'NEUTRALISM' MEANS DEFEAT IN SOUTH VIETNAM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130034-7
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 24, 2005
• Sequence Number: 34
• Publication Date: March 3, 1964
• Content Type: OPEN

1964
Approved For Re GWR4?&NA .CRECSRD6B0( OUSE 0240130034-7
099
each State, making such a comparison pos-
sible a The 1960 exports manufactured in
the Midwest may be most easily compared
with the 1961 exports shipped via the Great
Lakes ports, as assembled by the Chicago
Association of Commerce and Industry Re-
search and Statistics Division, since what is
The small size of the Great Lakes ports'
general cargo traffic stands out even more
clearly when exports via the ports of the
region are compared with its manufactures
of export commodities. A 1960 Commerce
Department study, as shown in table V; esti-
mated the value of exports manufactured in
and certain other adjustments developed by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in their
study of direct and indirect employment attributable to exports.
The national total figures were prepared by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, based
largely on census export data and census "bridge" tables on export and industry clas-
sification systems.
Regional and State distributions of exports, not reported directly by manufacturers,
were estimated by the Office of Business Economics and the Bureau of International
Programs, U.S. Department of Commerce, in order to account for local origin of all
manufacturing exports. The figures repored by manufacturers are from a survey
conducted by the Census Bureau of plants with more than 100 employees included in
the annual survey of manufacturers.
Source: U.S. Department of Commerce.
TABLE V. :Manufacturing establishments reporting the export of products in 1960; the number of these establishments, their employment
and reported exports, compared with total manufacturing exports, by region and State
Establish
ments report
ing exports
Total
Establish
ments report
ing exports
Total
manufac-
manufac-
Geographic region and State
Number
of estab-
All em-
lo
ces
Value of
ex
t
turin
exports
d
i
Geographic region and State
Number
All cm-
Value of
expports
lishments
p
y
annual
por
s
reported
an
est
-
mated
of estab-
lishments
ployees
annual
exports
reported
and esti-
mated
average
regional
and stat
average
regional
e
totals
and State
totals
United States, total ---------
7,490
5,699,981
Millions
$9,792.4
Millions
$15,454.3
South Atlantic-Continued
i
i
i
9
Millions
Millions
ew England_____________________
721
482,036
551.8
1,013.7
n
V
rg
a_______________________
West Virginia__-___-----------
N
h
8
71
74,485
58,489
$213.3
125.3
$338.3
156.1
Maine_________________________
29
16,271
'1 14.5
37.5
ort
Carolina________________
South Carolina ----------------
93
27
103,162
27,353
128.0
30.4
391.8
121.8
New Hampshire ---------- _----
36
18,166
30.3
54.7
Georgia_______________________
82
54,502
107.0
230.8
Vermont______________________
24
11,161
16.5
28.1
Florida ------------- -----------
55
29
028
85
1
158
8
Massachusetts
319
204
495
224
4
435
2
-
,
.
.
________________
Rhode Island__________________
63
,
28,068
.
' 22.2
.
- 65.9
East south central -----------------
309
208, 795
324.9
- -
587
3
Connecticut
_
250
203
877
244
7
385
9
.
_
_________________
,
.
.
K
k
t
57
6
iddle Atlantic ------------------
1,894
1,443,830
2,271.2
3,606.1
en
y_____________________
uc
Tennessee ---------------------
Al
b
86
107
78
,
60
76,413
60
946
102.2
132.0
178.4
220.1
Now York_____________________
Now Jersey
M5
506
573,331
296
404
888.1
587
2
1,417.4
897
0
a
ama______________________
Mississippi --------------------
- 35
,
13,776
54.4
36.1
109.2
77.0
____________________
Pennsylvanfa__________________
704
,
574,095
.
795.7
.
1,189.5
West south central ----------------
397
222,032
938.2
1,243.3
ast north central -----------------
2,500
2,084,340
3,119.5
4,503.8
. Arkansas ----------------------
L
i
i
31
7
13,225
41
37
29.2
60.7
Ohfo__________________________
785
628,666
921.5
1,209.4
ou
s
ana_____________________
Oklahoma ...-_----------------
r
3
61
,
1
19,066
192.0
65.5
254.1
98.9
Indiana_______________________
312
310,259
310.2
483
6
Texas --
-
242
147
470
651
3
836
6
Michigan
487
482
960
646
5
.
898
7
------- -
------------- -
,
.
.
