THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 40
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 6, 2003
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: July 22, 1965
• Content Type: OPEN

 ?17326 Approved For R TA f 4 Lc$1 Z)7-BOMtWO300180001-9July 22, 1985
"I realized, when she told, me, that, the
phone company doesn't have 10 repairmen.
And I hadn't called them. The phone com-
pany hadn't sent them," he recalls.
He explains it later turned out they were
Vietcong who, entered the compound, past
four guard houses, just to see what they
could get away with. .
They also drove a truck loaded with dy-
namite into an airbase and blew it up, he
says.
"Seven members of the base security guard
were in on that,
"We have no secrets over there. The Viet-
cong are everywhere. We might as well die-
tribute the proceedings of our top-secret
conferences in pamphlet form," Dr. Smith
says.
Americans in the United States have some
big misunderstandings on what's going on
in South Vietnam, he believes
"The conflict between the Buddhists and
the Catholics is not a religious conflict like
most people think. Here's the real back-
ground. Most of the Catholics, at least this
is my impression, are still more Buddhists
than anything else. Their Catholicism is
a veneer.
"`And most of the Catholics in South
Vietnam," Dr, Smith says, "are from North
Vietnam. They are refugees the Navy shipped
down there after the country was divided by
the. 1954 Geneva agreement.., Even former
President Diem and all hiscabinet were from
North Vietnam."
He says, "The first thing the South Viet-
namese knew, the North Vietnamese were
running the country. It was very disturbing
to them. The South Vietnamese are peas-
ants and farmers. The North Vietnamese
are more personally aggressive."
Dr. Smith also believes Americans have
the wrong idea of the attitude of the South
Vietnamese toward the war effort.
He reports that few of them seem to care
who rules them "because the concept of
loyalty to a government is nonexistent."
"Never in 10 years have we ever gotten
any of our aid down to the peasants," he
charges.
"We have been shipping surplus foods over
there; but the peasants don't get it. My
family paid good money in stores to buy cans
of food which'were labeled 'Donated to the
people of South Vietnam by the people of the
United States of America: Not to be sold,'."
"The South Vietnamese, he says, "don't
know which side to be on."
"We're trying to jam our good will down
their throats and they don't like it. Their
attitude is, `You can give us your money but
don't tell us how to spend it. And if you
take it away we can get it somewhere else',"
he, says.
'.`The Vietnamese can drive us, crazy," he
says. "We try to be so polite to them and
try. to advise them of what to-do-respecting
the sovereignty of their country-and they
=21 s and think it's a sign of weakness.
they're likely to go and do just
the. opposite of what we advised."
Dr. Smith says the South Vietnamese don't
understand the democratic processes at all.
"The only way we could handle them-and
I'm not advocating this-is to boss them
around the way the Communists do," he says,
"As for the war itself," he says, "It's been
getting worse day .by day but the American
officials are trying to put it in a good light.
They said once, 'The attacks are more fre-
quent but seem to be getting less effective.' "
He adds that the "big, ; tough United
States" lost whatever prest or
a "face" it
once had in, Vietnam when't. let its people
be, bombed and murdered without retaliating.
"We should have started the bombing 3
years ago," Dr. Smith believes.
He says the whole confusir g Vietnam sit-
uation has a sort of Alice in Wonderland at-
mosphere and it is "hopeless" to think of the
United States ever coming out on top.
TO EQUALIZE TAXATION ON RE-
DEMPTION OF PREFERRED STOCK
(Mr. CURTIS (at the request of Mr.
HALL) was granted permission to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD
and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, I have
today introduced an amendment to sec-
tion 302(b) of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954 dealing with the income tax
treatment of the proceeds received in
the redemption of preferred stock. To
the extent that the proceeds do not ex-
ceed the amount paid in to the corpora-
tion on the issuance of such stock, the
amendment provides that these proceeds
shall be treated as a distribution in part
or full payment in exchange for the stock
and not as a dividend.
My amendment to the Internal Rev-
enue Code is made necessary because of
the distinction now made between the
proceeds'of preferred stock in differing
situations. Under the present law, in
certain cases, redemption of preferred
stock is treated for tax purposes as return
on capital, while in others this redemp-
tion on the same stock Is treated as divi-
dends and taxed accordingly. This dis-
tinction is based only upon whether the
owner of preferred stock owns in addi-
tion a substantially proportionate ratio
of common stock. If he does, the pro-
ceeds on the preferred stock are treated
as dividends for tax purposes, while if
he does not, these same proceeds are
treated as return on capital. My amend-
ment would remove this arbitrary dis-
tinction and permit proceeds on pre-
ferred stock, insofar as it represents
capital invested in money or goods, to
be treated as a return of capital.
Preferred stock is in reality a cross
between common stock and bonds.
However, the same reasoning which un-
derlies the present distinction among
owners of preferred stock and common
stock does not apply to holders of both
bonds and the common stock, so long
as the bonds represent true indebtedness
and the equity capital is sufficient for
the needs of the corporation.
The present taxation of the income
derived from the redemption of preferred
stock as dividend income turns some
corporations, especially closely held fam-
ily corporations, to debt financing rather
than equity financing when further in-
vestment is needed. A change in the
system of taxation of the redemption
proceeds of paid-for preferred stock
would have the beneficial effect of mak-
ing equity financing more attractive to
the corporation and, in the long run,
produce greater tax revenues.
The taxation of capital return as dis-
tinguished from interest or dividends
paid on that capital is contrary to our
Constitution. This amendment would
assure proper tax treatment for the re-
demption of all preferred stock.
LATEST BATTLE OF BUREAUCRACY
AGAINST RURAL AMERICA COMES
FROM THE POST OFFICE DEPART-
MENT
(Mr. LANGEN (at the request of Mr.
HALL) was granted permission to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD
and to include extraneous matter.)
M. LANGEN. Mr. Speaker, the
latest battle of bureaucracy against rural
America comes from the Post Office De-
partment. Recent arbitrary decisions
by the Department prove conclusievely
that this so-called servant of the people
has turned on rural America with a ver;-
geance and now threatens the very foun-
dation of our national strength.
The Department claims that plans to
terminate mail hauling and handling
contracts with railroads operating in
Minnesota and transfer such service to
trucks on star routes are being carried
out to provide better service at lower
cost. I say they have jammed an un-
workable plan down the throats of the
public and that actually it is a drastic
reduction of service" that threatens to
cost rural communities their economic
lives.
The people of Minnesota have pro-
tested by the hundreds, businessman
from small towns and metropolitan areas
alike have expressed alarm, and the local
and State governments are on record
against this move. But the thinkers in
Washington have turned a deaf ear on
their pleas.
The Post Office Department officials
conducted a public meeting on the sub-
ject on June 24 at Thief River Falls,
Minn, This meeting was held just 6 days
before the new plan went Into effect, and
it was obvious that the Post Office De-
partment officials arrived with a closed
mind, disregarding the wishes of the
public.
