, a Negro, was told that if he went to Vietnam and proved himself, he would not have to serve his jail sentence. If he failed, he would serve it. His old unit, the U.S. Army’s ist Cavalry Airmobile Division, wouldn’t take him back. The ist Infantry Division accepted him. Spriggs was the only man in A company of the 2d Battalion, 28th Regiment, who knew that the new radio-telephone operator was the hunger striker Belton. Lt. Gus Berzines, a weapons platoon commander from Kalamazoo, Mich., recalled talking with Belton one day about various things and finally saying, “You mean you're that Belton?” More and more men in the unit began realizing that Belton had publicly protested what they themselves had accepted as a patriotic duty. None of them brought up the subject with him except the company commander, and few ever discussed it among themselves. “That was his business,” said Set. Frederick Range of Dallas, Tex. “We treated him like any other soldier.” Belton, holder of a bachelor of science degree in education, was initially cold and reserved with his buddies. But the heat of battles in December and January melted his attitude and forged ever-tightening bonds with Spriggs and the other men in the company. Initially given the job of laying wires between the company headquarters and the platoons, he began carrying Spriggs’ radio. Early in January, he proved he had what it takes, Sp5c. Larry Kabriel of Summerfield, Kans., recalls that the company was under heavy fire near Trung Lap and an urgent call came over the radio for Captain Spriggs.: The radioman shouted back: “The captain’s not here. He’s up front. There's heavy fire, I can’t reach him.” Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 7] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 that Vietcong, as individual South Vietnamese, would not be listened to along with Buddhists, Catholics, Montagnards, North Vietnamese exiles, and others. It would mean, however, that they would nct be given an opportunity to move into sensitive government departments and take over by indirection as was done in Eastern Europe. It is also ecucational to recall President Kennedy's statement in Berlin, in 1963, when he said: T am not impressed by the opportunities open to popular tronts throughout the world. I do not believe that any democrat can successfully ride that tiger. Recent dispatches from Peiping and Hanoi have suggested growing doubts about the conduct of their military effort, the strain on the economy, and the resulting emergence of a peace element. Now is the time to emphasize firmness rather then vacillation. es METER mmo “SULEVISING OF HOUSE PLLOCEEDINGS (Mr. ICHORD asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, the eyes of the Nation last week were focused on the South Vietnam hearings conducted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Most of the appraisals of the hearings that I have heard on this side of the Congress have been very unfavorable, but I submit to the Speaker—and I speak primarily to the House majority floor leader and the Speaker of the House—that there is one thing we should have learned from these hearings: Under no -circumstances should we ever pcrmit House proceedings to be televised. The televisins of House proceedings, Mr. Speaker, is the most effective way I know to convert serious deliberative proceedings into a first-class comedy. 1 FORA: em RADIO FREE ASIA (Mr. ROONEY of Pennsylvania asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. ROONEY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I have this morning sent a letter to Mr. Crawford H. Greenewalt, chairman of the board of directors of Radio Free Europe, urging that his organization investigate the feasibility of establishing a Radio Free Asia in an effort to counteract the relentless barrage of hate propaganda now being disseminated by the Communist Chinese throughout southeast Asia. My admiration and respect for Radio Free Europe is boundless. It has been, and continues to be, one of the most effective private means of disseminating truth to the captive nations of Eastern Europe ever devised in modern society. It is my hope that a similar effort can and will be made in the strife-ridden areas of Asia. With your permission.I should like to read the text of my letter to Mr, Greenewalt and urge my distinguished colleagues to associate themselves with it if they share my belief that a Radio Free Asia can be an important ally in our struggle for the minds of Asia’s peoples: Dear Mr, GREENEWALT: It is imperative that our Nation, through its private citizens as well as through its Government, do everything possible to offset the fantastic volume of vicious propaganda now being drummed into the minds of the Asian peoples by the Red Chinese. Since World War II, few organizations have done a more effective job of presenting the truth to captive nations and their people than Radio Free Europe. Most of the time the only access the peoples of Eastern Europe have to the truth is through our own Government’s agency, the Voice of America and through Radio Free Europe. It becomes increasingly apparent, in these perilous times in Asia, that there is a grave and pressing need for an operation similar to Radio Free Europe in this part of the world. Communist propagandists are expending millions of dollars and thousands of hours of air lime in an wuneeasing barrage of iiatred igainst America and the free world. We must counteract this relentless campaign through every effective channel available to us as a free country. iI therefore strongly urge that you aid the inembers of the board of your organization give serious consideration to the formation of a Radio Free Asia. Such action, I am. convinced, will assist the official agencies of our own Government and those of other free nations in this world in their effort to win the minds of millions away from the seductive and totalitarian influence of Red Chin:. Yhe bulk of the world’s population lives in. this troubled and terror-stricken region. Chere is no doubt, whatever, that the Chinese Communist regime recognizes the pivot role the commitment of these millions of human beigns will play in their quest for world domination. Our American Government and its people stand firmly against the encroachment of communism in southeast Asia. We have ynade cur stand known through economic assistance and through the commitment of mren and arms to aid South Vietnam in its heroic fight against aggression from the Worth. We must seek to win the propaganda war as well, And in that war there is no greater wenpon than truth. The American people should be given the opportunity to enlist in that struggle through & voluntary, nonprofit, nongovernmental agency in addition to all the official effort new being made. Radio Free Asia can become a reality. I pray that you, the members af your board and the expert advisers you have working with you may be able to make it so. “LOVE-INS” (Mr. GROSS asked and was givel: permission to address the House for 1 minute and toe revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, according to U.S. News & World Report of February 28, 1966, the Board of Supervisors of Los Angeles County has ordered an inquiry into what one of the supervisors terms “love-ins,” permitted under the welfare progam in Los Angeles. At issue is a rule which permits sid to a family with dependent children, even though the man who lives in the house is neither married to the mother nor is the father of the children. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 3923 Said Supervisor Frank G. Bonelli: We have had sit-ins and lie-ins, and now we have love-ins. This places a stigma and indictment upon supervisors unless we actively challenge this phase of the welfare program. Taxpayers must not be forced to subsidize any welfare program that has the inherent danger of promoting illegitimacy, to say nothing about apparent outright immorality. RESOLUTION TO BAR DISCRIMINA- TION AGAINST U.S. EMPLOYEES (Mr. SCHWEIKER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. SCHWEIKER. Mr. Speakcr, I am today introducing a concurrent resolution calling for an end to discrimination in the assignment of U.S. employees to overseas posts. The administration has been practicing religious discrimination in its assignment of employees abroad, thereby preventing assignment of qualified Jewish employees to U.S. posts in Arab-bloc countries. The resolution which = am introducing today expresses the sense of the Congress that the President should take such steps as may be necessary to assure that the assignment of U.S. employees in the United States and at posts abroad shall be made without regard to race, religion, color, or national origin. By its demonstrated willingness to go along with the anti-Semitism practiced by these Arab-bloc countries when assigning U.S. personnel abroad, the administration is guilty of following a double standard, properly outlawing discrimination by private employers at home, but improperly discriminating in assigning its own employees abroad. Mr. Speaker, I would welcome the support of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for this important measure. A TRIBUTE TO THE U.S. COAST GUARD RESERVE ON ITS 125TH BIRTHDAY (Mr. CHAMBERLAIN asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the REcorp.) Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Speaker, 25 years ago, on February 19, 1941, a new Reserve component of our Armed Forces was born, and it is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to pay tribute to this fine organization, the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve. From my personal experience and long association with the Coast Guard Reserve, both as a commissioned officer and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, I can state with a great deal of conviction that its members, whatever their individual backgrounds may be. reflect one thing in common—devotion, extreme pride, and an intense feeling of national responsibility. Prior to the outbreak of World War II, the Coast Guard had no organized reserve, and its entire strength numbered less than 20,000 officers and men. With ever-increasing duties as the approach- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 8] === 3334 The United States holds title to the minerals of the El Ranchito grant and since this site is part of the grant it is not proposed to convey mineral rights of the said parcel to the tribe. Santa Ana Pueblo has ‘a relatively small population of 366 and badly needs a community center of its own with adequate sanitary facilities under present planning programs. This need would be served by the pueblo acquisition of this site.; The fourth and last pueblo is that of Zia which has an administrative site of 428 acres more or less within the Borrego grant, which was purchased by the United States in the submarginal land purchase project. There is a bit of legislative and administrative history involved in the case of the Borrego grant. Jurisdiction of the Borrego grant was transferred to the Department of the Interior from the Department of Agriculture by Executive Order No. 7792, dated January 18, 1938. Then some 11 years later the act of August 13, 1949 (63 Stat. 604), all of the Borrego grant, excluding minerals and excepting this administrative site of 428 acres became trust land of the Zia Pueblo. Since the entire Borrego grant was originally purchased by the Federal Government for $68,239.40, or at an average per acre cost of $3, this would make the cost of the administrative site $1,284. There are no improvements on the administrative site. The Borrego grant is used by the pueblo of Zia for livestock grazing purposes and the administrative site would likewise be used for livestock grazing. The present estimate fair market value of this administrative site is $2,568 and the site is not currently being used by the Government nor does it have any plans for its future use. The interior of the Borrego grant which includes an administrative site does not have a sectional survey hence no present description is possible. The United States holds title to the minerals in the remainder of the Borrego grant and it is proposed to retain the minerals in the administrative site. Plans to develop the economy of Zia Pueblo would be expedited by the acquisition of the administrative site by the Indians.: In summary, all of the lands relating to the four pueblos involved in this bill, are in excess of the needs of the Department of the Interior and it is considered that the pueblos involved can make effective use of these lands for community centers or for agricultural and grazing purposes. Through this transfer the Government will be relieved of further responsibility for maintaining the buildings no longer needed and the Indians will receive trust title and assume responsibility for lands, and buildings which can be used to their own economic and social advantage. The bill was ordered to be read a third time, was read the third time and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. A similar House bill (H.R. 12265) was laid on the table. ~ Approved For Release 2005/06/29: C| CONGRESSIONA WINNING THE PEACE (Mr. KING of Utah asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Recorp and to inelude an article.) Mr. KING of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Deseret News of Salt Lake City puts it quite plainly when it says: As we go about winning the wart in. Vietnam, let’s make sure we lay the groundwork for winning the peace, too. Tt hails the President’s pledge to help achieve political and economic reforms in South Vietnam, stating that “the more that is done to give the people of South Vietnam a greater voice in their government, the more incentive they will have to make the sacrifices necessary to win the war.” Speaking of the woes which the people there are suffering, the paper says: Simple common sense dictates that everything possible be done to alleviate such suffering, not only for humanitarian reasons put also to expedite the war effort. We all know that we are now facing conflict on two fronts, and because this article sheds light on the subject I am offering it to the Recorp, where others may want to read it. {From the Salt Lake City (Utah) Deseret News, Feb. 10, 1966] Win THE PEACE, TOO Since an end to the war in Vietnam seems to be nowhere near in sight, President Johnson’s pledge to help achieve political and economic reforms in South Vietnam might seem premature. On the contrary, the more that is done to give the people of South Vietnam a greater voicé in thelr government, the more incen- - tive they will have to make the sacrifices necessary to win the war. One of the major problems in South Vietnam has been the rapid turnover in the governments at Saigon. While the more democratic constitution and the elections that have been promised are no automatic guarantee of stability, particularly in a country with virtually no experience with democ-~ racy, they at least represent a chance for improvement. Then there is the drag on the war effort that is being exerted by the 1 million refugees in South Vietnam and by the inflation for which America’s presence 1s at least partly responsible. Simple commonsense dictates that everything possible be done to alleviate such suffering, not only for humanitarian reasons but also-to expedite the war effort. Moreover, once the war 1s over, peace with freedom will be insecure as long as people are hungry, homeless, and jobless. As @ case in point, remember how tired, disiliusioned, and skeptical we all were after World War II, particularly the people of warravaged Europe? Remember how close an economically as well as spiritually sick Western Europe came to succumbing to communism? What saved the day was, of course, the Marshall plan. It got the recipients on their feet psychologically as well as economically, and won the U‘S. allies and markets we might otherwise have lost. The situations in South Vietnam and in postwar Europe are not, of course, parallel. Europe was already highly industrialized; Vietnam is not. Europe had plenty of highly skilled workers and businessmen, Vietnam does not. But after a decade or more of war, South P67B00446R000400030005-0 ECORD — HOUSE February 21, 1966 Vietnam is sapped and tn need of help as Europe was after 4 years. Moreover, if we were to wash our hands of Vietnam after having won victory on the battlefield or at the conference table, it might not be long before war flared up again there just as it did after the Geneva Conference supposedly settled things in 1954. Nor is there any good reason the United States should be expected to shoulder the burden alone. Even those who oppose what we are currently doing in Vietnam cannot reasonably object to making sure it does not Jong persist as a potential tinderbox for world conflict. As we go about winning the war in Vietnam, let’s make sure we lay the groundwor for winning the peace, too. FOR BETTER LIFE (Mr. KING of Utah asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Recorp and include an editorial.) Mr. KING of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the Honolulu Declaration, the Salt Lake Tribune points out, stressed “a resolve to win the war against the Vietcong through both counterinsurgency tactics and civic reform programs. “Experts have long contended that the only way to defeat the Communist insurgency is to attack the social, economic, and political defects which helped create the insurgency, while the military struggle against the guerrillas continues.” / The paper believes that “from a longrange standpoint a U.S.-backed program to improve Vietnam’s agriculture and education is of paramount importance.” As T read the editorial I thought: here is a summary of the task which lies ahead, and in the belief that others might find the article illuminating I request that it be made available in the Rrc- ORD. [From the Salt Lake Tribune, Feb. 10, 1966] Berrer Lire PLus VICTORY? The greatest immediate achievement of the Honolulu talks of President Johnson with Prime Minister Nguyen Cao Ky and others of South Vietnam may stem from the rst face-to-face confrontation of chiefs of state of the two countries. In practical terms, the greatest longer term direct benefit may be action to curb ruinous inflation which is sweeping the wartorn little country. The communique at the close of the meeting pledged “further concrete steps” in this direction. These might include new efforts to keep U.S. military construction from creating pressures on the supply of Vietnamese labor and commodities and reexamination of the monetary exchange rate for American military personnel. The “declaration of Honolulu” stressed a resolve to win the war against the Vietcong through both counterinsurgency tactics and civic reform programs. Experts have long contended that the only way to defeat the Communist inurgency is to attack the social, economic, and political defects which helped. create the insurgency, even while the” military struggle against the guerrillas continues. It is surprising that it has taken s0 long to give real meaning to this part of the program. From a long-range standpoint a US.- packed program to improve Vietnam’s agriculture and education is of paramount importance. Agriculture Secretary Freeman is Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 9] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 the beneficial interest in certain federally owned lands heretofore set aside for school or administrative purposes. ‘he SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objecticn to the present consideration of the bill? Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, again I would like to interrogate one of the chief handlers of this bill. I notice that this bill is a little different from the others which would give title to Indian lands in that the Secretary of the anterior would at some future time decide when, as, and if he wants to place the title in trus, to these tribes. in other words, other bills that we Nave passed placed the title in trust in the United States, or, as you said, give title in fee to the Indian. Here is a little different situation where we might be establishing a precedent, in that we are reposing the pewcr to vest title in trust in the Secretarv of the Interior. Have you noticed that in this bill? Mr, ASPINALL, Mr. Speaker, will the rentleman yield? Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania. I yield to the gen!leman from Colorado. Mr. ASPINALI. I have not noticed any major difference. As far as this legislation is concerned, the transfer is surely an administrative act, and inasmuch as we give to the Secretary this authority to transfer these lands to the Tndians themselves, in trust, then the Sceretary will do it as soon as he understands that the Indians are ready to go ahead and take over the administration oft this additional area. Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania. Then the gentleman [eels that the Secretary of the Interior can repose a trust in lands over and above the right of Congress? Mr. ASPINALI:. No. As I understand it, in this resoceet this is an action of Congress which places these lands in the ownership of the Indians in trust. The trust—estate is still the same in this iustance as in the other. The presence of mineral rights may make a minor «ifference. It is a question of procedure, if XE understand what my friend is talking about. Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I believe the gentleman is right, and I withdraw my reservation. The SPEAKER, pro tempore. Is there «bjection to the present tonsideration of “he bill? ‘hore was no obiection. Mr. ASPINAT.. Mr. Sneaker, T ask unanimous consent that a similar Senute bill, S. 1904, be considered in lieu of i11e House bill. Mr. SPEAKER, Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Colorado? There being no objection, the Clerk rcad the Senate bill, as follows: 4.1904 fe tt enacted by the Senate and House of lenresentatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when w1¢ following identified lands (other than ue mineral interests specifically excluded in uhe identification), which were set aside for school or administrative purposes, are no Juouger needed by the United States for the No, 29-——~-9 administration of Indian Affuirs, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to declare, by publication of a notice in the Federal Ivegister, that the title of the United States to such lands and improvements shall ihereafter be held in trust for the Indians of the Pueblos of Acoma, Sandia, Sinta Ana, and Zia as follows: (1) Acomita day school site comprising taree and five-tenths acres, more or less, to mie Indians of the Pueblo of f.coma; (2) Sandia school site comprising sixtytlaree one-hundredths of an acre, mre or less, to the Indians of the Puchlo of Sandia; (3) Santa Ana school site comprisiny: two aad eighty-one one-hundredlis acres, more or less, excluding mineral interests therein, located within the El Ranchito grant, io the Indians of the Pueblo of Santa Ana; anil (4) Administrative site in the Borrego grant, comprising four hundred and twontycight acres, more or less, excluding minsrals therein, to the Indians of the Pueblo of Zila. Sec. 2, The Indian Claims Commission ig directed to determine in accorcance with the provisions of section 2 of the Act of August 13, 1946 (GO Stat. 1050), the extent to which the value of lands and improvements placed in a trust status under the authority of this Act should or should not be set off aguinst any claim against the United Siuntes determined by the Commission, (Mr. MORRIS (at the request of Mr. ASPINALL) was granted permission to OXtend his remarks at this point in the Recorn.) Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Speaker, a bi:l to authorize the Secretary of the Intericr to give to the Indians of the: Pueblos of Acoma, Sandia, Santa Ana, and Zia the beneficial interest in certain federally owned lands heretofore set aside for schcols or administrative purposes, ‘ihe purpose of H.R. 12265 is to autiorize the Secretary of the Interior to give in trust to the pueblos of Acoma, Sandia, Santa Ana, and Zia in New Mexico the beneficial interest in certain federally owned lands and improvements when they are no longer needed. The lands total 435 acres and were set aside for school or administrative use. The vilue of the lands and their improvements is approximately $31,000. ach one of the four pueblos has its own distinctive needs for economic bctterment which, through the acquisition of these lands, will be met in part, at least, through present planning of the pueblos themselves. The first to be considered is the Acoma Pueblo. ‘he Acomita day school site comprises a tract of 3.5 acres located within the Acoma Pueblo grant. It was acquired by the Federal Government through condernnation proceedings in the U.S. District, Court for the District of New Mexico in 1920 at a cost of $350 for the construction of a school building. The tract, however, was never used for school purposes, and a revocable permit! was given to the pueblo of Acoma, which authorized the pueblo to use the tract for agricultural purposes. The present value of the land is $560. As the development of agricultural:esources and irrigable land is part of the Acoma Pueblo present plans of econor:ic betterment the acquisition of this site will be beneficial to the pueblo—popu’ation 1,674 in 1962. The location of the tract is shown on the accompanying CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE 3303 map. The total acreage of tribal land is 245,801 and there are 370 acres of allotted land but most of this is nonagricultural grazing land. Turning now to the Sandia Pueblo we have a day school site comprising 0.63 acre, more or less, which was acquired by the United States in 1930 at a cost of $126 through condemnation proceedings. The tract was acquired ds a site on which to erect Government buildings for the use and training of the Indians attending the day school at the Sandia Pueblo. On July 1, 1960, the operation of an Indian day school at this pueblo was discontinued and the Sandia children new attend public school. The present estimated value of this tract at Sandia Pueblo, including improvements, is estimated at $14,227. The improvements consist of one school building and teacher’s quarters, pumphouse, storage building, warehouse, building for bathhouse, garage, dispcensary, plus sewer and water system. Under a revocable permit the Sandia Pueblo Indians use the buildings on this site as a meeting place for the tribal council and for other community gatherings as the need arises. A portion of the school site is used for a health clinic and as a school for U.S. Public Health Indian sanitarian aids. No conveyance of land or buildings used for health purposes will be made to the tribe without the approval of the U.S. Public Health Service. The Sandia Pueblo has a small population of 124 people and presently plans to develop a community center providing facilities for library study and youth recreation by securing necessary funds through the Community Facilities Act or other appropriations at an estimated cost of $75,000. The area in question would be well adapted to serve the purpose of a Sandia Pueblo Community Center. The third pueblo is Santa Ana and a parcel of 2.81 acres was acquired by the United States in 1920 at a cost of $140.50 through condemnation proceedin:s. The purpose of its acquisition was to provide a site for the construction of a school for Santa Ana Pueblo. Since July 1, 1960, when the Santa Ana Day School was discontinued, the Indian children have been attending public school. The present estimated value of this land, with improvements is $13,747 and the improvements consist of a schcol and quarters building, storage buildias, bath and storage building, a pumphouse, a water and sewer system. Under a revocable permit covering the use of all buildings and facilities at the Site issued on August 28, 1969, the pucbie Santa Ana plans to use the school site ag a meeting place for the tribal council and for community gatherings as the need arises. A portion of the site is being used by the U.S. Public Health Service as a location for an Indian clinic and no conveyance of land or clinic buildings will be made to the tribe without the approval of the U.S. Public Health Service. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 AR He === [Page 10] === cal ~ Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA- RDP67B00446R000400030005- 0 February 21, 1966 taking 20 specialists to Vietnam to look at the Mekong Delta area, one of the great rice powls of southeast Asia, Freeman is one of several high-level officials accompanying Vice President HumpHrey to southeast Asia. “The purpose of the Humphrey trip is believed mainly—physchological—“to continue the momentum” of the Honolulu talks. If communications between Washington and Saigon are improved and social and political improvement are given real meaning and impetus, then the spectacular conference at Hawali will prove useful. This is, after all, the first time that a South Vietnamese government has definitely promised to create a better life for its people. IMPORTANCE OF THE OFFICE OF VICH PRESIDENT (Mr. GRAY asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GRAY. Mr. Speaker, the importance of the office of the Vice President has been increasing steadily over the past several years. At the present time, the United States does not own or maintain a permanent residence for the Vice President. Such a residence is badly needed. The Vice President is called upon to entertain diplomats, various Officials from this country and abroad very frequently. Accordingly, I have introduced today, a bill authorizing the General Services Administration to plan, design, and construct an official residence for the Vice President of' the United States on a 10-acre site at the U.S. Naval Observatory on Massachusetts Avenue NW. We propose a three-story brick and stone structure, three-car garage, grounds to be properly landscaped and fenced. The bill calls for a maximum of $750,000, including the furnishings, The Senate passed a bill last year providing for an authorization of $1 million. Public hearings have been scheduled for 10 a.m., on Thursday, February 24 in the Full Public Works Committee Hearing Room 2167, the Rayburn Building. Congressman GrorGeE Fauion, Full Committee Chairman on Public Works and I, invite all interested colleagues or their constituents to appear before the committee or submit a written statement concerning this important matter. ‘We also welcome cosponsorship of the bill. CONGRATULATIONS TO THE GAM- BIA ON ITS INDEPENDENCE DAY ANNIVERSARY (Mr. MATSUNAGA asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, The Gambia, which achieved independence on February 18, 1965, as a constitutional monarchy within the British Commonwealth, has just completed its first year of independence. My warmest congratulations are extended to Prime Minister Dawda Kairaba Jawara and the people of this young but important member of the family of African independent nations, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE The estimated 325,000 population of The Gambia live on a stretch of land, from 7 to 20 miles wide, that extends from the west coast of Africa to a point 200 miles inland. The country’s economy is almost entirely agricultural, with peanuts normally comprising about 95 percent of the total value of annual exports. This young African nation became a member of the Organization of African Unity in March 1965 and was admitted to the United Nations as that organization’s 115th member in September of the same year. Mr. Speaker, it is my sincere wish, as The Gambia enters upon its second year of independence, that the friendly ties existing between the United States and this young African nation will be expanded and strengthened. LINCOLN, OF SPRINGFIELD (Mr. FINDLEY (at the request of Mr. HuTCHINSON) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the Recorp and to include extraneous matter.) Mr, FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, on February 12, the 157th anniversary of the birth of Abraham Lincoln, the Governor of Pennsylvania, the Honorable William W. Scranton, spoke at a dinner in Springfield, Ill., sponsored by the Abraham Lincoln Association. It was my privilege to hear this excellent address. I was struck by the parallel drawn by the speaker between present-day national circumstances and those that prevailed during the period when Lincoln was a citizen of Springfield. In my view, the speech points the way of opportunity for the Republican Party, and for our country. Here is the text: I do not possess profound scholarly knowledge of the life of Abraham Lincoln, but, as apparently with you, the example of his life among all Americans has always held first place for me. In one critical moment of my own life, I found myself asking, “What would Lincoln have done?” And Lincoln's answer led me to the right decision. Lincoln’s Hfe ts probably more famillar to the average person than that of any other American—more familiar even than those of Washington or Jefferson. We know of him as a young man in the small village of New Salem. The tales of the early life of Abe Lincoln, the railsplitter, still inspire and entertain each succeeding generation of Americans. And we know him of course for his unmatched accomplishments in the Presidency from 1861 to 1865—the Saviour of the Union, the Great Emancipator, the first successful national leader and virtual founder of the Republican Party. But it is about neither of these Lincolns that I will talk tonight—neither the New Salem Lincoln, the struggling and humorous youth; nor the Civil War Lincoln, the leader who “belongs to the ages.” Rather it is about the Lincoln who dwelt in this very city of Springfield from the time that he began a law practice in 1887 until he left for Washington in February of 1861— a period of almost 25 years. These were the prime years of Lincoln's own life. During this time he married, raised children, bought a home, entered politics as a Whig—formed the views and 3335 confirmed the character to which he later was to give such magnificent expression. They are the least well-known years of Lincoln’s career. Nevertheless, they should have particular interest and significance for us today. It was in many ways a time very like our own. During most of this period, the Nation was governed by a Democratic combination bent on achieving consensus that offered something to everybody—something to farmers, something to bankers, something to southern slaveowners, something to northern factory hands—and something, of course, to the politicians themselves. The minority party, the Whigs, were chiefly negative in outlook and captured the Presidency only when led by a military hero. An extremist group broke and for a time seemed about to take over the minority party. Discrimination was debated as a great national issue. The country became involved in an international war which was severely criticized by many of the leading intellectuals of the day. And while all this was happening, un- ‘precedented economic growth and expansion were taking place. All of these factors find echoes in our own time. At first. glance, there does seem to be one major difference between the two periods. During the era that culminated in the Civil War, the great moral issue of slavery infected and colored and finally overwhelmed every other subject of political debate. Look where you will at the issues of the time— national expansion, monetary policy, States rights, the tariff, even construction of a transcontinental railroad. In the end each of them comes down to one question: What effect will it have on slavery? Slavery was indeed the irrepressible issue. Beside it, all other questions sank into at least momentary inconsequence. There is nothing quite like it today. And yet there is a moral issue that today confronts every one of us and pervades the entime political and intellectual firmament. That is the question of peace or war. We can no longer define war simply as a more forceful extension of diplomacy. Hither war is going to cease or the human race will. It is the issue that comes back to us, either in a whisper or a roar, from every discussion of politics or economics or culture or indeed existence itself. So even in this respect our own time is not so very different from those critical decades of the forties and. the fifties in which Abraham Lincoln passed most of his mature years. Consider some of the problems of political principle and national morality with which Lincoln dealt in those years. This is of interest for what they tell us of Lincoln, the man. Of interest, too, for what they tell us of ourselves, and of the problems that now confront us. There was first of all the issue of the Mexican War. President Polk and his administration defended the invasion of Mexican territory, on the ground of national interest—then known as manifest destiny. Our presence in Mexico, they claimed, was dictated by our national interest. To leave would be to imperil our strategic position in the Western Hemisphere. Most of the intellectuals of the day left little doubt as to what they thought of that argument. Henry David Thoreau, in his customary outspoken way, declared. “The people must cease to make war on Mexico, though it cost them their existence as a people.” If Thoreau had been living today, he probably would have burned his draft card. As it was, he simply refused to pay taxes. Lincoln did not support this position. As a Whig Member of Congress, he questioned Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 11] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0.. 3336 the wisdom and even the constitutionality of the war. But once it had begun, he supported its vigorous prosecution. He did not, however, believe that the minority party in time of war should abdicate its responsibility to criticize. Again and again, he questioned the assumptions on which the war was being carried on. He rejected the doctrine of national interest, at least in its simpie form. He insisted that the Nation’s aims be defined in mor] as well as in military terms. During his own Presidency, Lincoln said it was not so important that God be on our side, as that we be on God’s side. This conviction found its roots in his observation of the confused maneuvering of the Polk administration during the Mexican War. Second, there was the issue of extremism on Tiincoln’s own side of the political. spec-: trum. ‘he Whig Party never really got off the ground as an instrument of government in ihe United States. Although it elected two Presidents, it never captured the imagination of the American people and was unable to achieve a record of stable continuity in office. By the 1850’s, it was evident that something new was needed. The people were crying out for change, and the Whigs were unable to offer attractive or exciting change. For a few years, it seemed that know-nothingism might provide the answer. The know-nothings were formed as a response to the growing tide of immigration from non-Anglo-Saxon countries to the United States. They had a very simple erced: If you are not like us in race and religion and national origin, we don’t want you here, ‘They fed on fear—the fear of those who had achieved some measure of security toward those who were still struggling upware from the bottom of the ladder. They offered deceptively simple and brutal solutions to difficult social and economic prob-: lems. ‘They were, as we would now say, extrem-: ists. Knuow-nothingism was a particularly dif- Geult problem for Lincoln. He found many of his closest friends and political allies in the know-nothing movement. When he ran for the State legislature in 1854, he was offered the know-nothing endorsement. At lirst he hesitated to make his views known, But he cauld not hesitate long. He was, after all, Lincotn,. ‘The know-nothing party, “wrong in principle.” We wrote to his friend, Josh Speed: “Tam not a know-nothing; that is certain. How could I be? How can anyone who ab-. hors the oppression of Negroes be in favor of degrading classes of white people? * * * When it comes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretense of loving liberty—to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.” Lincoln dealt forthrightly with extremism. He said that it had no legitimate connection. with true conservatism. He warned that conservatives who lent it a sympathetic ear would do ultimate damage to their cause. Lincoln was proven right. Within a few years, the tever of know-nothingism had passed. If it had not been stubbornly opposed by men like Lincoln, the birth of the new Republican Party might have been long delayed or might never have taken place. Slavery would have dug itself ever more deeply into the national fabric. Conservatism would have been discredited, and would bave been unable to play its necessary role in the development of our country. The final great national problem with which Lincoln had to deal during his Springfleld years wis the formation of a new politihe said, was CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE cal combination to take the plave of the Democrats as the governing party. The Democratic Party was wrecked by the issue of slavery. Constructed on the twin pillars of patronage and compromise, it failed to evade the moral issue. Slavery would have to go, or the Nation would be torn asunder. The Democrats were unable to accept either alternative, and therefore collapsed. The question remained: Who would take their place? During the long period of Demcouratic supremacy, the minority party had two great leaders: Daniel Webster, of Massnichusetts, and Henry Clay, of Kentucky. Both had an overpowering itch Lo become President, but neither ever made it. Both made many valuable contributions to our national development, but neither provided a satisfactory response to the fundamental moral issue of the time. These two great leaders held different views on how the minority party shoukl be converted into a stable governing conibination. Webster believed that his party should adhere to the business interest, and that it would eventually come to power as surely as aay follows night. He is reputed to have said: “Let Congress take care of the rich, and the rich will take care of the poor.” The United States, he reasoned was inevitably becoming a business civilization, and the party of business was sure to be the governing party within a very short time. Henry Clay did not share his colleague’s certainty on this point. Clay believed in the art of political maneuver. “AD legislation, all government, all society,” he declared, ‘are founded upon the principle of mutual concession.” In short: If you want to get along, go along. Lincoln, although he admired both of the old Whig leaders, particularly Cluy, in the end could agree with neither. To Webster’s contention that the conservative party should rest its cause on the business interest, Lincoln replied, “Republicans are for both the man and the dollur, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar.” Clay’s argument he found more compelling. Henry Clay had been Linccln’s parti:-ular hero since the time of his first entrance into politics. Lincoln himself had spent his share of time in the political back rooms, and he knew that a man who is unwilling at the proper time to compromise is unable to govern. But Lincoln did not believe that compromise alone could be made the bisis for a political party. In. 1859, Lincoln said, “If we shall adopt a platform that fails to recognize or express our purpose * * * we not only take nothing by our success, but we tacitly admit that we act upon no other principle than «a desire to have ‘the loaves and fishes.’ ” Lincoln knew that no successfu: political leader can afford to neglect “the loaves and fishes.” In a democracy, they supply the indispensable motivation to command the loyalty of the party shock troops on election day. At the same time he knew thit a party that relies on tangible rewards alone may win an election or two, but it will never win a generation. With Emerson, Lincoln saw that the conservative party of his time ‘contained the best men.’ But with Emerson, toc, he realized that the conservative party could never become the governing party so long as it was merely defensive, merely negative, untransformed by any overriding spirit of idealism. It was just this act of transformation which Lincoln achieved within the new Republican Party., For the first time since the days of the Founding Fathers, it was the conservative party that looked confidently toward the future. It was the conservative purty that spoke up for the rights of man. it was the February 21, 1966 conservative party that offered land to the dispossessed, liberty to those who were in chains, and the prospect of economic fulfilment to all. The result of course is history. A new political party came to power and for the next 70 years remained the principal instrument of government in the United States. It is entirely in the spirit of Lincoln that I conclude tonight with the suggestion that once again our country is in need of such an act of transformation. The party that Lincoln helped to create is, now as then, the only available substitute for the current majority party. I cannot, in all candor, tell you that an act of transformation has as yet taken place within the Republican Party. But I believe that it will. It will because it must. The problems are too grave—the issues tos serious—the prospect too glorious for merely partisan maneuvering in 1966. The minority will become the majority when it has seized the spirit of idealism that is latent within our people—when it has divested itself of any association with extremism—when it has offered real solutions to the real problems of our country. I am a Republican—and I believe that is going to happen. But more than that I am an American and I believe that it has got to happen And if it does not, we will not have America. WHO WILL HE SACRIFICE? (Mr. GURNEY (at the request of Mr. HUTCHINSON) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the REcorD and to include extraneous matter.) Mr. GURNEY. Mr. Speaker, the recent administration announcement that $190.6 million would be cut from the aid to schools in federally impacted areas is a severe blow to education. The President tells us in one breath that he will spread our high standards of education to the world by the new worldwide war on poverty. Then with the nexi breath he says that he will cut a vilally important educational program here at home in half. There was concern expressed for cd cational excellence in the state of the Union message, and grand new programs promised. But actions speak louder than all the speeches and the ringing phrases. I recall one phrase vividly—the Presi dent asked of those of us who believe in fiscal responsibility “Who wil they sacrifice?” I think it has become very clear who the President will sacrifice. He is asking us to sacrifice the schoolchildren who seek a good education to prepare them for a complex world. He is asking us to sacrifice education standards of the many towns and counties of this Metion where Federal installations have brought in a great influx of workers and their families. These people work, and often live, on tax-exempt land, for which the local government receives none of the taxes that other citizens must pay. The Federal Government has a clear and well-established responsibility here for they are the cause of both the increase in schoolchildren and the loss of tax sources. Two of the counties I represent in Florida are good examples of the pro- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 12] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3342 ground—for automobile drivers and passengers, aS well as trucks and buses. Our colleague, the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Mackay], a member of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, has gone into this problem very thoroughly and has proposed legislation to establish a National Traffic Safety Agency to provide national leadership to reduce traffic accident losses. I am introducing a similar bill. The National Traffic Safety Agency, which would be headed by an Administrator comparable to the Federal Aviation Administrator, would do the following: Establish a National Safety Research and Testing Center. Provide leadership to achieve a more uniform traffic environment, including more uniform rules of the road, more adequate standards of safety in the manufacture of new vehicles and inspection of vehicles in use, better definition of fitness to drive, and a more uniform physical driving environment. The proposed new agency should not seek to supplant existing public and private agencies, but it should provide aggressive leadership to achieve a concert of action. It is my hope that the legislation will be enacted promptly so we can begin a real effort to reduce wanton destruction on our highways. VIETNAM ~ x 4 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. Sretprn] is recognized for 1 hour. (Mr. SELDEN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.) Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Speaker, the Nation in recent weeks has watched with great interest and concern the hearings conducted by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in regard to our policy in southeast Asia. Last week both Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Gen. Maxwell Taylor presented excellent arguments for a policy of firmness in dealing with the threat of communism in Vietnam. In view of the persistent carping of foreign policy soft liners, who would have this country retreat in the face of Communist aggression, it was most refreshing to hear the statements of experienced and knowledgeable spokesmen such as Secretary Rusk and General Taylor. With regard to the recent Senate Foreign Relations hearings, I read with interest the accounts of testimony given to the committee by Mr. George Kennan. Mr. Kennan seems to argue that the U.S. commitment to South Vietnam has assumed exaggerated proportions and that this country should therefore limit or curb our efforts there.. Mr. Kennan, as we know, is credited as the creator of the original policy of containment which this country followed in its dealings with Soviet communism in Europe during the period immediately following World War II. Now it would appear that Mr. Kennan has evolved a latter-day policy of containment regard- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE ing the U.S. commitment to defend southeast Asia from the threat of aggressive communism. But, unlike his first containment policy, the general thrust of his current advice is that in 1966 we should contain our own efforts in meeting Communist expansionism in southeast Asia. Needless to say, Mr. Kennan’s remarks received wide attention in the press and on television. It is unfortunate that the American public has not been given as great exposure to the facts, circumstances, and results of a meeting held in Havana last month—the so-called Tri- Continent Conference—which spelled out the future course of Communist aggression in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The recommendations and policy statements coming out of this Havana Conference represents a veritable “Mein Kampf” of international Communist designs and aims throughout the world in the 1960’s and 1970’s. And although the Soviet Union was represented by a 40member delegation, it is well to note that the chief result of the January Havana Conference was to implement and foster the Chinese Communist thesis for eventual Communist seizure of power in countries alined to the free world. Critics of present U.S. policy in South Vietnam, such as Mr. Kennan, make much of the ideological split between the Soviet Union and China. It is, in fact, currently fashionable in some U.S. foreign policy circles to accuse those of us who speak of the threat of communism as being simplistic in our approach. We are told that we should differentiate between the so-called various forms of communism—whether we refer to Soviet or Chinese or even North Vietnamese communism. Yet the unanimity which the delegates of the Havana Tri-Continent Conference demonstrated on the matter of waging Chinese-style wars of liberation throughout the world points up the futility—if not the real danger—of this polemic fragmentizing of communism 1n the world today.: It may be true that communism is no longer monolithic as it was in the immediate post-World War II era. But the threat ‘of Communist expansion—and the Communist design for subversion and domination of countries of the free world—is monolithic and universal in every Communist capital. Thus it was that the basic theme of the so-called Tri-Continent Conference in Havana—a theme repeated by Soviet and Chinese Communist spokesmen alike—was a strident call for war on all fronts against the free world. As the Soviet delegate to the Conference, Sharif P. Rashidor, stated: We are participating in a major event in the history of the national-liberation struggle of the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America. The anti-imperialist struggle, with its demands for the unshakable unity of its fighting forces, has brought the peoples of our continents to a realization of the urgent necessity for an even greater consolidation, and an even greater coordination, of our struggle against our common enemy—imperlalism and, first and foremost, U.S. imperialism. The Soviet delegation earnestly appeals to February 21, 1966 all the national organizations and their movements represented at this Conference to unite in the struggle for this great goal. Let our Conference be a new stage on this road. Let it multiply and strengthen the unity of our ranks, and impart new force to the liberation struggle throughout the world. The resolutions approved by the Conference are in the same aggressive and militaristic vein. They call for an intensified campaign of subversion and political warfare against democratic regimes of the free world. But the larger significance of the Tri- Continent Conference in Havana does not lie in the unified pronouncement of revolutionary aims among Communist nations. For only a fatuous self-delusion has ever persuaded the soft-line Kremlinologists of the free world that the Soviets and the Chinese alike seek Communist world domination, and by violent revolutionary means. They are as one, differing only on tactics, and timetable, and those who doubt this fact should be furnished the record of the Havana Conference as required reading. No, the truly alarming significance of the Havana Conference last month stems from the scope and nature of participation by nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America—many of which, while purporting to be “neutralist” as between Communist and the free world, in fact are providing political and other support to the revolutionary and subversive aims of Communist bloc nations. Indeed, all the speeches, resolutions, and actions of the delegates of the 82 nations represented at the Conference were geared to the propaganda needs and aims of agressive international communism. In fact, the Tri-Continent Conference went much further than any similar meeting in recent years in spelling out the aggressive designs of world Communist leadership toward nations of the free world. As chairman of the House Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs I am especially concerned with the serious implications of the Conference as regards our vital national interests and commitments to the defense of the hemisphere. The Organization of American States expressed its alarm regarding the Havana Conference in a resolution of condemnation, approved February 2, 18-0, with Mexico and Chile abstaining. The OAS resolution refiects hemispheric concern regarding the possibility of new attempts of Communist takeovers in a number of countries, including Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, and Uruguay. And the Tri-Continent Conference itself serves to reemphasize the appropriateness of House Resolution 560, which only last year expressed the sense of the House regarding the need for firm US. policy to meet the threat of Communist intervention in the Western Hemisphere. In the light of last month’s meeting in Havana, that resolution is even more pertinent today than when it was passed by an overwhelming majority of the House in September 1965. So-called neutral, unalined countries, with delegates participating at the Havana meeting, would do well to ponder the significance of this House resolu- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 13] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 ('m. sure is in the files you mention as being before the Supreme Court was a cartoon which appeared cn pagel. Itshowed a numwor of civic officials and others holding up a sheet and the caption sald that somebody was hiding something. The top of the head of a man showed above the sheet and it cerininly looked to me like the top of Dr. Sam’s head. “At about this time the Cleveland police were called into the case. Yhey worked carefully and energetically but apparently too fate and £ don’t recall that they turned up uoy really clinching evidence. “wWinally, the city attorney at Bay Village, She son of an Ohio Supreme Court justice, suzned the charge himself and Dr. Sam was arrested and taken to jail in Cleveland. olice there were unable to question him at nny great length because his attorney kept roquesting to see him, hinting third degree. “Tn the end the jury found Dr. Sam guilty of sccond degree murder. “CGortainly, the trial was a Roman holiday.” ‘ne book of clippings won a reversal and Yreedom for Dr. tam last year, but the reversal was itself reversed by the U.S. Court af Appeals in Ohio when it said: “Our jury system cannot survive if it is now proper to presume that jurors selected with the care iaken in this case, are without intelligence, courage, and integrity necessary to their obedience to the law’s command that they ignore the kind of publicity here involved.” Tour Supreme Court Judges believe that a constitutional question is involved---and this muy intensify the press-bar conflict particularly if it disturbs the status quo on contempt. ‘The landmark cases protecting both individual and press, from punishment for contempt, have thus far concerned prejudicau publication as if} concerned Judges only. ‘he Penneckamp, Bridges, Los Angeles Times- Mirror cases and others brought about the “oglear and present danger’ concept—that a constructive contempt, away from the imme- <linte presence of the court, would not be punished unless it could be shown that a clear and present danger existed to the administration of justice. The theory is that judges would not be so endangered because, vorsooth, they are judges. Yet, judges hive been throwing newspapermen in jail for generations. Ralph Conley is a 53-year-old reporter for the Wheeling, W. Va., Intelligencer. He is a (O0-vear veteran with that paper, and a 25year senior in newspaper work. He was assigned to cover the New Martinsville area. On Saturday, Jnnuary 15 of this year he wrote a story listing five civil actions which tad been set for trial on Tuesday, January 13 in the Wetzel County Circuit Court by Judge Lloyd Arnold. After listing them he wrote this: “Probably the most interesting case is What of Mrs. Fraiices Ripley versus the city of Paden City. “Mrs. Ripley, a resident of Paden City, and wife of Leo Ripley, fell into an open sidewalk grating on January 22, 1865, and seeks tecovery of damares for $24,000. “ther petition, she claims permanent injury and that the fall resulted in a compound fracture of her left leg, and other injuries, “The city carries a $100,000 liability insurance policy and the city council acknowlndeed fault and recommended in a letter to the insurance carrier that the claim be paid. However, no payment has been recvelved and the suit followed. “Attorney Jack Hawkins represents the plaintiff, and Hassig & Sndyer are attorneys for the defendant.” No. Q0—----4 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE On Monday, January 17 Judge Arnold sent an. officer to ask Conley to come to his office. At the conclusion of the interview and after Conley left, the judge prepared a rule of contempt directed to Conley. It was served on Conley that morning. A courtroom hearing before Judge Arnold was scheduled at 2 p.m. the same day. Judge Arnold concluded the hearing by finding that publication of the news story obstructed and impeded the operation of his court and that accordingly Conley was in contempt, The judge sentenced him to 5 days in jail, fined him $10 and ordered the sheriff to place him in jail immediately. Attorneys for Conley appeared before Judge Arnold the next morning and crally moved that the judgment of contempt be set aside, that a new hearing be awarded, and that Conley be discharged from jail. Arguments on these motions were heard at 1 p.m. Tuesday. ‘The attorneys submitted four grounds for the motion, including the first amendment, and the judge covezruled the motions. Thereon the attorneys for Conley moved for a stay of the proceedings in order that they might appeal the judge’s dec:sion to uhe Supreme Court of Appeals. The jidge granted a 60-day stay, setting bond in the amount of $50. Conley was subsequ«ntly released after 24 hours in jail, and went back to work. The case is pending. The city council action was a matter of record. Then there was the 1964 case of Will Harrison, a 50-year-old columnist for the New Mexican, 14,000 circulation, published at Santa Fe, He presumed to make an aciverse comparison of two drunk driving cases before a Santa Fe judge. In one case, a Mexican-American boy filled up on wine, had an auto accident and killed -three persons. He was sentenced to the penitentiary for 1 to 5 years. In the other case, a former assictant district attorney wiped out a family ol five while driving under the influence, but was given a $500 fine, the fine was suspended and the Judge announced that at the end o! the year he would pronounce further sentence. Will Harrison cried ‘outrage’ and was convicted for contempt of court on the grounds that the lawyer defendant was still on probation, thus the case was still before the court. Will Harrison died a couple of months ago, and he was, in my opinion, an unsung hero. He had been vindicated by the State Supreme Court October 4, 1965, on the grounds that no clear and present danger to the adiministration of justice had been shown. But when you study constructive contempt, think about this one: In December, 1965, in Montgomery, Ala., three Ku Klu Klansmen were convicted of criminal conspiracy charges in the death of a civil rights worker. She was Viola Liuzzo, a Detroit housewife. The Judge held the jury in deliberation for 11 hours over the protest of the defense attorney, and the defense attorney announced that an appeal would be filed and bon: for three men was set at $10,000 cash. Whereupon the President of the United States said: “The whole Nation can take heart from. the fact that there are those in the South who believe in justice in racial matters and were determined not to siand for acts of violence.” Many of us joined him in cheering that verdict in a great national example of constructive eontempt of court for commenting or a case still in the process of adjudication, Where was the voice of the bar when that transpired? And where was the self-restraint of the press? Both were lacking, and hoth must be supdott plied before we know whether we should be talking about fair trial and free press or fair trial versus free press. Wiggins said it in 1964: “Newspapers, judges, and lawyers alike ought to try to improve the reporting of criminal trials. What is needed is more and better crime reporting, not less of it.” Burch said it in 1955: “It is the newspaper’s duty to print the facts not to try them. That is the duty of the courts. We want every defendant to have the benefit of duc process—-the whole treatment, with all the trimmings. But we see too much of the undue processes that help armies of dangerous malefactors to escape conviction, indictment, or even arrest.” Vermont Royster said it in 1965: ‘Here the lesson experience, a thousand years cf experience, was that the judicial process must be open to inspection from its beginning to its end, to the purpose that all should lie under the public gaze so that if error could not be obviated it could at least not be hidden. One instrument for this was the open court with the accused and the accusers openly confronted. Another instrument was the open press, so that nothing could be hidden from the first accusation to final judgment. The lesson of the common law was that the two were not irreconcilable, they were mutually dependent.” Today it is necessary to recognize that the hunt for the uninformed juror is fruitless, and that our reliance on the integrity of our peers is not misplaced. That is the nub of the problem, and it will not be solved by speculation; rather by careful research. TRAFFIC SAFETY—ACTION NEEDED NOW (Mrs. BOLTON (at the request of Mr. HUTCHINSON) was granted permission to extend her remarks at this point in the Recorp and to include extrancous matter.) Mrs. BOLTON. Mr. Speaker, the National Trial Lawyers Association predicted recently that unless the Federal Government does something soon, deaths from motor vehicle accidents will reach 100,000 a year by 1975—double the present auto death rate. The report of this same group of lawyers noted that while 605,000 Amercans have died in all wars from the Revolution to Vietnam, road deaths in the United States have totaled 1,500,000 in only 25 years. The study revealed that the number of persons injured in highway accidents in 1964 is the same number as the total beds in all hospitals in the United States—i,700,000. These arc shocking figures. I have thought for sometime that we should take steps at the national Icvel to standardize highway signs, speeds, and so forth, in an effort to cut this necdless death, injury, and destruction on our highways. Although the Fedcral Government has spent millious building interstate highways, we have done littie or nothing at the national level to prescribe and enforce safety standards. Several years ago, when we became alarmed at the increase in accidents involving airliners, we established the Federal Aviation Agency to coordinate and improve safety in the air. Now we should establish an agency to improve safety on the Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 14] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 tion. It must be made abundantly clear, not only to Communist nations, but to others which seek to advance their own interest by lending themselves to Communist aims, that the United States does not intend to remain inactive in the face of any external threat to the security of the Americas. While I am reasonably certain few, if any, nations will admit that participants at the Havana meeting were official delegates of their governments, the fact that some of the delegates even at this moment hold official positions in their respective governments is shocking indeed. For example, the Syrian delegation included Mohammad Ali Al Khatib, Secretary General of that country’s Ministry of Information. Attending as an invited guest was Mohamed Fayed from the United Arab Republic who is Director of the African Affairs at the Presidency. African countries were well represented by official members of their governments. Tanzania sent Salim Said Rasuid, the Deputy Finance Minister. The head of Guinea’s delegation was Abdoulaye Diallo, Director of Political Affairs in the Foreign Ministry, and also included the Guinean Ambassador to the United Arab Republic, Fode Cisse. Ghana was represented by Ofory Bah- Emmanuel, Director of that country’s Bureau of African Affairs; and Pauline Mirande Clerk, Office of the President of Ghana. Lakhdar Brahimi, representing Algeria, is that country’s Ambassador to the United Arab Republic. Since many of the nations which were represented at the Havana Conference have been and are now receiving hundreds of millions of dollars of US. aid, I have written to the Secretary of State with the request that he determine the status of the delegations to the Havana meeting. I also asked the Secretary to give consideration to the termination of U.S. assistance to those nations who participated with official or semi-official delegations in accordance with section 620(i) of the Foreign Assistance Act. This provision of that act prohibits assistance under this or any other act, including sales under the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act of 1954, to any countries which the President determines is engaging in or preparing for aggressive military efforts directed against the United States or to any countries receiving assistance from the United States. The proceedings at last month’s Tri- Continent Conference made a prima facie case regarding preparations for such aggression. It would seem, therefore, that a State Department investigation is in order to determine, at the very least, whether U.S. economic aid should not be terminated to certain nations which were represented at the Havana meeting. Immediately following my statement, I am attaching a full list of delegates in attendance at the January Havana meeting, as reported by the Cuban press. Mr. Speaker, the Tri-Continent Conference clearly established that what is occurring in Vietnam is not simply localized Communist aggression, but is merely one front in a worldwide campaign against the free world. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE American defeat, withdrawal or abandonment of Vietnam would not simply, as some have phrased it, roll back our Pacific front line to Wakiki. The rollback would be to the Andes, and beyond, for Ho Chi Minh’s battle plan in Vietnam is a blueprint, approved both in Moscow and Peiping, for subversive wars of aggression in Asia, Africa, and Latin America.: Once again we have been warned by our enemy. The United States and the free world will overlook or dismiss the Communist “Mein Kampf,” as spelled out at the recent Havana Tri-Continent Conference, at its peril and the peril of future generations. The following schedule shows in detail the delegates, observers, guests, and foreign press from the various countries. The data was compiled by Cuban authorities from the actual registration sheets. Delegates from 63 countries and 19 protectorates, commonwealths or colonies were in attendance. List of accredited participants up to Jan, 10, 1966, “Year of Solidarity,” 1st Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America Countrios, protoc- | Organi-| Aceredtorates,|zations} ited and colonies Delegates: Africa 28 29 150 sia_---..----- 27 27 197, Latin America. 27 27 165 Total_...-----.--------- 82 83 512 Obsorvors: International organizations.....---------------|-------- 5 24 Afro-Asiatie organizations...---.------------|-------- 3 7 African organizations. --. - 3 8 Asiatic organizations. --. - 3 5 Soctalist countries. -- - 7 20 Total_.----...-----+---- - 21 64 Guests: Foreign...---.-.---------- 23 |-------- 50 Cubans_..---------------- 1 |-------- 27 Total...---.------------ 24 |-.--.-- 77 Foreign pross..--------------- 38 05 129 Total accredited participants_...---------- 782 DELEGATES TO THE First SOLIDARITY CONFER- ENCE OF THE PEOPLES OF AFRICA, ASIA; AND Latin AMERICA, JANUARY 1966 Ratil Roa Garcia, President. Youssef El Sebai, Secretary-General, John Kofitettegah, Vice President. Pedro Medina Silva, Vice President. Tien Nguyen Van, Vice President. SOUTH AFRICA South African National Congress (9): Alfred Diliza Kgokong (Presidente), Reginald September, Yusuf Mohamed Dadoo, Mzimkulu Ambrose Makiwane (SP), Thomas Titus Nkobi, Robert Resha, Joyce Judith Mbonwa (S.F.), Marie Muthoo Prigalathan Naicker, Meinrad Hsimang. SOUTH WEST AFRICA South West Africa National Union (2): Jariretundu Kozonguizi (President), Moses K, Katjiuongua.. ANGOLA Angolan Popular Liberation Movement Luiz Andrade de Acevedo (President), Miguel Baya’ Antonio (S.P.), Luis de Almeida, Paulo Teixeira Jorge, Spencer Nicolau, José 3343 César Augusto, Daniel Da Costa Garcia, Mario de Andrade. ALGERIA Algerian Committee for Afro-Asian Solidarity (7):: Lakhdar Brahimi (President), Hamid Bencherchali, Adda Benguettat, Mohaméd Harieche, Ahmed Zemirline, Mohamed Meghraoul, Abdelkrim Ghoraib. ARGENTINA National Committee for the Peoples Conference of Africa, Asia, and Latin America John William Cooke (President), Alcira de la Pefia, Carlos Alberto Lafforgue, Jorge Ruben Queijo, Juan Antonio Sander, Abel Alexis Latendokf, José Gabdiel Vazeilles Ullua, BASUTOLAND Basutoland Congress Party (3): Gerd Ramoreboli (President), Koenyama Chakela, Ramagele Tsinyana. BECHUANALAND Bechuanaland Peoples Party (2): Peter Dick Marciping (President), Bobby Mack. BOLIVIA National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (3): Marlo Miranda Pacheco (President), Gabriel Porcel Salazar, Mario Monje. BRAZIL National Committee for the Solidarlty Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (7): Alvizio Palhano Pedreira Ferreira (President), Marcos Santos, Carlos Tavares, Celso Ridan Barcelos, Ivin Ramos Ribelro, Francisco Santilli, Alexina Lins Crespo de Paula. BURUNDI Burundt Workers Federation (1): deme Bigirama (President). CAMBODIA Cambodian Afro-Asian Solidarity (5): Hout Sambath (President), Un Samuth, Vutthi Thoutch, Kiv Moeng, Suncheng Sunthor. Nico- COLOMBIA National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (6): Diego Montafia Cuellar (President), Inés Pinto Escobar, Santiago Solarte, Camilo Losada Campos, Baltasar Fernandez Alvarez, Teodoslo Varela Acosta. National Revolutionary Committee of the: Congo (4): Julien Boukambou (President), Gustavo Aba Gandzion, Henriette Yimbou, Dominique Ntamba. CONGO (LEOPOLDVILLE) Congo National Liberation Council (11): Gabriel Yumbu (President), Nkumu Camile, Kaputula Bernabette, Kitungo Placide, Ramazani Sebastian, Malanda Henriette, Mongali Michel, Eduard Marcel Sambu, Buka Masaku, Martin Brobey, John Alt. KOREA Korean Committee for Afro-Asian Solidarity (8): Wal Lyong Kim (Presidente), Zi Sun Jon, Cheng Nam Kim, Ryon Yui Kim, Yu Yui Li, Yung Kun Kim, Te Jion Chon, and Ryung Chul Jun. COSTA RICA National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Pcoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (3): Arnoldo Ferreto (President), Hernan, Monterrosa Lopez, and Luisa Gonzdélez Gutiérrez. CUBA Communist Party of Cuba (41): Osmany Cienfuegos (President), Ratil Roa, Manuel Pifielro, Carlos Rafael Rodriguez, Miguel Martin, José Alberto Naranjo, Leonel Soto, Haydeé Santamaria, Jesis Montané Oropesa, Lazaro Pefia, José Matar, José Ramirez, Carlos* Lechuga, Pelegrin Torras, Arnol Rodriguez, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 15] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ‘ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE do44 Juan Mier Febles, Melba Hernandez, Giraldo Mazola, Eugenio R. Balari, Joaquin Mas, Lazaro Mora, Eduardo Delgado, Ramén Saénchez Parodi, Carlos Alfara, Ricardo Alarcén, Fernando Alvarez Tabio, Mario Garcia Inchiustegui, Ratil Valdés Vivé, Antonio Carrillo, Jorge Serguera, Armando Entralzo, Luis Garcia Guitar, Oscar Oramas, José Venegas, Rafael Fernandez Moya, Luis Garcia Poraza, Francisco Valdés, Arquimides Columbié, Silvio Rivera, Roberto Valdés, and Alfredo Guevara. CULE CHILE (FRAP) opular Action Front (9): Salvador Allendeo (President), Waldo Atfas Martin, Clodomiro Alméyda Medina, Elena Pedraza, Luis Figueroa’, Manuel Rojas, Walterio Fierro, Jerge Monte Morago, Oscar Nufiez Bravo. OUINA Chinese Committee for Afro-Asian Solidarity (34): Wu Hsueh Tsien (President), Tien Min Kuo, Su Tien Yang, Ming Sin Tang, Chan An You, Yao Yao Ching Jung, So Yang (S.P.)}, Keng Liang (S.P.), Ta Nei Tsien, Rui Jua Hsu, Wu Hasu Shang, Yi Cheng Jung, Ning Chuunin Tung, Tien Hui Chen, Yuan Hung Tao, Yang Pai Ping, Tsien Li Jen, Wuan Chen Sheng, Chen Tze Yin, Chang Chieh Hsun, Chen Yu, Chen Chuan Liao, Chu Tzu Chi, Run Ho Niem, Chang Lin Yu, Tang Wai Yeh, Yu Yingt Liu, Fei Yi Li, Chi Fan Wuang, Shen Yi, Chen Sheng Huang, Shou Pae Li, Yun Chun li, Chen Lo Min. CYPRUS Cyprus ‘Solidarity Committee (3): Christoforos Christofides (President). Joseph Yamakis, Georgios Savyides. ECUADOR Nationa) Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (2): Carlos Ramirez Ortiz (President), Teodule Aray. tL SALVADOR National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (2): Sergio Pérez (President), Pedro Martinez. GHANA Convention of the Peoples Party (15): John Kotitettegah (President), Nathaniel Azarco Welbeck, Winfre Asare Brown. Yan anu, Kon Bondzie Brown, Pauline Miranda Clerk, George Awonor Williams, Ofory-Bah Emmanuel, Patrick Ofei Henaicu, Kefi Batsa, Charles LL. Patterson, Dr. Ekow Daniels, Kwamina Arku-Nelson (S.P.), Cecil Me. Hardy, Anthony Korsah Dick. GUADALUPE National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (4): Gerard Olivier (President), Guy Daninthe, Aude Daniel Rene, Michel Numa. GUATEMALA Rebel Armed Forces (5): Luis Augusto Turcios Lima (President), Gustavo Solares Ortiz, René Cordon, Orlando Fernandez Ruiz, Francisco Marroquih. BRITISH GUIANA Progressive Party (3): Lall Bahadur, Chedcli Joseph Popular Jagan (President), Rodriguez. {LUNCH GUIANA Guianan Committee of Solidarity to the First Tri-Continental Conference (3): Regine Prevot (President), Jean Marie Robo, Georges Giffard. GUINEA Democratic Party of Guinea (7): Abdoulaye Diallo (President), Fodé Cissé (S.P.), Mamady Mohamed Sakho, Mami Kouyate, Tbrahima Kourouma, Fanta Conde, Jean Baptiste Deen. PORTUGUESE GUINEA African Independence Party (5): Amilcar Cabral (President), Vasco Cxubral, Pedro Pires, Domingo Ramos, Joaquin Pedro Da Silva. HAITI Unified Democratic Front of National Liberation (5): Paul Lantimo (President), Jacques Lacour, Pigeon Volage, Leslic Jean, Edmond Pierre. HONDURAS National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (3): Ricardo Moncada Zavala (President), Raul Parra, Longino Vidal Becerra, INDIA Indian Association for Afro-Asian Solidarity (14): Aruna Asaf Ali (President), Nalam Narasinha Rao, Homi F. Daji Homi, Prabhakar Menon, Jagannath Sharma, Ladli Saran Shinha, Sat Tandon, Harbans Singh, Balrat Mehta, Chatur Nadain Malviya (SP), Avioor Shiriniwas Chari, Mohammad Kelimullah, Noor Mohamed, Chandra Shekhiur. INDONESIA Solidarity Association of the Afro-Asian Peoples (9): Ibrahim Isa (Presirlent) (SP), Francisca Fanggidaej, Willy Harindia, Umar Said, Suhardjo, Soedhartono, Edy Soenardji, Sugiri, Margono, IRAN Iranian Committee for Afro-Asian Solidarity (2): Amir Halamou Amir Dibadj Torkestani (President), Rahaman Nader Zehtab. IRAQ Traqi Committee for Afro-Asian Solidarity (1): Aboul Wahab Sallom (President) (SP). MAURITIUS Progressive Party of the Mauritian People (1): Teckaram Sibsurun (President). ST, THOMAS AND PRINCE IS\LANDS Committee for the Liberation of St. Thomas and Prince (1): Antonio Barreto Pires Dos Santos (President). JAMAICA National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (2): Dennis Waly (President), Roy Jeffrey Adaiphus. JAPAN Japanese Committee for Afro-Asian Solidarity (10): Shizuma Kat (President), Hiroshi Ide, Toshio Tanaka, Mitsuhiro Kaneke, Masae Kitazawa (SP), Sustumu Ozaki, Shesaku Itai, Yoro Ohno, Akira Nishina, Yoko Kitazawa (SF). JORDAN Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee of Jordan (1): Shafik Shafik (President). NORTIL KALIMATAN Organization of North Kalimatan for the Solidarity of the People of Afro-Asian, Indonesia (5): Ahmad Zaidi Adruce (President), Muhammad Jais Abbas, Mohamad Kasin, Dus Tan Chon, Ahmad Mohtar. KENYA Kenya African National Union (3): John Mobiyo Njonjo (President), James Robaro Heuwallan, Ernest Gitu Muni. LACS New Lao Hak Sat (5): Phoumi Vongvichit (President), Soulivong Phrasithideth, Phouthasack Khanleck, Thanimavongsay Boun Nhum, Khamphay Boupha. LEBANON Socialist Progressive Party (4): Farid Gebrane (President), George Snlim Batal, Mouhamed Kechli, Georges Haoui. MALAYA People’s Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee for Malaya (3): Lee Siew Choh (President), Abdul Rahim Karim, Chia Thye Poh. February 21, 1966 MARTINIQUE National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (2): Edouard De Lepine (President), Marcel Manville. MOROCCO National Union of Popular Forces (3): Hamid Barrada (President), Mchamed Habib Sinaceur, Mohamed Horma Bahi. MEXICO National Liberation Movement (6): Heberto Castillo (President), Armando Castillejos Ortiz, Manuel Mesa Andraca, Maria Antonivta Rascoén Cérdoba, Antonio Tenorio Adame, Salvador Bojorquez. MONGOLIA Mongolian Afro-Asiatic Committee for Solidarity (7): Chadraval Lodoidamba (President), Nauzad Bayarju, Damba Dulamvn, Pountsag Berentsoodol, Narhoo Tsogtyn, Namsarain Sodnon, Badamtar B. Baldo. MOZAMBIQUE Mozambique Liberation Front (6): Marcelino Dos Santos (President), Eugenio Machado, Mariano Natsinha, Pascoal Nhapulo, Josina Abiatar Muthemba, Madalena Jingo Juvangire. NEPAL Afro-Asiatic Solidarity Committee Poorna Bahadur (President). NICARAGUA National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America (3): Pedro Ruiz (President), José Pedro Rivera, José Lopez Rivera. NIGER Sawaba Party (1): Abdoulaye Mamami (President). NIGERIA Congress of Youth of Nigeria. Socialist Peasants and Workers Party of Nigeria (4): Wahab Omorilewa Goodluck (President }, Salomén Olaleye Fagbo, Elias Dupe Fadipe, Johnson Ebohom. OMAN Oficina de Oman (Oman Office) (1): Faisal Faisal (President). PAKISTAN Committee for Solidarity of the Afro- Asian Peoples (7): Maulana Aboul Hamid Khan Bhasani (president), Itaz Husain, Arif Iftirhar, Qamaruz Saman Shah, Shauka Khan, A. T. M. Mustafa, Miraj Khalio. PALESTINE Organization for the Liberation of Palestine (5): Ibrahim Abu Sitta (President), Husni Khuffash Saleh, Zuhair Rayyis, Abdul Karim. Al Karmi, Sala Heddin Dabbagh. PANAMA National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (4): Jorge Turner Morales (president), Francisco Guitérrez, Roberto Madariaga Montes, Fioyd Britton. PARAGUAY National Committee for the Solidiarily Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (5); Carlos Valenzuela (president), Héctor Gutiérrez, Jacinto Correa, Juan Carlos Arza, Angel Gémez. ARABIAN PENINSULA Socialist Front for the Liberation oi the Arabian Peninsula (1): Ahmad Jamaluddin Peru National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (8): Roberto Garcia Urrutia (president), Jestis Masa Paredes, Alberto Ramirez, Jaime Venegas Romero, Armanal Pérez Carlo, Elizardo SAnchez Lomba, Freddy Eyzaguirre Luque, Jorge Altoriaga Campos. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 16] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 PUERTO RICO Pro-independence Movement (4): Norman Pietri Castellon (president), Ana Livia Cordero, José Luis Gonz&lez Coiscoo, Narciso Rabell Martinez. UNITED ARAB REPUBLIC Youssef El Sebai (SG OSPAA), Mohamed Kaml Bahaa Eddin (ASG OSPAA), Morsi Saad Eddin (ASG, OSPAA). AFRO ASIAN Solidarity Committee (Arab Socialist Union) (21): Khaled Mohiedlin (President), Sohair El Calamawy, Amina Ahmed El Said, Ezz El Din Ali Moustafa, Rifaat El Mahgoub, Bahia Karam, Mohamed Diab, Sekina Sadat, Ahmed Mukhtar Kobt, Ragua Rami El Kholy, Samiha Taher Mustafa, Ahmed Reda Mohamed Khalifa, Shebl Hefez Mohame Shalaby, Mohamed Wafaey Shulkamy, Mohamed Owda, Hoda Tawfik, Louis Grace, Anis Mansour, Edward K. F. El Kharrat, Salah El Sayed, Hussain Rizk. DOMINICAN REPUBLIC National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (5): Guido Rafael Gil Diaz (President), Asdrubal Dominguez Guerrero, Euclides Gutiérrez Félix, Ceyetano A. Rodriguez del Prado, Carlos M. Amiama Martinez.; DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF NORTH VIETNAM Solidarity Committee for Afro Asiatic (10): Tuyen Tran Danh (President), Nguyen Duy Tinh, Tuong Tran Cong, Le Nguyen Than, Con Nguyen La, Bun Le Quang, Thang Dang Thi, Phan Truong Si, Doan Dinh Ca, Nguyen Dinnh Bin. RUANDA National Union Ruanda Burundi (2): Francois Rubeka (President), Nelson Rwgasore. SENEGAL African Independence Party (3): Mamadou Keita (President), Thierno Amath Dansoko, N’Diongue Babacar. SYRIA Afro-Asiatic Solidarity Committee (8): Moudaf Haffar (President), Morris Salibi, Mohammad Ali Al Khatib, Moustapha Amine, Rifai Nourl Mohamed, Mohammad Zouhdi Nashashibi, Ali El Khalil, Joubran Majdalani, FRENCH SOMALILAND Popular Movement Party Mobarak Mobarak. SWAZILAND Swaziland Progressive Party (2): Dingame Dominic Cain Nxumalo (President), Ephrain Mbhele. (1): Ahmed SUDAN Democratic Peoples Party (5): Aly Abdel Rahman (President), Yousif Bushara, Billghies Ahmed, Ali Osman, Shazali Amin Shazall. THAILAND Thailand Patriotic Front (3): Bhayome Chulanond (President), Suchart Bhumimorirak, Sid Hichai Songkaraksa. TANZANIA Tanganyika African National Union (6): Salim Rasuid (President), Amanas Swat (S.P.), Muhammad Ali Foum, Lugo Taguaba, Ali Hahfudh, Abdulla Said Netepe. TRINIDAD-TOBAGO National Committee for the Solidarity Conference of the Peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America (2): George Weekes (President), George Bowrin, UGANDA Uganda Peoples Congress (5): Yomasant Kanyomozi (President), Ally Muwabe Kirunda Kivejinja, Raitt Omongin, Khahid Younis Kinene, Henry Nyakairu. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE ' USSR. Soviet Committee for Afro-Asiatic Solidarity (40): Sharaf Rashidov (President), Anatoli Sofronov, Dimitri Gorbachev, Boris Gorbachev, Vladimir Judintsev, Rodolfo Chilapnikov, Yans Vladimirski, Timur Gaidar, Natalia Berejnaia, Alexey Mayevsky, Latif Maksoudov (S.P.), Bahadur Abduzazakov, Chakhan Tiouleoubekov, Vladimir Yarovoi, Mirzo Tursun Zade, Zinaida Federova, Rasul Gamsatov, Fikriat Tabelv, Dmitri Shevliagin, Mikhail Kossykh, Karan Gousseinov, Bijamai Ramazanova, Tchengis Aitmatov, Zouletkha Gousseinova, Grigori Lovchine, Vladimir Kokkontai, Tchermychev Viatcheslav, Sima Panich, Nikolal Basanov, Veniamin Midtsev, Spartak Tsissanov, Richat Koudachev, Jouri Bochkarev, Riourik Beleroutchev, Victor Boukharkov, Valeri Soukhine, Arnold Dobkine, Mikhail Kovalev, Valeri Jikharev, Petr Nicolaev. URUGUAY Leftist Liberation Front (6): Luis Pedro Bonavita Saiguero (President), Cesar Reyes Daglio, Blanca Silva Collazo Odriozola, Edmundo Soares Netto, Rodney Arismendl, and Luis Echave Zas. VENEZUELA National Liberation Front (15): Pedro Medina Silva (President), Gilberto Lépez, Rosendo Menéndez Luz, Ciro Rodriguez, Atencio Manrique, Jerénimo Carrera, José Vicente Abreu, Héctor Marcano Coello, Héctor Pérez Marcéno, Omar Cardenas, Moisés Moleiro, Oswaldo Barreto, Jorge Rubio, Ali Gonzalez, Adolfo Gafiango. SOUTH VIETNAM Afro-Astatic Solidarity Committee (7): Tien Nguyen Van (President), Tran Van Tu, Kin Nguyen H Dang, Van Sau Ly, Cao Le Thi, Anh Trinn Van, Ba Nguyen Ngoc. YEMEN Afro-Asiatic Solidarity Committee of Yemen (1): Abdullah Al-Alawi (President). SOUTH YEMEN (ADEN) National Liberation Front of Occupied South Yemen (2): Saif A. S. Dhalee (Prestdent), Jaffer Ali Awadh. ZIMBABWE Zimbabwe African Peoples Union (9): Edward Nodlovu (President), Ethan Allen Dube, David Mpongo, Charles Tarehwa Madondo, Amos Nguenya, Arthur Musukea, Charles Chikerema, Nolada Moshe Noko, Nelson T. C. SamkKange. Total number of delegates from 82 countries is 512. OBSERVERS TO CONFERENCE (ORGANIZATION AND NAMES OF OBSERVERS) INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS World Peace Council (9): Enrique Lister, Alfredo M. P. Valera, Omprakash Paliwal, Francis Boaten, Juan Marinello, Angel Dominguez Santamaria, Wililam Gollan, Oldrich Belic, Lucio Mario Luzzatto. International Federation of Democratic Women (3): Florence Mephoshe, Helga Dickell, Vilma Espin. World Federation of Democratic Youth (3): Bulogio Rodriguez Millares, Ctlbor Citek, Rodolfo Mecnini. International Student Union (5): Tran Van An, Kwamena Ocran, Zbynek Vokrovh-~ lUcky, Félix Rodriguez, Candido Dominguez Garcia, World Syndacal Federation (4): Satish Chaterjec, Mark Shope, José Bustos, Renato Bitossi. SOCIALIST COUNTRIES Albania: Albanian Committee of Solidarity With the People of Africa and Asia (4): Foto Cami, Sotir Kambori, Faik Zaneli, Sezai Shyti. 3345 Bulgaria Committee of Afro-Asiatic Solidarity (2): Zidravke Mitovski, Elena Gavrilova. Czechoslovakia Czechoslovakian Committee of Solidarity With the People of Africa and Asia (2): Antonin Vavrus, Vladimir Simek. Hungary Hungarian Solidarity Committee With All the Peoples which Fight for Independence (2): Andras Tardos, Eva Koltal, Poland Solidarity Committee With the People of Africa and Asia (2): Wladyslaw Sliwka, Josef Kulesza, German Domestic Republic Afro-Asian Solidarity Committee of the German Democratic Republic (7): Horst Max Brash, Edmund Rodner, Heinrich Eggebrecht, Heinz Joswig, Siglinde Arkerman, Freidel Trappan, Heinz Schmidt. Rumania Rumanian League of Friendship With the Peoples of Asia and Africa (1): Mircea Radulescu. AFRO-ASIAN ORGANIZATIONS Conference of Afro-Asian Jurists Shih Sheng Chao, Hsien Wang, Keita, Wijanto. Permanent Bureau of Afro-Asian Writers (2): Nihal Lakshaman Rathapala, Karunasena Jayalath, Afro-Asian Journalists Conference (1): Dharmasena Manuweera. AFRICAN ORGANIZATIONS South West Africa Peoples Organization (4): Peter Mueshihange, Andreas Shipanga, Ewald Katjivena, Emil Appolus. Zimbabrine African National Union (8): King David Mutasa, Simpson Victor Mtampanengwe, Agustine Monbeshora. African Syndical Federation (1): Prosper Akanni. Fadiala ASIATIC ORGANIZATIONS Council Against the Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (1): Masahuru Hatanaka, Asian Economic Bureau (8): Samuel Diaz Bandaranalke, Theja Gunawardhana, Packeer Mohideen., Peace Commission of Asia and the Pacific (1): Victor James. THOSE INVITED TO THE CONFERENCE Argentina: Miguel Angel Rubinich. Bolivia: Juan Carlos Lazcano, Brazil: FéHx Athayde. Cambodia: Helene Thoutch Vuttni. Colombia: Marco Tullio Rodriguez Martinez, Jorge Zalamea Borda.: Congo (Brazzeville): Auguste Mahoungou, Alice Mahoungou. Cuba: Antero Regalado Fallén, Zenén Buergo, Reinaldo Calviac, Pedro Montalvan, Asela de los Santos, Radamés Mancebo, Alelda March, Juan José Leon, Dora Calcafio, Francisco Dorticés Baler, Orlando, Rosabal Llanes, Oscar Domenoch, Lupe Véliz, Leopoldo Ariza, Enrique Velazco Lépez, Félix Sautié Mederos, Roberto Ogando Faz, Gloria Aguilera, Calixto Morales, Alejo Carpentier, Antonio Nufiez Jiménez, Rolando Cubelas, Nicolés Guillén, Salvador Vilaseca, Jaime Crombet, Justo Guerra, Agapito Figueroa, Czechoslovakia: Jiri Meisner. Chile: Juliana Rojas, Luis Eduardo La-~ barca Goddard, Gonzalo Rojas Pizarr6én. Dahomey: Codjo Azodogbehov.. United States of America: Robert Williams, Rick Rhoads. France: Leén Feix, Josephine Baker, Ives Fernand Moreau, Regis Jules Debray, Madam Voisin, Guatemala: Aurora Benitez. England: Osmon Blackburn, Jack Woddis. Italy: Alberto Moravia, Dacia Maraini, Joyce Lussu. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 17] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 2046 Mexico: Rafael Estrada Villa, Blanca Munoz Cota de Tenorie. Adalberto Pliego Galicia, Alberto Ordufa Culebro, Louis T, Cérdova Alvelais, Gilberto Ramén Gallarde, Manuel Stephens Garcia, Manuel Marcué Pardifas, Arturo Orona, Manuel Terrazas Guerrero. Paraguay: Bomero. Veru: Hilda Gadea Acosta, Mario Vargas T.losa, Patricia Llosa de Vargas. Puerto ico: Halina Linger de Rabell. United Artb Republic: Mohamed Fayed, Nadia Suliicar Salvi. Tanzanian: Lidia Foun. U.S.S.R.: Jursand Rashidova. Uruguay: Aida De’Mattcis Ventura, Maria Victoria Espinola Gabreta. Venezucia: Hleana Sanchez, Burgos. José Asunci6n Flores, Elvio Elizabeth FOREIGN PRESS Publicity organs and names of journalists Alemania Federal Has Andere Deutsehland: Lenor Velfort. Argentina Diario El Mundo: Juan Lefcovich. Belgium oletin Informativo de Cuba: Hugo Bency. fu) Drapeau Rouge: Hubert Jacob. Magazine Europeo: Gabriel F. Dannau, Marie Noelle Cloes, Alphonse A. Roosens. Bulgaria Avencia 8'1‘A: Todor Stoianov. Canada Canadian Tribune: Francis Williams Park. Libbie Campbell Park, Korea Agencia Central de Corea: Choun Tak Zi. Costa Rica Semanario Libertad: Francisco Gamboa Couvman. Cuechoslovakia tnech Broadcasting Radio-Difusidn Checoslovaca: David Le®. Apencia CTK: Jaroslav Boucek. Liyternarny Noviny: Mrtha Dodd. aadio Difusi6n Praga: Vera Stocickova. Chile ‘Radio Mineria: Ibar Aibar Varas. fas Noticias de Ultima Hora: Frida Modak Schatz. Moriddicn Et Siglo: Adriana Serle. China Agencia Sinjua: Chiu Ling, Ho Ching Kuang Jen Mu, Chi Chen, Ming Fu Ming, Yi Lun Shu, Shei Chong Hsu, Liu Chowg Yang, Sun Shon Guia. Denmark Yiand Og Folk; Jan Stago. (BS News: Carl Sorensen. Scotland “he Weck: Alexander Scott. npain Oficina Aclualidades Argelinas: Daniel Ortiz. Revista Trrunfo: Eduardo Garcia Rico. Radial Press: Alfonso Sobrado Palomares. TWnited States of America Agencia A.P.: Antonio Ortega, Isaac Flores. Agecnia W.P.I.: Bonetti. Mid-Week and Weekly Werker: Allan. ‘she Worker: Beatrice Johnson. dewish Daily Freiheit: Joseph North. Finland Televisian Finlandesa: Antti Kovanen, Esko Maapaniemi, Pekka Makinen. France Argencia Intermande Presse: Pierre Rondicre. Neuvel Cheervateur: Gabriel Badia Diaz, Pedro William Cluude Estier. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE Radio Furopeo; Francois Philine Fetjo. Agencia A.F.P.: Sergio Mendez, Ives Doude, Robert N. Katz, Reveu Democratic Nouvelle: Lentin. L’Entincelle: Henri Herve. Le Mende: Marcel Niedergang.’ T’Express: Edouard Bailby. Le Partisans: Francois Maspertt. Guinea Prensa de la Republica de ¢(:uinea: Bob Sow.. Albert Patil Great Britain Agencia Reuters: Michael A:vkus, Isabel Arostegui. Sunday Telegraph: Charles In:n Lumsden. Evening Standard London: Pe:cr Kingsley. Holland Algemcen Dagblad: Leo Klatser. Hungary Radio y TV Budapest: Lazlo D'Salgo. Nepszabadsag Daily: George Kalmar. Agencia Telegrafica Hiingara: Havel Jozsef. Tran Shahbay: Rahim Hamyar. Italy WUnita: Saverlo Tutino, Gaetino Pagano. El Mundo Nuevo, L’Astrolabic, I1 Ponte: ario Lana. Foto Reporter: Antonio Sanscre. Giornale D’Italia: Giuseppe Dsll'Oncaro. Japan NHK Radio Televisora de! Japon: Hiroshi Shiohozaki, Kyoichi Hoshine, Kentaro Hirayana. Asahi Shimbun: Bin Watanabe. Periddico Yomiuri: Takeshi Opaws. Morocco Diarlo Alkifah: Abdallah Layavhi. Diarie L’Avant Garde: Tibary Moussador, Méxivo Cuadernos Americanos: Sol Arguedas. Revista Siempre: Marta Solis, Alberto Gutitrrez Sanchez, Eduardo del Rio tiarcia. Revista, Politica: Raquel Rabinovich, Car- Jos Perzahal Marcué. Norway Orientering: Oysteith Petterse:.. Polar.d 4icie Warsawy: Aniela Krupinsxa., Agencia PAP: Miroslay Iconowic. Dookols Swiata: Andrej Binkowski. isditory Office Gromad: Henryk Borzecki. Polish Presse Panorama Weekly: Maciej Szerzepanski. Chtopsha Droga: Lesavk Mackow. Tribuna Ludu: Ludwuik Krassw::ki. Cerman Democriutic Republic Agencia A.D.N.: Dieter Coburger, Wolfang Mayer, Peter Neinz Junge. Televisi6n R.D.A.: Erich Friedl: under, Peter Goeschke, Hannelore Coburger. Deutscher Demokratischer Run?unk: Manfred Schroeder. Neues Deutschland: Lore Peter. Democratic Republic of Vietnam Agencia Noticiosa de Vietnam: Au Vu San. Fafilm: Cuong Ly, Cuong Nyuyen Duy, Neuyen Nhu Ai. Maria Ramania Victor Stonate, Sweden Nydag: Karl Staff. Switzeriand L’IUustre: Lue Bernard Chesex. Tanzania Churu: Dadu Hamedun Mansur Unién Nacional Africana de anganyka: James Gilbert Markham. ‘Tunisia Periddico Les Temps Cheriff. Ager Press: Moderiis: Rachid February 21, 19066 USSR. Periddico de “Trud”: Gueorgui Tikhonov. Tass: Alexsi Stoujine, Mikhail Artiuchenkov, Valery Laskariov, Ruslan Kniasev. Radio y TV U.SS.R.: Sergio Pokin, Viadimir Pugachev. Pravda: Yuri Pogosov. zvestia: Vladimir Silatiev. Novosti: Valentin Mashkin, Yuri Paporovo, Mijail Roy. Konsomoiskaia Pravda: Alexandre Krivopalov. Maladai Comunist: Lev Kornechov, Literoturnaya Gazeta: Rimma Kazanora. Uruguay El] Popular: Ricardo Saxlund. Scmanario Marcha: Carlos Nufez. Diario Epoca: Manrique Salbarrey. South Vietnam Agencia del Frente de Liberacion Nacional Vo Son Ca. Yugoslavia Agencia de Prensa Tanjug: Boza Ratajlovic. Total foreign press and news media representatives from 37 countries: 129. Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SELDEN. I am glad to yield to the gentleman from Connecticut. Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from Alabama on the statement that he is making and. also on the record that he has made as chairman of the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Mr. Speaker, I am referring particularly to the work that he has donc in bringing out some of the facts about this recent Havana conference, because such a meeting and the attitude and identity of the participants have great signiticance for us in determining the path that we should follow in the pursuit of our foreign policy. I believe that the gentleman from Alabama, will agree that a study of the conference proceedings show that this was a Russian-organized meeting, that the facade of universal action was pretty thin. At the same time there was one significant result of this heavy-handed conference that I should like to mention, and that was the reaction to its subversive activities and pronouncements of the countries of Latin America themselves. When the members of the Oreanization of American States heard of the action which had taken place. without any dissenting vote, they proceeded to take prompt action to deplore the revolutionary policies that were set forth and the stated interventionist objectives of this conference. Mr. Speaker, it is noteworthy that subsequent to this Latin American action, whether for publicity purposes or otherwise, there was a very prompt verbal backtracking on the part of the Russians themselves perhaps because they did not appreciate completely the depth of the reaction in the Latin American countries to this conference. At any rate, the avowed sponsorship of subversion and intervention accords ill with the oft-stated Soviet objective of building bridzes to the Western world. Mr. Speaker, I feel that the gentleman from Alabama should be complimented Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 F04 [ESTR === [Page 18] === February 21, 1 and commended for the work that he and the committee have done on this subject. Mr. SELDEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who is a very able member of the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SELDEN. I yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross]. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Monacan] in complimenting the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. SEL- DEN] on the presentation that he is making here this afternoon, and to say further that it is a pleasure to serve on the Inter-American Subcommittee under the chairmanship of the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. SELDEN]. Mr. Speaker, the Tri-Continental Conference held only recently in Havana, Cuba, means that there has been set up in Cuba now a headquarters for the subversion, if possible, of the entire Latin American area. This, of course, poses some real problems—and growing problems—for the United States. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. SELDEN] is doing all that he can to bring forth, as he has in hearings dealing with this Tri-Continental Conference, the making aware—making the public aware—of what is taking place, what has taken place, and what may very well take place throughout the entire Latin American area. Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman further, and to the Members of the House, that it is a sad and sorry situation when the taxpayers’ money—approximately $1 million of the taxpayers’ money of this country—is being used through the United Nations to support a technological college in Havana, Cuba, for the purpose—ostensible purpose—of further training those who would subvert the rest of Latin America. And, Mr. Speaker, it. is my hope that the Inter-American Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs will take further actioh to denounce this use of American funds for this purpose. Again, Mr. Speaker, I compliment the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. SELDEN], Mr. SELDEN. I thank my colleague, the gentleman from Iowa, who also is an extremely able member of the Subcommittee on Inter-American Affairs. I, too, am concerned in connection with the announcement that American taxpayers’ dollars are to be used to support a technological college in Havana, Cuba. I have called this announcement to the attention of the chairman of the: Subcommittee on International Organizations and Movements, which has jurisdiction over this subject, with the request that the subcommittee look into it. Since the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Gross] is a member of that particular subcommittee also, I feel certain he will want to make a similar request. Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SELDEN. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Wyoming. Mr. RONCALIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the gentleman from Alabama [Mr. SELDEN], for an enlight- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 9EB Nee CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE ening and most helpful speech. I am pleased to associate myself with his remarks, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly hope that debate in the Congress this past week will not weaken in any conceivable way our determination to act unilaterally and ex parte if necessary to meet totalitarian aggression in our hemisphere. When the President took the bold and decisive action he did, nearly a year ago, to put down the Santo Domingo rebellion, I believe I was one of the first voices in Congress to laud his leadership. I also voted for H.R. 560—with a vast majority of my colleagues in this House and in the Senate—to support his leadership in meeting totalitarian aggression anywhere in the world. If the Santo Domingo incident were to have happened next week, and the President respond as he did, I would again hail his action and again vote my - confidence in his leadership. I firmly believe that the last thing our fighting men in Vietnam need today, Mr. Speaker, are 535 commanders in chief holding forth in the Congress. THE FEUD AMONG FEDERAL JUDGES IN OKLAHOMA CITY The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Iowa is recognized for 30 minutes. (Mr. GROSS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, on file in the U.S. Supreme Court, ignored and gathering dust for nearly 4 years, is an official transcript that sets forth in detail the shocking story of a bitter feud among Federal judges in Oklahoma City, Okla. The transcript is the verbatim statement of Federal Judge Stephen S. Chandler in which he accuses Federal Judges Alfred P. Murrah and Luther Bohanon of persecution. Chandler’s testimony was given before the Judicial Council of the 10th Circuit Court, sitting in Wichita, Kans., on April 25, 1962, after Chandler had been disqualified by the Judicial Council from presiding in a bankruptcy proceeding. Federal Judge Chandler asserts in the transcript that Federal Judge Murrah sometimes cursed him, once tried to get him to alter his estimate of property values in a certain case; that his tele- Phone was tapped, and he was afraid of being poisoned. He accused Federal Judge Bohanon of spying on him, circulating rumors about him, and soliciting a_ bribe. Chandler said that in 1942, Bohanon offered to get him appointed as a Federal judge for $25,000. Bohanon was a lawyer at that time. It was on January 30, 1962, said Chandler, that Bohanon’s attitude toward him changed from warm friendship to bitter hatred. Murrah is the chief judge of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. It was the judges of this circuit, sitting as the judicial council, that disqualified Chandler from further jurisdiction in the bankruptcy case and, on December 13, 1965, stripped him of all judicial power and 3347 authority, leaving him only his title and $30,000 a year salary. For all practical purposes this amounted to impeachment—an action which, under the Constitution of the United States, is vested only in the Congress, and Judge Chandler describes this action as a usurpation of power. Subsequently, in February of this year—1966—and because of protests both in and out of Congress, the same judicial council of the 10th circuit restored to Judge Chandler some 160 of the cases which had previously been taken from him. This simply compounded the deliberate assumption of power implicit in the original action. Throughout the 57-page transcript on file in the Supreme Court, the heart of Chandler’s testimony is that he has been the victim of Murrah’s bitter hatred for 19 years. Pointing to his disqualification in the bankruptcy case, Chandler said: This whole proceeding is actuated by malice and aided and abetted and assisted and really engineered by Judge Murrah and Judge Bohanon, In the bankruptcy case, Parker Petroleum Co. was the debtor. It filed a petition for reorganization in U.S. district court in Oklahoma City on May 6, 1958. Since outside financing was necessary, Occidental Petroleum, of Los Angeles, holder of 40,000 shares of Parker stock, filed a reorganization plan for Parker Petroleum on August 14, 1959. There followed months of litigation, Occidental tried to withdraw but Chandler held it could not legally do so. He was reversed by the 10th circuit but the liability of Occidental for damages was left open and the case returned to Chandier. Occidential then requested Chandler to disqualify himself but before he could’ rule on that request Occidental took the litigation to the 10th circuit. Chandler was promptly ordered out of the case. ‘He fought back because, he said, he had unwittingly caused Parker Petroleum to have confidence in Occodental Petroleum mainly because Bert Barefoot, Jr., former law partner of Judge Bohanon, and a lawyer for Occidental, had made unconditional pledges of financial support. He charged Barefoot with a conflict of interest on the grounds that he represented two parties in the_ litigation, Barefoot, Chandler said, became “menacing,” adding that “he began spitting in my face and he took charge of the court and entered orders and it was pretty a ad In the case in which he fixed the value of some property, Judge Chandler testifled that Judge Murrah called him into his chambers and said: Now you have got to change that * * *, You are going to delay our building here, Chandler said he replied that his appraisal was right, and he refused to change it whereupon, said Chandler: He [Murrah] jumped up and said “You (so-and-so) yellow son of a (so-and-so). I have worked for 7 years on this building and here you do that and we don’t get it.” Chandler testified that on another occasion Murrah-asked him to set aside Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 19] === 3348 an order ina jury case. He refused ancl Murrah then said according to Chanadler: Well, every other judge of the circuit does what I tell them to. {£ don’t know what the hell is wrong with you that you won't. Mr. Speaker, I have never met a single one of the principals involved in this situation. Ihave in no way communicated with any of them nor have they com-- municated with me. I have no personal knowledge of the character or qualifica-- tions of these jurists, all of whom are now holding places of the highest trust and responsibility. I do know that when a Federal district judge sits before a tribunal, of four Federai circuit judges and makes the charges contained in this transcript—and for almost 4 long years little or nothing is done to prove or disprove those charges—- that it is a travesty in the name of the courts and justice in this country. Asa citizen and a Member of Congress, { cannot sit idly by and watch while the respect and contidence in the Federal judiciary is undermined in Oklahoma or any other area of the Nation. And Isubmit that there are other areas that need attention, ~ urge in the strongest terms at my coramand that the proper committees of Congress launch an immediate investisation. a re A RA THE CHILDREN’S SPECIAL MILK ACT OF 1966 ‘Che SPEAKER pro tempore. Under w previous order of the House, the gentleman from Minnesota |Mr. QuiE! is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. QUIE. Mr. Speaker, to supplement my earlier protest over the budgetary cut in the school milk and lunch program, 1 have introduced a bill, which I should like to have printed in full at this point in the body of the REcorp: LR. 12907 Re it enacted by the Senate and House of Kepresentutwves of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may be cited as the “Children’s Special Mi?k Act of 1966.” RNGISLATIVE FINDING sec. 2. The Congress finds that the incrensed consumption of fluid milk by a maximum number of American children is in the public interest in order to promote puklic health und nutrition; to create and develop markets for dairy products produced by American farmers; and to effectively and efliciently supplement the dairy price support activities of the United States Department of Agriculture. uc. 3. Tne Act of July 1, 1958, as amended (T2 Stat. 276; 74 Stat. 84; 75 Stat. 147; 45 Stat. 319), is hereby repeated. mine. 4. he Secretary of Agriculture shall, urder such rules and regulations as he may deem in the public interest, encourage the consumption of fluid milk by children in ths United States in (1) nonprofit schools of high schoul grade and under, and (4) nonuprotit nursery schools, child-care centern, settlement houses, summer camps, and siinilar nonprofit institutions devoted to the care and training of children. For the purposes of this Act “United States” means the fifty States and the District of Columbia. mc. 5. All sums appropriated under this Act, less such amounts as the Secretary shell determine to be reasonable and necessary for Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400039005-0 7 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUS eor his administrative costs and reserves, shall be allocated at the earliest possible date for the use of nonprofit schools and other nonprofit institutions desiring to participate in the program and shall be used to reimburse such nonprofit schools and other nonprofit institutions for fluid milk served to children. Any such allocation, or portion thereof, which the Secretary shall determine will not be fully utilized by any such nonprofit school or other nonprofit institution as then allocated, shall be reallocated by the Secretary so as to accomplish maximum use of such funds. Sec. 6. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act, but for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, not to exceed $105,000,000; for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1967, not to exceed $110,000,000; for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1968, not to exceed $115,000,000; for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1969, and each succeeding fiscal year thereafter, mot to exceed $120,000,000. My. Speaker, I should like to explain the intent of this bill, and some of the reasoning behind it. ‘This bill would in effect make the present milk program permanent, and would continuc to make the program available to children on the broadest practical scale. Known as the Children’s Special Milk Act of 1966, my bill is explicit as to the intent of Congress both now and when the program was inaugurated in 1954. Dairy farmers often refer to the “dual purpose cow.’ They mean, of course, that the cow can be used for milk during her life and that she and her offspring carry more meat than the dairy breeds. The beauty of the present special milk program is that it creates a tripurpose cow. Those three purposes constitute the three justifications for passage of my bill. They are: First. Beneficial effects on the health and nutrition of American children. Second. The creation of an additional market and the development of new and future markets for U.S.-produced dairy products. Third. A better way to support the price of dairy producis through greater consumption of fluid milk, rather than the subsequent purchase of manufactured dairy products by the Commodity Credit Corporation. The biggest advantage of these three purposes is that they are never at odds with one another. We can have the best elements of each. Under the administration proposal to cut the present milk program to 20 percent of its present size, you have only one purpose: distribution of milk to needy children. Market formation and support benefits are forgotten, It is purely a matter of speculation on the part of the Department of Agriculture that children now bcing subsidized for milk will go ahead and pay full price for it; in fact, Department projections show that present milk consumption under school programs would drop by one-third, or half a billion pounds of milk. At atime when the dai:y industry continues to need the support of every available market, this seems totally unjustified. My bill repeals the present statutory authority for the special milk program. This will remove an obsolete provision from the law when the present statute E Uuary 21, 1966 expires. It also avoids any problem of legal interpretation between the time of enactment of this bill and the scheduled termination of the present statute on June 30, 1967. The bill further recodifies without change the provisions in the present law dealing with the eligibility of schools and other institutions for the benefits of this program. This section (4) also retains the definition of the “United States” as it appears in present law to include the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Another section sets forth the procedures to be followed by the Secretary of Agriculture in the administration of the program. Except for necessary administrative expenses and reserves, all available funds shall be allocated promptly and unused amounts shall be reallocated in a manner designed to accomplish the maximum effectiveness of the program. Appropriations will be $105 million in fiscal year 1966, $110 million for fiscal year 1967, $115 million for fiscal year 1968, and $120 million for fiscal year 1969 and subsequenut years on a permanent basis. Mr. Speaker, the school milk program was used in approximately 92,000 schools in 1965, or 22,000 more schools than used the school lunch program. The usage of milk in both programs aggregated nearly 3 billion pounds. If the milk had not been so used, it would undoubtedly have been bought by the CCC, at: a direct cost of about $103 million, or exactly the present appropriation for the milk program. Congress was aware of the Nation’s fiscal situation when it voted $103 million for the special milk program, but it seems that the President's concern for inflation and the cost of the war has already forced cutbacks in the programm that have been passed on to schoolchildren and school districts in the form cf higher milk costs to them. Tet me explain: When President Johnson requested all his agencies to cut back on existing programs wherever possible in light of the war in Vietnam and the high employment level, the Administrator of the school milk and lunch programs directed that $10 million be spent on the milk program instead of the $103 million ea:- marked by Congress in its 1966 appropriation for that purpose. If this economy could have been achieved without changing the nature of the program, I doubt whether any Member of Congress wou'd have legitimate grounds for complaint. As it is, however, the cutback foreed the Administrator to reduce the reimbursement rate by 10 percent. This results in increased costs to the school district, and in mast cases it forces them to raise the price of the milk to the children themselves. At that point, the intent of Congress is violated; the Congress was fully aware of the economic conditiozs in this country at the time it appropriated $103 million for the milk program— and it fully expected that sum of money to be used to bring milk to children at the lowest possible cost to them. That cost would have remained at its previous low level had not the Department of Agriculture arbitrarily decided that this was a good place to relieve the pressure Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ai sii vo) sith === [Page 20] === “=o ees” 3376 tories of any country in the world or in its history. I find the attitude of the average citizen to be one of taking their freedoms for granted, and I feel sorry for them, for they don’t know how free they really are. They have the chance to find out what the rest of the world is really doing and not just what the state allows them to hear. This to me was a privilege—to have the choice of some twenty newspapers to buy and read and get different viewpoints on the same subject. In my country there is Pravda and one other state-controlled newspaper. As I browsed through the newspapers in the library I read several articles which completely contradict what I had read in my country’s news media, and I find truth in your papers and statements of great. bearing by noted leaders of the world, which I had not the slighest idea were ever made, or that the leaders had a different attitude than what I read. We are -taught from birth and childhood that America ig an agressor, warmonger type, world power, and that we are the under-privileged, suppressed ones who are being done 80 wrongly in the U.N. I find this to be a lie. I find that Americans don’t really want war in Vietnam and are trying to stop it, and not that they are sending in thousands of troops trying to invade Communist China, This is a common fact in my country. \ I find the standards of living to be much higher here than we are taught. We thought that all Americans lived in slums. I see the many colors, kinds and types of cars that almost any American can own, In my country there is only one type and only those in _the higher presidium are allowed the luxury of an automobile. I stopped a man on the street and asked what kind of work he did? He gave me a rather strange look and said, “T am a salesman.” I asked how much the Government allowed him in wages? Well, he looked even more dumbfounded and said the Government had no say-so in his financial status and that whatever he made was up to his own initiative. Then I asked how he was picked to be the holder of such a marvelous job with so much freedom, and he informed me he wasn’t picked by anyone. It was what he wanted so he went looking for a job and was hired by a representative of the company and not the Government. I could not believe my ears. IT also found out that an American can move throughout his country and be completely free about it. Isaw absolutely no one spot checked for their identification. There were no troops walking the streets. I saw a parade which bore no arms or showing of strength, only peace and beauty. It was a demonstration by a local college concerning their athletic program. There was much joy and laughter; such a demonstration in my country wouldn’t have even gotten a chance to start, regardless of its purpose, unless it was of some military significance. I see people who are allowed to worship their God in any manner they choose. In my country there is no Supreme Being but the State, and worship of any other form is a crime against the State and punishable by death, On our way to this beautful city I saw farmers using new, modern equipment and with bountiful crops and hundreds of head of cattle. I see one man tilling hundreds of acres by himself and by his. own choice—not a collective farm where the workers are people of lower education and placed there without a chance to show what they can really do. No, lam not an American, but after I mail this letter I am going to seek refuge in this wonderful country and political asylum. T am glad that I have no relatives now living, for what I am about to do would bring great hardships on them for an offense they had -nothing to do with, Soon, I, too will be an American. Approved For Release oosioeis: STATEMENTS MADE BY SECRETARY RUSK AND GENERAL TAYLOR BE- FORE THE COMMITTEE ON FOR- EIGN RELATIONS Mr, McGEE. Mr. President, yesterday afternoon I had the experience, along with several friends—and I am sure a@ great portion of America—of watching a, television report on the recent Vietnam hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. In watching the various exchanges portrayed on that program I found myself tremendously impressed with the grasp of the realities of this complex situation exhibited by Secretary of State Dean Rusk, and Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor. From these exchanges there emerged a very clear delineation of the difference between the specific criticism of our Vietnam policies and the requirements of responsibility for making the actual divisions involved. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the statements of Secretary Rusk and General Taylor, before the Foreign Relations Committee be printed in the RrEcorp. There being no objection, the statements were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: SECRETARY RuSK’S STATEMENT BEFORE SENATE FoREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE, FEBRUARY 18, 1966 Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, the immediate occasion for these hearings is a request by the President for a supplemental appropriation to the AID Administration of $415 million, of which $275 million are intended for South Vietnam,. Mr. David Bell, ‘the Administrator of AID, and I have both already testified on this particular request. These hearings as the chairman has pointed out, have also entered into the largest and most far-reaching aspects of our interests and involvements in southeast Asia. For my part, I welcome this opportunity to appear again before the committee to discuss with you these larger issues. Since World War II, which projected the United States into the role of major world power, we Americans have had to face a series of difficult tasks and trials. On the whole, we have faced them very well. Today, we are facing another ordeal in southeast Asia which again is costing us both lives and treasure. South Vietnam is a long way from the United States and the issues posed may seem remote from our daily experience and our immediate interests. It is essential, therefore, that we clearly understand—and so far as possible agree—on our mission and purpose in that far away land. Why are we in Vietnam? Certainly we are not there merely because we have power and like to use it. We do not regard ourselves as the policeman of the universe. We do not go around the world looking for quarrels in which we can intervene. Quite the contrary. We have recognized that, just as we are not gendarmes of the universe, neither are we the magistrate of the universe. If other governments, other institutions or other regional organizations can find solutions to the quarrels which disturb the present scene, we are anxious to have this occur. But we are in Vietnam because the issues posed there are deeply intertwined with our own security and because the outcome of the struggle can profoundly affect the nature of the world in which we and our children will live. The situation we face in southeast Asia is obviously complex but, in my view, CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 21, 1966 the underlying issues are relatively simple and are utterly fundamental. I am confident that Americans, who have a deep and mature understanding of world responsibility, are fully capable of cutting through the underbrush. of complexity and finding the simple issues which involve our largest interests and deepest purposes. I regard it, therefore, as a privilege to be able to discuss these problems with the committee this morning—to consult with you—and at the same time to try to clarify for the American people the issues we must squarely face. I do not approach this task on the assumption that anyone, anywhere, has all the answers or that all wisdom belongs to the executive branch of the Government, or even to the Government itself. The questions at issue affect the well-being of all Americans and I am confident that all Americans will make up their own minds in the tradition of a free and independent people. Yet those of us who have special responsibilities for the conduct of our-foreign policy have had to think hard and deeply about these problems for a very long time. The President, his Cabinet colleagues, and the Congress, who share the welghtiest responsibilities under our constitutional system, have come to certain conclusions that form the basis for the policies we are now pursuing. Perhaps it is worth pointing out that those who are officially responsible for the conduct of our public affairs must make decisions—and must make decisions among existing alternatives. None of us in the executive or the legislative branch has fulfilled our responsibilities merely by formulating an opinion— we are required to decide what this Nation shall do and shall not do and are required to accept the consequences of our determinations. What are our world security interests involved in the struggle in Vietnam? They cannot be seen clearly in terms of southeast Asia only or merely in terms of the events of the past few months. We must view the problem in perspective. We must recognize that what we are seeking to achieve in South Vietnam is part of a process that has continued for a long time—a process of preventing the expanston and extension of Communist domination by the use of force against the weaker nations on the perimeter of Communist power. This is the problem as it looks to us. Nor do the Communists themselves see the prob- ~ lem in isolation. They see the struggle in South Vietnam as part of a larger design for the steady extension of Communist power through force and threat. I have observed in the course of your hearings that some objection has been raised to the use of the term “Communist aggression.” It seems to me that we should not confuse ourselves or our people by turning our eyes away from what that phrase means. The underlying crisis of this postwar period turns about a major struggle over the very nature of the political structure of the world. Before the guns were silent in World War II, many governments sat down and thought long and hard about the structure of international life, the kind of world which we ought to try to build, and wrote those ideas into the United Nations Charter. That charter establishes an international society of independent states, large and small, entitled to their own national existence, entitled to be free from aggression, cooperating freely across national frontiers In their common interests, and résolving their disputes by peaceful means. But the Communist world has returned to its demand for what tt calls a world revolution, a world of coercion in direct contradiction to the Charter of the United Nations. There may be aifferences within the Communist world about methods, and techniques, and leadership within the Communist worlcl itself, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 21] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 In 1961 we were giving the name ‘Hoover WJike” to the levee around Lake Okeechobee which was begun during the administrations ot the late President Hoover and our beloved former Gov. Doyle Carlton, our able master of ceremonies, today. In this project, the President, as an expert engineer, had taken an active interest. President Hoover, then aman of great age, came down to Clewiston to the dedication which was attended by a great and enthusiastic crowd. Shortly hefore the actual cledicatory ceremonies took place, Billy Bowlegs walked up to the official crowd dressed in tho regalia of a Seminole chieftain, standing straight as an arrow— ‘hough he was then 99 years old. He greeted Mresident Hoover cordially and made it clear that he had come to the affair to do honor iy the former President. The whole occasion was a most dignited and unforgettable one sud I well remember that President Hoover, before leaving the area after the ceremony fuud been concluced, stated to me that he iuvud rarely appreciated anything so much as ine did the unexpected coming of Chief Billy Bowlegs to pay his respects. I think that «ourteous act of Billy Bowlegs was performed ia the finest tradition of the Seminoles. I sould never forget the sight of those two iplendid old gentlemen standing together with clasped hands and beaming countenances, each enjoying the presence of the olher and showing every possible evidence of iuigh mutual respect. Hater I occupied the speakers platform with Chief Billy Bowlegs at two other pubiic functions in the State, first at the dedication of a portion of completed work at a structure of the Central and South Plorida 4"lood Control District a few miles southweet of Okeechobee City, and later at the «dedication of the historical marker at Fort “vaser between Bartow and Highland City. | have beautiful photographs of all three of ‘uese occasions in my Washington office and | prize them highly. While I deeply appreciated the presence of Billy Bowlegs at the first two occasions saentioned, I thought it was particularly »ypical of him to show up at the Fort Fraser stodication. ‘You will recall that Fort Fraser, ‘ist as Fort Gardiner and Fort Basinger, and tor the matter all of the forts named during ene Zachary Taylor campaign which culminated at the Battle of Lake Okeechobee, were named for oificers who had lost their lives in the Dade massacre. Taylor’s army regarded itself as an avenging army and their every effort was bent upon vengeance. Probably the most bitter campaign of the whole sceond Seminole war was the Taylor campaign which followed closely after the Dade mussacre. Nevertheless, Billy Bowlegs showed up at the occasion when both the campaign and the location of Fort Fraser were being memorized and sat on the platjorm with me. Without his saying so I felt he was trying to moke it clear that his presence indicated that the Seminole Indian Aad overcome his bitterness of those far-olf days just as our Governor Carlton’s sence here todiy indicates so clearly the name thing. We all know that Governor Carlton's grandfather was killed by the Inillans in the third Seminole war in an enmagement south ol! Fort Meade. I feel that Lhe active participation of such men as he vid our late friend Billy Bowlegs in the various friendly affairs which show that the original American people, the Seminoles, ‘nd oursetves, hive grown closer together rod are becoming more and more one peonly are decidedly in the finest traditions and hest interests of our country. ‘here are many other good and kindly thines which have been done by other Seminnles which I would be glad to relate on this occasion, except that I feel we should confine ourselves as much as possible to the discussion of the good qualities, kindly traits, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE and worthwhile accomplishments of Billy Bowlegs. May I recite one rather light incident from Mis. Minnie Moore-Willson’s book which may throw some additional light on him? “When the coast towns of Florida were still primitive, a storekeeper had purchised in New York, an old-fashioned organette, that played five tunes. The Seminoles at that time frequently came on purchasing expeditions to these trading villages. (hofee-hatch-o |Billy Bowlegs], progressive and musical, listened to the ‘box of music’ as it played in the little store, and was entraticed with the melodies. “Soon after, the organette refused to ‘go’ and the trader told his friends that uz.less he could ‘stick it on the Indians, he wiuld be out thirty-five dollars.’ A few days later the Chief, with another Indian, came back to the store bringing produce to sell. The white trader wanted the Indian’s goods and suggested to the Chief that he exchange for the music box, telling the innocent Seminole that ‘music box no more play, wake up by and by and play good, him tired now.’ The Seminole with his mechanical knowledge, looked the organette over, and making the trace, proudly left with the ‘tired out’ music box under his arm. “The next day, the two Indiuns returned, bringing with them the music box to show to the storekeeper. ‘That box, him no more tired,’ and winding up the machine which the ingenicus Seminole had put into working order, played the whole five tunes to the astonishment and chargrin of the tracer. ‘Him play good at Green Corn Dance, down Okee-cho-bee.’ ” I think it is very clear from this little incident that while the white traders inay have out-traded the Indians on many oc-~ casions, if not most occasions, this was one time when the opposite was the case ard I am glad that Billy Bowlegs III was the very person who, in good humor, out-traded that parsicular white storekeeper. Tam happy that this occasion has brovzht out so many good citizens, both from among the Seminoles and among the rest of us who are latecomers, as compared to them, to =his good peninsula, I hope that this occasion will bring even closer together all groups of citizens who now are proud to call themselves Floridians and that we will make the story of Billy Bowlegs III our common heritage of which all people ia this ate may be justly proud. 4nd so, speaking for the entire Florida delegation in Congress, as well as for the State and local officials of Florida and the citizens of Florida, generally, I now dedicate this marker in memory of a very fine man whose friendship I shall always cherish. A litile Seminole girl who I understand is his grandniece, will unveil the marker wh ch, Just as Billy Bowlegs would have wished it, is a modest, though dignified monum«nt. In concluding my part in the program. I merely want to say that I feel greatly honorecl at having been asked to make this talk and to speak of 4 man for whose high character and worthwhile accomplishment: I have the utmost respect. Speaking particularly for the Polk County Historical Commission and the Peace River Valley Historical Society, I dedicate this marker to the memory of our late, great friend, Billy Buwlegs JII, one of the finest leaders ever pro-~ duced from among the Seminoles of Florida, TRIBUTE TO BiLLy Bow.eGs III on His lvlsr BIRTHDAY Long, long ago February's cold little moon Dropped her baby boy on the lap of a hunter Resting from a hard, bold chase of the Lo-ko-see.! 1 Lo-ko-see—bear. onsyp od 75 For brave chief, “Billy Bowlegs,” the babe was named soon. Strong he grew and walked in the grass like the wind. Deft and cunning, he tracked the Florida wolf; Feared not the panther nor the alapata,? Knew the River of Grass for his steadfast friend. Yet, young Billy feared the pits, so dark and hot His mother dug and therein hid him by day From the cruel paleface, evermore on the prowl; Who ruined crops and chickees? and killed on the spot, Hoping to alter the fate of all his clan Old chief Billy Bowlegs drank the “Black Drink’ —and Sent one of his twin souls to the Milky Way— Where dwells the Great Spirit, god of the Redman. “Thy trouble is no more,” the Great Spirit roared Before the plea was worded by the old chief. “Unite thy souls,” the Indian god continued, “Thy foe will meet; defeat from his brother's sword.” The third Billy Bowlegs birthright was denied— All his daring dreams sleep in his heart unborn— At time he views yesterdays that have failed him And down through the long years peace has paced his stride. Now ancient, Billy Bowlegs, grand to the end, Beloved by his tribesmen and palefaces alike, Has lived life to the hilt with ill will toward none—- Walks in the grass like the wind, the world his friend. ~—GERALDINE THRAILKILL. “T AM AN AMERICAN”—FREEDOMS FOUNDATION AWARD LETTER Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, every year the Freedoms Foundation at Val!cy Forge has a contest and offers awards for letters from Armed Forces personnel which typify some aspect of Americanism. One of the winners of the 1965 contest is a young man from my State, Gary Arlaud, from Des Moines, Iowa. I ask unanimous consent that his excellent letter entitled “I Am an American” be printed in the Recorp at this point. There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ONE Hunorep DoLiars aND GEORGE WaASHING- TON Honor MepaL Awarp—"“I AM AN AMERICAN” (A hypothetical letter from an imaginary Russian student) (Gary M. Arlaud, V-6 Division, U.S.S. LPH 7, FPO, New York) Now if only I could say that. But Ia sorry to say that I can’t for I am a Russian student of the U.S.S.R. I am here in your country on tour with a group from my own country and I have had a chance to see what your country is really like and study what it’s really like. In the evenings I have crept from my hotel room and my comrades to go to the library and find out a myrid of things including one of the most illustrious his- 2 Alapata—alligator. 3 Chickens—Indian dwellings. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 22] === “ eng February 21, 1966 put they share a common attachment to their world revolution and to its support through what they call wars of liberation. So what we face in Vietnam is what we have faced on many occasions before—the need to check the extension of Communist power in order to maintain a reasonable stability in a precarious world. That stability was achieved in the years after the war by the valor of free nations in defending the integrity of postwar territorial arrangements. And we have achieved a certain stability for the last decade and a half. It must not be overthrown now. Like so many of our problems today the struggle in South Vietnam stems from the disruption of two world wars. The Second World War completed a process begun by the first. It ripped apart a structure of power that had existed for 100 years. It set in train new forces and energies that have remade the map of the world. Not only did it weaken the nations actively engaged in the fighting, but it had far-reaching secondary effects. It undermined the foundations of the colonial structures through which a handful of powers controlled one-third of the world’s population. And the winds of change and progress that have blown fiercely during the last 20 years have toppled those structures almost completely. Meanwhile, the Communist nations have exploited the turmoil of a time of transition in an effort to extend Communist control into other areas of the world. The United States first faced the menace of Communist ambition in Europe when one after another of the nations on the boundaries of the Soviet Union fell under the dominion of Moscow through the presence of the Red army. | To check this tidal wave the United States provided the Marshall plan to strengthen the nations of Western Europe and then moved to organize with those nations a collective security system through NATO. As a result, the advance of Soviet Communist power was stopped and the Soviet Union gradually adjusted its policies to this situation. But within a year after the establishment of NATO, the Communists took over China. This posed a new and serious threat, particularly to those weak new nations of the Far East that had been formed out of colonial empires. The problems in Asia were, of course, different from those in Europe. But the result was much the same—instability, uncertainty, and vulnerability to both the bully and the aggressor. Western Europe, with its established governmental and traditional social institutions recovered quickly. But certain of the new nations of Asia—particularly those that had not known self-government for a century or more— continued to face a far more formidable problem which they still face. The first test in Asia came in Korea when the United Nations forces—predominantly American—stopped the drive of Communist North Korea supported by material aid from the Soviet Union. It stopped the Chinese Army that followed. It brought to a halt the Communist effort to push out the line that had been drawn and to establish Communist control over the Korean peninsula. We fought the Korean war—which like the struggle in Vietnam occurred in a remote area thousands of miles away—to sustain a principle vital to the freedom and security of America—the principle that the Communist world should not be permitted to expand by overrunning one after another of the arrangements built during and since the war to mark the outer limits of Communist expansion by force. Before the Korean war had ended, the United States, under President Truman, moved to settle and consolidate the situation in the Pacific through a peace treaty with Japan and through hilateral security treaties with Japan and the Philippines and through the ANZUS treaty with Australia and New Zealand. Hardly had the Korean war been finished when France, which had been fighting a protracted struggle in Indochina, decided to relinquish Its political presence in southeast Asia. After a brief negotiation 1t came to terms with the Communist forces that had captured the nationalist movement. The result was the division of Indochina into four. parts; a Kingdom of Cambodia, a Kingdom of Laos, and Vietnam divided at the 17th parallel between the Communist forces in the north and a non- Communist Vietnamese Government in the south. Recognizing that the Communists had not abandoned their ambitions, the U.5. Government under President Eisenhower, took steps to secure the situation by further alliances. Bilateral treaties were concluded with the Republic of Korea and the Republic of China on Formosa. In.the Middle East the s0called northern tier of countries lying to the south of the Soviet Union entered into the Baghdad Pact which established what is now known as CENTO—the Central Treaty Organization, The United States did not become a formal member of this alllance which is composed of Great Britain, Turkey, Iran, and Pakistan. But we are closely associated with CENTO and have bilateral military assistance agreements with its regional members, concluded by the Eisenhower administration, In order to give support to the nations of southeast Asia, the United States took the lead in the creation of an alliance embodied in a treaty and reinforced by a collective securtty system known as SEATO—the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. In this alliance, the United States joined with Great Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Pakistan, and the Philippines to guarantee the security not only of the member nations but also to come to the ald of certain protocol states and territories if they so requested. South Vietnam was included in this protocol. The United States had not been a party to the agreements made in Geneva in 1954, which France had concluded with the Communist Vietnamese forces known. as the Viet Minh. But the Under Secretary of State, Walter Bedell Smith, stated under instructions that the United States would not disturb the agreements and “would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the * * * agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security.” Under Secretary Smith’s statement was only a unilateral declaration, but in joining SEATO the United States took a solemn treaty engagement of far-reaching effect. Article. IV, paragraph 1, provides that “each party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack * * * would endanger its own peace and safely, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes.” It is thts fundamental SEATO obligation that has from the outset guided our actions in South Vietnam. The language of this treaty is worth careful attention. ‘The obligation it imposes is not only joint but several. The finding that an armed attack has occurred does not have to be made by a collective determination before the obligation of each member becomes operative. Nor does the treaty require a collective decision on actions to be taken to meet the common danger. If the United States determines that an armed attack has occurred against any nation to whom the protection of the treaty applies, then it 1s obligated “to act to meet the common danger” without regard to the views or actions of any other treaty member. The far-reaching implications of this com- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3377 mitment were well understood by this committee when it recommended, with only the late Senator Langer dissenting, that the Senate consent to the ratification of the treaty. The committee’s report states: "The committee is not impervious to the risks which this treaty entails, It fully appreciates that acceptance of these additional obligations commits the United States to a course of ‘action over a vast expanse of the Pacific. Yet these risks are consistent with our own highest interests. There are greater hazards in not advising a potential enemy of what he can expect of us, and in failing to disabuse him of assumptions which might lead to a miscalculation of our intentions.” Following this committee's recommendation, the Senate gave its advice and consent to the treaty by a vote of 82 to 1, the late Senator Langer dissenting. All members of this distinguished committee who were then Senators voted for that treaty. Our multilateral engagement under the SEATO Treaty had been reinforced and amplified by a series of bilateral commitments and assurances directly to the Government of South Vietnam. On October 1, 1954, President Eisenhower wrote to President Diem offering ‘to assist the Government of Vietnam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state, capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggression through military means.” In 1957, President Eisenhower and President Diem issued a joint statement which called attention to “the large buildup of Vietnamese Communist military forces in North Vietnam” and stated:, “Noting that the Republic of Vietnam is covered by article IV of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, President Eisenhower and President Ngo Dinh Diem agreed that aggression or subversion threatening the political independence of the Republic of Vietnam would be considered as endangering peace and stability.” On August 2, 1961, President Kennedy declared that “the United States is determined that the Republic of Vietnam shall not be lost to the Communists for lack of any support which the United States can render.” On December 14, 1961, President Kennedy wrote to President Diem, recalling the US. declaration made at the end of the Geneva Conference in 1954. The President once again stated that the United States was “‘prepared to help the Republic of Vietnam to protect its people and to preserve its independence.” This commitment has been reafirmed many times since. These then are the commitments we have taken to protect South Vietnam as a part of protecting our own “peace and security.” We have sent American forces to fight in the jungles of that beleaguered country because South Vietnam has, under the language of the SEATO Treaty, been the victim of “aggression by means of armed attack.” There can be no serious question as to the existence and nature of this aggression. The war is clearly an “armed attack,” cynieally and systematically mounted by the Hanoi regime against the people of South Vietnam. The North Vietnamese regime has sought deliberately to confuse the issue by seeking to make its aggression appear an as indigenous revolt. But we should not be deceived by this subterfuge. It is a familiar Communist practice. Impeded in their efforts to extend their power by the use of classical forms of force such as the invasion of Korea, the Communists have, over many years, developed an elaborate doctrine for so-called “wars of national liberation” to cloak their aggressions in ambiguity. A “war of national liberation,” in the Communist lexicon, depends on the tactics of terror and sabotage, of stealth and subversion. It has a particular utility for them . Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 23] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3078 since it gives an advantage to a disciplined and ruthless minority, particularly in countries where the physical terrain makes clardestine iniiltration relatively easy. AL the sume time the Communists have a more subtie reason for favoring this type of agpression. It creates in any situation a sense of ambiguity that they can exploit to their own ndvantage. “Yet, in spite of Communist efforts to conruse the issue, the nature of the conflict in South Vietnam is very clear. Tet me review the facts. ‘With the benefit of hindsight no one can doubt that in agreeing to the 1954 accords, the regime in Hanoi fully expected that within a relatively short period the South Vietnamese would fall under their control. The south secraed overburdened with troubles. Its formiduble economic problems were complicated by the need to absorb almost 1 mUlion North Vietnamese, who—having seen the tree face of communism—fled south after the 1954 accords. The north moreover had concealed resources in the south. At the time of the accords in 1954, many Communists fighting with the Vietminh had heen directed by the Lao Dong Party in Hanoi to stay in the south, to hide their arms, and to devote their efforts to undermining the South Vietnamese Government. These efforts of subversion were in the initial years quite unsuccessful. Much to the dismay cf the Hanoi regime South Vietnam made substantial progress in spite of the extraordinary problems it faced, while North Vietnarn lagged far behind. As a consequence the Communist leaders in North Vietnam were forced to conclude that more active measures were necessary if the subversion of Sout Vietnam were to succeed. During the 5 years following the Geneva Conference the Hanoi regime developed a secret political-military organization in South Vietnam based on the cadres who had been ordered to stay in the south. Many of the activities of this organization were direcled townrd the assassination of selected South Vietnamese civilians. More than 1,000 civilians were murdered* or kidnapped from 1957 to 1959. In 1960 alone, terrorists assassinated i,400 local government officials and kidnapped 700 others, while armed guerrillas killed 2,200 military and security personnel, Tn September 1960, the Lne Dong Party--- the Communist Party in North Vietnam--- held its third party congress in Hanoi. That Congress culled for the creation of a front organization to undertake the subversion of South Vietnam, Three months thereafter, the Nations! Liberation Front was established to provide a political facade for the conduct of an active guerrilla war. Beginning in 1960 the Hanoi regime began to infiltrate into South Vietnom the disciplined adherents whom the party had ordered north at the time of the settlement. In the intervening period since 1954, these men had been trained in >be arts of sabotage and subversion. Now they were ordered to conscript young men from the villages by force or persuasion and to form cadres around which guerrilla units rould be built. 4A of this was documented by the Legal Committee of the International Commission for Supervision and Control. That body, established to supervise the performance of the Vietnam cease-fire, is composed of Indian, Polish, and Canadian members. The Legal Committee, with Poland objecting, reported in 1962: “Chere is evidence to show that arms, munitions, and other supplies have been sent from the zone in the north to the zone in the south with the objective of supporting, organizing, and carrying cut hostile activities, including armed attacks, against the urmed forces and administration of the zone in Lhe south, “There is evidence that the PAVN (ie., the North Vietnamese Army), has allowed the zone in the north to be used for inciting, encouraging and supporting hostile activities in the zone in the south, aimed at the overthrow of the administration in the south.” Tn the 3-year period from 1959 to 1961, the North Victnam regime infiltrated 10,000 men into the south. In 192, 13,000 additional personnel were infiltrated. And hy the end of 1964, North Vietnam may well:1ave moved over 40,000 armed and unarmed guerrillas into South Vietnam. Beginning over a year ago, the Communists apparently exhausted their reservoir of southerners who had gone north. Since then the greater number of men infiltrated into the south have been native-born North Vietnamese. Most recently, Hanoi his begun to infiltrate elements of the North Vietnamese Army in increasingly larger numbers, Today, there is evidence that nine regiments of regular North Vietnamese forces are fighting in organized units in the south. I have reviewed these facts—-which are familiar enough to most of you- because, it seems to me, they demoustrate beyond question that the war in Victnam is xs much an act of outside aggression as though the Hanoi regime had sent an army across the 17th parallel rather than infiltrating armed forces by stealth. This point is important since it goes to the heart of our own involvement. Much of the confusion about the struggle in South Vietnam has arisen over a failure to understand the nature of the conflict. For if the war in South Vietnam were—as the Communists try to make it appear— merely an indigeonous revolt. then the United States would not have its own combat troops in South Vietnam. But the evidence is overwhelming that it is, in fact, something quite different—a systematic agyression by Hanoi against the people of South Vietnam. It is one further effort by a Communist regime in one-half of a divided country to take over the people of the other half us the point of a gun and against their will. Up to this point I have tried ‘o describe the nature of our commitments in South Vietnam and why we have made them. TI have sought to put those commitments within the framework of our larger effort to prevent the Communists from upsetting the arrangements which have been the basis for our security. These policies have sometimes been attacked as static and sterile. It has been argued that they do not take account of the vast changes which have wecurred in the world and are still in train, These contentions seem to me {o miss the point. The line of policy we are following involves fur more than a defense of the status quo. It seeks rather to insure that degree of security which is necessary if ehange and progress are to take place through consent and not through coercicn. Certainly—as has been frequently pointed out—the world of the mid-20th century is not standing still. Movement is occurring on both sides of the Iron Curtain. Communism today is no longer monolithic; it no longer wears one face but many, and the deep schism between the two great power centers of the Communist world—Moscow and Peiping—is clearly one of the major political facts of our time. There has been ‘substantial change and movement within the Soviet Union as well— and perhaps even more among the countries of Eastern Europe. These changes have not been inhibited because of our efforts to maintain our postwar arrangements by organizing the Western Alliance. They have taken place because of internal developments as well as because the Communist regime in Moscow has recognized that the Western Alliance cannot permit it to extend its dominion by force. February 21, 1966 Over time the same processes hopefully will work in the Far East. Peiping—and the Communist states living under its shadow-—-must learn that they cannot redraw the boundaries of the world by force. What we are pursuing, therefore, is not a static concept. For unlike the Communists we really believe in social revolution and not merely in power cloaked as revolution. We believe in constructive change and encourage it. That was the meaning of President Johnson’s initiatives at the Honolulu Conference—ta encourage the efforts of the South Vietnamese Government to transform the country in a way that will correct ancient injustices and bring about a better life for all the people. In meeting our commitments in South Vietnam we are using substantial military forces. At the same time, we are making it quite clear to North Vietnam and to the world that our forces are being employed for a limited and well-defined objective. What we seek in South Vietnam is to bring about a restoration of the conditions contemplated by the accords of 1954. We seek, in other words, to restore the integrity of the settlement made between the French Government and the Communist forces under Ho Chi Minh—a settlement which was joined in by the United Kingdom, Communist China, the Soviet Union, Laos, and Cambodia, This settlement forms a part of the structure of arrangements that are the key to stability in the present-day world. Unfortunately, the limited nature of our purpose is foreign to the philosophy of the Communist world. It may be hard, therefore, for them to realize that the United States seeks no territorial aggrandizement in South Vietnam or anywhere in southeast Asia. We do not wish to maintain our troops in that area any longer than is necessary to secure the freedom of the South Vietnamese people. We want no permanent military bases, no trade advantages. We are not asking that the Government of South Vietnam ally itself with us or be in any way beholden to us. We wish oniy that the people of South Vietnam should have the right and the opportunity to determine their future in freedom without coeccion or threat. For months now we have done everything possible to make clear to the regime in Hanoi that a political solution is the proper course. If that regime were prepared to call off the aggression in the south, peace would come in almost in a matter of hours. When that ovcurred the people of North Vietnam could safely go about their business. For we do not seek to destroy the Hanoi regime or to force the people of North Vietnam to accept any other form of government. And—1.nder conditions of peace-—we would be quite prepared for the North Vietnamese people to share with the other peoples of southeast Asia in the economic and technical help that we and other nations are extending to that area. This is the simple message that we have tried to convey to Hanoi through many channels. We have sought in every wiy to impress upon the Communist world the ease with which peace could be attained if only Hanoi were willing. We have used every resource of diplomacy. I know of no occasion in history where so much effort has been devoted-—-not only on the part of the United States but of many other nations—in an effort tc bring about a political solution to a costly and dangerous war. I know you are generally familiar with the record. But to this point the sounds from the other side have been harsh and negative. The regime in Hanoi has been unwilling to accept any of the possibilities open to it for discussion. All we have heard is the constant insistence that they will not negotiate unless Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 24] === February 21, 1966 we accept in advance their four points. Yet, the effect of those four points, as propounded by Hanoi, would be to give away the very purposes for which we are fighting and to deliver the people of South Vietnam against their will to the domination of a Communist regime. To understand the situation realistically, we should not underestimate the harshness of the Communist side or overestimate the ease of a political solution. .From time to time we have heard it suggested that we should seek a Geneva Con-" ference or enlist the good offices of the Conference Cochairmen or take the problem to the United Nations or invite the mediation efforts of neutral nations. Well, we have done all of these things, and in most cases we have done them repeatedly—with no result. We heard it suggested also, by governments and individuals on both sides of the Iron Curtain, that no peace was possible so long as American planes were flying bombing rmnissions over North Vietnam, but that negotilations might be possible if the bombing were discontinued. We did that also—not once but twice. The last pause, as this committee will recall, Jasted 37 days. And again with no response. Certainly, we shall do everything consistent with our national objectives to seek a solution through diplomacy. ‘There is no doubt as to the elements for an honorable peace as we see it. We have made them clear again and again. Most recently we have summarized them in the form of 14 points: 1. The Geneva Agreements of 1954 and 1962 are an adequate basis for peace in southeast Asia; 2. We would welcome a conference on southeast Asia or on any part thereof; 8. We would welcome “negotiations without preconditions” as the 17 nations put it; 4. We would welcome unconditional discussions as President Johnson put it; 5. A cessation of hostilities could be the first order of.business at a conference or could be the subject of preliminary discussions; 6. Hanoi’s four points could be discussed along with other points which others might wish to propose; 7. We want no U.S. bases in southeast Asia; 8. We do not desire to retain U.S. troops in South Vietnam after peace is assured; 9. We support free elections in South Vietnam to give the South Vietnamese a government of their own choice; 10. The question of reunification of Vietnam should be determined by the Vietnamese through their own free decision; 11. The countries of southeast Asia can be nonalined or neutral if that be their option; 12. We would much prefer to use our resources for the economic reconstruction of southeast Asia than in war. If there is peace, North Vietnam could participate in a regional effort to which we would be prepared to contribute at least $1 billion; 13. The President has said ‘‘the Vietcong would not have difficulty being represented and having their views represented if for a moment Hanoi decided she wanted to cease aggression. I don't think that would be an insurmountable problem’; 14. We have said publicly and privately that we could stop the bombing of North Vietnam as a step toward peace although there has not been the slightest hint or suggestion from the other side as to what they would do if the bombing stopped. These 14 points are on the public record. Our Government has made quite clear what kind of peace we are prepared to accept—a peace that will guarantee the security of South Vietnam, a peace that will stop armed aggression in violation of international agreements and international law. This is the position that we have made known to the other side both directly and through intermediaries. How does this compare with the position of the Hanoi regime? Both Hanoi and Peiping have repeatedly rejected our proposal for unconditional discussions. They have insisted instead that before any discussions can take place our side must agree in advance to the four points of Hanol's program. The words that they have used have differed from formulation to formulation. Sometimes they have said their points are the “sole basis” for negotiations, sometimes “the most correct basis.” But the effect is the same. What they are insisting upon is that we accept in advance their substantive position and then discuss only the ways in which it shall be given effect. The technique Of demanding such substantive agreement in advance is a famillar Communist negotiating tactic. It does not mean that the basic points are open for discussion or that they can be loosely interpreted. It means just what it says. We have subjected these four points to the most careful scrutiny. What do they reveal? The first point calls for “recognition of the fundamental national rights of the Vietnamese people: sovereignty, independence, unity, and territorial integrity.” This point also calls for the withdrawal of U.S. forces, dismantling of our military bases, and abolition of our military alliance with the Government of South Vietnam, “in strict conformity with the Geneva agreements.” The United States has made clear that we too are prepared to support a restoration of the provisions of the Geneva agreements and that we are prepared to withdraw our troops and dismantle military bases once there 1s compliance with the accords by all parties. We have said also that we would not expect or require a military alliance with a free South Vietnam. The second point relates to the military clauses of the Geneva agreements, and these too, we could agree to under the conditions I have indicated. The fourth point provides that the issue of peaceful reunification should be settled by the Vietnamese people without foreign intervention, This also we could accept if it be clearly understood that conditions must first be created both in the North and South that will make it possible for truly free elections to be held. It is in the third point that the core of the Communist position is disclosed. That point _provides that “The internal affairs of South Vietnam must be settled by the South Vietnamese people themselves in accordance with the program of the National Liberation Front.” To understand the significance of this point, it is necessary not only to examine what is meant by the “program of the National Liberation Front” but to explore somewhat further the character of the front itself and the purposes it serves in the tactics of the North Vietnamese regime. Let us turn first to the front itself. Both Hanoi and Pelping have made clear again and again—and they have been joined in this by other Communist powers—that negotiations will be possible only when the United States recognizes the National Liberation Front as the “sole genuine representative of the entire South Vietnamese people.” What are the implications of this proposal and why are the Communists urging 1¢ so insistently? The evidence is overwhelming that the National Liberation Front is exactly what its name impHes—a Communist-front organization intended to give support to the deliberate fiction that the war in Vietnam is an indigenous revolt. The front is, as the facts make clear, an invention of the Compproved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3379 munist Party of North Vietnam, to serve as & political cloak for its activities in the south. As I have noted earlier, the front was created by the North Vietnamese Communist Party—the Lao Dong Party—in 1960, soon after North Viet Nam’s military leader, General Giap, announced: “The north is the revolutionary base for the whole country.” The individuals proclaimed as leaders of the front are not personalties widely known to the Vietnamese people, either in the north or in the south. To suggest that they represent the aspirations of the Vietnamese people is absurd. The significant fact is that at no time has any single individual of political significance in South Vietnam adhered to the front or to its policies. While some Vietnamese leaders and groups may difer among themselves on how the country is to be led, none of them differs on the fact that the front does not speak for them. In 1961 Hanoi sought to strengthen the fiction of the front’s indigenous origins by creating a seemingly independent Communist Party as the principal element of the front. It therefore established the People’s Revolutionary Party. A secret Lao Dong circular dated December 7, 1961, advised party members that “The People’s Revolutionary Party has only the appearance of an independent existence. Actually our party is nothing but the Lao Dong Party of Vietnam unified from north to south under the central executive committee of the party, the chief of which is President Ho * * * during these explanations, take care to keep this strictly secret, especially in South Vietnam, so that the enemy does not perceive our purpose.” The People’s Revolutionary Party has not concealed its role in the front. It has frankly stated that it is the dominant element. On February 15, 1961, the Vietcong Committee for the South went even further, stating that in time the Communist Party would “act overtly to lead the revolution in South Vietnam.” In other words, the Communists have told their followers that, at the proper moment, they would emerge from cover and cast off the disguise of the National Liberation Front. And so the Communists have a clear purpose in insisting that we recognize the National Liberation Front as the sole representative of the South Vietnamese people. For them this is not a procedural question but a major question of substance. They insist on our recognition of the front as the sole spokesman for the people of South Vietnam since our acceptance of the front in that capacity would in effect mean our acceptance of the Communist position as to the indigenous nature of the conflict and thus our acceptance of a settlement on Hanoi’s terms—which would mean delivering South Vietnam into the control of the Communist north. In spite. of these clear realities, we have not asserted nor do we assert an unreasoning attiude with regard to the front. The President said in his state of the Union message, ‘We will meet at any conference table, we will discuss any proposals—4 points, or 14, or 40—and we will consider the views of any group”—and that, of course, includes the front along with other groups. To the extent then that the front has any validity as a representative of a group, the views of that group can be heard and the issue of the Liberation Front should, as the President has said, not prove “an insurmountable problem.” It remains a problem only because Hanoi insists on using it to establish its own substantive position—that the front represents the hopes and aspirations ‘of the South Vietnamese people—and hence should control them, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 25] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3380 The significance of this issue is clearly seen when one examines the so-called program of the National Liberation Front, as it was announced from Hanoi on January 29, 1961, and revised and amplified in a second publication on February 11 that same year. The first point of this program discloses the full Communist intention. It calls for the overthrow of the South Vietnamese Govern-~ ment in Saigon and the establishment of a coalition government from which the government in Saigon would be totally excluded. Jn other words the Hanoi regime is demanding the following preconditions to which the United States must agree before the Communists will even condescend to negotiate: irst, that the South Vietnamese Government be overthrown; Second, that the Liberation Front, the ercature and agent of Hanoi, be accepted as the sole bargaining representative for the South Vietnamese people; Third, that South Vietnam be put under the control of a coalition government formed by the Communists and from which the South Vietnamese Government would he excluded. May I conclude, therefore, Mr. Chairman, with certain simple points which are at heart of the problem and at the heart of VS. policy in South Vietnam. i. The elementary fact is that there is an ageression in the form of an armed attack by North Vietnam against South Vietnam. 2. The United States has commitments to assist South Vietnam to repel this aggression. 3. Our commitments to South Vietnam were not taken in isolation but are a part of a systematic effort in the postwar period to assure a stable peace. 4. The issue in southeast Asia becomes woridwide because we must make clear that the United States keeps its word wherever it is pledged. 5. No nation is more interested in peace in southeast Asia or elsewhere than is the United States. If the armed attack against South Vietnam is brought to an end, peace can come very quickly. Every channel or forum for contact, discussion, or negotiation will remain active in order that no possibility for peace will be overlooked.. STATEMENT OF GEN. MaxweELL D. TAYLOR, IRELIRED General ‘layLor. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, f want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for your willingness to hear my views on the situation in South Vietnam, I am afraid that they will not be new to many of you since you have otten heard me express them in the days when I was an official of the Government. LT ugree thoroughly with the motivating purposes of these hearings; namely, to analyze the reasons why we are involved in South Vietnam, the importance of this involvement and the etfectiveness with which we are dealing with the resultant problems. If my personal views can assist in clarifying these points, I shall be most happy to present them. Kor the purpose of providing a basis for our subsequent discussion, with your permission I would like to make a continuous statement which will undertake to answer three basic questions. lirst, what are we doing in South Vietnam? secondly, how are we doing it? And, finally, can we improve upon what we ore doing’ A simple statement of what we are doing in South Vietnam is to say that we are engaged ina clash of purpose and interest with the militant wing of the Communist movement represented by Hanoi, the Vietcong, and Peiping. Opposing these Communist forces, in the front rank stand the Government and peuple of South Vietnam supported primarily by the United States but assisted in varying degree by some 30 other nations. The purpose of the Hanoi camp is perfectly clear and has been since 1954. It is to absorb the 15,000,000 people of South Vietnam into a single Communist state under the leadership of Ho Chi Minh ard his associates in Hanoi. In the course of uwccomplishing this basic purpose, the Communist leaders expect to undermine the position of the United States in Asia and to demonstrate the efficacy of the so-cajled war of liberation as a cheap, safe, and disavowable technique for the future expansion of militant Communism., Our purpose is equally clear and easily defined, In his Baltimore speech of April 7, 1965, President Johnson did so in the following terms: “Our objective is the independ~- ence of South Vietnam and its freedom from attack. We want nothing for ourselves— only that the people of South Vietnam be allowed to guide their own country in their own. way.” This has been our basic objective since 1954. It has been pursued by three successive administrations and remains our basic objective today. Like the Communists, we havi: secondary objectives derived from the basic one, We intend to show that the war of liberation, tar from being cheap, safe, and disavowable is costly, dangerous, and doomed to failure. We must destroy the myth of its invincibility in order to protect the independence of many weak nations which are vulnerable targets for subversive aggression---to use the proper term for the war of liberation. We cannot leave while force and violence threaten them. The question has been raised as to whether this clash of interests is really important to us. An easy and incomplete answer would be that it must be important to us since it is considered so important by the other side. Their leadership. has made it quite clear that they regard South Vietnam as the testing ground for the war cf liberation and that after its anticipated success there, it will be used widely about the world. Kosygin told Mr. Reston in his interview last December: “We believe thut national liberation wars are just wars and they will continue as long as there is national oppression by imperialist powers.” Before him, Khrushchev in January 1961, hac the following to say: “Now a word about national liberation wars. ‘The armed struggle by the Vietnamese people or the war of he Algerian people serve as the latest example of such ‘wars. ‘I'hese are revolutionary wars. Such wars are not only admissible but inevitable. Can such wars flare up in ‘he future? They can. The Communists fully support such just wars and march in the front rank with peoples waging liberation struggles.” General Giap, the commander in chief of the North Vietnamese forces, has made the following comment: “South Vietnam is the niodel of the national liberation movement of our time. If the special wartsre that the U.S. imperialists are testing in South Vietnani is overcome, then it can be dcfeated anywhere in the world.” The Minister of Defense of Communist China, Marshal Lin Piao, in a long statement of policy in September 1965, described in detail how Mao Tsetung expects to utilize the war of liberation to expand communism in Latin America, Alrica, aud Asia. These testimonials show that. apart from the goal of imposing communism on 15 million South Vietnamese, the success of the war of liberation is in itself an important objective of the Communist leidership, on our side, we can understand the grave consequences of such a success for us. President Eisenhower in 1959 stressed the military importance of defending southeast Asia in the folowing terms. He said: “Strategically, South Vietnam’s capture by the Communists would bring their power soveral hun- February 21, 1966 dred miles into a hitherto free region. ‘I'he remaining countries of southeast Asia would be menaced by a great flanking movernent. The loss of South Vietnam would set in motion a crumbling process which could as it progresses have grave consequences for the forces of freedom.” Now, this view has often been referred to as the “dornino theory.” I personally do not believe in such a theory if it means belief in a law of nature which requires the collapse of each neighboring state in an inevitable sequence, following a Communist victory in South Vietnam. However, I am deeply impressed with the probable effects worldwide, not necessarily in areas contiguous to South Vietnam, if the war of liberation scores a significant victory there. President Kennedy commented on this danger with moving eloquence: ‘The great battleground for the defense and expansion of freedom today is the southern half of the globe~-Asia, Latin America, Africa and the Middle East---the lands of the people who harbor the greatest hopes. The enemies of freedom think they can destroy the hopes of the newer nations and they aim to do it before the end of this decade, This is a struggle of will and determination as much as one of force and violence. It is a battle for the conquest of the minds and souls as much as for the conquest of lives and territory. In such a struggie, we cannot fail to take sides.” Gentlemen, I think a simple answer to the question, what are we doing in South Vietnam, is to say that for more than a decade we have been taking sides in a cause in which we have a vital stake. My second question was, How are we doing in the pursuit of our objectives in South Vietnam? Both sides in the struggle have over the years developed the current stralegies which are now in confrontation. During 1964 and 1965, the Hanoi leadership attempted to exploit the political turbulence which followed the fall of President Diem in November 1963. Greatly encouraged by the disorder which marked tne political scene in Saigon, the Communist leadership made a massive effort to press on to victory. To meet the growing needs in military manpower, they began the infiltration of personnel of the North Vietnamese Army, first as individual replacements, later as formed tactical units. Utilizing this new strength, they intended to make the monsoon offensive of 1965 a major drive for significant military victories. Concurrently, they increased the sabotage directed at the land communication system in South Vietnam for the purpose of hampcring the distribution of commodities and thus adding to the economic stresses in the south. Terrorism was stepped up and directed with added frequency at U.S. personnel and installations. They apparently hoped to be able to seize and hold politically important localities such as district and provincial capitals, tc demoralize the Vietnamese people and Government, and to demonstrate to the United States that we were backing a cause which must inevitably fail. Faced with this growing threat, the Victnamese Government and our Amcrican oj/hcials were obliged to develop a counterstrategy to blunt and defeat the intensificd efforts of our adversaries. It evolved out of the experience of the preceding months and years and assumed its full form with the critical decisions in 1965 to introduce U.S. ground forces and to initiate the bombing campaign against military targets in the north. Both of these courses of action had been under consideration at least since November 1961, when I presented my report to President Kennedy following a visit to Saigon to appraise the growing criticality of the situation there. We did not take either action at that time but my report contained the following com- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 26] === February 21, 1966 ment with regard to the possible necessity of using airpower against the source of the Vietcong support in North Vietnam. I quote: “While we feel that the program recommended represents those measures which should be taken now, I would not suggest that it is the final word. If the Hanoi decision is to continue the irregular war declared on South Vietnam in 1959 with continued infiltration and covert support of guerrilla bands in the territory of our ally, we will then have to decide whether to accept as legitimate the continued guidance, training, and support of a guerrilla war across an international boundary. “Can we admit the establishment of the common law that the party attacked and his friends are denied the right to strike the source of the aggression after the fact that external aggression is clearly established?” By February 1965, it became clear that we could no longer tolerate this clandestine support from the immune sanctuary in North Vietnam which served as the external base for the Vietcong insurgency. In brief, the strategy which we have been and are pursuing consists of four components. The first includes the many activities directed at increasing the effectiveness of our ground combat against the Vietcong and North Vietnamese units in South Vietnam. For this purpose, we have made the utmost efforts to increase the indigenous forces of South Vietnam always mindful that this is a Vietnamese war in which we should do only those things which the Vietnamese cannot do for themselves or cannot do in time to avert defeat. From July 1964 to July 1965 the armed forces and police of South Vietnam were increased by some 140,000 trained men, a very creditable effort on the part of this small country where military leadership and administrative experience are inevitably in short supply. As of today, the overall military strength in South Vietnam is approaching 700,000, the largest military force in being among all of our allies, worldwide. Encouraging though the results have been in increasing the Vietnamese strength, during the year cited, our intelligence authorities believed that the Vietcong increased their total strength by some 60,000. In other words, we are advancing at_a rate only a little better than 2 to 1 in our favor. Since history has shown that the Government forces successfully opposing a guerrilla insurgency in the past have required a much greater preponderance of strength, 10 to 1 or 12 to 1 for example, it was quite clear the Vietnamese could not raise forces fast enough to keep pace with the growing threat of the Vietcong in time. It was this sobering conclusion that led to the decision to introduce American ground forces with their unique mobility and massive firepower to compensate for the. deficlency in Vietnamese strength. With such forces available, it was felt that the ratios of required strength cited above would lose much of their validity. IT am thoroughly, Mr. Chairman, aware of the concern of this committee over the growing requirement for American troops in South Vietnam. Is this an endless requirement in an open-ended war? I do not believe that anyone can give a completely satisfactory reply to this question but I can suggest the consideration of certain limiting factors which have a bearing on the matter. First, on our side, we are not setting as an objective for our ground forces the occupation of all South Vietnam or the hunting down of the last armed guerrilla. We are in Vietnam to safeguard the people who are the real target of the enemy. Terrain has little meaning except insofar as it supports people. Thus the extent of control and protection of population is the true measure of progress rather than control of territory. By the former indicator we are not doing too badly. No, 29--—9 Senator MANSFIELD estimates in his recent report that the Government controls about 60 percent of the population, the Vietcong about 22 percent, leaving 18 percent contested. When I left Saigon last July, those figures were 53, 25, 22 percent. The point I wish to make Is that when one expresses our military objective in terms of securing a high proportion of the population, the troop requirement loses some of its impression of open-endedness. Under this concept, the prime target of our U.S. forces becomes the mainline enemy units which constitute the greatest threat to population—not the entire guerrilla force wherever found. Another limiting factor is the logistic difficulty of the Vietcong in supporting increased numbers of troops in combat. The combination of air attacks on their lines of supply and of increasing ground attacks on their units which must then consume supplies at an increased rate places some kind of ceiling on the forces they can maintaln in South Vietnam, I wish I knew exactly where that ceiling is but our basic data on Vietcong logistics are too uncertain to permit precision. But the point is that there are factors which tend to keep our troop requirement finite and limit the capability of Hanoi to support large numbers of additional forces in the south, The second component of our strategy relates to the use of alr power against military targets in North Vietnam. It is well to remind ourselves the reasons which impelled us to this decision. There were three which we recognized perfectly at the time of the decision and which remain valid today. The first was to give the people of South Vietnam the assurance for the first time of Imposing a direct penalty on the source of the aggression. For 11 years they had suffered the depredations of the Vietcong without exacting any price from the country which provided the direction and support. The morale of the people and that of the armed forces in Vietnam received an inestimable lift from the decision to use the alr forces of both our countries against military targets in the homeland of the enemy—a lift which has certainly contributed to sustaining their will to continue the fight. The second reason for the decision was to. use air power, insofar as it could be effective, to limit and render more difficult the infiltration of the men and supplies from North Vietnam to South Vietnam. It was perfectly clear from the start as it is clear today that air power would not be able to stop infiltration. We were quite sure, however, that it could impose a ceiling on the forces which could be sustained in combat in South Vietnam. I do not believe that anyone who has reflected on the effect of the destruction of bridges, ports, railyards, and similar facilities, and on the effect of the limitation of daylight movement on the roads throughout a large part of North Vietnam can avoid the conclusion that the air campaign has had an important effect In slowing down infiltration and in raising its price. A testimonial to its effectiveness was the feverish activity in North Vietnam during the bombing pause to repair bomb damage and to move transport in daylight. The third reason for the decision to use our airpower was to provide a sobering reminder to the leaders in Hanoi that progressively they must pay a mounting price for the continuation of their support of the Vietcong insurgency. In spite of their defiant statements of determination to endure these attacks forever, I for one know from experience that no one derives any enjoyment from receiving incoming shells and bombs day after day and I have no doubt that the warning message is getting through to the leadership of Hanoi. In a very real sense, the objective of our air Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3381 campaign is to change the will of the enemy leadership. " We hope that, in due course, the combination of the Vietcong failure to win victory on the ground in South Vietnam and the effect of continued air attacks will present to the Hanoi leadership a situation so disadvantageous that they will decide that it is in their interest to halt their aggression, redefine their alms, and join with us in discussing ways and means of improving the lot of all Vietnam. The third component of our current strategy includes all of those nonmilitary activities which are so important but which receive too little public attention, It is not that our leaders have been unaware of the importance of better government, better living conditions, and the promise of a better future for the people of this country. Unfortunately, lack of insecurity and governmental instability were for a long time factors limiting the effectiveness of the many programs for development and reconstruction. But now, with the growing military effectiveness of our forces on the ground and the slowly developing maturity of the civil leadership in Saigon and in the provinces, I hope that conditions will permit much greater progress than in the past in bringing the benefits of a comparatively normal life to this war-weary people. As you know, the recent Honolulu Conference devoted most of its time to a consideration of these nonmilitary activities. If we are to leave a viable country after the end of the Vietcong insurgency, it Is essential that we make progress even under the conditions of war in stabilizing the Government, the society, and the economy.. The fourth component of our strategy is that which relates to our political and diplomatic efforts to initiate the discussion of a peaceful settlement of this conflict. The so-called peace offensive is so well known as to require no discussion at this time, as is also the discouraging lack of response from the other side. T am obliged to feel that the Hanoi leadership is not yet convinced that it must mend its ways. Perhaps they still hope for some Kind of military victory in the south. Certalnly, they are not convinced that in some way the United States cannot be detached from the support of South Vietnam. They hope against hope that through international or domestic pressures our Government can be forced off course, They have not forgotten that the Viet Minh won more in Paris than in Dienbienphu and believe that the Vietcong may be as fortunate in Washington. They doubt the will of the American public to continue the conflict indefinitely. In a contest of patience, they expect to win even though North Vietnam like the south has been constantly at war for over 20 years, Until it becomes perfectly clear to them that we are going to stay on course regardless of anything they can do, Iam afraid we are not likely to see them at ® conference table. Or if they come unconvinced of the inevitability of the failure of their present course, we can expect them to stall, delay, and maneuver just as they did at Panmunjom in Korea for over 2 years. In summary, then, our four-point strategy consists of a complex but coherent package of measures designed to improve the effectiveness of our forces on the ground in South Vietnam, to exploit our air superiority by attacking military targets in North Vietnam, to stabilize the political, social and economic systems in South Vietnam and to seek an honorable negotiated settlement of the conflict. It is limited as to objective, as to geographical scope, as to weapons and forces -employed, and as to targets attacked. All parts of it are interrelated; all parts are indespensable; we must be successful Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 27] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3082 on all fronts. The key, I believe, is inexorable pressure at all points, directed at the will, the ability and the means of the Communist aggressors. U; is a Tair question to ask, whether this is the best strategy to attain our basic objectives. I am the first to concede that we ean and roust do better in all four categsories of cur eiforts and, unhappily, progress toward peaceful negotiations is a bilateral allair which can progress only with sorne evoperation irom Hanoi. As you know, thus far that cooperation has been withheld, Waving conceded the need and possibility for improvement within the components of our current strategy, I must add in honesty that I know of no new strategic proposal which would serve as a better alternative to Lhe one which I have described—that is, provided we do not sacrifice our basic objective. ‘I'here are, of course, the two alternatives which we have always rejected and [ hope will continue to reject—to withdraw and give up our basic objective or to widen the war by massive air attacks on the North Vietnamese or even on Chinese targets. These two courses of action appear so to contravene our national and international interests that I shall not take the time ot the comraittee to discuss them here. The onty new proposal of which I em aware is the so-called holding strategy which, in its least extreme form, calls for a cessation of U.S. reinforcements and a limitation. of miiltary operations to those unecessary for the security of our forces and for the maintenance of our military presence. On several occasions, I have expressed myself in opposition to such a course of actian. To button up our troops in defensive positions und thus to the sacrifice of their unique atlributes of mobility and fire power would constitute the abandonment of cur allies on the battlefield and would assign a most inglorious mission to our troops who, for the present, have high morale and compiete conlidence in their ability to cope with the Vietcong in the field. The effect of such behavior on our Vietnamese allies could be disastrous. At a minimum, it would destroy all confidence in Vietnam in ultimate success and would encourage the timid and the wavering to turn to the Vietcong for protection and to the Liberation Front for political accommodation. Another serious result of such passivity would be the impossibility of obtaining. honorable terms at any peace table.. ‘he Communists are tough enough to daal with when one has the upper hand. They would never give us acceptable terms if the military situation reflected weakness on cur part and a readiness to withdraw. Our only alternative would be to accept dishonorable terms or to continue to sit out the war indefinitely on a supine defensive. I can hirdly sec the American public or this Congress lon supporting such a course of action, Thus, I am obliged to conclude that the so-colled holding strategy is really nol an alternative way of reaching our objective of an independent South Vietnam free from attack. We could never ‘reach it en such 9. course, Rather than being a true uiternative, it amounts to the modification und erosion of our basic objective and hence appears Lo me to be unacceptable. Jn conclusion, I feel that our present stratery is the best that has been suggested and that it 1s important that we adhere to it, always striving to improve our performance within the confines of its general concept. Certainly. it is not without risks—but little or yalue in this world is accompHshed without risk. It seems to me that the risks entailed are warranted by the importance of our stake in southeast Asia. Congress recopnized this importance in the wording of Loe joint resolution of August 1964: “The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia.” I subscribe to these words and believe that we should live by them and by the words of President Johnson when he sald in regard to our commitment in South Vietnam: '‘We will not be defeated. We will not grow tired. We will not withdraw either openly or under the cloak of a meaningless agreement.” Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHarrman. Thank you, Ceneral Taylor. IN TRIBUTE TO JAMES P. POPE Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the late James P. Pope is remembered as a fine U.S. Senator from Idaho. But many do not realize that this publicspirited man went on to help to direct the Tennessee Valley Authority for many years, following his service in the Senate. Three newspapers of the ‘Tennessee Valley paid editorial tribute 1o his work as TVA Administrator last month. I ask unanimous consent that the three editorials be printed in the Recor». ‘here being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From the Nashville (Tenn.) Jan. 26, 1966] We LEAVENED THE TVA Loar The death of James P. Pope, fur 14 years a member of the Tennessee Valley Authority Board, will recall for many in the Tennessee Valley the period in TVA's history when most of its great decisions were made. ‘vhe former U.S. Senator from: Idaho was appointed to the TVA Board only a few months before the sale of Cominonwealth & Southern properties to a partnership of Tennessee cities and the TVA. Muny thought after the Pope appointment that the late President Roosevelt, simply was reserving a TVA Board seat as a sinecure for a lameduck Senator. But Mr. Pope proved to be an active, able Board member. He played a sizable role in all the decisions, from buying out the power companies to planning the steam plants and obtaining congressional approval for them At a time when half a dozen bright young innovators were calling the signals, making the scores and grabbing TVA headlines, he was the quiet, effective linebacker who worked with the staff and made sure smaller chores were handled so well. Most of the men who are running TVA today will recall with some tender feeling how Mr. Pope managed always to obtain spectacular achievements. In an organization as large ss TVA it is always the Jim Popes who provide the sound judgment and inspiration that leads to success. His stewardship as a TVA Board member is one of the big answers for those alwhys asking how TVA manages to retain so roany capable young men to fil! top jobs as senior administrators retire and leave the Agency. Tennessean, {From the Knoxville (Tenn.) News-Sentinel, Jan. 25. 1966] JAMES P. PoPE A coatton-picking champion in Louisiana who was elected U.S. Senator from Idaho, an advocate of the Hberal money policies of the New Deal who was also an ardent conservationist, a youth who bicycled over Europe and later become a director of TVA—these are but some of the facets of the Hfe of James Pinckney Pope. Death has come to him at 81 and he will be remembered. For in this age of conformity few who follow him will live as varied a life or take part in as many civic and socially uplifting enterprises. ccd February 21, 1966 [From the Birmingham (Ala.) News, Jan. 28, 1966] JAMES P. PoPE None in areas near or in Tennessce Valley Authority service districts should let pass the Geath of James P. Pope-not without saying a thank you in obituary. Mr. Pope, a former Idaho Senator, was a member of the TVA Board of Directors from 1939 to 1953 by appointment of Franklin D. Roosevelt. That was a period when TVA did a very great deal to improve its operations and directly to benefit the peoples of Alabama’'s Tennessee Valley and other areas Mr. Pope had had a distinguished and even a brilliant career before such appointment. But in the TVA area generally he will be remembered as one who understcod the authority and sought earnestly to benefit people through it. WEATHER MODIFICATION Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, the State of South Dakota is not the most arid State in the Nation, nor does its economic development and population growth threaten it with serious water crisis as early as some other States with greater average rainfall. South Dakotans have always lived with water stringency and with a consciousness that water limits our agricultural development and our economic growth. We have never had so much water that we regarded it as a free and inexhaustible resource aS air was once universally regarded. As a consequence of living always with “just enough,” and often less than that, the recent scientific reports on weather modification have been of major interest in my State, as was the introduction of the weather modification bill, S. 2875, on which I joined with Senator CLinton AwvERSON and other Senators. Indicative of the interest in South Dakota in the proposal is the lead editorial which appeared in the Aberdeen, S. Dak., American-News on February 8. I ask unanimous consent that it appear in the REcorp. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: ImMpProveD WEATHER WovULD Atm SoutH Dakota South Dakotans, who remember the pioneering work accomplished by the late Senator Francis Case, of this State, in weather modification, are happy that Senator GEorcE McGovern is active in the same field. Senator McGovern and Senator CLInTon P. ANDERSON, Democrat, of New Mexico, have introduced a bill to encourage weather modification research. They were both reared in South Dakota where rainfall is sometimes short and hail storms are a threat to crops and property. The Anderson-McGovern proposal is a congressional response to 2 top scientific panel reports recommending accelerated wexther modification studies, one by a group of 11 top atmospheric scientists for the National Science Foundation and the other by a similar panel of 14 scientists for the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Although some scientists have in the past disputed the scientific validity of weather modification efforts, the two panels, in their separate reports, unanimously agree that there is now valid and significant scientific basis for claims to increased rainfall and had suppression resulting from cloud secding. The Science Foundation panel said these re- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 MENT Fees === [Page 28] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 a member of the’ Alabama Democratic Executive Committee, and in 1920 he was a delegate from Alabama to the National Democratic Convention at San. Francisco. During his service in the House, Miles Allgood was indefatigable in his work for the people of his district, and of Alabama, and the Nation. No one had to question where he stood, because he always stood for the people and for the best interest of our country. Though the range of his interests and efforts was the range of the needs of our people and the strength and progress of our country, Miles Allgood can best be identified with his work to develop the water resources of our country. He served on the House Trrigation and. Reclamation. Committee every one of the years he was a Member of Congress. During this time, some of the most monumental reclamation programs in the history of our country were either carried out or conceived by our Government. Great projects such as the construction of Hoover Dam to impound the waters of the Colorado River to generate electric power and to serve irrigation and industrial needs, and the legislation to comprehensively develop the Columbia River Basin, including the construction of the mighty Grand Coulee Dam, are two examples of the magnificant accomplishments of the committee while Miles Allgood was a ranking member of the committee and most active and influential in its accomplishments. From his service on the Irrigation and Reclamation Committee, Miles Allgood developed a special knowledge and understanding of the importance of developing the water resources of Alabama. He recognized that major opportunities for growth and economic progress centered upon the comprehensive development of river basins. He was among those of us who had advocated peacetime generation and disposition of electric power at Wilson Dam and the steamplant and the operation of the nitrate plants at_Muscle Shoals, Ala: Miles Allgood and I accompanied President Franklin Roosevelt on his historic trip in 1933 through the Tennessee Valley, which included the inspection of the idle Wilson Dam and nitrate plants at Muscle Shoals. As a farmer and former commissioner of agriculture and industries in Alabama, Miles Allgood could readily foresee the great benefits to our farmers and to American agriculture in the production of fertilizers at the Muscle Shoals properties. As author of the legislation in the House which established the Tennessee Valley Authority, I well remember what a strong ally and supporter Miles Allgood was of the measure and how we stood shoulder to shoulder on the floor of the House in our battle to gain its passage. He was present at the White House when the bill was signed into law, and President Roosevelt pre-— sented him with one of the pens used in the signing ceremonies in recognition of his efforts. We all know how much TVA has meant to the development of the Tennessee Valley and to our country, both in times of war and peace. We know that the capacity of TVA to supply electric power CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE was a major factor in locating the first atomic fission plant in the valley and our winning the race with the Axis powers to construct the first atom bomb and hasten the end of World War II and our victory. After leaving the House in 1935, Miles Allgood served as a member of the Farm. Security Administration until he retired on December 1, 1943, culminating more than 40 years of public service. Let me say, Mr. President, that serving one’s fellow man is not an unusual characteristic of Miles Allgood and his family; in fact, it could be easily said that service to mankind is the family credo. Miles’ great-great-grandfather came from England and settled in Virginia before the Revolutionary War. His grandfather settled in Blount County, Ala., in 1836. His father, Dr. W. B. Allgood, was a Confederate soldier and practiced medicine in Alabama for 50 years. An uncle, Stephen C. Allgood, was a minister of the Gospel. One of Miles’ brothers, Will B. Allgood, was State Treasurer and State Auditor of Alabama. Another brother, R. V. Allgood, was an outstanding educator, and his son, Clarence, is today a Federal judge for the northern district of Alabama. His third brother, Homer W. Allgood, practiced medicine in Birmingham for many years and his: son, Homer, is also a physician. Mr. President, Miles has always seemed so young, so active, and so energetic that it is difficult to realize that this year he reaches pier 88 and that next year he and Mrs. Allgood, the former Miss Willie Fox of Montgomery, will celebrate their golden wedding anniversary. I take great pleasure in warmly congratulating Miles Allgood on the occasion of his 88th birthday, and I know the Senate will wish to join me in sending him best wishes for many more years pf continued good health and happiness. A CALL FOR UNITY Mr. CANNON. Mr. President, the people all across this land are backing the administration in its determination to give our soldiers in Vietnam the support they need to win a fight over the ageressors. . Once the Commander in Chief makes a decision, it is the inclination of the people to support him. President Johnson has made it perfectly plain that our fighting men are entitled to get the supplies and the support they need from the homefront. Because air strikes over North Vietnam will cut down on the ammunition that will be shot at our forces and their allies fighting in South Vietnam, it was necessary to resume the bombing. As Newsday stated clearly in an edito- ‘rialon January 28: The President alone knows all the facts and has all the information available, He is well aware of the risk and hazards of war. When he. decides, and however he decides, he should have unanimous backing. The editorial was printed shortly before the announcement on the resumption of the air strikes was made, but because of its clear understanding of the issue it is timely. I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed in the 3393 Record for its lucidity and forthright stand on the issues at hand. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: [From Newsday, Jan. 28, 1966] ‘ THE LONELY DECISION As of this morning, no bombs have dropped on North Vietnam for 36 days. That is a long time, long enough by reasonable standards for any government to decide whether it wants continued war or lasting peace. The Government of North Vietnam apparently has not made the decision to negotiate. Now the question is: should President Johnson order bombing resumed? The Pentagon, apparently, has reluctantly concluded that bombing should resume, ‘based on evidence that the North Vietnamese are using this pause to repair bridges and highways and to ship more troops and munitions into South Vietnam. Renewal of bombing, of course, is subject to the President’s decision as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. On the other hand, some influential Democratic Senators are attempting to organize support in their own party and among Republicans for a continued postponement of bombing, their apparent theory being that time may help convince Ho Chi Minh to negotiate; and that, perhaps, Hanoi has to weigh out the argument between the doves in Moscow and the hawks in Petping before arriving at a decision. Senator Mixze MansFim_p of Montana, the majority leader, and Senator J, WiLLIamM Fuusricnt, of Arkansas, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, have advocated that the bombing suspension continue. Now six other Democratic Senators are pursuing the same course. An Associated Press poll of 50 Senators willing to express their views found them split evenly on the resumption of bombing. Yet, as Secretary of State Rusk has pointed out, the North Vietnam- Sponsored Vietcong have kept right on ex- Ploding bombs and mines in South Vietnam, and exactly what’s the difference? So, as has been the case in every American war, the lonely moment comes when the man in the White House must weigh out the arguments, balance the alternatives, and make a decision. It appears his decision will be to renew the bombing since the lull has failed to produce any viable evidence that North Vietnam wants to talk peace.. Whatever that decision may be, it should have the full support of the American people, including the Members of Congress, The President alone knows all the fact and has all the information available. He is well aware of the risks and hazards of war. When he decides, and however he decides, he should have unanimous backing, WABASH VALLEY WATER CONSER- VATION AWARDS Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, Eli Lilly & Co. was recently cited by the Wabash Valley Association for its outstanding and continuing efforts to prevent pollution of the Wabash River at its Tippecanoe Laboratories in Lafayette, Ind. This is the first time in its 9-year existence that the Wabash Valley Association, which has over 50 chapters in some 80 counties in Indiana and Illinois, has so honored an Indiana industry for its water conservation measures. Eli Lilly & Co. has constructed waste disposal facilities at a cost of nearly $2 million and an operational cost of some $200,000 annually at its Lafayette plant which produces pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals. In addition, it Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 29] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3394 maintains a waste monitoring system, both upstream and downstream from the installation, checking carefully on the water purity at both points. In addition to Eli Lilly & Co, the Wabash Valley Association also commended the Ayrshire Collieries Corp. of Indianapolis for its reclamation activities in the strip mines of Clay County, Ind. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be printed as part of my remarks articles from the Indianapolis News and the ‘Terre Haute Tribune-Star which describe in further detail the awards made to these two Indiana companies. There being no objection, the articles were ordered to be printed in the REcorp, as follows: [From the Indianapolis News, Feb. 5, 1966] Coan Firm. LILLY GAIN VALLEY HoNoR Ouney, Iun—-Eli Lilly & Co. was honored here today for its “outstanding efforts in handling waste materials” at its Tippecanoe Laboratories in Lafayette, Ind., and “its continuing efforts to keep the Wabash River clean.” The Lilly company is the first Indiana industrial concern to be cited for its water conservation eiforts by the 9-year-old Wabash Valley Association. The honor came at the annual meeting of the association at Olney. More than 1,000 association officers and members attended. Also commended by the association was Ayrshire Collieries Corp. of Indianapolis. It was recognized for its strip mine reclamation work in Clay County. The Wabash Valley Association has headquarters in Mount Carmel, Ill. It was organized in 1957 in an effort to educate citizens in proper water management and soil conservation. ‘i‘here are 58 association chapters in the 80 counties wholly within the Wabash Valley watershed. Many Indiana and Illinois Senators and Representatives are charter members of the group. Its president is Robert Gramelspacker, Jasper, Ind., businessman and a former member ot the Indiana House of Representatives. The waste disposal system installed by Lilly at the Tippecanoe facility cost nearly $2 million,.nd operational costs total more than $200,000 annually. The company has an active waste monitoring program, both above and downstream from the plant, and monthly results are submitted to the Indiana Water Pollution Control Board. I'he Tippecanoe Laboratories were established in 1954 with $5 employees. Employment today is more than 300. Seven employes operate the disposal system on a round. the clock basis. The system is large enough to handle the disposal needs of a city with 60,000 to 70,000 population. This population is roughly that of the cities of Lafayette and West Lafayette combined. [From the ‘verre Haute (Ind.) Tribune-Star, Feb. 6, 1966] AND AYRSHIRE Givin HONORS BY WVA Ouwry, Iru—Bl Lilly & Co. was honored here Friday for its outstanding efforts in handling waste materials at its Tippecanoe Laboratories in Lafayette, Ind., and its continuing efforts to keep the Wabash River clean. The Lilly company is the first Indiana industrial concern to be cited for its water con~- servation cfforts by the 9-year-old Wabash Valley Association. Four other companies with plants in Indiana and Iiinots also received commendations, Eur Lia. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE The awards were made at the annual meeting of the association at Olney. More than 1,000 association officers and members attended the awards program. The Wabash Valley Association has headquarters in Mount Carmel, Ill. It was organized in 1957 in an effort to educate citizens in proper water management and soil conservation. There are 58 association chapters in the 80 counties wholly within the Wabash Valley watershed. Many of Indiana and Illinois U.S. Senators and Representatives are charter members of the group. Its president is Robert Gramelspacher, Jasper (Ind.) businessman and a former member of the Indiana House of Representatives. Association awards were presented by Henry J. Wallace, first vice president. In accepting the award for the Lilly company, Jerome J. Stefaniak, Ph. D., director of the Tippecanoe Laboratories, expressed his appreciation for the recognition. He pointed out that the achievements were made possible by the efforts of the enginecring and technical staif, headed by Robert H. L. Howe, Ph. D., and the full cocperation of the group assigned to waste disposal. The Wabash Valley Association’s citation states: “Fl, Tilly & Co. has performed a meritorious service in its effort to prevent stream pollution to the best cf its considerable ability. The design, construction, operation, and maintenance of the Tippecanoe Laboratories in Lafayette, which are engaged in the production of pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals, are an outstanding example of a modern corporation’s efforts to live in harmony with its environment. “As the laboratories were origiiually designated, adequate waste treatment facilities were included as part of the building program. As the operations have been expanded, so have the waste treatment facilities.” The waste disposal system installed by Eli Lilly & Co. at the Tippecanoe facility cost neatly $2 million, and operational costs total more than $200,000 annually. The company has an active waste monitoring program, both above and downstream from the plant, and monthly results are submitted to the Indiana Water Pollution Control Board. The Tippecanoe Laboratories were established in 1954 with 35 employees. Employment today is more than 300. Seven employees operate the disposal system on a 24hour, 7-day-a-week basis. The system is large enough to handle the disposal needs of a city with 60,000 to 70,000 population. This population is roughiy that of the cities of Lafayette and West Lafayette combined. A. second Indiana company to be commended by the Wabash Valley Association is Ayrshire Collleries Corp. of Indianapolis. It was recognized for its strip mine reclamation work in Clay County. Tilinois, concerns honored for water pollution abatement are Marathon Oil Co.'s refinery at Robinson, Texaco’s refinery at Lawrenceville, and American Machine & Foundry’s wheel division at Olney. GI EDUCATION—A GOOD INVEST- MENT Mr. METCALF. Mr. President, the cold war GI bill, approved unanimously by both Houses of the Congress, is a good “good investment” in the words of a recent editorial in the Billings, Mont., Gazette. As a cosponsor of legislation in this area, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial in the February 16 issue be printed in the Recorp. There being no objection, the editorial February 21, 1966 was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: GI Epucation A Goop INVESTMENT The cold war GI bill Just passed by Congress recognizes the sacrifices made by servicemen in undeclared wars such as in Vietnam and Santo Domingo, but provides education, housing and health benefits regardless of whether a man has been in combat or not. The wisdom of the broad scope can be questioned, but education benefits are a way of rewarding the youths who cut short their scholastic career to serve in the Armed Forces. Most of the $327 million to be spent the first year is for payments of $100 per month to cover college or vocational training, and by 1970 the yearly outlay is expected to reach $494 million. Most young men enlist in their late tecns and with only a high school education. The payments will be an inducement to continue their schooling after finishing their service and thus fit themselves for jobs which more and more call for training beyond high school. An incidental benefit to the country is in the prospect of these rewards making military service more attractive and help the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps compete with private industry for manpower. Education aid is measured by the period of duty and the prospect of getting a college education in exchange for service in the Armed Forces should appeal to many a youth, who otherwise, for financial reasons, couldn’t expect to go to college. TRIBUTE TO THE LATE ADMIRAL OF THE FLEET CHESTER W. NIMITZ Mr. INOUYE. My. President, the people of Hawaii were deeply saddened this past weekend by the death of the admiral of the fleet, Chester W. Nimitz. Hawaii owed this great naval officer a debt which it could never repay. The obligation was assumed at a point in space and time called the Battle of Midway. But Midway was only one of the stars in Admiral Nimitz’ constellation. There were many others—-Coral Sea, the Marianas, Turkey Shoot, Tarawa, Iwo Jima, to name a few. His staff bristled with the names of great fighting men—Halsey, Mitschner, Turner, Spruance, and Kincaid. The-e were many more. Before World War Ix ended, Admiral Nimitz commanded a fighting force of 2 million men and a thousand ships. Our Nation called on this man in its darkest hour. He took command of the Pacific Fleet December 31, 1941, but its fighting heart had been stilled at Pearl Harbor. Fortunately for us, Chester W. Nimitz never ran short of adrenalin. Slowly but surely, he began to rebuild our Pacific Fleet until it was able to sweep the enemy from the Pacific. America will never forget his great deeds. Today we mourn his passing. LAWYERS AND THE PEACE CORPS Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, Phillip D. Hardberger, Executive Secretary of the Peace Corps, has recently written an excellent article for the American Bar Association Journal. Pointing to several specific accomplishments, Mr. Hardberger describes the opportunities open to lawyers in the Peace Corps. He cites the work of two lawyers in Ethiopia, where the Peace Corps is now maintaining a law Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 Me Le === [Page 30] === 3402 er into a walking radio station whose every word is broadcast to the snoopers, One Government agency made arrangements with Washington trash collectors to turn in all the trash picked up at some 50 . addresses. When Representative Corne.ius GaLLaGHER (Democrat of New Jersey), learned about it, he demanded an explanation from the Sanitation Department. Commisstoner C. M. Duke wrote back that the trash was Segregated “to determine from typical household units the characteristics of refuse for Statistical and design purposes.” He didn’t explain why the trash for this study should be collected only from people under Federal investigation, * The Government also seems increasingly tempted to use its Investigative powers to intimidate its critics. Many a newsman after ’ writing a critical article has suddenly become aware of Federal watchdogs sniffing his tratl, Several citizens who wrote to President Johnson expressing sympathy for the Vietnam demonstrators received replies from the Internal Security Division of the Justice De-~ partment. A spokesman blandly denied this was an attempt to intimidate anyone, But Jack Ferris, Jr., of Chattanooga, who exerclsed his inalienable American right to call the President. “tyrannical, dictatorial and domineering,” was promptly visited by Secret Service agents. Dr, Carlton Fredericks has felt the hot breath of the Federal Government on his neck ever since he started feuding with the Food and Drug Administration 17 years ago. The agency has called him “a crackpot, culturist, food faddist and dispenser of nutritional nonsense.” Yet amazingly, it has never taken him into court to prove the charges but has tried his case instead in the newspapers. The record against him consists almost entirely of press releases. More than once, agents have raided food-supplement producers who had absolutely nothing to do with Fredericks; yet the press releases, anhouncing the raids, have been devoted almost wholly to attacks on him. Food and Drug officials have warned newspapers and radio stations against him, have enlisted the help of the Federal Communications Commission to drive him off the air and, of course, have initiated an investigation into his taxes, Laments Fredericks: “Food faddists have a right to their beliefs. They have a right to buy the foods they want. They should not be made half criminals.” $2.35, PLEASE One of the most insidious Federal weapons is the jeopardy assessment, which is supposed to be used to tie up the funds of taxpayers who might try to skip the country. Agents have used this power indiscriminately to force settlements out of reluctant taxpayers. In Missouri, one agent barged into a bank with a $2.85 assessment on a businessman’s account, though the agent could have collected the money merely by calling on the businessman a few doors down the street. Noel Smith, a Taylor, Mo., farmer, had his funds tied wp for 4 years after he refused to pay a $570,000 tax claim. He was obliged to live off the proceeds of a business deal in Canada. The Government finally offered to settle the claim for less than 10 cents on the dollar. Though he stoutly insisted he didn’t owe anything, he coughed up $54,000 in order to get access to his own bank account again. He complained that the 4-year ordeal had runined his reputation, broken his health and cost him $1 million in lost profits. “Tf I had it to do over again,” he says, “it would be easier to go to jail.” Several Government contractors complained to Parade that some agencies have become obsessed with audits and investigations. They have seized upon technical viojations and treated respectable businessmen like criminals. In a case that has become all too typical, the Court of Claims recently lectured a Federal contracting official for his arrogance and arbitrariness. “He nearly took @ shillelagh and struck the contractor down,” declared the court. For many contractors, Government profits are no longer worth the harassment. More than one told Parade they would never bid on a Government contract again. A top General Services Administration official said he doesn’t blame them. “We're fighting with every contractor we do business with,’ he said wearily. STRONG ARM STUFF Frequently Uncle Sam holds up payment until the contractor, desperate for money to meet his bills, settles for less than he was supposed to get. One contractor, in order to rush work on the Bomarc missile, lived for 4 months in a trailer and worked around the clock at the missile site. But the Government was in ho such rush to pay him, Eight years after the contract was completed, he is still trying to collect what is due him, Worse, Uncle Sam doesn’t hesitate to use criminal charges to coerce a contractor into accepting civil settlement. “You will find,” sald an attorney, “that a fraud investigation almost always follows civil dispute.” S. Harvey Klein, a Philadelphia electronics manufacturer, got into a legal hassle with the Government over the termination of & contract. Not until he had rejected the Government's settlement offer did he flnd himself under investigation for allegedly filing a false claim. The Brussel Sewing Machine Co. had a Government contract reviewed by the renegotiation board, which concluded that the company’s profits had not been excessive, After the case was closed an informer charged that the company had overstated its estimated cost. Investigators immediately swarmed all over the company, and the Government filed a false-claim charge. Unimpressed with the Government's arguments, the court concluded that it wasn’t “the intention of the statute {governing such contracts] to make dealing with the Government hazardous, should someone later concelve the notion that the Government had paid too much.” John A. Maxwell, a Michigan manufacturer, was actually fined $30,000 and sen-~ tenced to a 3-year prison term because he followed the Government’s own suggestion and filed estimated instead of exact costs, It had been agreed that the exact figure would be determined later, Though the Government had been a party to his act, it brought criminal charges against him for submitting estimated, hence false, figures. The appeals court found the Government’s position so outrageous that tt set aside the guilty verdict. Most Americans look upon Uncle Sam as & benevolent big brother, which he usually tries to be. But lately our Federal uncle has been developing an alarming vindictive streak, DON’T CUT LAND-GRANT COLLEGE FUNDS Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the executive committee of the National Association of State Universities and Land- Grant Colleges said it was surprised and shocked at the 1967 budget cut of $20 million in funds land-grant colleges use for teachers’ salaries and research. So am I, When instituted in 1890, the annual appropriations of funds for teachers’ salaries were for the purpose of placing land-grant colleges on a firm instructional foundation “for as long as this Nation shall live,” to quote the language of Congress. Seventy years later, in 1960, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 21, 1966 Coneress tripled the Federal funds, after reexamining the need for substantial Federal assistance. I call upon Congress to make its will felt again by restoring the nearly $12 million cut from the budget. Some may think such a small amount can make no substantial difference. After all, is not education a multibillion-dollar business, and have not the universities gotten substantial new Federal funds in recent years? This thinking neglects the fact. that the land-grant colleges owe their existence to the Morrill Act and have made these Federal funds bedrock foundations of their fiscal stability. If they had to get the samhe money from interest on endowment, an endowment of $400 million would be required, according to the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges. In many small colleges, the Federal funds constitute from 10 to 25 percent of the total budget. At the University of Idaho, they constitute about 7 percent of the instructional budget. At a meeting in Lewiston recently the president of the university, Dr. Ernest Hartung, said considerable harm would be done to higher education in Idaho in general, and to agricultural research, in particu- ‘lar. This latter point is true because of a proposed reduction of $8.5 million in re- Search funds for the agricultural research stations of the land-grant institutions. The cut comes on top of an even larger reduction in research funds for the Department of Agriculture, It means that two land-grant colleges, the University of Idaho and Washington State University, which are located within 9 miles of each other and cooperate on agriculture research, would lose more than $166,000 in research funds at the very time the Western Wheat Quality Laboratory at Washington State is proposed for elimination. In addition it is proposed that the county extension program which is run by land-grant colleges partly with Federal funds, be retooled to direct more resources to local income areas rather than spread it across each State. That seems like a good idea, but cannot we do both? This Nation will spend at least $15 billion this year, and berhaps $20 billion next year, on the war in Vietnam. And Congress is being asked, at the same time, to authorize a new educational aid bill for foreign lands. I think we can forego new foreign aid programs for improved education abroad, Jf we must take needed money a fr our colleges here at home. U THE NATIONAL LIBERATION PRONT Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, in the February 24 issue of the Reporter magazine appears an excellent article by Douglas Pike analyzing the role of the National Liberation Front in the conflict in South Vietnam, Mr. Pike, who has been actively studying the Vietnamese situation since 1960, points out that:.. From an organizational standpoint, one of the great advantages the Vietcong enjoyed Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 31] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 21, 1966 when the ombudsman takes up the investigation, for he knows that the ombudsman will give the matter his full and fair attention. Yesterday’s Parade magazine featured an article by Jack Anderson entitled “A New and Frightening Trend: Intimidation by Government.” Mr. Anderson writes that in too many cases today, the investigatory agencies of our Government-—such as the Internal Revenue Service—are using their power to ‘“intimidate, coerce, and strike back at persons who challenge the rulings or oppose the policies of the Government.” Mr. Anderson suggests: in theory an innocent man has nothing to fear from investigators but few have the resources or funds to stand up ayainst relentless Government prying. Mr. President, since my subcommittee started its investigation into invasions of privacy by snooping Government agencies, I have come to this very same conclusion. As Mr. Anderson points out, many innocent men have had their reputations ruined because of these investizations. As chairman of the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure, { will continue to fight govcrnmental invasions of privacy. But, if we create an American ombudsman, perhaps one of his functions will be to come to the defense of those citizens who have been wronged as a result of a coercive Government investigation. We intend to explore this with Mr. Bexclius next month. In the meantime, I ask permission to insert Mr. Anderson’s timely article at this point in the Recorp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: A New AND FLIGUTENING TREND: INTIMIDATION BY CIOVERNMENT—WASHINGION Is SWARManc Wrrn INvesricaTorS Reapy To Harass ‘THOSE WHO CHALLENGE THE UNITED STATES (By Jack Anderson) WasHIncTon, D.C.—~In the tradition of the United Stutes the Government’s power of investigation is to be used for the good of the taxpayers, to ferret out the dishonest and the disloyal. but in all too many cases today this power is being turned against the citizens. It is being used to intimidate. coerce, and strike back at persons who challenge the rulings or oppose the policies of the Government. A contractor who won’t accept Government terms, a taxpayer who contests a Government ruling, even the associate of another person under investigation—all may sow find themselves hounded by gumshoes. In one recent und ominous instance a num~- ber of persons exercising their constitutional right to protest the war in Vietnam were ordered investigated. In another case an oflicial used the investigatory power as a club in a private squabble. Of course. some of the targets of investisation are iteds, racketeers, and others not wholly deserving of sympathy. And in theory ah innocent man has nothing to fear frora investigators. But few have the resources or funds to stand up against relentless Government prying. Moreover, once investigators have come around questioning a citizen's neighbors and associates, a cloud of suspicion is raised that may never be dispelled. His reputation may be ruined cven though he is lanocent of any wrongdoing. ‘The coercive investigation, it should be noted, is not practiced in all cases by any ineans, nor is it followed by all Government agencies. The examples remain in the minority. But they are multiplying alarmingly. One reason is that the Federal buresucracy igs literally crawling with investigators who, if they are to earn their salaries, must investigate someone. Many agencies hive become topheavy with investigators No one can say exactly how many have found their way onto the Government payroll, for they are often camouflaged as attorneys, accountants, or consultants. But a tcp official of one Federal procurement agency confer sed to Parade: “We used to have a large staff of engincers and a few lawyers and investigators: Now we have a large staff of lawyers and investigators and a few engineers.” Additionally, this has become an age of investigation, in which the routine background investigation has become accepted, and other forms of prying and snooping are widespread. The policy of intimidation by investigation bas many facets. A favorite harassment of investigators is to toss difficult cases, no matter how unrelated to taxes they may be, to the Internal Revenue Service. “A lot of other agencies try to use us.” Commissioner Sheldon Cohen acknowleilged to Parade. “We try to discourage this.” When the Government moved to tiiKe over private homes on military bases, owners who resistecl complained that they were suddenly besieged by tax agents. The Justice Department’s Land Acquisition Section brought tax pressure, for example, on Nashville builder, Edward Carmack, who was unwilling to sell 600 homes at Sewart Air Force Base, Tenn., at the Goverment's price. Ralph Luttrell, then section chief, admitted to Parade that he had drafted an official letter to Internal Revenue, pointing out the possibility of tax evasion in the Carmack case. The builder was subjected to an intensive investigation, which ended in dismissal of the charges. (A civil settlement is still awaiting the judgment of the tax court.) One high official even used the Internal Revenue Service to take revenge on a driver whose car bumped his Cadillac at Washington National Airport. The official copied the license number of the other car, traced it to the owner, then ordered an investigation of his taxes. Parade talked to several attorneys who defended clients in Federal cases. All but one complained of the Government 5 tactics. The most outspoken was Urbana, Il., attorney, Joseph M. Williamson, who declared: “The Government is the most urtair and corrupt opponent that you will cver have jn a courtroom. Federal agencies tiave conducted investigations of my clients that were unbelievably improper.” Certainly most Federal ollicials try to be fair. But the bureaucratic system tends to uphold the abuses of those few entrenched officeholders who regard themselves as the masters rather than the servants of the people. These latter usually are able to summon the massive weight of the U.5. Government behind their rulings and recommendations because most agency heads, unfarniliar with the details of a case, are inclined to accept the judgment of their subordinates. And once investigators start bloodhounding a case, only the boldest bureaucrat would dare intervene. “This is the Age of Investigator,” said one official. ‘The Invesgator is king.” “I¢ isn’t safe to stick your nose into an investigation,” explained another. ‘What if the guy turns out to be guilty? The next thing you know, the inspectors will be tryinz to link you to the case.” BUCKPASSING When one regulatory agency rejected an investigator’s recommendation thit a Connecticut company be indicted for fraud, the 3401 investigator resubmitted his recommendation in stronger words. The commissioners, nervous that they might be accused of a whitewash, passed the buck to the Justice Department. The case went to a U.S. attorney, who later admitted there was insufficient evidence for an indictment. But he didn’t want to take the responsibility for overruling the agency. Playing it safe, he submitted the decision to a grand jury, which in turn felt he wouldn't have presented the case if an indictment weren't justified. Result: Company officials were duly indicted, though no one except the oriignal investigator thought they deserved to be. The trial jury found them innocent-— put not until they had gone through 2 years of mental anguish, Federal harassment, and legal expense. How many individuals can stand up against the awesome power of the Federal Government? No private bank account can match the bottomless vaults of the Treasury. No private staff can marshal the manpower available to the Government. Once caught in the Federal vise, a private citizen must rely upon the restraint and fairness of the authorities to get an even break. Some contend that the Government should offer no quarter to Reds and racketeers who will twist every comma in the Constitution to thwart justice. But others warn that any tactics the Government is permitted to use against them could be turned against anyone. Many attorneys who would like to see Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa behind bars, for example, I believe the Government has carried its campaign to put him there too far. His every move has been shadowed, his every transaction scrutinized, his every associate investigated. Even two Congressmen who defended Hoffa on the House floor suddenly had their taxes audited. The Justice Department has indicted some of his business associates, then offcred to drop the indictments if they would testify against him. A Miami banker who had never been accused of anything worse than a traffic offense until he got involved in a deal with Hoffa, was hauled before a grand jury on tax evasion charges. The evidence wouldn’t support a tax indictment, so the grand jury indicted him for perjury instead. Even this charge was later dropped. But meanwhile the banker was so discredited that he was forced to sell his banking interests at a sacrifice. A Baltimore insurance man who did business with Hoffa was so harassed that he told Parade bitterly: “Five years ago I would have been willing to die for my country. Now I hate my country for what it has done to There was sworn testimony, disputed by the Justice Department, that agents had even used voodoo in an effort to persuade Thomas Ewing Parks, an uncle of a Tcamsters Official, to testify against Hoffa. A Nashville voodoo doctor, Bishop St. Psalm, was allegedly retained to perform the mystic rites. He lit two candles on a portable altar, ac~- cording to the testimony, then placed upon the altar an article of Parks’ clothing borrowed from a dry cleaning shop. But the superstitious Parks, though a believer, apparently didn’t respond to the voodoo spell. Congressional investigators have turned up some astonishing facts about Government snooping. Investigators have planted secret microphones in everything from picture frames and desk sets to lamps and telephones. Listening devices have cven been slipped into pillows for eavesdroppers who like pillow talk. Even more remarkable is a set of low-frequency coat buttons that can be fitted to a victim’s coat in a matter of minutes. The top button is a microphone, the second a transmitter, the third a miniature battery unit. These will turn the wear- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 i REET 1 RTT aA === [Page 32] === February 21, 1966 in earlier days was a deliberately clouded picture of its true character. Socially, politically, militarily, and diplomatically, Vietnam is one of the most complex countries of the 20th century. Given this condition, the Vietcong was able to build and maintain a reputation abroad for being more or less an “agrarian reform” organization when virtually no one in Vietnam ever regarded it as such, Another point made in this article that reflects upon the nature of the NLF is the fact that while the Vietminh in their struggle against French colonialism received the support.of many religious groups in South Vietnam, including the Catholics, none of these groups have come to the assistance of the Vietcong or the NLF. And we should also take note of his analysis of any projected referendum in South Vietnam on the issue of a Communist government versus non-Communist rule. His projection that the Vietcong would be “lucky” to get 10 percent of the vote is very revealing in regard to the issue of whether or not this struggle is a bona fide civil war. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this article be printed in the RECORD, There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: How Strone Is THE NLF? " (By Douglas Pike) SaIcon.—The Vietcong’s National Liberation Front (NLF) received a strong boost from Hanoi on January 24 when Ho Chi Minh dispatched a form letter to leaders of the Communist nations. In it Ho characterized the NLF as “fighting to achieve independence, democracy, peace, neutrality, and advancing toward the peaceful reunification of the fatherland.” He declared that “If the United States really wants peace, it must recognize the NLF as the sole genuine representative of the people of South Vietnam.” This position is an exact restatement of the position Hanol has maintained toward the NLF over the years. What it failed to take into account, however, was, the changed condition of the apparatus in the south, upon which so much of the Communist effort in Vietnam depends. On the morning of January 7, an episode took place. here that serves to point up this change. A three-man Vietcong terror squad, led by a 36-year-old Vietcong activist named Nguyen Anh Tuan, loaded a 264-pound chunk of explosive plastic with detonator into the false bottom of a three-wheeled cycle cart and pedaled it downtown toward the Alabama Hotel, where several hundred US. troops are billeted. A few blocks short of the hotel the three were arrested by suspicious police. At a press conference a week later, Tuan told newsmen that his only regret in the affair was his failure to achieve his mission, Tuan’s candid attitude and his unconcern over the danger to Vietnamese children in a school adjacent to the hotel (“Such deaths cannot be helped”) struck newsmen here as a refreshing change from the hypocritical posturings of the Vietcong over the years. Here was the enemy as he really was: a true believer acting without remorse for his victims and stanchly refusing to hide behind the standard captured Vietcong prisoner’s plea that he had been involved in the whole thing against his will. Yet Tuan’s act, even if he had succeeded, would not really have been responsive to the present needs of the Vietcong cause. A successful explosion at the Alabama would not have moved the Vietcong any closer to victory, but would only have hardened American and Vietnamese determination, as have similar bombings in the past. The Alabama effort, in fact, was an old reflexive response to new circumstances, a failure to consider the changes taking place on both sides. As such, it was symptomatic in many ways of the general condition of the Vietcong as it enters the sixth year of the war. CHANGES FOR THE WORSE The Vietcong have lost the close identification with the people that marked their earlier days. The ranks of the older Vietcong cadres (roughly equivalent to officers, but loosely used to set full-time trained professionals, apart from local supporters) have been thinned. There is now a dated quality and an inadequacy about their efforts. The idealistic attraction has faded. Vietcong supporters now mutter guardedly ahout the “revolution betrayed,’ and splinter groups call themselves “true Communist revolutionaries.” Individual cadres complain in reports that the villagers have “lost their revolutionary vigor” or have become “mere bourgeois revolutionaries content only with gains in land reform.” Chiefly this is the result of Vietcong actions: increased taxation, forced conseription, and the brutal and bloody measures stemming from the Vietcong’s almost paranoiac preoccupation with spies in its midst. The stepped-up air war also has had the effect of turning the villagers against the Vietcong. Instead of being their protector they now regard it as the magnet that attracts bombs and rockets and napalm from the air, and shells from distant artillery posts. The guerrilla war, once rooted in the people, has become a giant slugging match, and the ideals for which it claimed to stand—and which many Americans here in early days regarded with a certain sympathy—have been trampled under foot. Many changes have been taking place, of which the most significant involve Vietcong organization, cadres, and doctrine. From an organizational standpoint, one of the great advantages the Vietcong enjoyed in earlier days was a deliberately clouded picture of its true character. Socially, politically, militarily, and diplomatically, Vietnam is one of the most complex coun-~ tries of the 20th century. Given this condition, the Vietcong was able to build and maintain a reputation abroad for belng more or less an “agrarian reform” organization when virtually no one in Vietnam ever regarded it as such. The NLF, founded in 1960, can be traced back through its immediate precursor, the Viet Minh, to the Chinese Communist revolution. There are differences, to be sure, but there are also a host of similartties. The NLF organizers succeeded in enmeshing the rural Vietnamese villager in a network of “liberation associations” from which he has found no escape except to flee his village as a refugee. A pseudogovernment, an administrative liberation-association chain of command, was created, running vertically down from the NLF central committee to the village. At the village there was additionally a horizontal structure of liberation associations (at least six in each village: workers, farmers, youth, women, students, and cultural) as well as a tangled web of other social movements and organizations. All these were created ostensibly in the name of the villager and for his benefit. The farmer, for example, would get his own land, taken from the absentee landlord; women would get social status and equal rights with men, etc. Once recruited, the villager was told by the agitprop cadre that he must fight to defend the fruit of the revolution or lose his gains, which, specifically, meant taking orders from the cadres and contributing—financially and otherwise—to the cause. The villager thus found himsel& trapped in the organizational web, the victim of a campaign of social pres- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3403 sure, persuasion, indoctrination, intimida~- tion, or outright terror, usually in that order. Over the years the NLF demonstrated an impressive internal cohesion. The chief credit for this goes to the People’s Revolutionary Party (PRP), which acts like the reinforcing rods in a ferroconcrete wall. The PRP, which publicly refers to itself as the “Marxist-Leninist element of the NLF,” was formed in 1962 to succeed the Lao Dong, or Communist Party in South Vietnam. For a graphic representation of their relationship, picture the NLF as a broad-based pyramid with the villages at the bottom and the central committee at the top, and the PRP as a thinner and harder core pyramid within, put also rising from base to apex. Ample evidence of the nature and role of the PRP exists in its own published materials, captured documents, and defectors’ testimony. For example, a “Party Training Manual for Cadres,” dated October 1965, declares: “The People’s Revolutionary Party is the party of the laboring class which will lead the people of South Vietnam to final victory. * * “ The party’s objective * * * is to overthrow imperialism, colonialism, and feudalism, to make or remake a life of peace, prosperity, and happiness with no more oppression and extortion * * * to smash the United States and its feudal servants and liberate the south. “Once independence is obtained,” the manual continues, “the next step is unification [of the two Vietnams], constructed and consolidated in every way to make the country powerful and rich, a stronghold of peace. Then will come the social reorganization work, along Socialist-Communist principles: land without demarcations, cooperative electrification of the rural areas, reeducation of individuals, nationalization of private property, cultural and scientific education for everyone, all progressing day after day to better and better things in all fields. Also, helping other small, weak countries to struggle against imperialism.” The society envisioned by the PRP for South Vietnam is clearly a Communist one. Perhaps this is the reason that the elite in South Vietnam has refused to support or cooperate with it. Not one South Vietnamese political figure of any note has ever associated himself with the NLF, nor has any important member of any Saigon government ever defected. Religious leaders likewise have consistently refused to associate themselves with the movement, whereas the Vietminh was supported by many religionists, including Catholics. THE KEYSTONE The NLF leaders are obscure. The chairman of the central committee, Nguyen Huu Tho, was a Saigon lawyer who sat out the Vietminh war and first ventured into political activism in the early 1950’s when he led an anti-U.S. demonstration in Saigon. Nguyen Van Hieu, the NLF’s first secretarygeneral and single most important figure, was a@ Saigon journalist with neither status nor following when he joined the NLF. The present secretary-general, Huynh Tan Phat, an architect, was and still is largely unknown to the general Vietnamese population. The PRP leadership has always been exclusively northern or loyal to the North. Like the NLF, it built a tight cadre structure. The cadre has been the workhorse of the Vietcong effort since its inception. The cadre is told, and it is true, that “On your shoulders rests the entire burden of the revolution.” Even after years of sifting through captured cadre reports, one is still impressed by the incredibly heavy loads which the cadres are expected to carry. For example, a recent central committee directive to district cadres informed them that during the following month they were to: “(1) Increase recruitment into the Lib- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 33] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ~ OT, 3404 eration Army by 25 percent; (2) Increase tax revenues in the district by 10 percent. * * *; (5)Develop an intensive hate America campaign in your area, * * *; (7) Eliminate all spies and reactionary (ie. progovernment) persons in your area’;—-and so on, the listiug continuin®s jor a total of 17 items, any one of which would have occupied the full atlention of a cadre fora month. At the end of Lhe month, back goes the cadre’s report, packed with statistics and evaluation. Then, aw short time hater, back down the line comes the ‘criticism memo:” “Although you achieved your norms in items Nos. 1, 4, 7, 9, 11, and 17," it reads, “you were deficient utd therefore must rectify * * * Nos. 2, 3, The ideal Vietcong cadre is a person who can go into a Vietnamese village and deliver an impassioned speech that will bring the villagers to their feet shouting, an ability as rare in Vietnam as anywhere else. He must also be skilled in guerrilla tactics, especially the ambush. In the hands of the Vietcong, this basic tactical unit has become far more than simply two machineguns pointing down a road, It has emerged as a rather sophisticated form of warfare, involving many clemenvs: a frontal force, a closing force, a reinforcement ambush force, and a pursuit ambush force, all employed according to terrain. weather, size of the enemy force, etc. An ambush becomes a deadiy chess game, successful only if you outthink yourenemy. {it calls for a high order of skill, intelligence, and experience in leaders, again rare qualities anywhere. ‘Thus the cadre can be the strength and weakness of the Vietcong. And while the principle that by developing good lower level leadership an organization can become efficient and powertul is correct, it also follows that such an organization is extremely vulnerable if anything happens to its cadre structure. And this precisely is what has happened.. Over the past 5 years the Vietcong has lost, chiefly through battle attrition, about 6,000 cadres. This may not be excessive considering the magnitude of the Vietcong wlfort, but it represents an incalculable loss to the organization. Rank-and-file soldiers cin be replaced, but loss of a cadre permanently damages the system. In fact, the venesis of Hanoi's deep involvement in the south can be traced to the cadre shortage. Al first these were the so-called “regrouped southerners,” Vietnamese who had gone north during Operation Exodus in 1954-55. ‘ioon this relatively small reservoir was exhausted, and by mid-1964 the ‘‘pure” northorn cadre started appearing in numbers in the south. But the supply from the north could not keep pace with the rank-and-file buildup in 1965, when the Vietcong’s strength was increased by some 20 percent. The overall quality of the cadre has continued to decline, damaging the effectiveness and efficiency of ihe entire movement. Unskilled, poorly trained leaders have been thrown into the breach, especially in the Mekong Delta. Being unequal to the task they face, they have increasingly alienated the people by what strikes the observer as unnecessary brutality in conscription and taxation. Cadre morale itself is low, as is the morale of the Vietcong rank and file. The year 1965 had been billed as the year of victory for the Vietcong, but the year’s end found the Vietcong further from victory than ever. Shortares in food, medicine, and almost all other supplies except ammunition resulted from the rapid expansion of manpower. Worse, the influx of northern cadres led to marked hostility on the part of the southerners, who resent the highhanded manner of the northerner, a fecling exacerbated by deep and tong-standing regional prejudices. In fact, region in Vietnam is as important as caste is in India. Their arrival deeply eroded the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE indigenous base of the NLF, for the northerner is totally loyal to Hanoi. Finally, the northern cadre has brought what historians may record as the most significant snd disastrous change—-that of doctrine. DOCTRINE INTO MYTH Vietcong theoreticians have traditionally held that there are three routes to victory: (1) the Khoi Nghia, or general uprising; (2) the fumed Mao-Giap three-stage reyolutionary guerrilla war; or (3) coalition government. Ehoi Nghia is a social myth, in the ‘Sorelian usage. It is similar to and mny have stemmed from the myth of the general strike, which was so powerful in early days of the Communist movement. The myth is this: cadres, working through the various liberation associations and other social movements, arouse the socinl consciougeness of the villager and engagr him in a series of activities not unlike the civilrights efforts in the United States, that is, mass meetings, demonstrations, protest marches, letters to district chiefs, and petitions, all lumped together under the term “struggle movement.” Gradually this struggle movement will spread throughout the society and especially into the ranks of the South Vietnamese Army. Then, one mornjing, the whole country will explode and struggle movements will crupt simultaneously in all the 2,300 villages of the nation. At the same time the final disintegration of the army will take place and the soldiers will join the people en masse. No one will be left but a few imperialist lackeys in Saigon. With no opposition, the people will march to power. This was the doctrine that dominated Vietcong thinking from 1960 to 1964. Basically a political or social strategy, it was not, however, regarded as bloodless; the Vietcong from 1958 to the present has assassinated or executed an estimated 61,000 Vietnamese village leaders and gover:mental representatives. The Khoi Nghia strategy came pcrilously close to success with the widespread disorders and violence that developed during and after the last days of the Diem government, in late 1963 and early 1964. During that period the Vietcong stood at the gate of victory, but slowly its strength receded. The reasons are complex. Basicaily they stem from the new alinements and divisions of political power that emerged, involving the Buddhist leadership, students, Catholies, and of course the South Vietnamese military, all of whom had been relatively unimportant under the rigid controls of the Diem government. As a result, Khoi Nghia was abandoned by the leadership, aithougsh some of its forms still are practiced. The doctrinal shift, which came in early 1964, was to the revolutionary guerrilla war of Mao Tse-tung and North Vietnam's General Vo Nguyen Giap. It was speeded and reinforced by the arrival of northerr: cadres, whose great political and military experience had been the Vietminh war against the French. Former southern Vietcony cadres who heave quit under Saigon’s chieu hoi (amnesty) program have described the transformation. One of them told me: “The northerners said the idea of Khoi Nghia was all wrong, that the only way we could win was the way the Vietminh won, by building up our military forces, delivering military and psychological blows against the enemy, and finally fighting a new Dienbienphu and driving them into the sea.” PIGHTING THE WRONG WAR The military doctrine continues ta dominate the Vietcong, although chieu hoi returnees report that the whole concept of victory cn the battlefield is being called into question in Vietcong ranks. Doubts are being raised as to whether the revolutionary guerrilla warfare techniques that won February 21, 1966 against the French are still applicable to face an entirely new technology of warfare. The Vietcong leadership recognizes the condition but refuses to accept it as serious. Captured documents refer to the problem of the helicopter, whose mobility has transformed the face of the war in Vietnam, or the problem of tactical air support and its ability to concentrate firepower. Or, most frequently, the problem of the high-flying bombers from Guam, against which the Vietcong are totally impotent. At criticism and self-criticism sessions, returnees say, high Vietcor¢ officials try to convince skeptical cadres that these problems can be solved. To deal with the problem of the helicopter, they say to drive 16-foot bamboo spikes into the ground, thus preventing the helicopters from landing. To solve the problem of the B-52, dig air-raid shelters deeper than 15 feet (or, as one American facetiously advised, drive 16,000-foot bamboo spikes into the ground). To solve the problem of tactical airpower, they advise closing with the enemy in handto-hand combat, or attacking in small units on many fronts rather than by massed frontal assault., The Vietcong is obsessed with the airpower it faces. A significant percentage of Vietcong casualties now comes from the air. It was no accident that Radio Likeration, the Vietcong station, called the sabotage explosion at the Metropole Hotel in Saigon last December a blow against airpower: ‘More than 200 U.S. jet pilots were killed or wounded * * * bloodthirsty pirates who dally sow death in North and South Vietnam” (actually eight persons were killed, six of them Vietnamese; there were no pilots living at the Metropole, which is a billet for administrative and Medical Corps enlisted men). The advice of the Vietcong officials adds up to little more than to make the best of a bad situation. But new secret electronic devices and other weapons are blunting or nullifying many formerly eifective guerrilla tactics. In all likelihood, technology has made a Vietcong military victory impossible. Lower level cadres now know this. Probably the upper levels of the NLF and PRP in the South sense it. But apparently the leadership in Hanoi either cannot or will not face the obvious. All along, the NLF has had a minority element which argued that the surest route to power was through the establishment of an NLF coalition with a Saigon government. This approach, it was argued, would call for a certain amount of social disorder of the Khoi Nghia type as well as some guerrilla warfare, but basically it would be the entering wedge of a move to bypass the enemy's military strength, use his own political disorganization to disorganize him further, and outflank the American presence. However, for any serious step toward coalition government, timing is all-important. If the Vietcong had taken this route at the start and stuck to it, it might very well have succeeded. Now, however, after more militant means have failed, any suggestion of coalition. government would probably smell of defeat and would be widely regarded as a sign of weakness by the Vietnamese. All that remains of the idea of coalition government is the slender hope that some leverage for the NLF might be salvaged from a return to the Geneva accords. ‘The possible outcome of any free election that might be held under such circumstances is worth examining. Of South Vietnam’s 15 million people, slightly more than half are under 18 years of age, leaving a voting population of about 7 million, of whom perhaps 5 million could be expected to cast ballots. The Vietcong force consists of the following: 55,000 main force soldiers, the full-time, salaried military in formal units; about 115,000 guerrilla regionals or territorials, the so-called part-time guerrilla who fights and lives in Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 Sei de Ee ener === [Page 34] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 his home territory; and about 45,000 political agitprop, tax collecting, indoctrination, training, and administrative cadres, many of whom are northerners. In addition there are 15,000 North Vietnamese Army troops in South Vietnam who are now arriving at the rate of about 4,000 a month; presumably some of these might vote. Behind this force are an estimated 500,000 true bellevers, per- - sons who for one reason or another voluntarily supports the Vietcong cause and are willing to take risks to do so, as in hiding guerrillas, feeding them, and supplying information. This totals over 730,000. If one includes @ quarter of a million additional votes from sympathizers, the Vietcong would get less than 1 million out of the 5 to 7 million votes cast. This is a generous estimate. Others are less generous. A recent study of Vietnamese village attitudes indicates that 10 percent of the villagers are true believers, 20 percent waver between the Vietcong and the Saigon Government, while the attitudes of 70 percent range from a sort of determined neutralism to outright hostility toward the Vietcong. Using these figures, the Vietcong could only count for certain on its 10 percent, or 500,000 votes, plus some portion of the 1 million votes of the wavering 20 percent, depending on the campaign and circumstances. But this would leave it far short of anything like a@ majority. Nothing at the moment indicates that the Vietcong leadership is willing to take its chances at the polls. The Vietcong does not have now, and never has had, the majority of the people behind it. It would be lucky to get 10 percent of the votes cast in an authentic election, In sum, the Vietcong today finds itself in a doctrinal box with all three of its possible routes to victory—the soctopolitical, the military, and the diplomatic—closed to it. Consequently, it has fallen back on the sterile thesis of the protracted conflict that will be won, because the enemy, the United States, will tire of the whole affair and withdraw. But this does nothing for its own morale. Guerrillas living in ewamps, without adequate food or medical care, far from their families, cannot be expected to fight on indefinitely. WHY WE ARE IN VIETNAM Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee has now concluded its present series of hearings. We have heard many arguments for a continuation of present policy and for a modification of that policy. In considering all the issues involved in the Vietnam conflict, we must never lose track of the central issue—why we are in Vietnam, and why we must stay there. My colleague, Senator McGee, has had occasion to emphasize this central question. His remarks were hailed in editorial comment by the Wyoming Eagle on February 11. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial cited above be printed at this point in the Recorp. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THE CENTRAL Issuz Wyoming’s senior Senator GaLz McGerx has described as superficial many points of debate over Vietnam. He called upon the Senate Monday to zero in on the central issue—‘why we are in Vietnam.” He charged critics of the administration conduct in Vietnam were avoiding that issue. No, 29-——-12 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE He said they were using a series of “discursive arguments which question the efficiency or efficacy of a tactic or a battle plan or of the response or lack of response of diplomatic maneuvers in any one of a hundred areas.” He said superficial aspects of the Vietnam debate included— “The question of how, whether, and when to conduct a dialog with the National Liberation Front; “The question of the resumption of hombing across the 17th parallel; “The hue and cry over whether or not we have reacted with hospitality and dispatch to the alleged peace feelers from Hanot; “Concern over the possibility that our actions will trigger the entry of Red China into this confilet; “The implication that the efforts of our air arm in Vietnam were something less than effective;: “The contention among some that the Communists relaxed their activities during the holiday cease-fire and that somehow we had not adequately responded to that relaxation; “The fact that we have, with the exception of New Zealand, Australia, and South Korea, received little in the way of direct help from our friends around the world.” We agree with Senator McGre that much of the debate on Vietnam is superficial. Almost daily, the press carries stories quoting someone who objects to some single action or decision, who criticizes some single statement or who finds fault with one little facet of a many-faceted problem, or who has an idea of how one phase of the situation should or should not be handled. And there is no doubt these many side arguments tend to obscure the central issue of why we are in Vietnam and why we must stay. In his state of the Union message a few weeks ago, President Johnson said the “most important principle of our foreign policy is support of national independence—the right of each people to govern themselyes—and shape thelr own institutions. “For peaceful world order will be possible only when each country walks the way it has chosen for itself." The President observed that, more than 6 years ago, North Vietnam started moving soldiers and supplies into South Vietnam. “As the assault mounted,”*he said, “our choice gradually became clear. We could leave, abandoning South Vietnam to its attackers and to certain conquest—or we could stay and fight beside the people of South Vietnam. We stayed. “And we will stay until aggression has stopped. “We will stay because a just nation cannot leave to the cruelties of its enemies a people who have staked their lives and independence on our solemn pledge—a pledge which has grown through the commitments of three American Presidents, “We will stay because in Asia—and around the world—are countries whose course of independence rests, in large measure, on confidence in American protection. To yield to force In Vietnam would weaken that confidence, undermine the independence of many lands, and whet the appetite of the aggressor. We would have to fight in one land, and then another—or abandon much of Asia to the domination of Communists. “And we do not intend to abandon Asta to conquest.” The President reminded that “our decision to stand firm has been matched by our desire for peace.” There are those, in and out of Congress, who criticize President Johnson's policy in~ Vietnam. But every poll that we have seen shows that the vast majority of the American peo- 3405 ple are firmly behind him and in full support of his handling of the situation in Vietnam. We suspect the majority of the citizens of this Nation are more realistic—mpre aware of the central issue—than mary he critics.. THE NEW PAX AMERICANA | Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, the obligations the United States has assumed under treaties with over 40 other countries are formidable, but apparently the US. obligation goes even further than we thought. In the law of contracts it is elementary that if a number of people contract to do a certain thing together, and one or more of them default on their obligation, the contractual obligation is no longer binding on the others. Apparently this is not true of the international treaty obligations of the United States, because Secretary Rusk has told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee the United States has an obligation under the southeast Asia treaty to oppose aggression regardless of what other signatory nations do. One wonders why, if this is true, treaties serve any purpose other than providing a cover of legality for what the United States would do anyway. This is but one of several aspects of Secretary Rusk’s remarkable testimony which Columnist James Reston discussed in yesterday’s New York Times. In it Reston writes: The Rusk doctrine makes the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman doctrine seem rather cheap. Monroe limited his commitments to the Western Hemisphere. Truman wanted to oppose communism primarily by economic means. And even John Foster Dulles, who was not a timid man, thotght each alliance should stand on its own terms and depend to some degree on what the other members of the alliance did. Mr. Reston goes on to point out: But the Rusk doctrine draws no distinction between powerful industrial democratic states in Europe and weak undemocratic states in Asia. His view seems to be that the United States must redeem the promises of every alliance it has signed regardless of what the other signatories do, and that failure to keep everybody's promise in one alliance will destroy the confidence of the world in all other alliances we have signed. If this is true, it is odd that most of our allies in Europe, the Middle East and even in Japan are critical of our operations in Vietnam, but this is the thesis Mr. Rusk placed before the Forelgn Relations Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the column, “Washington: 'The Rusk Doctrine,” be printed in the Recorp. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: WASHINGTON: Tut Rusk Docrrine (By James Reston) WASHINGTON, February 19—Secretary of State Rusk has put a grim doctrine before the people of this country. He was a responsive and forthright witness before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and it is important that we understand what he thinks our duties and responsibilities are in the world. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 35] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 -_ - - 3406 First, in Vietnam, we are to commit to the battle whatever is necessary to end the aggression and bring about the freedom and security of South Vietnam. What this means, he conceded, depends. primarily on what the enemy commits (the Chinese committed 1 million men to the battle in Korea). He would not say there was no limit to the men and material the United States would send to Vietnam, but he stuck to his proposition that we would maintain. military superiority there no matter long it took to stop the fighting. HUSK’S OBJECTIVE This objective, it should be noted, was not inade conditional on what the South Vict- Hamese or any of the other allies contributed to the fighting. There is no longer much talk here of victory depending primarily on. the South Vietnamese Army. Mr. Rusk discussed the freedom of South Vietnam as a vital American interest, essential to our own security and critical to all the other security commitments we have taken to over 40 other countries. This is a formidable doctrine. Second, the Secretary of State gave an interesting interpretation of America’s obligations as a member of the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization. In the event of armed aggression against the territory covered by that treaty, he said, America’s obligation to oppose the aggression did not depend on all. the members agreeing to oppose it, but it was America’s duty to do so regardless of what the others did (which in Vietnam is very little). THE AMERICAN COMMITMENTS This did not mean, Secretary Rusk remarked, that the United States was obligated to oppose Communist aggression everywhere in the world or that we were going around looking for finghts to put down. For example, we did not oppose Communist China's aggression in Tibet or the Soviet Union’s aggression in Hungary, for we hac not taken any commitment to do so, but this still leaves us with commitments the like of which no sovereign nation ever took in the history of the world. For the United States is committeed to oppose Communist aggression all along the periphery of the Communist nations from the North Cape of Norway through the heart of Europe to Greece and Turkey (NATO); along the southern frontier of the Soviet Union in the Near and Middle East (the Eisenhower resolution); and thence through southeast Asia (SEATO) to Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Japan, and Korea. And if you add our obligation under the Organization of American States and our obligations under the United Nations, you take in most. of the rest of the world. The Rusk cdloctrine makes the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman doctrine seem rather cheap. Monroe limited his commitments to the Western Hemisphere, Truman wantecl to Gppose communism primarily by economic means. And even John Foster Dulles, who was not a timid man, thought each alliance should stand on its own terms and depend to some degree on what the other members of the alliance did. But the Rusk Doctrine draws no distinetion between powerful industrial democratic states in Europe and weak undemocratic states in Asia. His view seems to be that the United States must redeem the promises of every alliance it has signed regardless of what the other signatories do, and that failure to keep everybody’s promise in one alliance will destroy the confidence of the world in ail other alliances we have signed. ‘TLIAT BLANK CHECK (¥ this is true, it is odd that most of our n‘Jics in Europe, the Middle East and even in. Japan are critical of our operations in Viet-. nam, but this is the thesis Mr. Rusk placed before the Foreign Relations Committee. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -~ SENATE And the interesting thing is that the Senators cannot really do much about it, which accounts for all the frustration they have demonstrated on the TV screens in the last few days. For in the moment of crisis during the Communist attack on our ships in the Gulf of Tonkin, President Johnson asked for a blank check to deal with aggression all over scutheast Asia—including the right to use any force “he’ deemed necessary-—and once he had published that request, the Congress had no choice but to grant it to him or—what was unthinkable—repudiate him in the face of the enemy. THE SENATE'S DILEMMA Nor can the Senate do anything to take back this promise under present circumstances. If Senator Morse presses his resolution. to withdraw the Tonkin Guif resolution, obviously few if any Congressmen are going to vote with him and turn their backs on the 200,000 Americans now fighting in Vietnam. But their helplessness merely emphasizes the transformation that has taken place in American and world politics. The President, if he chooses his time carefully, can obviously get almost any commitment he likes from the Congress in the moment of crisis, and under the Rusk doctrine, we are then obliged to redeem each commitment, regardless of what the other parties to the agreement do, or risk the destruction of the entire system of American alliances created since the last war. All this goes well beyond Vietnam in space and time. Mr. Rusk has asked the Senate to contain the expansion of communism all along the periphery of the Communist empire, by force of arms and without allies if necessary, and the Congress cannot oppose him in present circumstances without opposing its own men in Vietnam, which it obviously will not do. CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS The PRESIDING OFFICER. further morning business? If morning business is closed. Is there not, SUPPLEMENTARY MILITARY AND PROCUREMENT AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL 1966 Mr. HART. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the unfinished business be laid before the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfinished business which is S. 2791. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 2791) to authorize appropriations during the fiscal year 1966 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, and tracked combat vehicles and research, development, test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, the difficult problem which we face in southeast Asia, and the complex relationships that problem bears to U.S. foreign and domestic policies generally, is better understood today than it was a week ago, or a month ago. More of our people have an appreciation for the facts of international life than ever before. The high level and well-publicized debates and discussions in recent days have contributed vastly to a new growth of the national concensus that supports the February 21, 1966 commitments we have undertaken over the years for peace and humanity. Now, in my opinion, it is time for the Senate to agree to a rollcall vote, not later than Wendnesday, day after tomorrow, on the pending bill which would authorize substantial new fundine of the combat operations in South Vietnam. We can have this vote, and I am confident that it will be overwhelmingly favorable to these authorizations, and then get on with other very important business which is before the Congress. The debate and discussion of our foreign and military policies have proceeded to the point where the voting can reflect the more mature, Knowledgeable judgment of not only 100 Senators, but also the 194 million Americans we represent here. Certainly some of the information developed in the frank discussions bctween Government leaders and the able committee members gave some information to our enemies we would rather have kept secret. But the value of this fulldress discussion with a few holds barred was worth much more to us than it could have been to the Communists. To me it revealed that even the severe critics of the President’s program in Vietnam had no alternative solution or solutions to offer. The main criticism was directed at the decision to undertake the task of protecting the human rights of the South Vietnamese in the first place. But the case remains overwhelming that we have no other course but to continue the war as we have been doing. I am sure that the assurances given that no great escalation is planned and that no use of nuclear weapons is contemplated place the administration and its critics in virtual agreement. Much of the differences have been proven, I believe, to have been based on fear of escalation to a high degree. From very able testimony of both Secretary Rusk and Gen. Maxwell Taylor, I am satisfied that the basic aims of the administration and our military leaders correspond almost identically with those of their critics. Heretofore the critics have been unwilling to accept statements that the administration secks less—rather than more—war in that area. Heretofore, the critics appeared to suspect both military and diplomatic leaders of reckless adventure, and with lacking sufficient concern for the possibility of Chinese involvement. Heretofore, the critics have feared needless escalation of the conflict. The clear answers of both Secretary Rusk and General Taylor before the committee, seen and heard in millions of American homes, should put these fears at rest. A commonsense understanding of our policy in Vietnam has thus been engendered on a much wider scale. The basic issue is very simple. We are carrying on an extension of an American policy of aiding other nations who are seeking to preserve their governments against aggression and Communist subversion. It has been North Vietnam—not the United States—that carried the war into South Vietnam. We have heen ready— Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 36] === February 21, 1966 we are still ready—to negotiate a settlement of all difficulties, the foremost of which is the right of the people of South Vietnam to freely choose their own form of government and their own leaders in an honest election without fear of murder or violence.: To me, this seems to be the difficult but important duty that America has to assume as a result of her world leadership. If the present Communist effort at conquest in South Vietnam is allowed to succeed because America has been forced by her own people to withdraw, then there is no power in this vast area with its nearly 1-billlon people which can keep a Communist wave from en- ‘gulfing the entire subcontinent. So, it is time to call the roll on whether - we stand for the defense of freedom in Asia—as we have stood for such defense at home and in other parts of the world. .Our vote on funds to supply our fightingmen will determine the support of this policy. To delay a showdown on this issue will serve neither those favoring nor those opposing these authorizations. I am cer~ | tain that those who have taken the lead in provoking the arguments, and who have been critical of the administration’s policies in South Vietnam, will not necessarily oppose these authorizations. The one big conclusion resulting from the hearings that have been held before the network television cameras is simply that, given the world as it has existed for the past decade, none of us can conscientiously say that we have vigorously identified and proposed substantive alternative approaches to the course of action that has been pursued to this point in South Vietnam. It has been said frequently that perhaps the debate of recent days should have been held years ago, but few among us will confuse hindsight with foresight in this moment of reappraisal. All of us are aware of the problems that led the United States to risk grave military involvement earlier in Iran, in Greece, in the heart of Berlin, in Turkey, and in Cuba. In each of these areas, the mosaic of the challenge was unlike any other. In each instance, we calculated the odds, weighing them on a scale fashioned from the brutal and terrible lessons learned in World War II. Only in Korea, within the generation since World War II, have we been compelled to invest American lives in large numbers in order to stand by our commitments. In Korea, it was a sudden and well-defined confrontation. Conversely, in South Vietnam, it has been a slowly and irregularly defined application of our moral, as well as military, resources. The understanding of our commitment in South Vietnam has likewise developed much more slowly. The American people in this instance have at times seen through the glass darkly, simply because fact and illusion have been intermingled far too frequently in discussions of the issues. But no American need apologize for being confused by the complex situation in Vietnam. As my distinguished col-- league, Senator Russert from South Carolina, stated a few days ago, even the most sophisticated and reflective Americans have been bewildered by the plethora of fact, fiction, rumor, and speculations generated by the problems in Vietnam. It goes without saying, because it has been said so often before, that we are fighting a different kind of war in South Vietnam. We are pledged to help the Government of South Vietnam, on its own territory, to fight an insidious, guerrilla campaign directed from North Vietnam. Weare fighting alongside the South Vietnamese that they may have the sacred right of self-determination— that the government they have in the future may be a government based on the consent of the governed.: The nationally televised hearings held in recent days by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee focused on the diplomatic and political considerations underlying our activities and our challenges in southeast Asia. . A unique and marvelous feature of our free society has once again been demonstrated. We are blessed with freedom of debate and discussion that strengthens first, our resolve, and second, the forces and effect of our position in world affairs. It has long been believed that the pen is mightier than the sword. Now the writer, with his pen has strong new electronic allies in the mobilization of intellect that leads to successful decisionmaking. As beneficial as the televised Foreign Relations hearings were, I wish it had been possible for the American people to have sat in on the hearings held earlier concerning the pending authorization bill before the Committee on Armed Services and the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations. Starting January 20, these two committees held a series of hearings which necessarily were behind closed doors because of the military security involved. We took testimony from 11 witnesses over a perlod of some 10 days. We heard from the military leadership of this Nation, both civilian and uniformed. For the past week, the published - version of the testimony taken in these hearings has been available to the members of the Senate and to the entire Nation. I regret that it has not been possible for millions of our citizens to have the benefit of the facts brought forward in these hearings, and which are now available publicly in printed form, for I am convinced that our inquiries produced significant new data concerning technology and tactics applicable to the. new type of warfare in South Vietnam. It was the feeling of the members of the two committees that these were the best hearings on the military aspects of our current worldwide posture that we have ever had. Much has been made in columns and commentaries concerning the doubts that exist regarding the “legality, morality and feasibility” of our posture in South Vietnam. General Taylor, with millions of Americans across the Nation as witnesses, steadfastly asserted that our military objectives possibly can be Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3407 achieved without an all-out war. He admitted the risks, and they are obvious. But he also pointed out the tremendous increase in the Vietcong attrition rate, now estimated between 16,000 and 17,000 men a month. With such losses continuing, the Vietcong could be hard pressed within a few months to maintain the pressures on local South Vietnam political and social structures that in the past have been the difference between winning and losing in that part of the world. Both Secretary of Defense McNamara and General Wheeler, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated in the closed hearings of the Armed Services and Appropriations Committees that with the mobility and firepower we have been able to bring to bear in South Vietnam, the ground rules of guerrilla fighting, the classical concepts that the Vietcong borrowed from the Red Chinese, are now being revised. American expertise and technology can alter long-standing concepts. I especially recommend to the Members of the Senate who are concerned about the size of the commitment we will have to make in South Vietnam, a further examination of the colloquy between Senator MansrieLp and Secretary McNamara appearing on pages 140 to 145 of the printed hearings that are now available on your desk. One can, with some confidence, deduce from this discussion that while no positive limitation of our manpower needs is possible, we.can control and we can subdue the Vietcong in South Vietnam without gravely gambling on an allout ground forces confrontation with Red China.: The ingredients of our success in South Vietnam are new tactics based on new technology, emphasizing mobility, and overwhelming firepower. In addition, time can now be utilized in favor of a steady buildup within South Vietnam of the social and economic structures required to prevent Communist takeover in the years ahead. Tn this connection, I would recommend to the Senators that they review the testimony that Gen. Harold K. Johnson, Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, gave as a result of questions from Senators Rus- SELL, and SALTONSTALL, on Monday, January 24. This testimony appears on pages 248 to 259 of the printed hearings. General Johnson’s statements reflect the realistic understanding that our military leadership has for the social and economic problems of otr South Vietnamese friends. The testimony of this soldier who is responsible for the successful conduct of combat operations in South Vietnam, was reassuring to me personally. Let me quote to you one statement which appears in the published record on page 253, when Senator ELLENDER was inquiring of General John~- son. about the effectiveness of our antiinsurgency tactics. General Johnson said you have to look at the philosophy of the insurgent. The™ general said:; “Tt is necessary for him to create an instability that will cause the government to fall. He must maintain some minimum level of turbulence in order to bring pres- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 37] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 eo 3408 sures to bear on the government that will cause that government to fall and another government to come to power in which he hopefully will gain some part, and begin to subvert from inside rather than outside. So, therefore, all of the actions that they can take against the forces of law and order contribute to this level of turbulence that they must maintain and the more effective we are in suppressing this turbulence, and the more presence that we have, it seems to me, the more he must increase his turbut-- lence in order to force an overthrow. I think that is what has happened to him, so that the actions that he has taken in the course of the last 6 months to a year are now coming to be counterproductive for his purposes. He is no longer the friend of the peasant, because he is putting greater and greater burdens on. the peasants. Many, many other points were made in these hearings on the pending authorizations that serve to reinforce my conviction that we must pursue vigorously our military actions against the guerrillas in South Vietnam and must continue bombing their supply lines outside populous areas in North Vietnam. Even within the last 24 hours, we have seen encouraging developments within South Vietnam that would indicate a continuing buildup in internal stability there, a stability that the Vietcong has been dedicated to prevert. The announcements of Premier Nguyen Cao Ky of several steps to strengthen the internal organization of his government, leading toward popular elections in 1967, are the direct outgrowth of the recent conference at Honolulu. At that conference, President Johnson demonstrated once again that we have no selfish or imperialistic ambitions in southeast Asia or in South Vietnam. May I respectfully suggest that some of my colleagues who have been quareling and criticizing, but who have been shy of positive alternative approaches, take special note of the continuing efforts to provide economic, social, and political stability for this troubled part of the world. Premier Ky’s responses to the President's suggestions are further evidence that the South Vietnamese are vigilant to the complex internal problems they must grapple with in addition to the aggression of the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese. May I suggest further that we demonstrate equal vigilance here in the Sen-: ate. Many complex domestic problems as well as other international situations await our attention. We should proceed without further delay to sched-: ule a vote on the pending military authorizations not later than Wednesday of this week. Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, one of the lofty purposes of our involvement in Vietnam is said to be to make a stand. against tyranny and slavery in favor of democratic self-determination. We can prescribe no less for ourselves, Ours is no monolithic society, but one in which divergent views may be aired, in which discussion is free and open, and in which the minorities are protected. Thus, many of us who had reservations and questions about the involvement sought an opportunity to be heard and to promote the free and open discussion CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE we value so highly. Our opportunity was the presence before the Senate of an authorization measure to supplement what has already been voted. The present authorization measure calls for $4 billion plus for the war effort, a part of more than $12 billion in supplemental funds for Vietnam fighting. I support these appropriations. I support our fighting men and have no wish to deprive them of anything. There has been no effort to speed up the approval of the remainder, which is now pending. On the contrary, the Senate moved with its customary pace for this time of year. The members of the minority were accorded the privilege of time off for Lincoln Day dinners. The great debate on section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act came and went without any charges that debaters were impeding the war effort. The official administration position is that debate on the conduct of the war and on the degree of involvement is correct and worthwhile. Two administration witnesses so testified before the open hearings of the Foreign Relations Committee last week. Yet we have been exposed, in more recent days, to the spectacle of a high administration official apparently attempting to muzzle Senate debate by using representatives of veterans’ organizations. Debate and discussion bring into the open what has been whispered and rumored. Talking about issues not only is proper in the American system, but performs a worthwhile purpose. When this free and open discussion is conducted in the Senate, the greatest deliberative body in the world is performing its constitutional function to advise upon foreign policy. When we muzzle discussion we do a disservice to our system of representative democracy. The right of the people to know and the right of dissent is inherent in our system. When we lose those rights, we no longer have freedom and self-determination for ourselves, much less for export. Fruitful results already have come from this kind of discussion. The Vice President has been both promoting moral aid for our war effort and secking additional troops from allies. The maritime union’s voluntary effort to refuse to load ships bound for North Vietnam is another step in tightening a noose on our adversaries without resorting to further troop commitments or nuclear war. Some other positive steps in backing our fighting men and promoting our principles and goals have occurred since the debate began. Muzzling debate, impugning the patriotism of fellow Americans, are not positive steps in backing our men or our effort. Indeed, they undermine our system. TRAPPED BETWEEN THE IMPOSSIBLE AND THE INTOLERABLE It has been said that in Vietnam we are “trapped between the impossible and the intolerable.” These are the horns of our dilemma. Yet, I do not subscribe to such a wholly February 21, 1966 pessimistic view. To conclude that a solution is impossible is to despair alike of military and peaceseeking efforts. We do not share the outlook of the suicide who finds life so intolerable that the effort to continue is entirely useless. Yet, the possibilities for success in our venture in Vietnam are extremely dim. It is not “impossible” for our own great Nation to furnish 600,000, 800,000, or a million men for military action and support. But it may be literally “intolerable” to our Nation and its citizens to do It is not, strictly speaking, intolerable to live with a weak and chaotic government in Saigon which controls no more than a quarter of South Vietnam. But it may prove literally impossible to provide through its single agency an effective and democratic government. Should Saigon secure a measure of con-~ trol over the quarter now dominated by the Vietcong, and over the half in dispute between them, the difficulties will become even greater, and even more impossible. The ingredients of our problem are so many that they confound and confuse not alone the so-called doves and the hawks, but even the owls. The military problem alone is enough to give us pause. But we are told that its solution in Vietnam’s internal life is effected. Further, the political problem, bad as it is in South Vietnam, is not confined to the scene of strife in that one smal} country. It involves also the other half of a divided people together totalling 32 million in a land half the size of Texas which is North Vietnam. It involves the Communist giants, China and Russia. It must be a concern of the 40 Nations with whom we have bilateral and multilateral treaty relationships. It involves, now, nearly three times that number who are members of the United Nations. The cast of characters and the scope of the action outdo the vast concepts even of Tolstoi in his classic novel, “War and Peace.” Beside the reality of war and peace, even the fiction of genius must pale. Others have spoken out, all with concern, many with wisdom. None has an immediate solution, and neither do I. But I, and most Americans, hold the deep conviction that the birth of solutions is best accomplished through the midwifery of discussion. As a Member of the Senate, I feel a deep obligation to contribute to the utmost extent of my ability, even though it may draw charges—and these have already been made against me in the public print—of moving in an area which may exceed my competence, or of giving comfort to Communists by criticism, no matter how well-meaning or constructive in intent. “DEBATE MUST NEVER CEASE” But let us not be afraid of discussion. Let us examine every aspect of public policy in Vietnam. This an issue involving the lives of our sons, and also our daughters, for the outcome may keep ‘them from being burned. This is a question calling for the most lavish expenditure of our treasury. Affected deeply are Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 38] === February 21, 1966 the relationships we hold with other nations. Even the basic question of the justice and morality of our cause must not be exempt from examination. Nothing in American policy should be sacrosanct from public scrutingy. It is not only the privilege but it is the duty of the Congress, and of the Senate in particular through its constitutional role of advice and consent, to examine, to think, to ponder, to suggest, to be an active and stalwart foree in helping to shape the Nation’s foreign policy in such a time as this. It is pertinent to quote to the words of a great leader of this Nation who is in high office today: The primacy of the executive branch in foreign affairs in no way lessens the moral and legal responsibility of the Congress to work for national policies which come to grips responsibly and realistically with urgent demands of the world crisis, * * * Responsible debate must never cease, even in wartime. These words appeared over the signature of our Presiding Officer, Vice President Husert Humpurey, in the July 1959 issue of Foreign Affairs. In a discussion of the Senate in Foreign Policy, the final paragraph of an excellent exposition by the Vice President of the Senate’s role in such a time as this concludes: Congress was not created to govern, and it should not attempt to do co, Yet this is no time for Congress to submit meekly to the Executive will. In fact, it could not submit even if it were so inclined, because there is not one Executive will, but a number of conflicting wills which have not yet surrendered to the authority of an overriding national purpose. What is our national purpose in Vietnam? Is our purpose military victory? If so, what will constitute such a victory? What will be its cost in lives, in the destruction of a countryside which already needs rebuilding, in the continuation of warfare already continuing for two decades, in the ever-expanding homelessness of refugees? Will military victory assure political democracy? Will it aid economic development? Behind the military goal, is our deeper purpose to contain the international aspects of communism’s ambition? Will our deeper involvement lead us to the dangerous trap of a land war in Asia against the Chinese? ‘Will we then succumb to the temptation to use the fantastic engines of atomic destruction and loose thermonuclear warfare upon the world? After many years, we have achieved some measure of a stable relationship with the other Communist great power and the other great nuclear power, Russia. Is our policy jeopardizing the future there irreparably? Or is our purpose for Vietnam a viable settlement which will meet the aspirations of the population of that divided country, a settlement in line with our often-announced and longstanding policy, so often honored in the breach, of self-determination? Is our purpose after all broader than military victory? Is not it the achievement of a sound peace, one perhaps which does not fully satisfy any one participant but with which all can live?. Emil Ludwig, the famous German author and biographer, whose work included a noteworthy life of Napoleon, once produced a little parable in which he depicted a small boy asking questions as he saw men going off to war. “why,” he said, ‘are they going to war?” “They go to fight the enemy,” he was told. “why do they fight the enemy?” asked ‘the boy. “So they can win the war,” was his reply. “And why must they win the war?” To that came the answer: “So we can have peace.” To the boy, the answers added up to a great riddle, “I do not understand,” he said. “They leave peace to go to war to win a victory so they can have peace. But they have peace in the first place.” There is a strange illogic in all wars, and the war in Vietnam is no exception. Perhaps the greatest illogic in every war is the very existence of the conflict. There is only one end to every war, and that is a gathering at the peace table. It is far more logical to hold those meetings, as we are seeking to do, long before we destroy the economy, the people, and the liberties of the warring people. FOUR ASPECTS FOR CONSIDERATION Today I hope to discuss four aspects of our complex situation. There are many more, and even a long speech can only scratch the surface. But these are the questions I wish to explore to some ‘extent. First, with all the discussion that has taken place, there are still points needing clarification about the history of our involvement. The present never stands without relationship to the past, and our view of the future is clarified by a better knowledge of the progression of events leading to it. Second, we need to take a good hard look at where we stand now. We are perhaps at the most critical point in the history of our Vietnam involvement. Decisions made now may affect the history of our Nation and of much of the world for the next 10 or 15 years, possibly more. Third, after looking at the crossroads where we stand in history, we must try to sce what lies down each of the alternate routes before us. One of these is the road of escalation. What are the implications of a decision for steadily expanding troops, installations, bombing raids, perhaps mining of harbors, and strikes against powerplants or even agriculture and food supplies? Where does this lead us in Asia? What does it do to us in America? Where will it take us in our relationships with the rest of the world? Finally, I want to examine the other fork of the road, to see where a go-slow military ‘policy, combined with continued and.intensified efforts at nonmilitary solutions, may lead us. First, then, to history: so" Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3409 THE VIETNAMESE NATIONALIST MOVEMENT BEFORE 1954 Many informed Americans know that the Chinese ruled Vietnam for a thousand years, the French for 80, and the Japanese during World War II. But there are in the history of the Vietnamese search for nationhood some little known factors which have an enlightening bearing on our plight there today. The nationalist movement became intense in opposition to the French rule in the 1930’s. Of the many movements and programs aimed at securing independence for Vietnam, which was then one of the three associated states comprising Indochina, the. one which gained the most prominence before World War II was the Independence League, also known as the Vietminh. Its leader was the Communist, Ho Chi Minh. Thus Ho Chi Minh’s appearance on the scene, which many may not realize, was many years before any U.S. involvement. He opposed the French as a nationalist revolutionary seeking to throw off colonial rule. In 1940, when the Japanese threatened to take over control from the French, as they soon did, the French Governor General asked if the United States would supply 120 planes and some antiaircraft guns. We refused. Ho Chi Minh continued to oppose the new masters of Vietnam, the Japanese. The United States entered the war. The Vietminh leaders worked with American agents of the Office of Strategic Services. U.S. military forces in China during the war supplied arms to the Vietminh and there was hope, and even © expectation, on the part of Ho and other Vietminh leaders that the United States would back Vietnamese independence rather than support the return of French colonialism. The Japanese surrendered in August 1945. The Vietminh forces, under the same General Giap who commands now in North Vietnam, moved to Hanoi and the Emperor, Boa Dai, agreed to abdicate in favor of the Vietminh. On September 2, 1945, in the train of these events, Ho Chi Minh announced the Vietnamese Declaration of Independence. Communist though he was, and Communist though he is today, Ho read as the opening sentences of that declaration, words taken from our own American Declaration of Independence: All men are created equal, They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. American political stock, says Ellen Hammer in “The Struggle for Indochina,” had reached a peak in which “‘the name of the United States evoked associations with the Declaration of Independence, George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and the Atlantic Charter; and American OSS agents had not hidden their sympathy for Vietnamese aspirations.” But Ho and his Vietminh associates were Communists. The United States, it soon became clear, would not do anything to help them. The people, how- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 39] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0_- 3410 ever, were not so concerned, and are not to this day, with Ho’s communism as they were his nationalism. By his leadership they had, as the declaration put it, “overthrown the monarchic constitution that. had reigned supreme for so many centuries.” The Emperor Bao Dai had become Citizen Ban Thuy. Vietnam seemed united under Ho Chi Minh. In January of 1946, elections were held for a national assembly. There were irregularities, and apparently some fabrications of returns, and elections came out as they were expected to. But there is no doubt that Ho Chi Minh was at that time, as he was about to launch a typical Communist organization in the country, the most popular leader in the country and a genuine hero. Ho had established himself in the north, but the British had accepted the -Japanesc surrender and the task of maintaining order in the south. There the people shared the demand for independence which the Vietminh had achieved in the north. But the British were sympathetic to the French. French troops formerly under Vietnamese guard rearmed, and the counterrevolution began. Soon Saigon was again French controlled. Skirmishes and atrocities went hand in hand with a long series of negotiations with the Vietminh until in late 1947 the French set up in Saigon a “nationalist’”’ counter to the north with its handpicked leader, and, incredibly, none other than the ex-Emperor Bao Dai. The strurgle for Vietnamese independence, achieved under Communists in the north, thus became a part of the cold war with the advancement of Bao Dai in Saigon as the nationalist counterleader in the south, the discredited former monarch who had been pliant to the French and whom the Vietnamese so generally detested. The failure of this, and the succeeding political regimes in the south was, in the words of Robert Scheer’s report to the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, entitled ‘“‘How the United States Got Involved in Vietnam,” a failure because: It overlocked the internal history of the country ana proposed to create a nationalist government by flat of a foreign nation. It was a program based primarily on the needs of America’s anti-Communist foreign policy. A revolution to rival that of the Communists would have had to respond to the felt needs ot the Vietnamese people. The preoccupations af U.s5. policy were never those of a majority of Vietnamese, and this has been at the root of the failure. Té should be noted, however, that at this time there was no official U.S. involvement with the French-backed Bao Dai nationalist regime, but the support of such individuals as former Ambassador William C. Bullitt was interpreted as U.S. backing. U.S, RECOGNIZES BAO DAL Ta March 1949, an agrecment known as the Elysee accords gave Bao Dai recognition as chief of state in Vietnam, which thus became the bone of contention between two competing governments. A great many concessions were given to the French in the accords, such as that the French nationals would still be tried under French law. It is small wonder that "HAR CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- SENATE Bao Dai was viewed by most Vietnamese as merely a French puppet and in no sense a nationalist leader worthy of respect, such as that so largely linked to the name of Ho Chi Minh, Communist or no. And he was a Communist then, but they still liked him. Now we come to the crucial point in this early history of Vietnam ir its postwar, post-French days of nominal independence. This is whcre we came in. Bao Dai, our State Department found, was making sincere efforts to unite all truly nationalist elements in Vietnam, and on February 7, 1950, the United States recognized the Bao Dai government. We have never, of course, recognized the government of Ho Chi Minh in Hanoi. What was the next siep? Predictably, it was military aid. Personally, I have now come to the conclusion, and I have several times stated publicly, that I shall never again vote for military aid to other nations. That, conclusion is based on other situations, particularly the struggle between India and Pakistan. on whose border I saw burned-out Patton tanks we had furnished Pakistan, whose defeat was by Sherman tanks we had furnished India. We have furnished Israel with arms and we have furnished Jordan with arms. Turks and Greeks, clashing on Cyprus, have both received our military largesse. In Vietnam guns and materiel we furnished to the south have now been turned on our own boys by wpponents from. the north. To return to the theme, recognition of Bao Dai in February was followed on June 27, 1950, by President Truman’s announcement of “military assistance to the forces of France and the associated states in Indochina and the dispatch of a military mission to provide close working relations with those forces.” Between that time and the fall of Dienbienphu in May of 1954, the $2.6 billion worth of military and economic aid to the French in Vietnam paid for 80 percent of the cost of the war against the Vietminh. We were already quite heavily committed in the Truman administration; the help we gave them soared higher as we drew closer to French collapse; but to his credit, there was a reluctance by President Eisenhower to make the massive effort some would have liked for him to have made then. In “Mandate for Change” General Eisenhower has written of this period, when the people supported the Vietminh in their fight against the French and saw Ho Chi Minh as their hope for independence: The enemy had much popular sympathy, and many civilians aided them by providing both shelter and information. The French and the Bao Dni regime could not draw support from the people, and they could not induce the regular Vietnamese soldiers to fight with any heart on their side. HOW DEEP IS ALLEGIANCE TO SAIGON? It would contribute little to review again the story since 1954. For those who are familiar with it, it must be obvious that the earlier period in which Ho Chi Minh became for so miuny Viet- February 21, 1966 namese the great liberator figure docs much to explain what happened and what followed. To many Vietnamese. Ho’s communism is secondary; it is his. nationalism and his leadership against the unwanted interloper from outside which counts above all. First it was the French, then the Japanese, then the French again, and now the Americans whom he has opposed. Would anyone dare judge how solid underneath is the commitment of the South Vietnamese against Ho Chi Minh even today? Compare two statements, one about the situation in 1953-54 and the other about the situation in 1965-66. ‘The first. is a further quotation from President Eisenhower’s book: I have never talked or corresponded with @ person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting {i.e., before Dienbienphu), possibly &0 percent of the populace would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao Dai. Those are the statements of President: Eisenhower. Now let us go back to 1965 and i966. The second statement is that of General Westmoreland and General Stilwell. as cited by Senator Younc in his January 14 speech to the Senate: General Westmoreland stated to me thay the bulk of the Vietcong fighting in South Vietnam were born and reared in South Vietnam. General Stilwell, in Thailand, went further. He stated that 80 percent of the Vietcong fighting in the Mekong Delta area south of Saigon, were born and rearect in that area. They were not infiltrators cr Communists from the North. So we see that President, Eisenhower says that as much as 80 percent of the people would have voted for Ho Chi Mink. in 1954; General Stilwell says that 8 percent of the Vietcong fighting in the delta today are native to the area. Mr. GRUENING. Will the Senator yield at that point? Mr. HARTKE. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Alaska. Mr. GRUENING. This evidence of what many of us have long been convinced to be a fact, that this is a civil war taking place in South Vietnam, and thai a majority of the people are against the Government, and against intervention of all kinds, is very significant and very important. In a speech made at Northwestern University, the Under Secretary of State, Mr. Ball—whose speech was reprinted in the Washington Post a week ago Sunday—- stated very definitely that if this were a civil war, we had no business there. That was a very important admission, because I believe the facts show clearly that we did intervene in a civil war, thas we took and are now taking the unpopular side, whose rules would not last for a moment were it not for our vast military and financial support. I think it important that that issue be brought home to the American people. Mr. HARTKE. I thank my friend from Alaska. I think there is no question that this civil war is being directed by the Communists to a great extent. I think there is no question that the Com- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 40] === February 21, 1966 munists are doing everything they can to prolong the civil war. Communists have a long history of moving in on either side in a situation of-national unrest and confusion; it does not make much difference to them which side they support. That is a fact we need to realize over in this part of the world. To deny it is to deny to the people of the United States a significant factor they are entitled to know. Whether they agree with the Senator from Alaska, with what the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Mowroney!] stated a few moments ago, or with what the Senator from Oregon says, the American people are entitled to know what the facts are. They are also entitled to know the opinions of the Members of the Senate. If they wish to be persuaded by the opinions of the Senators, that is another thing; but they certainly are entitled to be in possession of the facts; and I think they should insist, through the press, the radio, and television, on more public exposition of what our national policy is to be. I know that the Secretary of Defense says he does not wish to testify, and there is no possible way we can force him to, but I think in good conscience, he should want voluntarily to come before the committee and tell the American people, “This is the situation, this is our policy, these are our goals, and these are the facts.” No one wishes him to tell how many troops will land on a certain beachhead, or how many will be in a certain valley today, or how many helicopters are going I know that I can go to my television set every morning and hear a complete military review, probably much more informative and complete—which is a compliment to the press of this country— than what I probably could find out if I had an official military briefing that same morning. No one wishes to interfere with that. No one wishes to jeopardize the life of one single American boy. What we want to do is save lives. We do not win wars with dead American soldiers; what we win them with is live boys, and I, for one, wish to keep them that way. | Mr. MORSE. Will the Senator yield? Mr. HARTKE. Iam happy to yield to the Senator from Oregon. Mr. MORSE. I hesitate to interrupt while the Senator delivers this historic speech—and it is a historic speech—but the colloquy he has just had with the Senator from Alaska with regard to getting the facts to the American people causes me to make this observation and comment. As I look around the Senate Chamber, I see five Senators on the floor and one in the chair, a total of six, 1 hour after high noon, discussing, in a great historic debate, some issues the solution of which, in my judgment, will determine whether hundreds of thousands of Americans will die in the next 24 to 36 months. I fear this will happen unless our country. changes its course of action and follows a procedure that will result in an honorable, negotiated settlement of this war. I think it is very important that this Government be brought much closer to the American people than it is at the present time. We move at such a terrific pace, in this modern age, in the operation of the Government, that I wish to renew here, so that it may be a matter of record, the expression of a view which the Senator from Oregon has held for a long time. As I have said before there is no good reason why the small number of people sitting in the gallery should be the only people in the country who have the opportunity of hearing the Senator’s speech. We are living today in a great age of technology. Television and radio have developed to such a degree that it is possible for the people to be continuously informed, through those media, without causing the slightest interruption or inconvenience to the operation of any agency of the Government including the Senate. I say that the American people are entitled to learn of a historic debate such as this, and the contents of such a great speech as is now being made on the floor of the Senate, from a medium more direct than the press gallery. Therefore, the senior Senator from Oregon renews his suggestion that every major debate in the U.S. Senate and the House of Representatives should be made available to the American people through television and radio. The mechanics could be so arranged that they would not in any way interfere with the operation of the Congress, I realize that the old bromide argument will be brought forth again, namely, that there would be grandstanders in the Senate and the House who would try to steal the show. The American people will take care of grandstanders. But the American people are entitled to know from their elected representatives what is going on in our Government. The President of the United States has only to whisper.a suggestion that he would like to take to television, and all the channels are open to him. The executive branch of the Government has those media at its beck and call. I say that the Congress should be brought close to the people. The people should demand that we adopt the necessary changes in the rules of the Senate and of the House of Representatives so that major debates such as this could be brought directly to the people. I do not suggest that every hour of our sessions should be available to television and radio, but I am saying—and that is why I support a rule of germaneness for the so-called formal part of each day’s session—that debates on pending business should be available to radio and television, if they wish to use them for broadcasting. If such arrangements were made, there would be a quick change in the policies of this Government, because the people would insist upon it. The people ought to be able to turn the dial and take a look at the floor of the Senate. They do not have the hundreds of dollars it takes to come to Washington and look in person. We need to bring the Congress close to the Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3411 people. I say that if the Congress had been close to the people in the last 3 years, American boys would not be dying in South Vietnam today. The American people would have stopped it before the holocaust started. I wish to say that Iam greatly indebted to the Senator from Indiana for his speech, and I.am glad that he has raised his voice today to point out how important it is that we get the facts to the people. And once again, I acknowledge my indebtedness to my teacher, the Senator from Alaska, with whom I have stood shoulder to shoulder in the debates of the last 24% years, as we have tried to stop this shocking, unconstitutional, illegal war of the President of the United States in southeast Asia. Is isa war that is sending increasing numbers of American boys to their slaughter. I want the American people to be able to get the facts, and not be dependent so much on the handouts from the White House, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Defense. That is why I would open up the Congress, as far as its availability to the people is concerned, by seeing to it that our major debates are broadcast by television and radio to the American people. Mr. HARTKE. I thank my friend the Senator from Oregon. There is no question that the Senate does not have an opportunity to make the real, final, decisionmaking process available to the American people. In the Senate, we open up committee hearings where debate and discussion are being held, but the final debate and the final decision, the final course which America will take is determined on the floor of the Senate, not in the Senate hearings. Sometimes, as the Senator from Oregon well knows, the committee may not represent the mood of the Senate. Frequently it does, but sometimes a committee finds itself unable to persuade the Senate even with its majority opinion—sometimes an overwhelming majority opinion—as it reports to the Senate floor. The issue comes to the floor, and there we find new issues, new questions, new items constantly being raised, not on this issue alone but upon domestic questions, upon the question of what to do about medicare, about what to do on adult education, fields in which the Senator from Oregon has been. a leader so many times, In all of these things, as well as in the field of foreign affairs, the people are entitled to make the final decision based upon the facts. As the Senator from Oregon has stated, if there are any grandstanders, any who wish to go out and make a mockery of the situation, the people will take care of them by means of the election process. That ‘is the American system. It has worked very well for a long time. It has produced the strongest nation in the world. I should like to see it keep on going in that same direction. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield? Mr. HARTKE. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Alaska. Mr. GRUENING. Let me say, first, that if the policies which the Senator Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 41] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ~ 3412 from Oregon has just advocated, of allowing all news media—television, radio, and so forth—-to reach the American people, had been followed from the bexinning of our involvement, we might not be in the tragic mess we are now in, because, long since, American public epinion—which is just now beginning to be informed-—would have exerted its influence on the actions of the President and Congress and we would not be in this situation today. I very much hope that his suggestions will be followed, that we will see the fullest exposition of the arguments made in the Senate and YIouse so that the American people can finally be informed. Second, of all the many important statements which the Senator from Indiana has made, none is more pertinent than that he and the Senator from Oregon, and the rest of us who are trying to slow down this disastrous course are trying to reverse this course of action, are trying to save American lives. That is the essence of our objective. Our objective is to save American lives, to try to prevent the wanton killing in 2 cause which is not good. We are not proceeding in a way that will achieve a satisfactory result. It is alleged that we are in there to stop communism. This is not the way or the place to do itt. The whole presentation of the administration is based upon a misconception—. perhaps not deliberate, but it is not based. on fact. The old story that we were invited there by a friendly government, and that we have a solemn commitment there made by three Presidents ts not true. This can be demonstrated again andl again, as the Senator from Indiana is now demonstrating, and as has been discussed on the floor, to those who would listen. If the American people could only know that, that we are wantonly sacrificing our boys for a cause that is not as represented to them, they would be heard from much more definitely than they are at the present moment. Mr. HARTKE. I thank my friend, the Senator from Alaska, for his observations. ‘To those who care to listen to the speech which the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CuurcH] is going to deliver later today—in which he analyzes the administration’s position step by step—they will find it to be a fine exposition. I commend it to the Senate. I have read the speech, and I thought it was excellent. I thought the Senator from Alaska would like to follow the speech later when it is delivered. Mr. GRUENING. I have read it. I was privileged to be with the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Cxurcu! on television last Sunday, when he expounded on some of the points in this speech, showing how mistaken administration policy is. ¥is exposition may not be quite like that of the Senator from Oregon, or myself, put it is a very important contribution to an understanding of the mistakes which the administration is making today. Mr. HARTKE. That is at the heart of what we are talking about. Certainly, the mere fact that Senators disagree should not be enough to excite anyone, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE or to get anyone upset or fee! disappointed with our American system. If we are going to have a Senate which is going to do nothing except rubberstamp all policies, or make a bloc vote on every single issue that comes before it, we might as well abolish the Senate. It would serve no useful purpose. That is not the function of the Senate. The Senate is a living and a vital institution which, under the Constitution, definitely has special responsibilities. If there are 100 varying points of view, that would be no discredit to the Senate. It would be a credit to the thinking people of America that they elected individuals who represented so many different. viewpoints, and not the monolithic kind of thinking so prevalent in many parts of the world today—and not alone in the Communist world. Mr. GRUENING. Especially on an issue which is so crucial and vital to everything in which we believe. Also to the lives of our young men who are now being needlessly sacrificed. Mr. HARTKE. I cannot permit this occasion to go by without commenting upon the mission undertaken by the chairman of the delegation which I had the privilege of serving with during the latter part of November through December, for about 5 weeks, under the able chairmanship of the distinguished Senator from Oregon [Mr. Morse], when we went into Japan, Hong Kong, India, and other parts of the East. There we had the opportunity to listen to the opinions of those people at firsthand, and there we found out that no matter how hard we tried—-and I suppose the Vice President is finding the same thing to be true--no matter how much we asked them to join us, they turned their heads and said, “This is your problem. This is your concern.” Any thinking American knows that these people are living within a stone’s throw of being threatened by this same Communist aggression; yet they say, “we are not concerned. We are not going to put one soldier beside your soldier. We are not going to send any materiel for you.” I know that we did receive a hospital truck from Spain. I believe that West Germany—where a quarter of a million of our boys are stationed, helping to defend their system—is going to send one team of medical experts. This is, in some way, a2 mcasure of the confidence they have in our program in Vietnam. Unfortunately, I believe it is also a measure whose meagerness I decry and believe to be shameful; but, this is it. We have to face the facts. We cannot keep our heads in the sand like an ostrich and say these facts do not exist. The fact is, these people are not going to help us there. They are not going to do so, at least so far as I can see. Mr. GRUENING. The Senator 1s aware that these tokens have been given to us only after great pressure from the administration, and only because the givers of these tokens are recipients of our lavish foreign aid, aid which is used as a method of persuading them to give these tokens for this cause. When I was in South America a year February 21, 1966 ago, I found that every American ambassador had received instructions from his Government to go to the President of the country and request that it give aid to the cause in Vietnam. They were re- Juctant to do so. Some of them refused to do so. Some came up with a token as a matter of compliance, a token paid for out of the Javish foreign aid which we give them. 'That is the kind of support they are giving us.: Mr. HARTKE. The number of 40 nations has been referred to in relation to anti-Communist aggression pacts, referring to our bilateral agreements. As to those 40 nations, what if they would all send, not a big share of their regular army, not great quantities of their volunteers, but what if they would send even a thousand men each? That could release 40,000 American boys who would not have to be drafted. That would at least be a declaration of the support which we claim we have throughout the world. I believe that we have a right to question why we do not have that kind of support. Australia, where the Vice President is making his appeal right now, has not sent one single drafted Australlan boy to Vietnam. Who is paying the bill for the South Koreansin Vietnam? The South Korean Government is not paying for it. It is all in the hearings here. The Secretary of Defense makes the plain and outright statement that we are paying the bill. We are paying for the soldiers from South Korea who are now fighting. These are facts which are known. Mr. GRUENING. We are paying all of it—-in blood and in money. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield? Mr. HARTKE. I yield. Mr. MORSE. I wonder whether our paying the bill for the South Korean soldiers might possibly meet the definition of mercenary? Mr. HARTKE. I will leave that question because I believe the answer is implicit. The headlines, however, in the newspapers in South Korea state how they were able to put the squeeze on America to get the bid “upped” so that we would pay them enough for sending Korean soldiers to Vietnam. Those were the headlines in Korean newspapers. 7 know that the Senator from Oregon will agree with me that in Pakistan—where we were treated wonderfully—the press there, which we know is controlled by the Government, admit they are pro- Chinese in relation to our war effort in Vietnam. All we have to do is read the press. It is written down in English. The same thing is true of India. They are pro-Russian there. Thus, we have Pakistan which is pro-Chinese and India which is pro-Russian. These people are on their doorsteps. Mr. GRUENING. And they are cosigners of the SEATO Treaty. Mr. HARTKE. I think there should -be a thorough review of the SEATO -Treaty, and when the time comes—— Mr. GRUENING. I am referring to Pakistan. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 42] === February 21, 1966 Mr. HARTKE. It might be a good idea to go into that treaty, but I am not going to take the time to do it now. HOW MUCH CONTROL? To resume my statement, here, where 5 million of the south’s peasants harvest three quarters of the nation’s rice, the people are hundreds of miles from the border with North Vietnam. Yet, 60 percent of them “at a conservative estimate,” says an on-the-spot correspondent of the Washington Post, Ward Just, recently on January 23, “give their allegiance to the Vietcong.” In short, from the beginning we have supported a regime which has continued to exist, from the days of the French on down, only by a constant shoring-up process. It has been said that the present government in Saigon could not last 2 weeks without our presence and support. At the beginning of 1965 it was reported that the rate of desertion among new recruits for the South Vietnamese Army stood at 30 percent. ' Since 1960 the grip of the Saigon government upon the area and the people of South Vietnam has not expanded, but, frankly, apparently has deteriorated. At least this is the conclusion to be drawn from a study published by the U.S. operations mission in Saigon. In this “Analysis of Property Tax Compliance in Vietnam,” our AID agency—this is the U.S. Government agency—there reports that 165, or 71 percent, of the 234 districts into which Vietnam was divided in 1964 did not even reply to a central statistical tax inquiry. A map giving the results appears on page 89 of the February 1966, issue of Current History. Obviously a large part of the blank area which did not respond is the same as the area in firm control of the Vietcong, or under contention. The areas replying include some of those around Da Nang, Nha Trang, in a part of the central plateau area, some portions of the Mekong Delta and the Camau Peninsula, and most of the area around Saigon and a hundred or more miles north. But for the reporting areas, the figures show progressively more and more tax delinquency in every year from 1960 on, In that year, in these areas over which Saigon held some sort of tax collection control—a function which reflects government control, and about which we have heard much as to the Vietcong and their tax collections—property taxes to the Saigon government were 44 percent delinquent. That was in 1960. From there the delinquency went to 47 percent, then to 51 percent, and in 1963 to 57 percent. But by 1964 the ability of the Saigon government to collect taxes in these districts, comprising less than a third of the total, had so slipped that 74 percent of all taxes for the Saigon government were delinquent. Is this governmental control? ANTICOMMUNISM IS NOT DEMOCRACY Is this the condition of a country which has the solid support of its citizens? At the very least, there is the administrative chaos which must accompany a civil war. There is some support, No. 29-18 of course, for the government of General Ky. But can anyone be sure that the situation indicates that the support of the majority of the people, if it could be accurately measured, would go to Saigon? Or is it possible that millions more than we would like to think believe that whatever government exists in Saigon is necessarily only another puppet of a foreign power? General Edward Lansdale has said this: The harsh fact * * * is that * * * the Communist subversive insurgents have grown steadily stronger, in numbers and in size of units, and still retain the initiative to act at their will * * *. The Communists have let loose a revolutionary idea in Vietnam. It will not die by being ignored, bombed, or smothered by us. Ideas do not die in such ways. “The government exists for the people” is one of the Communist slogans. Its nationalism appeals, as does nationalism everywhere, to people whose history has been replete with a government existing for the sake of privilege, for the benefit of foreigners—whether Chinese, French, or—as they misunderstand our motives— Americans. We say we want to bring them democracy. We have not succeeded, because we are outsiders. We have brought them anticommunism, but that ‘is not democracy. Indeed, it is a poor substitute for democracy. Yet ours is a revolutionary origin. Our goal for many years was “no entangling alliances.” We were warned by George Washington against such ventures, and we have never sought colonial empire. We have built our own democracy in which we believe. It has attracted to our shores millions who have seen in the shining torch of the Statue of Liberty a welcome to a way of life filled with respect for each individual, with hope for release from oppression rife in other countries. We still hold to those ideals. They are the reason for our antipathy to the collectivist philosophy we know as communism. We are still concerned for the welfare of every person, and our conscience has been more stirred in recent times than for many years past over the plight of the poverty stricken, in our country, and overseas, the undereducated, the elderly poor, the racially disadvantaged, and all those who have not fully shared in our great economic abundance. Our motives in Vietnam are laudable. But the frequent fate of good intentions even there may be but one more iliustration about the old adage of the road whose pavement they provide. Where are we going? What must our policy and our strategy be? EXAMINATION IS OVERDUE We are now, belatedly, in the midst of an examination of our course which should have long since been made public as the Senator from Oregon has just said. Too long we have acquiesced. in apathy to unexamined policies without realizing where they were leading us. It is good that at last the white light of public attention has been thrown upon Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3413 Vietnam. We in the Senate are exercising the right of advice and consent in our discussions, late in the day as they come to some. My concern is not of recent origin. More than a year ago, on February 6, 1965, I made a plea for the kind of determinations and clarification in Vietnam which we are seeking now. In a speech which I made a full year ago to the Jacobi Society dinner in the Statler Hilton Hotel here in Washington, and which may be found in the ConcRESSIONAL REc-~ orp for February 16, 1965, I said—I might mention that that was the day when nine of our men were killed in Pleiku. That was the most that had been killed up to that time. That event took the headlines—not that my speech would have taken the headlines, but I want Senators to know what took place on that day. I said: President Johnson * * * must clearly enunciate his goals and how he intends to reach them * * *, The President should and must tell America, first, and the rest of the world what our posture is; what our aims are; what our interests and commitments are; how we intend to meet those commitments. We must know where we are going and what we are going to do in Vietnam. I also said: Leadership by consensus cannot be applied to foreign policy ** *. Yet, vacillation and indecision can be confused with weakness. Discussion of the alternatives in Vietnam can, in the absence of clear policy from the architect of policy, be mistaken for strife. These were my words of @ year ago. So let us not be deceived. Discussion of alternatives is not dictation of policy. Dissent may be as much a function of advice as is consent. Consideration of alternative steps which may be taken, publicly conducted in a responsible manner, is an obligation of democracy. On the other hand, manipulation of public opinion to fit support to decisions already irrevocably taken is the style of totalitarianism, whether Fascist or Communist. Among us, dissent can never be treason or we shall have forfeited our birthright, - Is THE HONOLULU DECLARATION UNLIMITED COMMITMENT? On Lincoln’s Birthday the headline of the Washington Post read, “L.B.J., Reassures Critics on Escalation.” The subordinate headings interpreted the President’s press conference statement as meaning: “Rules Out Wider War or Pullout” and “View Differs Little From Kennan’s or Gavin's, He Says.” I hope the headline writers have not misunderstood or misinterpreted. The declaration of Honolulu only 3 days earlier, on February 8, did not seem to take such a position when it said: We must defeat the Vietcong and those illegally fighting with them on our soil * * *. The defeat of that aggression is vital for the future of our people of South Vietnam. To this statement of purpose by the Government of Vietnam we assented by a pledge to prevent aggression. The Honolulu declaration as a whole was characterized by Walter Lippmann, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 43] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0_ - 3414 whose judgment is certainly no official assessment, as a commitment ‘‘to win the war and to defeat and liquidate the enemy forces, and then to reconstruct the country as it is regained for the Saigon government.”: 1 do not believe we can have it both ways. We cannot simply dig in and hold the line in a refusal to escalate, even pulling back to consolidate our strong points in the strategy of General Gavin, and at the same time do what the declaration of Honolulu indicates. To quote Mr. Liypmann further: ‘The big objective which the words of the document declare is a total victory for General Ky. ‘Vo accomplish this enormous objective, very Lirge forces will be needed. The declaration must therefore be read as a commitment of American forces limited not be considerations of policy but only by our ability to break the logistical bottlenecks which hold down the number of troops we can lund and support. {f these are not the political and military decisions on which the Honolulu conference agreed, no time should be lost in making clear to our people what in fact the commitments are. General.Ky made the statement today that the difference between the President's position and his position is not ereat, as the President indicated, but General Ky added, “Let me make it clear that we do not intend to negotiate with the Vietcong.” +YtiR ROADS BEFORE US L said that I want to explore the direction of each of the ways leading from the crossroads in history where we stand. In fact, there are not two but at least three roads and probably many more down which we can go. Each of them must eventually col.c out at the same general destination—a peace based on a cease-fire and the conclusion of some modus vivendi under which North Vietnamese and South Vietnamese can coexist. One of these roads, which I hope only a very small number of Americans would wish to take, is capitulation. This might not be impossible, but it would indeed be intolerable. We have already, in too many ways to make such full retreat: possible, committed ourselves to one of the other two roads before us. ‘The first of these, to which I now turn, is the one which Mr. Lippmann paints in such stark terms. It is the road of unlimited escalation, with American troops commitments rising to 400,000, 600.000, 800,000, 1 million if necessary, as one member of the military said. {t is a road upon which our chauffeur will be named military necessity and upon which we would travel at a faster and faster speed, throttle to the floor, and never mind the backseat jouncing, the terror and pain of either the pedestrians in the way or the backseat passengers who must take the ride willy-nilly. Nor does the road of faster and faster escalation provide necessarily more safety than comfort. There may he other traffic coming out to meet us, China for example, or even Russia. At such speed a head-on collision could be fatal not only to the driver but to us in the baci seat as well. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE The second road, to which I shall return later, is the one which General Gavin and Ambassador Kennan have pointed the way. It, too, has pitfalls and potholes, and it will put a heavy strain on our shock absorbers. To the casual mapreader it may appear the longer of the two, but sometimes the loner way around is the better way home. Let us now look at each in turn. THE ROAD OF ESCALATION: CASUALTI"S, MORE MANPOWER What can we expect along the road of escalation? First, as the Senator from Oregon {Mr. Morse] ably pointed out, increasing casualty lists. Escalation breeds escalation on the other side. That is what happened during 1965 as we increased our troops, began our bombing, started to search and destroy with American forces. Here is what Richard Dudman of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch writes in the February issue of Current History: At the beginning of 1965, the 600,000 or so South Vietnamese men uniicr arms were still fighting a counterinsurgency war with the support and advice of about 20,000 American troops. The war was bring lost. The Vietcong had a solid hold on a hilf dozen base areas that the government troops did not dare try to invade. In more than half the country, they could roam at will by night, collect taxes, draft recruits, and obtain intcliigence information. By the end of 1965, the B-52 plines were pounding reported Vietcong concentrations every day, and American forces had mounted to 165,000, plus another 50,000 on Navy ships deployed off the coast. The U.S. buildup quickly outdistanced the North Vistnamese infiltration, which exceeded the American forces in Vietnam through 1964 and until the spring of 1965. And then what happened? Mr. Dudman continues, and this needs emphasis: Rapid Vietcong recruitment in the south, however, more than kept pace with the influx of U.S. forces. The troop ratio fell from about 5 to 1 (anti-Communist to Communist) to less than 3 to 1 by the end of 1965. Most authorities have considered that a ratio of 10 to 1 or better is needed to defeat an insurgent army. As recent months have progressed, the war has become more and more a conflict between the Americans and the Vietcong. We have taken over the fghting for several reasons. Some of them are related to the fact that the principals in the war, the Vietnamese themselves, have been by policy shut out from American planning and informed of big engagements only at the last moment. Mr. Dudman further writes: When the Vietnamese participiuted, the chances were greater that the Vietcong would learn of the action and slip away before it began. In smaller engagements, U.S. forces are more likely to meet up with the enemy than are South Vietnamese troops. Last November, a Pentagon weckly summary showed, American efforts resulted in enemy contact more than once in every 10 tries; the South Vietnamese efforts made contact only once in every 250 tries. The figures were 11.3 percent for U.S. troops, 0.4 percent for Vietnamese; I repeat, four-tenths of i percent February 21, 1966 for the South Vietnamese. Some of the other results, the casualties, can be seen any day by going down to Walter Reed Hospital. Second, even leaving aside the jump in casualties as we pour in more and more men, there is the very serious matter of the manpower which is involved. We congratulate ourselves on our steadily advancing economy. We have brought the unemployment figure below 4 percent for the first time in years. Where are we to get another quarter of a million troops for Vietnam? Or a half a million more? Or still more than that? Nor is the manpower problem simply that of supplying these numbers as bodies delivered to the area of combat. Behind them must stand the logistic sup- - port of more and still more service personnel. Beyond that lies the increasing drain from civilian industries to the deadweight tasks, which generate no economic multiplier effect, of producing military supplies and equipment. ESCALATING INFLATION Third, there is the vast adverse economic effect upon our homefront. Foremost among economic consequences is the real threat of inflation. Here again, the potential inflationary effect is greater than it was at the beginning of World War II, for example, because we are starting in a tight economy. The present high level of employment in conjunction with the high percentage of plant capacity in use has been accompanied by increased consumer demand, as witness the amazing sales figures in the automobile industry in the last 2 years. Twenty-three percent of American families now have two cars. AS competition for workers grows, wages are bound to grow as well. More are able to afford a second car, to continue with the one example. The demand for civilian goods, which we are unable fully to meet in an escalated war economy, builds up price pressures. The result is the familiar warc-price spiral which feeds inflation. As the economy has tightened in recent months, we have seen signs that its lies dangerously before us even without the increased economic pressures of Vietnam. One reaction to those fears of inflation has been the increase in the discount rate. I have no quarrel with the good intentions of the Federal Reserve Board and Mr. Martin. But, I do not believe this action is achieving the beneficial results they intended, and it has already introduced some adverse side effects into the economy. But if we go down the road of unlimited escalation in Vietnam, with the vast costs that are not only foreseeable but inevitable camp followers of war, that change in interest rate will feed the inflation and complicate the Federal effort to finance the costs. Where do we get the money to run a war? It has to be financed by the Treasury, which means borrowing, since tax income can not begin to mect the bir added strains. Are we going to finance a huge military venture, escalation unlimited, at a 5-percent rate by the Treasury? Are we going back to the days of the 6- and 7-percent Liberty Bonds of Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 44] === February 21, 1966 World War I with the resultant scandals and the depression that follows? We are seeing now an increase for military purposes of $12.7 billion in a supplementing authorization and appropriation because of Vietnam. This is not the end. How large will the increase in our debt become? $20 billion? $30 billion? $50 billion? Suppose it costs us 5 percent interest on a $30 billion total before we are through. That is an annual burden of $1.5 billion, as much as the cost of our antipoverty program today. We have no forecast, and certainly none which is reliable, as to the duration and ultimate cost of what lies ahead. True, we did not have that in World War II either, but then the issue as to whether we should join in defense of the free world against open, large-scale aggression entailed no doubt. We had to do it, no matter what the cost, and we did it gladly. Here we do not have the same kind of absolute compulsion, nor the same kind of glad support for the effort. Yet, many see us becoming drawn into an escalation not only of cost and manpower, but of time—5 years, 10 years, 15 years. An all-out military effort may shorten the active military phase, but how long will it take to repair the scorched earth, to build a viable economy, and whose expense will bear the burden? Who will carry the burden? Historically, such enormous drains on the treasury of any country paying the cost of war have led to inflation—inflation whose virtual absence has contributed so greatly to the past 5 years of our unprecedented growth and prosperity. The only real effective alternative in wartime is controls, with all that they entail. These we had to impose even in the Korean war, where we had the support of other nations as we do not have today, and scarcely expect to have. Do we want to go down the road of controls again?.: EFFECTS ON BALANCE OF PAYMENTS On Monday of this week Secretary of the Treasury Fowler discussed the progress of our balance-of-payments program, in a press conference which he shared with Secretary of Commerce Connor and Federal Reserve Chairman Martin. He presented an estimate that the balance of payments would worsen in 1966, the press reported, “as a result of stepped-up operations in Vietnam.” I quote from the article by Frank C. Porter in the Washington Post on Tuesday, February 13: Before escalation, the Defense Department estimated that its overseas operations would contribute $1.4 billion to the minus side of the ledger in 1965, he said. The estimate was raised to $1.65 billion after the step-up, Fowler continued, and how it appears that the current annual rate is closer to $1.8 billion. The Secretary said the last guess now is that the foreign exchange Impact of Vietnam. could add another $300 billion during 1966, bringing the total Defense Department bite on the payments balance to $2.1 billion. "This would not include overseas economic aid. But we cannot omit the overseas aid estimates from the financial picture. We are now asked to embark on a vast program for the benefit of the people in South Vietnam, not simply as a humanitarian effort, but because the theory is that this vast outpouring will bring support for the Saigon Government, which is so essential if our total propping-up program is to succeed. If past experience is any criterion, Secretary Fowler’s estimates are bound to be on the side of minimizing, rather than maximizing, the Federal costs. Even the distinguished Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Stennis] has repeatedly warned us of that. Frankly, his estimates of the costs of this war have been somewhat scarey, but they are accurate. So among the economic effects are increased inflation, perhaps to be accompanied by controls of various kinds; a war financed at high interest rates; an increased balance-of-payments problem; all geared to the unknown and perhaps unpredictable. ESCALATION AND TAXES And how about taxes? We have already seen the request. At this time, when escalation has reached only a portion of its probable ultimate, should we take that road, for a rescinding of the excise tax reduction voted last year? We are asked to reimpose the 10percent excise tax on telephone service and to defer the relief we provided by removing the tax on new automobiles, In addition, there are other ‘‘one shot” tax measures called for right now. This, too, is only a beginning if we turn up the road of escalation. Such measures are demanded in-proportion to the magnitude of our efforts; as the cost increases, so does the necd for tax changes which hit, directly or indirectly, every American and his family. They are inevitably dictated by two necessities—to fight inflation by withdrawing in taxes the spendable income of the people, and to raise the revenues so far as is feasible, thus paying as we go to the extent possible, and reducing dependence on deficit financing. Where will this course lead us? Two years ago we reduced personal and corporate income tax rates by $111 billion. We did it on the theory that it would stimulate the economy and do so, paradoxically, with benefit to the Federal Treasury in increased receipts based on the jump in gross national product. Frankly, that course worked. We have seen the beneficial results. They were goad, But a wartime economy Is a different animal from a peacetime economy. It is a rapacious consumer of goods, of manpower, of resources, and its end products move to far-off fields to be spent as mortar ammunition and napalm bombs, as shot-down helicopters and expended material of all kinds. These economic products do not add to but rather drain the national wealth. The peacetime economy is a tiger in your tank; the wartime economy is a tiger in the jungle, a marauding depredator in the same category as sheepkilling wolves of the Old West. We may indeed have both guns and butter, but we shall have to pay for both. If we spread the butter thinner, it will be because we are paying for the guns. Let us make no mistake about it: pay for them we must. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3415 Furthermore, the road to escalation is open ended. No one, because the imponderables are so great, can offer us a firm estimate of the amounts about which we are talking. We have a strong economy, but we can base it upon gains that will eventually set back the unprecedented growth we have been making. Casualties, manpower, inflation, balance of payments, taxes—these are among the baggage we will have to carry if we take the road of escalation. But what of the things we will have to leave behind? The things we cannot take Chief among them, of course, is a whole broad range of domestic programs. All across the budget spectrum they lie. For instance, consider the so-called Great Society programs. I supported them wholeheartedly last year. In fact, I supported the medicare program a little more than the others. We left an open end in that program. We should have provided for the hospitalization of old people for as long as they needed to remain in hospitals, not merely for 90 days. These programs, too, are casualties. Already many of them are wounded. -we will tend them, bandage them, try to heal the amputations, and probably save them from death. But they are suffering sore blows, shot down by our own military efforts on the road to escalation. We shall shortly look at some of these in specific terms. THE VIETNAM GREAT SOCIETY In more general terms, we are now committed to.a Great Society program, so to speak, in South Vietnam. The declaration of Honolulu says in part TIT under “Purposes of the Goverment of the United States” that the United States is pledged “‘to give special support to the work of the people of that country to build even while they fight. We have helped and we will help them, to stabilize the economy, to increase the production of food, to spread the light of education, to stamp out disease.” I would far rather fight a war on these enemies of mankind in Vietnam than to fight a military war there. In normal times our commitments to economic aid of this kind are determined by relating them to the needs of others throughout the world as well. Now we are linking the reason for and the cost of this expanded effort in Vietnam to our military effort. The total of our AID funds requested for all of the world put together for fiscal 1967 is $2,048 million. For Vietnam the amount is $550 million, well over a quarter of the total, and this does not count military aid, nor another $98 million in Public Law 480 funds. How much will this additional Honolulu declaration task cost us, over and beyond the military effort? Is this to be, under planning for escalation, another open-ended program? An inquiry of the staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations to learn what may be the prospect brought the reply that the figures they have on economic aid to Vietnam at the moment are classified. So I cannot state them to the Senate, and the American people cannot have them.. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 45] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0_—s- 3416 OUR OWN GREAT SOCIETY CASUALTIES Meanwhile, what are the casualties of our own programs, which escalation will increase? Some of the answers are in ine budget. The Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation program is cut by $140 million. In agriculture also, the sum available for rehabilitation of land and property because of natural disaster is reduced by $20 million. The entire amount of funds available for loans through the Rural Electric Administration to cooperatives is cut out—-$462 million. A $100-million figure has disappeared from the Rural Housing Insurance Fund. ‘The Farmers Ilome Administration loses $650 million in loan funds. The Small Business Administration drops out $309 million in guaranteed loans. The same is true of $450 million in “Fannie Mae”— INMA—of the Housing and Urban Development program. All of these last, however, plus others which make a total of $4.7 billion, are not strictly speaking cuts in the same sense as some of the others. At a later time I want to discuss this separately. The plan is to put all of these loan funds into a pool and to sell government participations, which will be bought by public investment—an idea which may have considerable merit. ‘To do so will require new legislation. But to include this fizure as a cut in the budget is a $4.7 billion distortion which in fact is doubled by its accomplishment. Not only can the budget show a drop of this enormous amount, but also when the participations are purchased, the Treasury will have an equal sum available for expenditure now with its own obligation deferred for later payment to those who have purchased them. The net result is an availability of more than $9 billion in this one-shot effort which will not at all appear in the budget. ‘To continue, the budget drops out $175 million in National Defense Education Act loan funds to students in higher cducation, on the theory that these loans can be absorbed by the new private capital in the guaranteed loan program of the Higher Education Act. But this overlooks vital problems of transition which create grave difficulties in some States, including my own State of Indiana. There is a serious possibility that the result will be inability for many students now receiving National Defense Education Act loans to secure the money they need next fall for continuing their education. ¢ Then there is the much discussed cut in the school milk and school lunch propram money. The Vietnam war can be directly charged with the reduction of the school milk money by 80 percent, from $103 million to $21 million. The funds for school lunches are also reduced by $19 million. Yet we say that we are going to provide breakfast as well as lunch. Many of us know that the only warm meal some of these children have is furnished by the school lunch program. And all of us recornize that the reduced price of milk for the school lunch program is one of CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -— SENATE the greatest builders of a healthy and strong America that we have today. Health research facilities are cut by $35 million. Twenty million dollars has been cut in instructional and research funds for 68 land-grant colleges. Yet these are the very institutions upon which the greatest demands will be made under the new GI cold war bill which has just been enacted into law. These are some of the costs at home for which we are trading the cscalation we face in Vietnam. We cut our schoolchildren in lunch and milk money by $101 million—because Vietnam currently costs us that much every 3 days. We::lice $20 million from rural disaster rehabilitation so that we can do more to rehabilitate the South Vietnamese lands suffering manmade rural disaster there. We delete $164 million in school district funds for the so-called impacted areas—elnough to pay for killing a little more than 400 Vietcong at the estimated cost of $400,000 each, STANDING STILL IS FALLING BELMIND There are other potential economic casualties on our homefront society besides the direct cuts. These consist not in the direct cuts, but in the reduction to the status quo from the envisioned progress which we should instead be making. Wherever we fail to advance we are not just holding our own--—we are falling behind, for our population will continue to grow, as it has by 15 million persons since the last census, that of 1960. Can you think of better uses far our money than spending $3,500 just in ammunition alone for each Vietcons who is killed? There has been talk of helping the hard-pressed States through returning some of the Federal income for their tax use, and I have sponsored such a. bill with Senator Javirs. Is anyone willing to predict that we will share Federal revenues, much as we need to do so, while we are straining our sinews to raise Federal revenue for escalation? There has been talk, not altogether utopian either, about instituting a negative income tax to help lift our most poverty-stricken out of their stiltifying degradation. An article in last Sunday’s Washington Post discussed this under the heading, “Guaranteed Income Gains Acceptance.” It notes that Congressmen of the Demccratic Study Group have proposed serious examination of the idea. So has the President’s Commission on Technology, Automation, and Economic Progress in its report of only 2 weeks ago. While we are pouring out open-ended billions in Vietnam through following the road of escalation, this too will not get off the ground. Likewise there are other unfulfilled economic needs whose accomplishment must of necessity be delayed—-extension of the Interstate Highway System; increase in the minimum for social security beneficiaries; extension and concentrated effort upon the next frontier of education, adult education; addition of drug payments to the medicare program. The list could go on and on. WHAT IS THE COST-BENEFIT RATIO? In listing budget casualties, I did not mention public works. We do riot have February 21, 1966 available how much these may suffer. I do know that when the Army Corps of Engineers considers a new project it makes a careful cost-benefit study. If the ratio of costs to bencfits is too high, if the price turns out to be too great for what will result, the project is dropped. Is escalation going to yield us a satisfactory cost-benefit ratio? If the Army Corps can scrutinize civilian works on this basis, should not the entire military involvement be weighed likewise against the possible benefits in Vietnam? It is my studied conclusion that by this test, escalation fails. I have been examining the terrain we shall have to cross if we take the road of escalation. I said that we will face increased casualties, a manpower shortage, and economic problems which include inflation, worsening balance of payments, increased taxes or economic controls. Nor are these all ofthe costs which we must consider in computing a cost-benefit ratio. There are the costs I have pointed to in our Great Society programs—budget cuts, deferment of projects until later, all manners of economic casualties. There are other costs which escalation will bring, costs without a price tag. Among these, and they have formed the center of great amounts of discussion, are those based upon our relation with other nations, our standing in the eyes of the world. Some people do not want to consider our standing in the eyes of the world, but this will be part of the cost. Dr. Eugene Carson Blake has long been one of the Nation’s foremost Protestant churchmen and a great leader of the ecumenical movement. He has just been elected general secretary of the World Council of Churches, which makes him as close to being the Protestant counterpart of the Pope as the world provides. Dr. Blake says, from the standpoint of world Christian leadership, that any U.S. victory in Vietnam will have “a racial stigma” because of “the bombing of a less developed nation of colored people by a large, rich, white one.” HARSH COMMENT FROM FRANCISCANS From France a publication of the Franciscan Order, Freres du Monde, views our position in these rather severe and harsh terms: In Vietnam, peace is not a football game between two equal teams. Somehow I gain the impression that some people believe that the debate taking place here concerns whether Army is going to beat Navy or whether Notre Dame is back in the days of the Knute Rockne teams. They seem to believe that this is an athletic contest we are discussing. I did not utter these words. These words were written in a publication of the Franciscan Order. I continue to read: On the one side there is an aggressor, the United States, and on the other, 1 peopic who are continually being oppressed, bombed, and decimated. If you do not see the matter in this light, it is because you have admitted that anticommunism is an end that justifies all means, including torture, napalm, and dozens of daily bombardments against North Vietnam. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 46] === : * Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 It is the United States which implacably practices the dangerous policy of escalation, but for a small consideration we shall instead blame the Vietnamese patriots who insist upon gaining their freedom. It is the United States which daily is menacing the world peace, but for a small consideration we shall come to thank them for building peace in the shadow of intercontinental missiles, This is not the effusion of Communist propaganda from Russia. It is the comment of a Catholic religious order’s publication, the same order whose brown robes with knotted cords about the waist may be seen as they lead Jerusalem pilglims along the Via Dolorosa to the high altar in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, which, as the senior Senator from Oregon knows, we visited 2 days before Christmas. What price good will throughout the world if it brings such comments as these from such a source? I shall not attempt details, which have been repeatedly discussed by others including many experts, concerning the escalation policy in our international rela-. tions. We all know that this is not Korea. We stand virtually alone, in a unllateral action taken without the blessing of the United Nations—which the Senator from Oregon has repeatedly requested—and without the partnership of most of the 40 nations with whom we have formal treaty relationships. I have said before that our great danger in escalation is that by this means we may move toward the very thing we must avoid, a land war with Asia. Every US. military leader that I know of, from Eisenhower and MacArthur on down— or up, according to how we look at it— has warned us against geting bogged down in a land war in Asia. Gen. Max-~- well Taylor, as Walter Lippmann noted in his Tuesday column, “has recognized that the prospect of a land war with China is today our greatest worry.” I opposed, as did many Senators, resumption of bombing, because I fear that this escalation will lead to greater likelihood of that war we do not want. Let me say that if the discussion and debate has in any way taken us off that course, it has been that much to the good, at least. Finally, having looked down that fork in the road, and having cast up the costbenefit ratio, I find that it does not warrant the project of escalation. The costs are too high, and although I have not spelled them out, I believe the nonmilitary costs, the noneconomic costs, are in themselves too great even without reference to dollars and cents cost, or to the cost in casualties.. DOWN ANOTHER ROAD I have said earlier that, like all but possibly a few dedicated pacifists, I likewise reject the notion that we can suddenly and completely withdraw from Vietnam. Probably there is but one road left for us to choose—possibly more, but at least that one—and that is a road whose choice has been made by a growing number of Americans, led by General Gavin, Ambassador Kennan, and hopefully, I think, by President Johnson himself. Here is a policy which makes as much sense as anything can in this situa- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE tion. It is one which can stop what Emmet John Hughes in Newsweek recently called “The Diplomacy of Drift” as the title of an article in which he said that our globe-traveling peace missionaries “can have little to say about Vietnam that could not have been said a year ago at least as persuasively. For a year’s massive show of American forec has armed American diplomats with neither new argument nor new advantage. Never in this generation of Americans has so much power been spent so lavishly to gain so little.” This is from the man who sat at the right arm of President Eisenhower in the White House for so many years.’ It is time to cease lavish spending of our power for little gain. At the same time, even though we have made a mistake in getting in deeper and deeper in the middle of what is to so large an extent probably a civil war, and because we have no smallest wish to see Communist control and influence extended in Vietnam or anywhere in the world, we cannot withdraw immediately from South Vietnam. We have, all too inadvertently, come to the point where we have on our hands first of all the major responsibility for a military operation of great magnitude and difficulty, in support of a political structure which has also somehow hecome accepted as our responsibility. We are attempting, as Ambassador Kennan _ put it, ‘not only to defend the frontiers of a certain political entity against outside attack, but to assure the internal security of its government in circumstances where that government is unable to assure security by its own means.” That is a monumental task, one far beyond the normal obligations of a military alliance. I do not say we are incapable of doing so. I do say that the cost is too great for the benefit. We have a great military establishment, capable of performing, as the men who are there have so well shown, with the greatest of ability. Our ultimate aim should not be escalation, but extrication. But extrication must come in the only valid way it can be done, and that is by means of negotiation. We are going to have to bring those boys home, and the only way we can do it is by negotiation. For this, the prospects are best if we resist the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese sufficiently to prevent them from any closer approach to their goal of military victory as a route to political domination, keeping the pressure on in the proper places but not seeking to widen the war in North Vietnam with the attendant risks and dangers that entails. I think we need to bear in mind the words of Mr. Kennan, with which I agree: ‘ I see in the Vietcong a band of ruthiess fanatics, partly misled, perhaps by the propaganda that has been drummed into them, but cruel 1n their purposes, dictatorial, and op-~ pressive in their aims. I am not conscious of having any sympathy for them.. I think their claim to represént the people of South Vietnam is unfounded and arrogant and outrageous. A country which fell under this exclusive power would have my deepest sympathy, and I would hope that this eventuality at any rate would be avoided by a re- _bassador Goldberg speaks about. 3417 strained and moderate policy on our part in South Vietnam. But our country should not be asked, and should not ask of itself, to shoulder the main burden of determining the political realities in any other country, and particularly not in one remote from our shores, from our culture, and from the experience of our people. This is not only not our business, but I don’t think we can do it successfully. TOWARD A CEASE-FIRE We can hold them in check, and continually explore every avenue for bringing about a conference which will end that stalemate in a military sense by a realistic settlement in a political sense. This, I believe, is what the country wants,.. This is the tenor of the vast majority of the letters I receive. It was in support of my position, and today it is 89 percent. This is the position of an increasing number of public persons, of writers with background and expertise in Far Eastern affairs, of editorial writers, of such interpreters of America as the editorial writer in the Satuday Evening Post who, in the issue of January 15 written long before the Foreign Relations Committee hearings, had this to say: We say we are fighting for the liberty and independence of the people of Vietnam. The Communists say they are fighting for the liberty and independence of the people of | Vietnam. We say we will stop the bloodshed if they will stop their aggression. They say they will stop the bloodshed if we stop our aggression. We say we want to negotiate on the restoration of the 1954 Geneva Treaty, interpreted our way. They say they want to negotiate on the basis of the treaty interpreted their way. We are convinced we must “teach them a lesson.” They think they are teaching us a lesson. As is often true, each side can argue its case reasonably and believe in it passionately. What is at stake here 1s not a matter of moral rightness but rather a deadly confilct of national interests. As long as each side takes “negotiation” to mean that the enemy must confess his sins, there will probably be no peace—for years. Is it what the people of Vietnam want? On Friday, February 11, Ambassador Goldberg stated: President Johnson believes there might be a reciprocal reduction of hostilities, without negotiations, which could be a significant step toward peace. It was our hope that cessation of bombing in North Vietnam would lead to a reduction of activity by North Vietnamese. In Honolulu, General West- _ moreland told a press conference, that, although terrorism had increased, attacks by large units, battalion size and up, were fewer recently than during November and December. A south Vietnamesé Army spokesman has been quoted as saying that Vietcong activity during the first week of February was the lowest in 18 weeks. For the first time in 10 months an entire week went by without attacks or sabotage in the Saigon region. According to General Westmoreland at Honolulu, again, infiltration remained at about the same level “before, since, and during” the bombing pause— about 4,500 per month. ‘The first thing to achieve is a reciprocal reduction of hostilities such as Am- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 47] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3418 duction of Vietcong activities such as those I have reported should be met not by escalation on our part, but by similar lulls, accompanied by the greatest vigilance but without provocative initiation of attack. The first formal essential to full peace talks is cease-fire. We have had ceasefires by mutual agreement recently. ‘There was one at Christmas, and there was another for the New Year, Tet. Admittedly, a cease-fire would be a stalemate, from the military standpoint. But it could bring about the needed respite, whenever it can be achieved, on which a fuller settlement can eventually be reached. Belligerency evokes belligerency, and we cannot expect escalation to bring the peace we need, the peace we seek, the peace we must secure. There is no question of sueing Hanoi for peace, of “sroveling,” to use the word so recently misapplied by Barry Goldwater to our stanee. We are big, we are powerful, and they know it as well as we do, as well as the rest of the world. ‘We need not bully in order to be firm. Out of our strength we can afford to be magnanimous. To fear loss of face in our position is ridiculous. To give the governments of both Saigon and Hanoi a means toward peace without loss of face my appear difficult, but surely it cannot be impossible. Our resolution offered to the Security Council called for “discussions without preconditions” in order to arrange a conference “looking toward the application nf the Geneva accords.” North Vietnam is not a United Nations member and objected to the United Nations route, but North Vietnam is a signatory to the Geneva accords and has made a great noint of resting its case upon them. The Security Council resolution which we desired adopted spoke of using all appropriate means, “including the provision of arbitrators or mediators.” The words are those of our draft. The possibility of mediation, if not by officially designated United Nations members as mediators, is still one which exists. ‘There are other countries, friendly to us, who are also in relationship with Hanol, such as India, who could be of potentially reat service in helping achieve that first step, the important cease-fire which would halt the shooting war and start the peacemaking process. Finally, as leaders of the world, and in particular of the free world, we should be too far down the road of civilization to find no other way possible than war, and that against a small Asian nation through whom we might become exposed to conflict with the masses of Communist China. As long ago as the Kellogg Pact we disavowed war as a means of national policy. The fact that we have not declared this to be a war makes it no less a violation of our pledges over the years, to the United Nations, and to support the Geneva Conference. At that time, on July 21, 1954, although we did not sign the accords, we made a “unilateral declaration” which stated: Our Government declares with regard to the aforesaid agreements and paragraphs that (i) it will refrain from the threat or the use of force to disturb them, in accordance CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE with article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations dealing with the obligation of members to refrain from the threat or use of force; and (ii) it would view any renewal of the aggression in violation of the aforesaid agreements with grave concern and as seriously threatening international peace and security. Despite all that has occurred since the Geneva accords, if for no other reason than the declaration of ours, frecly made on our own initiative, we must take a position with regard to our actions there, as the editorial heading in the February issue of the Idler puts it, to “elevate them a little lower.” Iam not discouraged. If it is worth the cost of one life to fight in Vietnam, hew much is it worth to fight for the peace table? The way is not easy, but neither is the way of escalation. and we come out both ways at exactly the same point which puzzled Emil Ludwig’s apocryphal small boy: Why do they leave peace to go to war to win a victory so they can have peace? I am not a pacifist, but I am proud to be a peaceseeker. When the times demand all-out military effort, as they did in World War II, I count it a privilege to have been a member of our Armed Forces. I will support them with all that I can to provide for their protection, wherever thery are. But their best protection is to get them out of the line of fire, to arrange for negotiations, and to apply more faithfully than we have done cur own repeated proclamations of the right of self-determination for the people of the troubled land of Vietnam. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Indiana yield? Mr. HARTEE. I yield. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President. in my opinion, there has just been made in the Senate one of the truly great speeches of this historic debate on the issue of American foreign policy. Iam only sorry that a!l Americans who would like to have heard it could not have heard it. That is why I said a few minutes ago that I believe we should give serious consideration in the Senate to changing our rules of procedure so that these great debates can be made available to the American people through their radics and television. I congratulate the Senator from Indiana for his great speech. Of the many points he raised, I am so glad he also raised the point of the moral issue that is involved. I am particularly glad that on page 20 of his speech, he cited the position taken by the Franciscan Order in France. Having made reference to the views of that religious order, I wonder if the Senator, with the consent of the Senate, would permit me to supplement his statement and add to it by reference another document involving the position of men of rejiigion in regard to the issue that confronts the American people vis-a-vis this war and our moral obligations with relation toit. Itis a document of a page and a, half that I want to relate to the Senator’s speech on this issue. I spoke in Madison, Wis., at a general meeting dealing with our foreign policy issue involving the war in Vietnam. I spoke at February 21, 1966 1 o’clock in the afternoon, and I was told by those in charge that I spoke to something like 3,600 people who were in attendance. ‘There were two closed television circuits to other autditoriums necessary to accommodate the audiences. It is such interest that I have found characteristic at the grassroots of America. But that morning I was invited to attend a breakfast of some members of the clergy in Madison, Wis., some 30 of them. I was filled with great humility as a result of a letter that these members of the clergy presented to me, which relates directly to the Senator’s speech with regard to the moral issues involved in this war. I think I should put this letter into the Recorp, having given the background. These pastors of various churches, which I shall name after I complete reading the memorandum, presented this letter to To the Honorable WaynrE Morse. From the Madison Emergency Committee of Clergy Concerned About Vietnam. Honored by your presence in Madison, we are drawn together to share with you our acute distress over the war in Vietnam. We confess that we have not wanted to face up to the tragedies of this war. We have preferred to keep our churches unsullied by the painful controversies of our day. Most of us have been silent while bombs have begun to fall once more onto the Vietnamese countryside. We have said little from the safety of pulpits while American and Asian young men are killing each other with increasing dispatch and in alarming proportion. Few of us have let our President know of our disappointment that the peace offensive has withered and of our urgent hope that his approach to the United Nations may effect reconciliation among the combatants. All too often, we have hidden behind our failure to become informed about the situation in Vietnam. We have been afraid to risk opinions that are not fortified by expertise and by firsthand knowledge of the military, political, economic, and sociological data. We have sought comfort in ignorance and have been willing to let affairs of the world be ordered by the power of information, rather than by the power of moral Insight. We admit our political naivete, and we are tempted to bewildered inaction. We are heartened, however, by your outspoken attempts to bring an end to the conflict and to halt escalation of the war. Recognizing the ambiguities that must be weighed in formulating national policy, we seek your continued leadership in sorting out clouded issues and in offering clear alternatives to the course being followed by our Government. We appeal to you and to cur other elected representatives to guide our Nation out of the inevitable morass which increased military involvement in Vietnam promises, into a passionate struggle for peace which dares to be rebuffed and which docs not give up when met with apparent failure. We pledge ourselves to support the waging of peace and to lift up before the public conscience those moral issues raised by the conflict in Vietnam. In our effort to grapple with the complexities of technical fact and strategy, we are deeply troubled: 1. By our overwhelming military presence in a foreign land, without convincing evidence that our action there is supported by the peoples whom we presume to protect. 2. By the irreparable damage which our weaponry is dealing to the homes, crops, and other resources of a country struggling for economic subsistence, 3. By the inflexibility of military conscription whereby ethical dissent from this particular war is not considered valid Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 48] === February 21, 1966 grounds for being absolved from military duty. 4. By the implications of a wartime public mentality which does not grant that efforts to end the war may be a genuine exercise of patriotism ahd of concern for American fighting men. 5. By the staggering loss of life and the ‘enormous financial commitments to this war when the enemies of all mankind—hunger, disease, and poverty—stalk our Nation as well as the rest of the world. 6. By the fact that human beings continue to resort to arms in an age when nuclear chaos is always present. We commit ourselves to foster moral sensitivity, and we ask you to Instruct our political imaginations—to the end that war may no longer be the instrument by which nations seek to resolve their differences. Andrew Davison, First Baptist Church; Manfred Swarsensky, Temple Beth El; Billy F. Bross, Bethany Methodist Church; Gary Des Jardin, St. Matthew’s ‘Lutheran Church; Winslow Wilson, Methodist District Superintendent; James LaRue, Baptist Student Center;, Lowell Messerschmidt, Church of the Divine Saviour (Evangelical United Brethren): Charles K,. Paton, Messiah Lutheran Church; Donald Bossart, Methodist University Center; Clifford Fylling, Plymouth Congregational Church; Oscar Fleishaker, Beth Israel Synagogue; Myron M. Teske, Lutheran Campus Ministry (NLC); Arnold Leverenz, Covenant Presbyterian Church; Elisworth Kalas, First Methodist Church; Richard Wichlel, Southwest Wisconsin Association, United Church of Christ; Elizabeth Gwynn, University YWOA; Robert Trobaugh, Wesley Methodist Church; Robert C. Shaw, St. Andrews Episcopal Church; Donald D. Fenner, First Evangelical United Brethren Church; T. Gordon Amphlett, Director of Christian Education, West Wisconsin Conference of the Methodist Church;. Richard Winograd, B’nai B'rith Hillel Foundation; Amos Shinko, Ashbury Methodist Church; Anthony A, Parina, Our Master’s Church (Evangelical United Brethren); Edwin Beers, Campus Minister, United Church of.Christ; Ray E. Robinson, Sherman Avenue Methodist Church; Willard W. Schulz, Conference Superintendent, Evangelical United Brethren; Gomer Finch, Bethany Methodist Church: Connie Parvey, Lutheran Campus Ministry (NLC), The following ministers wish to express their support of this statement, except for item 8, above relating to military conscription: James W. Jondrow, University Presbyterian Church; Sarah Ellis, Church of St. Francis (Episcopal): Richard EF. Larson, Bethel Lutheran Church. I think the Senator will agree with my feeling, which I just referred to, of deep humility. In my judgment, there is a growing interest, at long last, on the part of religious leaders, men of the cloth, of this country to consider the great moral issues that are involved in this war. In my judgment, there is a great need for an acceleration of spiritual. concern about the immorality of this war, because I happen to think that,.when all is said and done, it is a moral issue more than any other issue that is involved. AS I have said for two and a half years and repeat again today, in my opinion, my country’s course of action in Asia is CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE immoral and cannot be reconciled with the teachings of a belief in a supreme being.. Tam glad that this group of clergymen has seen fit to take the position that they have taken in this great statement they have issued. Mr. President, if we do not measure up to our moral obligations, in regard to which I believe we are sorrowfully wanting at the present time across this Nation, it will not be too long before, flguratively speaking, the church bells of America will be tolling, tolling, because we have caused a death blow to what has always been a great record of moral values in our country. I believe we are walking out on those moral values in these troubled days:! Mr. HARTKE. Mr. President, I wish to thank my good friend, the Senator from Oregon, for those warm words. With regard to the message from these ministers, I would imagine that if most of the Members of Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate, examined their mail closely, they would find that they possibly receive proportionately more mail from ministers on this issue than on any other subject. This is so even though frequently these people are hesitant to write on political matters for fear that it will be misinterpreted. I know that my mail is that way. Most letters that I receive are not only saying, “Do this, do that.” They are very thoughtful letters. They go into all the issues. The people have been following the debate, which I believe is so good. They have been listening. They have heen hearing things. They say they have been hearing things that they never knew before. They say, “I never heard that before.” They say, “This is news to me.” I should think that the news media would want to continue to feel that they have a place in this situation where there is a moral responsibility. In a democracy, there is not only the right of freedom of expression but a duty of expression and a duty to express oneself fully and then to let the people decide. I really have no fear of the result. I believe I know what they think. But even if it turned out that they did not think the way I thought they should, I believe that they should be permitted to make their own determination. But they should do it on the basis of all the facts. It is for this reason that I hope all of those who feel they must hide behind some secret door, would express themselves fully in public, except for those matters which are, of necessity, truly touching national security. They should speak out not alone in open debate, or on the radio and television, where some-~ times the time is limited, but in front of the representatives of the people, in front of the House of Representatives and the Senate. I wish to say again that I thank my friend from Oregon for giving me the opportunity to participate in a very educational trip in that section of the world, a trip which made it possible for me at least to have a firsthand opinion of what Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3419 those people over there want for a better way of life, not a better way of death. Mr, MORSE. Mr, President, will the Senator yield? Mr. HARTKE. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Oregon. Mr. MORSE. As the chairman of that delegation, I wish to thank cach member of the delegation for the cooperation I received at all times in carrying out my administrative duties in the handling of that trip. I became very interested in the observations that the Senator from Indiana made along the route as he saw firsthand the cost we have paid in many, many ways for our mistaken policy of military aid. I shall never forget the day in New Delhi, when the Senator from Indiana and the head of the professional staff of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Dr. Marcy asked me a question. I could not go with them one afternoon on a trip to the front, but they saw to it that I had the same experience the next day. They said to me that night, ‘Senator, do you know the best known American name in India?”. I started to ponder and the Senator from Indiana said, “Come on and guess.” After a little reflection I said, “I suppose the best known American name in India is Chester Bowles, our very able Ambassador here in New Delhi.” The Senator from Indiana and the others laughed at me and said, “No, you are wrong. The best known American name in India is Patton. We will prove it to you tomorrow.” Then, the Senator from Indiana told me of the experience he had had that day and which I had the next day in stopping and talking to Indians in villages along the highway, assisted by an interpreter. When asked what the name Patton meant to them their almost invariable response was a response of anger. Sometimes they would shake a fist, point a finger, and say, “Patton, Patton. American tanks you sent to kill us.” We had a graphic experience as to what military aid means in India among the masses of the people. We are either going to win the masses of the people or the cause of freedom is going to be lost in the underdeveloped areas of the world.. They recognize that our military aid, serving Pakistan and India, put them in a military position where they could carry on a war against each other with our equipment. What kind of moral position did that leave us in? As the Senator heard me say on the trip, it left us in a position of moral bankruptcy. Our military aid, time and time again in place after place in the world has left. America morally bankrupt, That is why I shall continue to oppose the military aid on the format we have been conducting it, financing it, and giving it. Iam glad that the Senator from Indiana in his speech today announced, as he told us before we got back to the United States, that he had had his fill of American military aid. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 49] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3420 I wish to thank him for the statement that he made today. Mr. HARTKE. I wish to say to the Senator from Oregon, along with the masses, as the Senator knows, we were the last Senators that visited with the Prime Minister, who went to Tashkent with Shastri. We were not invited to his birthday party. We were guests of the entire government. They treated us in a royal fashion and they tried to make life for us as comfortable as possible, Mr. Shastri's birthday was during that time, On his birthday cake there was a replica of the Patton tank, as an indication that they had conquered the great American military machine in the battlefield of Pakistan, and they had taken them over with World War It Shermans and Centurions. It was a matter of military pride for them and contempt for us and contempt for the aid’ we have given there. There are a lot of people in India, according to the information they gave us, and IJ have no reason to doubt it. The population of India, in which we have a vital stake, is more than Africa and South America combined. I do believe, with all respect to the eiforts we made there, that we have a long way to go in establishing the type relationship with India which can bring stability to that part of Asta, Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr, HARTKE. I yield. Mr. MORSE. The Senator from Indiana spoke about the Patton tank praveyard, where the Indians were showing our destroyed Patton tanks. Tanks which were perforated with holes caused by the shells of the Shermans and the Centurions that the Indians had placed jin ambush to use as artillery. The ReEcorp ought to show today that the Senator from Indiana and I, and the other members of our delegation, saw busload atter busload of Indian schoolchildren being brought day after day to that so-cailed Patton tank graveyard to see for themselves how US. military aid had caused them the great trouble that resulted from the war. Implanted in the minds of those schoolchildren was anti-Amevican resentment of the course of action that this country had followed by supplying military aid. In my judgment, that was one of the most dramatic, onc of the most disturbing sights we saw in our 5-week tour of Asia. ‘he Scnator from Indiana has said that we received nothing but lipservice in support of U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam, but no sincere support for our aid arcyywhere. Leader after leader told us that he hoped we could get the war over with as scon as possible, and without involving the rest of Asia in a war with China. it is a war with China that the nations of Asia and their leaders fear. Mr. HARTKE. I might emphasize that point further. I asked one of the Indian ministers, “Do you object to our offering aid to Pakistan?” I did mot mean that I was proposing an offer of aid to Pakistan; I was only making a suggestion. I said, ‘Suppose we provided you with all the military equipment you CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE need to defend yourself against the ‘Paks.’ Suppose we provided you with all the economic aid you thoughlt was necessary to start rebuilding your country, and also provided Public Law 480 food, which we are now providing, to relieve the starving people. What if we cut off all our aid to Pakistan, of whatever nature whatsoever, and made sure that you had enough military equipment to defend yourselves against Communist aggression, which exists on the Chinese border? Would you be willing to join us in Vietnam and help to oppase the Communist aggressor?” The answer to that was very clear and very quick: “That is your problem: that is your concern. We are neutral.” I hope the Vice President will obtain more satisfactory results from his briefings and interviews. I shall be much interested in the outcome. Perhaps I have said enough for today. WHAT THE AMERICAN BAR ASSO- CIATION THINKS ABOUT THE LEGALITY OF OUR POSITION IN SOUTH VIETNAM Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, the House of Delegates of the American Bar Association in Chicago today passed a resolution stating that the position of the United States in Vietnam is in accord with international law. The resolution, received fram the ABA’s Council on International Law, was passed unanimously, 279-0. This resolution stated: The position of the United States in Vietnam is legal under international law and is in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the Southeast Asia Treaty. A copy of the resolution was sent to the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Said resolution stated: Article 51 of the United Nations Charter preserves the right of any U.N. member to engage in self-defense and call on other U.N. members to help. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SYMINGTON, I yield. Mr, MORSE. I wish to say goodnaturedly to my friend, the Senator from Missouri, that apparently what the American Bar Association needs is a freshman refresher course on both international law and constitutional law. Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the roll. , The legislative clerk procecded to call the roll. Mr, INOUYE. 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 TOWARD A NEW ASIAN POLICY Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, 3 weeks ago Under Secretary of State George W. Ball defined and defended the present foreign policy of the United States in an address before the Northwestern Univer- February 21, 1966 sity Alumni Association. He did so ably and articulately. His speech conforms closely to the testimony Secretary Rusk gave to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Friday. Both dwelt at length on the policies which brought us inte Vietnam, as well as the conflict itself. It is here, with the premises which underlie our policy, that the issues must be joined if there is to be meaningful debate on our Asian policy for the future. Mr. President, in fairness to Under Secretary Ball, I ask unanimous consent that the entire text of his address, as published in the Washington Post of February 6, 1966, be printed at this point in the Rrcorn. There being no objection. the text was ordered to be printed in the Recorp, as follows: THe Hanot MyTH oF AN INDIGENOUS REBELLION (Address by Hon, George W. Ball, Under Secretary of State, delivered last week before the Northwestern University Alumni Association at Evanston, Ill.) The beginning of wisdom with regard to Vietnam is to recognize that what Americans are fighting in the jungles and rice paddies of that unhappy land is not a local conflict—an isolated war that has meaning only for one part of the world. We can properly understand the struggle in Vietnam only if we recognize it for what it is: part of a vast and continuing strugzle in which we have been engaged for more than two decades. Like most of the conflicts that have plagued the world in recent years, the conflict in Vietnam is a product of the great shifts and changes triggered by the Second World War. Out of the war, two ccontinentwide powers emerged; the United States and the Soviet Union. The colonial systems through which the nations of Western Europe had governed more than a third of the people of the world were, one by one, dismantied. The Soviet Union under Stalin embarked on a reckless course of seeking to extend Communist power. An Iron Curtain was erected to enclose large areas of the globe. At the same time, man was learning to harness the power of the exploding sun, and technology made mockery of time and distance, The result of these vast changes—compressed within the breathless span of two decades—was to bring about a drastic rearrangement of the power structure of the world. A WESTERN DAM This rearrangement of power has resulted in a very uneasy equilibrium of forces. For even while the new national boundaries were still being marked on the map, the Soviet Union under Stalin exploited the confusion to push out the perimeter of its power and influence in an effort to extend the outer limits of Communist domination by force or the threat of force. This process threatened the freedom of the world, It had to be checked and checked * quickly. By launching the Marshall plan to restore economic vitality to the nations of western Europe and by forming NATO--a powerful western alliance reinforced by U.S. resources and military power—-America and the free nations of Europe built a dam to hold back the further encroachment of Communist ambitions. This decisive action succeeded brilliantly. NATO, created in 1949, stopped the spread of communism over Western Europe, and the northern Mediterranean. But the world was given no time to relax. The victory of the Chinese Communists in that same year posed a new threat of Communist expansion against Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 50] === February 21, 1966 an Asia in ferment. Just as the Western World had mobilized its resistance against Communist force in Europe, we had to create an effective counterforce in the Far East if Communist domination were not to spread like a lava flow over the whole area. BALANCE MAINTAINED The first test came quickly in Korea, There the United Nations Forces—predominantly American—stopped the drive of Communist North Korea, supported by materiel from the Soviet Union, They stopped a vast Chinese army that followed. They brought to a halt the Communist drive to push out the line that had been drawn and to estabilsh Communist control over the whole Korean peninsula, The Korean war was fought from a central conviction: That the best hope for freedom and security in the world depended on maintaining the integrity of the postwar arrangements. Stability could be achieved only by making sure that the Communist world did not expand by destroying those arrangements by force and threat and thus upsetting the precarious Power balance between the two sides of the Iron Curtain. - It was this conviction that led to our firm stand in Korea. It was this conviction that led America, in the years immediately after Korea, to build a barrier around the whole periphery of the Communist world, by encouraging the creation of a ances and commitments from the eastern edge of the NATO area to the Pacific, The SEATO treaty that was signed in 1954 was part of that barrier, that structure of alliances. It was ratified by the Senate by a vote of 82 tol. - Under that treaty and its protocol, the United States and other treaty partners gave their joint and several Pledges to guarantee existing boundartes—including the line of demarcation between North and South Vietnam established when the French relinquished their control over Indochina. Since then, three Presidents have reinforced that guarantee by. further commitments given directly to the Republic of Vietnam. And on August 10, 1964, the Senate, by a vote of 88 to 2, and the House, by a vote of 416 to 0, adopted a joint resolution declaring their support for these commitments, A GREEK ANALOGY Today we are living up to those comitments by helping South Vietnam defend itself from the onslaught of Communist force—just as we helped Iran in 1946, Greece and Turkey in 1947, Formosa and Korea in 1950 and Berlin since 1948, The bloody encounters in the highlands around Pleiku and the rice paddies of the Mekong Delta are thus in a real sense battles and skirmishes in a continuing war to prevent one Communist power after another from violating internationally recognized boundary lines fixing the outer Hmits of Communist dominion, ‘ When we think of Vietnam, we think of Korea. In Vietnam, as tn Korea, the Communists in one part of a divided country lying on the periphery of China have sought by force to gain dominion over the whole. But in terms of tactics on the ground, Greece is closer analogy. For there, 20 years ago, as in South Vietnam today, the Communists sought to achieve their Purpose by what is known in their lexicon as a “war of national liberation.” They chose this method of aggression both in Greece and Vietnam because tactics of terror and sabotage, of stealth and subversion, give a great advantage to a disciplined and ruthless minority, particularly where— a8 in those two countries—the physical terrain made concealment easy and impeded the use of heavy weapons,. No. 29——-14 series of alli-. But the Communists also have a more subtle reason for favoring this type of aggression. It creates in any situation an element of confusion, a sense of ambiguity that can, they hope, so disturb and divide freemen as to prevent them from making common cause against it. This ambiguity is the central point of debate in the discussions that have surrounded the South Vietnam problem.. SUBVERSION SINCE 1954 Is the war in South Vietnam an external aggression from the north, or is it an indigenous revolt? This is a question that Americans quite properly ask—and one to which they deserve a satisfactory answer. It is a question which we who have official responsibilities have necessarily probed in great depth, For if the Vietnam war were merely what the Communists say it is—an indigenous rebellion—then the United States would have no business taking sides in the conflict and helping one side to defeat the other by force of arms.. The evidence on the character of the Vietnam war is voluminous. Its meaning seems clear enough: The North Vietnamese regime in Hanoi systematically created the Vietcong forces; it provides their equipment; it mounted the guerrilla war—and it controls that war from Hanoi on a day-to-day basis. ’ The evidence shows clearly enough that— at the time of French withdrawal—when Vietnam was divided in the settlement of 1954, the Communist regime in Hanoi never intended that South Vietnam should develop in freedom. Many Communists fighting with the Vietminh army were directed to stay in the south, to cache away their arms and to do everything possible to undermine the South Vietnamese Government. Others—80,000 in all—were ordered to the north for training in the North Vietnamese army, The evidence is clear enough also that the Communist rulers of the north resorted to guerrilla warfare in South Vietnam only when the success of the South Vietnam Government persuaded them that they could not achieve their designs by subversion alone. In September 1960, the Lao Dong Party— the Communist Party in North Vietnam— held its Third Party Congress in Hanol, That congress called for the creation of a front organization to undertake the subversion of South Vietnam. Within 2 or 3 months thereafter, the National Liberation Front was established to provide a political facade for the conduct of an active guerrilla war, NINE REGULAR REGIMENTS Beginning early that year, the Hanoi regime began to infiltrate across the demarcation line the disciplined Communists whom the party had ordered north at the time of the ‘settlement. In the intervening period since 1954, those men had been trained in the arts of proselytizing, sabotage and subversion. Now they were ordered to conscript young men from the villages by force or persuasion and to form cadres around which guerrilla units could be built. Beginning over a year ago, the Communists apparently exhausted their reservoir of southerners who had gone north. Since then, the greater number of men infiltrated into the south have been native-born North Vietnamese. Most recently, Hanoi has begun to infiltrate elements of the North Vietnamese army in increasingly larger numbers. Today, there is evidence that nine regiments of regular North Vietnamese forces are fighting in organized units in the south, ~ I mention these facts—which are familiar enough to most of you—because they are fundamental to our Policy with regarg to Vietnam, These facts, it seems to us, make it clear beyond question that the war in South Vietnam has few of the attributes of Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0_ CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3421 an indigenous revolt. It is a cynical and systematic aggression by the North Vietnamese regime against the people of, South Vietnam. It is one further chapter in the long and brutal chronicle of Communist efforts to extend the periphery of Communist power by force and terror.: UNACCEPTABLE CONDITION This point is at the heart of our determination to stay the course in the bloody contest how underway in South Vietnam, It also necessarily shapes our position with regard to negotiations. The President, Secretary Rusk and all spokesmen for the administration have stated again and again that the United States is prepared to join in unconditional discussions of the Vietnamese projlem in an effort to bring about a Satisfactory political solution. But so far, the regime in Hanoi has refused to come to the bargaining table except on the basis of quite unacceptable conditions. One among several condition—but one that has been widely debated in the United States—is that we must recognize the National Liberation Front as the representative—indeed, as the sole representative—of the South Vietnamese people. Yet to recognize the National Liberation Front in such a capacity would do violence to the truth ang betray the very people whose - liberty we are fighting to secure. The National Liberation Front is not a political entity expressing the will of the people of South Vietnam—or any substantial element of the South Vietnamese population. It is & facade fabricated by the Hanoi regime to confuse the issue and elaborate the myth of an indigenous revolt. History is not obscure on this matter. As I noted earlier, the creation of the front was announced by the North Vietnam Communist Party—the Lao Dong Party—in 1960, soon after the North Vietnam military leader, * General Giap, announced that “the north is ‘the revolutionary base for the whole country.” But the Hanoi regime, while applauding its creation, has taken little pains to give the front even the appearance of authenticity. The Individuals proclaimed as the leaders of the front are not personalities widely Known to the South Vietnamese people—or, indeed, to many members of the Vietcong, They are not revolutionary heroes or national figures. They have little meaning to the ordinary Vietcong soldier who fights and dies in the jungles and rice paddies, Instead, the names he carries into battle are those of “Uncle Ho”—Ho Chi Minh, the President of the North Vietnamese regime— General Giap, its military hero. When Victcong prisoners are asked during interrogation whether they are members of the National Liberation Front, they customarily reply that they owe allegiance to the Lao Dong—the Communist Party of North Vietnam—which is the equivalent of the Hanoi Communist regime. The front, then, ts unmistakably what its name implies: a Communist front organization created to mask the activities of Hanoi and to further the illusion of an indigenous revolt, The name of the organization was carefully chosen. It bears the same name as the National Liberation Front of Algeria. But there the resemblance ends, for the Algerian front did, in fact, represent a substantial part of the Algerian population. It played a Major role in an insurgency that was clearly an Indigenous movement and not an ageresslon imposed from outside. The Algerian front, moreover, commanded the respect and, indeed, the obedience of the People. When it called a strike, the city of Algiers virtually closed down. By contrast, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 51] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3422 he front in Vietnam has shown its fictional character by revealing its own impotence. On two occasions it has called for a general strike. ‘These cails have been totally ignored py the people of South Vietnam. ‘he Algerian front was a vital force in the Algerian community. at secured the overt nilegiance of the old, established Mosiem groups and leaders. As the revolt progressed, Moslems serving in the Algerian Assembly and even in the French Parliament announced their upport for the front. But the front in Vietnam has utterly failed in its efforts to attract the adherence of any established group within the society— whether Buddhist, Christian or any of the sects that form substantial elements in Vietnamese life. Quite clearly, the people of South Viett“am-—-if they are aware of the front at all— know it for what it is: the political cover for a North Vietnamese effort to take over the south—in practical effect, the southern arm of the North Vietnamese Communist Party. RELNKORCING A FICTION 'To be sure, the Vietcong military forces include a number of indigenous southerners under northern control. Neither the United States nor the South Vietnamese Government has ever questioned that fact. But the composition of the Vietcong military forces is not the issue when one discusses the role of the front. The issue is whether the front has any color of claim as a political. entity to represent these indigenous elements. The evidence makes clear that it does not. Tt is purely and simply a fictitious organization. created by Hanoi to reinforce a fiction. ‘'T'o recognize it as the representative of the South Vietnumese population would be to give legitimacy to that fiction. The true party in interest on the enemy side--the entity that has launched the attack on the Soutin Vietnamese Government for its own purposes, the entity that has created, conirolled and supplied the fighting forces of the Vietcong from the beginning—is the North Vietnamese regime in Hanoi. And it is the failure of that regime to come to the bargaining table that has so far frustrated. every effort te move the problem of South. Vietnam from a military to a political soi{ution. In spite of these clear realities, we have nov taken—nor do we take——an obdurate or ufllreasoning attitude with regard to the front. “he President said in his state of the Union message, “We will meet at any conference table, we will discuss any proposals—~£ points, or 14 or 40-——and we will consider the views of any group’--and that, of course includes the front along with other groups. As the President has also said, this false issue of the front would never prove an insurmountable problem if Hanoi were prepared for serious negotiations. But we cannot, to advance the political objective of the Communist. regime in Hanoi, give legitimacy to a spurious organization as though it spoke for the people of South Vietnam. KYSRY BOUNDARY IMPORTANT A European friend once critically observed that; Americans have “a sense of mission but no sense of history.” That accusation is, I think, without warrant. We do have a sense of history and it is that which enables us to view the war in South Vietnam for what it is. We Americans know that it is not, as [ have said earlier, a local conflict; it is part of a continuing struggle to prevent the Communists from upsetting the fragile balance of power through force or the threat of force. To succeed in that struggle, we must resist every Communist effort to destroy by ageression the boundaries and demarcation lines estublished by the postwar arrangements. We cannot pick and choose among CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE those boundaries. We cannot defend Berlin and yield Korea. We cannot recognize one commitment and repudiate another without tearing and weakening the entire structure on which the world’s security depends. Some thoughtful critics of our Vietnamese policy both in Europe and America challenge this. They maintain that the West should not undertake to defend the integrity of all lines of demarcation even though they may be underwritten in formal treaties. They contend that many of these lines are unnatural since they do not conform to the geopolitical realities as they see them. They contend in particular that—since the passing of colonialism—the western powers have no business mixing in the affairs of the Asian mainiand. They imply that—regardless of our commitments—we should not try to prevent Red China from establishing its hegemony over the east Asian land mass south of the Soviet Union. INACCURATE PREMISE Proponents of this view advance two principal arguments to support their thesis. They contend that the very weight of Chinese power, its vast population and its consequent ability to mobilize immense mass armies entitles it to recognition as the controlling force of southeast Asia. As a second reason for acknowledging the Chinese hegemony, they contend that for centuries China has maintained a dominant cultural and political influence throughout the area. They claim, therefore, that southeast Asia lies within the Chinese sphere of influence and that we should let the Chinese redraw the lines of demarcation to suit themselves without regard to the wishes of the southeast Asian people. This argument, it seems to me, does not provide an acceptable basis for U.S. policy. The assertion that China through hundreds of years of history has held sway over southeast Asia is simply not accurate. Successive Chinese empires sought by force to establish such sway, but they never succeeded in doing so, except in certain sectors for limited periods. For the people of southeast Asia have, over the centuries, shown an obstinate insistence on shaping thelr own destiny which the Chinese have not been able to overcome.. ‘To adopt the sphere-of -influence approach now advocated would, therefore, not mean allowing history to repeat itself. It would mean according to China a status it had never been able to achieve by its own efforts throughout the ages. It would mean sentencing the peoples of so utheast Asia against their will to indefinite servitude behind the Bamboo Curtain. And it would mean turning our back on the principles that have formed the basis of Western policy in the whole postwar era. Nor can one seriously insist that geographical propinquity establishes the Chinese right to dominate. Ata time when man can circle the earth in 90 minutes, there is little to support such a literal commitment to 19th century geopolitics. Ib is a dubious policy that would permit the accidents of geography to deprive peoples of their right to determine their own future free from external force. The logic of that: policy has dark implications. It would rationalize the greed of great powers. It would imperil the prospects for developing and maintaining an equilibrium of power in the world. The principles of the United Nations Charter are doctrinally more in tune with the aspirations of 20th century man. UNFINISHED BUSINESS This does not mean, however, that the political shape of the world should be regarded as frozen in an intractable pattern: that the boundaries establishea by the postwar arrangements are necessarily sacrosanct and immutable. Indeed, some of the lines of de- February 21, 1966 marcation drawn after the Second World War were explicity provisional and were to be finally determined in political settlements yet to come. This was true in Germany, in Korea, and South Vietnam as well. But those settlements have not yet been achieved, and we cannot permit their resolution to be pre-empted by force. This is the issue in Vietnam. This is what we are fighting for. This is why we are there. We have na ambition to stay there any longer than is necessary. We have made repeatedly clear that the United States seeks no territory in southeast Asia. We wish no military bases. We do not desire to destroy the regime in Hanoi or to remake it in a Western pattern. The United States will not retain American forces in South Vietnam once peace is assured. The countries of southeast Asia can be nonalined or neutral, depending on the will of the people. We support free elections in South Vietnam as soon as violence has been eliminated and the South Vietnamese people can vote without intimidation. We look forward to free elections-—and we will accept the result as a democratic people is accustomed to do. Yet we have little doubt about the outcome, for we are confident that the South Vietnamese who have fought hard for their freedom will not be the first people to give up that freedom to communism in a free exercise of self-determination. Whether the peoples of the two parts of Vietnam will wish to unite is again for them to decide as soon as they are ina position to do so freely. Like other options, that of reunification must be preserved. A SHARED INTEREST In the long run, our hopes for the people of South Vietnam reflect our hopes for people everywhere. What we seck is a world living in peace and freedom—-a world in. which the cold war, with its tensions and conflicts, can recede into history. We are seeking to build a world in which men and nations will recognize and act upon a strongly shared interest in peace and international cooperation for the common zood. We should not despair of these objectives even though at the moment they may seem rather unreal and idealistic. For we would make a mistake to regard the cold war as a permanent phenomenon. After all it was less than two decades ago that Winston Churchill first announced in Fuiton, Ma., that “From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.” And two decades are only a moment in the long sweep of history. During the intervening years, major changes have taken place on poth sides of the Iron Curtain. A schism has developed within the Communist world. The Sovict Union has become the second greatest industrial power. The Soviet people have begun to acquire a stake in the status quo, and after the missile crisis of 1962 the Soviet Union has come face to face with the realities of power and destruction in the nuclear age and has recognized the awcsome fact that in the 20th century a war between great powers is a war without victory for anyone. The changes taking place within the Soviet Union and among the nations of Eastern Europe are at once a reality and a promise. Over time—and in a world of rapid and pervasive change the measurement of time is difficult indeed—we may look forward to a comparable development within Communist China—a maturing process that wil cdeflect the policies of Peiping from bellicuse actions to a peaceful relation with the rest of the world. After all, it is not the American purpos? simply to preserve the status quo. That was not our history and that is not our destiny. What we want to preserve is the freedom of choice for the peoples of the world. We will take our chances on that. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 gee paunemm es — === [Page 52] === February 21, 1966 Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, so first of all, let me make clear that I shall hazard no miracle cures for Vietnam; some omelets may prove indigestible, but none can be unscrambled, ‘President Johnson’s options there keep narrowing. He searches for the rudiments of an acceptable settlement, for the diplomatic door that might lead to the conference table, and for effective ways to wage the war, while confining it within manageable limits. In these endeavors, he has my fullhearted support. ‘He will also have my support when it comes time to vote the money necessary to carry on the fight. Our men are fighting bravely and well. Whatever funds they need should be provided by the Congress. We are committed and we must not make a difficult position worse by failing to support our fighting men, In voting the funds necessary to support our soldiers, I do not mean to imply support for the policy which got them there, or endorse similar policies in the future. Senator RIcHARD RUSSELL, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, made it quite clear that no endorsement of policy was implied by voting for an authorization or appropriation bill. He said: I think it 1s important that the Senate and the Nation clearly recognize this bill for what it is: an authorization of defense appropriations. It could not properly be considered as determining foreign policy, as ratifying decisions made in the past, or as endorsing new commitments. Consequently, my purpose today is to look both behind and beyond Vietnam; behind it to the concepts on which our present policies rest, and beyond it toward a future policy for Asia. I realize this is not an easy time to take the long view, embroiled as we are in a hard jungle war. Nations, like soldiers, seldom plan their futures from foxholes. And yet our present agony summons us to scrutinize the premises which led American troops into Vietnam in the first place. What role are we assuming on the mainland of Asia? What does it portend for the future? Even to pose such questions these days invites rejoinders of abuse—broadside volleys of “appeasement,” “neoisolation,” or just plain “Munich.” So let me say, at the outset, that I regard myself as a very practical internationalist. I believe the United States, as a great world power, has global responsibilities to discharge. Our present interests compel us to shape a workable foreign policy which will first, contain Russia and China, and second, discourage the further spread of communism. It is not with these goals, but with our current approach to them in the underdeveloped world, that I must register my dissent. Mr. Ball’s speech underscores the basic flaw in our Asian strategy: he draws no distinction between the problem of Red Chinese aggression and that of general Communist expansion. It is evident that the State Department still views communism as one big octopus, and the United States as the diver groping to cut off its tentacles, whenever the monster stretches them beyond its present lair. This mission 1s taking us down into dangerouly deep and murky waters. Consistent with this view, Mr. Ball makes three main points. First, that a barrier has been fixed around the Communist world and that it has become the responsibility of the United States to hold it intact—alone if necessary. Second, that the war in South Vietnam is not a revolution but a disguised aggression from the north, the purpose of which is to extend international communism beyond the fixed barrier. Third, that the concept of spheres of influence is out of date, and that mainland China has no claim to any special influence in southeast Asia. Let us begin by considering Mr. Ball’s first point. The war in Vietnam, he contends, “is not a local conflict,” but “a part of a vast and continuing struggle in which we have been engaged for more than two decades.” The struggle is the bitter harvest of World War II, out of which the United States and the Soviet Union emerged as the two great powers, The Soviet Union, under Stalin, then “embarked on a reckless course of seeking to extend Communist power.” In response, the United States and its allies in Western Europe formed NATO as a “dam to hold back-the further encroachment of Communist ambition.” But, with the coming to power of the Com-' munists in China in 1949, the world faced “a new threat of Communist expansion.” To meet it, “we then built barriers around the whole periphery of the Communist world through a series of alliances and commitments.” Through the SEATO Treaty, we undertook to “guarantee existing boundaries including the line of demarcation between North and South Vietnam.’ Our intervention in Vietnam is, therefore, but another battle in the “continuing war to prevent one Communist power after another from violating internationally recognized boundary lines fixing the outer limits of Communist dominion.” Underlying Mr. Ball’s analysis, and administration policy as well, is the assumption that the system of alliances which worked in Europe will also work in the vast region which has just thrown off European rule—in Africa, the Middle East, and Asia. Yet, even in Europe, NATO did not, strictly speaking, ‘‘stop the spread of communism.” NATO held fast the Iron Curtain; it stopped the westward movement of Russian aggression. It is true, of course, that the occupation of Eastern Europe by the Red Army led to the imposition of Communist regimes in these countries. behind the NATO defense line, communism continues to exist. It still claims the second largest political party in Italy, and the fourth largest in France. To repeat, NATO did not ‘contain communism,” it prevented the Soviet Army from marching into Western Europe. Behind the NATO shield, we have not faced violent Communist wars of national liberation. ‘The reason 1s that internal conditions of the NATO countries gave no root to revolt. Only in Greece did the Communists try it, in a guerrilla war which Mr. Ball compares with Vietnam. But: Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3423 True, we extended aid to the Greek Government, but we did not intervene with combat troops. The Greeks put down the revolt themselves. Moreover, moving American forces into European countries is not at all like sending them to Asia. When our armies remained in Western Europe, following World War II, it was to forge a vital link in a collective chain of defense that had real substance. We were welcomed by people with whom we shared a common culture and civilization.’ Most of them, having experienced our kind of freedom, willingly did their part in manning the NATO line, drawn against the Soviets. Unfortunately, we seem to have been mesmerized by the success of our postwar European policies, NATO and the Marshall plan. With the emergence of Red China in Asia, our diplomats reacted like generals determined to fight the next war the same way they had fought the last. Military alliances were hastily formed to “contain communism” in Asia, served up with American Foreign Aid on a global platter, a Marshall plan writ large. Communist China, we determined, was to be stopped in Asia, as Russia had been in Europe. Mr, CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield at that point, or would he prefer to finish his speech first? Mr. CHURCH. Iam happy to yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania at this time. Mr. CLARK. I thank -my friend. First, let me compliment him on the fine speech he is in the process of making. He was courteous enough to give me a copy of the speech before he began. I have had an opportunity to read it and I believe that it makes an excellent contribution to the important debate which is presently going on. I am interested in the Senator’s analysis of George Ball’s speech of some weeks ago, and in particular the point which the Senator is. now discussing—with which I agree—that there is a vast difference between the situation in Europe, particularly as it existed some time ago, and the situation which now exists in southeast Asia. - The Senator will recall that the Secretary of State and other administration spokesmen have made a great point of the alleged analogy between the Chinese position and our response to it, and the reaction of the Chamberlain government +o Hitler’s expansionist actions before World WarlII. I take it that the Senator 4s of the view that the analogy is not an apt one. I wonder whether that is correct? Mr, CHURCH. The Senator is correct. The threat which faced Europe, posed by Hitler’s Germany, was the threat of German conquest—Hitler’s vision of a Germany which would stretch from the Rhine to the Urals. In his ‘Mein Kampf,” written much earlier in his life, he presented a blueprint for German conquest. China is both a bellicose and a dangerous nation. I would place no confidence whatever in the present Peiping regime. I believe that we must take care to prevent any attempt by China Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 53] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 424 to conquer neighboring Iands in Asia. But, thus far, the Chinese have not embarked upon the naked conquest of Asia, The much discussed treatise of Chinese Marshal Lin Piao, for example, is not a “Mein Kampf.” prescribing Chinese conquest of Asia, but, rather, as I later mention in this address, a kind of “do it yourself kit’’ which analyzes the Chinese revotution and recommends Chinese methods to Communists in other Asian lands. It strikes me that this is a very important distinction, Mr. President. There is a difference between the problem posed by the Chinese effort to spread communism through revolution, and that posed by frontal Chinese aggression. Our present policy tends to blend the two torether; it confuses the Asian situation with the European situation in the days preceding Hitler’s attempt to conquer Eurcpe. Mr. CLARK. I agree with the Senator. I wonder whether he would be willing to pursue this alleged analogy a little further, because while there is a certain superficial resemblance between the European situation at the time before Hitler struck, and the situation in southeast Asia today, my own view is that the analogy is fundamentally unsound, that we should anproach the South Vietnamese-American-Chinese situation, really, almost “de novo,” or on an “ad hoc” basis, without placing much reliance on alleged analogies at other times and in other places. [ would ask my friend this. A good deal of emphasis has been placed by administration spokesmen on the fact that Perhaps we are being confronted with another Munich and if we do not stand up and fight now, all of southeast Asia will fall and Chinese communism will prevail in all that part of the world. There is, of course, a surface similarity between nazism and fascism on the other other hand and Chinese communism on the other. They are all totalitarian doctrines. I wonder if the Senator would not agree with me that in each instance the ideology is merely a cloak of idealism thrown over a policy of expansionist nationalism. ‘The trouble is that we Americans, with our democratic tradition, become so mesmerized with opposition to any form of totalitarianism, that we are not astute enough to recognize, as perhaps we should, that what we are dealing with in both cases is expansionist nationalism, but expansionist nationalism in vastly different areas and under vastly different conditions. Mr. CHURCH. First of all, let me say that I find Fascist and Communist totalitarianism equally repugnant. Second, with respect to the present war in Vietnam, I think it cannot honestly be maintained that this is a struggle between the forces of tyranny on the one hand and the forces of freedom on the other. Mr. CLARE. Can the Senator expand on that? Mr. CHURCH. I mean that neither the government in Hanoi nor the government in Saigon is in truth a free government. It is just possibly the rea- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE son why we are told that most of the people in Vietnam are uninterested; they find they have little choice. Mr. CLARK. And actually neither is a democratic government. Mr. CHURCH. That istrue. There is no democratic government in either part of Vietnam today. Mr. CLARK. There is none in southeast Asia, with the possible exception of the Philippines. Mr.CHURCH. There are free governments in Asia today. India, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Japan are the best examples. I want to give them full credit. Particularly the Indians, I think, deserve credit for tremendous determination against odds—conditions of freat adversity—in maintaining a democratic government. But most Asian and African governments are not free. They are not democratic governments. Certainly, this applies to the present regime in Saigon supported by the United States. So I think, if we are going to approach the war in Vietnam on a purely ideological basis, then we must be careful to recognize that the struggle there is presently between two despotisms. I hope the Government in Saigon will one day become a true democracy, that it will find a wider basis of popular support, and that it will come to foster a broadening freedom. But that is not the case at the present time. If I may go to the third point the Senator from Pennsylvania raised, which was the point of expanding nationalism, I say again, relating the Senator’s question to the situation in Vietnam, that the expanding nationalism we face there is not Chinese nationalism, but Vietnamese nationalism. Oftentimes the Secretary of State has referred to the war in Vietnam ps Ho Chi Minh’s war. When he appeared before the Senate Forcign Relations Committee, I asked him if the aggression he kept referring to was not the aggression of North Vietnam rather than of China, and he admitted this was I think, given the history of this struggle, the facts are that Ho Chi Minh was the original revolutionary leader who led the Vietnamese people successfully in their war for independence against the French, and that the division between North and South Vietnam which emerged from that war at Geneva, in 1954, was meant to be temporary, and that the elections on the question of unification for the entire country, which were supposed to have taken place 2 years later, in fact never occurred. Mr. CLARK. And why did they not occur in the south? Mr. CHURCH. The regime in South Vietnam at that time, Diem’s regime, was opposed to the elections. President Hisenhower, in his book, makes the statement that the best opinion he could marshal indicated that, had the elections occurred, perhaps as many as 80 percent of the people would have voted for Ho Chi Minh. Mr. CLARK. So we have either actively encouraged or acquiesced in preventing a democratic solution of the «overnmental problems in South Vietnam. February 21, 1966 Mr. CHURCH. I may say to the Senator that there were good reasons to question whether an election at that time— in the north as well as the south—would have been a free expression of popular opinion, but that begs the point, I think, because part of the Geneva Pact of 1954 was the agreement that elections would be held, and that agreement was broken. either side has kept the agreement, as the Senator well knows. But the question of determining whether or not the line of demarcation between north and south would remain as a common boundary, or would remain as it was, was never put to the test of ballots. So, 10 years later, it is being put to the test of bullets. If there is in this situation an clement of nationalist expansion, it is Vietnamese in character. It is the attempt of Ho Chi Minh, the original revolutionary leader, to lay claim upon the whole country, and it comes after a failure of the Geneva Pact to permit the elections which were to settle that issue 10 years ago. Mr.CLARK. Does it not also include a failure on the part of the Diem government and its successor to go to the people of South Vietnam in a democratic way to determine what they wanted to do with their own destiny? Mr. CHURCH. I can only say the elections were never held. The reasons given have been several. The most frequently heard has been that no meaningful elections could have occurred in North Vietnam because it was a closed Communist society and everyone would have had to vote way. Mr. CLARK. I agree with that statement. Mr. CHURCH. I agree, too. But, at the time the agreement was entered into in Geneva, it was known that North Vietnam was going to become a Communist country. Nevertheless, the elections were agreed to. But they were not held. Then Ho Chi Minh began his effort to bring down the South Vietnam regime by force. Mr. CLARK. If the Senator will yield further, I suggest that the principal reason for not holding an election in South Vietnam was that Diem’s government would have gotten licked. I take it from something that was said earlier by the Senator that we still have a totalitarian government in South Vietnam which we are supporting, so that unlike the situation with Hitler and his aggression against the democratic nations of Western Europe, we find ourselves intervening on the side of one dictatorship against another dictatorship. Would the Senator care to comment on that? Mr. CHURCH. In all honesty, this is the existing situation. We do it upon the grounds that the north is attempting to forcibly seize the south, and that we are committed to the Saigon regime to prevent the success of an aggression being perpetrated by Hanoi. I believe that there is much evidence to sustain the supposition that the Hanoi Government is in fact giving all possible help, encouragement, direction, and assistance to the Vietcong rebels in the Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 54] === , Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 south. I have no quarrel with that fact. It must be recognized.. The evidence makes it quite irrefutable. The distinction that I am trying to draw is one between North Vietnam and China. Here, it seems to me, is an obvious attempt by Ho Chi Minh to complete the revolutionary war in Vietnam, which began against the French, and which now continues against the Americans. From the standpoint of Hanoi, this is one continuous effort to achieve Vietnamese independence by driving the Western nations out. We do not see our role as romotely corresponding to that of the French because, as the Senator knows, the French purpose was to restore French control over Vietnam and reestablish the French colony there. Our purpose is quite different. We have no interest in establishing an American colony in South Vietnam. We know that our purpose is quite different. The important question is: How does it appear to the Vietnamese? After so long and bloody a struggle on their part to drive out the French, it must seem to many Vietnamese that this is but a continuation of that war, looking to the eventual ‘establishment of Vietnamese ‘independence after Western nations have been driven from the land. Mr. CLARK. The Senator is correct. This situation is fundamentally different from the Nazi aggression in World War IT where, I take it, the Senator would agree with me unquestionably that freedom and democracy were at stake. The Western democracies, which were of the same philosophical bent as ourselves, were fighting for their lives against totalitarian and nationalistic German aggression. We, in my opinion, justly, rightly, and necessarily, went to their assistance. But is that not an entirely different situation from the situation which confronts us in Asia today? Mr. CHURCH. Yes; the struggle in Vietnam is essentially a civil war between groups of Vietnamese to determine which government they shall have, and whether the division line shall remain in effect. When I went to school that was a, civil war. We keep asserting to the world that this is not a civil war in Vietnam. But, no matter how one divides the Vietnamese, north and south, Communist and non-Communist, they still remain Vietnamese. We are the only foreigners to have intervened, apart from the small numbers of Australians and New Zealanders, and the one combat division of Koreans that we have summoned there. So, to Asians this war does have a very different appearance. In no case is it comparable. to the situation that confronted us when Hitler sent his armies across Europe in an attempt to conquer the continent. If the Chinese were sending their armies south into Vietnam, Laos, Burma, and Malaysia; then we would have a comparable situation, with the Peiping government undertaking. to conquer CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE other Asian lands. That, in my opinion, ‘would be a situation similar to that which we faced in Europe in the days of Hitler. Mr. CLARK. I would like to make one more distinction with respect to the alleged analogy to Hitler and Munich, and then I will let the Senator return to his speech, There is no doubt in my mind—I wonder if the Senator agrecs—that Hitler’s Germany represented a military menace which, if not stopped, would have overrun not only Western Europe but also Great Britain and would in the end have posed a very real threat to both Russia and the United States. It possessed a military machine, the efficiency of which probably has not been equaled since the days of Napoleon. The Senator makes the point, and it is a good one, that this is a war of North Vietnam against South Vietnam. But we both know that North Vietnam is being enormously encouraged to mainlaid China. I ask the Senator if the administration spokesmen who argue the Hitler- Mao Tse-tung analogy might not consider this distinction: China has no airpower. Hitler had enormous airpower. China has no sea- Lower. Hitler had a great fleet of submarines the Atlantic. Hitler had enormous firepower in terms of tanks and heavy artillery and eventually in V-bombs and rockets.; China has very little of that. China is a primitive nuclear power, a country having very little heavy artillery and, so far as I know, an insignificant rocket capability. In vast contradistinction to Hitler, China’s military might lies almost entirely in its large land army. Its capacity for offensive action is limited to the perimeter of mainland China, although it might include North Vietnam, and even South Vietnam. The withdrawal of Chinese troops from India leads me to believe that the State Department has vastly overemphasized the threat arising from the offensive military capacity of mainland China. There can certainly be no comparison with the aggressive military capabilities of Nazi Germany. Mr. CHURCH. I would agree with the Senator from Pennsylvania that modern, highly industrialized Nazi Germany répresented a military threat of a different dimension than that presently posed by China. The important thing, however, 1s to recognize that—-whatever may be the threat of Chinese ‘aggression in Asia today—we are presently engaged in a war that concerns the Vietnamese. If we press that war far enough north toward the boundaries of China, a point will be reached—no one knows exactly where; but a point will be reached—a point where the Chinese will come down into Vietnam, just the way they came down into Korea. Then, of course, we would find ourselves engaged in a war of an en- _tirely new character. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator further yield? Mr. CHURCH. I stress this point because when we fail to distinguish between and pocket hattleshinps in. 3425 the problem of China, on the one hand, and the problem of North Vietnam, on the other, we get ourselves into a frame of mind which is all too prevalent: that is, in the name of defending Asia against China, we fight against North Vietnam. This, of course, leads us to confusion: and what we need is more clarity and less confusion if we are to fashion a workable policy in Asia. I now yield to the Senator Pennsylvania. Mr. CLARE. In an effort to help to clarify that policy, I wonder if the Senator from Idaho would agree with this observation: If we push mainland China to the point of coming in with her ground army in defense of North Vietnam, and to assist the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong in their aggression; we have only two choices. The first is to pour hundreds of thousands of additional American troops into that area to stop that ground warfare. The second is to use nuclear weapons to destroy China. I ask the Senator to comment briefly on what he believes Russia might well be expected to do under those circumstances. Mr, CHURCH. If that tragic sequence of events were to occur, the danger of a general nuclear holocaust would be very grave. Mr. CLARK. There is no doubt about what that would mean to the people of the United States of America. Mr. CHURCH. No, indeed. The stakes are mortal. This is the reason the Committee on Foreign Relations came out from behind closed doors to examine the issue of Vietnam. The American people are entitled to know how grave might be the circumstances of a widening war in Asia. I believe the public hearings of the Committee on Foreign Relations have performed a vital service. The American people were invited to witness our deliberations. As a result, the people of the country are better apprised of the war in Vietnam, its present implications, and the possible consequences that might attend a widening war in southeast Asia. I thank the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania for emphasizing the differences between the problem we faced in the days preceding the outbreak of the Second ‘World War in Europe and the problem we now face in Asia. Unless we understand these distinctions, we have no chance of fashioning a policy that is designed to deal with the realities in Asia today. The gulf that separates Europe from Asia is immense. Most of the newly independent Asian governments—like those in Africa—contend with internal upheaval. Most are hard pressed to satisfy the. demands of their suddenly unfettered peoples. Most lack democratic traditions, and have instead “strong man” regimes under one-party rule. Their people wretch in poverty and often bear the yoke of ancient wrongs. “Capitalism,” not “communism,” is the ugly word, conjuring up images of a hated colonial past. Socialism prevails by force of circumstances, since adequate private capital is unavailable, — from Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 55] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3426 With these countries, the United States enjoys no close communion, no cultural, political, economic, or ethnic bond. We are an alien in Asia, a suspect rich Western power, the only one that remains after the others have fied. In these circumstances, it is meaningless to talk about military alliances which have raised a “barrier” against communism around the rim of Asia. If the SEATO and CENTO alliances bar com-~- munism, then a sieve bars water and plate-glass window bars light. SEHATO has not responded to the Communist threat in Victnam; the United States takes its stand there practically alone. Apart from the regime we sustain in Saigon, the only military allies we can honestly claim in Asia—South Korea, Taiwan, and ‘Thailand—account for less than 5 percent of the Asian people. Rather than flaunting our meager alliances as evidence of a sound Asian policy, we should view them as shocking proof that we lack one. Given the grievances of most Asian peoples, future revolutions are inevitable. So, too, the Communist determination to take them over. In Eastern Europe, the Red army implanted Communist regimes; in Asia Chinese troops have not penetrated neighboring lands to thrust up Communist sovernments. Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr.CHURCH T[yield. Mr. INOUYE. Would the Senator from Idaho describe the Chinese military occupation of Tibet? Mr. CHURCH. The occupation of Tibet was the laying of forcible control upon an area over which the Chinese have long asserted dominion, and which most of the rest of the world has also acknowledged as being within traditional Chinese claims. IT do not, for a moment, condone the methods that were used by the Peiping government to assert that dominion, but I am fully aware that Chiang Kai-shek, who is, as the Senator from Hawaii well knows, the presiding head of the Chinese Government recognized by the United States, a government presently situated on the island of Taiwan, also claims Tibet as a part of the traditional land area over which the Chinese have asserted dominion. I therefore believe that Tibet falls in a different category than other independent nations which lie beyond the traditional boundaries of China. I do not believe that Tibet can be compared, Jet us say, with Burma, Thailand, or Vietnam. which are generally recognized as sovereign and independent nations. Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Mr, CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. CLARK. I thought the comment of the Senator on Tibet was a very good answer to an extremely intelligent question. However, it was largely put on political and diplomatic grounds. I point out that, from a military point of view, the situation in Tibet was vastly different because there was no feasible possibility there of Indian forces or CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- SENATE American forces or other forces opposed to the mainland Chinese Government delivering a military counterpunch to drive the Chinese Communists out of Tibet. The situation existing there is very much like that which existed in Hungary in 1956. Wehad ereat sympathy for the people of Tibet. We had great sympathy for the freedom fighters of Hungary. However, we came to the reluctant, but I believe the correct, conclusion that that was not a place in which one could intervene. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. Presideni, As I have stressed, a distinction must be drawn between the threat of Chinese aggression, on the one hand, and the problem of communism, fostered by revolution, on the other. American policy keeps blending the two together, presumably because the two threats were synonymous in Europe. This leads me to Mr. Ball’s second point, that the Vietnamese war is not “an indigenous rebellion,” but a case of “external aggression.” The evidence shows clearly enough, Mr. Ball writes, “that the Communist regime in Hanoi never intended that South Vietnam should develop in freedom.” From the start, we are told, the Vietcong rebels have been trained, directed, and supplied from the north in “a cynical and systematic aggression’ which Secretary of State Dean Rusk describes as “Ho Chi Minh’s War.” While citing the evidence, Mr. Ball might also have mentioned—but did not—-that the line of demarcation, separating North and South Vietnam, as agreed upon at Geneva in 1954, was not intended as a permanent boundary, and that the elections on the question of unification which were scheduled for 1956, never occurred. ‘The reason, widely accepted at the time, was that “Uncle Ho,” the revolutionary hero who had won independence for both parts of Vietnam, would have garnered as much as 80 percent of the total vote. So what was not settled with ballots 10 years ago, is now being settled with bullets, in a civil war among the Vietnamese, northern and southern, Communist and non-Communist. We can portray this war as a case of external aggression, but most Asians are not likely to see it that way. After all, we are the foreigners in Vietnam today. The North Vietnamese are not foreigners; they are Vietnamese. There are no Chinese troops fighting in South Vietnam. The only non-Vietnamese soldiers there are American, along with some of our Australian, New Zealand, and Korean allies. And race is a factor, on a continent whose people have so recently thrown off the domination of white, Westem nations. We are engaged in a war in which we, a Western power, are fighting Vietnamese who are oriental, and we are fighting them in Vietnam. As Harvard’s John K. Fairbank, a noted American authority on Far Eastern atfairs, so graphically put it in a recent article: We are sleeping in the same bed as the French slept in even though we are ‘reaming very different dreams. They are dreams indeed if we think that by interjecting American troops February 21, 1966 into ex-colonial lands we shall stifle the spread of communism for long. No nation—not even our own—possesses & treasury so rich, or an arsenal so large, as to quench the smouldering fires of revolution throughout the whole of the emerging world. Violent convulsions are bound to occur in many countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, wherever injustice lacks a remedy and progress must spawn on force. Should suppression of revolt abroad become an American obsession, we will yield to the Communists the one prize they most covet, an uncontested claim upon every incipient revolution. If we do not attempt through our diplomacy and by our example to guide these currents toward democratic ends, rather than trying in vain to stem them, the Communists will be left to ride their crest. Worse still, the importation into Asia of troops from the Western World, furnishes the Communists with an issue of great popular appeal; it invariably condemns the challenged government to the contemptible charge of puppetry. We would do well to remember that, despite our massive intervention in South Vietnam, the war persists and intensifics. Far from being extinguished, it spreads now into Thailand. Yet the Burmese Government, without our intervention, snuffed out a Communist insurrection. U.N. Secretary General U Thant recently said about Burma: The Burmese Communist Party is still underground after 17 years and still illegal. Burma has over a thousand miles of land frontier with mainland China. If the Burmese Government had decided at some stage to seek outside military assistance, then I am sure that Burma would have experienced one of two alternatives: either the country would be divided in two parts or the whole country would have become Communist long ago. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I believe that the Burmese analogy is well worth stressing, and I hope that it will receive appropriate attention in the press reports of the Senator’s speech. To me, it is quite convincing. ‘ Is it not true that in another Asian country, Indonesia, an anti-Communist movement—with some overtones which I must say I am not very happy about— succeeded in getting rid of the Chinese Communist Party and reestablishing control of Indonesia for the Indonesians? It was perhaps a totalitarian control, but I draw the tentative conclusion that we do better in the fight for freedom and against Chinese communism if we keep America out of it, than we do if America goes in. Mr, CHURCH. Mr. President, the Communists are not doing very well in their effort to seize control of the underdeveloped world. Mr. CLARK. Except where we try to move in. Mr. CHURCH. On the whole, they are making very little progress. In Vietnam they had the momentum of nationalism to carry communism forward. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 56] === . Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 Unhappily, the revolutionary leader there who secured Vietnamese independence was a Communist. However, only in those cases where communism has latched onto nationalism, has it become a formidable force in the ex-colonial regions of the world. We should take heart from that. We should be careful not to inject ourselves in such a way that the Communists can then exploit our presence to make themselves the champions of the nationalist cause. I am afraid that this is what has happened in Vietnam. I believe this is the reason that, despite the enormity of the assistance which we have given to the Saigon government and despite the tremendous superiority of the firepower we possess in that country, the war persists and the Vietcong continue to grow in number in South Vietnam. Again I say we must differentiate between the problem of containing China, on the one hand, and the problem of discouraging the spread of communism CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE speech made by Under Secretary Ball at Northwestern University 2 or 3 weeks ago. Secretary Ball’s statement, in my judgment, is the best single statement of the administration’s position on Vietnam that has come to my attention. Mr. Ball, as the Senator knows, is one of the most able men ever to serve in our Gov-~ ernment. But I also think that the answer which the Senator from Idaho is giving today, which follows roughly what he had to say in the Washington Post yesterday, is the finest critique of the administration position that I have heard. Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator very much.; Mr. McGOVERN. From now on when constituents write my office for a clear statement of the pros and cons on administration policy on Vietnam, I shall send them the statement by Under Secretary Ball and the answer by the Senator from Idaho. Mr, CHURCH. The Senator is very through revolution, on the other. There \ generous, particularly when one considis just one great force that, in the long run, can prevail against communism in the underdeveloped world. It is not the primacy of American arms. It is indigenous nationalist resistance to communism; and if we are. insensitive to that force, and intervene with mighty Western armies in a region of the world which has just managed to throw off the colonial dominion of the Western nations, then I am afraid we will permit the Communists to exploit nationalist aspirations, and give them the one cause that can rally popular support to their standards. We will thrust the nationalist banner into Communist hands. They could not ask for more. Mr, CLARK. I agree completely with what the Senator has just stated. It occurs to me there is another aspect of this case—I do not know whether the Senator will agree or not—and that is that our best defense against communism is the support of such programs as President Kennedy’s Alianza para Progreso and other foreign aid programs which enable the people of the underdeveloped countries of the world to move out of the condition of misery, of starvation, of inadequate shelter; because those conditions are breeders of communism, and that is where, in my judgment, our major effort should be placed. Mr. CHURCH. I agree wholeheartedly with the Senator, and I hope that we shall perfect a new policy in coping with the problems posed by guerrilla warfare. This is what we desperately need in Asia, and our failure thus far to devise such a policy, including some measure of discretion and restraint, is one of the reasons for the difficulties that we now face in that part of the world, I.am now happy to yield to the distinguished Senator from South Dakota. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, first of all I wish to commend the Senator from Idaho for the statement which he is making today, in following up an article he prepared for the Washington Post, published on yesterday, which I understand was an answer to a previous ers the very lucid and effective arguments he himself has made in constructive criticism of our Asian policy.. Mr. McGOVERN. I thank the Senator. During the celebrated debates between Vice President Nixon and the late President Kennedy in the 1960 presidential campaign, one of the news commentators asked each candidate to state what he regarded as the most important qualification that he could bring to the Presidency. Vice President Nixon said he felt that his most important asset was his experience. Senator Kennedy replied that he felt the most important quality that he brought to high office was his sense of history. I believe that the Senator from Idaho has indicated in all of his statements on the problems that face us in southeast Asia a very clear understanding of historical forces. I believe that the greatest single mistake we have made in southeast Asia, in the years after World War II, has been a tendency to see the revolution of that area as another manifestation of Hitlerism. Mr. CHURCH. Iagree with the Senator. -. Mr. McGOVERN. In other words, we learned the lesson of Hitler, as the Senator from Idaho has said, but we applied it to the wrong situation; and, having done that, we have offered the wrong medicine for the problems of that part of the world. It is my own feeling that even if there had never been a Soviet Russia, even if there had never been a Red China, we would have seen revolutions in Asia in the years after World War. II. The Japanese shattered the old colonial empires of southeast Asia, during World War II. The people in southeast Asia, once freed from control by the countries of Western Europe, were not about to submit placidly to imperial control again after the defeat of Japan in 1945. I think our policymakers, for the most part, understood the historical forces that. were moving in the world at that -another, 3427 period. We perceived the forces of nationalism and the aspirations for a better life being asserted. As a consequence, we urged our British friends to get out of India and Malaya. We told the Dutch that in our judgment it was imperative that they withdraw from Indonesia, and we exerted considerable pressure to see that that was done. We ourselves pulled out of the Philippines.. The only area where we decided to buck powerful historical forces was in French Indochina; and we have been in trouble ever since. Does the Senator agree basically with that analysis?. Mr. CHURCH. Iagree completely with the distinguished Senator from South Dakota. I am afraid that we have failed to take our own advice. We understood and encouraged the nationalist aspirations of Asian peoples when they were directed against the European colonial powers. The one blindspot was.Vietnam. When, for example, the Indonesians pressed for independence against the Dutch, we encouraged the Indonesians, and we discouraged the Dutch; and in the end, the Dutch recognized that there was no way they could enforce their dominion over the resistance of a 100 million people in Indonesia, We also stood with the Indians when they claimed their right to independence against the British. Now the European powers have yielded their empires. Independence has come to all these Asian lands. The only western nation that remains is the United States, curiously enough the one power that never seriously engaged in empirebuilding during the previous 100 years. We know that our role has nothing whatever to do with colonialism; and I would be the last to question our motives in Asia, We do hope to see an independent South Vietnam created, and certainly we have no colonial ambitions there. But motives are one thing. The appearance of war to other Asians is quite I am afraid that choosing Vietnam as a place to make a stand, and importing, from the opposite side of the globe, a vast Western army to fight against the revolutionary leader who secured Vietnamese independence from the French, reflects a failure to comprehend the great historical forces which have been at work in Asia. I am sorry that we failed to see for ourselves what we so clearly saw where others were concerned, in the years that preceded our - involvement in Vietnam. Mr, NELSON. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yleid? Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I have a brief comment to make. I am unable to remain in the Chamber to listen to the remainder of the speech of the Senator from Idaho [Mr. Cuurcu], but I read it this morning and I wish to commend him on it. There is no one in Congress, in my opinion, who has made a more consistent and thoughtful contribution to this dialog in the field of foreign affairs than has the Senator from Idaho.: The speech the Senator is making is a most creative evaluation of our posture Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 57] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 — 3428 in the world, particularly in the Far East. I wish to commend him for his excellent contribution to the significant discussion which has been going on in the area of foreign policy in the last few weeks. Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator very much for his generous remarks. Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, will the Senator from Idaho yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. McGOVERN. To continue my colloquy with the Senator from Idaho, having suggested that we do not have a& monopoly on virtuc, it is somewhat encouraging to Know that neither do we have a monopoly on mistakes, particularly in the underdeveloped countries of the world. As the Senator has stated so well in his remarks on this subject, the Chinese have gotten into all kinds of trouble in those areas of the world where they have intervened in a heavy-handed manner. they have been rebuffed in large parts of Africa. They have got into difficulties in Cuba recently, and they have certainly had setbacks for their cause in Indonesia; in fact, in every area where they have intervened in a clumsy and heavy-handed manner, there has been a backfire. The reason is clear: In those areas, their interventions have run counter to strong nationalistic aspirations. It seems to me the one place they have had notable success, as the Senator has stated in his speech today, is in the area where we have been most heavily involved; namely, in Vietnam. ‘There are no Chinese soldiers fighting in Vietnam. The foreign forces involved in that conflict are from our country—not from China or Russia. We are involved in a constantly disappointing effort to impose an outside Western solution on a problem which is basically Vietnamese. It is clear that neither we nor the Communists can easily counter the tide of nationalism without grave costs. We have been the beneficiary of national aspirations when our policies have been intelligent; likewise, we have had to pay for our mistakes where we have been too heavily involved as in Vietnam and the Dominican Republic. So I commend the Senator for his superb address today on the challenge of Asia. It is another of a series of brilliant statements he has made in the field of foreign policy. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, If the Senator will permit me, I might say to the Senator that some time ago I wrote an article for the New York ‘limes magavine on the very question the Senator has raised, that is, on the error of intervening too much in countries that have just won independence. The Russians have made that error. The Chinese are also making it. And, alas, we, too, have made it. Wherever this happens, the consequences are predictable. The Nationalist feeling reacts strongly against the intervenor. I could cite examples in Africa, and I think in Asia, too, where this has happened. Mr. McGOVERN. ‘The Senator has referred to his article that appeared in CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE the New York Times magazine on November 28, 1965. He also delivered a very fine statement before the Economic Club of Detroit on February 22, 1965, entitled “Are We Too Deep in Africa and Asia?” Because there is a certain continuity in the Senator’s thinking in his previous articles and the speech he is making today, I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the speech of the Senator from Idaho this afternoon the two previous articles referred to muy be printed in the REecorp. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Morse in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senntor. Mr. McGOVERN. I might say that that trilogy of articles should comprise a very food textbook for any citizen who is interested in reviewing not only the problems and hazards we face in that part of the world, but also the oppartunities that are open to us if we seize upon them with imagination and intelligence. Before I yield the floor, I should also like to take this opportunity to commend the junior Senator from New York [Mr. Kennepy] for the statement he made over the weekend, calling upon our Government to be realistic in the negotiating prospects that are ahead in Vietnam. I think we have to face up to the facts. We must recognize that we are up against an indigenous guerrilla force in Vietnam, headed by the National Liberation Front. ‘Co negotiate, we must be prepared to talk with the people who are doing the fighting and with the leaders who are directing them in both North and South Vietnam. The Senator from New York emphasized that negotiations must include the guerrilla leaders. Secondly, he recognized that they must be given some role in any provisional government that is established. We may have complete confidence in the integrity of the government of Saigon, but the fact remains that when the Vietminh laid down their arms in 1954, they did so with the understanding that an election would be held in 1956. For various reasons that election was not held and they were frustrated in their hopes of winning it. It is not hard for me to guess why they are skeptical about getting into negotiations without reasonable assurance that they will have some part in setting the ground rules for future elections. So I again commend the Senator from ‘tdaho, as well as the Senator from New York, for the contribution they have made to this historic debate. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield to the Senator from Alaska. Mr. GRUENING. I can speak with enthusiasm of the really splendid contribution which the senior Senator from Idaho has made on this occasion and on several occasions in recent months which have been alluded to, and which I am glad to see are being placed into the Recorp by the Senator from South Dakota. I think this is a profound annlysis of February 21, 1966 what is our basic approach. It is done without any caustic criticism. It is a constructive approach. I hope it will be taken seriously by those who are responsible for our mistaken policies. I am glad to see the reference made to the statement of Under Secretary Ball. It so happens, in connection with the statement made by Secretary Ball, that it has some serious flaws. He made the analogy between Vietnam and Greece. In that connection, George C. Vournas, who was in the U.S. service in the Middle East during the difficulties there submitted an article which I ask unanimous consent be included at the conclusion of the remarks of the Senator from Idaho along with some other material. It is cntitled “Is Vietnam Another Greece?”, which points out some errors and challenges the statements of Mr. Ball. There are also several editorials and articles bearing on this general subject from the New York Times and the Nation that I ask unanimous consent for inclusion. Another point which I think should be emphasized in reference to the statement made by Secretary Ball is that if the Vietnam War is a civil war, an indigenous rebellion, we would have no business being in there. That is an important admission to which I have alluded before. This review is also borne out by the statement of former President Kennedy, who referred to it as a civil war. He was elected to the House in 1946 and became a Member of the Senate in 1953, He called it a civil war. That fact was also confirmed by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Younc] who was there and received assurances from Generals Westmoreland, Stilwell and others there that it was essentially a civil war in South Vietnam. I think one of the most important aspects of this issue is the fact that the information which has been emanating from official sources is incorrect. I ask that there also be printed at the conclusion of the speech of the Senator from Idaho [Mr. CuurcH] an article by James Reston from the Sunday New York Times of February 20, entitled “Washington: The Rusk Doctrine,” in which it is pointed out that the Rusk doctrine will stretch us so thin that we will have nothing left. I also ask that there be printed at the end of the speech of the Senator from Idaho a letter to the editor published in the New York Times of February 21 entitled “Error in Vietnam Policy,” an editorial published in the New York Times of -February 21, entitled “The Vietnam Commitment,” and three consecutive editorials from the February 14 issue of the Nation, entitled “Everything But Peace,” “The Economics of It,” and “AID for Whom?” The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. GRUENING. I again wish to commend the Senator for the fine statement he made and for his stimulating and important contribution to this great debate which, at long last, is now being had on the floor of the Senate. Mr. CHURCH. I thank the Senator. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 58] === February 21, 1966 It was my privilege to have lunch with our Secretary of State today, in the course of which we went into the ramifications of the Rusk doctrine, as Mr. Reston described it in this morning’s New York Times. My difficulty with the Secretary’s position is that he bases our participation in the war in Vietnam upon the obligation that we assumed under the SEATO Alliance, It seems perfectly evident to. me that the SEATO Alliance has not responded to the Communist threat in Vietnam. An alliance is a collective undertaking. The purpose of an alliance is to secure binding covenants of two, three, four, or more governments, with the objective that all will act in common concert if the aggression toward which the alliance is directed should occur. It cannot be persuasively maintained that the other signatories to the SEATO Alliance have responded to the Communist threat in Vietnam. Pakistan is a member of SEATO. France is a member of SEATO. Neither of these countries has responded in any way. The Philippines is a member of SEATO but we still await any contribution by the Filipinos of combat troops for the war in ‘Vietnam. In other words, the undertaking of the SEATO Alliance has never been fulfilled. The parties are in default. It is an extraordinary doctrine that, when other parties to an alliance default upon their obligation, the alliance nonetheless remains intact, and that commitments undertaken by the United States remain obligatory. There is no such doctrine in the ordinary law of contracts. To my knowledge, there never has been such a doctrine before in the law of international relations. Ii is a strange, if rot unique, interpretation to insist that the United States continues to be obligated by a treaty which is otherwise in default. ‘There may be good reasons, quite apart from the SEATO Alliance, to account for our presence in Vietnam. This is a separate and arguable question. _ But, it is self-evident that the SEATO Alliance has not functioned. Other major signatories are simply not present in Vietnam. Therefore, it seems extraordinary for the Secretary of State to contend that our obligation under the treaty required us to intervene in Vietnam. It is a doctrine quite without precedent to my knowledge in the history of diplomacy. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?.;: Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. GRUENING. In my view we are in violation of the SEATO Treaty. In the first place, article I provides: ARTICLE 1 The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international disputes in which they may be Involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any Manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, No, 29-—-15 When we use force we are in violation of article I, and we are using force now. Article IV, which was invoked, provides: ;; ARTICLE IV 1. Each Party recognizes that aggression, by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the Parties or against any State or territory which the Parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter designate. There has been no unanimous agreement, as the Senator pointed out. The case of the administration grows weaker and weaker. Every time U.S. spokesmen come up with a justification. it falls to the ground after one checks the pertihent documents. Mr. CHURCH, I thank the Senator. We find ourselves in the position of Justifying the war on a higher plane, but that is unfortunate if it leads to doctrines which are not tenable. I question the validity of a continuing obligation of the United States under a treaty that is in default. That is exactly what has happened to the SEATO Treaty. It has failed to respond to what we regard as Communist ageres. sion in Vietnam.; As I have tried to stress, it is nationalism, not communism, which is the dominant force in the ex-colonial regions of the world. Outraged nationalist indignation in Indonesia ts putting the Communists to the sword. We have no conspicuous presence there for the Communists to exploit. Fortunately for us, Sukarno asked us out many months ago. If we had a better sense of history, we would scoff at the notion that Vietnam is some sort of test case, where Communists must be taught to abandon their resort to force. Regardless of the final outcome in Vietnam, guerrilla wars will continue to break out in the future whenever internal conditions in any country seed revolt. We can draw no battleline—in Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, or any other foreign country—. which will either put an end to future revolutions, or cause the Communists to quit trying to take charge of them. Rather than rushing in with our troops, whenever a guerrilla war in some distant country takes a bad turn, we should begin to exercise prudent restraint. The Communists are doing badly in the underdeveloped world. Only where they have managed to seize hold of nationalist aspirations, have they gained the upper hand. The lesson for us, in dealing with Communist rebellions in Asia, should be to hold our distance, extend our aid at arm’s length, and avoid implicating ourselves so openly as to convert these struggles into American. wars. This brings me to the third, and final, point in Mr. Ball’s presentation, that southeast Asia does not lie within the Chinese sphere of. influence. Furthermore, that the whole sphere-of-influence doctrine is “19th century geopolitics, a dubious policy which would permit the accidents of geography to rationalize the greed of great powers and imperil the Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3429 prospects of developing and maintaining an equilibrium of power in the world.” This is sheer sophistry. If anything should be clear, it is that the present equilibrium of power between the United States and the Soviet Union rests upon an implicit recognition of our respective spheres of influence. We did not dispatch an American Army into Hungary in 1956, not because we lacked sympathy for the freedom fighters, but because we calculated that our military penetration. of the Iron Curtain would lead to war with Russia. The Soviet Government had reasserted a longstanding Russian influence in Eastern Europe, formerly exercised by the czars. We may trade with these countriés, and even encourage their governments to be more independent, but we may not garrison our combat troops in them.. Likewise, with the proclaiming of the Monroe Doctrine, we have long asserted an American sphere of influence in the Western Hemisphere. The Russians are permitted normal dealings with Latin American countries, but they may not convert them into Soviet military bases. Khrushchev made the mistake of trying it in Cuba. We drove him out with an ultimatum that brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. In the face of these realities, it is astonishing to argue that spheres of influence have gone out of date. It just isnot so. We pretend otherwise, because current American policy in southeast Asia refuses to concede to China that which we claim for ourselves in the Western Hemisphere and implicitly acknowledge to the Russians in Eastern Europe. The relative weakness of China today permits this. But what of tomorrow, when China has achieved real nuclear capability? Is it not the duty. of diplomacy to look ahead? The tragedy is that we resist the quest for a rational relationship with mainland China. By this I do not mean that we can expect to be friends.. Peiping is feuding with most of the world, including the big majority of the Communist countries. The reasons go much deeper than the Communist complexion of the Peiping regime. Arnold Toynbee, the renowned historian, reminds us: From 1840 to 1945, China was attacked, stamped on, humiliated, and fleeced by one warlike foreign country after another—first by Britain, then by France, and finally by Japan, a parvenu country which had borrowed its civilization from China. A century of such treatment would be enough to make a saint turn savage, Recognizing the historic roots of China’s defection does not, of course, eliminate our need to deal with any consequent threat of Chinese aggression. We cannot permit Communist China to conquer Asia, for this would indeed upset the equilibrium of power upon which stability and peace depend. But we do not defend Asia against China by fighting against North Vietnam. Mr. Ball himself admits it: The people of southeast Asia— Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 59] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3430 He assures us— have, over the centuries, shown an obstinate insistence on shuping their own destiny which the Chinese have not been able to overcome. It is not communism in Hanoi, but the unremitting pressure of the war itself, which makes North Vietnam increasingly dependent on China, thus eroding away her hard-won independence. Neither is China contained in Asia by an American buildup of the military torees of South Vietnam. It would make as much sense to argue that the United States could be contained in the Western Wemisphere by a Communist Chinese buildup of the military forces of, say, Guatemala. Fortunately, the equilibrium of power in Asia that can effectively contribute to the containment of mainland China is not a matter of exclusive concern to the United States. The chess-piaying Russians, with greater reason than we to fear Chinese expansion, practice containment in the king's row, by strengthening at Tashkent the peace between India and Pakistan; we play the game in the pawn’s row by innocently waging in Vietnam what appears to Asians to be a neocolonial war. Is it any wonder that Japan flinches; that the Philippines balk: that India lectures; or that Mao Tse-tung gloats. I totally disagree with the Department of State: to view Ho Chi Minh’s war as no more than an extension of Stalin’s postwar aggressions in Europe—to regard communism still as a seamless web-—is not “the beginning of wisdom.” It is the denial of wisdom. ft is a view of the world as rigid and doctrinaire as that of the most credulous Marxist. Tt, is a myopia reminiscent of the Bourbon Kings of whom it was said: ‘They have learned nothing, and forgotten nothing. The beginning of wisdom for American diplomacy in Asia is to stop confusing the problem of Communist guer~- rilla wars with the problem of Commu-~ nist China. ‘Che two may be related, but there still remains a fundamental difference between aggression and revolution. Chinese Marshal Lin Piao’s militant treatise is not a “Mein Kampf,” prescribing a blueprint for Chinese conquest of Asia, but » do-it-yourself kit for the use of Communist revolutionaries in other Asian lands. Likewise, there is a difference betweert preventing China from invading neighporing lands, and attempting to impose a quarantine on Chinese influence. With our arms, if need be, we can accomplish the former, but not the latter. As long as China looms above the little countries bordering her in the Balkans of Asia, her influence will fall over them like a shadow. If this historic sphere of Chinese intluence is unacceptable to the United States, we can deny it—not by stabbing at the shadow in Vietnam—but only by striking down, and then dismembering, China itself. The price of war with China, as other nations have discovered, would be higher than any we have ever paid before. Those who think that our national in- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- SENATE terest requires a showdown with China anyhow, and that now is a better time to fight than later, would do well to ponder the words of our former Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway. in his memoirs, he writes: But I challenge any thesis that de: troying the military might of Red China would be in our own long-range interest. We could create there, by military means, « great power vacuum. Then we would have to go in there with hundreds of thousands of men to fill that vacuum—which would bring us face to face with Russia along a 7,000-mile frontier. If we failed to go in, then Russia herself would fill it, and the threai. to our own security would not have been abated by one iota. It is not likely that China will pring such a hideous war upon herself. Peiping speaks fiercely but acts with caution. Chinese troops are neither stationed nor engaged outside her borders. Her volunteers have long since been withdrawn from North Korea. Chinese troops marched across the disputed boundary line into India, but quickly withdrew again. Yet, American troops still remain in South Korea, and engage, in ever larger numbers, in the war in Vietnam. However difficult it may be to achieve a satisfactory settlement in southeast Asia, we must not permit South Vietnam to become another Asian garrison for American forces. Our country has no need for fixed footholds on the Asian mainland so close to China. These enclaves mire us down, inhibit our mobility, and exacerbate against whatever prospect there may be for an eventual accommodation with Peiping. The American interest calls for a modus vivendi with China which is as viable as the one we have found with the Soviet Union. ‘To search for it is the task of statesmanship. A sound Asian policy would pledge American assistance to countries threatened by Chinese attack, taking full advantage of the mobility of our sea, air, and island-based military deterrent in Asia. More important still, any enduring containment of China must rest upon the resistance of stable Asian governments, which command sufficient internal support, regardless of the ideology they profess, to form a counterbalance to Chinese power. A sound Asian policy would aiso distinguish between the prevention of Chinese aggression and the repression of Communist insurrection in other Asian lands. In dealing with guerrilla warfare, we must develop a sense of discretion and restraint, if we are to encourase, rather than impede, indigenous resistance, which alone can prevent the banner of nationalism from falling into Communist hands. Toward such goals, the Vietnamese war, in which we are caught fast, is a poor starting place. But we have no other. And the hour is late. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. CHURCH. I yield. Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator on what in my judgement is one of the soundest and February 21, 1966 ablest speeches which has been made in this continuing debate of Vietnam. The Senator has penetrated the weaknesses of the State Department policy as expounded by Under Secretary Ball. I am particularly impressed with that part of his speech in which the Senator speaks of a sound Asian policy for American. I entirely concur with him that the Vietnamese war in which we are caught fast is a poor starting place for a sound Asian policy. In the judgment of the Senator, what effect with further unilateral American escalation of the war in Vietnam, whether by land, sea, or air, have on a sound American-Asian policy? Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, to the extent that the war in southeast Asia widens, it becomes less manageable. I believe it is therefore in our interest to do all that we can to confine it within its present limits. Fortunately, the fulfillment of our pledge to the Saigon government can only be achieved in South Vietnam. It is there that the war is being fought. Mr. CLARK. With the exception of our bombing of North Vietnam. Mr. CHURCH. The Senator is correct. However, the thrust and purpose and the war is to overthrow the Saigon government. This obviously can only be accomplished in South Vietnam itself. Therefore, I should hope that we would not permit our frustration over the continuing struggle in the south to lead us toward striking ever outward, upon the theory that by bombing Hanoi or Haiphong, or by eliminating the cities or industries in North Vietnam, we will somehow put an end to the insurrection in South Vietnam. I think it is well to remember that North Vietnam is an agrarian country. Only 10 percent of its economy is industrial. We can destroy the industries there and level the cities and inflict great casualties. But I do not think this will cause the North Vietnamese to give up, any more than the bombing of North Korea ever caused the North Koreans te give up. It is more likely that such pombing will merely harden the resolve of the Hanoi Government to persist in the war, thus making it more difficult to reach a negotiated settlement. I hope that we will concentrate our military effort in the south where the insurrection must be put down and where, alone, we can keep the pledges we have made to the Saigon Government. Mr. CLARK. I take it that the Senator would agree with me that, under the present circumstances, and for very good yeasons, we cannot afford to withdraw our troops from South Vietnam. Mr. CHURCH. I am in complete agreement with the Senator. As the Senator knows, I have never advocated a precipitate unilateral withdrawal cf American troops. But I hope that we can reach a_ satisfactory settlement which will permit an eventual, orderly American disengagement. The President has himself emphasized that we desire no permanent foothold in South Vietnam, that we ask for no alliance with the South Vietnamese Gov- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 lms === [Page 60] === - Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 ernment, that we are willing to recognize the neutrality of that government—and, indeed, that entire region—and that we want no military bases there. In all of these respects, I am in full agreement with the President. However, I am troubled that, 13 years after the end of the fighting in Korea and 10 years after the Chinese have withdrawn all of their troops from North Korea, and without any kind of guerrilla war to justify our continued presence in South Korea, we nonetheless keep an army of not less than 50,000 American troops stationed in that country. We must not permit the same thing to happen to us in South Vietnam. The American interest is not served by such military toeholds in southeast Asia. They are unnecessary from the standpoint of our own security. They tend to mire us down and to impede our mobility. I hope that we avoid in South Vietnam what we failed to avoid in Korea. Mr. CLARK. I take it that the Senator would also agree with me, that if the Hanoi government were to commit the remainder of its well-trained army—and I take it that he would also agree that there is a substantial part of: its welltrained army which has not yet been committed to South Vietnam—and particularly. if the Chinese should come into the war with “volunteers,” we might then of necessity be required, in order to stay where we are and not be driven out by force, to further increase our ground forces in South Vietnam, this being counterescalation on the other side. Mr. CHURCH, I agree with the Senator. We shall have to take the necessary military steps to prevent the Hanoi government from forcing us out of South Vietnam, Whether we ought to have gone there in the first place, or whether it was in the American interest to make ~ pledges to Saigon in the aftermath of the French defeat is quite another question. We did so, and having made those -pledges, we must honor them. We cannot permit the Hanoi government to force us out of South Vietnam. I think it should be evident that there is no disagreement on this score. None of us who have criticized American policy in southeast Asia, no member of the Committee on Forelgn' Relations, to my knowledge, no Member of the Senate, has advocated an American: withdrawal from South Vietnam in repudiation. of the pledges we have made to Saigon. Mr. CLARK. I say to the Senator that I am in complete agreement with that statement, and further, that I intend to address myself, on the floor of the Sen-~ ate, to the broad questions of our policy in Vietnam later this week. I will make an observation, and ask the Senator to comment on it: Assuming that the forces ranged against us ‘in South Vietnam are not drastically in- -creased by either the commitment of additional regular North Vietnamese troops or the commitment of Chinese volunteers, does the Senator agree with me that it would be a tragic mistake to further increase substantially the American forces in South Vietnam, to make an ef- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE fort. to conquer the real estate which we have lost, and pursue a policy of search and destroy in areas which have not been held by ourselves or our allies for months if not years, with the result that the American casualty rolls will necessarily increase? Does the Senator agree that the wiser policy would be to follow the advice of General Gavin and former Ambassador Kennan, to make do with what we have, to encourage our South Vietnamese allies to press with their troops to recover the ground which they have lost, remembering the injunction of President Kennedy, given only a couple of months hefore his assassination, that this is their war, that they must win it or they will lose it, that we can help them with arms and with advice, but that in the end if there is not the will to win by the South Vietnamese, to pacify their own country, we should not attempt to do the job for them? Mr, CHURCH. I say to the Senator that if we had remembered the Kennedy injunction, we would not have 200,000 troops in Vietnam today. We have gone beyond that point. We decided, when it became evident that the South Vietnamese were unable to overcome the rebellion, that we would move in our own combat forces and undertake to do so ourselves. To be sure, we fight alongside the South Vietnamese. They have suffered heavy casualties: I do not mean to make light of their gallantry. But increasingly, the burden falls upon American troops, as the size of our army there grows. We are told now that perhaps there may be 300,000,. 400,000, half a million, or 600,000 American troops in South Vietnam by the end of this year. I do not know. I do not wish to leave the impression, however, that I believe in the enclave theory. I. think that under the present circumstances, we cannot afford to hole up in fixed position along the seacoast, and still retain much chance of securing a satisfactory settlement, We are there. We have converted this struggle into an American war effort; and now I think we must pursue a dynamic strategy in South Vietnam. I am not a military man; I cannot pass upon the requirements of that strategy, but I think that we must Icok for guidance to our officers in command, who are on the ground, know the condition and the situation, and have to deal with it there. I do wish to stress, however, that I think the American military effort must be concentrated in South Vietnam, and that whatever the difficulties are, whatever the strategy we pursue in the south, we must not let the frustrations of this war lead us toward widening the battle ever northward toward the boundaries of China. I think that there will come a place, if we do, where the Chinese will come in, as they did in Korea. Mr. CLARK. One final question—and in advance of asking it I again thank the Senator for indulging me in this colloquy, and also express again my admiration for the splendid specch he has made. It. is still official State Department and Defense Department doctrine that the major burden of this war is being carried by the South Vietnamese. We are told 3431 again and again that four out of every five military incidents in the South are South Vietnamese initiatives, and not American initiatives. We are told of the upward of a half million South Vietnamese men under arms, fighting, we are told, for the defense of freedom: in their country. I refer again to the Kennedy statement of 2 or 3 years ago. If that is the fact, as the State Department and the Defense Department continue to insist it is the fact, why do we not let the South Victnamese win this war, with the support which we can give them with the 200,000 troops and with the untold treasure we are pressing in there; why do we have.to make this an American war? Mr. CHURCH. I say to the Senator, the question is a poignant one, but it is no longer a timely one. The war has become an American struggle. American troops are now committed to it in such numbers that I think this reality must be faced. I believe, however, that the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania underscores the fact that guerrilla warfare, in the last analysis, depends upon the internal situation within the country victimized by Communist insurrection. In the long run, the Government challenged will prevail, or will be toppled, depending upon the willingness of the people of the country to rally behind it. The Greek Government was able to put down a Communist rebellion, one that the State Department itself likens - to the war in Vietnam. The Greek Government had aid from the United States, to be sure, but not American combat troops. The Greeks put down the rebellion with their own troops. The Philippine Government put down a somewhat comparable insurrection, involving Communist elements, without the intervention of foreign troops. It was done by Filipinos. The Burmese were able to snuff out a Communist-led insurrection in their country, despite a thousand miles of common frontier between Burma and mainland China. On the other hand, the Batista government in Cuba was unable to put down a Communist-led rebellion. I think, Mr. President, that we must get used to the fact that we live ina generation of revolution; that many governments are going to be challenged, in many countries in the underdeveloped world, from Asia to Africa to Latin America, and that the United States simply cannot intervene in all of these situations for the purpose of imposing American solutions. If we try to do this, our country will soon be regarded as the sentinel of the status quo, as the selfappointed defender of governments despised by their own people. Thus, we will give to Communists everywhere the banner they most want to uphold; namely, an unchallenged claim upon every incipient revolution, the compelling assertion that they alone are the champions of change. Mr. President, it will not’ work. It cannot work. I hope and pray that we will find the wisdom to avoid any policy so foredoomed, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 61] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0_ - 3432 From the lessons of the present and the past, we must begin to find the guidelines for a new policy much better suited to the problem of revolutionary wars in the underdeveloped world. If we summon 2 sense of restraint, I do not despair for the future because, unlike many others, I am not afraid of communism. I have been in Communist lands. The system has little to commend it. It is inefficient. It is tyrannical. It is bureaucratic. It is not possessed of any dynamic attraction that is likely to ensnare and subdue the world. Mr. President, the great quest of men everywhere is for freedom. Not many countries have achieved it in full measure, but people everywhere yearn for it. It is the very force working within the Communist world to change the Communist system itself. It is the force working outside the Communist world, the very force which produces revolutions. In the long run, the ancient yearning of mankind for freedom will prevail. Communism will never inherit the world. Exaipir 1 ARE WE Too Deep IN AFRICA AND ASIA? (By the Honorable Frank Cuurcn, U.S. Senator from Idaho, before the Economic Club of Detroit, Feb. 22, 1965) In 1957, his first yéar in the Senate, it was CHourcH who modified the jury trial amendment to the civil rights bill, to assure Negroes the right to serve on Federal juries, a procedural safeguard which opened the way for the first Senate action on civil right in nearly a century. Frank Cuvurcu has not becn content to assess the international situation from his Senate office in Washington, but has traveled extensively throughout the world. He was a delegate to the economic conference of the Organization of American State in Argentina in 1957, and to the International Parliamentary Union at Warsaw, Poland in 1959. He led a delegation on a 5-week factfinding tour ot Africa in 1960, and then made a personal inspection of American bases and trouble spots in the Pacific area late in 1962. ‘he senior Senator trom Idaho has been outspoken in his belief that our key to Asia is a satisfactory settlement of the political war in Vietnam. It is a pleasure for me to present to you the Honorable FRANK CHURCH, U.S. Senator from Idaho, who will discuss “Are We In Too Deep in Africa and Asia?” Senator CHurcu. | Applause. | Hon, Frank CuHurcu. Thank you very touch, Joe Hudson, for an extremely nice introduction, Mayor Cavanagh, General Bork, and gentlemen of the Economics Club of Detroit. Our time is Nmited but let me just say in the way of amenities that I am very proud to be here. I know your two fine Senators, Pat McNamara and Pui, Hart, very well. They ure good friends of mine and I respect them hiighly. It is a special privilege to come and uddress so distinguished an audience in the great State they represent in the Senate of the United States. PART I. FROM ONE EXTREME TO ANOTHER “We can never again stand aside prideful in isolition,” so spoke Lyndon B. Johnson at his inauguration. Al! Americans should agree with the President. Head-in-the-sand isolationism died a generation ago, It isn’t likely to be resurrected. As a confirmed internationalist, I favor strong American support for the United Nations, and I believe in a sensible foreign aid program. But the pendulum of our foreign policy can swing from one extreme to the other. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE Once we thought that anything which happened abroad was none of our business; now we evidently thing that everything which happens abroad has become our business, In the span of 30 years, an excess of isolationism has been transformed into an excess of Interventionism. Since the days of the Marshall pian, the United States has constantly expanded the scope of its commitment to foreign governments. From Western Europe, we have moved into Africa, the Middle East, and the Far East, until the dimension of our involvement has become global. Our troops are now stationed in no less than 30 countries, we are pledged to defend 42, and we are extending aid, in one form or another, to nearly 100 nations. Why have we spread ourselves so thinly? What compulsion draws us, ever deeper, into the internal affairs of so many countries in Africa and Asia, having so remote a connection with the vital interests of the United States? The answer, I think, stems from our intensely ideological view of the cold war. We fancy ourselves as guardian of the “free” world, though most of it isn’t free, and never has been. We seek to immunize this world against further Communist infection through massive injections of American aid, and, wherever necessary, through direct American intervention. Such a vast undertaking has at least two defects: first, it exceeds our national capability; second, among the newly emerging nations, where the specter of Western imperialism is dreaded more th:in communism, such a policy can be self-defeating. As a seasoned, friendly foreign diplomat recently put it: “The United States is getting involved in situations where no one—not even a nation of saints—would be welcome.” This is not to say that we should write off Africa or Asia. It is to say that a foreign policy of intervention, which was right for Western Europe, is apt to be wrong for those continents which have just thrown off Tsuropean rule. We were welcomed back to war-devastated Hurope in 1945 to be a nuclear sentinel against further Russian aggression. It was the expansion of hostile Russian power which summoned us, not the color of the red banner, or our distaste for the way of life inside the Soviet Union. There was no confusion among the NATO allies as to the identity of the enemy. As long as the Russian threat remained imminent, we all faced in the same direction, united by a single will. There was still another reason for the success of our intervention in Europe— a condition so obvious that it is often overlooked, and yet so fundamental that its absence in Africa and Asia accounts for most of our setbacks on those continents. In Europe, we stood among people with whom we shared a common ancestry, whose political and economic systems were similar to our own, and whose traditional values derived from the same mainstream of historical experience that we call Western civilization. This cultural pond meant that most European yvenerally shared our aims and our point of view. But if the inhabitants of Western Europe tend to see the world as we do, as a global arena in which free people are arrayed against Communists, it does not follow that Africans and Asians share this view. They have been participants in a different revolution, more potent and widespread than the Communist brand-—a revolution foreshadowed two centuries ago, by the American War for Independence, and whipped into flame by Woodrow Wilson's ringing reaffirmation of the right of self-determination. Neither Marx nor Lenin fathered the revolt against colonialism, and we needn’t permit their successors, in Moscow or Peiping, to exploit the colonial issue to Communist advantage. To avoid this, we must understand that, February 21, 1966 for most Africans and Asians, our concept of self-government and individual freedom is totally unreal, having never been experienced. In many, if not most, of these emergent lands, it is colonialism, not communism which is the ugly word. Because these facts are so well known, it puzzles me that American foreign policy in Africa and Asia has not been tied to them. We have plunged into these former colonial regions as though we had been designated on high to act as trustee in bankruptcy for the broken empires. First of all, we strained relations by trying to induce governments to line up with us in the cold war, a struggle in which few felt any real interest. Forgetting that we ourselves had insisted upon our right to stay neutral for most of our history, we assailed neutralism as a kind of Communist trick. Later, having painfully learned that cold war neutrality always served as a badge of independence and sometimes even as an umbrella for it, we changed tune, but, even then, we kept on administering our aid programs in ways designed to freeze out the Russians and Chinese. In regions craving aid from any source, our freezeout policy was bound to give rise to cries of undue interference. Soon, African and Asian governments were demanding aid without strings attached, while accusing the United States of practicing neocolonialism. Worse still, sensing that we feared competition from Communist sources, many a government craftily raised the ante on us, threatening to go to the Reds for help if we failed to meet some new demand. Worst of all, we have permitted ourselves to be drawn into the internal political affairs of so many African and Asian countries that anti-American feeling is rising at an alarming rate. Our Embassies are being subjected to increasingly frequent attacks, our information libraries are being sacked, and demagog from Cairo to Djakarta court popular favor by rebuking us. Afro-Asian delegates at the U.N. castigate us with words of extraordinary violence. Clearly, the policy of intervening too much in the volatile ex-colonial regions of Africa and Asia, is backfiring on the United States. PART II. MISTAKES IN AFRICA Much of this could have been avoided. I visited Africa in 1960, immediately after John F. Kennedy’s election, in company with two of my colleagues and the President’s youngest brother, Teo. Wherever our presence became known, eager crowds would gather to shout, “Kennedy, Kennedy.” The word had spread through Africa that the newly elected President of the United States had, as a Senator in 1957, spoken. up for Algeria in her war for independence against France. For the first time our country was being identified. by Arab and black alike, with legitimate African aspirations. Opportunity was beckoning our way. Tf we had continued to champion Africa. nationalism, the cause that counts with the people; if we had declared ourselves strongly in favor of rightful independence for the Portuguese territories, the flaming issue in Africa today; if we had held ourselves at arm’s length from the shifting factional fights for power within the seething young African countries, regardless of the labels chosen to solicit outside support, I have no doubt that our influence in Africa would have kept on growing. But we haven’t yot managed to harness our zeal. Rational restraints give way lo emotional involvement, which, in turn, leads to more intervention. Fortunately, the Russians have made the same mistake in Africa, and now the Chinese seem eager to repeat it. Here are two examples, one Russian, one American, which constitute, in my Judgment, showcase illustrations of how not to conduct @ winning foreign policy in Africa: Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 62] === February 21, 1966 Six years ago, Nikita Khrushchev scurried to the rescue of Sekou Touré strongman of Guinea, after this little west African country had been stripped bare by the departing French. It seemed a perfect marriage, since the Guinean leaders, raised in the radical tradition of the French labor movement, were Marxists anyway, and anxious to establish a model Marxist state. When I arrived in Conakry, the country’s capital, in December of 1960, Guinea had taken on all the appearances of a satellite. Communist advisors sat beside every gov-" ernment minister. Numerous Red-donated ‘projects were under construction, including a big printing plant, and the place swarmed with Communist technicians, transplanted from countries behind the Iron Curtain. Guinea had plainly been taken over. Into this captured country, President Kennedy sent a young Ambassador, Bill Atwood. His instructions were to play it cool. He was to say it was their business, not ours, to choose the system they preferred; that we were interested only in helping them, in a modest way, with some of their problems of human suffering. Kennedy felt, if we didn’t press too hard, that Guinea would soon discover the Russians weren’t 9 feet tall. And so it happened. It wasn’t long before Guinea began to resent the heavyhanded interference of the Russians. Relations became so strained that the Soviet Am-~ bassador was declared persona non grata, and ordered to leave the country. Meanwhile, Guinea began to reassume control over her own course. Today, her attitude toward the United States is much improved, and her ties with the West are growing again, The mistake of too much intervention, which the Rusians made in Guinea, we seem determined to duplicate in the Congo. Africans wonder why the United States, having no historic, economic, or security interest in the Congo, should so involve itself in that country’s civil war. I also wonder why. I know, of course, that the State Department regards the Congo rebels as a Communist front, even though our own envoy in Stanleyville, whose long agony with the rebels was climaxed when they forced him to eat an American flag, declared, after his rescue, that be believed the rebellion to be purely African, not Communist, in character. His statement was met with stony indifference by the American press. For the fact is that our embrace with Moise Tshombe 1s popular in the United States. We see him as a vociferous anti- Communist. What matters, however, is how the Africans see him. To most of them, he is the African equivalent of an “Uncle Tom,” & puppet of the imperialists who uses white mercenaries to subdue his own countrymen. I doubt that Tshombe will ever win African acceptance, Our identification with him serves only to turn the tide of African opinion increasingly against us. PART Ill. THE LESSON OF PAKISTAN Regrettably, we are creating similar problems for ourselves in Asia by the same excess of interventionism, Pakistan ts a classic example. At fantastic cost, we undertook to enlarge and modernize the armed forces of Pakistan. Our theory was that this assistance would bolster the country’s defenses aaginst Russia, but it was India, contesting with Pakistan over Kashmir, which felt threatened. Still, we persisted. After all, hadn’t Ayub Khan appeared before a joint session of the Congress, and addressed us in the reassuring accents of a British country squire. On the Communist issue, the Indians seemed much too conciliatory, but we felt sure Ayub Khan could be depended upon, come what may. He himself said so. To the Congress, he intoned: “Let me tell you, that if there is real trouble, there is no other country in Asia on whom you will be able to count. The only people who will stand by you are the people of Pakistan.” That’s past history now. Having used us for his purpose, Ayub Khan was the first to flirt with Red China, when India was attacked, The fervent courtship of Pakistan only lost us favor there. In the recent elections, the main issue between the two presidential candidates was who was the most anti-American; Ayub Khan won. PART IV, OUR DILEMMA IN VIETNAM To the case against excessive American intervention in Africa and Asia, the State Department has a stock answer: the Commu-~ nists won’t let us quit. South Vietnam is pointed to as the proof of our dilemma. If we permit the Vietcong to overthrow the Saigon Government, then tho gates are open, so the argument goes, to successful Communist subversion of all the other governments in southeast Asia. But the hard fact is that there are limits to what we can do in helping any government surmount a Communist uprising. We can give arms, money, food and supplies, but the outcome will depend, in the final analysls, upon the character of the government helped, and the extent to which the people are willing to rally behind it, The Saigon government is losing its war, not for lack of equipment, but for lack of internal cohesion, The Vietcong grow stronger, not because they are better suppiled than Saigon, but because they are united in their will to fight. This spirit cannot be imported; it must come from within. The weakness in South Vietnam emanates from Saigon itself, where we, as foreigners, are powerless to unite the spolling factions. A family fued is never settled by outsiders. Only the Vietnamese themselves can furnish the solution. As to the other governments in southeast Asia, they are not so many dominoes in a row. ‘They differ, one from another, in popular support, and in capacity to resist Communist subversion, The Malayans, with British help, because of thelr own determined resistance to communism, successfully put down a long and bloody insurrection. Guerrilla wars—even when nourished from without—can be won by sitting governments, but only in countries where shelter for the rebels is not furnished by the people. Our reason for being in the Ortent isn't that of fashioning Asian governments. It isn’t communism, as such, which accounts for our presence in the Far East, but rather the containment of Peiping. This can-be best accomplished!f China is ringed with stable, Independent governments, which refuse to be the pawns of Chinese ambition. As Yugoslavia has proved in Europe vis-avis Russia, even a Communist government can play such a role, It would be to our national advantage then, to seek an international agreement for the neutralization of the whole great region ‘that used to be French Indochina. The transitional phase of such a settlement might be policed by the United Nations, or by a special high commission set up to preside over a cease-fire in South Vietnam, to supervise the withdrawal of all foreign troops, and to maintain order, while an independent and unalined new government is formed by the Vietnamese themselves. The neutrality of the whole region could be guaranteed by the signatories to the international agreement. Thus, the military might of the United States would remain available as a deterrent against Chinese aggression from the north, which ts—or ought to be—our governing national objective in southeast Asia anyway. Tn like manner, we may find it in our national interest to pledge our armed might behond the defense of India, or some other Asian government, against a future Chinese Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3433 attack, that these governments might avoid the need for developing nuclear shields of thelr own, while we avoid the dangers of further nuclear proliferation. This kind of guarantee, which would be a real deterrent to Chinese military aggression, lies within our capability, and would preclude a power vacuum in Asia, so feared by the architects of our present policy, To those who protest that such a course would fail to protect against growing Chinese influence in such countries as Laos, Cambodia, Burma, or Vietnam, brought on through intensifed Communist activity within these countries, I submit that the scoreboard on our present policy of direct intervention in southeast Asia shows that we are now losing this contest. Burma and Cambodia, though both non-Communist governments, have been moving steadily closer to China. Laos is limbo, after an American involvement, at heavy cost, in that country’s internal affairs, turned sour. The war, in Vietnam, despite Saigon's preponderant milttary advantage, is going from bad to worse. This somber truth is underlined in the events of the past fortnight—the stepped-up Vietcong attacks upon American bases in South Vietnam, and the consequent loss of more American lives. We must hope that our retaliatory bombings of military installations in North Vietnam, intended to demonstrate the strength of our will and purpose, may persuade Hanoi and Peiping that the United States is not, and never have been, a paper tiger. Having made a solemn commitment to Saigon, we intend to Keep it. The military might we can bring to bear upon North Vietnam is formidable indeed, and so it would behoove the Communists to explore with us the way to a peaceful solution in Southeast Asia.. All of us recognize the heavy burden of decision which our President bears. And we would do well to remember that the seal of his office is an American eagle, clutching a bundle of arrows in one claw and an olive branch in the other. The judicious use of both the arrows and the olive branch represents our best hope for avoiding a widening war in Asia.: Those who would use the arrows alone are actually calling for war. The systematic and sustained bombing of North Vietnam, unattended by any proffered recourse to the bargaining table, can only lead us into war. North Vietnam, lacking air and sea power, must answer on the ground. Her response, in the form of added military pressures against the south, Saigon can hardly be expected to withstand. Asa consequence, the next step will be to send American land forces into battle, thus converting the struggle into an American war on the Asian mainland. That China will, sooner or later, enter such a war, I have no doubt. To those who say that we must not parley now, because we would bargain from a position of weakness, I reply that they take too restricted a view of our strategic position in southeast Asia. They look only to the plight of the war in South Vietnam, forgetting that American power in southeast Asia rests not upon the weakness of Saigon, but upon the strength of our own possession of the sea and air. Our recent retaliatory blows should make it clear to Hanoi and Peiping that we will not quit under fire, nor withdraw, nor submit to Communist coercion. We can strike back with relative impunity, from floating bases which are beyond Communist reach, and inflict heavy punishment upon them. Ours is not a position of weakness from which to deal. PART V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Although it is natural for our attention to be fixed upon the gathering crisis in Vietnam,I nonetheless commenced this address with the purpose of undertaking a general review of American foreign policy through- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 63] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3134 out the whole of the excolonial world. My thesis has been that we have allowed ourselves to become overinvelved in both Africa pnd Asia. In saying this, I fully recognize tbat the Unitcd States cannot withdraw to seck refuge within some happy hunting ground of our own choosing. But it is mandswtory, in these former colonial areas, thet we establish foreign policy yoals which are not beyond our reach; that we observe privrilies which correspond with our real natiouul interests; that we concern ourselves less with other peoples’ ideologies, nnd that we adopt techniques which are sensitive to, and compatible with, the prevailing sentiment of the people in each great region of the world. Measured by these criteria, we are too deeply involved in the internal atfairs of the emerging nations ii. Africa and Asia. { believe that President Johnson intends, in a prudent and responsible way, to redress the balance. His emphasis on attending to the neglected problems at home is sensible. ‘Vhe long-run imiuences we exert abroad will hinge, in large measure, Upon the kind of society we build in our own land. In any reappraisal of American foreign policy in the underdeveloped world, so recently freed trom colonial bondage, we would do weil lo recall the wise words of President Kennedy, spoken in November of 1961. “We must face the fact,” he said, “that the United States is neither onnipotent nor omuiscient, that we cannot always impose vur will on the other 94 percent of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse every adversity, and that therefore, there cannot be an American s50ition to every world problem.” [Applause. | JosEpu L. Hupson, JR. Thank you very much, Senator CHurcH, for such a complete exposition of your opinion, We have a tradition in the Mconomic Club to ask questions about various aifairs relating to your talk. Whe first one: (Reading question): “What are the chances of ending the Vietnam war by proposing a uniled neutral Vietnam under U.N. protection?” { interpret that to mean united of North and South Vietnam under U.N. protection. gon, Frank CuurcH. Well, I would say that, in this area of the world, the U.N. cannot renily give protection. Still the UN. coulda play a very useful role in administering whatever agreement the major powers might reach that would underwrite the neutralization of this region, immediately to the seuth ot China. ‘hat is why I snid, in my address, that I think such an agreement must be packed up by a commitment on the part of the signatory powers to uphold, with the full military power that the signatories possess, the integrity of the yegion against any outside attack. This would mean that the American military power would remain as a deterrent against actual Chinese expansion inlo this region. Gentlemen, as things are now going, the likelihood of Chinese expansion—actual Chinese intervention, possession, and occupation of large parts of southeast Asia—is becoming ever more real. ‘Phat would mean that we would evertually have to deal with a situation much worse than the one we are now facing in svutheast Asia. JoserE b. HUDSON, JR. (Reading question) + “Hoes not yuur public advocacy of negotiation weaken our bargaining position if negotiation docs actually occur?” tion. Frank Cirurce. Any kind of public advocacy Uivoives certain risks. But gentiemen, when the stakes are so great, then i think it i: incumbent upon all of us who hold public trust to open a discussion of the alternatives, so that the American people, who will be asked to fight the war, will have some knowledge of what is basically involved. What this question presumes is closing our CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE society in the name of conformity oi opinion, Now we either run a free society or we don’t, and if we’re all going to kecp quiet and march in step to whatever official tune is played in Washington, then we have relinquished the most precious preroga‘ive we ‘have as Americans, and we have forsaken the processes of freedom, because of our fear of the consequences that flow from f-eedom. [ would not accept that condition and remain in the U.S. Senate. [Applause.] JosurH L. Hupson, Jr. (Reading que stion): “Why should Peiping accept a neutralized southeast Asia? What do you sugge:t we do if Peiping will not accept trzce terms ncceptable to us?” Hon. Franx Cuurcn. If it’s not possible to negctiate an acceptable settlement, then, of course, it follows that we do not se tle. In iorea, negotiations preceded an en: to the fighting by 2 years. But in the end we reached a truce. I remember that- -you all remember it, too. The elections 9i 1952, when Dwight D. Eisenhower pledged to go to Korea to arrange a settlement of ‘he war. Eventually, we will settle in southear Asia at the conference table. Now, I can’t tell you when Hanoi or Peiping may be willin:: to deal, or on what basis-—but I'd like to find out. Moreover, it is with Hanoi that we are now principally concerned. The Chinese are not occupying North Vietnam. Their armies are not there. In fact, Chinese physical presence in North Vietnam is much!ess substantial than our own physical presence in South Vietnam. This is today sti!l a ‘war between the North Vietnamese and the South Vietnamese and between tl:e South Vietnamese and the South Victnamese. Hanoi has a great deal at stake in this. She does not want to be occupied by China. Her historic sense of independence, the popular resistunce of the Vietnamese toward the Chinese, finds its roots over centuries of past history. While this still remains essentially a Vietnamese conflict, our prospects for settling it on a satisfactory basis are best. If it is transformed into a Chines conflict, with a Chinese occupation and possession of the area, then, of course, it will become more difficult to find satisfactory answers. That is the company this stepped-up military effort—of which I approve—with 4 tandem diploraatic effort so that both the arrows an the olive branch are used. That would represent, in my opinion, our best chance for avoiding widening war in Asia. JosepH LL. Hupson, Jr. One more question on Vietnam and then we'll have a few other subjects to cover. (Reading question.) “How mich more prestige is there to lose if we pull o.tt of Vietnani?” Hon, Frank CHurcH. Well, ge ‘tlemen, I happen to be one who never thought we should have gone into Vietnam at the end of that long, painful, and futile French war. But we did. And it is true tht when a nation doves make a commitment, then, of course, it invests prestige with it I do not minimize the need to protect thut prestige in southeast Asia as much ax possible. Therefore, I have never advocated i: unilateral withdrawal from South Vietnam, or quitting under Communist pressure, or breaking our pledge to give assistance to the Saigon government. On the other hand, the surest way I know to turn this country back into a country of isolationists is to tell the American people that wherever we go to assist a silting govermunent in this big world in go:mne struggle to put down a rebellion in which the Communists are engaged—that every time we do this, we have a guarantee the outcome of thet struggle with our own troop), as though the very life of the United States depended on it, then, believe me, we're in deep water, and the American people, with their great commonsense, are going to get very tired of it very soon. February 21, 1966 With respect to South Vietnam, three American Presidents have said: Our purpose is to help the Saigon government try to win its war. But they have also been careful to say it’s not our war and ultimately it’s a war that only they, themselves, can win, I agree. Most Communist guerrilla wars have been successfully suppressed, like in Cireece, like in Malaya, like in the Philippines, but we can’t guarantee that result every time. If, every time the point is reached wherc a guerrilla war may be lost, we’re going to convert it into an American war, and do as Mr. Baldwin of the New York Times said yesterday—send out a million Americans to fight a war that God knows how long it’s going to last, or where it’s going to end, or what settlement will follow that would be as good as what we've got to work with today--- then we're going to turn this country into 2 citadel of isolationists again. We've got to keep our wits about us and remember that we serve our national interest—our national interest—by our commitments abroad. And when 2 situation develops as this one has, we must access the cost in terms of our real national interest. Ym for fighting wars when our vital interest is at stake and we’ve never flinched. But I’m not for getting this country engaged in folly, in futile wars, way out on the other side of the world, over questions to which we cannot furnish any durable answer. That I think is what we’re in danger of doing if we now embark upon the path to widening war in the jungles of southeast Asia. JosePH L. Hupson, Jr. Two more questions. (Reading question): “Should we do awry with the United Nations and organize a group of world powers based on population?” Hon. Franz CHurcs. I'll make the answer very short. No, I do not think we should do away with the United Nations. The United Nations has been an extremely useful instrument in many places like Suez, like Cyprus and other places, It has served the interests of peace. But there is no international organization, at this stage of world history, that can give us any cure to the problems of war, when the major interests of the major powers are involved. This is too much to expect from the United Nations. So I would say, let us strive to keep the United Nations in as strong and healthy condition as possible, because it serves as a very useful instrument for the human race in the settlement of many peripheral wars that could become extremely dangerous in the absence of 2 United Nations. JosePH L. Hupson, Jr. Our last relates to foreign ald. (Reading question): “American business has a big stake in the foreign aid program ir. that 85 percent of aid-financed purchases abroad must be made with American firms. Is this one of the freczeout features of the foreign aid program you would like to repeal, and how would this affect the chances of passage of the foreign aid bill?” Hon. Frank Cuurcu. That's true. It is running at between 80 and 85 percent. Is this one of the freezeout features of the foreign aid program T would like to repeal? No, no. I think that one of our most dangerous problems today, gentlemen, is the pressure on the American dollar in the international market. Do you know how muci1 we've spent in the Congo? We spent $400 million there. Just think of that. We've got to begin to exercise some ditcipline upon our emotions. This tremerdous outfiow of American money, in all of its forms, and a part of it is foreign aid because, although 80 percent of the money Its spent here, 20 percent of the money is net, and this does constitute a part of the outflow of American dollars. Our military installations abroad are an-~ other open gate for the outflow of Americen dollars. I think that, unless we redress the balance of payments, we're going to have question Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 64] === February 21, 1966 the American dollar devaluated in the course of time. The Federal Government and the President are determined to avoid that. But unless my knowledge of economics is very insufficient, it can’t be avoided indefinitely unless we finally redress the balance-ofpayments deficit. Now, if the dollar collapses—and I don't mean to suggest that there Is any imminent danger of that today—but it’s under pressure and we know the seriousness of the problem if the dollar were ever to collapse. The British pound collapsed in 1931 when that was the principal currency of the world, and a devastating worldwide depression followed. We could see the great economic strength of the Western World weakened immensely if this were to happen. The only way we’re going to see that 1t doesn’t happen, in the long run, is to turn our adverse balance of payments around. And that’s got to be done, both through the adoption of the recommendations of the President, and through some curtailment of the outgo of American dollars in the programs we have undertaken abroad I hope that both actions - will be responsibly pursued in Washington. [Applause.] L. S. Borxe. Senator, we are indebted for this very informative explanation of your views, and to you, Joe Hudson, for handling the duties of presiding officer so capably. The meeting is adjourned. Adjournment, How Many DomINiIcAN REPUBLICS AND VIETNAMS CAN WE TaKE ON? (By Frank CuHurcy) Throughout the country there is uneasiness about our foreign policy, coming from such different quarters and expressed in such divergent ways that the underlying reason for the apprehension is often obscured. Americans are always prepared to fight when their country is threatened; no foreign power can intimidate us. The doubt and the disagreement relate to how deeply we should involve ourselves in civil wars of other countries. Young idealists protest our efforts in behalf of so many tottering governments afficted by decadence and despotism and frequently despised by their own peoples. Scholars warn that the United States must not function as the global sentinel of the status quo. ‘ These are merely different ways of questioning American military intervention as a means for coping with guerrilla wars in foreign lands. People are wondering: Are we to be self-appolnted firemen scurrying to quench every revolutionary blaze, no matter how repugnant the government that sounds the alarm? This, many suspect, is the mission we are embarked upon. Since’ it is an unaccustomed role that clashes with our own revolutionary origins and our natural reluctance to furnish a shield for any kind of despotism, we seek refuge in scothing sematics. We downgrade freedom by equating it with the absence of communism: we upgrade a host of dictatorial regimes by dignifying them with membership in what we like to call the “free world.” We tell ourselves that the remedy for their hungry and oppressed is a ration of foreign aid, with which we seek to buy a little reform, some small measure of relief, as a substitute for revolution. Finally, we suppress any lingering doubts with a heady dose of evangelical zeal, Thus we appear to have launched ourselves upon the most of far reaching American crusade of this century, Dissenters are not apt to be forgiven for their heresy, but hotly branded as “‘appeasers” held up to scorn for being either “soft on communism” or sold on surrender. Plainly the course of prudence is to march in step, Nevertheless, there are dissenters who will not be silent. Among them are senior lawmakers in the Senate