_____________________
Illinois_,_______________________
666
,
464,430
,
.
971.1
.
1
407.8
Mountain -
67
46
386
97
6
177
3
Wisconsin
250
198
025
'270
0
,
411
4
------------------------
,
.
.
_____________________
.
.
M
1
1
est north central _____---- _.------
438
294,334
378.6
764.0
ontana---------------------
Idaho_________________________
W
i
1
10
)
(
2,065
1
)
(
8.4
1
3.9
15.6
Minnesota_____________________
107
75,354
,
92.5
176.4
yom
ng_____________________
Colorado -------- ---------- ____
1
21
(
)
19,130
(
)
28.2
.7
48.4
Iowa__________________________
101
84
987
121.4
243.0
New Mexico --------------------
4
378
11.3
26.5
Missouri______________________
154
85,101
91.5
193.0
Arizona --_____________________
12
12,635
12.8
29.3
North Dakota_________________
1
1)
(
(1)
2.4
Utah --------------------------
13
9,724
32,0
45.8
South Dakota_________________
Nebraska
8
24
1)
14
093
(1)
14
5
7.4
41
Nevada-----------------------
6
1,639
4.6
-
5.4
------------ ---------
Kansas________________________
48
,
30,729
.
56.7
.9
96.6
Pacific--------------------------- _
624
500,228
1,264.3
1,994.2
outhAtlantic --------------------
546
412,822
845.8
1,655.0
Washington -------------------
86
95,276
393.7
582.8
Delaware______________________
25
12,267
14.4
28.4
Oregwn ----------------------- _
California ---------------------
43
490
19,428
385,624
50.8
809.7
87.1
1,302.6
Maryland___________________
102
92,012
138.4
216.9
Alaska-__ _____________________
1
(1)
(1)
4.0
District of Columbia----------
2
(1)
(1)
7.7
Hawaii________________________
4
(9
(1)
15. 5
S
I Withheld to avoid disclosing figures for individual companies.
NOTE.-Figures may not add because of rounding. The $9,800 000,000 in exports
reported in this survey were made by establishments with 100 employees ormore and
exporting $25,000 or more in 1060. Based on a census company survey covering 1058,
these establishments account for substantially all shipments known to the manufac-
turer to be destined for export. The $5,600,000,000 in exports not reported in the survey
would be accounted for chiefly by products shipped through wholesalers, independ-
ent export houses, etc., and by small manufacturers.
The exports shown in this table are In f.o.b, plant values. The total value at port is
estimated at $16,898,000,000, and exceeds the 1960 Census Bureau's totals for manu-
factured foodstuffs, semimanufactures and finished manufactures by some $800,000,000.
Figures given hero include exports to Puerto Rico, bunker sales of fuel to foreign vessels
The value of the Midwest's manufactured
exports was $5,446 million in 1960; the value
of manufactured exports shipped via the
Great Lakes ports was $327 million in 1961.
Great Lakes ports, in other words, shipped
about 6 percent of the exports produced in
the Great Lakes area. By contrast, the ports
on the Delaware River (primarily Philadel-
phia) shipped. $301 million worth of man-
ufactured exports in 1960, while its hinter-
land of Pennsylvania, Delaware, and half
of New Jersey produced $1,668 million worth
of such exports. Philadelphia's share was
about 18 percent, three times that of the
Great Lakes ports.
This comparison, striking as it is, under-
states the situation; it is surely too favor-
able to the Great Lakes. On the one hand,
Philadelphia is about halfway between the
two major general cargo ports of the east
coast (and of the Nation), New York, and
Baltimore. Its cost advantages in its as-
sumed hinterland are likely to be very small.
Further, the western part of Pennsylvania,
including Pittsburgh, is in fact in the hin-
terland of the Great Lakes ports; Pittsburgh
itself lies in the hinterland of Cleveland.
Including this heavy-industry area in the
Philadelphia hinterland drastically overesti-
mates that port's potential exports.