Under the new star route system,
towns in northwestern Minnesota will
receive their incoming mail later in the
morning, will be forced to post outgoing
mail as early as midafternoon and will
lose Sunday and holiday service.
A typical example is noted in one com-
munity near the Canadian border. This
town used to have dependable 7-day-a-
week service with mail in their post office
boxes by 8:30 in the morning. Five years
ago, they had their service upgraded
through the use of the star system so the
arrival time of mail varied by as much
as 5 hours. Two years ago they lost the
Sunday delivery, so their Sunday papers
now come on Monday. Now, with the
new July 1 overall plan for Minnesota
their mail arrives at 9:30 or later in the
morning and they have to post outgoing
mail by 3:15 in the afternoon, a period
of less than 6 hours. I would hardly
call this progress. Now the State is ex-
tending this program of reduced service
to the whole State.
The regional postal director's report to
Washington actually admitted there
would be at least a slight impairment
of service to post offices north of Thief
River Falls, Minn. That report gave us
a big clue as to Departmental thinking
when it said:
In general these offices are in the $2,000 or
less per annum class, so a relatively small
number of patrons will be affected by the
later receipt (of mail).
Apparently the Post Office Department
considers residents in sparsely populated
areas as second-class citizens who do not
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 .July 22, 1965 Approved F~egfNX(J1JEFP6?R000300180001-9
tice Goldberg, the United States has put for-
ward a man of national stature and immense
ability, whose particular talents could prove
of major service not only to the United States
but to the U.N. as well.
[From the New York (N.Y.) Journal-Ameri-
can, July 21, 1965]
GOOD CHOICE
In naming Supreme Court Justice Arthur
J. Goldberg the new U.S. Ambassador to the
U.N., President Johnson has picked one of
the most skilled and patient negotiators in
the country.
Many will be surprised at the appointment
because Justice Goldberg is mostly thought
of as a lawyer and not for his prowess on the
international scene.
However, Mr. Goldberg has a brilliant mind
and is a good speaker (a must for the U.N.
job), so we believe him adequately equipped
to talk to the Communists.
In taking the ambassadorship, Mr. Gold-
berg suffers a salary cut from $39,500 to
$30,000 a year.
Surely a strong sense of patriotism must
motivate him to give up a lifetime job with
all the dignity that goes with it to take over
an assignment at the U.N. which will be. full
of harassment. There is, however, no wor-
thier cause than peace.
We wish him well in his new, and: very
trying post.
[From the New York (N.Y.) Journal-Amert-
can, July 20, 1965]
HAIL L.B.J.'s CHOICE AS PROOF HE WON'T
DOWNGRADE U.N.
(By Pierre J. Huss)
UNITED NATIONS, July 20.-Supreme Court
Justice Arthur J. Goldberg's appointment to-
day as the new U.S. Ambassador to the
United Nations immediately ruled out preva-
lent fears here that President Johnson would
downgrade the U.N.
First reaction was that hardly anyone in
the United States has had more rich experi-
ence in tough negotiation with "the other
side" than Justice Goldberg, who has dealt
with knotty labor relations for more than
30 years.
Justice Goldberg's first words in accepting
the U.N, post-"grant us peace"-were seized
upon as the probable keynote of his coming
activities in the cold war arena at global
headquarters.
Although he is far less known abroad
that was his predecessor, Adlal Stevenson, it
is felt here that his long-demonstrated sense
of fairplay and justice will help him at the
U.N. to overcome the first obstacles and en-
able him to bring his experience to good use
in the international field.
Justice Goldberg's appointment was an-
nounced as members of the Security Council
convened to discuss the Dominican situa-
tion, paid tribute to Mr. Stevenson, Deputy
Soviet Ambassador Platon Morozov opened
the session by calling for a minute of silence
in Mr, Stevenson's memory. It was the first
Soviet tribute to Mr. Stevenson here since
his death.
A quick canvassing of U.N. diplomats
pointed to a general welcoming for Justice
Goldberg, although the Arab countries may
hold certain reservations because he is Jew-
ish.
Sources close to Ambassador Stevenson re-
called that in recent months he had privately
hinted about retirement and had stressed
seemingly at random his close friendship
with Justice Goldberg.
One of the first tasks for Justice Goldberg
will be to tackle the paramount issue of
financial bankruptcy facing the world orga-
uization.
Amabassador Stevenson had his heart set
on solving that problem, which paralyzed
the 19th session of the General Assembly, be-
fore the 20th session began in September.
Justice Goldberg will have to acquaint
himself in the first week at the U.N. with
the backlog of behind-the-scenes maneuvers
and negotiations underway between East
and West on finding a solution to the debt
crisis.
The crisis arose because of the refusal of
the Soviet Union, France, and other nations
to contribute to the cost of peacekeeping
operations in the Middle East and the Congo.
The debt now stands at about $90 million.
KUDOS.FOR THE PEACE CORPS
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, public
support for the Peace Corps continues to
be very pronounced throughout the
country. Representative of this support
is the excellent editorial which appeared
in the Idaho Falls Post-Register on July
8. This newspaper, which is one of the
largest in my State, is published by Ed-
win F. McDermott and edited by Robb
Brady. The editorial comments on the
New York University study which shows
the good will built up by the Peace Corps
among the people of Colombia. As
noted in the editorial:
If the Colombia survey is typical of re-
actions in other places in the world where
the Peace Corps is at work, this face-to-face,
shoulder-to-shoulder program may prove to
be the best foreign investment (some $179
million in the past 4 year) this country has
ever made.
The dividends in international peace,
progress, and understanding could keep com-
ing in for generations.
I ask unanimous consent to have this
editorial printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
KUDOS FOR CORPS
The image of the "ugly American" is un-
dergoing a facelift in at least one country.
An investigation by New York University
of the Impact of the Peace Corps on the
people of Colombia shows a rise in pro-
American sentiment. The organization has
been in this South American nation since
the fall of 1961, when 60 volunteers arrived
to launch the corps' first rural community
development program.
The survey, the first to be made using
modern polling techniques, was conducted
by Dr. Morris I. Stein, professor of psychology
at NYU.
"The results show," he says, "that the
volunteers had a positive effect on the peo-
ple's lives by helping Colombians improve
conditions in their communities through
such things as sanitation projects and build-
ing schools and roads."
Ninety-two percent of the Colombians had
favorable attitudes toward the United States.
The most frequently given reason was sim-
ply that the United States "helps."
If the Colombia survey is typical of reac-
tions in other places in the world where the
Peace Corps is at work, this face-to-face,
shoulder-to-shoulder program may prove to
be the best foreign investment (some $179
million in the past 4 years) this country has
ever made.