who, for differing reasons, harbor misgivings about the apparent trend in American foreign policy. These men cannot be lumped together and dismissed as “neolsolationists.” Seasoned Senators like FuLsricut, of Arkansas, RUSSELL, of Georgia, Armen, of Vermont, and Mansrie.p, of Montana are not escapists who yearn for the return of bygone days when we behaved as though we could keep out of all foreign wars. Such an interpretation profoundly misconstrues the nature of the current anxiety in the Senate, where even the most outspoken foreign policy critics—Oregon’s WayNrt Morse and ‘Alaska’s ErRNrsT GRUENING—are anything but a new breed of tsolationists. Senators such as McGovern, of South Dakota, Cuark, Of Pennsylvania, Gorn, of Tennessee, and the author of this article are confirmed internationalists—strong supporters of the United Nations, of sensible foreign aid programs, of the Peace Corps and of vigorous U.S. support for the NATO alliance. We have upheld the President’s quest for a settlement in Vietnam and opposed any unilateral withdrawal of American forces. The skeptical mood in the Senate derives, not from nostalgia for the past, but from a searching examination of the present—this age of ferment in which we live. In a brief 20 years, rampant nationalism has swept like a tidal wave over the once-imposing colonial empires. Half a hundred newborn countries struggle for life, hard pressed to satisfy the demands of thelr suddenly unfettered peoples. Everywhere the remnants of the old order are being challenged. Instability 1s in- - evitable. An erupting volcano cannot be capped, No nation—not even our own—possesses an arsenal so large, or a treasury 50 rich, as to damp down the fires of smoldering revolution throughout the whole of the awakening world. Even our most militant interventionists concede that the United States alone cannot protect every tottering government from violent overthrow. Our purpose, they say, should be to abstain from interfering with “good” revolutions, while suppressing the “bad.” But since insurgencies these days usually include Communist elements, forecasting the end result becomes a very chancy business. When Batista was overthrown in Cuba, we gambled on Castro and lost; when the military junta in Santo Domingo faced rebellion in the streets, we decided not to gamble. Instead, we dispatched 20,000 troops to put down the revolt, and thus assumed the responsibility for an occupied country. How many Dominican Republics and Vietnams can we take on? What if revolutions should now occur in Bolivia, Nigeria, and Tran? - The question, we are told, will somehow find its answer in Vietnam. This ts our trial-by-ordeal, the third and final test of our capacity to resist Communist aggression, Having taught the master plotters that outright invasions will be beaten back {Korea), that nuclear intimidation will fail (Cuban missile crisis), the United States must now teach the Communists that managed up-~ risings from within, guerrilla “wars of national liberation,” are also in vain. Then the prospects for peace will brighten again. This is a form of self-delusion, Guerrilla wars, after all, are not the links of a single chain that can be broken in any one place. They can be better compared to a contagious disease, the germs of which are carried on the winds of change. The danger of infection is universal with immunity confined only to countries enjoying good internal health. So we have seen guerrilla wars, often infected by the Communist virus, erupting in scattered, unconnected countries around the globe, wheréver infirmity within invites revolt. Even as we struggled to end the insurgency in Vietnam, rebellion broke out in Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3435 the Dominican Republic, on the opposite side of the world. At this very moment,. there is serious danger of similar uprisings in a score of countries across Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The causes of these impending revolutions are essentially indigenous, whatever the name of the ideology proclaimed or the colors of the banners unfurled. Regardless of the outcome in Vietnam, we shall have to Hve in a world beset with guerrilla wars for many years to come.. In these circumstances, we should start to exercise a prudent restraint and develop a foreign policy more closely tied to a sober assessment of our own national interests. For too long we have tilted with windmills in world affairs. As President of the United States, Lyndon B. Johnson can no more protect the world from insurrection than Woodrow Wilson could make it safe for democracy. Emphatically, this does not mean that we should ignore Communist-infested guerrilla wars in the future; rather, it means we should keep our intervention commensurate, in each case, with what we as a nation really have at stake, From our current involvements, we should learn some lessons, and apply them as guidelines in the future. . In the case of the Dominican Republic, for example, the potential threat of a Communist takeover occurred in a region of prime strategic importance to the United States. The Cuban missile crisis of 1962, which brought us to the brink of nuclear war, decisively demonstrated how much is at stake for the American people in the Caribbean. We will not abide another Castrotype regime so close to our southern shores. Although we can debate whether or not Communists had actually seized control of the uprising in Santo Domingo, the President’s decision to send in American troops sprang from his most fundamental respon. sibility as Commander in Chief—the defense of the country. In Vietnam, on the other hand, the security of the United States is not the issue. Saigon doesn’t stand guard over Seattle, By defeating Japan in the Second World War, we conquered the Pacific Ocean. We police it, patrol it and reign over it with unchallenged naval and aerial supremacy. There is no way for the land-locked forces of Asia to drive us from the Pacific. In all honesty, we are fighting in Vietnam, not to defend Honolulu or Seattle, but to defend our national reputation, We have promised much, and now we must make good or risk a loss of confidence in us. The spector of a spreading desertion of the United States around the rim of Asia—not the threat posed by a Communist government in Vietnam—is the real fear thrusting us into the jungles of Indochina. The lesson to be learned from Vietnam is that when the outcome of a guerrilla war does not threaten the vital interests of this country, we had better deal with it at arm’s length. If we decide to give money, food or guns, the aid should be rendered from afar. Every precaution should be taken to avoid implicating ourselves so deeply as to convert the conflict into an American war, Military intervention on our part, even where it cannot be avoided, is always an expensive and protracted adventure. Already we are finding it mucH harder to get out of the Dominican Republic than it was to get in. In South Korea a dozen years _ after the truce, we still have more than ~ 50,000 American troops on duty and the country is sustained by a yearly injection of a half-billion-dollar American dole. Uniess we can discover an acceptable way to extricate ourselves from Vietnam, the price will go even higher there. Our annual bill, once $200 million, now exceeds Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 65] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3436 that figure tenfold. Next year, according to present, estimates, the total will surely pass $5 billion. Others in a position to judge are forecasting an outlay closer to $12 pillion. If each guerrilla war which takes a bad turn is to become an American responsibility, there will be no end to the mounting purden—-in lost lives and spent treasure. Accordingly, we must recognize the folly of trying to impose an American solution upon every insurgency abroad. The turmoil of our time will last for generations; some Communist-tinged guerrilla uprisings will succeed, others will fail. Challenged governments may fortify themselves with weapons from abroad, and seek help in other ways, but the ultimate decision will depend on the government’s own character, and the willingness of the people to rally pehind it. Political, social, economic, ethnic, and religious factors will weigh more heavily in the balance than primacy of arms. The French Army never lost control of the war iu Algeria, but the Algerian people were 50 alienated in the process that the colonial government lust its capacity to govern. It was then that De Gaulle bowed to the inevitable. Faced with the same sort of popular test, non-Communist governments overcame rebellion in (reece, the Philippines, Malaya and Burma, while Communist-led rebels won out in Cuba. That some governments will fail the test should be no reason for us to panic, or on that account to intervene with American troops. Nationalism, not eommunism, is the dominant influence of the age. Even when the two combine, comyounism has become the servant of nationiwlist aspirations. As an international force under one direclorate, determined to take over the world, communism is a4 bust. China and Russia are bitter enemies, while the smaller Communist countries are proving surprisingly independent, evolving their own national versions of Marxism. ‘The Communist world is unraveling; it bears no resemblance to a monolithic mass. Therefore, we must escape the trap of becoming so preoccupied with communism, us such, that we dissipate our strength in a vain attempt to enforce a global quarantine against it. Our first concern in foreign afxuirs is not the ideology adopted by other peoples, but the threat that other governments may pose to the United States. (n Asia, the potential threat is Peiping, not Hanoi. Had we stayed out, Ho Chi Minh might have forced the reunion of South Viet- ‘am, but Hanoi will never conquer Asia or threaten the world beyond. When we took up the wreckage of empire jeft behind by the departing French, we ensnared ourselves in a Vietnamese war of secondary importance. Our involvement, however, hus proved so ‘useful to Red China that the Peiping government, above all others, wants to see the war prolonged. It is Mao ‘L'se-tung, among the Communust leaders, who most adamantly opposes a setifement, exhorting Hanoi to keep up the light and taunting us to do likewise with “paper tiger” insults. Our failure to comprehend, long ago, Mao's. shrewd appraisal of the war in indochina, has proved « great misfortune. It has enabled him to use us as a tool to further Chinese ambitions in Asia. Just as the Communist leaders in the Kremiin, following the defeat of Hitler, reimposed the Russian sphere ot influence aver the Balkans which had existed earlier under the czars, so the Reds in Peiping, after 1954, have sought to reestablish over Indochina the influence so long enjoyed by the Chinese emperors, ‘this region, in fact, is not unlike the Balkans, consisting as it does of small, bordering countries over which China looms like a dragon over a handful of lizards. In the natural course of events, we cannot hope to deny China her influence in south- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE east Asia, any more than China can deny us ours in the Caribbean, The containment of China can best be accomplished, not by wars pitting imported Western troops against orientals, but by the resistance of stable Asian governments, which commarn:i sufficient popular support to maintain eTective internal order. Unfortunately, the American involvement in a lengthy war in the “Balkans of Asia” undermines this objective. As most Asians are inclined to see it, the United Stites has intervened in a war that is primarily a Vietnamese affair regardless of whether the struggle is viewed as an insurrectior in the south or a covert war by the north.gainst the south. Either way, American tro ps, not Chinese, are engaged in the fight; American planes, not Chinese, are doing the b-mbing. So it ts that the extended Americin participation in the Vietnamese war works against our larger interests in Asi.. The longer it lasts, the more convincing «hina is apt to appear as the self-styled champion of Asia for the Asians, and the faster (“hinese influence in neighboring lands is likely to grow. Even now, Burma and Cambodi move toward China. Sturdy friends of thr United States like the Philippines and Japin grow increasingly restive. Worse still, India and Pakistan, whose flank we thought we were protecting against Communist envelopment, plung into war with one another. Behind our battleline in Indochina, Singapore separates from Malaysia, and Sukarno, despite a Communist uprising in Indonesia, still makes us his favorite whipping boy. Even as we hold on in Vietnam, the dominoes wobble all about us. Peiping also gains in other wavs. The Vietnamese have historically opposed Chinese domination, but prolonging the war makes Hanoi increasingly dependent upon China for support, compromising her hard. won independence. Within the divided Communist camp, the continuing war can be printed to as proof that the Russian doctrines of peaceful coexistence with the West are demonstrably false, while within China itself the daily tongue lashings administered to the “american devils in Vietnam" furnish the Red Government with a convenient shibboleth to rally the people to greater labors at home. Beyond southeast Asia, on the broid global front, a protracted struggle in Vietni:m could yet lead to a shotgun marriage—or Chinese terms-—between the feuding titan: of the Communist world. The hopeful thirw in our relations with the Soviet Union would then give way to a full-scale resumpticn of the cold war, our adversaries welded together again by our own hand. This may still be part of the price we shall pay for tne corner into which we have painted ourselves in Indachina. None of this is written in crijicism of Lyndon B. Johnson. Like Kenne:ly before him, Johnson inherited an Amerivan commitment in Vietnam, and he intend: to honor it. At the same time, he is moving American policy in the right direction, toward the conference table. His arm’s-length tre.tment of the war between India and Pakistar;, coupled with his immediate resort to the United Nations, suggest that he sees the need for restraint in the use of Americ: forces. Once freed of the war in Vietnam-—whether through a settlement or the suppression of further resistance by a massive American military occupation—Johnson may endeavor in the future to avoid dispatching American troops whenever it appears that a revolution in some distant place may not be yoing our way. For the United States in the 20th century is not the replacement of 19th-century Great Britain. The colonial house of Western Empire has been taken over by its former subjects, and we shall not be welcom:d in as a February 21, 1966 new master. Nor should we want to be. What more disnial, self-defeating role can we assume than that of voluntary protector of every privileged potentate and petty tyrant who happens to claim tenancy? Yet, in order to escape this trap, we must discard the prescription of “not another inch,” which places a premium value on all real estate and fails utterly to take inta account that there are areas where the assump-~ tion of governing responsibility is much more of a liability than an asset. Moreover, in the former colonial regions of Africa and Asia. where resentment of the white man still festers, the application of too much American muscle could easily prove ruinous, spreading Communist expansion instead of thwarting it. Finally, as we grope with guerrilla wars in this age of revolution, let us understand +hat there is no American breastwork that can successfully contain them. The NATO defense Hne, on which we do sentry duty, has held fast in Western Europe because stable governments, commanding strong internal support, joined together for a mutual purpose. Our intervention there, moreover, was welcomed by people with whom we shared a common ancestry, culture, and civilization. In the recent direction of our diplomacy, we have made no mistake so fundamental as the assumption that American military intervention, which was right for Western Europe, would be right also for those continents that have just thrown off European rule. Violent convulsions are bound to occur in many of the emerging countries of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, wherever injustice lacks a remedy and progress must spawn on force. Should suppression of revolt abroad become an American obsession, we will yield to the Communists the one prize they mest covet, an uncontested claim upon every incipient revolution. If we do not attempt through our diplomacy and by our example to guide these currents toward democratic ends, rather than trying in vain to stem them, the Communists will be left to ride the crest. Why have we been so reluctant? As a people who proudly proclaimed our right to revolution in the years of our infancy, why do we so recoil, when others assert the same right, in these years of our maturity and strength? The Communists haven't changed the rules of revolutions by meddling in them. Never have such wars been fought in splendid isolation, not even Our own. There were as many Frenchmen at Yorktown, when George Washington accepted the surrender of Cornwallis, as there were American Continentals. Senator Funsricut, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, believes that our own attitude toward revolution has profoundly changed as our circumstances have improved. “Tt is not surprising,’ he writes, “that we Americans are not drawn toward the uncouth revolutionaries of the non-Communist left. We are not, as we like to claim in Fourth of July speeches, the most truly revolutionary nation on earth; we are, on the contrary, much closer to being the most unrevolutionary nation on earth. We are sober and satisfied and comfortable and rich; our institutions are stable and old and even venerable.” There is much truth in Fuusricur’s appraisal. In dealing with guerrilla wars of the future, the President will find it hard to temper a fear-inspired passion for American intervention, should he choose to try. But if he submits to the siren songs of the new crusaders, he may well forfeit the great place in history he desires, for it will ill serve our interest, as it lies beyond our power, to impose a Pax Americana upon an unwilling world. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 iD ES <i === [Page 66] === February 21, 1966 ExuHIsir 2 Is VIETNAM ANOTHER GREECE? (By George C. Voumas) The speech of the Honorable George W, Ball before the Northwestern University Alumni Association at Evanston, Ill., published in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of January 31, 1966 (vol 112, No. 16), deserves some comment, if not elucidation. The writer concedes at the very outset that ‘ his knowledge of Asian affairs would hardly qualify him to either offer suggestions or observations on Vietnam or the related question of Chinese containment. However, the analogy of U.S. intervention in Greece, if allowed to go unchallenged, may lead us to dangerous assumptions.. Both premise and conclusions are based on error and do violence to the truth, giving validity to the often repeated charge abroad that the United States has a “sense of mission but no sense of history.” Mr. Ball states: “The Soviet Union under Stalin embarked on a reckless course of sseking to extend Communist power.” And further: “But in terms of tactics on the ground, Greece is a closer analogy. For there, 20 years ago, as in South Vietnam today, the Communists sought to achieve their purpose by what is known tn their lexicon as a war of national liberation. “They chose this method of aggression both in Greece and Vietnam because tactics of terror and sabotage, of stealth and subversion, give a great advantage to a disciplined and ruthless minority, particularly where, as in those two countries, the physical terrain made concealment easy and impeded the use of heavy weapons.” The past 20 years have separated fact from fiction on this subject, and the facts are well established. First honors for dispelling the fog must go to Winston Churchill's “Triumph and Tragedy” (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1953); second, Vladmir Dedijer’s “Tito” (Simon & Schuster, 1963); and last, but not least, Milovan Djilas’ “Conversations With Stalin” 1. There was not a question of war of national liberation in Greece. The Greek war for national liberation was fought in 1821— 27, receiving acclaim and: support from freedom-loving persons the world over. During World War II the Greeks, after a magnificent resistance to the German- Italian occupation, followed closely on the heels of the retreating Germans, and occupied the entire Greek territory. Since the EAM (national liberation front) was in control practically of the entire country, no question of liberation was involved. The issue over which tens of thousands lost their lives was the form of government to be established. The EAM, to which the overwhelming majority of the Greek people belonged, was suspicious of English motives—particularly after Churchill’s insistence upon the return of King George II. The resistance fighters opposed it. They knew that the Greek dynasty and its local retinue were the instrument and symbols of what the Chinese now call “neo-colonialism.” It is an historte fact that the Greek dynasty was imposed upon Greece by British diplomacy. (King George I, a Danish prince and founder of the Glyksburg dynasty in Greece, was in the pay of the British Exchequer from the day he first set foot on Greek soil in 1863 to the day he was assassinated in Salonica in 1918.) George II, after an exile of years, returned to Greece in the middle thirties. Soon thereafter he sanctioned the Metaxas quasi- ‘Fascist dictatorship—a regime that filled old Greek jails and forts with political prisoners and the waterless islands of the Aegean with exiles. No. 29--—16 2. The issue which caused the clash in Athens in 1944 was settled by the Varzika Agreement, the King—then in London—having agreed to the appointment of a Regent. General Scobie, while ordaining Greek Cabinet with a liberal facade, armed and countenanced rightist gants (Known as ‘X”-1tes) and otherwise promoted a reign of terror at the countryside, presenting all former participants in the EAM with the choice to elther be slaughtered like lambs or be shot like wolves. Under such provocation “even a saint would turn savage.” The world did not know then what Mr. Churchill proudly records in his history (“Triumph and Tragedy,” p. 227) that he and Stalin had agreed on the division of the Balkans on October 9, 1944: (Churchill) * * * Let us, settle about our affairs in the Balkans Your armies are in Rumania and Bulgaria. We have interests, missions, and agents there. at cross purposes in small ways. So far ag Britain and Russia are concerned, how would it do for you to have 90 percent predominance in Rumania, for us to have 90 percent of the say in Greece, and go 50-50 about Yugoslavia?’ While this was being translated, I wrote out on a half sheet of paper: Rumania: Percent Russla__---.--.------ eee 90 The others_..-_------_------~---.- 10 Greece: Great. Britain (in accord with I pushed this across to Stalin, who had by then heard the translation. There was a slight pause. Then he took his blue pencil and made a large tick upon it, and passed it back to us. It was all settled in no more time than it takes to set down.” Mr. Churchill was elated with this agreement. Referring to it years later, he declared: “I made an agreement with Stalin, and he Kept it.” Then we have Tito’s biographer, Vladimir Dedijer, who, after enumerating the various acts and deeds of the British in Yugoslavia and the support given by Churchill to King Peter, etc., states (page 250):: “For those reasons Yugoslavia’s early postwar attitude toward events tn Greece was dictated by the danger which threatened its Independence and free development from that quarter.” Mr. Dedijer attributes the Tito-Stalin breach to the Greek revolution and Stalin’s suspicion that Tlto supported it. Then we have Milovan Djilas’ (both Djilas and Dedijer have been jailed by Tito) ‘“Conversations With Stalin.” He states (page 131): “In Greece a civil war was beitig fought. Yugoslavia had been charged in the United Nations with giving it material aid and inspiring it; while Yugoslav relations with the West, and especially with the United States, were strained to the breaking point. “When I think back, it seems to me that the Soviet Government not only looked with satisfaction at this sharpening of Yugoslav- Western relations, but even incited it, taking care, of course, not to go beyond the Itmits of its own interests and possibilities. Molotov almost embraced Kardelj in Paris after the shooting down of two American planes in Yugoslavia, though he also cautioned him against shooting down a third. The Soviet Government took no direct action with respect to the uprising in Greece, practically leaving Yugoslavia to face the music alone Don’t let us get © Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3437 in the United Nations, nor did it undertake anything decisive to bring about an armistice—not until Stalin found it to his interst.” And on page 181: “Stalin then turned to the uprising in Greece. “The uprising in Greece has to fold up.’ (He used for this word ‘svernut’, which means literally to roll up.) ‘Do you believe’-—he turned to Kardelj—‘in the success: of the uprising in Greece?’ “Kardelj replied, ‘If foreign intervention does not grow and if serious and political and military errors are not made.’ “Stalin went on, without paying attention to Kardelj’s opinion: If, if. No, they have no prospect for success at all. What do you think, that Great Britain and the United States—the United States, the most powerful state in the world—will permit you to break their line of communication. in the Mediterranean Sea. Nonsense. And we have no navy. The uprising in Greece must be stopped, as quickly as possible. 3. To say, “The Soviet Union under Stalin embarked on a reckless course of seeking to extend Communist power,” on the basis of the Greek experience, is totally untenable. All the polemics, releases, and communiques by the White House and State Department at the time notwithstanding, the established fact remains that Stalin—as far as the Greek revolution was concerned—was on the s{de of Truman. (On this very point it would be pertinent to quote a paragraph from an article which appeared in the Nation magazine—issue of January 17, 1966, written by Howard Zinn under the title, “Setting the Moral Equation,” p. 62, 2d col., 5th line: (“A political scientist doing strategic research for the Government told me recently with complete calm that his institute decided not too long ago that they had been completely wrong about the premise which underlay much of American policy in the postwar period—the premise that Russia hoped to take over Western Europe: by force.”) The United States did not intervene in Greece until after Great Britain threw in the sponge. In other words, the aim of the Greek fighters—elimination of British neocolonialism—was realized. When the United States intervened, the conflict could be negotiated and amicably settled if political conditions in Washington permitted it. We must not forget that the reservoir of goodwill in Greece is great, indeed, going back to 1821, the struggle for Greek independence from the Turks, and the ald America gave to the cause, The United States is looked upon not only by Greeks, but by the better-informed the world over as the fairest daughter of Greek classicism. In addition, presentday America is the host country to many hundreds of thousands of erstwhile Greek immigrants who are part of the American Commonwealth. (Every fifth family in Greece has a close relative living in the United States.) However, McCarthyism at home, growing daily into hurricane force, permitted no such ending. “Anticommunism” became a substitute for policy, with the result that soon thereafter U.S, presence was extended to Turkey, then Iran, etc., etc., around the periphery of the Soviet Union. That is how and when the cold war was born. 4. U.S. intervention, being free of neocolonialism, succeeded where Great Britain failed. King George II was restored to the throne and Greece, thanks to American aid, recovered to an extent from the ravages of war, occupation, and civil strife. The past 20 years or so have been more or less tranquil. The last elections—the first truly free since the pacification of the country—gave an overwhelming majority. to Papandreou’s Center Union. This government was booted out of power on July 15, 1965—evil tongues Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 67] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 54138 say with U.S. connivance—by the King, before the expiration of its term, Greece being governed since by a coalition of minority parties with royal blessing. The fragile Greek economy. however, saddled as it has been with back-breaking financial burdens to maintain a military establishment under NATO, is tottering. As a result, inflation has raised its ugly head. This, in turn, has added to the hardships of the working people, with the result that strikes by workers in private industry, government employces, schoolteachers, etc., are on the daily menu. Unemployment and underemployment is rampant. As a result, mass immigration (mare than 400,000 workers have gone to West Germany) is denuding the country. There are those who already see foreboding clouds in the horizon, When the inevitable storm breaks out, whom are we froing to blame? I do not pretend to know what the ultimate outcome will be in Greece or Vietnam— which, naturally enough, constitutes today the primary concern of the United States from the Commander in Chief to the most lowly private or citizen. The signs of the times point, however, that in the nuclear age U.S. security will best be served not through the reiteration of discredited past myths, which will hardly.contribute to keeping the Sovict Union and China apart, but if day-today policies of the United States are brought in harmony with American heritage as envisaged by Jefferson and the Founding Fathers. U.S. policies have heretofore championed Kings, Pashas and Economic Potentates, The field of social justice for the peoples of the world have been left entirely too long to the Communist side to exploit. The Honolulu declaration of President Johnson and the Vietnamese leaders issued on February 8, 1966 does not come one moment too soon, To paraphrase Mr. Ball: “After all, it should not be * * * the American purpose simply to preserve the status quo.” [From the New York Times, Feb. 20, 1966] WASHINGTON: ‘THE RusK DOCTRINE {By James Reston) WasHINGTon, February 19.—Secretary of State Rusk has put a grim doctrine before the people of this country. He was a responsive and forthright witness before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and it is im~ . portant that we understand what he thinks our duties and responsibilities are in the world. First, in Vietnam, we are to commit to the battle whatever is necessary to end the aggression and bring about the freedom and security of South Vietnam. What this means, he conceded, depends primarily on what the enemy commits (the Chinese committed 1 million men to the battle in Korea). He would not say there was no limit to the men and material the United States would send to Vietnam, but he stuck to his proposition that we would maintain military superiority there no matter how long it took to stop the fighting. RUSK’S OBJECTIVE This objective, it should be noted, was not made conditional on what the South Vietnamese or any of the other allies contributed to the fighting. ‘There is no longer much talk here ot victory depending primarily on the South Vietnamese Army. Mr. Rusk discussed the {freedom of South Vietnam as a vital American interest, essential to our own security and critical to all the other security commitments we have taken to over 40 other countries. ‘This is a formidable doctrine. Second, the Secretary of State gave an interesting interpretation of America’s oblivations as a member of the Southeast Asia. ‘Treaty Organization. In the event of armed aggression against the territory covered by that treaty, he said, America’s obligation to oppose the aggression did not depend on all CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -— SENATE the members agreeing to oppose it, but it was America’s duty to do so regardless of what the others did (which in Vietnam is very little). THE AMERICAN COMMITMENTS This did not mean, Secretary Rusk remarked, that the United States was obligated to oppose Communist aggression everywhere in the world or that we were going around looking for fights to put down. For example, we did not oppose Communist China’s aggression in Tibet or the Soviet Union’s aggression in Hungary, for we had not taken any commitment to do so, but this still leaves us with commitments the like of which no sovereign nation ever took in the history of the world. For the United States is committed to oppose Communist aggresion all alon:; the periphery of the Communist nations from the North Cape of Norway through the heart of Europe to Greece and Turkey (NAT?)); along the southern frontier of the Sovict Union in the Near and Middle East (the Hisenhower resolution); and thence through southeast Asia (SEATO) to Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Japan, and Korea, Aid if you add our obligations under the Organization of American States and our obligations under the United Nations, you take in most of the rest of the world. The Rusk doctrine makes the Monroe Doctrine or the Truman doctrine seem rather cheap. Monroe limited his commi:ments to the Western Hemisphere. Truman wanted to oppose communism primarily by economic means. And even John Foster Dulles, who was not a timid man, thought each alliance should stand on its own terms and -icpend to some degree on what the other members of the alliance did.: But the Rusk doctrine draws no distinc tion between powerful industrial dzmocratic states in Europe and weak undemocratic states in Asia. His view seems tu be that the United States must redeem the promises of every ullinnce it has signed regnurdless of what the other signatories do, and that failure to keep everybody’s promise in one alliance will destroy the confidence of the world in all other alliances we have signed. THAT BLANK CHECK If this is true, it is odd that mest of our allies in Europe, the Middle East and even in Japan. are critical of our operations in Vietnam, but this is the thesis Mr. Rusk placed before the Foreign Relations Cominittee. And the interesting thing is tha? the Senators cannot really do much about it, which accounts for all the frustration they have demonstrated on the TV screens in the last few days. For in the moment of crisis during the Communist attack on our ships In the Gulf of Tonkin, President Johnson asked for a blank check to deal with aggression all over southeast Asia—including the right to use any force he deemed necessary-—and once he had published that request, the Congress had no choice but to grant it to him or—-what was unthinkable—repuciiate him in the face of the enemy. ‘ILE SENATE’S DILEMMA Nor can the Senate do anythin:: to take pack this promise under present circumstances. If Senator Morsm presses his resolution to withdraw the Tonkin Gulf resolution, obviously few if any Congressmen are going to vote with him and turn their backs on the 200,000 Americans now fighting in Vietnam. But their helplessness merely emphasizes the transformation that has taken place in American and world politics. The President, if he chooses his time carefully, can obviously get almost any commitment he likes from the Congress in the moment of c«risis, and under the Rusk doctrine, we are then obliged to redeem each commitment, regardless of what the other parties to the agreement do, February 21, 1966 or risk the destruction of the entire system of American alliances created since the last war. All this goes well beyond Vietnam in space and time. Mr. Rusk has asked the Senate to contain the expansion of communism ail along the periphery of the Communist empire, by force of arms and without allies if necessary, and the Congress cannot oppose him in present circumstances without opposing its own men in Vietnam, which it obviously will not da. [From the New York Times, Feb. 21, 1966] Error IN VirrNam Pouicy To the Eprtror: Perhaps the most significant remark made by George F. Kennan in his testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Commit- “tee on February 10 was that “From the longterm standpoint, therefore, and on principle, I think our military involvement in Vietnam has to be recognized as unfortunate, as something we would not choose deliberately if the choice were ours to make all over again today. This. in substance, agrees with Senator Frank CHurcn’s recent assertion that “In Vietnam, the security of the United States is not the issue. * * * In all honesty, we are fighting in Vietnam not to defend Honolulu or Seattle, but to defend our national reputation.” Here we have the bare, blunt facts before us; that if we had the choice to make over again, we would not follow the course we did and involve ourselves in affairs in Victnam. Does anyone doubt that truth of this? We admittedly made a mistake in involving ourselves again in a land war on Asian soil, for which error in judgment American lives and resources have been and are now being paid, with no knowing what the future holds in store in the way of continued sacrifices, and the possibility of an ensuing nuclear war with its catastrophic consequences. Under such circumstances, is it any wonder that there has been so much adverse criticism regarding our policy in Vietnam? I believe that what the President and the American people are going to have to decide is: Shall we be stubborn and remain in Vietnam not for the sake of our national security but for the sake of our national security put for the sake of our national reputation? Or shall we swallow our pride, recognize the mistake we have made, and withdraw? We have no other choice—it is one or the other. NO ADVERSE EFFECT I believe we are big enough and strong enough to withstand any adverse effect that a withdrawal might engender. In fact, I believe we would gain in stature in world opinion, rather than the reverse, by doing so, just as I believe Pope Paul VI and Secretary General U Thant would applaud and commend such action on our part. While it may be that there is a moral issue involved in a withdrawal from Victnam, is there not a far greater moral responsibility on our part at stake, whpn to remain can lead to a devastating nuclear war, entailing, as it would, the possibility of a virtual wiping-out of civilization? Certainly. doing so will save American lives, and would leave the onus of war upon othcrs The Soviet Union's relation with Communist China would not be improved were the latter tc become too aggressive in Asta The issue of war should be allowed to lie between them, not with us. EMERSON C. PAWLING, N.Y., February 12, 1966. IVES. [From the New York Times, Feb. 21, 1966] THE VIETN4M COMMITMENT Secretary Rusk’s argument that the United States has an obligation to defend South Vietnam under the 1954 SEATO Treaty Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ert ag === [Page 68] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 hinges on the claim that, prior to American intervention, there was an armed attack from North Vietnam, rather than subversion, Against subversion, the only American commitment in the treaty is to consult the other signatories. ‘We have no obligation to put it down,” Secretary Dulles said at the time. But this discussion before the Fulbright committee is hardly worth nursing, since the United States has committed itself to the Saigon Government” unilaterally—without “real support from many of its SEATO parthers. The issue is not whether the United States is committed, but whether it is The overcommitment has come in the Johnson administration’s decision to bomb North Vietnam and send massive American forces into South Vietnam to engage in offensive combat. Until recently, the American obligation had been simply to provide economic aid, weapons and advice to a South Vietnamese Government that was able and willing to defend itself and to make the main effort in so doing. An even more important issue now is whether this commitment should be further expanded by lifting the American presence from 200,000 to 400,000 or 600,000 troops, That move would not only mean a quantum jump in escalation, but would fundamentally alter the character of the war, Such escalation would turn the conflict into an. American war with South Vietnamese auxillaries. It would implement an offensive strategy that, in effect, means the destruction of the South Vietnamese countryside in an effort to annihilate Vietcong forces. It would mean an end to the normal counter-= insurgency approach, which hinges on de-~ fensive action to win over the population, protect the villages and cut the guerrillas off from their source of food and recruits so that they wither on the vine. I¢ would mean a vastly increased number of American casualties in an overmilitarization and over~ Americanization of what is essentially a Vietnamese political conflict, A further massive bulld-up—which would surely be matched by the other side—would hinder the possibilities of a negotiated settlement. It would probably result in a new military stalemate at a higher level of commitment. Meanwhile, with inflation, destruction of villages, hundreds of thousands of additional refugees and American control of the war, the Saigon Government and its provincial administration structure would lose authority, coherence and sense of responsibility for the Nation’s future. The question is whether South Vietnam is to ‘be treated as a friendly country or, in effect, an enemy country to be bombed into submission with the consent of its unrepresentative national government, and then reconstructed. Is the American commitment the limited one of helping a viable government or the unlimited one of taking over the war to seek an American victory? And will the vital flexibility needed to achieve a compromise settlement by negotiation be enhanced or destroyed by the strategy of escalation? [From the Nation, Feb, 14, 1966] EVERYTHING BUT PEACE If President Johnson was trying to emulate the Stephen Leacock character who jumped on a horse and rode off in all dtrections, his" Honolulu conference could not have been better conceived. Since his election in 1964, Mr, Johnson has been improvising moves in the Vietnam war for publicity effect, with apparently no concern that each policy contradicts the preceding one. In perspective, the Honolulu meeting will be seen as merely another venture in diplomacy by showmanship, e technique which may work in domes- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE tic politics but which fs ill suited for dealing with international problems. To appreciate the full absurdity of the Hawaiian spectacular, one must read the entire text of the) joint communique and the bombastic declaration of Honolulu, which together occupy half a newspaper page, Such a farrago of pompous nonsense is rarely achieved by official proclamation writers, who generally manage to cloak duplicity in fewer words, In this instance, obfuscation was heightened by the pronouncements of the principals before and after the formal gathering. Mr, Johnson -prefaced the negotiations with a bellicose speech in which he described his domestic opponents, who are rapidly becoming a majority in the Senate, as a “group that has always been blind to experience and deaf to hope.” For his part, the self-appointed South Vietnamese Premier, Nguyen Cao Ky, appealed at a postconfabulation press conference for an exten sion of the bombing to Haiphong, and declared that he would never negotiate or enter & coalition with the National Liberation Front. By the end of 1967 he expects to win the glorious victory that for 20 years has eluded the French, the Americans, and his own Victnamese. Ky’s stand on negotiations raises a, vital point. In all his offers of unconditional discussions, President Johnson has never gone beyond suggestions that the National Liberation Front would encounter no difficulty in having its views considered at a peace conference. This was widely construed as meaning that the NLF could attend as part of the North Vietnamese delegation, thus conforming to the American position that the conflict in Vietnam was not a civil war but a war of aggression waged against South Vietnam by the Communists of North Vietnam and China. On February 6, however, Ambassador Ww. Averell Harriman, presumably speaking for the administration, gave some ground with the suggestion that the NLF could attend as an independent group. The obvious idea was to make a peace conference possible without antagonizing the South Vietnamese Government. Consistent with Harriman's Move toward a compromise on, the question of NLF representation, Walter Lippmann (New York Herald Tribune, Feb. 8) expressed the hope that the President was “talking turkey” to Premier Ky in Honolulu and telling him to “get ready for the readjJustment of U.S. policy in accordance with the real ‘military prospects in Vietnam.’ Judging by the outcome, tt was Ky who talked turkey and, as far as Mr. Johnson is concerned, the United States is now committed to conquering all of South Vietnam for Ky or his successors. What hypnotic power does the premier of South Vietnam, who came to power by a Pputsch, extends over: the President of the United States? It cannot be the specter of a separate peace between the Communists and Ky’s government that perturbs Mr. Johnson, for Ky has ruled that out in the only bit of hard news that emerged from the whole affair. A reasonable inference is that Mr. Johnson feels Ky’s Government must be shored up at all costs, since another putsch ‘at this juncture would shatter the image of ® selfless American defending the Vietnamese against Communist enslavement. How else explain why Mr. Johnson, who js so lionhearted when telling Senators where they get off, lets the Vietnamese generals dictate the politics of a war in which Americans are doing the decisive fighting and paying all the bills? Promises of a Great Society for Vietnam are such stuff as dreams are made of. The Vietcong and the peasants among whom they live may be harried from the air, but they hold three-fourths of the country. The NLF 1s more of a government than the cabal in 3439 Saigon. The bomb detonations drown out Mr. Johnson’s promises, The gift that must Precede ali others is peace, and after Honolulu that seems further off than ever. THE ECONOMICS oF Ir Every war has its economic aspect, but rarely is savagery so well matched with rapacity as today in Vietnam. Last December, Takashi Oka, a correspondent of the Christian Science Monitor, reported that for Americans “with the right combination of patriotism, venturesomeness, and hardheaded profit seeking,” investment in Vietnam could be most rewarding. The AID guarantees American investors up to 100 percent against losses through war, expropriation, insurrection and current incontrovertibility, and up to 75 percent against all other risks, including commercial risks. So far the boys have been dong fine. Both the Monitor and Newsweek—(Jan. 31) report 20 to 80 percent sent annual returns on investment in South Vietnam. The Charleston (W. Va.) Gazette received & sour comment on this Idyllic situation from a Charleston lawyer described as a moderate to conservative Republican and a firm believer in the benefits of free enterprise, “If this isn’t economic imperialism, what is it?” exclaimed the lawyer. “Since when are exploiters guaranteed against loss, entitled to a return of -20 percent or more? Are such people pioneers or racketeers?” Big as well as small business follows the flag. The two largest U.S. banks, Bank of America and Chase Manhattan, have asked for licenses to open ‘branches in Saigon; and First National City and American Express are also studying the opportunities, Fifteen banks are already operating In South Vietnam, with the French and British in dominant positions. While doing a job on the Vietcong, shouldn’t we be correcting this sit. uation too? Henry M. Sperry, a National City Bank vice president, thinks we should. After cordial visits with Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and Vietnam Officials, Sperry declared that it would be “illogical” to permit the French and British to “monopolize” the banking business, because South Vietnham’s economy “is becoming more and more U.S.-oriented.” And with so many big spenders around it ts also becoming more and more inflationary. The Newsweek story pointed out that the United States has been pouring vast amounts into South Vietnam—#600 million q year in foreign aid alone, or more than one-fourth of that country’s gross national product. The current $500 million military construction job is not being done by organizations like the Seabees of World War II—that wasn’t free enterprise. A consortium of U.S. construction companies is handling the job this time, with a payroll that will rise to 65,000. Of course if the Vietcong should win the war and get back their own country, the boom would collapse. But the American business community is confident that nothing so calamitous will be allowed to take Place. As one big construction official said, “Johnson certainly wouldn’t bulld all this for the Communists.” AID FOR WHOM? If nothing else, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on Vietnam are making painfully clear how hard it is to get & sensible response from a bureaucrat. David Bell, the Administrator of AID, told Senator J. W. Fusricut’s group that the $2.7 billion in economic aid pumped into Saigon’s corrupt economy since 1954 has left the country in “much better" condition, with “considerable agricultural improvement”—although in the next breath he had to admit that Vietnam, which used to be the rice bowl of southeast Asia and as such a great exporter of the commodity, now is in such terrible economic Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 69] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3440 shape that it must import $21 million worth of rice each year. To some extent, of course, this is because U.S. troops and airmen have burned their ricefields. Bell said he felt that the AID program had done a lot of good. For whom? For the Saigon crooks? For the North Vietnamese? Bell admitted that one of AID’s very significant problems is the ease with which Vietcong agents cun go into stores in South Vietnam, buy U.S-supplied medicines and groceries, and, with a little cautious dodging, take them to North Vietnam or even China. ‘he Saigon merchants, imbued with the patriotism we hear so much about, will sell to anyone, especially if he is willing to pay black-market prices for the goods we gave their transient rulers for’ nothing. Senator JosEerH CLarK pointed out that more than 10 years aga President Eisenhower insisted that economic aid to Vietnam be dependent on the reform of the Government. Had this policy been followed? No, Bell conceded, it hadn't. Sometimes the cheerful recitation of multipillion-dollar mistakes prought pained outcries from Senators who cannot understand such smug waste. “There is a $37 billion backlog of unmet needs in communities in this country,” ALBERT Gore remarked, “yet this year alone we will spend half of that in Vietnam.” Yes, said Bell, and that’s too bad; put he thought Gore might be overlooking the brighter side, which is that Korea has sent a division of troops to the war. (He said this in earnest, as if he did not mean to mislead, as if he could not see the shining irony of it-that we have two divisions of U.S. troops stationed in Korea, whence one division of their troops come to our assistance.) I} is not likely, with the administration staunchly resisting any conversation with the American people, that much information of consequence will come out of these hearings. Indirectly, however, the administration’s efforts to suppress news is already having the desired and expected reaction—— a flurry of exposes by newsmen such as the Washington Star’s Richard Critchfield, four of whose articles from Saigon placed in the Recorp by Sentaor CLARK gave the first session of the Foreign Relations Committee its oniy meaty information. “Though the United States has spent billions in Vietnam, it has invested only #4 million in land reform from 1954 to 1960, nothing from 1960 to 1965 and is spending only $1 million this year,” writes Critchiield. ‘The United States gives goods, the goods are sold to people with money to buy them and the money goes to support the war. But the effect is to nourish an urban economy in which the middle and upper classes prosper but does almost nothing to improve the life of 80 percent of the peasant population.” it would take FuLBRIGHT’s group 3 hours to drag that much information out of a man like Bell, and then it would come forth wrapped in misleading excuses. Critchfield is not the only reporter on the scent. Richard Harwood of the Washington Post writes, “of the total ATD package of more than $500 million for the current fiscal year, less than $2 million is earmarked for schools and school supplies in the villages, only $1.1 million tor rural water systems, $1.8 million for 6,000 rural self-help projects, $12.8 million for public health, and $5.8 million for agricultural development. The total for these projects—about $24 million—is less than the $27 million AID will invest this year in a desperate effort by the national police force to curb the misuse of U.S. aid and to stop the flow of contraband to the Vietcong. This kind of tough honesty, which is seen with encouraging frequency in the American ful dodging of administration witnesses press these days, Is going to make the artsound ail the sillier, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- SENATE Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. CuurcHu in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I wish to highly commend the Senator from Idaho for the brilliant speech he has just made, in which I associate myself not only in connection with his policy statement on foreign policy but also in connection with his legal analysis of the situation. Later in the week, I shall supplement his speech with a further answer to Secretary of State Rusk and Under Secretary of State Mr. Ball in connection with their allegations that the SEATO Treaty, in some way, somehow, is supposed to justify the unconstitutional and illegal war in southeast Asia. I shall also make that speech for the benefit of the delegates of the American Bar Association. Mr. President, I also wish to say that I enthusiastically support the general policy expressed by the junior Senator from New York (Mr. Kennepy! in his proposals for seeking to obtain a negotiated settlement of the war. For a long time, I have stated that it cannot be settled on any bilateral negotiation basis petween the United States and South Vietnam on the one hand and North Vietnam on the other. It must be settled with multilateral negotiations, with the noncombatant nations sitting at the head of the table, making clear to the combatants that negotiations will have to be arranged through third party intervention. I am satisfied that unless that course of action is followed, the odds are in favor of the United States going down in history as being more responsible than any other nation in the world for leading mankind into a third world war. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the REcorD certain communications which [f have received on the subject of the war in Vietnam. I also ask unanimous consent to have printed the article by Jean Facouture, which appeared in the New York Review of Books for March. Myr. Facouture is author of “Vietnam Between Two Truces.” He also wrote a biography of Ho Chi Minh and a book on the Geneva Conference of 1954. He was on the staff of General Leclere in 1945 and was a correspondent in Vietnam for Le Monde. He is now a fellow of the Center for Near Eastern Studies at Harvard. There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: The PORTLAND, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Suggest imposing economic blockade on countries supplying North Victnam. Keep up the good work. Groreia LEE Harpy, Chairman, HOW Housewives Opposing War. February 21, 1966 PORTLAND, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The hopes of American honor and world survival rest upon you and your brave colleagues. RALPH and PHOEBE FRIEDMAN. EUGENE, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Thank God for this great service you are doing for us, the American people. Doris and WINDSOR CALKINS. ALBANY, OREG., February 18, 1966. Hon. WAYNE E. MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We wish to commend you for the courage with which you are pursuing your convictions regarding the situation in Vietnam. We are in complete agreement with you and pray that you will be given the strength to fursue this vital service to your country. Mr. and Mrs. EvprEp T. Cons. MEDFORD, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Your outspoken opposition of our unfortunate Vietnam policy makes you one of the most important men in public life. Stay with it. JAMESON D. SELLECK. PORTLAND, OREG., February 19, 1966. Senator WayNE Morsz, Washington, D.C.: While at variance with you on many occasions, I wholeheartedly support your attitude toward our position in Vietnam. Speaking only as a private citizen I feel compelled to make my views known. As a Marine Corps veteran of World War II and an off-and-on member of the American Legion my attituce is undoubtedly unpopular with many former and current comrades and friends. However, I feel I must make my personal views known to the one person who in my estimation makes more sense and is doing more to try to bring about a reasonable solution, or enlightment at least, in our current situation. DaLE JOSEPHSON. EUGENE, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Complete support for your view. Pleuse send copies of recent Foreign Relations Committee hearings. ‘Thanks. Mr. and Mrs, ALBERT B. CULVER. PORTLAND, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morsz, Washington, D.C.: You spoke well our sentiments exactly to the general today. Great going. Keep it up. At and Lois BALTEFav. PoRTLAND, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, DC.: Iam very proud of you. Emery Hoover. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNrE Morse of Oregon, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Sir: As a fellow teacher I admire your courage on behalf of labor and your opposi- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 sg at jan, === [Page 70] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 tion to the Vietnam flasco, You are a man I would like to be. Fraternally, GEORGE J. ACKO, PORTLAND, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Support your stand on Vietnam 100 percent, Mr, and Mrs. C. R. Mor. JUNCTION Ciry, OREG., . February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morse, Washington, D.C. Dear Sin: Congratulations on your stand on Vietnam. CLARENCE M. Mone. PorTLAND, OreEG., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MoRsE, Washington, D.C.: fully support your fight to bring peace to Vietnam. Frank FULLER, PoRTLAND, OREG., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: You are doing a superb job. We endorse you completely. Dr. and Mrs. Ropet D. GOLDMAN. EuGENE, OnnG., February 17,1966. Senator WAYNE MorsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Behind you. Insist on McNamara in public hearing. DorotHy Dann, PoRTLAND, OnEG., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: As an Oregon Republican I support you now and in the future. Mrs, WiLLIAM B. GRUBER, PORTLAND, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morsz,. Washington, D.C.: Ten thousand percent support Vietnam sanity fight. WattER FRANCIS, Tana MICHAEL, Prerer SIMCICH. PORTLAND OREG., February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morssz, Room 417, Senate Office Building, Respectfully urge you have at Friday's Senate hearings the 11 interim reports issued by the International Control Commission between 1954 and 1960. Bless you. Mr. Mason DruKMAN. CORVALLIS, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Ask Rusk how many North Vietnamese have been killed or captured in the current fighting. KERMIT ROHDE. PORTLAND, OREG., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: You have my vote of confidence on Vietnam. Keep up your knowledgeable conviction. Opposition is using emotionally charged language that is Johnson programed. D. MEEKER, Encyclopaedia Britannica Films. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE PORTLAND, OREG., February 17,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: After reading the Journal “Viet War Row Boils in Senate” continue the fight and get this question for debate onto the floor of the Senate, Keep up the good work. FREDERICK G. RIL. MEDFORD, OREG., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your stand against the Vietnam war, SAUSALITO, CALIF., February 21, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Applaud your courageous forthright stand on Vietnam. Please continue your noble effort. Many people support you. ROBERT FRICK. Mount VERNON, N.Y., February 21,1966. - Senators Morse and FULBRIGHT, Senate Office Building, We admire you, support you, love you. Please continue your valiant peace efforts. ELAINE and RICHARD KUNTZ, PRINCETON, N.J., , February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morss, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Rusk stated this morning that we are not fighting communism. I thought we were. Can that be explained to the public more fully? Natauie M. CaRROLL. Tou.rpo, OHIO, February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morse, Senate Hearings Committee, Washington, D.C.: Ask Rusk why, if Hanoi is a motivation power behind the Vietcong, why don’t we bomb it and stop that power. Also ask him if free elections are held in South Vietnam and it goes Communist then what do we do? I agree with you completely and hope you can convince enough of Congress to vote the pending appropriation bill down, DENNIS HEFNER. PascaGOuLA, Miss., February 18, 1966. WAYNE Morss, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations for your courageous stand toward public review of our Vietnam fiasco. It would be more desirable for us to fight pinks and fiscal irresponsibility in Washington, JoHN SMITH, PITTspuRGH, Pa., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne L. Morse, You are voicing the sentiments of millions,: More power to you, Senator, and thank God we have you. Frank J, SCHORR. Fort LAUDERDALE, FLA., : February 18, 1966. Senator Warne Morse, Washington, D.C.: We back you 100 percent in Vietnam. Mr. and Mrs. Rosert L. Bowman. 3441 New Yoru, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are 1,000 percent behind you. Please continue to fight for freedom for Vietnam. You are truly the voice of the Hberal in the United States. Gratefully yours, Dr. and Mrs. GreraLp SCHREIBER. SEraTTLe, Wash., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morse,. Senate Office Building, Congratulations on your foreign relations hearings. The spectacle of the most powerful Nation waging undeclared war on a ttle one, is absolutely disgusting. Grorcrt P, Hib... Jamaica, N.Y., :. February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Caucus Room, Washington, D.C.: The gratitude and admiration for your courage, sincerity, and frankness. Carry on. ANNE M. CorBITT. New ORLEANS, LA., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE MorSsE,: Senate Caucus Room, Washington, D.C.: Ask Secretary Rusk why didn’t we inspect Cuba as we said we would. Why haven’t we gone into Cuba as we have gone into Vietnam? I think Cuba js just as important or more so. I will be listening to TV for you to ask these questions, I think they. are highly important. L. G, SHEARON. Detroit, MIcH., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR:1 listened on TV to the Senate committee investigating Vietnam and I believe that you among all those who spoke met the issue squarely. The President, I belleve, has usurped the powers of the Congress in sending American troops to Vietnam and commiting American resources to Vietnam in other countries with congressional approval, Joun J, SULLIVAN, Scarspae, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE MorRSE, Washington, D.<.: We support your cry. What can we do? - Mrs, B. A, FELDMAN. MIAMI, FLa., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorssE, Watched you yesterday, today. God bless you. Don’t stop. Six and one-half years Army, 15 years police sergeant. Love America, Repeat don’t stop. Jack ATWOOD. New Yoru, N.Y., February 18, 1966, Senator Wayne MorsE, Senate Office Building, Congratulations on your criticism of Johnson administration war hawks. Vietnam war is a disgraceful chapter of American history, should be stopped immediately. Most Americans support your position, Keep up good work. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 71] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3442 New York, NY. Senator Wayvnr Morsr, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We fully support your efforts to stop the brutalizing and dehumanizing Vietnam war. May you succeed in these efforts. Dr. and Enric Riss. New Yorn, N-Y., february 18, 1966. Senator Waynr Morse, Washington, D.C.: Keep up your fight against our commitments to 40 countries. San Dreco, Cauir. february 18, 1966. Senator Warne Morse, Washington, D.C.: I believe in your philosophy. Thank you. very much trom the 50 people at Gue Ranch. JOCELYN GUE, Nortst Haven, Conn., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: This is our first fan message though we have all along supported your position on Vietnam. Your televised presentation was great. You have our support 100 percent. JaMrES and Hazel McNrat, CLEVELAND, OHIO, February 18, 1966. Senator Morsg, Washington. D.C, Your Honor: You are the best man in Washington, D.C., to protect us but where is my son now? He joined the Army at 17. Gus Gruzis. Riverton, Nu., February 18, 1966. Senators Morse and FULBRIGHT, Congressional Investigating Committee, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your Vietnam. policy investigation. I also agree completely with your reservations about this conflict. Go to it, Raunt T. Martin. ATLANTA, Ga., February 18, 1966. Senator Wavnr Morse, Care of Senator FULBRIGHT, Washington. D.C.: Many Georgians are proud of you both. God save America. JaMES Epps Moopy. BROOKLYN, N-Y., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Hawks flying scared. Hurray. Morse for President in 1968. Only regret are not my Senator, it, G. Lewis. ORLEANS, Mass., February 18, 1966. Sonator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Ask Dean Rusk, Oxford classmate, whether administration policy consistent with Christianity. in God we trust. We are not marching unchristian soldiers as to war and not to peace. Quote Jesus: “If your enemy hhungers feed him, if he thirsts give him to drink, then you will be heaping coals of lire on his head.” Am all for you. Senator Morse keep up the good work. Axe. B. Gravem. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE New Yor, N.Y., February 18, 1966, Senator WayYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for expressing views.of millions of patriotic Americans about Vietnam and exposing shameless falsehoods we have been told. FD, Wrn.iams, San Mareo, Crier, February £8, 1966, Senator Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Vimost thanks and respect to you for helping shed light on this ridiculous situation. Mr. and Mrs. Louis BELKIN, San Fraricisco, CAurr., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morssg, Washington, D.C.: Buture generations of America will thank you for opposing our misguided action in Vietnam. Mu.tTon J. PoLissar. Oanven, Uran, February ‘8, 1966. Senator Wayne Morss, Washington, D.C.: We are behind you all the wiy in our struggle in Vietnam. JUSTIN F. CiROVER, K. M. Grover, (CHICAGO, ILL., February i8, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Bulding, Washington, D.C.: Please don’t end hearings. Find more withesses. Don’t abandon us now. Keep going. Mrs. STUART HORNE. NEw York, N.Y.,, February i$, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Chambers, Washington, D.C.: Strongly support Senate hearing: and urge continued efforts to end this morally and militarily indefensible war. Dr. and Mrs. ABRAHAM WHITE. San Francisco, Canir,, Fubruary 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsr, Washington, D.C.: Bravo to you. undeclared war. Please keep oppwsing this Dixit. BERRY. IL. ZABETH, NS., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne MorRsE, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Best wishes on your efforts for peace in Vietnam, BENJAMIN CiLSAND. MandIson, Trrn., February 18, 1966, Senator WaYNE Morssz, Senate Foreign Relations Committve, Washington, D.C.: Your fearless voice gratefully heard by many. Please continue fight. GENE STALEY. MaryvinF, TEM N., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You are a valuable man. I cor gratulate you on your courage and good judgment. HueH Yoakum. February 21, 1966 CaLals, Marne, February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You are certainly correct in your statement that the American people do not want war, but they feel helpless. Eight to ten percent of our people who -are abnormal mentally may crave any kind of excitement, but power is extremely dangerous to put in the hands of a neuveau riche. I is often abused. Our country has not learned to use its power correctly and there are those persons in Washington in that category. The tremendous power of one of our lobbies determined on war with China is another factor which will push the way. This war makes just as much sense as does the queen in Alice in Wonderland when she screams “olf with her head.” Keep up your good work for the sake of America and its people. They are worth it. LL. Mourcut: Tonp. HersHey, Pa., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNr Morse, Washington, D.C.: Just back from Philippines. Agree with with you. Militarists selfishly motivated. Need hearings. JoHNn M. Hume. Denver, Cor.o.,, February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo. Continue the good fight on Vietnam. You have my wholehearted support. The hope of this Nation rests with you. WILLIAM HANNAH. TOLEDO, Ont068, February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senator from Oregon, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: I support your recently expressed eightman policy differences with General Taylor and the adroinistration. Congratulations. J. McLeop Litthe. Oak Park, Iuu., february 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsz, Senate Foreign Relations Commitiec, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your brave and enlightened attack on the war mongers your dumb opposition again demonstrates the old proverb that a fool defends his mistakes while a wise man corrects his errors. Mr. and Mrs. J. A. Henricks. MIpLanpa, Mrcit., February 18, 1966. Senator WaynrE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thanks for defending the Constitution and for your antiwar efforts. Please keep it up. CoMMITTER For Prac. Torrka, Kans.. February 18, 1966. Senatar Warne Morse, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.: We are with you all the way. Lester SILK. KINGMAN, ARI4., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Foreign Relations Hearing, Washington, D.C.: Please ask Secretary Rusk if the administration is willing to have NFL-Vietcong as Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 72] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 well as Hanoi representatives sit at Vietnam conference table. Thank you. JOHN F, MacPHERSON,. February 18, 1966. Hon. Wayne Morse, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.: Greatly admire your attitude committee hearings as covered by NBC-TV. Major yet untouched subject U.S. billion-dollar tactical nuclear weapons arsenal. Tactical nuclear artillery ammunition is available according to past Executive reports. Why could not this type of nuclear power be used at once until North Vietnam sees futility of continuing confilct? American lives are worth saving now. Respectfully, JouHN H. UHL. Owenssoro, Kyr., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNrE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.: Senator: I have been very concerned about our assisting Britain in defeating the Rhodesian Government and at the same moment the British are shipping suppHes to North Vietnam. Why do we spend so much money, men, and material in South Vietnam under the pretext of trying to free one small nation while enslaving even a smaller one, Would you please ask Secretary Rusk about this. I’ll be watching. I have, do, and will continue to support you 100 percent.. OwEN HEMBREE.. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayvNr Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We stand behind you. Vietnam hearings beneficial. Youth must be saved. War must stop. IDA MESSINGER. Detroit, MicH., February 18, 1966. Senator Waynz Morse, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations for expressing the viewpoint of most American people. We need more Senators like you. Mrs. Henen Hammonp. Detroit, Mic#., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsz, US, Senate, Washington, D.C.: Hundreds of thousands of us are sleeping better because of your courage and that of Senator FULBRIGHT. Please prevail. FR, Burner. LINcouLn Park, MiIck.,: February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsz, Washington, D.C.: God bless you, Senator Morssz, for the wonderful words you are speaking out for us American people. We are praying for you every day and night. God give you strength to go on and others like you. Mrs, JOSEPHINE SALLIOTYE, YonKEnrS, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Monse, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Dear Str: More power to you in your fight against the Johnson war and Taylor, et al. The only way we will ever win this war in Vietnam is by losing it. Cares G. Merer, Sr. CONGRESSIONAL. RECORD — SENATE San Francisco, Cautir., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morsz, Washington, D.C.: All people who support the values of freedom and Humanity applaud your noble spirit. Ricuarp R. Hout. J.F.K. INTERNATIONAL AIRpPoRT, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Bravo and congratulations. views, keep up the good work. D. M. Tucker, Pilot, Trans Caribbean Airways. WEST PALM BEACH, FLA., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please ask supporters of Vietnam killing how they relate this to their.church going, : ANNETTE ROBERTS, Tucson, ARrz., February 18, 1966. Support your Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.: We wholeheartedly support your courageous stand in current Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing all truly patriotic.Americans should be grateful for your ra-~ tional analysis of our foreign policy. Roy M. EMricuH, ROBERT M. KALPAcH, Hormoz M,. MaHMOUD, CARL T. PoMIZUKA, Department of Physics, University of Arizona, ENGLEWOOD, N.J., February 18, 1966. Hon, Wayne Morse, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: You are America’s hero and savior, remarkable man, Mrs. A. MAIwatp. BERKELEY, Catir,, February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: T support your stand on Vietnam if neither North, South Vietnam are sovereign states, how can any nation claim treaty obligations to either of them? Sam WAINWRIGHT. San JOSE, CAtir., February 18, 1966. Senator WayrNE Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We welcome your frank and persistent questioning of the administration South Vietnam policies. We wish California had a Senator of your courage and patriotism. RAUL PIMENTEL, New York, N.Y,, February 18, 1966. Senator Warne Morss, Senate Office Building, Waskington, D.C.: Why isn’t McNamara on as a witness and why hasn’t a committee gone to Peiping? Mao Tse-tung is not a despicable character. Having lived in Peiping for 25 years and knowing the Premier of China, we know that he and Chou en Lai are not despicable char- ~acters but are interested in the National People’s Republic of China and are not interested in war with the United States. Miss DELIGHT SALTER, 3443 Assury Parx, N.J., February 18, 1966. Senator Warne Morsz, Senate Building, Washington, DC.: Millions of Americans are grateful and bless you for your valiant efforts for peace in Vietnam.. L. & H. MaNUFACTURING, Lovis RuB£.L, President. OKLAHOMA CITY, OXLA., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Deeply appreciate your views on Vietnam, you have greatful support here. Mrs. FraNCES PIERCE. New Yors, N-Y., February 18, 1966. Senator Warner Mors, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: You have stated your views this morning in an articulate and lucid-manner. It is my hope that you gain more support for your position as you have gained mine. ELIZABETH L, PACKER, Mother, Houswife, Teacher. St. Pav, Minn., February 18, 1966. Senator Warne Morse,. U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Though not of your constituency we feel compelled to express our gratitude for your persistent attempts to arouse the conscience of all Americans, we regret that there are not more Senators who are willing to speak so honestly, nevertheless we want you to know there are other Americans who share your concern. GerorcGE BowEn and PauL Sontaa. New York, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNrE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.S.: It was encouraging to know you intend to do what you can to place a reluctant Senate on record in regard to the war in Vietnam, Epwarpb M. CoLLins, FRAMINGHAM, MASs., February 18, 1966. Senator Warne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.; Ask Secretary Rusk what Hanol’s escalating was that in turn makes us escalate. Good luck. Mrs, ArtruR CROWE, New Yorxs., N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsrz, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Your courage in seeking peace and chal. lenging military cant is deeply appreciated. Thank you, JouN DUFFY. RIVERSIDE, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Investigating Committee, Washington, D.C.: Ask investigating committee why they go 3,000 miles away to fight the Communist when they won’t fight them when they are all around us Here. Mrs. CaLuis DoBENZ, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 73] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3444 SACRAMENTO, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MOorsE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We want you to know that we are behind you in your opposition against the senseless and useless war in Vietnam. Mr. and Mrs. E. J. RUNELE. BirMineHamM, MICcH., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Washington, D.C: My congratwations to you on your stand yesterday with General Taylor. Ask ‘Taylor where our peace and freedom of choice is drafting our childless fathers to fight this stupid war. TRGGY DAWSON. CAMPBEL1., CALIF., kebruary 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Why not try prayer to almighty God in your sessions. Rev. HAROLD BEESON. f.a HONDA, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wa¥NE Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington. D.C.: Admire your courageous nam involvement. Sincere best wishes, Myr. and Mrs. Ep McCLANAHAN. stand re Viet- Danas, 'TEx., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MoRsE, Senate Committeee on Foreign Relations, Washington, D.C.: Suggest asking Dean Rusk what effect Red China admittance tao the United Nations would have on ending Vietnam war. CaRL BRANNIN. New York, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WavNE Morse. ~ Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please get into hearing record OKA artiole, Christian Science Monitor, January 26, denving consensus behind Ky. JOHN W. Darr, Jr. CVATINFSVILLE, F'LA., February 18, 1966. Senator Way NE Morse, Washington. D.C.: Congratulations and our heartfelt thanks for your courageous stand in the hearings of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. TRENT WALLIS, EiaLEN WaLLis. JAMES Salovic MICHAEL GEISEN. WILLIAM GREENHOOD. Patricia McGann. Great Faius, MoNnt.. February 18, 1966. Senator Wav Nr Morsr, Washington, D.C. Your voice is needed. lions of Americans. Thank you for mil- Mrs. F. MtrcHeEtt. Los ANGELES, CALIF., february 18, 1966. Senator WayNe Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thanks for being America’s conscience. You express our hopes and needs to stop war. Mr.and Mrs. 5. A. Myerson. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE Los ANCELES, CALiF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Don't weaken. Stress Vietnam one country we’re outsiders. Start negotiations including Vietcong now. JERRY SCHNITSER AND FAMILY. LUSHING, MIcit., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Hearing Committec. Washington, D.C. HONORABLE SENATOR Morse: I enjoy hearing your comments on Vietnam anc I agree with you. I only have one fault with you that you are not the Senator of Michigan. BAKERSFIELD, CAIIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNe Morse, Foreign Relations Commitice, Washington, D.C.: Public has your backing. Demand why Nationalist China not allowed to fiyzht. Jack M, WHITE. La Jouuta, Cair., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNe Morse, Washington, D.C.: Please push idea United Nations not United States must become policing agency of world. Congratulations. Mrs. Crrus PAcHTER. CLEVELAND, Qnilo, February 18, 1966, Senator WAYNE Morsg, Washington, D.C. Dear Senator: I have four quesiions that I would like Mr. Rusk to confirm. 1. How weak could this war in Vietnam make our country over a period «f 1 or 2 years? 2. How many thousands of our »oys lives would, be taken? 8. How could we possibly excavite a war of this kind with no allies? 4. Is it true that a President cai make a mistake? Mrs. S. Fuciip. Wooprnury, Conn., February i8, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Congressional Hearings, Washington, D.C.: Please ask under what conditions the North Vietnam are now living. What is their status? East Lansine, Mic1., february i8, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Washington, D.C.: Calf Donald Duncan, ex-master sergeant, U.S. special forces, to testify befcre foreign relations. I support you entirely. MICHAEL ROS™NSTEIN. ALBUQUERQUE, N. Mex., February (8, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I completely support -your courageous, ethical stand on Vietnam. Witbram Dopp. SHEBOYGAN FALLS, WIS., February:3, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Chambers, Washington, D.C.: Keep tayloring. We pray that more forthright men like you and Futsricnt niny awake February 21, 1966 to help us recover from our misguided political accident. If gives us hope that our Senate has not yet reached the baseness of Rome that Cicero opposed for two decades before the end of the Roman empire. Rydberg and Healy clans who had hundreds in uniform in World War I and II and whose sons and grandsons are now being uniformed to free the Asian swamps from everything, with respect and best wishes. Doveias Mott. NEw York, N.Y., February 18, 1966 Senator WayYNE MorsgE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You are the greatest American. We're very proud of your stand on Vietnam. Mr, and Mrs. GEORGE WITTNER. New Yorx, N-Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WayweE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your forthright position on Vietnam tributes to highest American values and tradition. Congratulations. Mr. and Mrs. Ronaip S$. CLEMENS. Napa, Cauir., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MOorRSsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Dear Senaror Morse: We are supporting your policy. CLARENCE SAGER. GALNESVILLE, F't.A.. February 18, 1966. Senator WayNeE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: In complete accord with you and Senator FuLBRIGHT and your intelligent, patriotic, and courageous efforts. Mrs. JENNIE BRATLEY AND FAMILY. New Yoru, N-Y., February 18. 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You are the greatest American. proud of your stand on Vietnam. HaRRIET WASSERMAN. I'm very Houston, Trx., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, DC.: My congratulations to you on your clear and concise report to the Nation via television media. Although I am not one of your constituents, I congratulate you. FLORENCE GERINGER. Los ANGELES, CaALir., February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your courageous stand yesterday repre-. sents the voice of the people. Keep up the good work. ALMA ALLYN. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MorsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I strongly support your criticism Americar. Vietnam policy. Extricate us from colossa: misguided blunder. PETER W. CaREY. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 74] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 Tucson, ARIZ., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We express full support for your stand on United States Vietnam policy and congratulate you on your performance in the face of strong opposition. Byrd Schweitzer, Mr. and Mrs. George Papceun, Mr. and Mrs. Nathan Perlman, Mr, and Mrs. William Goldblatt, Mr. and Mrs. George Maxwell, Doris Stanislauski, Dr, and Mrs. James McDonald, Marian Martin, Susan Hibbs, Mr. and Mrs. Walter Smith, Dr. and Mrs. Correlius Steelink, WILTON, CoNN., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for your role in the Foreign Relations Committee hearings. I support your views unconditionally. Mrs. Henry H. Newer. TacoMa, WASH.,.- February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morsz, Washington, D.C.: I have watched your outstartiing statements on television concerning the Vietnam war. My husband is a seasoned military officer now serving in Vietnam. He is in complete agreement with your views and 100 percent behind you. We read your Senate speech and lawyers committee report and it is very much to the point. Please keep up the good work. There are thousands of lives depending on the outcome of what is decided at these hearings. Our major oil companies are paying the Vietcong to leave their trucks and storage areas alone. It may be added that none of these oil facilities have ever been attacked or damaged. Iam remaining anonymous on the advice of our attorney, Mr. Rex Roudebush. However, if you wish, I would be delighted to talk to you personally and privately. Bravo, Senator Morsg, you are most respected for your efforts. By Rex 8S. RoupEesusH. ene METHUEN, Mass., February 18, 1966, Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Butiding, Washington, D.C.: Thank God and thank you. you are right and stncere. up your effort. We believe Please don’t give MaxiInr WALLACE, JOAN SEGLIN. San Mateo, Cauir., February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morss,: Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Applauding your efforts to reveal the truth about United States Vietnam involvement. Keep it up.: ANNE and GrorGr Carrer. New York, N.Y., February 18, 1966. SENATOR WaYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Thank God for Wayne Morse. You are on the moral side. We are with you in your unremitting efforts to contain the mad men in Washington, We don’t want our children sent to Vietnam to be slaughtered. RosaLinp Dann, ETHEL LEVENSON, ROBERT LEVENSON. No, 29--—17 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE Storrs, Conn., February 18, 1966, Senator Morss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your eloquent statement this afternoon has our full support and sympathy. Dr. and Mrs. JosEPH Cary, San Francisco, CAuir., February 18, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S, Senate, Washington, D.C.: Please keep up your excellent efforts on behalf of our long-range best interests. A. J. Horn BURLINGAME, CENTRAL VALLEY, N.Y,, ¢ February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morsz, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Thank God for you and Senator FULBRIGHT in this present critical point in mankind's history. FRANCES and JoHN ADLER. San FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 19, 1966, Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for your brave and patriotic Aight against war hawks Johnson, General Taylor, and Rusk, Gro. PERMAN. ORINDA, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WayNrE Morse, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR: I've always taken a dim view of you. I apologize. You were magnificent during the hearings representing the minority with great dignity and restraint, though I don't necessarily agree with you. Sincerely, Mrs. WoopsurK LAMB. San FRANCISCO, CALIPF., . February 19, 1966, Senator WAYNE Mors, Washington, D.C.: We endorse your inquiry into our country’s involvement in Vietnam. Keep punching. JoHN Ducean. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 19, 1966, Senator WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Congratulations on hearings, especially your comments on final one today. Hope administration policy takes heed. Rev. Howanp G. Matson. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WayNgE Morst, Washington, D.C.: I support and encourage your opposition to our action in Vietnam. ~ Mrs, ADA RAE WALTON, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morss,: Washington, D.C.: Applaud and concur in your statements on Vietnam this afternoon. Please continue your magnificent resistance. Mr. and Mrs. JosEpH PASSEN AND SON, SAn FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Please continue in your courageous stand. Knowing you are in Washington gives me some hope. Mary SUE PaRDINGTON, 3445 New York, N.Y., February 19, 1966. Hon. WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Hope you will continue important probe of dangerous Vietnam policy. Are you inviting Walter Lippmann? Mr. and Mrs, JosEPpH E. CapDEN. Los Gatos, CALir., February 19, 1966. Senator WayNeE Morse, Senate Office Buidling, Washington, D.C.: You are one of the most courageous men in the-worlad today. Thank you, Senator. Dr. and Mrs, ALAN CLARKE. SEATTLE, WASH., February 19, 1966. Senator WayWeE Morse, ‘ Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Watched you on TV and behind you 100 percent on your stand, Don’t give up your fight for constitutional government. MARGUERITE ENGH. San FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morss, Washington, D.C.: We endorse your inquiry into our country’s involvement in Vietnam, Keep punching. JoserH RHINE. Pao Auto, CALIrF., February 19, 1966. Senator Morse,: Washington, D.C.: Thanks for fearless and patriotic stand in challenging the administration’s Vietnam policy. C.K. Dunsar. New Yor«, N.Y., February 19, 1966. Senator Morssr, The Senate, Washington, D.C.: We thank you for your courageous and wise stand. Lipman and Mary Bers. VENTURA, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WayNnE Morsr, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulate you on your firm stand against war in Vietnam and support you wholeheartedly in your efforts against appropriation for escalation. Thank you for alerting the American people to the grave danger facing them. Mr. and. Mrs. Eart LoucHsoro. Santa Monica, Cautr., February 19, 1966. Senator Wayne Morss, Senate Office Building, To a wonderful Jeffersonian. We are back of you 100 percent. Stop the war in Vietnam. Dr, Paut and Mary WESCHER. BAKERSFIELD, Cauir., February 19, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Thanks to your courage on opposition to military commitment in Vietnam. You speak for millions. Berri WiLson, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WayNe Morss, Washington, D.C.: We endorse right of inquiry into our position in Vietnam. Endorse views also please continue. Davin S, LEVINSON. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 75] === 3446 SavsaLito, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Thanks. Keep going. Urge calling Donald Duncan. Expose faults analysis. Urge eround nuclear armed planes. Marcarer B. PorTer. PIIILADELPHIA, Pa., February 19, 1966. Senator Waynr MORSE., Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C. Dean Sir: Cur gratitude for your criticism of policy in Vietnam. Prof. Howarn HOLTZeER. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., . february 19, 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, Washington, DC.: I fully support your position on deplorable Vietnam situation. tsaac ZAFRANI. Syracuse, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C: Congratulations on your stand. It’s about time somebody stood up to President Johnson on the Vietnam stand. PruLIp Rizzo. San FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the tine work. We are behind you. Mr and Mrs. Water J. Strack. Ortawa, ONTARIO, CANADA, February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, United States Senate Washington, 0.C.: Just watched you on ‘I'V Canadian Broadcasting Co. Congratulations on your magnificent stand on Vietnam. We are right behind you. &xpecting large demonstrations in Ottawa first weck of March with Staughton Lynd and many others. Mrs. WatTER JOSEPHY, Canadian Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. PHILADELPHIA, PENN., february 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Washington, D.C.: We are witti you a hundred percent. Mr. and Mrs. Josepn E. McGre. OAKLAND, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, DC.: Lam on your side. Awwna Mar ALLEN. Mapison, N.J., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Washington, D.C: Thank you for TV hearing. We support you fully Mr. and Mrs. EkE QUINLAND. Detrotr, MICH., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.: Thank you, Senator. Morse for logically defending our country’s welfare against administrative dangers foreign policy. Mir. and Mrs. CLARENCE WRIGHT. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030905-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE e€ San Disco, Carr, February 18, 1966. Senator Morse, Washington, D.C.: I support you 150 percent. You are a courageous man, performing outstanding service for the overwhelming majority of Americans, whe don’t want this horrible Vietnam mess continued another day. Your comments to General Taylor —gutter devastation. Let me repeat you’re an outstanding man. Sincerely, V. LYLE ScCtraFEeR. WHITTIER, CALIN., February 18, 1966. Senator Waynnm Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.: Thank you, Sir, for all your eifort ind may God give you the strength and the courage to continue. I support you and I am behind you and I believe as you do that all Americans are equal to any task if we understand it. I urge you to continue in your endeavors because I trust you implicitly and may God give you the strength and the breath to speak for us, as long as one American speaks, all is not lost. Thank you again, sincerely. FLORENCE ©. INowrrs, A Soldier's Mother. Torney, Nov, February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: My hope is with your grave and furthright stand on Vietnam. ‘You are a patriot and the finest example of American courage. I am telegraphing Senator KENNEDY to support you. ANNE L. REESE. GREATNECK, N.Y’, February 18. 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Whole heartedly with you on Vietnam. Please continue your courageous fight. JEAN CHRISTIE. SPOKANE, WASiL., February 18. 1966. Senator WayNr MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Hundreds of us agree with you. Good luck to you, keep up the good work. AGNES CHRISTOPH ERSON, Trenton, N.J., February 146, 1966, Senator Waxrne Morse, Washington, D.C.: Your policy regarding Vietnam has our complete support. TuoMas and JANICE Ki MMER. PHILADELPHIA, I’A., February 14, 1966, Senator WAYNE MonsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank God for your courage and intelligence, Mary Fouey GROSSMAN, San FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: You give great Joy—great relief. statesman speaking out for peace. FRANK LANSDOWN. A fine ruary 21, 1966 Broox.iyn, N.Y., February 18, 1966, Senator WayYNE Morss, Washington, DC. Drar SENATOR: Our wholehearted support for your position on committee hearings. Thank you.. Davin and FRANCES SreboLp. Marstons MILLs, Mass.. February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: You have given us back our faith in democratic government. Your questions were brilliant and we are proud you are a fellow American. Liberations fronts cannot be built anywhere unless there is justificd discontent. One cannot cradicate discontent with napalm bombs and impose reactionary generals to preserve the status quo. Our respects and admiration for being a spokesman for a thinking American people. Lovis and RutH DEVOLDER. San LEANDRO, CAaLir.. February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorRsE, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good work. GEORGINA SELLERS. San ANTONIO, 'TEX., February 18, £966. The Honorable WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Although warmongers and = speculators capture headlines, majority of intelligent, compassionate Americans are horrified and dismayed at prospects of feeding the cream of our youth and breeding stock of America into the maw of the most senseless war in our history, which, apart from indescribable misery, suffering and anguish, strengthens the gleeful Chinese and Russians and weakens us. You are the champion of millions of silent supporters in a just and righteous cause. B. FPF. Pitman, Jr. CANTON, OHIO. February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE MorRsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: For your courageous stand on the Victnamese issue we extend to you our support, our admiration, and our heartfelt gratitude. We should be ashamed of being Americans these days if it were not for statesmen like you. EpMOND and Doris FRANKLIN. SramrorD, CONN.. February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MorsE, Washington, D.C.: Truly American mothers are thanking God for one truly American Senator. Please persevere. Grace O’CONNER. OGDEN, UTAH, February 18, 1966, Senator WayNrE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. Beautiful Job. needed. let me Know. Tf help Ray W. Lonpon. Cononapo, Cauir., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.: Your splendid tribute to Senator Fut- BRIGHT expressed my own appreciation of his Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 76] === °: Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 remarks, and the importance they have to our future. Your own contribution is of gigantic value and my gratitude is unlimited. Be assured of my support. HeDwic THOMPSON, HARTSDALE, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your courageous stand opposing the totally unwarranted remarks of General Taylor yesterday. They were all too reminiscent of certain remarks made by Ger-~ man military figures after World War I. Keep up the good work for peace. Prof. ERwIN SINGER. San JOSE, CALir., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for your great courage, we are with you word for word. BERNIE and LIsA KALVELAGE. BERKELEY, CALir., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morsz, Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Keep up good work. Vietnam war increasingly unpopular here. ‘WALTER PACKARD, Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morsez, Washington, D.C. We greatly respect your courage and integrity in the Vietnam debate. This family wholeheartedly supports you. Mr. and Mrs, JosepH SARGENT, and CHILDREN. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morse, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Ninety percent of people we talked to strongly commend your courageous stand against Vietnam war. Mr. and Mrs. Caru M. Levin. WILMETTE, ILL., February 18, 1966. Senator Waynr Morsg, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C, Your exposition and analysis on this afternoon’s hearings deserve highest gratitude and praise. Harry, RutTH, and Davin BARNARD. ATLANTA, GA,, February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C, Thank you, Senator, for your view on Vietnam. You're the real guardian of world peace. DorotHuy C. Yana. 5 WESTMINSTER, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Foreign Relations Committee Washington, D.C. Informed Americans with you all the way. Do we waiver. Country’s survival depends Mrs. MarInyn A. Porter. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: My congratulations and gratitude. Mrs. Donna Lvcct. SANTA ANA, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: All hope for peace depends on pcople like you and Senator FuLsricHtT. Our humble thanks. AcGnrs H, BARNES. OVERLAND Park, KANS., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorsgE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Support your position on Vietnam, like hundreds more in Kansas City. Admire your courage. JoHN and Betry PELor, CLARENCE, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator Morssr, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Have followed all Foreign Relations Committee hearings. We agree with all your statements, Mr. and Mrs. H. R. Lenz. New YorK, N.Y., February 18, 1966. New York, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNr Morse, Senator Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: If democracy survives in this country it will be due to courageous men like you. Dr. and Mrs, Marc Vosx. Daas, TExX., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNe Morse, Washington, D.C.: Certainly appreciate your firm stand on our policy in the Foreign Relations Committee. J. B. Moone, JANESVILLE, WIS., . February 18, 1966, Senator WayNr Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your viewpoint and discussion with Rusk. Stand fast to your convictions. We are all with you. Mrs. CHARLENE KLEIFOTH. Eau GALLIE, FLA, February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Washington, D.C.: All good Americans support you in your courageous efforts in exposing the evil that permeates our Government today with respect to our foreign policy and in particular to the debaclein Vietnam. - THODORE G. DELL. Santa Monica, CAaLir., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNe Morse, Washington, D.C.: We want peace. Support you all the way. Keep fighting. Our prayers are with you. THE STRANGER FAMILY. 3447 SACRAMENTO, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne MorsgE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good fight. We need you to help us stop this fight in Vietnam. Mrs. ANGLEO MELIN. WARREN, OHIO, February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: My full support to a man who does not confuse morality with patriotism. Many are with you in your struggle to restore civilian control of the Military Establishment from Commander in Chief to the impassioned “gentleman” from Louisiana, WILLIAM KLOSS. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are grateful for your courage. keep opposing the war in Vietnam. ANNA NACKE, Please Rockaway Bracu, N.Y., ” February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You have already earned a place in history as the American spokesman for sanity. You were brilliant today against wooden Rusk. For sake of humanity please continue your efforts toward negotiations and elections. Otherwise our bombs on nuclear sites in Sinkiang within few months. Tre STUDENT MECHANICAL ENGINEERING. Pato ALTO, CALIF., February 18, 1966, Hon. WAYNE MorseE, Washington, D.C.: Please continue wisdom and rationality and reinstate Congress arbitor American welfare. Suan STEwWarRT. Brookiyn, N.Y. February 19, 1966. - Senator Waynr Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo. Keep up the fight you must make them see the light of day. We admire and respect you. FLORENCE W, RAKOWwITZ, HAVERFORD, Pa., February 19, 1966, Senator Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: As one of the many who share your doubts about the wisdom and morality of postwar U.S. foreign policy I wish to thank you for superbly representing the United States with courage and determination. Davin BRESLER, Psychology Department, Bryn Mawr College. BALTIMORE, MD., February 19, 1966. Senator WAYNE ‘MorRSsE,: Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: God bless you and give you strength to help lead the American people out of the misguided wilderness. We must somehow find a civilized way to Hve with all people. WILLiaM and EstHer Cyrus. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 77] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3448 HaANTA BARBARA, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WayNnr MorssE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We have watched the Senate hearings shown on television. Thank you for your forthright statements against administration policy in Vietnam. Keep up the good work. We need more men like you. POMONA, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Cupitol Building, Washington, DC. Dear Senator: [ have seen you on television in the last 2 days and I heartily endarse the position you are supporting. PATRICK O’REILLY. New Yorx, N.Y., February 19, 1966. Senator WaYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Watching committee hearings on television, Have been impressed with your eloquence, convictions, and faith in the American people, Please continue the good fight. Martin ROSSOFF. PARASANT RIDGE, MIcu., February 19, 1966. Senator WaYNr Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: As members of the Presidents Club we congratulate you for your courage and wisdom as seen in the Senate hearings on Vietnam. We are proud of you and support your position fully. Mr. and Mrs. Max J. PINCUS. os ANGELES, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator WaYN® MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations; a great contribution. Almost singlebanded you and Senator FuL~- unicHtT redeemed integrity of our country. Mrs. J. H. STEWART. Tos ANGELES, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, L.C.; Appreciate your firm logical statement. We Californians appreciate you, our third Senator. Tlnuen MIsHELL. BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator Wayne MORSE, Washington, D.C.: IT still agree with you. work. Keep up the good Mrs. Davin SOLOMON. CUPERTINO, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne MORSE, US. Senate, Washington, 11.0.: Senator, I wish you success and back your views itt Vietnam LOU percent. uate NELSON. VerRvDES PENINSULA, CALIF., February 19, 1966. Senator Wayne Morss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Senator Morse, will you please use your oftices to relay this night letter to President Johnson. I have no question about supporting our troops in Vietnam, I Just do not want to see our troops used there. I would like Panos CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE to continue my affection for President Johnson, I would like to continue to think of President Johnson as a Roosevelt-type President, therefore, I would like to have you urge him to discontinue this war in Vietnam, I do not wish to see our men killed in this war. Sincerely,. Roy W. FuLWILpeErR. New Yoru, N.Y. February 19, 1966. tion. WaYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Dear Senator, our deep appreciation and thanks Jor the integrity and intelligeace you have shown in the televised hearinys. We are in fullest agreement with you, Sincerely. Mr. and Mrs. J. M. Dogss. J.B. Doses, PITTSBURGH, Pa., February 18, 1966. Honorable WayYNE MORSE, U.S, Senator from Oregon, Senate Office Building. Washington, D.C.: Please accept my sincere thanks for your courageous tight in opposition to further escalation of the war in Vietnam. J. CUILER ANDREW: Professor of History, Chatham College, En CaJon, CALIF, February 19, 1966. Senator WayNrE Morss, Washington, D.C.: Don’t let the pressure boys of the executive branch squelch your voice for balance of powers and constitutional government. If the United States is wrong let us admit it and get on the right course. We don’t huve to keep up a wrong to save fuce, we aren't that foolish. RICHARD J. PETERSON, Attorney at Law. LOUISVILLE, Ky, February 18, 1966. Senator WayNe Morse, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on excellent expos¢ of misguided heads of present administration for United States to stumble into major war with China. Only serves Russian purpose and shows U.S. leadership as uneducated fools. Thirty years ago United States was major friend of China, sending aid of food during famines of 1980. Korea and South Vietnam situations not comparable. JOHN RirpEL. Eeut, Pa.. HKebruary 18, 1966, Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building. Washington, D.C.: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Vhank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ‘Thank you. Ropert M, FIN NELL. SPOKANE, WASH., February 19, 1966, Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C: Please get; Hubert home before we so broke. Wait, he might give Texas and Jolinson to them. Dov LE O, Epwarbs. BEveRLY Hi.s, CaLit., February 19, 1966, Senator WayYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Trust that in your Vietnam specch next week you will answer militaristic smear by February 21, 1966 asking whether the truth helps Hanoi end? Whether any disagreement with administrative policy and thus alledgedly helpful to Hanoi doesn’t leave congressional discretion to the military and executive contrary to the Constitution? Best wishes. BERNARD REICH, San Francisco, Ca.ir., February 19, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morsk, Washington, D.C.: It is my belief the great majority of people detest administration's policy in Vietnam. JEANNETTE PAGE. SPRINGFIELD, ILt., February 21, i966. Senator WayNeE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up your good work. Get us out of Vietnam. ADALIN BoRMAN. MODESTO, CALIF.. February 21, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morsg, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your efforts on Vietnam appreciated. Keep discussion going deescalation, cease fire, negotiations, elections. Mr. and Mrs. GLEN BooTH. St. Louris, Mo., February 21, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your speech in Wisconsin absolutely right. Only chaos will result from present guncrazy policy. Vote against the draft and the war. Mrs. GLEN PYLE, ANN Arpor, MICH., February 21, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorRsE, Washington, D.C.: Please continue your fight for a sane foreign policy. Wish I could vote for you. WILLIAM L.. RICHARDS. PasADENA, CALIF.. February 17. i966. Senator WaYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Three cheers for your superiority, your knowledge and your brilliance in representing the US. people, Mary Meyrers, Sr. Paun, MInn.., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNnr Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: A thousand congratulations. tinue to fight for us. Please con- ELIZABETH B. Draux. NortH CANTON, OHTOoO. February 17. 