On the other hand, the Great Lakes ports'
hinterlands are understated in the above
enumeration. This is obvious in the case of
Erie, Buffalo, Oswego, and the other Great
Lakes ports in New York and Pennsylvania;
these ports surely draw traffic primarily from
their own States. If we exclude these ports'
$14,900,000 of exports from the estimates,
then about 5.75 percent of the remaining
Great Lakes area's 'export production is
shipped, via Great Lakes parts. But, as
stated above, the Pittsburgh area actually
lies in the Cleveland hinterland, rather than
in that of Erie. Cleveland also is the cheap-
est port of export for nearly all of West
'U.S. Department of Commerce, "Value of
Exports of Manufactured Products, by Re-
gion and State, and by Major Product Group:
1960" (Washington: U.S. Department of
Commerce, Office of Business Economics, Bu-
reau of International Programs, 1962).
important is the relative magnitude, not the
precise figure. For the purpose of this com-
parison, "Midwest" States include Ohio, In-
diana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minne-
sota, Iowa, Missouri, the Dakotas, Kansas,
Nebraska, and Kentucky?
Virginia. The hinterlands of various other
Great Lakes ports include the northern half
of Tennessee, if not more; and much of Col-
orado (including Denver), Wyoming, and
Montana. If we allow for these areas, by
adding the value of manufactured exports
for all of West Virginia and one-half of
Pennsylvania, Tennessee,,Colorado, Wyoming,
and Montana, the total production in the
Great Lakes area is $6,334 million, of which
the area's ports ship about 5.1 percent .s
Whichever hinterland is used in the meas-
urements, the point is the same. There are
several reasons for the predominance of east
coast ports in this country's general cargo
exports. Most obvious is the seasonal nature
' The reasons for choosing this definition
of "Midwest," and for the subsequent modi-
9eations of it, will be given in detail in ch.
6; these States roughly. correspond to the
areas in which the Great Lakes ports have
shipping cost advantages over other ports.
8 As stated in the previous footnote, justifi-
cation for including these areas in the ports'
hinterlands will be given in ch. 6.
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130034-7
N
M
E
W
 Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130034-7
4100 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 3
of shipping via the Great Lakes; the St. vague policy of neutralizing Vietnam, and American officials here made two major
Lawrence Seaway is only open between 8 and while this was not done with the approval or points to rebut a neutralization solution:
9 months of the year. A rough allowance even the prior knowledge of the administra- 1. The war In South Vietnam admittedly Is
of
for this factor can easily be made, how- tion, it is hard to convince anybody In Sal- not going well, and after two changes stability
ever, by assuming that these exports are gon or elsewhere abroad that such a casual government in 3 months, political y
produced at an even flow during the year. relationship exists between the administra- is lacking. But the situation Is by no means
on this basis, at least two-thirds of the area's tion and Its chief spokesman in the Senate. hopeless, and Vietcong capab-lities are still
exports would be ready for shipment during limited. The new Government headed by
the seaway shipping season, or between Mr. Reston concluded his observations Gen. Nguyen Khsnh still has to prove itself.
$3.830 and $4,222 million, according by commenting on- But, on the other hand, it is moving in the
to the 1980 Commerce Department study. THE NEUTRALIST DANGER right direction.
The Great Lakes ports are still shipping only The most dangerous and likely Immediate 2. Neutralization simply is not possible ex-
between 7.5 and 9 percent of this potential prospect is not that the Communists will win cept on Communist terms, which means sur-
traffic. the war in South Vietnam or that the United rendering all southeast Asia tc, Chinese Com-
Rather than enter into a detailed discos- States will carry the war to North Vietnam, muntst domination. Besides, Communist
lion of other factors tending to limit the but that In the atmosphere of rumor. con- North Vietnam has already made it abun-
Great Lakes' shipment of exports, it is con- fusion and intrigue In Sntgon another coup dantly clear that it will not accept neu-
venient to defer consideration of them to d'etat, the third in 100 days. will bring In tralization.
chapter 6, where they will be discussed in a neutralist South Vietnamese Government Mr. Speaker, in addition ,o the adverse
connection with the port of Milwaukee. that will order us out and negotiate a settle- effects which American suggestions of
However, before then, we shall analyze the ment that will leave the Communists free to h Viet-
ports; side of Great Lakes foreign trade. im- take over. neutralization neadamage has has have been had in done South
ere.
ports; and then summarize the total foreign This would be almost as bad for the West
trade of the region. as a military disaster. We could not Impose In Thailand, Governmert officials are
our presence on a South Vietnamese Govern- watching this country carefully to de-
ment that didn't want us, and with U.S. pow- termine whether the will of the United
"NEUTRALISM" MEANS DE PEAT IN er out of Vietnam, the situation would really, States to resist Communist aggression in
SOUTH VIETNAM In the Pre;;tdent's phrase, "go to pot." The Southeast Asia is wavering. Any U.S.