The dividends in international peace,
progress, and understanding could keep com-
17259
DEATH OF NEIL J. CURRY, FORMER
PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN
TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS
Mr. MAGNUSON. Mr. President, this
is a sad week for transportation, for the
country, and for the close friends of Neil
J. Curry. His sudden passing on Tues-
day morning has left those of us who
have known him with a sense of shock
and with an unfillable void in our hearts.
He was not a great man because he was
an American but rather was the type of
man who made America great. His quali-
ties of leadership, loyalty, and his un-
bounding devotion to charity and the
causr' of others were his hallmarks.
Whether in business, sports, or on behalf
of his country, he lent not only his con-
siderable talents but his unending ener-
gies to the task at hand. And more than
often these efforts were expended, not in
his own behalf, but for the advancement
of a principle in which he believed or a
cause which needed leadership.
Neil Curry's first love was the trucking
industry. He entered the trucking busi-
ness in 1942 and a short while later
formed his own company, California
Cartage Co. With the dedication he ap-
plied to all his undertakings, he rose
rapidly in trucking affairs in his home
State of California. He became a direc-
tor and member of the executive com-
mittee and president of the California
Trucking- Association. His driving spirit
soon led him to leadership on the na-
tional trucking scene. In 1954 he was
elected president of the American Truck-
Ing Associations and the following year
he was named chairman of the board of
directors of the national trade associa-
tion. But achievement of high position
was not his goal. His primary interest
was in the betterment of the trucking
industry and the advancement of trans-
portation generally. As a tribute to his
dedication and contribution, they named
him chairman pro tem of the ATA execu-
tive committee, a position he held until
his untimely death.
While he was, as he once described
himself, "first of all a trucker," he also
lent his talents to the whole of trans-
portation. He served on the Senate ad-
visory committee studying transport
problems; the late President Kennedy
named him to be a member of the Presi-
dent's Committee on Traffic Safety on
which he remained under President
Johnson; he was a director of the Trans-
portation Association of America, a mem-
ber of the Advisory Committee on
Finance of the National Capital Trans-
portation Agency and many other groups.
His sport was horse racing and even
in this he rose to the top. With his wife,
Connie, he raised thoroughbred horses
and became one of the most renowned
men in the field. In 1959, Governor Ed-
mund G. Brown, appointed Mr. Curry to
be chairman of California's State Horse
Racing Board. In 1963 he was chosen to
be president of the National Association
of State Racing Commissioners and as
recently as last month was heralded as
the "Horseman of the Year" by the
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 17260
Approved For RV8R~41A5i C~~7BOSp6Q0300180001-9
Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective As-
sociation.
It would be difficult to relate the
events in the life of an ordinary man in
these few minutes; it is impossible to re-
view with any thoroughness the many
accomplishments of a great man. His
achievements in business are docu-
mented for all to see but his role as a
benefactor is less obvious. Neil Curry
sought to help his fellow man not for
the glory in it but because he deeply felt
their needs. He contributed generously
of himself and his funds to aid the poor
and the sick and was especially inter-
ested in the welfare of children.
He will be sorely missed by those of us
who had the good fortune to count him
as a close friend. His spirit and memory
will live on as an inspiration to all of
us.
The effect of Neil Curry's life and un-
fortunate death is best summed up by
the warm tribute paid to him by William
A. Bresnahan, managing director of the
American Trucking Associations:
The untimely death of Neil J. Curry is a
body blow to countless friends and col-
leagues throughout the country who will
mourn his passing.
Those who knew him best, loved him most.
He was a man of many talents and a multi-
tude of interests, but first and last he was a
truck man. He enhanced the pride of all
the rest of us in the fact that we, too, are
truck men. He modestly accepted victory as
an expected fruit of effort, and he calmly
faced defeat as a signal for redoubled effort.
Those of us who were privileged to work
at his side, and to share the victories and
defeats, have lost a valiant champion. But
most of all we have lost a dear friend.
He walked with kings and never lost the
common touch. Now he is gone, suddenly
and without warning. He will be sorely
missed, but never forgotten. His great spirit
will remain as an inspiration to all of us who
are left behind to carry on with the work to
which he gave the best years of his life.
For as long as there is a trucking industry,
the men who fight its battles will speak with
reverence of CumC,california.
July 22, 1965
outline as clearly as possible exactly what demonstrate to Hanoi that we are not going
our aims in Vietnam are and what will to be driven out of South Vietnam and
likely be required to achieve them. Only therefore, I am afraid, that added troops
if the American people are as fully in- must be sent into the south where tie
formed as is consistent with guerrilla war does in Pact exist and where
possible, the solution has to be found. Now at tine
national security, can they be expected end of the monsoon season or after this
to support fully our policy in Vietnam buildup takes place perhaps then Hanoi
and southeast' YSfa:" will realize that we are there to be reckoned
with and then perhaps the prospects will
improve for a negotiated settlement.
_
OFD G.~Fi3 CH AND REPRE- ki Mr. SCALI. Congressman FORD, what is your
NAM
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President,
ABC's fine program, "Issues and An-
swers," featured as guests on Sunday,
July 18, House minority leader, Con-
gressman GERALD FORD, and our col-
league, Senator FRANK CHURCH. Sen-
ator CHURCH and Congressman FORD
were interviewed on the crisis in Vietnam
by the distinguished ABC diplomatic
correspondent, Mr. John Scali.
While the two guests took differing
points of view on the challenge posed by
the war in Vietnam, each one presented
his views in an articulate and effective
manner, Certainly, discussions, of this
kind help to sharpen our understanding
of the vital issues at stake in the Viet-
namese struggle.
I ask unanimous consent that the tran-
script of the program be printed at this
point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the tran-
script was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
ISSUES AND ANSWERS, JULY 18, 1965
Guests: Senator FRANK CHURCH, Demo-
crat, of Idaho, and House minority leader,
Representative GERALD FORD, Republican,
of Michigan.
' Interviewed by: John Scali, ABC diplo-
matic correspondent.
The ANNOUNCER. Vietnam, No. 1 issue fac-
ing America today. How will it end, at the
conference table or on the battlefield?
Senator FRANK CHURCH, Democrat, of
Idaho, calls for negotiations. Representa-
tive GERALD FORD, Republican, of Michigan,
demands more bombings.
Are we drifting into world war III over Viet-
nam? Is Congress split into hawks and
doves? Can the President retain bipartisan
backing on Vietnam?
For the answers to the issues, Senator
FRANK CHURCH, Democrat, of Idaho, a mem-
ber of the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, and the House minority leader, Con-
gressman GERALD FORD, of Michigan.
Here to interview Senator CHURCH and
Congressman FORD is ABC diplomatic cor-
respondent, John Scala.
Mr. SCALe, Gentleman, welcome to "Issues
and Answers."
Let's start off by looking ahead a bit.
From all signs, the administration is about
to order tens of thousands of additional
American combat troops into Vietnam.