1966. Senator MorsE, Old Senate Building, Washington, D.C. Dear SENATOR Morse: [ am behind you 100 percent on the congressional hearing. Sincerely, THEODORE GREENE. La Grance, ILL. February 17. 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We are with you all the way in your views on treaty and Vietnamese conflict. We repudiate Johnson’s policy in southeast Asia. Rupy and Irnvnwr MEIER. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 78] === ° Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA- RDP67B00446R000400030005- 0 February 21, 1966 NortH BEND, OREG., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNeE Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Please investigate any American companies who pay money to Communist Vietcong and take necessary action against said companies. LAVONNIz BRIMHALL. HIGHLAND Park, N.J., February 17, 1966, Senator W. Morsz, Washington, D.C.: We are 100 percent, especially your stand on Vietnam. Mr. and Mrs. Ben GeLranp. OaKuHuRsT, NJ., February 17, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your courageous fight. You are earning the respect and support of every decent American, Marx Dorio. Surrern, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on questions today re Geneva agreement denial free elections 1956 suggestions for role U.N. Mrs. ROBERT GRANT. DECATUR, ALA., . February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Dear Six: Have been watching the committee meeting today and thoroughly convinced you are 100-percent correct. Please, for the good of all true Americans pursue your present course. Very truly yours. Mr, and Mrs. M. D. Rich anp Sons. Oak Park, MICH., February 17, 1966. Senator Morse and Senator FuLBRIGHT, Senate Foreign Committee Investigation, Washington, D.C.: You are the only ones that can stop Big Brother from making 1984 a reality for mine and all children. ‘There must be checks and balances, Naomi GUNSAULUS. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE MoRsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for your courage. Twenty-five people who agree.. J. MONTALDO. SEATTLE, Wasu., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNeE Morss, Senate Office Building, - Washington, D.C.: What would the Northwest, the Nation do without you. WILLIAM Hunt. Pacirica, Cauir., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNr Morse, Care of U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Please accept my deepest gratitude for your courageous action during these most difficult times, As a father who is raising three sons, who prays that they may live in-a world of peace and realizes that we are draining our precious resources, I ask that you continue your great work. Marvin SCHNEIDER. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE JAMESTOWN, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorszE, Senate Office Building, Dear SENATOR Morse: Thanks be to God for forthright men like you. Support you. Thanks. Mrs. ANN CUSIMANO. Daas, TEX., February 17, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morse, Foreign Relations Hearing Room, Washington, D.C.: Taylor claims Vietcong losing 16,000 per month. Since strength of Cong is set at 200,000, is Taylor predicting Cong defeat within year? If not, why not? Since administration spokesmen refer to North Vietnamese fighters as foreign aggressors, why does northerner Ky govern South Vietnam? Keep up good work. Mr. and Mrs. L. EH. Kiar, PILrTSBURGH, Pa., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Room, Washington, D.C.: Thank God for you and men Iitke you. Good luck. Mrs. Herry Scruv. VENTURA, CAMIF., February 17, 1966. Senator Morstr, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We salute and support your strong stand in the. committee. We are 100 percent behind you. Daisy and WaLTER HASssALL. NortH HoLLywoop, Cauir., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Our fullest support for your courageous stand on Vietnam. Please continue your efforts. NorMAN LEVINE GEORGE Morris, M.D. Santa ANA, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Senator WsaYNE MOoRsE, Washington, DC.: Thank you for your leadership in exposing governmental halftruths and doubletalk on Vietnam, Donna and NEAL NEWBY. CROTON ON Hunpson, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your courageous voice on behalf of santty and humanity is deeply appreciated. SopHia and RicHarp Boyer. San Bruno, Cauir., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morsgz, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations to you, sir, and to your distinguished colleagues who are courageous enough to dissent, ARLENE R. TRUMAN, SEATTLE, WASH, February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morsg, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Regarding today’s hearing. Also your other positions. Hooray for you. Mr. and Mrs. JoHN HEDRICK, 3449 HOLLY Woop, FLA., February 17, 1966. Hon. Senator WAYNE Morssz, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Caucus Room, Washington, D.C, Honorable Senator WayYNr Morse, Sir: I have noticed none of the Senators have asked why the great armies of Chiang Kaishek have not been used in place of our boys; after all we are fighting her war. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, ' Mrs, THomas J. BREENAN. PLATTSBURGH, N.Y., February 17, 1966, Senator Warne Morsz, U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You were magnificent today and we. support you. JaMEsS D. ARNQUIST. ROANOKE, VA., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Am with you all the way. God bless you. Mrs, KENNETH KErouGH. BROOKLINE, Mass., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNngE Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. Your voice is heard. More Senators should have the courage of you and Senator FULBRIGHT, W. FirzpaTRick. VANCOUVER, WASH.,, February 17, 1966. Senator Morse, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulation to the voice of the American people, keep up the great and courageous work, BarBara DEMING. FRESNO, CaLirF., .. February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MoRsgE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Applauding course of your questioning of General Taylor. LOUISE ERICKSON. PORTLAND, OREG., February 18, 1966. Senator Monse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Regarding your interview with General Taylor and your efforts in general bravo my little pressure group a wife 6 children and myself thank you for earnestly representing us in the Asian matter. Epwarp A. JONES, ALLENTOWN, PA., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MorsE, Senate Hearings, Washington, D.C.: “Congratulations.” You truly are a man in the eyes of God, and the world. Keep up the good work. May God bless, guide, protect, and direct your paths; and all others there; and elsewhere, who are fighting for truth and righteousness. “Please read: Job, 40th chapter; 14th verses. Please read this to the Assembly. Prophetess ADELINE G. SMITH. 10th to Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 79] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3450 MEMPHIs, ‘TENN., February 18, 1966. Nenator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, DU: Please do not any of you get angry and blow up leave that for our poor boys on the battlefield to do for you. By all means be cultured and refined, Mrs. RusY HAssELL. ELADDONFIELD, N.J., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: May you survive all the vicious attacks against your loyalty and be vindicated in your faith in the American peoples distrust of udministrations war in Vietnam at the polls, carry on. ELIZABETH FARR. Newport News, VA., february 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: My name, Howard L. Jackson, Army 5 years lacking 12 days. Senator, sir, ask one question would you sacrifice one just one American for all Vietnam ask that one question to General. Respectfully yours, HWowarp L. JACKSON. CenTerpPort, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne MorsE, Washington, D.C.: What about, Creopolitiks, Maj. Gen. Hanse Ifaushofer, the father of Geopolitik southcast. Asia. For more call RL 7-0749. Victor MAHNKEN. Concorp, CALIF., February 10, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: I hope this letter reaches you personally, wlthough I have never met you Lf have heard much about you all my life mostly from my erandfather, Russell W. Harrison of Portland Ore., and more recently from my husband, Set. Rk. M. Omalley, USMC with whom you lad dinner on ‘Vhanksgiving Day, 1965, at USNH at Yokuska, Japan, he was there recovering from wounds received in Vietnam. Until my husband was wounded I had not paid much attention to our U.S. foreign policies, since that time I want to learn the reasons my husband has to fight and risk his life, 1 have now read and listened about the war as much as possible during the Foreign Relations Committee hearings. I am in fuil ngreement with you and the other Senators who ure against our foreign policy in Vietnam. I also feel that the U.S. Government has no right to give our money and aid to Communist nations which in turn support the governments which are killing our men. { fee] that U.S. policies need a good looking at, what can { do to express my opinion and nelp change our policies. My husband is also against this military action. Requested roe to get informaton on the Senate debate and forward Lhem to him. Can you help me to do this again. I want to say I am 100 percent behind you and thank you for the stand you ure taking. Someday I hope to nave the pleasure of meeting you. Mrs, VirnGINIA OMALLEY. KeNnr, OHIO, February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, U.S, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Cail your attention to 1956 report by International Control Commission as quoted, page 172, in Vietnam edited Marvin Gettle- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE man, “The degree of cooperation given to the Cornmission by the two parties has not been the same while the Commission has experienced difficulties in North Vietnam. The major part of its difficulties has arisen in South Vietnam.” DOLORES NOLL. Detroit, Mich, February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Monse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo. You are wrong. ‘he American people as a people have already repudiated this meddling murder of American and Asian people but have had no representation to express their feelings heretofore, and why don’t you expose the interests who are perpetrating this war? Copy to Senator Par McNaMara. R. C. At. BERKELEY, Cant, February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Important technical difference hetween undeclared war in Vietnam and action in Korea not so far mentioned in hearings; letter action under U.N. mandate not unilateral action by United States. Insistence on declaration considered unfortunate since possibly affirmative, thus stiffling dissent, More and more dissent needed. DorornHy L. TUOMAS. San Jose, CALir., February 1&, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, U.S. Senate Office Building. Washington, D.C.: You are the consciences policy. of our foreign hoperT W. BICK. Pato ALTo, CaLiv., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, DC.: Regarding today’s testimony and limited war. Taylor understandably refuse: to specify limitation of means. Why not question him or Rusk on limited objectives. It will accept legally elected coalition government in return for protection of minorities. Compare our 14 points with Vietcong program printed as appendix to Bernard Falls’ “Two Vietnams.” Stanrornp COMMITTEE FOR PEACE IN VIET- NAM, STANFORD UNIVERSITY. DAYTONA BEACH, Fia., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: I never heard Mutual Broadcasting radio mention you once today whilst giving long covernge to Maxwell Taylor. None of NBC. Same coverage to Maxwell Taylor, no mention of Senator Morsr, of ABC. Every half hour, long arguments by Maxwell Taylor, Senator Morse mentioned feebly «nce and once fairly. |Applause from gallery.| Alex Dreier tonight was very.fair to you ‘This is honorable broadcasting, is it? It is a national disgrace. Whilst our “patriots” were taking over a thousand million dollars (I can say billion) of German alien property in 1919, the American free press printed German atrocity stories, to confuse the American people so they would not protest the theft of the German properties. GEORGE EDWIN ENGLISH. HOLLY WOOD, CALIF., February 18,1966. Senator WayNkE MORSE, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, DC.: Well done. The Senate and House are the legislative. the President executive. Generals February 21, 1966 are under Senators in the United States. Congratulations. James F. HYLAND. La JOLLA, CALIF., February 18, 1986. Senator WAYNE MoRSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I honor your efforts to bring sanity into Vietnam madness. We must put rational limits to our objectives. ROBERT C. ELLIOTT. SHERMAN Oaks, CaLIr., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNrE Morsp, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are firmly behind you in your stand against the war in Vietnam, and we wish to congratulate you upon your magnificent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Thursday. Keep up with it. ROBERT TT. WILKERSON, Marian SULTAN. SEATTLE, WASH., February 18, 1966. Senator Waynr MorskE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Applaud your patriotic, courageous, farsighted role in Thursday hearing. Please ask Rusk Friday, Does he support novel Maxwell Taylor doctrines that we may unilaterally intervene when legitimacy ol government is unclear (as in Saigon successive coup d’etats), because our commitment is to people? If so, would he apply elsewhere? Particularly China Government not recognized by JOHN DASCHBACH. San FRANCISCO, CALir., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNe Morse, Washington, D.C.: Bravo. Dr. EUGEN Hace. San RAFAEL, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Senator Morse: Congratulations on your stand regarding Vietnam. Practically speaking, we stand, with General Gavin, and morally, with the World Council of Churches. You, however, are our spokesman. Further, it.is perhaps time that the President be reminded of his moral responsibilities to the world as well as his legal restrictions under the U.S. Constitution. A war is a war is a war. Time was when aggressive military exercise was legislated not executed. A twist ot semantics seems to have taken this legality right out of the laps of Congress and placed it in the hands of a paranoic megalomaniac I only pray that you, Senator Fuisricut, and men such as Mr. Kennan, and General Gaviu can persuade your colleagues of your own honest concern and to show up intellectual bigotry and political blackmail wherever il may occur. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. R. Barrer Minvan. WILLIAMSTOWN, W. Va.. February 17, 1966. Hon. WaYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, You render our Nation a tremendous service exposing tragedy of Vietnam to public scrutiny. Why are we sending boys 8,000 miles to die in Vietnam jungles and swamps after betraying Cubans at Bay of Pigs? Have McNamara testify open hearings. You know Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ae ee === [Page 80] === February 21, 1966 of course he has been shockingly wrong heretofore. ; GERALD W. TRANER. BurFrFAto, N.Y., February 18, 1966 Hon, WayNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Watching hearings on TV we both believe you are right. Please continue as representative of sanity and honor. Mr. and Mrs, R. GOLDSMITH. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Sentaor WaYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We the people love and thank you for your outspoken, humane, and courageous defense of truth. Mrs, LUBA ADELSON, BLOOMINGTON, IND., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C:: Keep it up. Congratulations on good job by you and Senator Fursricur in Senate hearings. Mrs. Ray HEFFNER. BrverRLyY HIs, CAuir., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNeE Morse, US. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. JEAN LEON. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE MorsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: My husband and I are tn complete accord with your position on Vietnam. I would like to add that most of friends have the same viewpoint and so do many of our acquaintances. It seems to be a prevailing fear to oppose any viewpoints of our President’s position, probably due to the usual smear tactics, Mrs, CHARLES NAMSON. NEw York., N.Y. February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morssg, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C, Dear Mr. Morse: I thank you very much. It’s a courageous battle you’re fighting, I thank you very much. Kim SraNnLey. CortTLanp, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Hon. Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thanks and congratulations for the service you have rendered the country in airing the Vietnam mess tn committee hearings made public on television. In my opinion there are millions of Americans who are very concerned about our Viet policy past and present and who are apprehensive about the future. Let the good work go on and let the will of the people prevail through Congress to resolve this issue in a sensible Christian manner. H. B. BurNuHAM, CoLUMBIA, 8.C., February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNE MorsgE, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I believe the bulk of America supports your stand in questioning the legality of our being in Vietnam. Certainly I do. I trust you will continue to oppose such action, especially our becoming more and more involved in our ultimate questionable goal. Sincerely, WALTER PRUITT. East LANSING, MICH., February 17, 1966, Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D'C.: Our admiration, respect, and gratitude for your long continued reasoning in the Vietnam debate. Dr, and Mrs, THEODORE GUINN. SPRINGFIELD, ILL, February 17, 1966. Hon. Senator WayNzE Morss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We admire you for stating your honest opinion and the true reflection of opinions of many people who are taxpayers and loyal Americans in this country. With reference to daily headlines, why not suggest at the present hearing a provision for security, the safety and welfare of the citizens of this country, who paid Federal taxes and deplore the waste of lives and goods in a foreign issue which cannot be resolved by the expenditure of elther. ARCHIE THOMAS. ‘STOCKTON, CaLIrF., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorsE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your stand on Vietnam, STANLEY STEED, CLEVELAND, OHIO, February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morsg, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Greatly appreciate and strongly endorse your efforts for peace Vietnam. Please continue. Dr. VoNEIDA, YPSILANTI, MicH., February 17, 1966. Senator WayYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: I highly commend your efforts in the Foreign Relations Committee. WILLIAM A, Harsv, BoOuLDER, COLo., February 17, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morsg, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.O.: Bravo. These hearings make us proud that we have thinking men of your high caliber representing us. It also makes us aware that a good democracy must be constantly watched and tended, Your comments and committee activity were outstanding. Keep up the excellent work. GLENN D, ALBERG, G,. WILLIAM ALBERG. WASHINGTON, CONN., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorsE, US. Senate Foreign Relations Comnvittee, Washington, D.C.: The courage and tenacity displayed by you and Senator FuLbricuT to regain control of our Government has the profound gratitude of thinking Americans. Cut off the draft and stop authorizing blank checks for the joy boys to use and waste as they desire. All over-told shipping American boys to die in Asian fever-ridden swamps without declaration of war illustrates need for Congress to stand on its own feet. L. H. McMaron, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ‘CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3451 BRIDGEPORT, CONN., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on Vietnam stand taken with Taylor today. I applaud your great courage.; Sreven Jonas, M.D. LAFAYETTE, CAuirF., February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I deeply appreciate your clarity and courage in today’s hearings on Vietnam, Don SANFORD. Woons Hote, Mass., February 17, 1966, Senator WayNE Morss, We back your statements in committee today and your stand on Vietnam completely. Mr. and Mrs. J. OSTERGARD. OssinincG, N.Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Strongly support your Vietnam stand and efforts to inform Senate and public. Mr. and Mrs. E. J, WALKER. EDINBURG, TEX., February 18, 1966. Senator Waynr Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The Nation as well as the gallery applauded your forthright and firm reply to General Taylor’s implied smear “that you were giving comfort to Hanoi’ in asserting that millions are opposed to the administration’s Vietnam war policy. Congratulations for putting a moral stance above a sham patriotism, keep pitching. Respectfully, ANDREW OSTRUM. New York, N-Y., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorsEz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Glad of your incorruptible good sense, grateful for your courage. Mr. and Mrs, WILL TURNER. RIVERTON, N.J., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE Monrss, Senator Office Building, Washington, D.C.: - We appreciate your efforts and the open hearings on Vietnam. Keep up good work. Mr, and Mrs. Lyte Tatum. Lox.zy, ALA., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, _ Senator Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Great work you doing up there. to them, big hoy. Hold it JOHN W. FINCH. Cricaco, ILt.,. February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senator Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I have always considered you the greatest political figure in the world. Your devastating rebuke to the military mouthpiece of the Pentagon gutter pipeline will be an immortal tribute to you.; L. I. Lounssury. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 81] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3452 Battimore, Mp., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNr Morse, Senator Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support your stand on Vietnam. JouHN and SuUSANN MITCHELL. MIDDLETOWN, CONN., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MOoRSE, Senator Office Building, Washington, DC.: Thousands of us here in Connecticut are with you on the Vietnam mess. Keep up the good work. iticHarsep and EpNnaA Repass. (OLENDALE, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Ifon, WayNE Morss, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. My Dear Senator Morse: Thanks for yesterday and today. With you all the way. Respectfully, Mrs. DorotHy REID. Royvat Oak, MICH., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Part-time Consultant Taylor had few definite, specific, unqualified answers. Please tabulate ratio of unhedged answers to total questions and read into Recorp. Ask Rusk oxactly, definitely, specifically total tonnage nnd men coming over trail, Pentagon wants specific amount of money to do a job not specific at all. GERALD SIGMAN, CAMBRIDGE, MASs., february 17, 1966. Senator Waynr Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Continue to represent the truth, sir. 1968. OBERT P, DE ANGELIS. CLEVELAND, OHIO, february 17, 1966. Senator Waynr Morse, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your stand against General Taylor’s outrageous tactics. Keep up the fight for democracy. Dr. EH. W. PFEIFFER. Norra HoL_Lywoop, Cauir., february 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Washington, D.C.: We support your belief as expressed at the hearing today ‘he FagmMark FaMILy. CmratT Necxw, NLY., February 17, 1966. Senator Waywi Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your sharp questioning of Gen. Maxwell Taylor. We consider you a fine American patriot and a great Senator. Mr, and Mrs. MinTon SHALLER. HartrorD, CoNnN., February 17, 1966. ton. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: In my opinion you are one of the most respected men to have tried to give the American people the facts on the Vietnam situation, etc., Taylor, Gavin, sing the same song, and they are all out of tune. I CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE want you to keep me personally informed. Please confirm. WILLIAM DELOREY SULLIVAN, Hickory, N.C. February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. Keep up the good work, We are with you 100 percent. Mr. and Mrs. CLauDE RrEp. SaNTA BaRBARA, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on magnificent presentasion at Vietnam war debate in conimittee hearings. Mr. and Mrs. Ropert H, SouLen. Yuma, ARIZ., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Thank goodness Senator Morsr we have an interested citizen as well as an honest statesman in Washington. Even though there are problems concerned with Vietnam I think you are pursuing the right course. Having served on Senator Keagle’s publicity committee I feel secure in saying that. America in general is with you. Certainly China has too many people unless we explode our nuclear weapons over their land. Therefore, let’s seek to settle it at the conference table as you suggest. Permission granted to use as is. CrirIsTiz G. TURNER, Woopstock, Vi1., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your splendid stand. What can we do to help? Mr. and Mrs. R. E. MEntens. BERKELEY, CaLiFr., February:17. 1966. Senator WaYneE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Continue fight against Pentagon, State Department idiocy. Mors for President, ’68. Need Democratic foreign policy. ANTONY FALWBERG. San FrRANcISscoO, CaLir., February 17, £966. Tion. Warner Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.: You and Chairman FuLssxicHtT were magnificent today. Morris WATSON. SxXOKIE, Int.., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNe Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We applaud your efforts at the Senate Forcign Relations Committee hearings. You speak for all loyal Americans. iiuetH EDWARDS AND FAMILY. LivincstTon, N.J., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morstr, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep fighting with the same courage and intelligence for a course of reason and sanity. Mr. and Mrs, LEONARD ['YLER. February 21, 1966 OGDEN, UTAH, February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE MorsgE, Washington, D.C.:; Keep up the good fight. you. We are behind HuGH and Rose KELLY. ROSEWELL, N. Mex. February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We are gratified by your wisdom and courage. Reference Foreign Relations Committee and heartily concur with your opposition to present governmental policies regarding Vietnam. Please express our thanks to your many colleagues. Mr. and Mrs, A. LEO MUELLER, Sierra Mapre, Cauir., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.: Thanks for your voice on the television hearings. Your concern for truth comes through. Marion D. BEARDSLEY. MULL VALLEY, CaLir., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Vigorously agree with your courageous stand on Vietnam and determination to let the people know. EvELYN Hannay. CHAMPAIGN, ILL., February 17, £966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, i thoroughly agree with your stand not to escalate the war in Vietnam. The Asian. problems seem to be mainly concerned with food. I don’t see how a larger war will solve these problems. Jouw H. Barr. River Ence, NJ... February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: You have my full support in opposition to this Government policy on Vietnam. Lro UMAN. Great Neck, N.Y. February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up your valiant campaign for peace and no escalation Vietnam, despite all smears. We believe your actions in best traditions of American democracy. RICHARD PACK AND FaMILy. Frerrort, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Senator Warne Monss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: On behalf of my two grandsons thank you for your efforts for peace. Mr. and Mrs. SAMUEL Harris. MerRIpian, MIss., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Washington, D.C.: As a citizen of the United States, a mother and a voter, I thank you for trying to end the war in Vietnam. I amin complete agreement with the stand you have taken. Mrs. HickMaAN Parr. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 82] === February 21, 1966 MILTron, Mass., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsr, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations for excellent retort to Taylor. Continue battle against forces which resort to massive falsehoods. L, H. RASMUSSEN. BROOKLINE, Mass., February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: All honor to you, Senator Morse. I agree with you to repudiate present Government course in Vietnam. Urge stopping bombing and negotiate end of war with Vietcong. Roy Brown. Cuicaco, ILz., . February 17, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: My gratitude for your courageous stand and hopes it will prevail. JuDY SMITH, AuGustaA, GA., February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morsz, Senate Building, ‘ Washington, D.C.: You are right. J. H. Bryan. CoLUMBUS, OHIO, February 17, 1966. Senator WAyNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. America is behind you all the way. There is no substitute for total victory. CrarLes and EvELYN JONES. Croron on Hupson, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on showing great courage which is much needed in your encounter with Maxwell Taylor. Our country needs more men who are sensible, Davin and ELamn Disicr, CuIcaco, ILu., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNnE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. The only red-blooded American left in this country. Keep up the good work. Roy Rieck. STATE COLLEGE, Pa., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: I, too, am frightened. Through your leadership and courage may you block every move of my Government of escalating this war. I wish tomorrow was election day 1968. Mrs, LEON FRANKSTON. BERKELEY, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the persistent work in Foreign Relations Committee debate. Televise congressional sessions as well. VARTKES YEGHIAYAN, No. 29-18 BLOOMINGTON, IND., February 17, 1966, Senator Wayne Morsg, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your stand against illegal war. An immediate national referenaum should be taken to determine what the American people want. “Rose NasH FREEDMAN, WELLESLEY, Masgs., February 17, 1966, Senator WAYNE MorRsE, Senate Office Building: Strongly support your position regarding Vietnam war, Dr. and Mrs, T. R. DawBeEr. COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO., February 17, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D:C.: Thank you. We have three sons. We don’t care to have our thre sons die to protect the political issues of the Government of Vietnam. Please continue to help keep our American children for America. We will watch for your guidance to lead us in 1968. Davin and Betty POLHEMUS, Cuicaco, ILtn., February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNr Morsg, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support your Vietnam views and admire your courage. HELEN KaRANIKAS. West HEMPSTEAD, N.Y., February 17, 1966, Senator WAYNE MoRsE, Senate, Washington, D.C.: War is monstrous in a civilized society. We must find a saner way to settle our differences, Continue your good work. Thank you. Mrs, SYLVIA UMLAS. February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: As parents of draft age son, we thank you for your fight for peace in Vietnam. We say support our troops by bringing them home alive. We back your resolution rescinding President's blank check. Mr, and Mrs. Davin WEIxEL. SEATTLE, WASIL, February 17, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, DC.: God bless you. Keep up the good work. C. EB, JoHNSON. RICHMOND, Va., February 17, 1966, Hon. WaYNE Morse, U.S, Senate, Washington, D.C.: Please continue to oppose the war in Vietnam. I served 42 months in World War II, serial No, 02047477. HAROLD P. Rost. ROOSEVELT, N.J., February 17, 1966. Senator Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Our sincerest thanks for your outspoken efforts in defending the cause of morally and democracy. ROBERT and DiaNA MUELLER, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3453 San Francisco, CAuir., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne Moksr, Washington, D.C.: In full accord with your stand on Vietnam. Public hearings must continue. JAMES CUMMINS. JACKSON, MISS., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morsg, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up opposition to Vietnam war. are wonderful. Sincerely, You BarpBaRaA BRANDT. CHICAGO, ILL., February 17, 1966. Hon, WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your vigorous and effective criticism of the administration’s policies regarding Vietnam. Keep up the good work. Vircinia A, and Jouw K. Lanecum, Curcaco, Int., February 17, 1966. Senator Morss,. Washington, D.C.: Thank you for the service to our country. : Mrs. H. W. SHIELDS. PUEBLO, COLO., February 17, 1966. Senator Morssz, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. a resident of Oregon. I would be proud to be ArTHuR L, LEwIs. CLEVELAND, OHIO, February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morssz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for expressing our views. God bless you and stop this war. ARLENE SMITH. May ANN ARBOR, MICH.,. February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: To one who may bring peace, bravo, Jopr PERLMAN. i Los ANGELES, CALiIr., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: God bless you, a true disciple of God, tor peace and humanity. Grace LOCKE. Los ALTOS, CALIF., 1 February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE MoRrsE, Washington, D.C.: I am deeply grateful to you, as are millions of Americans in growing numbers, for your patriotic, nationalistic stand on our Vietnam involvement and your concern about asking our American youth to die fighting in a country that has done us no harm, nor could. H, B. Herron. San JACINTO, CaLir., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Caucus Room, Washington, D.C.: Senator Wayne Morse, I love you. Tell Maxwell that the American Indians are still around and that they are not in favor of Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 83] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3454 planting any more corn outside the stockade. We question the legality of the war in Vietnum and we don't wish any more boys sent over there, CHARLOTTE KINCAID. FALMOUTH, MASs., February 17, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Speaking for myself only as a woman, f appreciate our Nation’s dilemma confronted with this complex situation. Can only say that I support your committee’s deliberations completely. Only hope that God will ive you and the committee members good judgment for our many sons, husbands, and relations in the Armed Forces confronted with this dilemma. Mrs. Nancy M. BaucH. ¥ort Wayne, IND., february 17, 1966. Senator WAYN«£ MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You are the kind of American we need to hear from. Congratulations for your courage and honesty. Keep on with the investivations. Mr. and Mrs. Jack SCHRICK. ‘VaRONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA, February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorRsE, Senate Office Luilding, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. Keep that mustache bristling. We hope that you will continue to make the facts available to the American people. Moira ARMOUR, Fiona St. JOHN. WAST NORWALK, CONN., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Nenate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We and all our friends are solidly behind you. Mary W. WYKOFF. BaTON RouGE, La., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: { pray that you are deluged by messages from the people of the United States praising you for your sensible and undaunting stand in your Vietnam policy. God bless you and your colleagues who voice your sentiment. Respectfully, DORALICE FONTANE. ROWAYTON, CONN.. february 17, 1966. Senator Waywe MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington,.C.: Support your view Vietnam. iMmphatically, Warrny MarRInskKyY. Tinos ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo for your honesty, courage, and determination. We pray for a return to truth, sanity, and peace. You have the support of my family and many friends. We are listening to the hearings with renewed hope for peuce. CECELIA REIF. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE San Jose, Cauir.. February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE MORSE, Foreign Kelations Committce, We support your declaration of war from the President or out of Vietnam, Good work, Senator. Ron Tartor. SEWICKLEY, Pa., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Keep after them with your questions. Right or wrong, it always Keeps people on their toes. Good luck. R. H. Cox, New York, N.Y... February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE MORSE, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: We gratetully support your patriotic stand for peace in Vietnam. Mr. and Mrs. Morris Dorsky. New Yors, N.%",, February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: You have our total support in present conpressional debate. Gr. and Mrs. Grorce FELUMAn. Mr. and Mrs. LestrEr TriMBLE, FxREeD WILHELM. Louisa Hargis. Derxrorr, MIctt., February 1. 1966. Senator Wayne MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your stand. Will you ask this question forme? Is not the Vietcong poration on the enclave theory and thus being so successful? Mrs. DAvID WELLS. TAAWNDALE, CaLi¢., february 18 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Myself and all true Americans appliud and support your patriotic and statesmanlike stand regarding America’s involvement in Vietnam. History will accord you the true status you deserve and we feel much better being Americans knowing there arr Americans like yourself protecting the honvr of our country. THaN S. SHIRL‘, Keul Estate Liroker, SoutH Gate, Cauir., f£cbruary 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C: I support your statements before Senate hearings today. You are giving the good light, KENNETH W. Ret tTGER, Los ANGELES, CALiF., February 18. 1966. Senator WayYNE Morse, U.S, Senate, Washington, D.C.: Just a little old housewife OSU graduate who knows what’s keeping it on. I'm a registered Republican. Keep diggin’. keep it Mrs. WILLIAM K1IsMLER. February 21, 1966 Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MoRSsE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: You were beautiful. They must see the truth for all of mankind, Please continue. RICHARD LEVIN. Csicaco, IL... February 18, 1966. Senator Waynr Morsz, Washington, D.C.: Our deepest gratitude for your unflinching courage. We fully support your efforts to end our cruel involvement in South Vietnarn. You are perfectly correct in predicting popular refutation of this doomed national policy. Please continued your leadership. QUENTIN DL. YounGc, M.D., and Faminy. Los ANGELES, CALIF.. february 18, 1966. Hon. Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.: Sir you have rendered a great service to your country in these televised committee hearings and by your attitude one doubts if you care you're the one who will be repudiated by the people of the great State of Oregon. LorEN GRESHAM, ALBUQUERQUE, N. MEX.. February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE MorsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are deeply indebted for your courageous exposure not only of the illegality but of the futile butchery of the Vietnam war. DwiIcH?t SPE Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. NCER, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your courageous stand. Many silent Americans pray your prodigious efforts will bear fruits. Mr. and Mrs. KENNETH O. MILLER. GROSSE POINTE Park, MIct.. February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: You are correct in predicating our Nation repudiates the Viet war. Please be assured millions of Americans are with you. Mr. and Mrs. C. Is. BRADLEY. Los ANGELES, CALIF., february 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Foreign telations Committce, Washington, D.C.: Thanks for your enacity and integrity —you truly are our voice. We are grateful. The Nicot FAMILy. AKRON, OHIO., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Washington, D.C.: Supporting you on your stand about Victnam, ‘Tell the chairman and the rest of the committee if you like. Jamrs BE. BENNETT. Derroir, Mici., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE MoRSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We whole heartedly support and appreciate your stand in the current Senate hear- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 84] === ,. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 ings on our Vietnam policy. We also regret that we are unable to directly support you with our votes. Mr. and Mrs. Or1AN WoRDEN. LINCOLN Park, MICH., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morssz,: Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations to you, GRUENING, and FULBRIGHT. Don’t lose courage. ANNE P. WooLery. NortH HoLuywoop, CAuir., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNnr Morse, Washington, D.C.: You are thwarting executive usurpation of congressional prerogative, and spiking the guns on unbridled militarism. I am proud to be your countryman. GEORGE DREXLER. Los ANGELES, CauiF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNnrE Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You are really getting people thinking about injustice and folly of our Vietnam war bravo, WALDEMAR AND Marian HILLE. San Francisco, Cauir., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I strongly support your position on foreign policy in Vietnam and Dominican Republic. Thank you for your conscience and courage you can help us regain our self respect. Rosert G. Purnam, M.D. Saw FRANctsco, Carir., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Admire your great courage and dedication to best interests of United States know that we earnestly support you. Mr, and Mrs. Monro: RupE. San FRANCISCO, CALir., February 18, 1966, Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We fully support your courageous fight against the war in Vietnam. To you and your colleagues we may owe our lives. We urge you to run for President next election. We believe there are millions who feel as we do about this issue, Cart and NreLt Ranta. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIP., . February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morsz, Senate Office Building, Entire family united in support of your position opposing President’s war in Vietnam. Give ’em heck; we will mobilize support for your position, Rut and Howarp Gorrsrern, PHILADELPHIA, PA., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C, My Dzar Senator: I uphold your stand with regard to U.S. policy in Vietnam. I have thought very highly of you as a Senator and wish I could vote for you. If you run for President. I will. Yours sincerely, ELEANOR R. HELTZEn, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE SEATTLE, WASH., February 18, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C. Dear SENaTOR: Support for your policy is growing. Keep up the good work. Keep fighting for the constitutional government and speaking for the little people. CHARLES DEan, AMARILLO, T'EX., February 18, 1966, Senator WayNre Morse, Senate Office Building, - Washington, D.C.: Never has so much been owed by so many to so few. I humbly thank you for your stand. You cannot count the cost but only the reason, and reason is the only sense that separates us from animals. For us who weep for the loss of freedom you are a small quiet voice that echos the thoughts of tomorrow— a tomorrow of God and country—they must live. Your obedient servant, . Ron SMITH. San Francisco, Cautr., February 18, 1966, Senator WayYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, We support your efforts in the Vietnam tragedy and urge you to intensify all endeavors for an immediate peaceful settlement. IRVING and Marian TILIN. NortH Houiiywoop, Cauir., February 18, 1966. Senator Warne Morsz, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo. We support your position on Vietnam completely. ISRAEL and CAROLINE BAKER. DENVER, COLO., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morssz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up debate and with dissent on Vietnam. Dialog necessary for clarification our Nation, MarGakeT HaLey. BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF., February 18, 1966, Senator Wayne Morse, ~ Washington, D.C.: God bless you for your stand on Vietnam. Keep up the battle. . Mrs. RosEMARY Do.crn, BAKERSFIELD, CALIF., February 18, 1966, Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You are absolutely right on Vietnam and other stands you have taken. You are one of the very few true statesmen of this century. G.H. Stack, New York, N.Y., February 18, 1966, U.S. Senator WayNE Morsr, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for representing our hope for peace and rational open conduct of government. Please continue telling the truth. Mr. and Mrs. Howarp ALK. New Yoru, N.Y,, February 18, 1966, Senator WayNnr Morss, Senate Office Building, We want to express our admiration for your strong stand today questioning retired Gen. 3455 Maxwell Taylor. We watched the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings on television and we admire you courage. President Johnson has bypassed Congress, United Nations, and the opinions of the people of this country. We want you to know that you are not alone in upholding the ideals and belief in freedom of choice for all people whatever their circumstances. June Lathrop, Tad Lathrop, Kevin Lathrop, Ross Coates, Agnes Coates, Meghan Coates, Arwyn Coates. BrveRLY HILLs, CAiF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for speaking so eloquently the thoughts of so many of us. Mrs. Davin SoLomon. Los ANGELES, CALIF., : February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE MorsE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are proud of you, keep up the good work, ANNA WEISS. Santa Rosa, CAtir., February 18, 1966, Senator WAYNE Mors, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Today you distinguished yourself as one in the American tradition of free debate. In contrast General Taylor appeared as Madison Avenue propagandist, we are with you. Harowp and Susan HI. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIrF., . February 18, 1966, Senator WAYNE MorRsE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations, commend your courageous stand Foreign Relations Committee. Keep working for peaceful solution Vietnam. Mr, and Mrs. LEon OLSon. PROVIDENCE, R.I., February 18, 1966, Senator WAYNE Morse,: Washington, D.C.: We are with you. ROBERT and Nancy HAMILTON. BUFFALO, N.Y., . February 18, 1966. Senator Morse,. Washington, D.C.: You are right, keep fighting. Thank you. Mr. and Mrs, DonaLp ZANGERLE, Mr. and Mrs, JoHN Marziano. SUNNYVALE, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsz, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We wish to add our wholehearted support re your courageous position in opposing the administration’s policy in Vietnam. It is a sorry situation when Americans’ right to disagree is called unpatriotic. With men like you there is still hope, Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Duckor. SEATTLE, Wast., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNrE Monsz, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good work, WaYNe. And help the salvation of us boobs sitting in the sidelines who can’t be heard, were not able to express our voices on the meat of the subject; namely why are we in Vietnam. And stick by your stand of our constitutional government. ALLEN PETERS, Democratic Precinct Committeeman. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 85] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3456 OAKLAND, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morss, Washington, D.C: Thank you tor your courage, dedication, and true patriotism. And mostly for having stood alone. Prof, ARNOLD MECHANICS. PrRovIpDENCE, R.I., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MorskE, Washington, D.C.: { thank you. I do not propose to be voverned by generals. {ns POLITZER. CLEVELAND, OHIO, February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse and Senator Fu.- BRIGHT, Foreign Relatiuns Committec, Washington, DC.: Thank you for asking the questions that concern all Americans. Why do we allow communism in Cuba and we fight it thousands of miles from home. It’s wonderful that we have these sessions to inform us. Mr. and Mrs. Ernest KoeEnic. SAUSALITO, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne B. Morsr, Washington, U.C.: You speak for humanity. We support you fully against the war esculation. The MostiuLer FAMILY. SANTA BARBARA, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We fully support and agree with your stand on Vietnam situation, Letter follows. Mr. and Mrs. JosePpH L. MCENULTY. FLUSHING, N.Y., Februury 17, 1966. Senator WayNe MoRSsE, Washington, D.C.: { support your position on Vietnam wholeheartedly. Mrs. VIRGINIA ROBINSON. &neEPortT, N.Y., February 17, L966. Senator Wayne MORSE, Senate Office Ruilding, Washington, 1.C.: Decply appreciate your forthright position during hearings. Your views retlect our profound hope for peace. Mr. and Mrs. Martin Harris. Boston, Mass., February 17, 1966. Senator Waywe MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Giod and truth are on your side. AICHARD METAFORA. Gary, IND., February 17, 1966. Senator Way xt Morse, Senale Office Birilding, Washington, D.C. Bless you. Keep up the good work. Iistz WENDT. WasHINGTON, D.C., February 17, 1966. Senatcr Waynr Morse, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Cruard your health, human race needs you for ils survival, Mr. and Mrs. Grorncr M, PIKSER. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD —- SENATE FARMINGDALE, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Senator MoRsE, Washington, D.C.: Saw TV channel 7 in Farmingdale, L.I., tonight. Thank you. G. ZAHN, Assistant Professor of Mathematics, State University. MorcaNHILL, CALir., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I agree with you wholeheartedly there were more like you. Mrs, LOUISA FLALERTY,. Saw FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Wish Senator WayYNE Morss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Standing alone in support of unpopular causes is not new to you. I join many others who thank Ciod each day you are a Member of the Senate. ELIZABETH M, Bouse. Santa Monica, Ca.ir., February 18, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Don’t lose heart. Continue the Grassroots are with you and growlny. Mrs. Jean Harrison. fight. Ann Arsor, Micit., February 18. 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Keep talking, people are starting to listen. Your courage and your conviction on Vietnam gives a new definition to American patriotism whereas the militarist would suffocate decency and reason under the weight of blind allegiance to a bad policy. Your voice rings clear where opinions are. Truth will prevail. Wruusam V. ilangy. Morcan Hitt, Cari, February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington. D.C.: Iam one of the millions you spoke about. Keep up the good work. Sip Fuaiiurry. BERKELEY, CALI¥., February 18. 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We want to compliment you and to thank you for your service to this democracy and to the cause of world peace in the present hearings of the Senate Foreign Helations Committee. Please keep up your good work and ict us know if we can help in any way. Mi. and Mrs, GEORGE A. SAGE. New Yoru,N.Y., February 14, £966, Senator WayNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: With other writers I want to express my pratitude for your courage and wisdom. EH. KonNINGSUERGER. Santa Monica, Cauir., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, DC.: Don't lose heart. Continue the fight. Grassroots are with you and growing. Ii. N. Broperson, M.D. February 21, 1966 PHILADELPHIA, Pa., February 18, i966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support your Vietnam policies. Keep punching. You represent the hopes of many people outside Oregon. Mr. and Mrs. IRVIN Secaty. Napa, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Morse, Washington, D.C.: Saw you on TV tonight; agree with you 100 percent. Keep up the good work. John~- son war is unconstitutional. Was once in Saigon tor 10 days. ‘Yelegramed Johnson last June: ‘Your foregin policy bringing on world war No. 3. When they drop the first atom bomb on America may you he among the toll.” Gustrab F., JACOBSEN, Merchant Marine Radio Officer. Saw Francisco, Catir., February 18, 1966. Senator WaynEe Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.: Thanks for your magnificant position in hearing today. Keep up the good fight for peace. Mr. and Mrs. HERSCHEL SOLOMON. SUNNYSIDE, N.Y.. February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNe Morse, Senate Office Buiiding, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your remarks in the hearings today. Please continue to tight for peace. Davip JENKINS. New York, N.Y... February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE MoRsE, Washington, D.C. Applaude wholeheartedly your dealing with General Taylor. My heart is with you and efforts for Vietnam peace. Paun THER. Boston, Mass., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. We are grateful to you and the committee for the vital importance of Vietnam hearings. Mr. and Mrs. CHARLES NaCKEY. OKLAHOMA CiTY, OKLA., February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Deeply appreciate your courage as a statesman and your stand on Vietnam. Iam from a family that had relatives in the Revolutionary War with England; not a recent. arrival. ‘The United States needs more statesmen like you. Cora SwEET. LAVERNE, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Give 'em hell, old buddy. Millions of us believe we should go all out or getout. Please get with Curtis LeMay, even the guts of an Eisenhower bluff would end it. You'll remember our horrible grassroots attempt to get bombers 15 years ago. Someway or another, that worked. Step up to it. boy. We all love a 16-caliber man and your're still Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 EBay “Hapa & ir === [Page 86] === , Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 not too old to be President. Believe it or not, still kicking hard. Formerly from Medford, Oreg., and never waved a flag since. Jog R. NEIL. Cosra Mersa, Cauir., : February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morss, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. As longstanding admirers of your forthrightness and honesty we support your stand on Vietnam. Grne and MYRTLE WAGGONER. MONTEREY, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morss, Senate Office Building, Give ’em hell, Senator. We’re with you. F,S. and E. J. McFar.anp. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are grateful to you for your efforts for peace, Please continue. Thank you. Mr, and Mrs, Arruur D. MILuer. -CHiIcaco, ILL., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your challenge to General Taylor magnificent, keep up the good work. Congratulations. Mr. and Mrs, Pearson B. SELK. Los GarTos, Cauir., : February 18, 1966. Senator Warne Morse, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good work. Do not let them intimidate you. Millions pray for you. Mr. and Mrs. ALAN CLARKE. Pato ALTO, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support you. Keep it up. Lewis J, SILVERS. HERBERT KENNEDY, » WILLIAM WALKER, FRANK DUNN, ANTHONY KRrapPs, BuRBANK, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNE Morsz, Washington, DC: Congratulations for your courageous fight to inform people of Vietnam situation,. MERRILL and Caron JACKSON. PaLtTo ALTO, Cauir., February 18, 1966. Senator Morse,:. Senate Building, Washington, D.C. Dmar SENATOR Morse; Heartfelt thanks for your courageous stand on current issues. We are with you, you milltons strong and the polls will so record sincerely. S."WILLIAMs, PorTOLA VALLEY, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Washington, D.C: Although a.Republican businessman, I am 100 percent for de-escalation, the United Nations, and WayNr Morse.. RosErt V. Brown, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE Pao ALTO, CALIF., February 18, 1966, Senator WayYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: We support your effort to defend American people against the conduct of an illegal war. Mr. and Mrs. Hucn TusmMan. St. Louis, Mo., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNeE Morsz, Care Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo, all thinking humane Americans are indebted to you for your courage and honesty. Morris S. WorTMAN, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, CaLir.,, February 18, 1966. Senator WayYNE Morse, Washington, D.C.: Please press Rusk on whether we now will accept Geneva agreement. CHRISTIAN Bay. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morssg, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C: We are very proud of you, Keep up the good work in the Senate hearings. Frances W. SHIPPEY, EVANSTON, ILL., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNE MorsgE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Enthusiastically support your efforts to bring the war in Vietnam to the conference table. Your courage and candor are in the best tradition of American patriotism. Sincerely, Dr. and Mrs. WaLTER Masur. Str. Pav, Minn,. February 17, 1966, Senator WaYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: God bless you. This country needs more men like you. L. H. WHEELER. Cuicago, It1., February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNE Morsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are in full support of the hearings you are conducting into the Vietnamese war. The spirit that you are carrying on is in the interest of all humanity. The bombing and the napalming of women and children must be stopped, Mr. and Mrs. CHarLEs WILson. GADSDEN, ALA., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNnr Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Agree with you 100 percent in your Vietnam stand. Never thought we would ever agree with you on anything. Suggest we abide by Geneva accord of 1954. . Dr. and Mrs, Jon Rocers. Los ANGELES, Cair., February 18, 1966. Senator WayNr Morse, Senate Office Building, Good work. You're wonderful. A great Femonstration of moral courage. Please Keep it up. Admiringly, BETTE L. STerRn. - Senator Warne Morse, 3457 WINNETKA, ILL., 7 February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNrE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank God for men like you in the United States. Dr. and Mrs. Rictarp Marcus. New York, N-Y., February 18, 1966. Washington, D.C.: You speak for the majority of people we know. We admire your integrity. ROBERT and PEARL PORTERFIELD. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Stand pat where you are—definitely on the right side of the Vietnam debate. ANN SANCHEZ, STAMFORD, CONN., February 18, 1966. Hon, Wayne Morsz, U.S, Senate, Washington, D.C.: Saw on TV your exchange with General Taylor. We support you 100 percent. Congratulations for your courage. Mr. and Mrs, Morris RorHenserc. CAMBRIDGE, Mass., February 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Buiiding, Washington, D.C.: Senator Morse you are a great man. JOSEPH PROCTOR. Doveuas Hath. ROBERT GARDNER. EVANSTON, ILL., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please continue speaking out against our policy in Vietnam. Applaud and concur your stand. ; Dr, and Mrs. H. HirsHFIELp. PROVIDENCE, R.I., February 18, 1966. Senator WaYNnrE Morris, © Washington, D.C.: I watched you on TV today. Practically all the M.D.’s I talk with daily are all for you. You are our spokesman; keep it up. RaYMOND H. Trott, M.D. West HYATTSVILLE, Mp., February 17, 1966. WaYNne Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your comments to Taylor reflect the feelings of many silenced Americans. Please continue speaking out. NatHa and PamMe.a Wooprurr. _ Pato ALTO, Cauir., February 18, 1966. Senator Wayne Mors, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Tomorrow when Rusk testifies you will be openly fighting a dictatorial President whose: disregard for international law, the United Nations and his people's constitutional rights has disgraced my country throughout the world. Most of all you will be fighting the cynicism and despair now overtaking idealistic youth everywhere. EDWARD BERNSTEIN. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 87] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 3458 San FRANCISCO, CALIF., Webruary 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, DC.: We support you stand for sanity in Vietnam; keep up the tight for peace. Dr. and Mrs, Rosert J. DUMMEL. ‘TROTWOOD, OHIO, february 18, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep speaking up. God, humanity, and us on your side, D. EUGENE LICHTY. San JOSE, UALIF., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: As an ordinary citizen we support you fully in your stand on Vietnam. THYRON and JUANITA Hoop. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Senator Waynn MORSE, Washington, D.C.: T am the majority of people who agree with you have no way of expressing our wpinion. Thank you for doing it for us. Sincerely, J. ¥', GRANT. Vernon, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Senator WaYNEe Morss, Senate Office Building, Washington, U.C.; We applaud your courageous and honest conviction on our policy in Vietnam. Lovis and KATIE SEIDEN. Pomona, CaLiF., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Senator Morse, I love you. {,AUROSE PAGE. Pao ALTO, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Tion. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Have Rusk clarified position on Geneva Agreements. Acceptance or just basis for negotiation. THOMAS PLAUT. “LANSING, MicH., February 17, 1966. Senator Wayne MORSE, 7S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We are greatful for your heroic efforts. All America will be someday. Please continue. ROBERT AND MARGARET WASSERMAN. WAKEFIELD, R.I., February 17, 1966. tion, WAYNE MOoRsE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your patriotic and injelligent stand in the Foreign Relations Committee hearing. E.R. and W. H. TOWNSEND. RostyN HetcutTs, N.Y., February 17, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Wasiington, D.C.: ‘Your interrogation of General Taylor today was a brilliant service to the country exposing inconsistencies and reckless attitude of administration and its mtlitary advisers your work beginning to have telling effect ancl CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE deeply greatful personally and am sure years to come entire country will honor your great work, Rosrrt L. ZIMMER. Cuicaco, Iu. February 17, £966. ton, Warne Morse, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Thank God in this modern world there is still a voice like yours crying out in this vast wilderness searching for the truth to help mankind. God bless you and give you strength. Earn C. Just. MENLO Park, CALIF., February 17, 1966. Hon. Waynr MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good work. You're doing our country a great service. T. I. Stensie. LOUISVILLE, Ky, February 17. 1966, Senator WayNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Affairs Investigatio:. Committee, Washington, D.C.: We are behind you 100 percent. escalation of war. Against Mr. and Mrs. SOL AsOFF. Fairn.tawn, N.J., February 17. 1966. Senator WAYNE Morse, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are forever indebted to you tor your courageous battle against the generis. JENNY Karte. BrEvERLY Hr.Ls, CaLi"., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNt MorsF, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you. We are very fortunate to have uw gentleman of your intellect and integrity using words instead of arms to seek peace. Mr. and Mrs. SHELDON B, KEELER. Mounr Kisco, N.¥., February 17, 1966. Senator WayNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Pouriton. You speak not only far Oregon but for sane men everywhere. HeReert G, BOMNERT, Los ANGELES, CALiF., February 1), 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please keep up your gocd work. peace. We need Evan WINFIELD. BERKELEY, CALtr., February 11, L966. Senator Morse, Wasington, D.C.: We fully support yours and Senator FuLpRIGH?T’s endeavor for a rational foreign policy. Mr. and Mrs. Rosert L, CANFIELD. {from the New York Review of Books, Mar. 3, 1966] “ViprnaM: THE LESSONS OF Wark” (By Jean Lacouture) “On the long thin coast of Vietnam,” wrote John K. Fairbank in the last issue of this paper, “we are sleeping in the same bed the French slept in even though we dream different dreams.” The dreams of course are very different but February 21, 1966 so are the beds and the dreamers themselves. Let us compare them and see when the end of the night may come. Nothing could be more valuable for American leaders at the moment than a close examination of the disastrous errors made by the French in Indochina from 1945 to 1956. To know the faults of a friend may not cure one’s own, but from France’s experience America might well learn something of what has gone so dreadfully wrong in Vietnam today.: The French had three great dreams for Indochina and each led them into a different and more ugly phase of the war. At first, in 1946, they clung briefly to the dream of reestablishing their prewar empire in Indochina. Indeed, for one hopeful momert they seemed to be on the verge of a promising new colonial policy: General Leclerc, sent out to reconquer the territory, decided instead to negotiate with the Vietnam revolutionary leader, Ho Chi Minh. Leclerc recognized Ho's Vietnam as a “freestate,” connected with France, but controlling its own diplomacy. army, and finances. This was the first agreement made between a European colonial power and the Asian revolution—-and one of the shortest lived and saddest in retrospect. For within weeks the intrigues of colonialists in Saigon and Paris and extremists among the Vietminh and its nationalist allies succeeded in scrapping it. The way was now open for France to plunge into full-scale colonial war. But it soon became clear to everybody that this would have been a hopeless venture, doomed from the start by the half-ruined state of France, the lack of an air force and navy, and the disapproval of the Russians and Americans. At this point the French conceived their second Indochinese dream which Iced them into a second war, lasting from 1948 10 1951. Now they would transform their colonial struggle into a civil war. Against Ho's Vietminh they would set in opposition the “independent”? Emperor Bao Dai, encouraging him to cultivate his own anti-Communist but nationalist leadership—a policy described by the distinguished Scholar Paul Mus as “nationalist counterfire.” Perhaps it might have succeeded if the nationalists had been given a chance to make it work. But their power and prestige and autonomy were always limited. While Vietnamese and French troops died courageous. Bao Dai preoccupied himself with’ tiger hunting, his ministers with profiteerjing. The Vietminh methodically liquidated Bao Dai's officials, dominated the countryside, and organized its soldiers into divisions. soon after the Chinese Communists arrived on the northern frontier in 1950. After this decisive event and the outbreak of the Korean war, France dreamrd once again of transforming the nature of the war in Vietnam, this time into an international conflict with communism. In September 1951 General cde Lattre arrived in Washington to argue that France, tf ced with Vietminh subversion supported by Communist China, now needed and deserved to have its risks shared. He was given both credits and weapons. But later, in 1954, on the eve of Dienbienphu, the French Government demanded far more: It requestbed that several hundred American bombers be ordered to attack the enemy from Manila. To these requests Washington finally responded that ‘Indochina does not fall within the perimeter of the area vital to the defense of the United States.” We can now admire the wisdom which led President Eisenhower to reject both the agitated appeals of the French and the advice of Admiral Radford and Vice President Nixon, both of whom recommended intervention. But we may well ask why a country not considered of vital importance Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ‘a RRL i mE 11g, eivics === [Page 88] === °: Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE February 21, 1966 to American interests in 1954 became so in 1965. The Communist camp, after all, is no jonger a monolithic force able to exert unified global pressures as had been the case in 1954. In Korea, moreover, Chinese had recently been fighting American soldiers, something they have since refrained from doing; and missile strategy has meanwhile diminished the importance of local air force bases. One can only conclude that the diplomatic views of American leaders have hardened during these years. In the light of Mr. Rusk’s performance the diplomacy of John Foster Dulles must be reconsidered: and credited with an admirable flexibility, Thus France launched three wars in Indochina and lost them all, - Its allies having refused to provoke a brutal extension of the war in order to avoid a local defeat. France’s dream of an international anti-Communist crusade collapsed at Dienbienphu in the spring of 1954. General Giap destroyed France’s main combat force; the Vietminh controlled two-thirds of Vietnam; and neither Hanoi nor Saigon were protected from attack.: Ho Chi Minh had offered negotiations 6 months before this debacle and had been ignored. Now Moscow and Peiping were agreeable to an international détente and Washington seemed prepared to accept the conse-~ quences of ita failure to intervene. Thus at the Geneva Conference table in 1954 the Western Powers benefited from a certain complicity on the part of Molotov and Chou En-lai: The West succeeded in wresting from the victors half the territory and the larger part of the material wealth of Vietnam. Ho agreed to fall back to the north in exchange for a promise that elections preparing the way for unification would be held in 1956— elections that he had no doubt of winning. A great deal of confusion surrounds this Geneva settlement. It must be emphasized that the only texts signed at Geneva were the armistice agreements between the French and the Vietminh. No one at all signed the “final declaration” of the Conference—both the United States and South Vietnam had reservations about it—and it carried only the force of suggestion. But apart from the North Vietnamese, the French were the only nation that formally guaran-~ teed to carry out the Geneva accords that Provided both for partition at the 17th parallel and for elections, And now France committed a new error (its last?), dreaming this time that it might finally leave Vietnam and forget it altogether. Diem, now installed as dictator in the South, wanted the French to quit his country as soon as possible. This was not only because certain French interests were intriguing against him—something that helped strengthen his position as a nationalist leader—but also because the French Army was the only force that could compel him to hold elections in 1956, In the event, the French quickly yielded and the last of their army departed in April 1956. The consequences of this final French error were, and remain, enormous. Diem was now free to declare himself free of all the Geneva obligations and soon did so with American encouragement. The south could now be reorganized as an anti-Communist bastion, from which a reconquest of the north could eventually be launched. The Diem government in ‘fact soon created a Committee for the Liberation of North Vietnam, which, beginning in 1958, parachuted agents into the north, notably into areas such as Vinh, where Ho's agrarian reform had provoked violent peasant uprisings. But meanwhile the north, considering itself cheated by Saigon and Washington (with France’s cooperation), began preparation to exploit the political and social discontent in the south to. establish a base for subversive operations. And Hanoi was to show itself far more adept at this political game than Saigon. Could the French have resolved this Vietnam problem? In fact, they were confronted by two immensely volatile forces whose demands would have shaken any Western governments, as they are shaking the United States today. First, the demands of a people thirsting to overthrow colonialism and to recover their national identity, their freedom of maneuver, and their unity. But also the demands of a revolutionary group, supported by one of the great power blocs, which claims the right to impose its authority on the entire nation in the. name of a Communist doctrine highly suspect to the majority: a group, nonetheless, whose heroism, discipline, and ruthlessly effective methods seem to assure its success. It is the deep and constant intermingling of these two forces which have made the Vietnam problem seem so hopeless and defeating to the West. How can a Western government successfully sponsor an independent “nationalist counterfire’ when the strongest feelings of many Vietnamese have been invested for many years in the local civil war; and when one finds among those who have rallied to the Vietminh, and then the Lao Dong and the NLF, a great many patriots, drawn to the organization because they believe 1t to be the hope of Vietnamese natlonalism, capable of defeating colonialism and Western domination. Perhaps it might have been possible for the French to disassociate the nationalist inspiration in Vietnam from the Communist organization. But to do this would have been very difficult. For to gain the confidence of the nationalists I believe that French aid to Vietnam would have had to meet three extremely demanding conditions: that the donor of the aid would have no right to intervene directly in the government; that the aid would be given to the most worthy leaders; and that it would not lead to the creation of oligarchies of profiteers and a climate of corruption. By all these standards the French failed. If they ever had a chance to survive the Asian revolution, they lost it, basically, because they were unwilling to alter their patronizing colontalist attitudes and deal with Asians with some sense of mutual respect or cooperation. For the most part they preferred instead to appoint and then control the manageable, the incompetent, and the operators, many of whom made fortunes out of the corrupt French aid program, Opposed in Vietnam, then, were a coherent, principled; and implacable revolutionary movement of militants organized in the villages—the country’s fundamental social and economic unit—inspired by an evident natlonalism and posing as defenders of stern justice and equality; on the other hand, a regime obviously supported and controlled by foreign powers, partly composed of former colonial officials, disdainful of peasant claims, tolerant of a social order where the influential and successful were frantically engaged - in profiteering—preparing for the arrivel of the inevitable catastrophe. The only possible result was a catastrophe on the scale of Dienbienphu. How relevant is the French experience to Vietnam today? Certainly the American situation is different in important respects, but really how, different? For example, the United States has no colonial past in Vietnam, no strictly imperialist drive for economic gain. But its objectives are, curlously, both more altruistic and more imperious than those of its predecessor. After all, a country seeking colonial profits is quite capable of making a compromise to preserve at least some of itg endangered wealth. But what of a country that Supposes itself to be defending a selfless principle? In fact, the United States does seem to have several fair~ 3459 ly concrete motives; e.g., to prove to certain nations that it is faithful to its alliances; to show the underdeveloped peoples of the Southern Hemisphere how costly it can be to chose Marxism-Leninism. There would seem. to be sufficient elements of calculated self-interest here to make realistic bargaining possible—on the basis of spheres of influence, for example. A second difference concerns the size and power of the forces involved. General Westmoreland not only commands a good many more troops than General Navarre (750,000 as compared with 500,000) but he is also relatively free from the financial, logistical, and transport problems that Plagued the French. A far greater advantage, however, les in America’s enormous firepower as well as its Air Force and complete mastery of the sea. It is no exaggeration to say that the United States and South Vietnamese forces are now 20 times more powerful than the army of General Navarre (which had no more than 80 combat planes at its disposal during the battle of Dienbienphu). The small size of the present theater c? operations in South Vietnam thus becomes a favorable factor of great importance: The French forces were charged with the defense of all Indochina, a territory four times the present size of South Vietnam.. But given these advantages can it be said that the United States is now succeeding where France was forced to retreat? Of course, one answer must be yes, in the limited sense that it is impossible to imagine the United States suffering a major defeat in the present circumstances, During the past year President Johnson has been able to dispatch enough American troops to Vietnam to avoid another Dienbienphu, but beyond this the situation is less than hopeful. The arrival of over 100,000 troops has done no more than stabilize a deterlorating military situation; it did not result in a sharp swing of military advantage to the Western side, as certain observers had expected. The military map published on January 80 in the Néw York Times showing four-fifths of the South “under Vietcong influence” must be regarded as accurate, notwithstanding contrary claims by officials. (Incidentally, this map recalls the military charts the French press did not dare to publish 12 years ago. The American public has recently been getting far more information’ on the Vietnam question from the press, television, Senate hearings, etc., ‘than was ever available in France.) The fact is that American policy in Vietnam, although originally inspired by very different intentions, now resembles all too closely the disastrous policy of the French. The United States has also failed to solve the problem of providing support to genuine local leaders without excessive intervention in the country itself. Indeed, it can be said that the Frerttl—perhaps hypocritically— did nevertheless succeeg in transferring some responsibilities to the Vietnamese: These were quite feeble ones in military matters, rather more tmportant in Politics, and nearly total in such administrative work as tax collecting. By contrast, we are now seeing the progressive Americanization of both the war and the country itself: The influence of the local military headquarters grows weaker; the efficiency of the government in Saigon continues to decay; American experts have taken over a great many local functions, Of course one Understands the concern for efficiency, but the psychological effects are hardly calculated to encourage the emergence of authentic nationalist leaders at the present time, as Roger Hilsman forcefully pointed out in his recent testimony before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Certainly the Americans have done no better than the French in finding worthy non- Communist leadership. There is no need to Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 89] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0: 3460 reexamine now the tragic liquidation of Diemism, an event made inevitable by the sectarian religinus isolation and the oligarchic obstinacy of the Ngo family. But since then, what decadence. Sad mandarins from certain conservative milieu in Saigon—courageous and outdated men—are followed in office by juntas composed of young generalsof-fortune who add a new star to their shoulders after each defeat in battle. As for the moral climate in Saigon, one can only say that the corruption which dominated the life of the city’s elite in 1953 has now been democratized. Shady dealings having to do with aid and military programs are no longer contined to people in high places, but seem to involve every kind of business. Testifying before the Senate on ¥ebruary 4, Mr. David Bell, the director of foreign aid, said that he knew of no black market in Saigon—which only shows that a brilliant and hard-working olficlal has had no time to stroll along the streets of a town where someone begs you to break the law at every step. It would be wrong to predict a priori that President Johnson's new counterinsurgency and pacification programs, pased on plans for economic and social development in the southern villages, will fail as totally as did the quite similar plans sponsored by the French and later by the Diem regime. Can they produce a qualitative change in Vietnamese attitudes toward the present government and the United States? What can be said is that any efforts by political and army leaders in the south, however doubtful their results, will surely be more effective than the current bombings of the north. I will not take up the moral aspects of these attacks. Jt should be suflicient to examine their diplomatic and military results thus far. According to predictions made in January 1965, several weeks of daily raids would bring the north to its knees and thence to the negotiating table. In fact, Messrs. Ho and Dong have since toughened their demands, passing from the relatively flexible “four points” of March 8 to the recent letter of January 31, which refers to the NLF as the “only representative of South Vietnam”; until then, Ho nad mentioned only the NLF “program.” As for military results, we must realize that the bombing of the north has no overwhelming impact on a people who only recently emerged from a resistance movement, and are now being trained to return to one: for the most part their lives are not greatly affected by the destruction of a bridge or & truck depot. On the other hand, in January 1965 there were two northern regiments in the south, while now in February 1966 there are e:ght. Furthermore, the combat reserve forces in the north are numerous enough to permit the dispatch of more porthern troops to General Giap in the south every time the United States escalates the bombing. ‘he American public has been told that the north is being bombed to save American lives. But, on the contrary, it seems clear that the bombing in the north only increases the pressure on General Wesimoreland’s troops: ‘he American footsoldier must pay for the destruction caused by the American Air Force. And if Hanoi itself is bombed, we may be sure that the Vietcony forces have well-laid plans to take atrocious revenge on Saigon, a city they have both infiltevted and surrounded, The adversaries have now sunk their claws into each other und so long as the ground fighting continues, we may expect that each blow will be followed by damaging reprisals. ‘hus a political solution becomes all the more urgent——although unlike the settlement of 1954, it will not be preceded by a military disaster. Wut here American diplomacy is the victim of its own myths. Because the U.S. Government has decreed from the first that the war in the south was originally provoked by invasion from the north, it has CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE insisted that a solution must be negotiated with Hanoi, and only Hanoi. A false historical analysis has led to a political impasse. For a careful study of the history of South Vietnam over the last 10 years will show that from 1956 onward, strong resistance groups, the surviving members of political-religious sects crushed by Diem, were in active opposition to the regime in the south; they were in fact already called Vietcong by the Diem regime at that time. Furthermore, this essentially nationalist dissident movement gained added support as a result of the rural discontent which led Diem to suppress the elected municipal councils in 1957; it spread further after the promulgation of the terrible law of 1959 which prescribed the death penalty for all accomplices of Communists—and communism comes cheap in South Vietnam. At this time the resistance was composed of nothing more than southern groups organized in self-defense against Diem Hanoi had made no connection with them. The North Vietnamese did not begin to exploit this situation and infiltrate agents until 1959; and it was only after pressure from & southern congress of “former Vietmiinh resistants” in March of 1960 that they prepared to intervene. At the Northern Communist Party Congress in September of the same year the Hanoi government gave direct encouragement to the revolutionary activities in the South. Still, it was not until November 11, 1960, following an attempted military putsch against Diem, that the Victcong— feeling the pressure of competition from military nationalists—gave itself formal identity and established a political headquarters by creating the National Liberation Frent. Today it is clear that the NLF leaders are closely linked to Hanoi, on which they depend for much of their supplies and arms. But anyone concerned with a peacefiul settlement in Vietnam should be aware of both the local origins of the front and its strong persisting regionalism—its attachments to the milieu, traditions, economy, and countryside of the South which give it a fundamental autonomy. And yet, notwithstanding the fact that the southern origins of the Vietcong insurrection have been carefully confirmed, no element of the Vietnam problem has been so neglected, especially in American official circles. We may be astonished, for example, thst the immens¢, spectacular, and probably sincere efforts of recent American diplomacy to persuade Hanoi to negotiate finally produced, after 30 days of pause in bombing, a single defiant letter. Yet America is dexling here with a small and poorly armed country; its allies are reluctant to give it aid too openly, fearing a crushing American response. Certainly it is a Communist government, but one presided over by a man who in 1946 and 1954 was able to prove to the Frenc his willingness to accept compromise. And of the four points posed as conditions by Hanoi last year, Washington now accepts three. Why then doesn’t Ho play Lyndon Johnson’s' game? Ina conference the North Vietnamese would hold so many trumps that their present position is hard to understand. But perhaps they were not in a position to negotiate at all. If we look bark over the history of the NLF we find support for the view that Hanoi is not able to speak for the front. First for psychological ressons: The published program. of the NLF expressly mentions the possibility of an independent South Vietnam; and it looks forwe rd to forming an alliance with Lacs and Cambodia only. Thus it seems most unlikely that the front would consider itself adequately represented by the northern government. Finally, there may be a purely practical reason. Combat conditions in the south are such that it is by no means certain that a decision or an agreement even if approved by the NLF would be supported by all the fighters in the field. February 21, 1966 If we are to undertake a serious and credible search for peace in Vietnam, we must take account of this diversity of the southern resistance; we must recognize that it is in. fact a federation of maquis of different ages and different inspiration, and that it is not as yet completely unified. There is not as much geographic and psychological distance between the typical southern military chief and Ho Chi Minh as there is between Ho Chi Minh and Mr. Kosygin. But to be effective now in Vietnam diplomacy must certainly take account of the maquisard and his part in the war. It must also attempt to understand the role of the Central Committee of the NLF, where Maoist influence is strong but where all tendencies coexist; of the Lao Dong party in Hanoi, with its pro-Chinese and pro-Russian factions; and the Political Bureau in Peiping, with its cast of performers, both civilian and military. And flinally we must comprehend the very complex position of the Soviet Union, which is quite unwilling to sacrifice either its policy of peaceful coexistence or its commanding position as leader of the Communist world. If the diversity of governmental levels, alliances, and forces involved in the war presents difficulties, it also offers many more chances for an alert diplomacy than were available during the monolithic conflict of the cold war. It is true that American leacers now argue that to recognize the Vietcong is to admit defeat. A curious intellectual position indeed—-to refuse to recognize your adversary for what he is. Perhaps it is worth recalling that in December 1958, after Ho Chi Minh had first announced himself ready tc negotiate, the French Socialist, Alain Savary. suggested to Georges Bidault (then Foreign Minister, now living in Brazil) that he seck Ho out for talks. “You only make them bigger by talking to them,” said Bidault—who iid finally talk with Ho's delegate at Geneva, ‘put after the fall of Dienbienphu. Recognizing the Vietcong certainly will not solve the problem of peacemaking in Vietnam at a stroke. It would nevertheless be an extremely constructive idea to focus diplomatic attention firmly on the South at the present time—without meanwhile ceasinz efforts both to make contact with Hanoi and to assess Communist Chinese intentions. But to bring about peace it will not suffice simply to recognize the existence of a powerful revolutionary organization sufpported by the North and already in control of the largest part of the national territory. More important is the task of reestablishing the constitutional legitimacy which Diem embodied for a brief period—reactionary us he was—and which has since vanished. The NLF is an essential element of this legitimacy because it is the heir to the revolt agaLnust, Diem’s totalitarianism as well as the principle force of resistance to foreign intervention. But there are others who make up the social and political society as well—the Buddhists, the Catholics, and also the Army, a bourgeoisie in uniform. An effective policy to bring about. a peaceful settlement should begin by raking it possible for each of these groups to return ty an active political role. While General Ky, after having won his sole victory ef the war at Honolulu, occupies the stage, we may be sure that the other groups are ready in the wings, waiting for the protection and cncouragement the United States could 1 supply. And from such a revived political life we could expect an authoritative leadership to emerge whose lot it would be to depate with the NLF on the future of the Sovth and to establish a coalition government to represent South Vietnam in future peace conferences. While the NLF is the largest force in the South it recognizes that it is obviously not the only force, reserving a large fraction of the seats on its central committee for groups who do not belong to Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 -saeuas a) santsk cl cab 1°ITcot-MQabstas*c)jcyefeceNNG FARMERS Mpa QS UO MRLABIREERSR 3° AGL VLR ol ORR HERGAH i geting HOB ap Pars teat === [Page 90] === February 21, 1966 the NLF. The democratization of power in South Vietnam is not a fantasy. The destruction of the small democratic movements struggling to survive under Diem was among the factors that led to the civil war. French colonial policy was only too familiar with these very diverse political factions and brilliantly played them off, one against the other, But to divide and rule became a pathetic policy as France’s control became more feeble. An American policy which seeks a peaceful settlement must take account of both the sociopolitical pluralism of South Vietnam and its extraordinary capacity for finding original—and local—solutions to its problems. Surely it is time for Amertcan leaders at last to confront the people with whom they have become so inextricably involved. i eT ADJOURNMENT Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, in accordance with the order previously entered, I move that the Senate stand in adjournment until 12 o'clock tomorrow noon, The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o’clock and 20 minutes Pp.m.), the Senate adjourned, under the previous order until tomorrow, Tuesday, February 22, 1966, at 12 o’clock meridian. NOMINATIONS Executive nominations received by the Senate February 21, 1966: U.S. ATTORNEY John M. Imel, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. attorney for the northern district of Oklahoma for the term of 4 years. (Reappointment.) In THe ARMY The following-named officers for promo-- tion in the Regular Army of the United States, under the provisions of title 10, United States Code, sections 3284 and 3299; To be lieutenant colonei, Women’s Army Corps Bouton, Irma V., L195. Brinegar, Maurine O., L531, Deady, Virginia R., L167. Howes, Alice N., L146. Stout, Ariel B., L126, Thompson, Ruth D., L121. IN THE Navy The following-named officers of the U.S, Navy for temporary promotion to the grade of captain in the staff corps, as indicated, subject to qualification therefor as provided by law: MEDICAL CORPS Bass, Robert E. “Linehan, Francis J., Beer, David C, Jr *Bernard, Donald P, *Chandler, Deck E, *Cummings, Ronald “Lonergan, Walter M. *Long, James A. *Martin, Stuart H. *Milnes, Roger F. Neptune, Edgar M., Jr, “Pascoe, Delmar J. Richardson, Fred W. Rosenwinkel, Norbert *Delaney, Thomas B. *Dempsey, John J. *Dinsmore, Harry H. Downey, John J, *Dykhuizen, Robert F. *Ebersole, John H. “Sparks, Henry A. *Fox, Lay M. *Speaker, Richard B. *Gallagher, William Steen, Frank G. J., dr. “Sweeney, Francis J. *Ireland, Roger G. *Klein, Chester L, Kramer, Scott G, *Laning, Robert C, *Lehman, Ross M.,, Jr. No. 29 19 *Trummer, Max J. “Watten, Raymond H, “Webb, Martin G., Jr. *White, Neil V. Wilber, Martin C. SUPPLY CORPS *Aitken, Douglas G. *Balcom, Vaughnn O, Baird, Richard S. *Batterson, Robert E, *Bland, Herbert L. *Blandin, Sherman W., dr. Doucette, Forrest H, *Duncan, Henry C, *Dunn, George G. Elmore, John W. *Ericson, James B. Forrest, James E. Harbaugh, Norman R, Haslett, Robert H, Holbert, Kelley v. Josselyn, Allan H., Jr, Larson, Leslie O., Jr, Lewis, Raymond O, McHenry, Wendell, Jr. “O'Loughlin, Richard *Patton, Gerald J. Peffley, John F, Renfro, Edward E., Lt Rodgers, Wallace F. Tongren, Hale N, CHAPLAIN CORPS *Capers, Keene H. “Doyle, Willlam F. *Hutcheson, Richard G., Jr, Keeley, John A, Lavin, Henry T. *Morton, Frank R,. Parham, Thomas D, Jr, *Ray, Milton U. Trower, Ross H, CIVIL ENGINEER CORPS Cunning, David P. Forquer, Charles J. Francy, William J, Gault, Alan C, *“Grahl, Ralph B., Jr. Hansen, Bernard L., Iselin, Donald G. Jones, Whitney B. Kaloupek, William E, Lalande, Albert M., Jr. Miller, Charles G., Jr. More, David C. Patrick, Donald A. “Rogers, Willlam'R. Saunders, Edward M, Souder, Charles L. Spangler, William Ss, Van Leer, Blake W, Walton, Albion W., Jr, Yount, George R. DENTAL CORPS *Bassett, Donald R. Beall, Frank P., Jr, Chap, Bernard “Green, George H. Holmes, Corey H. Mahoney, Jack D. “Marmarose, Frank A, “*Rogers, William J., Jr, Samuels, Homer 8S, Scribner, James H.. *Sobleski, Edward F. Stephenson, Thomas MEDICAL SERVICE CORPS Baldridge, Henry D., “Bing, John H, Boyd, Thomas A., Jr. Burr, Leonard W. “Curtis, Ned B, Eastman, Robert W. *Goldenrath, Walter *Keener, Mary F, *Lester, Willtam F. McLellan, David J. Miller, Lloyd W. Rasmussen, John FE. Ray, Jewel P. *Rigg, Robert P. Sabbag, George J., Shepherd, William H. NURSE CORPS Blaska, Burdette M. Bulshefski, Veronica Reilly, Alice R, The following-named officers of the U.S. Navy for temporary promotion to the grade of commander in the line and staff corps, as indicated, subject to qualification therefor as provided by law: LINE Abbott, William B., III *Abelein, Herman C. Ackerman, Richard F. *Ackerman, Warren J. Adams, Robert L., Jr, Addis, Robert W. *Adler, Robert E. Akagi, Joe L, Aldern, Donald D, Alexander, Adam G., Alexander, Marvin G. Alexich, Milton P, Allen, Douglas A. *Allen, James A, Allen, John B, Allen, Richard C. *Allender, Gene T. *Alley, Lester DL, Altwegg, David M, Anderle, Charles K. *Anderson, Charles L. Anderson, Paul L. *Anderson, Stanley J. III Angier, Donald L. *Anglim, Daniel F., Jr, Applegarth, Samuel H., Jr. Argiro, Vincent J. Arn, Robert W. *Arnold, Henry C., Jr, Arnold, John E, “Arp, Phillip 8. *Ashmore, Jackle K, *Ashurst, Albert J. *Asmus, Paul A. *Aston, William J. Atherton, Robert F, *Ausbrooks, Erskine Avallone, Eugene M. “*Boakes, William H, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE 3461 ‘Brooks, Walter A. “Broomhead, Marvin Averyt, Howell D, “Axthelm, Charles E, Ayres, James H.. *Babine, Arthur L., Jr. Brown, Bobby J. *Bachtold, James R. *Brown, Bruce W. Backman, Fred M. Brown, Charles H. Bacon, James A. Brown, Gideon L., Jr. Badgett, John J. *Brown, Peter G. *Baggett, Talmadge 8. Brown, RobertL, Baillie, Richard H, *Bryan, Gordon R.., Jr. *Bain, Robert Bryant, William R. “Baker, James E., Jr. *Buck, John A, Baker, James G. Bucklin, Jerald W. *Bakke, Harlan J. *Buffkin, John W, Jr. Balchunas, Robert C. Burkemper, Raymond Baldridge, Louis D., Jr. G. Baldwin, Robert A. *Burkhalter, Edward “Barbee, Delbert F, A.,, Jr, “Barker, Harold D, Burnett, James A. Barker, Merle M. “Burnham, Rowland “Barnard, Ralph E, _E. *Barnes, Clifford P, *Burton, Herbert O. Barnes, James P, “Bush, Charles L. Barnett, Gerald P, Butler, Charles A.. Barney, Glenn P, *Butts, John L.. Barrett, Gardner S. *Buzzell, Carlisle W., Barrow, Robert W. Jr, *“Barunas, George A., “Byrd, Paul R. Jr, Cahill, William A., Jr. Batten, Charles G. *Calhoun, William P, *Bauer, Edward C. Califf, Toxey H. *Bauman, Charles J.,Callahan, Earle R, Jr. *Campbell, Neil V. ‘Beasley, James W. Campbell, Ronald A.: *Beates, James K, - “Campbell, William E. Beatty, Lloyd D. Jr, *Beck, Stuart M. Campion, Robert F., Beech, Wayne L. JY,, Beccher, John D, Beem, Jack M. “Belk, Reece G., Jr. *Bell, Gerald R. *Bennett, Robert W. Benton, Hugh A. Berg, Frederick H. *Bergman, Daniel Bibby, Lowe H., LIT *Bickel, William B, *Bigenho, Roy M. Bills, Robert G. *Bippus, Henry Bird, Charles S. Blades, Lawrence T. Blair, Closkey L., Jr. Jr, Blake, Harry R., Jr. Charbonneau, George *Blasi, Richard R, L.. *Blough, Arthur K., Jr.Chasse, Robert L,: Cheatham, Augustus *Carlson, George R. “Carraway, Terry F. IIt Case, Richard W. Caskey, Donald L. Cassani, Henry L. Caswell, Frederic C., Caudill, William E. Cecil, Durward C.. Chambers, Lawrence Chandler, Albert -N., Boles, Lee R. ' Boles, Richard L. Cherrier; Herbert A. *Borgstrom, CharlesChertavian, Armen Oz, Jr, Chesser, Samuel L. Bos, Roger C, Chewning, Robert W. Boschen, Henry C., Jr."Childers, Donald J. Bosse, Joseph H., Jr, Chisum, Oscar C. *Bowen, Jack W. "Christensen, Donald Bowen, William J. A, *Bowers, Thomas Li. *Bowersox, Earl C., Jr. “Bowling, William H, “Braddy, Don L., Jr. Bradford, Gerald R. Bradshaw, Brice L, *Brady, Allen C. “Brainard, Donald R. *Christenson, Donald Christie, Francis J. *Church, George A. Clare, James 8, *Clark, Andrew “Clarke, John R. *Clausner, Edward, Jr. Brandel, William J., Jr,Clermont, William J., “Brantley, William J, *Bres, John H. Bress, Allyn V. Brewer, Glenn M. Bridge, Daniel T. Bridges, Kenneth K. Bridgham, Russell B. “Briggs, Douglas W. Briggs, Edward F. Broadwell, Edward A, Brogan, Robert C. *Clubb, Reginald D. “Coale, William A, *Cobern, Ernest L. Coffman, Charles L, Coiner, John A, *Colenda, Herbert F, *Collins, Charles H. Collins, Frank C., Jr. Collins, Harold E. Combs, Robert E, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 91] === 3462 *Compton, Bryan W. Condon, Edward d. *Conlon, Frank 8. Connally, sues Connell, Lewis E. Connelly, Robert B. Connors, Eugene ‘l'. Conrad, Peter C. *Cook, Carroll T. Cooney, David M. “Cooper, Carleton R. Robert F. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE ,*Elfelt, James S. *Hiinghausen, Walter A., Jr. Elliott, Charles L. ,*Ellis, James b. *llison, David J. *@nglehart, Harry J. Engquist, Gordon W. Enos, Ralph L. *Erkelens, Clarence Eshman, John R. 4stabrook, Robert K. *Hstes, Dana, IL Corbett, William J., LII* Estes, Leland F. *Cornelius, Winston WEtchison, Frank L., Jr. Cornwell, James W. *Cornwell, Robert R. Corsepius, Evcrett D. Coski, Bernard J. Costigan, Robert A. *Crawley, Don E. *Criner, James E. Croft, Alfred J., Jr. Cromwell, John P., dr. *Crosby, Russell U. Cross, William F. Evans, Daniel H., Jr. Evans, Laverne E. Farley, James W. ¥arris, George K. Federico, Charles D. *Feit, Harry H., Jr. *Fenton, Robert E. Finn, Gerard P., Jr. Fitzpatrick, Joseph A. “Fletcher, Charles D. Fontaine, Richard K. Ford, James M., Jr. * Crowder, James P., Jr.*Forrester, James H. Cullins, Peter K. *Forsyth, Robert J. Cunningham. Melville *Forsythe, Forrest Foster, John F. Cunningham, Richard *Foster, Ralph W.., Jr. Cunningham, Alan R. *Dagg, Robert M. Wallaire, Richard P. Dallamura, Richard A. *Daly, Norman F. «Foster, William F. Fowler, John W. *Fox, Kenneth fox, Raymond G., Jr. Frame, Kdward L. *Prancis, John P. *Danis, Anthony L., Jr Francis, Thomas A. “Danner, William P. Darodda, Aldo J. Darrell, Charles G. Darwin, William C. Davis, Henry J., JT. Davis, Jay Kk. Davis, Michacl C. Davis, Paul £., Jr. *Davis, Ralph O. *Davis, Willinm J. Deaton, Paul *DeCook, David W. *DeFelice, Edward A. Demun, Taylor K. DeView, Joseph R. #DeWitt, Duane D. *Diers, Charles li. *Franke, Richard D. Franklin, Billy D. Fremd, Harry L. *French, Jack T. *Frost, William L. ¥ruchterman, Richard L., Jr. «Fuller, Robert B. *Gaddy, James K. Gahafer, Joseph G. Gair, Bruce O. Galing, Searcy G. *Gallagher, Lawrence *Gamber, Harold W. Garcia, Jaime *Gardner, Richard C. *Dietrich, Henry '., Jr.