iMr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given Communists would be free to expand In moves toward neutralization in South
southeast Asia almost at will. Vietnam are sure tocause serious reper-
minute and to to revise ise and the extend House his 1for 19- Other newspapermen have made sim- cussions in United States- T hat relations.
minute and
and to include extraneous mat- liar observations. In a story which ap- We cannot give way--or-appear to give
ter.) peared in the Washington Post on Feb- way-before the expansionist policies of
Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, on t'uary 22, Keyes Beech, Chicago Daily Communist China. Instead, we must
February 20, I took the floor of the News Service correspondent, pointed out make our stand in Vietnam, as long as
House to point out the dangers inherent the adverse affect of "neutralist" sugges- the freedom-loving people of that nation
in suggestions that neutralization be con- Lions: ask our assistance in fighting commu-
sidered a solution to the current conflict IFr?m the Chicago Daily News Service, nism.
in South Vietnam. Feb. 22, 19641 Neutralization is no solution; neutrali-
The suggestions had come from North AN:: UED CAUSE IN VIETNAM PERILED By U.S. zation means defeat. Lei. us not allow
INCONSTAN'' 'Y fancy rhetoric or a narrow view of our
Gatulle, . f feromm om some e American newspapers n edeIBy Keyes Beech) national interest blind us to that fact.
Gal
and even from our own legislative halls. SAIGON. February 21-Perhaps the gravest To me our course in Vietnam is clear.
date, my deep con- threat to the anti-Communist cause in South We must stay and assist the South Viet-
On that previous Vietnam and the rest of southeast Asia today namese defeat the Vietcong, no matter
cern was that such expressions from re- is not Communist guns and terrorism but long the fight, no matter what the
spected Americans and American press American inconstancy. how owmitment of resources.
organs would have a debilitating effect This was underlined today by Saigon's re-
on the morale of the South Vietnamese action to Senate Majority Leader MIKE In conclusion. I wish to commend the
people, and thereby adversely affect the MANSEIF.I,o's apparent acceptance of French attention of my colleagues to an article
war effort. President de Gaulle's premise that the war which appeared in the Washington Post
here cannot be won and the only solution is last Sunday written by Zbigniew Brze-
Mr. Speaker, I fear that my worst to neutralize all southeast Asia. zinski, noted expert on communism. Dr.
fears have, indeed, been realized. MANSFIELD'S statement strengthened a zlnsk Brzezinski presents cogent arguments on
Recent news reports from South Viet- growing body of opinion among Vietnamese how and why neutralization of South
nam have emphasized the concern and and Americans here that the United States
consternation which have greeted calls Is sick of this war and is looking for a way Vietnam would be a U.S defeat and a
out. handover to Peiping:
for neutralization emanating from the Cmeisily there was no reaction. Privately "NEUTRAL" VIETNAM A CHINESE BACKYARD:
United States. and unofficially. reaction ran the gamut of NOTED STUDENT OF COMMUNISM SAYS DE
In a story to the New York Times, cliches from shock to dismay t0 anger. GAULLE SUGGESTION WOULD BE U.S. DEFEAT
which appeared Monday, Correspondent "Of course it wasn't the Senator's Inters- AND HANDOVER TO PEIPING
Peter Grose reported: thin to give aid and comfort to the Commu- By Zbigniew Brzezinski)
What Premier Khsnh and members of his nists and undermine Vietnamese and Amerl- President de Gaulle's recent press confer-
Government seem to regard as their most can morale," said a top American official. ence has had at least one benefit: it has
"But that's exactly what he did. And he
pass ing danger is the Impatience and des- couldn't have done a better job If his speech forced us to rethink our pargoses and our
pair among Americans and that this could had been written In Hanoi." methods in southeast Asia. Now we have to
lead to a withdrawal of the large-scale mill- Over a beer in the Bar Chntra, an Amert- decide whether we are going to pull out of
tary aid that has supported the country's an- can helicopter pilot with a Purple Heart was South Vietnam or whether we will reaffirm
ti-Communist war effort for over 2 years. heard to say, "It we are going to throw In the our determination to stay.