There is a prospect, I think, that before the
end of the year we will have double the
75,000 Americans who were either in Viet-
nam there now or on the way.
First of all, do you approve of this? Let's
begin with Senator CHURCH.
Senator CHURCH. Well, John, I have al-
ways held to the position that we can't "cut
and run" in southeast Asia. We have com-
mitted American prestige, we have made
commitments that have to be kept. So I
have always supported the position that we
should seek a negotiated peace, but we have
to stay the course in Vietnam.
Now I think we are at that stage in the
war where it will be necessary for us to
Representative FORD. John, I would say
that-the Republicans also agree-the end
result must be negotiation. The problem
is when you should do it and under what
circumstances you should do it.
I think the Congress has a responsibility
to await and receive the recommendations
of Secretary McNamara and the President
himself before making a determination as
to whether or not 100,000 more U.S. forces
are needed in South Vietnam.
The Congress has the responsibility of
asking questions such as: if this additional
100,000 U.S. military personnel are needed
there for the purpose of protecting our bases
and our personnel that are already there,
I am certain, I am positive, that the Con-
gress will give wholehearted endorsement
to the request. But I think the Congress
also has the responsibility to make certr,in
what our long-range plans are.
Does this mean there is to be a change in
the strategy and the tactics? If this means
the increase of 100,000 U.S. military per-
sonnel there, that we have made the deci-
sion to go into a large-scale ground war,
then, I think the Congress better ask some
very pertinent questions of the President and
Secretary McNamara.
Mr. ScALx. Senator CHURCH, do you be-
lieve that the basic American strategy in
Vietnam--at least militarily-should change
to allow American troops to spearhead of-
fensive action instead of relying now on the
South Vietnamese for this and using Amer-
ican troops as an emergency standby and
to guard vital American Installations?
Senator CHURCH, I would be satisfied with
the present strategy, 'John, insofar as :ny
personal view is concerned.
I think we have to realize that this is
a Vietnamese war. It involves different fac-
tions of Vietnamese and the objective of
the war is to determine what the political
structure of Vietnam is to be. Now that
is the kind of war that can only be settled
in any durable, satisfactory sense by she
Vietnamese, themselves. Therefore, I would
hope that we would avoid turning this into
an American war. I was out in Asia during
the second World War as an officer, in India,
Burma, and China, and the one thing I
found all Asians had in common was an
abiding and deep-seated resentment against
the white man, because of the long colonial
experience, and if this war becomes a war
pitting white Western American forces from
the opposite side of the globe against Asians
in Asia, then I think that we will never find
any durable solution. So I hope our strat-
egy will take this into account.
Representative FORD. John, I would like to
add this, and I think it is very, very Impor-
tant: It is true this is a war for the Vf.et-
namese themselves to resolve, and I think
they may have to make a bigger effort, but
there is a factor that too many people don't
realize: there are countries in southeast
Asia-the South Koreans, the Philippines, the
Australians, the New Zealanders and perhaps
others-who have a vital stake in making
certain that Communist aggression in al. of
southeast Asia doesn't overrun them as well
as South Vietnam and I think it is very, fiery
important for the administration to maxi-
mize its effort in seeking to get bigger com-
mitments, stronger forces, more men to fight
VIETNAM
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, we are
all aware that the President and his
advisers are meeting now to consider
carefully all the factors involved in the
war in Vietnam.
Our thoughts and our prayers are with
them. To say that the decisions com-
ing out of these discussions will be far-
reaching understates the case. Vietnam
has assumed an awesome role in the his-
tory of the world. What happens in this
small country will affect the course of
freedom everywhere, in the near future
and beyond.
My only regret about the discussions
now underway is that they were not held
sooner. The basic facts of the situation
have not changed. We are faced with
the same difficult decisions now which
existed months ago.
I am greatly concerned that the seri-
ousness of our position in Vietnam, and
its effect on Our interests at home and
abroad, is not adequately understood by
the public at large. It is my sincere hope
that as a result of these high-level meet-
ings now underway, the President will
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 It iny 22, 1965 Approved Fc~ONRe ~A~SM1VAL11Z E F-~ -SENTE
alongside with the South Vietnamese and
the U.S. forces.
I feel very strongly that the United States
ought to maximize those areas of military
power, In the air and on the sea, and we
ought to let the South Vietnamese and per-
haps the other nations in southeast Asia take
advantage of those areas where they have a
special competence on the ground.
If we combined these two operations. I
am confident that we can convince the
Chinese Communists and the Vietcong that
it is foolhardy, it is too expensive for them
to continue this aggression against South
Vietnam.
Senator CHURCH. John, may I just say in
that respect, I think the President has for
many, many months, been making every
-effort to secure maximum participation on
the part of these other Asian countries. So
this has been a task that certainly has not
gone unattended and we are getting as much
support as these other countries are willing
to give. We can't force them in if they
are not willing to come. I doubt very much,
Jerry, that your proposal, for example, to ex-
tend the bombing in the north and to strike
the missile bases is a sound one. That is
something I think we ought to discuss.
Mr. SCALI. I would like to discuss that but
I am not quite sure, Congressman FORD, how
you come down on the position: should
American troops be used, in the future, to
spearhead offensive operations.
Representative FORD. Well, I am very clear
on that, John. At the present time the U.S.
military policy Is not for the U.S. ground
forces to undertake the so-called spearhead
operation. The President has informed me
personally that this was not our policy. But
there is always a possibility that there will
be a change and that our ground forces that
will be there in substantially greater num-
bers may adopt new strategy and if this Is
a change in strategy then I think the Presi-
dent has a responsibility to talk to the legis-
lature leaders in the Congress and perhaps
to the American people to inform them the
reasons why we have to change our strategy.
And I certainly expect to raise questions. If
we are going to Involve 100,000 200,000
more U.S. Forces on the ground in a jungle,
swamp war, why we haven't maximized our
utilization of our air power and our sea
power.
We are at the present time bombing mili-
tary installations, significant ones in North
Vietnam. I fully approve of that. But, the
question is, certainly in my mind, why don't
we do more, faster. If this is a way in which
we can convince the Vietcong that it is too
costly for them to continue their aggression
on the ground against the South Vietnamese.
Mr. SCALI. Then I gather that both of you
are satisfied with the present strategy on the
ground, which is to rely on the South Viet-
namese to spearhead offensive military opera-
tions and I gather, if there is a change in
this, you would want to discuss it very in-
tensively in Congress?
Senator CHURCH. Let me settle, if I can,
this one point. I think, if there .is to be a
change in strategy, the President will con-
sult fully with the Congress and will take
his message to the American people. He has
always done that in the past and I am sure
he will do it in the future.
(Announcement.)
Mr. SCALI. Congressman FORD,. yclu have
urged and advocated that the United States
bomb the Soviet antiaircraft missile sites in
the Hanoi area on the ground that these
weapons are now a threat to Americans in
Vietnam.