*Gardner, Richmond Dietz, Richard C. *Dittmar, Louis C. *Dobbins, John B., Jr. Dodd, Charles A. *Dodd, Robert L. «Doering, Hugene R. Doggett, William K. Dorso, James N. Drews, Sheldon. *Duke, Marvin L. *Dukes, Warren C. *Dunbar, John P. *Pungan, dohn D. *Dunn, Robert F. Dwyer, Laurence A. Wakle, Burke &. Marl, William C. *BKasterling, Crawford «Garrett, Everett C. Gatje, George U. Gearhart, Norman R. “Geiger, Eugene D. *Gerlach, Richard E.. Gibbins, Gareth W. *Gilbertson, John E. Gilchrist, John F., IT Gillerist, Paul T. *Gire, Howard A. Glancy, 'vhomas J., Jr. Goetschius, Forrest D. Gordon, David E. *Goslow, Paul *Goulds, Ralph J. Kastman, Alfred C,, If1I*Govan, George W. Kbbert, Edwin tL. *Wekert, Richard H. *hekhout, Wilmont S. “Eckstein, John R. tdmunds, Philip H. fdris, Richard J. Mdwards, Chester C. *Ehileringer, Henry G. Ekman, Roger E. Elder, James C. *Graf, Harry R. Grandfield, Francis J., Grant, Richard T. *Grant, Thaddeus RB. Granum, Bradford S. Grappi, Robert L. *Grayson, William R. *Greathouse, David M. *Green, John N. *Green, Richard W. *Green, Robert E. *Greene, John L. Greenleaf, Wilbur E. Greff, Clarence EL., Jr. *Griffin, Jack R. *Guffey, Elton E. *Guion, Joseph E. Hume, Robert J. *Humphries, George Hunt, Albert M. *Hurd, Russell E. Ingley, Edmund W. Inman, Bobby R. *Ismay, Arthur P. Gurney, Charles E., Til Jaburg, Conrad J. Gustaff, Vito J. V. *Haff, William B. Hahnert, William F., Haight, Gardiner M. Hale, William T. Hall, Harrell W. “Hall, Timothy K. *Hallett, Edward R. Hamilton, John W. Hamilton, Leo L. *Hampton, Charles T. Hansen, Merle C. Hansen, Ronald R. Harbick, Donald L. Hardisty, Huntington Harnden, Charles G. *Harper, Lorren G. Hart, Donald F Hart, Richard L. *Hart, Stephen L. *Hart, William D. *Hartell, Ronald D. *Hartigan, Richard B. Hartnett, Bernard E., *Hausler, Carl O. *Hawk, James T. Hawkins, Phil R. *Hayden, Glenn M. Hayes, Morris L. *Hayrnan, Robert B. Head, John L. Healy, Richard H. Hedges, Ralph R. Heenan, Richard D. Heffernan, Gearge A. *Heigl, John T., Jr. Henson, Otis A. Heon, Robert 1. *Herbert, Thomas J. *Herbig, Henry F. *Herrin, Holden R. Hession, James M. Hetu, Herbert E. *EHibson, Leo A., Jr. Hicks, Harold F., Jr. Hiehle, Frank G., Jr. *Higeginbotham, Leonard H. Higgins, Clinton K., *Hill, Howard A. *Hill, James C. *Hines, Gulmer A., Jr. *Hinsen, Kenneth L. *Hirz, Joseph D. *Hodnett, Robert A. Hoffman, Merle L. *Hoganson, John H. *Holland, James S. *oller, Edward R. Hollick, Frederick B. Holmberg, Lennart G. Holt, Neil G. *Holt, Robert E. *Hoover, Richard M. *Hopf, Elwood J. Hopper, Richard 8. Horne, Charles F., IIT Hovater, James D. Howe, Richard B. *fubbs, Donald R. Hughes, Peter F. H. Hughes, Wayne P., Jr. Hull, George T. Jackson, Thomas L. * Jameson, James N, Janulis, George Jarvies, John Ih. Jarvis, Donald H. Jayne, Gordon H. *Jenkins, Paul J. * Jenkins, Ralph A. * Jennings, John S. *Jermann, Donald R. * Jesse, Harold W. *Jett, William S., TIL Jewell, Thomas A. *Jimmerson, Thomas J., Jr. *Johns, Arthur J. Johns, Forrest R. *Johnson, Dale C. Johnson, Donald L. Johnson, Guy D. *Johnson, Joseph J. *Johnson, Richard C. *Johnson, Richard D. * Johnston, Frederick Johnston, Maurice M., *Johnstone, Richard Jones, Carol W. Jones, John E. Jones, Samucl O., Jr. Kaczmarek, Carl C. Karvala, Curtis A. *Kasehagen, Arthur *Katz, Martin Kaulback, Russell D. Keach, Donald L. Keane, James P. *Koathley, Charles C. Kehoe, James W., Jr. Kelley, Frederick W. Kelln, Albert L. Kelsey, Robert L. Kemble, John R. «Kennedy, Nevin, III Kennedy, Ronald W. Kennedy, Robert C. Kennedy, Walter J. *Kersch, Roger N. Kilmer, Donald A. *King, William R. *Kingery, Samuel G. Kinnebrew, Thomas *Kinsley, Donald T. *Kirchner, David P. Kirschke, Ernest J. *Klabo, Richard T. *Klett, George J. Knopp, William A. Knutson, Donald W. Knutson, Wilbert D. *Koch, Richard A. Koehler, Walter C., Jr. Kollmann, tilenn BE. *Kollmorgen, Leland Kosar, Willinm S., dr. Kovarick, Frank L. Kraft, Leroy M. *Kramer, Robert P. Kuehner, Kirl E. Kuhn, Edwin A. Kaully, Sheldon D. *Kunkle, Floyd 8., Jr. *Lacy, James E. Laighton, Robert H. Lake, Charles M., Jr. Lamb, Derwin T. Lancaster, Robert W Langton, Charles E., Larocque, George N. *Larry, Walter C. Lasowski, Donald T. Layman, Lawrence *Leach, Everett N. *Leach, Ralph W., Jr. Leahy, John P. *Leibold, William R. *Leibowitz, Martin M. *Leis, Alfred C. Lenox, Glen W. *Lentz, Charles M. *Lewallen, John D. Lewis, Charles G. *Lewis, James R. Lewis, James T. *Libey, John D. Lidel, Carl J. Lighter, Elbert D. *Lindsay, John D. Liston, John M. *Little, James G. Loberger, James C. Lockhart, Glenn 8. Lofton, Freeman L. Logner, Robert L. *Longhi, William J. Looney, Francis L. Loposer, Avery K., Jr. Lounsberry, Jack A. *Loyd, Rupert H. Luckett, Thomas W. Ludwick, Louis L. Lukas, Thomas E. Lunt, Vernon 8. *Luskin, Arthur G. *MacFie, Richard B. Mackercher, John C. Madden, Raymond A. February 21, 1966 *McLaughlin, *McLemore, Albert 5. *McLoughlin, James McMillan, Donald G. *McNally, John H. McNeely, James 8S. *McNerney, James F. *“McQueston, Jack E. *McQuillin, John P. McWey, Russell B. McWilliams, Frederick Mead, Theodore E. Meader, Bruce If. Meadows, Okey I. Meek, Kenneth L. *Meeks, Robert B., Jr. Meeks, Thomas L. Mehl, James P. Meltzer, Melvin *Mench, Leland E. *Merchant, Paul G. Merrill, Forest J. *Merrill, Warren H. *Merritt, Glen C. Meserve, Charles L. Messina, Sylvester C. *Metcalf, Joseph, II *Metz, Forrest E. Mhoon, Fred M. Michaels, Robert J. *Mikkelsen, Richard. E. Milius, Paul L. Miller, Donald A. Miller, Floyd H., Jr. *Miller James P. Miller, James L. Miller, Kenneth R. Miller, Robert L. Miner, Duane A. *Minnigerode, John B. Mischke, Gayland J. Mitchell, Edgar D. *Mitchell, Joe C. Robert *Madeo, Joseph F., Jr.Mitchell, John R. C. *Maice, Lee, Jr. Mains, Homer O., Jr. Malone, Roy W. Manara, Vincent J., Jr. Mann, Robert E. Manring, Charles D. Marbott, Henry W. Marin, William T. *Martin, William K. Martin, William R. Massimi, Robert F. Matherson, Richard Mattioni, Blasco Mau, George W., Jr. *Maxwell, Daryl O. May, Porter E, Maynard, Donald J. *Mazzolini, John A. *McAnulty, David J, McBurney, William J. *McCarthy, Francis x. McCormiek, Daniel G., McCutcheon, Edwin L. McDaniel, Clarence L. *McDonough, William D., Jr. McFadden, Grafton R. McGaughy, Richard McGeachy, Francis L. McGrath, Harold A. *McGuire, Eugene J. McIntyre, John J. *McKee, Kinnaird R. *McKee, Samuel T. Mitchell, Leland G. Moffitt, Russell L. *Montgomery, Graden Moody, Thomas J. Moore, Charles J. Moore, Ernest M. Jr. Moore, Loren J. Moore, Mallie B. Moore, Tommy C. Moore, Virgil W., Jr. Moriarty, Peter M. *Morin, Richard J. *Morris, Howard L. Morris, Robert Eastin Morris, Robert Elliott *Morrow, Charles D. Morse, Jack L. Moss, William C., Jr. Mountford, Edward J. *Mow, Douglas F. *Moyer, Donald R. *Mueller, George FE. Mullin, James Muncy, William E. Murphy, Douglas C. Murphy, Gilbert F., Jr. Murphy, Ray D. «Murray, Douglas V. *Muto, Charles J. Myers, Carroll E. Myers, William S. Nation, William C. Naugle, James O. Naylor, Charles K. *Negron, Delis, Jr. Nelson, Eric A., Jr. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ‘ROT SE. aH ‘ap IP === [Page 92] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 A848 that cigarettes probably caused cancer, heart disease, and chronic coreopsis. An alarmed Congress, concerned with our welfare above all, took the momentous step of ordering warnings printed on all cigarette packages that the coffin nails therein might be bad for us. It then voted continued sub- Sidies to the farmers to go on growing more cigarette tobacco, ‘ But many a smoker, on viewing the warning, cried: “Good heavens. Cigarettes may be bad for me. I never would have thought it.’ And, naturally, the cigarette industry was gravely concerned, The dilemma seemed insoluble. But the Department of Agriculture has now stepped into the breech, It’s spending $210,000 on a filmed commercial entitled “The World of Pleasure.” It’s designed to stimulate more cigarette smoking. But that’s OK, because we're only going to show it abroad, The Department says the film will be shown in Japan, Thailand, and Austria as part of a “promotion program to help buffer any damage to American tobacco sales” caused by the cancer scare at home. The Department did not say what the rest of the program con-~ sisted of. Actually, I’m in receipt of another chatty letter from the noted CIA agent, Homer T. Pettibone, Yale 1907, which may shed further light on this interesting new concept: “T’ve been in Japan these past few months on loan to our new supersecret HOP Service, old bean,” he writes. “That stands for Export Our Problems and I don't mind telling you it’s been pretty dreary work—hanging around schoolyards offering these Japanese kids fags. “Frankly, I didn’t care much for it. ‘Pssst, kid.’ I’d say. ‘Want a new thrill? Not a cough in a carload.’ And while I realized I was serving my country in the finest traditions of the EOP Service, I never could stand all that coughing and spluttering. “So when the Chief called me in to offer me a new assignment, I was ready. ‘We’re giving you a bigger Job, Pettibone,’ he said. ‘Pushing marihuana.’ “ “Marijuana, sir?’ says I. “ Right, Pettibone,’ he says. ‘After all, the world supply of marthuana is Hmited. The more we can get smoked up over here, the less there will be for those beatniks at home, So get out there, for the glory of your coun-~ try, and hook those kids.’ “Well, I can’t tell you what a joy it is to see the way these kids’ eyes light up. It shows you the value of sharing, doesn’t 1¢? But I must say, I do hope the Chief doesn't take me off marihuana and put me on the heroin detail. “To tell the truth, the motto of us dedicated agents in the marihuana branch appeals to me most: ‘For the good of America, help the world go to pot.’ ” \ Vote on Vietnam EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DEL CLAWSON OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, Saturday’s Washington Post contained an editorial which presents a clearcut statement of the alternatives facing us in Vietnam. I should like to commend the following editorial to the attention of my colleagues under leave to extend my remarks in the Appendix of the REcorD: CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX VOTE ON VIETNAM Policies that the United States is pursuing in South Vietnam have emerged out of convictions matured over a generation. They are based on the settled policies of one government after another. They rest legally and constitutionally on the resolutions and appropriations and actions of Congress,. The hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, especially in the testimony of Secretary of State Dean Rusk, have reminded the country of how we arrived at these convictions. They have focused attention on the premises upon which we have acted. They have made clearer the continuity of American policy. They have reminded Congress and the country of the legal and constitutional framework of our policy. The southeast Asia resolution of August 10, 1964, was inspired by a particular crisis but it did not initiate a new doctrine, depart from precedent, discard any prior commitments, or introduce anything novel in American policy. And it was and is a fair statement of this country’s intentions over decades. It said: “The United States regards as vital to its national interest and to world peace the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia. Consonant with the Constitution of the United States and the Charter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty, the United States is, therefore, prepared as the President determines, to take all necessary steps, including the use of armed force, to assist any member or protocol state of the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty requesting assistance in defense of its freedom.” Senators are right to say that Congress did not thereby forfeit its responsibility, but they are not right to attack the Government for not abandoning the policy approved on August 10, 1964. This remains the policy of the United States until, under the terms of the resolution, the President declares the Peace of the area secured or the Congress terminates the policy by concurrent resolution, The appropriate path has been made clear for those who now wish the policy changed. The policy has had an adequate review in the hearings before the committee, Those who dissent from it ought to embrace the invitation of Secretary Rusk to vote. Such a vote could be had by the introduction of & concurrent resolution to terminate the authority which the Congress gave the Prestdent 18 months ago. It will be a grave choice, as Secretary Rusk has pointed out. But the Senate has the duty to make such grave choices. It cannot properly neglect or abdicate its responsibilities and then reproach the executive department for disregarding the Senate's constitutional duty to give its advice and consent on foreign policy. The country will have a right to regard the failure of the committee to now recommend any amendment of the concurrent resolution of August 10 as a solemn reaffirmation of policy. In broad principle, Congress and the executive spokesmen may not be as far apart as they imagined when the hearings commenced. Resistance to aggression has been & central element of national policy for a long time. As far back as 1946, Senator FULBRIGHT himself pointed out that “a basic principle of our foreign policy must be that there is a point beyond which we eannot, in justice to ourselves and to the civilization of which we are the heir, permit any nation to expand without offering resistance by force,” The general policy has been in éffect since the Truman doctrine was proclaimed. Its application to the particular crisis in South February 21, 1966 Vietnam was affirmed in August 1964, Congress has the power to reaffirm or to change the general policy or the application of that policy in South Vietnam. It should do sO, at the end of the Senate hearings, in a manner that eliminates all uncertainty as to the national purpose. Rural America Must Not Be Shortchanged EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. GLENN CUNNINGHAM Or NEBRASKA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Speaker, Congress should give serious consideration to a statement issued by the National Farmers Union Executive Committee. Rural America must not be shortchanged, as such heglect would have grave consequences so far as our national welfare is concerned. The statement referred to follows: STATEMENT oF NAtiowaL FarRMERS UNION EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING In Den- VER, COLO., FEBRUARY 8, 1966 The Johnson administration's new budget, if put into effect, would be a slap in the face for America’s hard working and already disadvantaged farm and-ranch families. We fail to see any reasonable justification for the heavy cutbacks in funds for soil conservation, the commodity programs, farm and home loans, rural electrification, vocational agriculture and the land Brant college and extension education when a hungry world is crying for food. The Slashing of school milk funds is a tragic oversight, Few people realize most of these moneys, except for agricultural education, are on matching funds or reimbursable lending basis and contribute importantly to the Bross national production in addition to adding strength to rural living. Yet these vital functions are belng serlously weakened while there has been no such cutback in Federal aid to the big bankers, as the budget shows this interest item for the Federal debt has been set at the astounding level of nearly $13 billion annually. We call upon Members of Congress to remove thesé gross deficiencies in the J ohnson budget that adversely affect agriculture and: 1. Provide sufficient matching funds to step up the valuable conservation of soil which concerns the future of the Nation. 2. Increase the authorizaion for Farmers Home Administration Permitting that agency to go on with the job of making low-cost eredit available to undercapitalized rural areas, 3. Put sufficient funds into the price support programs with an upper limit on loans and payments so that larger-than-family farms and city-orlented agribusiness will no longer have an undue advantage over family-type farmers and ranchers and enable the latter to overcome the deficiency of their 4, Appropriate at least $680 million for desperately needed rural electric loans and establish a revolving REA loan program permitting the repeated use of the millions of dollars in advance repayments diligent farm associations are making on their obligations, and to maintain the 2 percent REA interest rate, 5. Make available further public investment for agricultural education and research commensurate with the growing con- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 93] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 YO baa 4 0 February 21, 1966 economic development programs reach them. ‘he needs of Goias are basic needs. The people need desks and blackboards for their CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX Congress and mailed out copies so that my constituents could have a convenient method of checking my record. AS ASi7T they have the right to know how their Congressman represented them in Washington and how I voted on the major slum and rural schools; medicines und instruments for their health posts and clinics; and pumps and pipe for community wells. ‘They have supplied the labor and materials und have done 7 or 80 or 90 percent of a job but need a boost to complete a job. Since voters in the 18th Congressional District issues. The record follows: iow F veted ssuc Status their finences are meager, they can’t raise Yes. Appalachian Regional Develops veut Act witborizes aid lo revive ccone | Enacted. locully the funds to make up the difference amy of Appalachian region.., veally the Tu ‘ p Yes Publie Works and Meonomic Hevelupment Act wathorizes leans and | Enacted. between 2 completed and usable unit and an nts in eeonamically depres ed arcas, abandoned project. For $100, $200, or $300, groups and orgiuizations in Wyoming can vive Lhe assistance required to heip progress. When Wyoming private funds are carmarked tor an impact-Lype project, the people of Goias will know that it is the people of Carper or Laramie or Cody who have reached Lhem, ‘Che Partners program is a Cwo-way street, allowing private groups in Latin America to participate with dignity in true partnership. We expect and ure receiving a flow back of benefits from Latin Americn. We have much to learn irom our neighbors in this hemisphere. Costa Rica sent 12 educators to Oregon to help upgrade high school Spanish classes and serve us resource people in social studies. Oregon has gained most from this partnership activity in reverse. An art collection trom Venezuela is now louring the galleries in their Partner State of 'l’ennessee. ‘A Brazilian instructor conducted a course in Portuguese in Obio for Spanish teachers which resulted in new interest in the language in college curriculums. Hach U.S. Partner State is looking to its own Partner in Lutin America lor areas In which they can be assisted in a real sense with this reverse flow of culture and resources. We were pleased with the chairman of Ube Iowa Partners Committee when he announced recently that Iowa was “happy to join the trafic” in their two-wiy street partnership with wa area in Mexico. From the respoise experienced here in Wyoming these prst few doys, we feel confident that the people of your State desire Lo move forward in this program. We sense that they want to reach out to Lhe grassroots of Goias and make telling impact in those rural areas to let their Brazilian partners know that uw ground swell of interest and eoncern has begun here. The people have shown 2 conunendable responsibility in wanting to share their know-how and resources with Uhose who are exhibiting much self-help. ‘the newspapers of Wyominy were paid a fine compliment by an editorial in the Casper Star-Vimes yesterday. It said that (he papers of this Slate “became permanent partners in the growth of the areas they served.” We know that this is true. It is our hope that your preat press will join in supporting the partnership beiween Wyoming and Golas. Yoting Record cf Congressman Wayne L. Hays on Major Legislation I'TRNSION OF REMARKS (WON. WAYNE L. BAYS [IN PID HOUSE Cl REPRESUNTATIVES Monduy, February 21, £966 Mr, HAYS. Mr. Speaker, under leave La extend my remarks in the Recorp, Lt include my voting record on major bills ta come before the House of itepresentatives during the 89th Conzress to date. {t have dene this since E have been in prsion of Manpewer Develo urbark renewal, and cea: vment and raining Act for: Elementary and Seeontary Evineation Act of 1965 authorize 000,000 to fiiprove elementary aad secondary education. facilities Enacted, Knaeted, sald authorizing eraats You ma Aet of 196% suithorizing, grants for collece students [| Rnacled. 4 1 th al necd, fellowships for teachers, ald a Na- Yos Reduction of ex ce eee ee -. oat Bracted, Yes | Sovial Securit ndimeris to authorize medicare and 7 percent | Enacted. | iner jn social security ber. 1its, va and Urban Devclopn nt Act of 1965 extending public housing, Enacted, s for waler Atle wer facilities. ' lstablish a Cabinet-level Dep: ‘tment of Ifousing and Urban Devyelop- Enacted. ment. » Voting Rights Act of 1965 lo erloree the 15th amendmen - _..| Enaeted. i Abolish national origins quota oyster in jummiisvration —- __-) Enacted. i Anthorize $1,800,000,000 for fis: a! 1966 for antipaverty program minder Tenacted, \ Reonemwic Opportunity Act f 1904, Yes | Federal Water Pollution Control Act to strengthen control over water Tenacted,. pollution and increase aid for comuuinity sewage projects, Vos Catablish a National Foundation for the Arts and Hamanities _o-| Enacted, Yes. Pravide average 10. t basic pay Hiercase for uniformed anilitary personnel. Enacted. Yes. i Provide 3.6 pay increase for classified, postal, and other Federal em- | Enacted. Yes case veterans’ disability eclapensation.. - - Enacted, Ves --- © Foreign aid hill providing ecot oinic andl mnilitary assistance..| Ienacted, Now. ' Resolution proposing constitu: ional amendment for Presidential con- | Adopted. Linuity. Vos. establish effective vontrals for tepressant and slimukert drugs Enacted. Yes Colel war GI bill. - _— wee eee ee. Approved by j Congress. No. - Asian Development Bank Aci _ Safe Surrender EX'TENSION OF REMARKE HON. E. Y. BERRY oP SOUTH DAKOTA (IN ‘CHE HOUSE OF REPRESENTAT. VES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. BERRY. Mr. Sreaker, I have asked unanimous consent to insert:n the Record a poem which I think goes « long way toward expressing in rhythm what many think in prose. The poem is as follows: SAFE SURRENDER Is i; true, must we surrender; Are we better “Red than dead?” What of those who’va gone beforr us, Who hoped and fought and bled Was it net inventive genius, And the courage of the free; That built this mighyt Nation, Ciave it then to you and me? Oux leaders talk of war, in years; Of containment, so they say, Contain but not to conquer him, Just keep the foe at bay. How must our young men feel tuday, tu tie murky junyle dcep? Our bombers not allowed bo strike, The enemy we Keep. Why choose Lhis distant Asian lane To blood-wash this disease; While near our shore this enemy, We coddic and appease? Disarm. Disarm. appease appease Our great planners do insist, The eneniy will not attacs, ii we cannot resist. So remove defensive missiles. Take the bombers from the air; Yes, limit every phase of war, ‘vo not arouse the Bear? ween - Passed Ilouse. Let the cream of this great country. Waste and fight and dic betrayed, With weapons of the ancient fast, Because we are afraid? Afraid to use the might that’s ours, Win and end this futile strife. And stop this cancer at its source, Before it takes our life. Will our sovereignty surrendered, And our banner tightly furlec; Loose shackles, foolish cartels placed, On men throughout the world? —JAcK Keni, Got Problems? EXTENSION OF REMARKES HON. J. ARTHUR YOUNGER OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATI* Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. YOUNGER. Mr. Speaker, Learn To Share the master satirist, Mr. Arthur fHepec. had a very good column in the February 15 San Francisco Chronicle, relative 19 this Government's position on cisurctue smoking. The column follows: Gov Propprms? Learn To SHaint (By Arthur Hoppe) ‘The smooth interworkings of our Government agencies have never been beitcr dlomonstrated than in the great smoking bettlo. No informed citizen can deny that in theu constant efforts to protect us all there agel.- cies are holding their own. For years, as you know, the Depariaint or Agriculture has been subsidizing farra ta encourage them to grow more cigarct pacco. Which was fine until another weenc., the Depurtment of Public Health anounced Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 i aA. a === [Page 94] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 by Russian Boyars, Poland tried to form a union with Russia, but this did not bring positive results. In this perlod (1566~1632) the Polish Armies under the leadership of,Hetman’ Stanislaw Zolkiewski, occasionally occupled Moscow and the Kremlin. in 1920, Poland, with future federation in mind, helped Ataman Semen Petlura to form an independent Ukraine, and in a battle with Soviet armies, the Polish forces liberated the capital of the Ukraine, Kiev. FIRST REPUBLIC As for internal constitutional forms, from the year 1573 the Polish nobility began to elect its kings, and thus Poland became the first republic, although only nobiliary. Political freedom flourished, manifested by such outgrowths as “Pacta Conventa,” or argeements made by the nobility with the elected kings which imposed various political and financial obligations on them, and “Liberum Veto,” which made it possible for only one deputy to parliament (the Sejm) to dissolve the parliament and annul it’s resolutions. (In a sense the veto in the United Nations Security Council can trace its ancestry to Poland in the 17th century.) This led to an anarchy in political life and the collapse of the inner strength of the nation and contributed to the partitions of Poland. Nevertheless, 1t was an expression of the spirit of freedom. Finally, the modern constitution of May 8, 1791, did away with this anarchy, restoring hereditary monarchy and a strong government and canceling the “Liberum Veto.” Three years later, on May 7, 1794. Gen. Tadeusz Kosciuszko issued the Polaniecki Manifesto which served to partially free the peasants from serfdom while during the 1868 uprising against Russia the National Government freed them from these duties completely. COUNTRY OF FREEDOM During the course of history Poland became the country of religious freedom and tolerance, insured by the Warsaw Confederation of 1573 which guaranteed the free worship of any religion. Arians, Lutherans and Calvinists, Poles and foreigners, enjoyed this freedom. From the 1ith century Jews settled in Poland in their flight from persecution in other European countries. Before the Second World War more than 3 million Jews, enjoying full rights, lived in Poland. Jewish religious life flourished. The most important Hebrew universities and publications were to be found in Poland (Jeszybot in Lublin). The Hitlerite occupation put an end to this—at this time the Polish Jews were exterminated, except for 300,00 hidden by the Polish people, although they were threatened with the death penalty for helping them. In present-day Poland there is no room for religious tolerance, but nevertheless the Catholic Church and the Polish people successfully oppose the religious persecution by the Communist regime. PoLisH MILLENNIUM—COoNCLUSION SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION Poland’s contribution to the scientific achievement of the world is considerable. Here may be mentioned the Jagiellonian University founded in 1364, which celebrated its 600-year anniversary a short time ago, the first ministry of education { founded on the basis of the Constitution 1791, or scholars such as Mikolaj Kop: (1478-1543), Ignacy Lukasiewicz (182: the inventor of the kerosene lamp, a process of distilling oll and the founder of the world’s first oil mine near Krosno, Ludwik Zamenhoff, the inventor of the language of esperanto (1887) and Maria Curle-Sklodowska (1867-1934) Nobel Laureate for the discovery of radium, In the field of literature the following writers gained recognition: Wladyslaw Rey. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX Prize mostly for his novel “The Peasants”; Henryk Sienkiewicz (1846-1916), who also received this prize mostly for his epic “Quo Vadis,” and Jozef Conrad-Korzeniowski, a Pole writing in English, an author of world fame. In music Fryderyk Chopin (1810-49) is one of the world’s best renowned composers; besides him there are Stanislaw Moniuszko (1819-72), Ignacy Paderdwski (1860-1941), and Karol Szymanowski (1882-1937). In the theater and cinema Helena Modrzejewska-Modjeska (1840-1909), Pola Negri, born 1897, gained world fame. POLES IN UNITED STATES At the time of the Polish partitions, Polish life also began to develop outside of Poland, particularly in the United States, where thousands of people emigrated. Poles took part in the American Revolution. The first five Poles arrived in America on the English ship Mary and Margaret landing in Jamestown on October 1, 1608. General Tadeusz Kosciuszko came to America in August 1776, and General Kazi- ‘mierz Pulaski in 1777, and both of them took part in the Revolutionary War under the leadership of George Washington. At the end of the war Koscluszko was called “the father of American artillery,” and Pulaski, who fell in the battle of Savannah, was called “the father of American cavalry.” The American people honor them to this day. Statues of Kosciuszko may be found in the square before the White House, in West Point, and Pulaski’s on Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, and in many other places. Many towns, bridges and highways in the United States bear the names of these American heroes. . During the Civil War 168 officers and about 4,000 men of Polish extraction served in the Union Army, among them Generals Wlodzi. mierz Krzyzanowski, Jozef Karge and Albin Schoepf, and in the Confederate Army there were 17 officers and about 1,000 men of Polish extraction, among them General Kacper Tochman, Approximately 900,000 Polish-Americans served in the American Army in World War In 1860 the Polonia in the United States numbered 30,000; at present it numbers more than 10,000,000 Americans of Polish descent, and the capltal of Polish-American organizations comes to approximately $500,000,000. There are more than 50,000 members of the Polish-American intelligentsia (professors, attorneys, Judges, doctors, engineers, journalists, etc.). In the present U.S. Congress there ts 1 Senator of Polish extraction, Ep- MUND Musxkiz, and 11 Congressmen. From the perspective of the thousand-year existence of Poland as a Western Christian country, 31,500,000 Poles at home and 10,- 000,000 Poles abroad living all over the world can view proudly Poland’s role in the history of the world and its part in the progress and achievement of mankind, The indomitable spirit of Polish history is a guarantee that this country, halted in its progress through the Communist regime, imposed on it by force by Russia, in time will throw off its shackles and will regain its freedom and independence. To Build Up EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT N. C. NIX OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. NIX. Mr. Speaker, the Commumont (1867-1925), who received the Nobel nists have let loose an idea in southeast A851 Asia which cannot be stopped by bullets—but only by another idea, more appealing and more meaningful to the hearts and minds of the people. Because of this, it was wise of this administration to realize that the Vietnam war is a war on two fronts, and both must be waged at the same time. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin of February 8 had a thoughtful editorial along these lines the other day, and it pointed out that: The task has always been understood. The difficulty. was and remains a related problem, how to protect the civilian aids in areas still open to Vietcong attack. Yet, the editorial continued— Protection and progress must go hand in hand. That will require a massive effort, in ‘which the Salgon government seems disposed to try to play a more effective role, with greater resources, than it was ever able to play before. The need for, and the problems of reconstruction and a general building up of homes and schools and crops in this land of agony is one which concerns us all, and because of this, the editorial—so enlightening on the subject—is offered for the Recorp. RECONSTRUCTION IN VIETNAM As Premier Ky has expressed it, the central problem for the Vietnamese Government is “not only to root out the Vietcong from the rural areas, but also to root ourselves in.” This means, as 1t has for the past 10 years, the training of thousands of young Vietnamese to go out in teams to isolatcd villages after the army, with American assistance, has cleared the area. Their purpose will be to replace the sinister and shadowy domination of the Vietcong with something visibly better in the way of health and sanitation, school construction, police, crop management, land reform, and local self-government. The task has always been understood. The difficulty was and remains a related problem, how to protect the civilian aids in areas still open to Vietcong attack. Over the years, the Communists have relied on a coldblooded campaign of assassination, which has bled South Vietnam of thousands of trained young workers. Combined with sabotage, it has effectively terrorized the villagers. Not until they know that participation in Government reconstruction will not bring savage reprisals from the Vietcong will the farmers of South Vietnam and their families be able to join wholeheartedly in rebuilding their community life in peace. Protection and progress must go hand in hand. That will require a massive effort, in which the Saigon Government seems disposed to try to Play a more effective role, with greater resources, than 1t was ever able to play before. School Lunch Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. E. Y. BERRY OF SOUTH DAKOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. BERRY. Mr. Speaker, in this problem of poverty that the President would have the people of America believe he is desperately fighting, the one group of people that need help the most are the youngsters of America, and yet in his budget message the first group of people Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 95] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 A852 whom he proposes to cut are the youngsters who are getting a warm school lunch at noon and who are getting a glass of milk. Of all the worthwhile, established programs, Mr. Speaker, the school lunch program is the best, and does the most good and, of course, this is a ripe plum to be picked by the welfare state in order that they may substitute some fancy newfangled political program, not with a view of aiding the poor, but with a view of aiding some poor politician who may vet himself a real nice salary out of it. I have a letter from a superintendent of schools in my State who has described this cut in the school lunch program much more eloquently than I. The letter with the name and the school district stricken is as follows: On behalf of our school patrons and board of education I am writing to ask that you use ali of your influence to obtain reinstatement of the funds which have been taken from the school lunch program. This program has long since proven itself to be highly worthwhile and valuable to sehoois in South Dakota. We have kept the costs to a remarkably low level of 25 cents per pupil in order to keep it within the reach of nearly all families. For those who cannot afford even this low charge we gladly furnish lunches entirely free while still others are given some sort of minor work detail whereby they can earn their lunches. Surely no one can question the value of a hot lunch which supplies all the nutritional needs, to every child. We cannot possibly maintain this program without an increased charge or through general fund subsidy which would increase the school tax thet is already at or near the legal limit in most of our schools. If we increase the per pupil cost we will shut out some who cannot afford it and are too proud (thank God we still have some such) to take a It was a nip-and-tuck battle to make ends meet at the 5 cents per meal and 4 cents per one-half pint of milk reimbursement plus the commodities which we once received. With a cutback in the latter, fram 5 to 4 cents per meal and a 10-percent reduction in the milk program we cannot continue the program without one or the other of the above-mentioned policies, Why have these cuts been made in the face of the liberal appropriation under 89-10 for title I and others? How can one justify cutting back programs which are tried, tested, and proven valuable on the one hand and then turn around and offer the money for something new which must still be tested? I take the liberty of enclosing a bit of my own thinking on the whole Federal aid concept. Frankly, I am sick to death of the “siveaway” program and scared to death of ihe controls which most assuredly will follow in due time. I don’t care to hand my children and grandchildren an inheritance of Federal controls and socialism which seems to be the direction in which we are heading nll too fast. nth MeN The 37th Anniversary of League of United Latin American Citizens EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BARRATT O’HARA OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. O’HARA of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, with a warm appreciation of the good CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX works of the League of United Latin American Citizens, popularly known as LULAC, I join in the laudatory comments of my colleague from Texas [Mr. Wuitsl, in this Chamber on Thursday last, the 37th anniversary of the founding of the organization, that as Congressman WHITE says has become one of the outstanding groups of our Nation far the fostering of good vitizenship. It has been my privilege and pleasure to participate with the members of the league in the patriotic observances that annually are a vibrant feature of the Fourth of July holiday in the district that I am honored to represent in this body. American citizens of Latin blood are a numerous and proud part of our com-~ munity, and they hold a high and dignified place of eminence in all the activities of our people. The brilliant record of one of the leaders of LULAC, the Honorable David Cerda, as a judge in the courts of Cook County, has been a source of great satisfaction. ne RSLS RAS 8 men National Security and the Merchant Marine EXTENSION OF REMARES HON. JACK EDWARDS OF ALABAMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 196t Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, an effective statement of what the U.S. merchant marine means to our national security was delivered recently by Capt. J. W. Clark, president of the Delta Steamship Lines, and chairman of the Committee of American Steamship Lines. Speaking on February 8, to the Mississippi Valley Association here in Washington, Captain Clark highlighted in excellent fashion the need for action to bring our merchant shipping capability to the level required by the national security. His remarks serve to reinforce statements made by several members of the Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee of the House recently, including mine of February 16. I am inserting Captain Clark's statement in the Appendix of the Recorp: Trin AMERICAN MERCHANT MARINE--KEY TO NATIONAL SECURITY (An address by Capt. J. W. Clark, president, Delta Steamship Lines, Inc. (New Orleans), (chairman, Committee of American Steamship Lines), Mississippi Valley Association's 47th annual meeting, Washington, D.C., February 8, 1966) American-flag shipping is a key to our national security, and our national security involves not only the defense aspect. but also the commercial aspect—-the ability of our manufacturers to effectively compete in international commerce with foreign products. American-flag shipping is today. however, only a “skeleton” key to national security (although we can still open many foreign trade doors), and I say this bec:vuse our maritime authorities have permitted this important key to national security to be reduced from its former proud position of first February 21, (29% merchant fleet in the world to the status today of a poor sixth—we rank far behind Great Britain, Norway, Japan, Russia, and Liberia. Most of you, no doubt, are aware of the controversy currently boiling around proposals to revise our national maritime policies and to restructure the so-called subsidy programs. On October 7, 1965, there was issued a report entitled the ‘Interagency Maritime Task Force Report.’ This is frequently referred to as the “Boyd report,” after my fellow panelist, Under Secretary of Commerce for Transportation, Alan S. Boyd. The interagency report was followed promptly hy a report prepared by the President’s Muritime Advisory Committee. The interagency report was prepared by Government personnel; the principal architects were the Maritime Administrator and his planning staif. Maritime Administrator Nicholas Johnson is a brilliant young law professor, wilh considerable charm, who has the oratorical delivery to sway almost any lay audience to his point of view~-and in this case his selected mission has been to “sell’’ the interagency report. The MAC report was prepared by professionals, drawing heavily on the maritime industry for advice, including shipowners, marttime labor, and shipbuilders. Secretary of Commerce Connor publicly stated on January 25, that “if the Government had been fulfilling its obligations toward building up the merchant marine over the years, the balance-of-payments problem would be resolved because there would be adequate American-flag tonnage to haul American commerce.’ Secretary Connor serves as chairman of the President’s Maritime Advisory Committee, and has been a consistent supporter of American-flag shipping. Under Secretary Boyd, on the other hand, in a recent article in the U.S. News & World Report, stated that only intuition causes him to feel that we need an American merchant marine. He further stated that ships built today in foreign shipyards cannot he registered under the American flag. This is not so; they can be “imported’’—and without duty. There are practical problems which discourage such practices. Under Secretary Boyd has also made the statement that the only valid reason for financial assistance to American-flag ships is for reasons related tu national defense. In all fairness to Mr. Boyd, I must say that we suspect that the interagency report was probably completed before he assumed his present position of responsibility. In assembling the information presented in the controversial interagency report, the MARAD planning group conferred with Government experts in various departments and agencies Professional shipping men view these largely theoretical recommendations of these experts. as impracticable, and we draw the conclusion that this is primarily due to lack of experience and practical knowledge. Thinking of these ‘experts,’ I am reminded of the story about the fellow who was appearing on the television show, $64,000 Question.” After going through all of the preliminary questions and reaching the final $64,000 ques tion, the gentleman was advised that he could have the services of an expert to assist hiim with the final question. As the question involved was one with three parts, dealing with. the subject of love, our friend thought long and hard and finally decided that he would obtain the services of a Frenchman well known for his romantic expertise. Came the big night and our contestant faced the master of ceremonies. The first part of the question was given to him as, “if you were walking in a forest and came up a clearing, and you saw it beautiful chalet in a most romantic setting, and a lovely, blossomy young lady appeared in the doorway, completely in the nude, what would you do?” Our friend, without any hesitation whatsoever, prompt.y responded, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 96] === ape A854 peen given no explanation whatsoever for the projected doubling of the rate differentials applying to cargo preference cargoes. Recent analyses and reports on merchant marine policy have unanimously agreed that the current tramp ship program is ineffective and that, with provision for cost differential subsidy payments, a modern and competitive bulk fleet can be developed and rate differentials paid to tramps can be phased out. Further, there are no known plans for an increase in foreign aid tonnage. Just last week, in fact, President Johnson strongly emphasized self-help as a basis for administering our foreign aid programs. Although the United States has emphasized self-help for years in administering aid, no President has stressed it as strongly as President Johnson. The President indicated a change in foreign aid policy primarily in the direction of making it harder for aid beneficiaries to qualify. When you add to this reports that our surplus grain stores have been greatly reduced in the last few years, it is clear that foreign aid cargoes may decrease rather than increase. If you take the projected savings away from the interagency report calculations, then there is Nttle merit to any claim for economy on the part of the interagency task group report, as compared to the MAC report. Add to this the fact that Americanflag shipping wage support subsidy per ship should be drastically reduced through automation in the next 10 years, and the relative cost projections, and results, are highly debatable. NATIONAL SECURITY DEFENSE ASPECTS As to the importance of merchant shipping to our national security, several eminent naval officers in recent months have spoken out in favor of the tremendous contributions of the American merchant marine to the defense effort in Vietnam, and to the outstanding qualities of our modern vessels which participated in the “steel pike” landing exercises off the Spanish coast. Let us, for a moment, reflect on World War II and the fleet of American-flag merchant ships which supplied the logistical support for our major campaigns in Europe and in the Pacific areas. American-flag ships played a major role in the Korean conflict and, as usual, the merchant marine is heavily involved in the Vietnam conflict. It is disturbing to note the lack of cooperation received from our NATO allies in the Vietnam war and, just as in the case of Cuba many of our fair-weather friends are serving Communist masters contrary to U.S. interests. On checking through recent issues of Lloyd’s “Shipping Index Voyage Supplement,” I learned that ships flying the flags of Great Britain, Norway, Greece, and other European countries have been calling at Haiphong and at Chinese and Russian ports. A typical example of one of these voyages involves the Norwegian ship Herborg, as listed in the January 21, 1966, issue of Lloyds. This Norwegian ship sailed from Hong Kong on October 12, and remained in Haiphong until October 18, then proceeded to Nakhoda (Russia), then back to Hong Kong.on December 22, and thence to Port Said, Egypt. It is recalled that in the Cuban crisis our NATO allies flagrantly violated our embargo, and some still do, At one time, the Norwegian Prime Minister publicly stated that Cuba was an “American affair.” It was the U.S. merchant marine which was promptly called into service to supply vessels for the Vietnam emergency, just as we have been the first to go to war during so many previous emergencies, and it is a pathetic circumstance that foreign crews have refused to carry U.S. military cargoes to Vietnam. This bears out the good advice of high-rank-~ ing naval spokesmen who have repeatedly warned that the interest of foreign-flag shipping during periods of emergency might not coincide with the national interests of the United States. Secretary McNamara has recently reiterated the Department of Defense’s 1962 position that “the reserve fleet plus the vessels in service plus the construction program that has previously been outlined (1962) as a tentative program appear adequate.” On January 28, Secretary McNamara was quoted as saying that “the national defense reserve fleet is adequately serving the purpose for which it was planned and, in conjunction with our active merchant fleet, it is doing a fine job.” Further, he is quoted as saying “the responsible reaction of the merchant fleet together with reserve fleet reactivations in the current Southeast Asia emergency confirms the adequacy of our ‘sealift.” While we appreciate the kind remarks of Secretary McNamara as to the effectiveness of American-flag shipping cooperation in the southeast Asia area, J am sure that the Department of Defense must now be well aware of the poor condition’ of our reserve fleet. A great many of the ships which have been proken out of the reserve fleets, mostly World War II Victory type vessels, have incurred excessive reactivation costs averaging $400,000 each, and the frequent breakdowns exper: ienced, indicate that these over-age vessels cannot be considered reliable. The Department of Defense has hailed the development of the giant cargo aircraft, the C5-A—scheduled to be placed in operation sometime in the early 1970’s—as a great advance in logistical support. This aircraft is being developed at a cost of approximately $2 billion—paid for by the Department of Defense—and predictions have been made that this 360-ton flying ‘Holland Tunnel” will promote a tremendous increase in future air-cargo services. Strangely enough, the principal commercial airlines of the United States who are usually the beneficiaries of heavy subsidization in plane design and development through Defense Department contracts, are reported to be lukewarm on the project. The C5-A could be another “Great Republic”—the oversized and ill-fated clipper ship of a century ago. According to a November article in Fortune magazine, the Cb-A “will liberate the Army from dependence on sea transportation except for low cost bulk items such as fuel.” There are certain practicable considerations which immediately come to my mind. In the first place, these planes are expected to land on relatively short runways in remote areas under adverse circumstances, and such runways are subject to damage or destruction by enemy action. These planes would also make a nice fat target for enemy aircraft and missiles. By comparison, seaborne transports provide highly flexible logistical support—with naval support—ships can be moved from one port +o another and are not necessarily dependent on fixed facilities for delivery of war material. As troop carriers, giant planes such as the ©6-A could carry 600 to 700 fully equipped troops, but malfunction or enemy attack on this relatively slow aircraft would be a great risk. As a skipper of cargo and troop ships during the last war, I participated in landing operations, I saw ships go down—including one of my own. Sea rescue operations, however tragic and dangerous, afford a much greater probability of recovery than do alrcraft disasters. At the present time, sealift is supplying 98 percent of all logistical support to the Vietnam theater and a high percentage of personnel. The First Cavalry Division, of which you hear so much about these days carrying on operations in Vietnam, was transported to Vietnam entirely by ship along with all of its equipment, including 400 helicopters. The U.S. shtpping industry is affording full cooperation to our military people in the Vietnam conflict, Our seamen have offered to assist in unloading operations, and labor Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX February 21, 1966 leaders have visited the area and suggested ways and means of overcoming labor bottlenecks in the ports. Our Committee of American Steamship Lines has offered to supply fully qualified professionals, at our own expense, to assist in overcoming port and harbor problems related to ship and cargo operations. The role of American shipping as a key to our national security, both as to the commercial and defense aspects, will greatly depend upon the administration's program and the consideration which will be given by the second session of the 89th Congress. As professionals, we sincerely believe that Americanflag shipping can play an increasingly important part in the Nation’s best interest. The Committee of American Steamship Lines supports the President’s Maritime Advisory Committee report. We trust that administration and congressional leaders will give us an opportunity to participate in constructive maritime policy planning. Editorial by William Mathews EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JOHN J. RHODES OF ARIZONA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. RHODES of Arizona. Mr. Speaker, William R. Mathews, editor and publisher of the Arizona Daily Star, of Tucson, -has traveled widely in the Far East. He has studied its people, its governments, and has well-formed ideas concerning the appropriateness. of our actions in that part of the world. In the Arizona Daily Star, of January 30, 1966, Mr. Mathews published an editorial which is so well considered that I am sure it should be read by every Member of the House and Senate. The editorial follows: MAKE THE BEst OF A TRAGIC MESS (By William R. Mathews) Rather than shed more tears about the President and Vietnam, the time has come when our Nation should unite to make the best of what unmistakably is a tragic mess. The President’s peace campaign, unrealistic as it has proven to be in bettering things in Vietnam, has produced the positive results of improving the image of the President throughout the world, as well as at home. It ‘has damaged seriously the image of the Peiping Communists and North Vietnam by making themselves appear to be rigidly unreasonable. Johnson has neutralized those wso posed as negotiators, conferencemakers, peacemakers, and so on by seriously trying to do what they pleaded he do. The uncompro:aising attitude of North Vietnam leaves no other alternative than to wage war in traditional American manner. That it amounts to sheer stupidity on the part of North Vietnam, becomes more apparent. If, for instance, North Vietnam had responded to the President’s pleas, it could have caught him out on a limb. He promised over and over again unconditional surrender. Yet when he was pinned down by his fellow countrymen and others, he insisted on imposing the original conditions of American policy. This seems to have gone over the heads of most of the people of the United States and other countries, too. If the Vietnamese had stolen the ball from him by offering to negotiate unconditionally, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 97] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 "I would say ‘hello.’” The mastcr of ceremonies said, ‘““You’re absolutely right.” The second part of the question was, “and then what would you do?" Our lad, again without hesitation, answered, “I would introduce myself’ “Absolutely right,” said the questioner. then he went vt: to say that in view of the urilical importance of the final part of the question, the contestant should think long und bard, and should seriously consicier seekine the advice of his “expert” before answering, The last part of the question for $64,000 wus-—“‘and then what would you do?” So, wu contestant, realizing the situation, conferred with his nected adviser. ‘he Frenchman, with face somewhat red, advised: “You had better answer tor yourself, 1 was wrong on thie iirst two questions.” { would like tu make it clear thet I certunity mean no disrespect to Under Secretary af Commerce Boyd, or to his expert advisers, uul at the same time I cannot agree that they have been risht about even the first two zjueslions concerning the maritime industry. American-flag shinping contributes almost Sh billion yearly lo our balance of payments. tour Casi Lines a'one contribute in excess ot $500 millton a yeur in favorable payments. io adoition to this, as I have already pointed out, our Casl members are engaged in extensive trade promotional activities, spending $17 million a year of their own resources to inercase the foreign trace of the United States. Gy comparison, we regret to say that the stration, which is charged y by the Merchant Marine Act of 19236 to promote the foreign commerce of the inited States and the American Merchant Marine, has publicly displayed little interest in bhis mandate of Congress. To the coninury, the public statements of the Maritime Administrator, however well intentioned, laave resulted in considerable contusion not saly among industry members, but aiso amony international traders and the public. tt has been ullezed that American-flag Lhipping is excessively subsidized, and that Aimerican-ilag operators display little initia- Live in advancing technological development. #11 of this simoly is not true, and I only wish that I could take enough of your time refute e.ch and every criticism of American-Hagy shipping. ut, briefly, let me answer loud and clear a tow of these inferences. itirct, American-fiag shipowners do not rewbive one penny ot subsidy. Costs ashore, such as overhead (including mv salary), iurgo-handling expenses, and the vast multijude of expenditures incurred in operating sloamship lines, and representing 75 percent t ah of our costs, arc for the sole account of American shipowners. HN nship operalors merely channel Govsimment wage differential subsidy puyments ia Atnerican seamen to ottset lower wares caid on foreipn ships. American plants suroad can use low-cost local labor-—we canocob--our “plants” mist compete in the world iuarket while employing high-standard-otfliving American nersannel, ‘The same applies to the construction-difiHlial subsidy. which is paid directly to 3. shipyards ts make them competitive wii loreign shipyards, and to assure their aviilabilicy for construction. of ships in times of national emergency. We have no gunrantee of profit wie tsoever, nid we must achively comnete with forcigns competitors;or every dollar of revenue we ve. Wur profits are modest and tliy average (ess than 5 pereent, ar cor-tributious to the national economy, ciully when you consider the usual eco- * multiplier of three, are overwhelmpiy on the plus side in comparison to the vyernment ware citferential subsidy paid io Aroerican labor. We are required by statule and regulations to build and repair our ships and lo purcaase all of our supplies and CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX equipment in the United States. These expenditures, along with the salaries paid to our American citizen employees, constitute a mejor contribution to the Nation's economy and security. Conversely, when foreign-flag shipping is used, 73 cents of every freight revenue dollar is taken away from the United Stutes. It might interest you to know that we recently made a study of the purchasing and repair practices of one of our Scandinivian competitors. We found that this line rezularly obtains the greater part of its supnlies from foreign sources, even foodstuffs. When major repairs and drydocking are required, their shins are sent back to Europe on a voyage charter. Most of their seamen's low wages are sent back to the old country in the form of family allotments. In other words, these people spend as little dollar exchange in this country as they possibly can. and drain away “invisible” payments (dollur exchange) in the form of freight revenurs. American-flag lines have displayed rcal initiative in developing and programing Lochnical advances such as multihatch ships, automated machinery, barge ships, cor:)ainerships, and many other design features which are now being copied by our forsiznflag competitors. This has been accomplished by American-flag steamship lines with negligible Government assistance. We have used our own money in the dev-lopment of these new design features. What has the Maritime Administration done to heip technological development? As 7 understand it, the Maritime Administraiion’s limited research and development funds have gone principally into the Sevennah prorram, initiated 10 years ago, but a substential amount has gone into such exotic develop-~- ments as the hydrofoil and air-cushion vessel projects, which primarily involve «mall craft, and are relnted to national defense or short-range possenger transportation. Ir personally know of no single major pr vject involving: large ocean-going vessels to which the present Maritime Administration has made any significant contribution. CARCO PREFERENCE For years our foreign-flag competitors lave climiored long and loud in protest aguinst our cargo preference laws whica require that 50 percent of ali Government aid or Government financed cargoes be transporte. by Amcrican-flag vessels. The interagen report recommends elimination of these vergo preference statutes, and it doves so wilh a very naive approach. I was aniazed to:earn that few of our high Government officials realize that there are two considerations affecting cargo preference—(1) routing prefersnce and (2) rate preference. The imteragecucy report recommendation that curgo preference be eliminated is confusing and is Dased on the fulse philosophy that elimlnution of cargo preference and payment of “incentive” subsidy wouid enable a rew bu.k carrier fleet to successiully cor pete iba with foreign-flag competition. This is surd, There is no objection to the pl oul of “rate ciferentials as new bul. riers are placed in operation, but it is ulbsolutely imperntive that preferential “routing” be retained or there will be little opport: ity for the tra ortation of any bulk U.S. aid pargoes, It is a well-known fact that formen governments wid divert nid cargoes to their ow. vessels for “political” reasons. Fur ber, the trade missinns and foreign freight birokers appointed by foreign Governmeni: to handle these shipments are hishly susceptibie to nationa > contrel. With bulk imports largely eo olled by industrial gi who favor their own “flags of convenien fleets, and the complete lack of any assurances that American-flag bulk carriers would participate in U.S. aid cargoes, it can hardly be expected that any responsible owner will venture the necessary risk carital. The proposed elimination of cargo pref- A853 erence, including PR 17, would leave us to the tender mercies of foreign Governments and there would remain no effective instrument for leverage in assuring fair and equitable treatment for U\S.-flag vessels. There is ample cvidence that the elimination of many discriminations against U-S.-flag vessels has only been accomplished through cargo preference leverage. To the contrary, the routing aspects of cargo preference legislation should be made more effective. If U.S.-flag vessels do not carry such cargoes then obviously they will be carried by foreign-flag vessels to the detriment of the U.S. economy through adverse balance of payments and national income. Our cargo preference laws and marit!me policies have been adequately defended in the past by the U.S. Government. The defense of our present statutes is a matter of international record. There is a further misconception that cargo preferences result in higher freight rates. This is basically incorrect with regard to all cargoes which move in the liner trades. Freight conference rules and rates apply equally to American- and foreign-flag vessels, and freight conferences ars strictly controlled by the U.S. Federal Maritime Commission. As to the proposed Russian grain deal, there is no assurance that Russia or any of the Communist satelite countries would regularly purchase large quantities of U.S. wheat when and if the Government restriction imposed for the use of American-fag vessels is eliminated. It is my opinion that Russia has seized upon the 50 percent ship American policy as a propaganda tool to stir up further trouble with our NATO allies. It should be recalled that several of these European countries, notably Germany, lave recently protested against the aggressive use of Russian-controlled vessels to break prevailing freight rate structures. Russia is building up a large merchant marine and, by her own admission, intends to utilize her shipping as an instrument of foreign pol:cy without regard to cost. If the Russian objective is achieved in building up a huge merchant marine and utilizing same to force down international freight rates, the maritime nations of the world would soon find their respective flects without cargoes and facing virtual bankruptcy. Therefore, only through an effective and active U.S. merchant marine, operating with minimum Government restraint, yet with adequate Covernment protection in the direction of cargo routing, and with Government backing to eliminate foreign government discriminations, can we avoid putting ourselves completely at the mercy of Communist-dorinated shipping. In view of the affinity of our NA'TO adies to serve the Communist trades in Cuba, the Middle East, Communist China, North Victyam and Russia itself, it follows that in consideration of charters and the concession of participation of Communist tradcs, forcis lag shipping could be influenced to a the Communist program to dominate Amerisan foreign trade. DOLLARS AND CENTS ECONOMY As to commercial justification for the American merchant marine, the administration will undoubtedly be greatly influenced by the dollars-and-cents costs of America: flag shipping operations. with many of the interagency projectio would like to spotlight one glaring ques mark on the part of the people whe prepared the interagency report. The projected high savings frequentiy re fered tn by interagency report advacat: highly questionable. This is largely b on @ projected increase in Government cargoes and a doubling of the rate differentials, amounting to a projected savines through 1985 of almost $2 billion (#100 million a year). In the first place, we bave Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 “age gtammar “ors usa -.-soantuelg gape te sazamede «1.01 4. APUZARMARS WiGh sevusAt abestnen;jectbns co == abs. tec: gear 9 acEégcad Mbnns =< “fe {MRAM ‘Sesh aidleccietts HSRSEDRICRARD: i === [Page 98] === February 21, 1966 they would have driven him into a corner. But such an attitude on the Communists’ part seemed to defy the centuries-old tradition of the Chinese and most orientals, to take thelr time and make haste slowly. Time would have been on their side, if they had restrained the Vietcong and themselves to the point that would have made American military forces no longer necessary. Within a few years the odds would be greatly on their side. In a few years they could win by subversion, which would have allowed them to make communism appear to be a peaceful political philosophy. That they abandoned their basic political philosophy of confidence in time, apparently has been caused by the corrupting of Marxism of the West, which calls for glorifying violence and actual war. The world, not just America, should take note of this change. It confirms how uncompromising and unreasonable Communists are. It confirms how undependable their word is. Their violation of their own proposed cease-fire amounted only to a trap to bring in more supplies and regroup their forces. That Lenin himself made a peace in 1918 with Germany, in order to give time to consolidate the Russlan revolution, these oriental Communists seem to forget. As to the role of China, it appears more and more as a great big bluff, It is worth noting how she withdrew from her invasion of India, when India showed her will to fight. We have to do the same thing. If President Johnson limits the bombing of targets in North Vietnam, we are confessing our fear of China. If the President extends bombing to strategic targets like electric generating plants, oil storage tanks, and various industrial complexes, we are definitely calling the Chinese bluff. We will be shortening the war, not prolonging it. Of course, tactical bombing against railroads, bridges, and other military targets must continue with an increased tempo. China does have vast manpower, but she can supply North Vietnam, and the Vietcong, with only a part of the weapons they use. The latter have to depend upon supplies from Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. At the present time, China has only a few atomic bombs. If she dares make use of them, we.must retaliate until we break her power to make nuclear and other weapons. It is hard to believe that China would run the risk of belng completely destroyed now, when she knows that by keeping at peace she will grow stronger daily and yearly. She will keep on bluffing as long as we evade calling her bluff by strategic bombing in North Vietnam. Georgia Land Is Mine EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES L. WELTNER OF GEORGIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. WELTNER. Mr. Speaker, my constituent, Elise Boylston, is a charming lady now in her 80th year. She was art director of the Atlanta public schools before her retirement and has written several textbooks. She is still an active member of the Atlanta Pen Women. Among the many lasting contributions she has made are her lyrics to the song, “Georgia Land Is Mine.’ Mrs. Lynda Moore wrote the music for this song. I insert this in the Recorp in the hopes that many more will enjoy it as I have. ~érnment for 20 years. Geroroia Lanp Is MINE (Lyties by Elise Boylston, music by Mrs. . Lynda Moore) If I were a poet with a magic loom, I’d weave a banner of gold; And I’d tuck a wish and a loving thought In the midst of each shining fold; I’d snare me a sunbeam and fasten it tight In the threads of the silken band;. And I'd weave a legend for all to read— Georgia, by cherished land! CHORUS I’m weaving a song of Georgia land— The land that I adore; Her smiles and tears throughout the years Make rainbows evermore, My shuttle hums a merry tune As heart and loom combine To weave a prayer of thankfulness That Georgia land is mine. I’d catch the spark of a baby’s smile; The joy of a love devine; The rippling sound of a singing brook; The scent of a jasmine vine. I’d match the carmine of the soil With the blue of a distant hill; I’d capture a wild bird’s melody, - And the sing of the whippoorwill. Ho Chi Kennedy EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS IN THE IIOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, one of the latest developments in the mass confusion over our foreign policy is the dangerous advice being given by the radical left Members of the U.S, Senate. The Chicago Tribune commented editorially on this situation in this morning’s issue, and I am inserting their editorial in the Recorp: Ho Cut KENNEDY Senator Boppy Krennepy has reached a level of irresponsibility without parallel even for him in suggesting that the way out of the war in Vietnam is for the United States to accept a coalition government in South Vietnam which would admit the Communist Vietcong as a ruling element. Mr. KENNEDY could only advance an idea of this sort if he was entirely ignorant of history and experience. We conclude that he is utterly deficient in both. The record of coalitions with communism demonstrates that any coalescence of this sort leads inevitably to a surrender to communism. Czechoslovakia, after World War II, tried the experiment. It led to a complete Communist takeover. Gen, George C. Marshall was dispatched to China after the end of the same war with instructions written by State Department appeasers to force the Nationalist China of Chiang Kai-shek into a coalition with the Communists who had been fighting his gov- When Chiang refused this suicidal deal, the United States cut off all supplies to his forces for a year and a half. Meanwhile, the Communists, armed with weapons taken from the Japanese army which had surrendered to the Russian Communist forces in Manchuria, were gathering Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX A855 the strength to conquer the country, as they did. Most recently the coalition formula was invoked in Laos, which, like Vietnam, is a splinter state out of the former French possession of Indochina. In that country an uneasy combination was attempted among disparate elements of the pro-Western and anti-Communist monarchy, a neutralist element of the military, and the Communist Pathet Lao. The Comunists have taken over great areas of the country and intend to take it all. The idea that such antagonistic forces will or can cooperate is a myth— the myth promulgated by the Kremlin that “peaceful coexistence” is a means of reconciling sheep and wolves. Mr, KENNEDY might be dismissed as the demagog that he is if he were ignorant of this history, but he may not be excused for his ignorance of the origins of the war in South Vietnam. If he had read the statement of Secretary of State Dean Rusk last Friday, he would know that the Communist” Vietcong, and its political sponsor, the socalled National Liberation Front, are not indigenous elements of a civil war in South Victnam, but are the deliberately contrived “fronts” of the Communist government of North Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh. The third conference of the North Vietnamese Communist party in Hanoi decreed, in 1961, that South Vietnam was to be abolished as an independent state and rendered subject to the Communists. For this purpose, a dummy political arm, designated as the National Liberation Front, was established as a pretender to authority in opposition to the noncommunist regime in Saigon. The Vietcong became the military extension of this invented political cat's-paw of Hanoi. It has no more standing as an authentic element in the political or social organization of South Vietnam than the Hebrides Islands in relation to the United States. Senator KrNnNEDY, out of his ignorance and political ambition, has compromised his loyalty to the United States when it is at war by subscribing to Communist myths and adopting them as his own, in opposition to a national policy, which is supported by an overwhelming majority of American citizens, He is not the junior Senator from New York. He is the senior senator from Communist North Vietnam—Ho Chi Minh’s Trojan horse in the US. Senate. Dickson County Doctors Are Patriots EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. WILLIAM R. ANDERSON OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. ANDERSON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, the Vietnam conflict has inspired many acts of patriotism by civilian groups. One of the finest and most selfiess acts that has been brought to my attention is described in the following article from the Dickson County Herald, “Medical Association To Offer Free Medical Care to Outpatients of Vietnam Soldiers.” By offering free out patient medical care to the wives and children of soldiers now fighting in Vietnam, the members of the Dickson County Medical Society have set an example that all Americans could do well to ponder and follow. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 99] === iis“ Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 A856 MenvtcaL Association To Orren FREE MEDICAI. Cane To OUTPATIENTS OF VIETNAM SOLDIERS Vhe Dickson County Medical Association, ii ail unprecedented move, has agrecd to extend outpatient medical care to the wife and children of servicemen engaged in this couniry’s struggle in Vietnam, it was announced today by D. W. A. Crosby and Dr, J. ‘l. Jackson, who drafted a resolution to this effect at the request of the association, The Dickson County Medical Association is composed of ull practicing physicians of the county. ‘The resolution reads as follows: “Be it resolved by the nembers of the Bickson County Medical Association, That we are in complete sympathy with the forcign policy of the Government of the United States of America in its effort to promote lasting peace throughout the world, and we are proud of our fellow Tennesseans who are now serving, and who will serve our country in Vietnam in trying to bring to an early endl the fithtins which has already cost the lives aft many of the fine brave youth of this great State; be it further “Resolver. That we here at home realize the hardships and the inconveniences that our servicemen are going through in being separated from their loved ones while on active duty in Vietnam; be it further “Resolucad, That we want to express our appreciation for the great effort and sacrifice being made by our fellow ‘T’ennesseans by vifcring our services in the following manner: Now, tlierefore, be it “Resolved. 1 any man who has ever been « patient of any of the members of the Dickson County Medical Association is called to serve his country in the struggle in Vietnam, then we willingly agree to cxtend outpatient medical care to his wife and children free oz charge so long as he remains on active duty in that theater of operations; be it further “Resolvcd, ‘hat a copy of this resolution he forwarded to the proper authorities of Lhe ‘Vennessee State Medical Association, the American Mecical Association, and to the War Depariment of the United States of America. “Signed: “MEMIERS OF DICKSON Country MEDICAL SOCIETY. cm HMMS RNR tobert Shaw in Atlanta EX'LTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CHARLES L. WELTNER OF GEORGIA tN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr WELINER. Mr. Speaker, in 1965 Atianta entered into major league sports wilh the franchise of the Atlanta Braves, and most recently with the newly formed National League football team, the Atlanta Falcons. tist week. Atlanta, always a cultural center, scored another “big league” feat, wilh the Atlanta Arts Alliance announceraent Lhal the distinguished Robert Shaw has been named music director of the Allanta “vmphony Orchestra. Mr. Shaw will resign his post as associale conauctor of the Cleveland Ovchostra and will assume his duties in Atfanta in LO67. Moc of the world’s most renowned ehoral directors, his famous Robert Shaw Chorale has made musical history in its tours of 40 Siates, and its celebrated Russtan tour i L962, Conducior Henry Sopkin, retiring after 41 yoars of selfless and able service to his CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --- APPENDIX art and his city, leaves My. Shaw a carefully assembled aegregation of 80 excellent musicians—a solic foundaiion from which to launch further musical triumphs. The Atlanta Arts A‘liance, under the able leadership of Chairman Richard H. Rich, and Vice Chairman Lucicn Oliver, Charles L. Tower, symphony president, and Charles R. Yates, chairmin of the symphony executive commiltte:: are to be commended for their painstaking search of over 100 applicants from the United States and Europe—ti:e search which culminated in the selection of Mr. Shaw. The late Arturo Toscanini said of Robert Shaw: “I have at last found the Maestro I have been looking for.” As Atlanta Constitution Columnist Bruce Galphin noted, “So has Atlant...” The Schools of Compton, Calif. EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. DEL CLAWSON OF CALIFORNTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESEN ATIVES Monday, February 21, 1566 Mr. DEL CLAWSON. Mr. Speaker, a singular honor has come to a section of my constituency, the city of Compton, Calif., and I am pleased to share the recognition with my colleaguc::. in a way, this honor synthesizes a number of interrelated issues which have had our attention for a jong time. We speak of poverty, of racia! tensions, of law violation. There is general agreement that the heart of the matter is education and understaniling—and the heart of education, we have been told many times, is “money’—as if “money” alone could buy the skill to inspire children to learn, prevent dropouts, and give to a community a deep and penetrating interest in raising the educational level of its citizens. The fullest measure of money means little without the zeal to do, the imaginaion lo conceive, the willingness to dare, and genuine dedication to a cause. Tn. this city of Compton, thers are peonle with all these qualities—:nd their dedication is to education-- although their wealth is modest. These are the people who administcr its school system under the able teadership of Mr. Leonard C. Erickson, superintsndent of the Compton city schocls. More than 17,000 pupils crowd its classes. We are advised the cc:t of educating each student is the lowest in all of Los Angeles County—and understundably so-—-as Com»ton is 4 city with a number of poverty areas—and no Federal funds are allocated fer building new school structures. Yet this community voted t:: increase its property tax, to increase it so that new schools couid be built. ‘ihe entire community voted this sacrifics. An entire multiracial community voting in favor of the future. ‘This, however, is not unusua! It was decided to build the first of these schools in the area of the «ity where Pebruary 21; 1966 the need was the gercatest. This, too, fs not unusual. But rather than merely decide to build a school that would house a specific number cf pupils, the goal was more arnbitious. It was decided to build a school that would be beautiful, one in which the community would take pride, one that would provide a welcome atmosphere, one that the people would cherish, one that would motivate students to learn, an oasis of knowledge—a center of learning worthy of any city—anywhere. And all this they hoped to achieve on the slimmest of budgets. Long, tedious hours went into the search for the answers. It would have been easy to merely press a button or two and have a school much like all other schools—and no one would complain, for they would be getting what they would naturally expect. But the city of Compton can be proud. This school, designed by the architectural firm of Carmichael-Kemp, AIA, to be built in a section designated by Los Angeles County as a hard-core poverty area, has just received a national award for its excellence in architecture—its beauty, its warmth, its color--and ils functional use in education, from the American Association of School Administrators’ Architectural Jury of the National Education Association. This architectural jury is composed of threc of the Nation’s leading architects selected by the American Institute of Architects, and three of the Nation’s most eminent educators. ~ This is no small school. It is 2 stories with more than 30 classrooms, and gentlemen, the cost of building this schocl will be well within the budget set by the State of California as the average cost for similar size structures. It is fitting, too, that this institution of learning will be named the Clarence A. Dickison Elementary School, honoring a pioneer of the city of Compton, who was not only its first mayor, but who also made his contribution to education as a teacher, vice principal, principal, and a member and president of the Compton City Elementary School Board. And as if Compton needed further honor, the California State Department of Schoolhouse Planning is considering using this award-winning school for a pilot study relative to the savings effected by its type of structure in heavily populated areas. This coveted award, naturally, means a great deal to Mr. Erickson, the Board of Education and to the architects, Dan Carmichael and Dick Kemp, but it means immeasurably more to the people of the area. A school worthy of the wealthicst city anywhere is thcirs. Religion in the Soviet Union EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. EDNA F. KELLY OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Speaker, last yea, during the 1st session of the current Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 JURE ‘aa === [Page 100] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 A866 ple of the State of Hawaii and the citizens of the city of Bruyéres in far-off France. Perhaps some of my colleagues will recall that Bruyéres is one of the French towns which were liberated by the men of Hawaii’s 442d Infantry Regiment and the 100th Infantry Battalion in World War II. Having been a member of the 100th Infantry Battalion, I am. greatly pleased that out of the fierce struggle for Bruyéres among the forested foothills of the Vosges Mountains has come about a lasting friendship between two peoples. Many of our brave fighting men were felled in Bruyéres, and they too would rejoice that they did not die in vain. Although the relationship between the people of Hawaii and the citizens of Bruyéres had a dramatic beginning. I am sure that “Bruyéres” would today be a mere memory of a battle, had it not been for dedicated individuals who have devoted much time and effort in the intervening years to keep this friendship alive. I stand before you today to pay tribute to a man who has done so much to foster this friendship. He is a French citizen and a councilman in the city of Bruyéres M. Gerard Deschaseaux.. The unselfish devotion of Councilman Deschaseaux has been movingly recounted in a recent letter I received from Mr. Wilbert S. Holck, deputy clerk of the city and county of Honolulu. As one who also has been instrumental in promoting this friendship and the sister city affiliation between Honolulu and Bruyéres, Mr. Holck points out that the Hawaii State Senate and House jointly, the City Council of Honolulu, and the 442d and 100th Infantry Clubs in Hawaii intend to pay tribute to Councilman Deschaseaux. Mr. Speaker, at this point I am inserting in the Recorp the inspiring story of Mr. Deschaseaux’s accomplishments as related by Mr. Holck: “Councilman Deschaseaux is one of the many who are instrumental in creating the congenial pro-American attitude among the citizens of France, particularly within the Vosges area. His newspaper articles describing our citizens of the mainland United States and Hawaii during a visit in 1963 was most revealing. His articles provided the French citizens with a most intimate understanding of the people of our Nation. He has established close contact with the US. officials in the people-to-people program. Today there are three cities in France participating and cooperating with the United States people-to-people program. These are Marseille, Strasbourg, and Bruyéres. Individuals in charge in each of the three cities arrange for our young U.S. students to live in the privates homes of their cities for a few days. Mr. Deschaseaux, who is responsible for Bruyéres, also takes in two U.S, students each year. In addition to the above, Mr. Deschaseaux has been unselfish in giving his time, energy, and money in providing for visitors from Hawail. He personally entertains all Hawaiians and arranges for all 442d and 100th ~ veterans to tour former battle areas and meet old wartime friends. Any Hawaiian visiting Bruyeres is Immeditaely made to feel at home by many citizens of that town until Mr. Deschaseaux arrives to take over. Hawaiian servicemen and women and their families in Europe are welcomed by the people there because of Mr, Deschaseaux’s untiring efforts to maintain good will and his sincere beliefs CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX in the Honolulu, Hawali-Bruyéres, France sister city relations. The people of Bruyéres honor the men of the 100th and 442d Infantry killed in the battle to liberate their town on the third Sunday of every October. Since October of 1961 they also celebrate the anniversary of their sister city affiliation with Honolulu, Hawaii. The celebrations really commence on the day before and terminate on the eve-~ ning of the third Sunday. Mr. Deschaseaux, being the chairman of the Bruyéres, France- Honolulu, Hawaii, sister city committee of Bruyéres, is also program chairman. He arranges for hotel and private home accom-~ modations for all visitors (primarily from Hawaii) and coordinates the celebration activities. Since 1961 Mr. Deschaseaux has made arrangements for all students of Bruyéres to have a pen pal in Hawaii. This pen pal association continues till this day with high school students from Farrington Castle, and the Catholic schools. His goal is to educate the young people of France and other nations through correspondence so that better understanding and good will can be developed. He long-range plan is to have an exchange of young students such as that undertaken in the U.S. people-to-people program. Mr. Deschaseaux is of high moral character and a well-respected man in the Vosges area. Although he could be elected in higher political offices, he has refused only because of devotion to his ocupation. He is an englneer of natural resources (forestry, water, and game) in the Vosges area. Mr. Speaker, the world would be a much better place in which to live if we had more men like M. Gerard Deschaseaux, I take great pleasure and deem it an mor to pay tribute to this great U hman and world citizen. L.B.J.’s Big Week Left the World Gasping EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD BOLLING OF MISSOURL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr, BOLLING. Mr. Speaker, President Johnson’s untiring efforts to make this a world of stability and peace were hailed by the Kansas City Times, which noted that he “made the 7 days of February 6-12, 1966, a, week to remember. The President was positively dazzling in the pace and breadth of his personal performance.” The paper noted that in Honolulu: The military campaign was played down. The greater emphasis was on the. struggle against poverty, disease, and illiteracy in South Vietnam, The Salgon government was represented as pushing social-economic betterment programs with the enthusiastic support of the Johnson administration, As a summary of efforts to attain peace the “big week” as reviewed by the Times is noteworthy, and I am including it in the REcorpD:; L.BJ.’s Big Weex LEFT THE WORLD GASPING Lyndon B. Johnson made the 7 days of February 6-12, 1966, a week to remember. The President was positively dazzling in the pace and breadth of his personal performance, On very short notice he flew into Honolulu for a whirlwind conference that re- February 21, 1966 focused the picture of the U.S. efforts in Vietnam, The military campaign was played down. The greater emphasis was on the struggle against poverty, disease, and illiteracy in South Vietnam. The Saigon government was represented as pushing socialeconomic betterment programs with the enthusiastic support of the Johnson administration. The Johnson style demands more than words, however. The President summoned Vice President Husprrr HumpnHrey to meet him at the Los Angeles airport for a rundown on the Honolulu conference. Then Mr. HuMprHREY was whisked off across the Pacific to dramatize the administration’s peaceful intentions in Vietnam. Orville Freeman, the Secretary of Agriculture, was also dispatched to Vietnam on a food-counseling and inspection trip that had been scheduled earlier but fitted perfectly into the Johnsonian timetable. Upon returning to Washington, President Johnson scarcely paused before sending Congress a message outlining a 5-year American food-for-freedom program, with the promise of expanded foreign food assistance based on @ requirement that hungry areas help themselves. Late Friday President Johnson called a press conference to discuss, among other matters, the U.S. military operations in Vietnam. He placed his own interpretation on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings, which some people thought the President wanted to consign to the shadows by the drama of his newsmaking trip to Hawaii. Mr, Johnson commented that the two chief witnesses, retired Army Gen. James Gavin, and George Kennan, a former diplomat, both said that they did not want “to escalate or get out’ and “that’s how we feel.” But he also said that American troops would be sent to Vietnam as needed by the field commanders. Still full of spizzerinctum, Mr. Johnson announced that he has picked a new man to be his press secretary, a new Chairman of the Federal Power Commission, and a new Comptroller General—all highly important posts. The average American must have felt. worn out from just trying to keep up with President Johnson’s performance last week. As for L.B.J. himself, he gave the impression of not even being winded. Nevertheless, even for him, this man of such amazing energy and inventiveness surely made it a memorable 7 days, The Federal Reserve EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. RICHARD T. HANNA OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. HANNA. Mr. Speaker, in the other body, Senators question the judgment of military policymakers in an active confrontation with North Vietnam, and they criticized the advice and direction of the State Department in defining and pursuing a national policy in regard to that conflict. They are carrying out a basic responsibility of the Senate in foreign affairs. We in the House have the fundamental power of the purse. It is well that we should carry on a dialog over the judgment of the Federal Reserve and criticize the advice and directives of the Treasury. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 === [Page 101] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 February 21, 1966 ‘Taat trip was made in open defiance of a law which prohibits travel to Hanoi without approval by our Government. While other laws were probably violated, there appears to be no doubt about guilt in failure to obtain approval of the journey Mr. Speaker, millions of Americans are asking: Why bas nothing thus far been done about prosecuting these characters? The editorial follows: JusTice ON ‘URIAL ‘Toere must be no juslice, in the minds of iiose two GI’s who suld their uniforms to some Kast Germans who wanted to ga over ie wall. Ihe Army has scheduled a courttmrurtial where the two could draw as much as 2 years and 4 montas in jail and dishonorame discharges, ‘Tove soldiers broke the law. So did the Liree Kast Germans who bought and wore uniforms against Western Allied regulations. wut what of some oLlher recent lawbreaking incidents? Iuemember those three “lactfinders’ who dropped in on North Vietnam not long ago? Well, they're back home now. One, a professor, has been all over the newspapers and television with his inside tips on how to get out. of Vietnam: Give up and throw ourselves on the mercy of the Communists. The “facttinders” have Communist and other leftist affiliations that fill several typewritten pages. ‘They blatantly defied a State Department ban on travel to North Vietnam und are subject to 5-year prison sentences und fines of up to $5,000. So far, no proseeution or reprimand. And what of the Transit Workers Union which violated two Stite laws with an illegal strixe that cost New York City at least a biljion dollars? The charges were dropped when the strike was setlled, and the lawbreakers, instead of drawing stiff fines, got fant pay raises, Yet the Army is preporing to punish two young men for helping a small group of Conmmunist captives tlee to freedom. Is it justice? ‘The answer lies in the Western concept of Jaw and order. Under our system, laws are tnade to be enforced, and agencies are set up to handle enforcement. Police departments fall into this vategory, and so, in a larger sense, do the Armed Forces. Yaw enforcement sould begin with those who enforce the law. ‘Thus it is that policemen are suspended and_ soldiers courtmartialed for breaking laws and regulations. Because enforcers ot the law should set an impeccable example of law and order, the Arriy’s course of action is just. Hopefully it wil. be contagious. — MR A mn Peoria Unions Pledged to Progress EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL OF TLIINOIS iN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I wish to include the following editorial from the February 9, 1966, issue of the Peoria Journal Star: AN INTERESTING UNION PROPOSAL A group of Peoria «nition chiefs are spearheading a plan which, if the details can be ironed out, locks like one of the most proerossive programs to come down the road in long time. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX It is a bold, imaginative, pioneering effort that might make central Iilinois a national model for peace in the construction industry—a condition that should do a great deal to further stimulate economic development here and make construction work plentiful. The idea is simple. The details are terribly complex. Construction is complicated on the one hand by the extremely flexible system of a general contractor and a series of subcontractors, brought together on the basis of the specializations needed on each piven job. On the other hand, construction workers are organized into a variety of specialities, each with its own union and its own jurisdiction One of the problems for all concerned has been the fact that often when a dispute over which union jurisdiction is appropriate rears its head the contractor, the unions directly involved, and all the other union worker groups employed on the job are apt to suffer as the job lies idle for all concerned while the dispute is iruned out. Most of those injured are innocent bystanders—the unions not a part of the dispute who would otherwise be working, the vontractor, and the preson who is counting on the factory, dwelling, or commercial building he is paying for and has contracted for but which isn’t getting built. Yet, for a union to yield jurisdiction in such a dispute means not only the loss otf work involved in the one case but might prejudice all such jobs in the future. indeed, in a craft union, if jurisdiction is chipped away the union is out of business and ceases to exist---und its members are without work. With the variety of unions involved and the variety of contractors and subcontraclors involved. a variety of such problems have arisen and the overall problem has become very serious, So serious that a great deal of sober and responsible effort has gone into the problem of how to fairly decide and consistently resolve such disputes--and establish fixed and known and stable jurisdictions. These efforts were climaxed in the establishment of a national joint board and an uppeals board for the specific settlement of jurisdictional disputes in the building and construction industry. Further, basic agreements and decisions thal have been made are compiled in what the trade calls “the green book” for the guidance of all concerned so as to avoid the same dispute erupting twice. This structure was hammered out by the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and the two major contractor associations with the President of the United States as witness. It is a significant step forward, but far too often this machinery doesn’t come into play until a job is underway and the job itseli is held up until the procedures for settlement are completed. What is now proposed, at the initiative o1 local leaders in the construction unions, is a goneral meeting of all interestec! parties, contractors, union representatives, and others---such as bank finance people. The purpose would be to iron out a further step, providing for procedures whereby the plans «and work outline of any job, once contracted, would be made available in advance in a “plan room” or by some other arrangcment. Within 1 week ot this availability, the various unions would be required to formally claim which work fell into their jurisdictions. If claims overlapped, creating the conditions for a dispute, a hearing would be scheduled in an attempt to iron it out, and when all the hearing evidence was in regarding past agreements, past decisions in like cases, and if need be, lacking such case histories, reference to past local practice, the A865 contractor would make his decision as to which of the disputing unions he believes has the best claim of jurisdiction, The union in contention may then, if it chooses, appeal that decision to the already established and presently functioning national joint board. In the meantime, the contractor's decision stands and the work must go forward without disruption or a work stoppage. If the national joint board agrees with the contractor, he goes forward as is. If it reverses him, he must shift the work over to the designatec union. in either case, there is a pledge of no work stoppage because of the dispute. In short, the local leaders propose to take a further step on present procedures designed (1) to detect a jurisdictional dispute or problem in advance, (2) to settle it by orderly and recognized processes, and (3) to get this done before the work commences so it will not interfere with the work, and in any case to outlaw a work stoppage during the procedural steps if the matter does go to appeal at the present national joint board level. Such a purpose, and such initiative among union leaders in this area, can only be applauded. The complex details of an effective “plan room,” of signatories to such an agrecment, and of the rights of appeal---all involving in some way both many unions and many contractors may pose problems, and diiferences of approach. But it is certainly worth while to attack those details and try to work them out fairly. Success in such a conference would produce a labor landmark of national significance. It would be a leadership step here in this area that would focus the attention of the entire industry, and a climate that would encourage development in this area to the joint penefit of contractors and construction unions—as well as the community as a whole. It could also be a classic example of now people engaged in the same basic activity in different ways can make much more progress by finding those areas where pulling together provides a mutual advantage, rather than fostering differences to mutual disadvantage. And it is significant for the potential future of this area that the initiative, the energy. and the responsible study bringing forth this effort has come from the ranks of labor. —C. L. Dancey. M. Gerard Deschaseaux, Promoter of French-American Friendship EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. SPARK M. MATSUNAGA OF HAWAIL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday, February 21, 1966 Mr. MATSUNAGA. Mr. Speaker, because much has heen made of recent differences between our Government and the Government of France, I take particular pleasure today in unfolding to you and to my esteemed colleagues a heartwarming story of friendship between the United States and France. Although this friendship is probably not one that would lead to world-shaking decisions, it should serve as an inspiration for those of us who are continually striving to promote good will among the different peoples cf the world. For, after all, are not Governments made up of people? I refer, Mr. Speaker, to the steadfast friendship that exists between the peo- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 ssc: veep. === [Page 102] === Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0 A870 scendant’s of the stalwart men who fought in the Canadian expedition of 1690. The names of Starr, Converse, and Rolfe also figure prominently among these early grants which were given by a srateful Massachusetts Bay colony in recognition of the gallantry and great contributions of these families in the building of a new land. It was in 1650 that young Dr, Thomas Starr gave his life in a struggle with the fearsome Pequot Indians, leaving behind a young wife and eight small children. It is the later descendants of this family who benefited from Dr. Starr’s heroism when they were given 400 acres of land in his memory. A similar grant is named after Maj. James Converse whose heirs benefited from his distinguished service to the colony. The son and two daughters of the Reverend Benjamin Rolfe were given 600 acres after escaping an Indian raid in 1708, in which the parents and another sister lost their lives, It is from these heroic deeds and sacrifices of the pionecr settlers that Ashburnham got its start, and it is from the spiritual strength, resourcefulness and determination of these early forebears that our Nation got its strength and purpose to become the great country it is today—truly a giant among the nations of the world, the most powerful, richest, and most advanced with the highest standards of living the world has ever known. Among the great names still echoing from that rugged and glorious period of growth and progress in golden history of Ashburnham is that of Cushing, which is with us today in the living memorial of Cushing Academy, named after the Reverend Thomas Cushing, and one of the great secondary schools of the Nation. It was my great privilege to participate last year in the 100th anniversary celebration. of Cushing Academy, which is today, more than ever, a model of academic excellence. The Reverend Thomas Cushing was the first minister for the Ashburnham settlement. On the occasion of his halfcentury sermon, delivered on November 3, 1818, he reflected on past events in the history of the town, describing the . perilous days when “soldiers were stationed in these parts to range the wilderness and protect the scattered inhabitants which numbered under 50.” After recounting the births, deaths, illnesses, and marriages which took place during his years of ministry, he concluded with this description of the Revolutionary War, which is particularly noteworthy at this time of homage to the memory of George Washington: The opposition,to the acts of the British Parliament, the war that ensued, * * * cannot be fully conceived of by the present gen- _ eration. It cost the States immense blood and treasure. What people have been more highly favoured? God raised up Washington to lead our armies to victory and independence; and when the new Constitution was established, he was, by a unanimous vote of the people, placed twice at the head of the Government, where he shone with as distinguished lustre as at the head of our armies, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — APPENDIX What is the man in all history to be set in competition with him? If Washington could have visited Ashburnham any time last year he would not have been surprised by the looks of some residents of the town because the bicentennial celebration prompted many to wear the wigs and garments of colonial America. Even the parades would have seemed familiar to him, featuring as they did, oxen, horse-drawn carriages and wagons, various fife and drum corps, and bagpipe units. He certainly would have been impressed with the October 10 fireworks display, one of the largest ever presented in the area, and the cannon firing, and the “Gentlemen of the Brush” would not have surprised him. I think, Mr. Speaker, that on the whole George Washington would have been well pleased with the birthday year of Ashburnham and all the wonderful events which went into making it the ‘great memorable celebration that it was—the Boy and Girl Scout participation, the helicopters and antique automobiles, the lovely and gracious bicentennial queen, the time capsule with its ballpoint pen and modern razor among its contents, the parties and balls. I think also that George Washington would have been convinced that Ashburnham has not stood still, but has kept pace with the times and the demands of the age in which we live. He would draw inspiration, as we all can, from the great and glorious history of our past, as reflected all over America by the growth and Prosperity of hundreds upon hundreds of thriving communities like Ashburnham,; Let. us all be thankful, with hearts overflowing with everlasting gratitude, for the blessings of the Creator and the epochal work and achievements of those who have preceded us and whose blessed memory we honor on days of remembrance. Let me again express the hope and the prayer that the next 200 years will bring to Ashburnham and all its loyal people that greatness in the spirit and the ways of independence, liberty, and peace which will insure prosperity and happi- - ness, not only in the material sense, but in the spiritual graces that have always been s@ much a part of this splendid Americd)n community, The Supreme Sacrifice EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. BURT L. TALCOTT OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Speaker, too often we hear the voices of defeat and despair from those who know little’ of the trials and tribulations of the battles being waged in Vietnam. The views and feelings of the soldier in the thick of battle may be interesting and enlightening to those safely at home. February 21, 1966 I request unanimous consent to insert a letter which I received recently from Army Set. Thomas E. Wilcox. He says several important things in a simple but poignant way. Ty Hoa, VietNam, February 13, 1966. Dear Sir: My name is Thomas E. Wilcox. I reside at 1817 Lincoln Avenue in Seaside, Calif. I have been in this country since the 2d of January, 1966. Thus far I have seen many of my buddies killed and wounded. This is a dirty, stinking war. I am willing to pay the supreme sacrifice for freedom here in Vietnam to stop Communist aggression in southeast Asia, I trust you are a backer of the administration’s Vietnam policies. This country and its people must not be betrayed and abandoned into Communist hands. In South Vietnam the United States must stand firm. If you must deal with people who insist that the Vietcong are our brothers and only want peace, you can ask them to come: to South Vietnam and take note of the Vietcong’s “brotherly, peaceful’ politics, I guarantee these Vietniks would change their tune after. taking note of the Vietcong’s ritual of murder and violence in South Vietnam, I hope that peace will come to this land before too long. Yours with respect, Tom Wi.cox, Sergeant Wilcox is a patriot, convinced by firsthand experience of the meaning of our national commitment and our grave responsibility in South Vietnam. We all join in his hope for that foreign land which is nevertheless inhabitated by human beings who would cherish liberty and freedom above physical peace. School Lunch Program EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. WILLIAM STANTON OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 27, 1966 Mr. STANTON. Mr. Speaker, I am not in the habit of inserting into the CONGRESSIONAL ReEcorD letters from constitutents in my district; in fact, I have never done so until now. However, when I received a letter from Mr. John C. Friese, director of food services at Kent State University, I was thoroughly impressed with his eminent knowledge of the school lunch program, Therefore, I ask unanimous consent.to insert Mr. Friese’s letter into the REcorp, KENT STATE UNIVERSITY,, Kent, Ohio, February 16, 1966. Hon. J. Win.1amM STANTON, 1625 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, D.c. Drar CONGRESSMAN STANTON: May I also add my thanks for your help in procuring the excellent colored film on the astronaut flights that we showed to two local Boy Scout troop last month. It was amazing to me to listen to the intelligent comments of these 12- and 18-year-old boys after watching the pictures. My prime reason for writing to you is because part of my responsibility here at Kent State University is that of directing the. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400030005-0