Tr the same story, Grose also stated towel. then I'd just as soon go home now Should we levied to get out, we may choose
instead of next month." to neutralize South Vietnam as a transitional
that: That MANSFIELD was expressing his per- face-saving device. It is hard to believe that
Statements favoring a neutral solution In sonal views rather than speaking for the a political realist like General do Gaulle had
Vietnam made by influential Americans. In- Johnson administration was a distinction any other purpose in suggesting It except to
cluding Senator MIKE MANSFIELD. have con- that most Vietnamese and Americans failed extricate the United States from a region
tributed to demoralization here that dip- to draw which, as he has stated, he considers to be
lomats are looking to Mr. McNamara to This was especially so in view of MANS- primarily a responsibility of China.
disp'~f. Fizi.D's position as Senate majority leader Indeed. I strongly suspec, that De Gaulle
III Sunday's New York Times, Col- and the background knowledge of this area has concluded that the United States is
umnist James Reston, in an article en- that he has acquired through frequent visits. neither capable nor has the will to stay in
titled "The Blabbermouth Approach to There was even a suspicion that he was southeast Asia. In keeping with his geo-
speaking with White House sanction when political concepts, Involving a demarcated
Vietnam" had this to say : lie quoted President Johnson's comment on world dominated by several major powers, he
Meanwhile, the majority leader in the De Gaulle's neutralization proposal: "If we feels that to stabilize the situation In
Senate, MIKE MANSFIELD, of Montana, seems could have neutralization of both North Viet- southeast Asia, the area must be handed
to have been siding publicly with President nam and South Vietnam I am sure that over to the Chines Neutralization- is a
de Gaulle of France on negotiation of some- would be considered sympathetically." gracious Y doing th
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130034-7
 19.64 `0 Approved For R as2005/02/1N0 AL ERDP66B0 HOUSE 200130034-7
DISARMING APPROACH
His approach bears a striking resemblance
to his handling of the Algerian problem.
Knowing full well that neither the French
people nor the French army would swallow
a flat statement to the effect that France
must abandon Algeria, De Gaulle success-
fully obfuscated the issue by a number of
misleading pronouncements while steadily
edging toward the Evian agreement.
His suggestion that the United States agree
to the neutralization of southeast Asia is
very much on the same order. He realizes
that a flat proposal that the United States
disavow its previous commitments would
create a furor in America and would not
further his objectives. "Neutralization"
sounds more acceptable.
Conceivably, he takes neutralization seri-
ously. In that case, he is unrealistic. It
can be flatly stated that neutralization of
southeast Asia is not a politically viable
alternative. In our age, the only successful
cases of neutralization involve Finland,
Austria, and Yugoslavia. In all cases, the
country neutralized rested between two
major and cohesive power blocs.
INTERNALLY VIABLE
Each side realized that a move against the
neutrality of the states concerned would
precipitate countermoves from the other
side. Furthermore, both in the Austrian and
in the Finnish cases, domestic Communist
subversion-'had been suppressed by the gov-
ernments concerned. Hence there was in-
ternal political viability of the sort that
does not exist in South Vietnam,or, for that
matter, elsewhere in southeast Asia. -
Yugoslavia became neutral after having
been expelled from the Communist camp.
Its new neutrality was successfully main-
tained with American aid and came to be
stabilized precisely because on the one hand
Yugoslavia was faced by a homogeneous
Stalinist bloc and on the other, in Italy and
Greece, by NATO. Furthermore, Tito was
in charge of a united Communist state. He
did not have a "South Yugoslavia" to con-
quer, like He Chi-minh.
Last but not least, these states were
neutralized not as a result of internal Com-
munist pressure and military aggression and
in the wake of repeated American commit-
ments to defend them, which then had to be
disavowed. The very fact of past American
commitments to defend southeast Asia,
which now would have to be disavowed for
the sake' of the so-called neutralization,
would further weaken the conviction of the
parties involved that their neutrality was
protected by the balanced antagonism of two
equally determined blocs.
Neutralization of South Vietnam today,
even if accompanied by a formal neutraliza-
tion of North Vietnam, would be nothing
less than an American defeat. Furthermore,
it would leave southeast Asia without any
countervailing political force to that of
China. In effect, it would transform that
area into a Chinese political backyard.
A ROW OF DOMINOS
As a result it is certain beyond question
that there would be immediate political in-
stability in Thailand, whose northeast is
already exposed to insurgency and whose
politicians are already fearful that American
commitments are not to be trusted. Ma-
laysia, until 2 years ago an area of Commu-
nist insurgency, would be certain to fall, and
the collapse of these states would have a
direct impact on the present insurgency in
Burma.
The collapse of the small southeast Asian
states would not only benefit China politi-
cally and economically but it would be likely
to have further unsettling effects on India
and Indonesia. One cannot predict pre-
cisely what would happen-but it is clear
that stability is not to be sought through
neutralization.