On this program last week Secretary Rusk
was against this on the grounds that these
antiaircraft missiles are not now a threat to
Americans.
What do you say in answer to that?
Representative FORD. These surface-to-air
missile sites that the Soviet Union has con-
structed around the Hanoi area in my judg-
ment are significant military targets and I
am confident that eventually the adminis-
tration will take the view that they must be
destroyed.
I think it is foolhardy for us to see these
missle sites being constructed, made opera-
tional, and we do nothing about It until the
first American aircraft is shot down and we
lose several American pilots in the process.
I would like to go back to what Secretary
Rusk said on this program last week. He
said there are no santuaries in North Viet-
nam, in Red China. He implied no sanctu-
aries anyplace.
Mr. ScArr. That is right.
Representative FORD. In my judgment his
statement goes much, much further than
anything I have said. He has said by im-
plication if not directly, that any target,
civilian or military in North Vietnam or else-
where, is on the list of targets for the U.S.
aircraft and Navy planes. This, I think, is
a much, much further extension of military
strategy and it opens up the possibility, as
far as the Secretary of State is concerned,
that civilian targets might well be bombed.
I'd like to ask Senator CHURCH whether he
agrees with the Secretary, whether there are
no sanctuaries, and does he endorse that
position?
Senator CHURCH. Well, I should say first of
all that warning the North Vietnamese or the
Chinese against stepping up the war and in-
dicating to them that if they do that, they
can't expect that we will then respect cer-
tain sanctuaries, is a very prudent policy and
it is quite different from the recommenda-
tion that we should now strike at the missile
bases.
I would like to talk about that. Those mis-
sile bases are situated around Hanoi. We
know the weapon, we know its range, we
know its purpose: that is to defend Hanoi
against bombing raids.
Now our purpose-up until now-isn't and
has never been to strike at the population
centers of North Vietnam, to inflict tens of
thousands of casualties upon the Vietnam-
ese people. Our purpose in the bombing
has been to interdict the supply routes, the
supply depots, the railroad centers, the
bridges that Hanoi Is using to help supply
the Vietcong In South Vietnam.
I think that the missile sites, as things
now stand, do not interfere with that objec-
tive and therefore I see no military reason
for striking at these missile bases at the
present time.
Now I can see lots of reasons for not doing
it. The foremost one is that if we begin to
bomb close in to the population centers, we
have put the war up another notch. And
when we put the war up another notch,
then the pressure will be on Ho Chi Minh to
do likewise. How is he going to respond?
If he can't respond in the air or on the sea,
he has to respond on the ground, and he has
300,000 well-trained disciplined troops that
have not yet been committed to the war in
Vietnam.
Now what are we going to do, JERRY, when
he sends those troops southward?
Representative FORD. Are you saying we
should wait until the first American aircraft
is shot down by one of these missile systems
before we do anything to destroy them?
Let me just make this point, if I may.
These five surface-to-air missile systems
that are developed around the Hanoi area
are quite distinct from the population center
of the city of Hanoi itself. We, with our
pinpoint bombing, can and have destroyed
military targets that are as significant as
these without touching any of the civilian
population. So it is no excuse for anybody
to say that if you bomb the sites you auto-
matically bomb the city of ilanoi. That is
an untrue statement.
The sites can be picked off and destroyed
without touching a civilian population in
the city of Hanoi.
Senator CHURCH. Well, my point is that
the sites do not presently interfere with the
American bombing mission. It is not at all
clear that any of the sites are even within
range of the targets we intend to strike.
Why, then, further aggravate the situation-
and assume a further risk of retaliation-
by beginning to bomb close in to the pop-
ulation centers in North Vietnam?
If Ho Chi Minh sends his army south, make
no mistake about it, the only thing that will
then save Saigon is an immediate and un-
limited American intervention on the ground
on the scale of the Korean war, and that I
thought, JERRY, was the thing you wanted
to avoid.
Representative FORD. I certainly do, and I
am convinced that if we expedite, if we
intensify our air and sea power in South
Vietnam, we can convince Ho Chi Minh that
it is too costly.
Senator CHURCH. In South Vietnam, yes,
but accelerating and expanding the war in
the north, as you have suggested, by striking
the missile sites will not accomplish that
objective.
Representative FORD. I think it will and I
am furthermore of the opinion that as the
flow of war materiel comes into the ports of
Hyphong and otherwise we ought to take
some steps to prevent this shipping which is
being used to supply Ho Chi Minh and the
Vietcong with tons and tons and tons of war
materiel.
This Is one way to stop his activity. We
can do it on the sea and we can do it in the
air to a greater degree than we have been
doing recently. And my point is that we
must use our military superiority, which is
in the air and on the sea, in order to avoid,
as long as we possibly can, a greater involve-
ment by the United States in a ground war.
Mr. SCALI. Congressman FORD and Sena-
tor CHURCH, what do you think of the argu-
ment that we should avoid bombing these
Soviet antiaircraft missile sites because at
this stage we don't want to kill Russians-
meaning perhaps the Russian technicians
who are installing and who would he manning
these?
Representative FORD. Well it is my judg-
ment, John, that the Soviet Union when it
took the initiative to escalate the war by
sending their personnel, their military and
civilian, that they took a certain risk. And
when they are there and they are building
a military target, a significant military target
in North Vietnam, they undertook a risk
which they certainly know that we couldn't
let go by indefinitely without taking some
military action against them. It just would
be pure folly for us to wait until those
operational missile systems destroy American
aircraft.
Senator CHURCH. I just think that your
very question suggests that this is another
dimension to the risks we take in striking
these missile bases, and since they do not
now interfere with our mission in the north,
I think that the strategy of the President
and his advisers is sound. Under present
circumstances, I think it would only Increase
our risk for general acceleration of the war
and accomplish no military objective, to
begin striking at these missile bases close to
Hanoi.
Mr. SCALI. Congressman FORD, I gather
you think concern over this point should not
be a major factor in our decisions on air
bombings; is that correct?
Representative'FORD. I don't think so be-
cause when the Soviet Union took the initia-
tive, supplying materiel and personnel and
scientists and technicians to install these
military targets, they must have known the
risk. They were the ones that escalated the
war.
Senator CHURCH. I think this is the
chicken-and-the-egg argument. You can
go back to our initiation of the bombings in
the north and each time we take a step
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R 00300180001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22, 1965
then there is going to be a counterstep.
They started the thing a long time ago by
moving into South Vietnam. Then there
have been countersteps. So the acceleration
goes on, on both sides. Now, if you strike the
missile bases that doesn't put an end to the
situation or solve the problem. What is next?
What is the next step: striking Hanoi, bomb-
ing China? Where do you draw the line?
You have to draw it, I think, at a place that
makes sense for the United States of Amer-
ica, and I think that, at this juncture, there
is no military need nor any good advantage
to be gained by striking the missile bases.