The thesis that the area is doomed in-
evitably to come under Chinese domina-
tion simply ignores India, in whose stability
the West has an interest. It bears a striking
resemblance to the argument made often in
the late 1940's to the effect that Europe
could not be mantained against the powerful
Russia. Just as the aggressors have been
contained in Europe and countervailing
forces have been developed, so in Asia the
Chinese should and can be contained,
thereby giving a breathing spell to the
emerging and developing nations.
ANTI-RUSSIAN POLICY
There is a further dimension to all this.
The rapid expansion of Chinese influence,
achieved primarily because in southeast Asia
China did persist in revolutionary war of the
sort which the Soviets had considered dan-
gerous, would immeasurably increase Chinese
prestige withinin international communism
and place the Soviet leadership under enor-
mous pressure.
In fact, through failure to respond we
would be cooperating in an international
refutation of the Soviet foreign policy. The
Soviet leadersihp, I believe, would be tempted
to emulate the Chinese example, since other-
wise the international Communist movement
would be likely to follow the Chinese lead.
The effect of the policy of neutralization
would be an escalation of international
tensions.
One may also add that the loss of South
Vietnam would be likely to have a very
negative impact on the American domestic
scene. It would reawaken extreme right-
wing claims that there has been a new
betrayal, and it could result in a new wave
of extremism in 2 or 3 years from now.
A TRIBUTE TO THE AMERICAN
LEGION
(Mr. BURKE asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1
minute 'and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BURKE. Mr. Speaker, the fourth
annual American Legion Washington
National Conference is being held this
week. National Commander of the
Legion, Daniel F. Foley, will direct the
executive sessions of the 1,200 top legion-
naires from 54 American Legion depart-
ments. Mr. Foley from Wabasha,
Minn., is the brother of Eugene Foley,
Administrator of the Small Business
Administration, and the Honorable John
Foley, formerly a Member of Congress
from Maryland. Mr. Foley is to be com-
mended for the excellent work he has
performed in his present capacity and
as a tribute to this performance, he is to
be awarded the "Lantern Award" on
April 19, 1964, at the Statler-Hilton
Hotel in Boston, Mass. This award
which has national significance is made
annually by the Knights of Columbus,
and is given to one who has made an
outstanding patriotic contribution in his
particular field of endeavor. This will
be the eighth annual award and each
year a different occupational field is
selected. Past recipients include Rich-
ard Cardinal Cushing, House Speaker
John W. McCormack, Attorney General
Robert F. Kennedy, and J. Edgar
Hoover.
In attendance at this conference is
Thomas E. Abely, present Commander
of the American Legion, Department of
Massachusetts. Mr. Abely, a constit-
uent of mine from Canton, Mass., was
4101
elected at the June 1963 convention at
Quincy, Mass. His administration has
been featured by a highly successful
seminar at Boston College in Legion
affairs, the establishment of the first
department newspaper and a memorial
mass for our late, beloved President
John F. Kennedy at the Cathedral of
the Holy Cross in Boston during Decem-
ber 1963. Commander Abely, a native
of Winthrop, Mass., was a military intel-
ligence operative in the U.S. Army from
1943 to 1945. He is a graduate of
Northeastern University, an employee of
Dun & Bradstreet in Boston and has
made his home in Canton since 1941.
He was responsible for the. success of the
annual dinner for National Commander
Daniel F. Foley ' held on February 29,
1964, at the Statler-Hilton Hotel in
Boston.
In line with the conference this week
and being a Legionnaire, I would like to
pay tribute to the American Legion.
It is safe to say, I think, that the
American Legion and the American way
of life are closely tied, in many vital re-
spects. None more so, however, than the
extent to which both are inextricably
tied to the fate, the future, and the
progress of democracy, itself.
We Americans have a great deal to
take pride in and a great deal to be
thankful for, so far as democracy is con-
cerned. Through hard work, persever-
ence and native intelligence, we-that is
to say, our ancestors-established a re-
markable Nation on this continent, ca-
pable of surpassing all others in the
fields of commerce, industrial produc-
tion, and technological skills. In all
this, we have every right to pride. We
must, however, give additional credit to
sources other than ourselves. For we
have, in fact, been blessed with the
greatest of luck, in the history of our
political development.
In the first place, there has never been
a case in which our political leaders have
sold us down the river, for the sake of
personal gain. That has been the fate
of many republics-not ours, however.