Representative FORD. I am sure you will
find there are many, many military people
in the Pentagon, in the administration, who
would violently disagree with your viewpoint
because they feel these missile sites are sig-
nificant military targets and they ought to
be destroyed before they become operational.
Senator CHURCH. They can give their ad-
vice and no doubt have, but the prevailing
opinion has thus far been against them.
Representative FORD. I think the prevail-
ing opinion, however, of the State Depart-
ment hag overridden some of the military
advice in this particular area.
Mr. SCALI. Senator CHURCH, what do you
think of Congressman FORD's suggestion that
perhaps bombing should be accelerated,
more raids against military targets and more
planes and just a faster, all-around
operation?
Senator CHURCH. Well, I have indicated
what I think the risks are. The risks are
that North Vietnam will have to retaliate
on the ground and then we are in the very
kind of mean, widespread jungle war that
all of us hope to avoid. I don't know of
a single war that has ever been won from
the air. It didn't happen in Korea, it didn't
happen in Germany. There hasn't been a
single case where bombing alone has broken
the spirit of resistance, and when an army
begins to march, there never has been an.
instance where that army has been stopped
from the air. The only way we will stop the
North Vietnamese Army, if it begins to
march, is with the introduction of a com-
plete American Army on the ground In
South Vietnam.
Mr. SCALI. Congressman FORD, what do you
say to that?
Representative FORD. I think, your argu-
ment is in contradiction, FRANK, to the phi-
losophy and the program and the policy of
this administration. Because the President
and Secretary McNamara have a schedule of
military bombing, aerial attacks against sig-
nificant military targets, and their whole
program is based on the destruction of these
significant military targets in North Vietnam.
Now you are raising a-
Senator CHURCH. These missile bases don't
fit that category.
Representative FORD. Oh, yes, they are on
the schedule.
Senator CHURCH. In what way do they in-
terfere with the interdiction of the supply
routes to the south, which Is the major rea-
son for our bombing?
Representative FORD. They could, any day.
The minute they become operational, and
some are operational today, or will be very
shortly.
Senator CHURCH. Within a 30-mile range
from Hanoi?
Representative FoRn. We are already bomb-
ing military targets within that area, al-
ready. Civilian targets excluded, military
targets included. And one of these days
there will be a Soviet manned or Soviet
trained surface-to-air missile system destroy
an American plane and then we will retali-
ate, and we will have lost one or more Ameri-
can lives and I think this is a risk we don't
have to take and we shouldn't take.
Senator CHURCH. If we get involved In a
full-scale war in South Vietnam, we will be
losing tens of thousands of American lives.
We lost 50,000 Americans in Korea and 150,-
000 casualties and, at the end, we finished
at the bargaining table settling for the status
quo, for a stalemate.
Now I hate to see a repeat performance in
Vietnam. I think the President is bombing
with great restraint and I commend him for
that, and I hope - he resists the pressures to
expand the bombing in North Vietnam be-
cause the risks aren't worth the candle.
Representative FORD. But the Secretary of
State on this program last week enunciated
a policy, which goes beyond anything I have
said, or others have said in the Congress.
He says there are no sanctuaries, and by im-
plication says that military targets exist
every place, not only in North Vietnam but
in China, Itself.
Mr. SCALI. Gentlemen, we will resume this
discussion in just a moment when we will be
back with more "Issues and Answers."
(Announcement.) -
Mr. ScALi. Gentlemen, there are signs that
President Johnson may have to call up re-
serves in order to send more troops into
Vietnam. How do you stand on this, Sena-
tor CHURCH?
Senator CHURCH. I think I have already
indicated that in the answer to the first
question, that this is a stage in the war
where we have to demonstrate that we are in
South Vietnam and we won't be driven out,
and when Hanoi realizes this, then I think
we can look forward to a satisfactory basis
for a negotiated settlement. But the war
exists in South Vietnam, and a solution will
have to be found there, not in North Viet-
nam, not in China, or elsewhere. Not in an
expanded war, which is the way in, but by
concentrating in the south, which is-ulti-
mately-the way out.
Representative FORD. Well, John, as you
know, I strongly feel that we must stay there
and prevent Communist aggression against
free nations of the world.
The question of whether or not the Presi-
dent ought to call up reserves to active duty,
extend the enlistments of others, Is one the
Congress ought to look at very, very care-
fully.
Last week, I was at a meeting with the
Secretary of Defense, and he was telling us
that this administration has increased the
counterinsurgency forces by a thousand per-
cent. We have increased the combat-ready
divisions from 11 to 15. It seems to me that
before we give carte blanche authority to the
President to call up reservist` we ought to
look and see whether these programs of the
President in strengthening our armed forces
have been adequate.
Mr. SCALI. Thank you very much, gentle-
men, for being with us today on "Issues and
Answers."
The ANNOUNCER. Our. guests this week
have been Senator FRANK CHURCH, Demo-
crat, of Idaho, and House Minority Leader
GERALD FORD, Republican, of Michigan.
They were interviewed by ABC State Depart-
ment Correspondent John Scali.
Next week at this same time the American
Broadcasting Co. will bring you another
program of "Issues and Answers." We hope
you will be with us.
LOAN AND SALE OF NAVAL VESSELS
TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, on
April 27, 1965, the Secretary of the Navy
submitted to the Congress recommenda-
tions for the enactment of three bills:
First, to lend one destroyer and two de-
stroyer escorts to China, two destroyers
to Turkey and one destroyer escort to
the Philippines; second, to lend two sub-
marines to Italy and one helicopter car-
rier to Spain ; and, third, to sell or lend
three destroyers to Argentina, four de-
stroyers to Brazil, two destroyers each
to Chile and Peru and one submarine to
Venezuela.
These bills have been reported favor-
ably by the House Armed Services Com-
mitte. They are now pendtig before the
Senate Armed Services Committee. Also
pending before that committee is a bill
introduced by Senator RUSSELL on July
15, providing for the loan of one helicop-
ter carrier to Spain and two destroyers
to Turkey which presumably is to take
the place of the first two bills previously
mentioned.
The Committee on Foreign Relations is
naturally deeply interested in the mili-
tary assistance program. Since these
loam and sales of naval vessels some-
times involve U.S. funds derived from the
military assistance program and since, in
the words of the Secretary of the Navy,
these loans and sales are "related to the
mutual defense and development pro-
gram," I wrote the Secretary of Defense
on May 21, 1965, and asked for a report
on this program. Mr. Peter Solbert, Dep-
uty Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs, replied
by letter of June 16, 1965. He described
the terms of the loans and sales made
under this program which has involved
the outright grant of 9 destroyer es-
corts, the sale' of a submarine to Vene-
zuela and the loan of 71 ships to 18 coun-
tries since the inception of the program
in 1951.
This is not the same program as the
loan of naval vessels not larger than de-
stroyers to friendly foreign nations in
the Far East and Europe under the au-
thority of Public Law 83-188 as amended
by Public Law 84-948. Loan agreements
under this authority can be extended
under the authority of section 503 of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. The
Department of State is now in the proc-
ess of exchanging notes with the Japa-
nese Government extending for 5 years
the loan of seven U.S. minesweepers
which were originally turned over to the
Japanese in January 1955 under the au-
thority of Public Law 83-188. The com-
mittee has received two letters, dated
June 14 and July 19, from Mr. John Fu?-
nari, Legislative Programs Coordinator
of the Agency for International Devel-
opment, regarding these negotiations
with the Japanese Government. Mr.
Funari points out that title to the ships
remains in the U.S. Government. He
states that it is his belief that the trans-
fer of these minesweepers was, and still
is, a loan and not a grant and that
therefore the extension of the loan
should not be construed as conflicting
with section 620(m) of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 which prohibits as-
sistance on a grant basis to any eco-
nomically developed nation.
I believe the Members of the Senate
will be interested in reading the letters
front Mr. Solbert and Mr. Funari, and
I ask unanimous consent that they be
printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the letters
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
July 22, 1965 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 17249
At this time I ask consent to include
these editorials in their entirety in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorials
were ordered to be printed in the REC-
ORD, as follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Post, July 21,
1965]
GOLDBERG TO THE U.N.
(By Roscoe Drummond)
APPOINTMENT CALLED SUPERB
President Johnson has chosen a man as
nearly as possible in the image and likeness
of Adlat E. Stevenson to succeed him as U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations.
In my judgment the President has chosen
very well indeed.
Of.Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, who is wil-
ling to give up a lifetime appointment to the
Supreme Court because of his dedication to
the U.N. and his sense of duty to the Presi-
dent, Mr. Stevenson's sister, Mrs. Elizabeth
Ives, said: "He understood Adlai and his
He also understands the aims, and hopes
and-as in Vietnam-the courage of the
American people.
The significant fact is that Goldberg has
qualifications in the field of foreign affairs
which would not be immediately visible from
the record of his public service-a distin-
guished and respected labor lawyer, one of
the best Secretaries of Labor the Nation ever
had and Supreme Court Justice.
I offer a pertinent appraisal of Goldberg
from one who during the past decade has
known well more men in public life than
most any other American,
.goon after the 1960 election, when he was
writing his book, "Six Crises," and Presi-
dent-elect Kennedy was selecting the top
people in his. administration, Vice President
Nixon remarked to one of his closest collab-
orators:
"Many of these same men would have been
In my Cabinet, if I had been elected. But T
would not have made Arthur Goldberg Secre-
tary of Labor. I would have made him Un-
der Secretary of State."
Nixon's judgment was that Goldberg deep-
ly understood the issues and pitfalls of the
cold war and would not be misled by surface
developments.
Since becoming a member of the court,
Justice Goldberg has traveled widely abroad
to speak before jurists and has become per-
sonally acquainted with a considerable num-
ber of world leaders.
It is unusual for a President to turn to
the Supreme Court for an appointment of
this kind. But Mr. Johnson does not blanch
at the unusual and his decision reflects his
high regard for the United Nations and his
dope that its capacity to keep the peace can
be strengthened.
It is evident that the President had this
prescription in mind as he searched for
Adlai's successor:
He wanted a man who had already at-
tained public stature.
He wanted a man who had some of his
own credentials to speak .for his Govern-
ment and who would not have to rely wholly
on the credentials which come from the pe-
sitiop.
He wanted a man deeply devoted to the
cause of world peace whose very presence
at the U.N. would underline the President's
own dedication in trying to bring about both
peace and justice under the rule of law.
From my knowledge of Justice Goldberg, I
would say that he hates war and believes
that the failure to resist aggression is the
most likely way of getting into war.
This is the viewpoint he will, I -think,
bring to the councils of the administration.
As With Adlai, he will be a member of the
Cabinet and at the center of U.S. foreign
policy formulation. He will be a source of
strength-as well as unity-to the adminis-
tration team of Rusk, McNamara and Mc-
George Bundy.
No one in our time can fill Adlai's place.
He was unique.
But in Justice Goldberg the President has
not only made .a surprise appointment but
a superb one.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star,
July 20, 1965]
GOLDBERG APPOINTMENT HAILED
(By David Lawrence)
President Johnson made a wise choice in
selecting Associate Justice Arthur J. Gold-
berg of the Supreme Court to become U.S.
Ambassador to the United Nations to replace
the late Adlai Stevenson. The President rec-
ognized the need for a man of national and
international stature-someone who could
carry on extemporaneous debate in the
United Nations General Assembly or the
Security Council and make an effective im-
pression with his words.
Another basic reason for Johnson's deci-
sion undoubtedly was Goldberg's keen per-
ception of the many legal questions that
affect governments throughout the world
today in their relations with each other.
Goldberg has spoken often before national
and international law organizations here and
abroad. While the United Nations has among
its ambassadors from other countries men
who are versed in diplomacy, some of those
who have proved most effective in the past
had a deep insight into international law.
Goldberg's appointment could result in a
new emphasis on law in the councils of the
United Nations. This would be a significant
change. Johnson said he had asked the
Justice to serve because there was no more
important task ahead today than the achieve-
ment of "a world where all men may live in
peace with the hope of justice under the rule
of law." He added:
"Committed as we are to this principle and
to this purpose, it is fitting that we should
ask a member of our highest court to relin-
quish that office to speak for America before
the nations of the world."
Also, in the area of mediation and negotia-
tion, Goldberg will bring to his new task an
ability which he used successfully as a labor
lawyer. Many labor lawyers naturally be-
come masters of a kind of diplomacy in deal-
ing with labor-management disputes which
enables them in many cases to end, strikes
or to prevent them. They use well-balanced
phrases in proposed agreements that must
meet the tests of public opinion both inside
and outside of the labor unions.
Goldberg's willingness to leave the Su-
preme Court has caused many Members of
Congress to wonder why he would abandon
a lifetime position for something else in
Government. But there are some men who
find that, while the service of a Supreme
Court Justice is intensely interesting, there
are in critical times other fields to which
duty calls them.
James F. Byrnes, for example, had been
Governor of the State of South Carolina and
has served also in the Senate before Presi-
dent Roosevelt appointed him to the
Supreme Court of the United States in June
1941. But when war broke out, Byrnes was
called in October 1942, to take over the job
of Director of Economic Stabilization and
then was appointed Director of War Mobili-
zation in May 1943. There was talk of nom-
inating him for Vice President in 1944 in-
stead of Harry S. Truman. Upon becoming
President, the latter appointed Byrnes as
Secretary of State, a post in which he served
effectively in a critical period in American
history.
Goldberg, in reaching his decision to leave
the Supreme Court, may just possibly have
thought that, with only a few years of service
in the United Nations, he could achieve a
position which would entitle him to consid-
eration for a higher office in the country.