Nor has our military leadership ever, in
our history, moved to take control of
the country. That is another way in
which democratic-republican govern-
ment has been killed off, time and again,
in other lands. Yet we, thank heaven,
have been spared that calamity.
One of the reasons for our good for-
tune in these regards, I believe, is that
our Armed Forces have been so closely
identified with the people, themselves.
That is to say, there always has been,
in our civilian population, a large con-
tingent of military veterans with the
power to influence governmental policy.
Not professional soldiers, but civilians
with military experience, they therefore
can understand military needs without
distrusting democratic institutions.
This body of Americans, far from threat-
ening the democratic fabric of American
life, have bolstered it, in every respect,
throughout the span of our national
existence.
It is therefore an additional blessing,
from the national point of view, that
American veterans have seen fit to or-
ganize, the better to serve their interests
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130034-7
 Approved Cow leaseOhOAL R ~:+ORD RDF gp403R000200130034-7 y._,L 3
and the interests of the Nation,
combined.
As the largest of veterans organiza-
tions, the American Legion has taken
the lead in this regard, and in so doing
has won for itself a place of high stand-
ing in the eyes of the American people
and all other people of good will familiar
with its undertakings.
The history of the American Legion,
from the time of its formation, in Paris,
in the year 1919, through 45 years of
peace and war, has been one of devotion
to God and country. In the minds of
those who founded the organization,
were a number of ideals, uppermost of
which were these:
First. Creation of a fraternity based
upon firm comradeship born of war serv-
ice and dedicated to a square deal for
all veterans, particularly the disabled,
their widows and orphans.
Second. National security for Amer-
ica. including a universal military train-
ing program for the prevention of future
world conflicts.
Third. Promotion of a 100-percent
Americanism and the combating of
communism. nazism, fascism, socialism,
and all other foreign isms.
Yes, those were the prime goals, the
first objectives; and yet, with the pas-
sage of time, many more purposes came
to mind and many more avenues of serv-
ice opened up before the eyes of the for-
ward-looking American Legion leader-
ship. Concern for the national econ-
omy; concern for child welfare, the over-
all leis islative program of Congress, and
so on: all became issues In which the
American Legion took a strong and vital
interest.
As a result, the Legion has come to
stand as a strong and able adviser and
consultant for all persons interested in
promoting the national welfare.
With the great expansion of member-
ship that followed the close of World War
II, and the further increase as a result of
opening its ranks to honorably dis-
charged veterans who served during the
Korean conflict, the American Legion
looks forward to continuous useful-con-
tribution to American life. It will con-
tinue to shape Its plans and adhere to
the principles set forth in the Preamble
to the National Constitution to the end
that the American Legion always may be
rightfully referred to as, "The best in-
surance policy a country ever had."
NEED FOR COMPETITIVE BIDDING
ON NAVY PROCUREMENT
(Mr. WILSON of Indiana asked and
was given permission to address the
House for 1 minute and to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. WILSON of Indiana. Mr.
Speaker, the prices paid for a Navy
rocket launcher and power supply
dropped to one-third the former price
when competitive bidding was recently
forced. As a matter of fact, the former
noncompetitive price of about $6,500
went all the way down to $1,993 when the
Navy was forced to scrap a sole source
procurement and get competition.
This sole source cancellation came
just 8 days after my first formal inquiry
into the case-and about 7 weeks after
I first heard about the case from a source
inside the Navy Department.
My Navy informant first alerted me
to this impending waste of tax money in
early June 1963. There was, he said,
underway in the Navy Department
Bureau of Weapons a purchase of a
rocket launcher identified by the tech-
nical nomenclature of LAU-7 and a
power supply to activate it known as the
PP-2315.
Past history showed this equipment to
have been developed by two manufac-
turers, I was told. Douglas Aircraft Co.
developed the launcher and produced
it, without competitive bidding, at a cost
of about $4,500 each. The Benrus Watch
Co. developed and produced the power
supply -at a cost of about $2,000 each.
The development was paid for by the
Government.
Now, this naval employee told me,
there was another procurement on the
rails and ready to roll. But, he said,
there was no need for a sole source pro-
curement. The Government had bought
and paid for plans and specifications.
There was no great urgency, and it was
felt the price would drop dramatically if
competitive bidding were allowed.
I only wish I could tell the Members
of the House the name of the individual
who came to -me with information de-
signed to save the taxpayers money. I
cannot, since this person was guaran-
teed anonymity by me.
I could not even tell the Navy the
identity because, as shall now be shown,
an attempt was made to cooperate with
the Navy when such information
reached me in the past to no avail.
On November 14, 1963. I received a
letter from Rear Adm. Charles Curtze,
then Acting Chief of the Bureau of
Ships. It referred to information I re-
quested--a request, Incidentally, that
stemmed from inside information re-
ceived from the Navy Department.
Admiral Curtze's letter said, In part,
and I quote:
It is surprising to me that such tentative
planning information, which, to the best of
my knowledge has not been announced,
should be known outside the Navy Depart-
ment.
I was impressed by Admiral Curtze's
letter and felt perhaps we could work
together to clean up some of the pro-
curement abuses in the Navy. What
better course could there be than to work
together with the head of a bureau? In
that spirit. I wrote Admiral Curtze the
following letter on November 15, 1963:
DEAR ADMIRAL CURTZE: Thank you for your
letter of November 14, 1963. and for the in-
furrnation transmitted on the AN{8QS 26
sonar equipment. I am at present studying
this documentation, and it appears to me to
be a very intriguing case.
I was particularly Impressed by the last
sentence in -your letter. I think It you sat
here on Capitol Hill, you would be appalled
more than surprised at what is going on in
your command. Admiral Curtze, I do not
seek out this information; It seeks me out.
Dedicated Navy employees, who apparently
are fed up with what goes on in some of
your procurement sections and who cannot
stomach any more, call me on the telephone
daily. They tell me to "look bore" and
"look there." Truly, If I followed up every
lead, neither your office nor mine would get
anything else done.
When these calls come to my attention, I
am always careful to point out to the caller
that the Navy has administrative remedies
for grievances and agencies tc. handle com-
plaints of sloppy, inefficient work. The re-
sponses I get, I am sure, would shock you,
although they have long since failed to
shock me. They do, however, add to a grow-
ing disgust with some of the purchasing
policies of the Navy.
My study of procurement was started over
2 years ago. Frankly, I had ro Idea of just
how far it would go. I fully expected to
find out that the Navy, Army, and Air Force
were efficient, orderly and fry gal in buying
goods for our military defense. My disap-
pointment has been doubled by what I have
consistently uncovered.
To demonstrate my willingness to cooper-
ate at all levels in order to get a more
efficient, less costly procurement system, I
stand ready to telephone your office the next
time I get a complaint from a Navy Depart-
ment employee. I shall tell you the name of
the complainant and the nature of the com-
plaint, but only If:
1. My communication will he regarded by
you as totally confidential.
2. I am permitted to sit in on every single
meeting with this individual.
3. I am permitted to interrogate those who
are involved in the complaint.
4. All answers and questions are taken
down In writing so that everyone-including
you and me-will be on the record.
5. The identity of this individual will be
protected, and this individual will be pro-
tected from reprisals or retaliatory action In
the future.
6. The case is prosecuted vigorously and
those In the wrong-if they are, Indeed,
proved to be so--are given their just deserts.
Very truly yours,
EARL WILSON,
Member of Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I do not feel my request
was unusual. I simply wanted to guar-
antee the immunity of any N%vy em-
ployees who, in a genuine desire to be
helpful, came to me with information on
procurement abuses.
Some of my conditions were highly
negotiable. In short, I was trying to
be helpful and find an avenue of mutual
accord down which the Navy could pro-
ceed with me to uncover a few polecats
in the woodpile.
On December 17, 1963, I received an
answer to my letter, this from Rear Adm.
W. A. Brockett, Chief of the Bureau of
Ships. I ask unanimous consent to in-
sert his letter at this point:
MY DEAR MR. WILSON: In your letter of
November 15. 1963. to Rear Adm. Charles A.
Curtze. you offered to tell "the name of the
complainant and the nature of the com-
plaint," the next time you "get a complaint
from a Navy Department employee." Your
offer was subject to several conditions which
do not appear feasible to me and which I
cannot accept.
I am, of course, interested in learning of
any improper practice v,ithir, the Bureau of
-Ships. since as Chief of Bureau, I am re-
sponsible for the Bureau's operation. In the
event you advise me of a complaint, even
though anonymous, as to improper practice
within the Bureau of Ships, I will certainly
have such complaint investigated, with a
view toward corrective action.
Sincerely yours,
W. A. BaocKrrr.
It should be apparent by now that it is
next to impossible for me to disclose my
sources. Without protection they would
Approved For Release 2005/02/10 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000200130034-7