Seven years hence, it would not be at all
surprising to find him active in politics if
he has made a good record in the United
Nations and the country has come to know
him through the numerous exposures he
will have on TV. It will be recalled that
in 1960 Henry Cabot Lodge, while serving
as Ambassador to the United Nations, was
nominated for the Vice Presidency by the
Republican Convention.
Goldberg's previous identification. with the
labor movement could be an important asset.
Not only was he general counsel of the
United Steelworkers Union-winning the re-
spect of many of the men on the manage-
ment side of the steel industry-but he also
was able in his post as Secretary of Labor
in President Kennedy's Cabinet to make his
influence felt even further. This is a back-
ground which can be useful to him in his
new post in the United Nations. For in
many countries the labor problem has become
more and more significant in its relation to
National Government policies.
On the whole, it would seem apparent that,
since there was no one sufficiently outstand-
ing on the diplomatic side to impress for-
eign governments, Johnson came to the con-
clusion that he could add to the prestige
of the United States at the United Nations
by selecting a man from the highest Court
in the land.
[From the Washington (D.C.) Evening Star,
July 21, 1965]
THE INEVITABLE CHOICE-THE MAN, JOB GO
TOGETHER
(By Mary Mcorory)
Now that Supreme Court Justice Arthur
J. Goldberg has been named Ambassador to
the United Nations, he seems not just the
only possible choice, but inevitable. No
man has a greater reputation for inducing
the lion and the lamb to lie down together.
The exuberant gregarious Justice knows
everybody in the Government and everybody
knows him. He has no better friend in the
White House than President Johnson.
Actually the first person to mention his name
to the President was the Harvard economist,
author, and erstwhile Ambassador to India,
John Kenneth Galbraith.
Galbraith went to call at the White House
last Friday after Adlai Stevenson's memorial
service at the National Cathedral. He pro-
posed to the President that what was needed
in the United Nations job was. "someone
who knows the. mood of the American
people, and someone with standing in the
United States. Diplomatic experts are a
dime a dozen," he said.
The President considered 20 to 35 prom-
inente Americans for the post, and he talked
to many people over the past few days before
making his final selection.
The President called Goldberg some time
on Saturday to sound him out on the possi-
bility of succeeding Stevenson on the East
River. The Justice assured the President
he could not refuse to do whatever John-
son asked him to. But for a poor Jewish boy
from the West Side of Chicago, who helped
his father, a fruit-wagon peddler, the Su-
preme Court represented a dream come true,
and he was truly torn.
The Justice by Saturday night had asked
an old friend about the possibility of serv-
ing with him on the U.N. staff.
His friends have claimed that "Arthur can-
not stand to be away from the action," and
that he chafed at the monastery atmosphere
of the High Court. He visibly fretted dur-
ing its long vacations.
When President Kennedy appointed him
to the Supreme Court in August 1962, and
named Willard Wirtz as his successor as
Secretary of Labor, Goldberg and Wirtz held
the most rapturous press conference in
Capital annals. And while on the Court, al-
though he interested himself in any num-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
17250 CONGRFS,SIO , 3C J2Gl Zit G5
her of other projects and was called in by AERIAL BO AGGRAVA price, not for its politics but t for its s physical
two Presidents to use his matchless talents GUERRILLA WAR location. _,
as a negotiator, he was a most meticulous Asked how many had been killed and
and dedicated member. Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, some wounded, villagers shrugged and replied
The regrethe expressed at his press con- Republican "air hawks" urge more "many."
Terence yesterday was genuine. bombing as a solution to our problems On the floor of one home was a can of
But he never doubted that he would take Vietnam. But, as any, student of cottonseed cooking oil with the clasped-
the ambassadorship once it was offered. The hands emblem of the U.S. aid program.
President, having broached the matter, rug- guerrilla war knows, aerial bombing is Nearby was a destroyed schoolhouse which
gested that he and the Justice could dis- much like swatting at gnats with a villagers said had been only recently built,
cuss it fully on the plane on the way to sledge hammer. Often, the result is presumably with American aid money,
Stevenson's funeral service in Bloomington that more innocent villagers are killed "The Americans have given and the, Amer-
on Monday. than enemy soldiers. The crucial strug- 'cans have taken away," one U.S. Army ad-
The President talked Monday afternoon gle in a guerrilla war is to win the sup- wiser said later in describing the situation.
with Secretary of State Dean Rusk while In explaining the bombing, a U.B. Air Force
Rusk was in New York for U.N. memorial port of the people; in such a war, a officer said: "When we are in a bind like
services for Stevenson, and Rusk felt very rifle is a much more suitable weapon we were at Bagia, we unload on the whole
favorable toward the suggestion that Gold- than a plane, area to try to save the situation. We usuilly
berg get the assignment. I worry that we may be making the kill more women and kids than we do Viet-
At 10 Monday night, Goldberg got it call same mistake that the French did in cong but the government troops just aren't
at George Washington Hospital, where he the first Indochinese war. By killing available to clean out the villages so this is
and Mrs. Goldberg were visting the letter's innocent villagers through the careless the only answer"
82-year-old mother, Mrs. Louis Kurgans, ill A U.S. Air Force spokesman at Saigon,
use of air power and artillery, the commer tin on air strikes in general, pointed
of a heart condition. The call was from the French turned the surviving relatives g >
President, and it made pretty plain that out that targets are selected by Vietnamese
Goldberg was the choice for Stevenson's and friends into supporters of Ho Chi commanders and that American strikes are
shoes. Minh's rebels. only fulfilling requests from an any.
Then the final call to Goldberg at 9:57 An article by John T. Wheeler calling
yesterday morning, formally tapping him. attention to this problem was published
The President said: by the Washington Post on July 19. I PROGRESS OF BALANCE-OF-PAY-
"I want you. Bring Mrs. Goldberg right ask unanimous consent to have the MENTS PROGRAM
on down to the office."
article printed at this point in the Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, nearly
It was done, and the appointment was an- RECORD. 6 months ago, the President 'announced
nounced to the Nation. There being no objection, the article
CHOICE ACCLAIMED a program of action for reducing the con-
The ordered to be printed in the RECORD, tinued, large deficit in this country's bal-
choice was immediately acclaimed. as follows: ante of international payments. This
The matter of his inexperience in formal
diplomatic dealings was brushed aside by Bomns Kr,L V=T VILLAGE INNOCENTS program included, in addition to certain
the President's staff and by members of the (By John T. Wheeler) fiscal measures to be followed by the
press who have watched the justice In dead- BAGIA, SOUTH VIETNAM, July 18.-The wall- Government, requests for voluntary ac-
lock situations. Even the Arabs, whose re- ing of women and the stench of burned tion by lenders, investors, and others to
sentment over the naming of a Jew to the bodies greeted the column of troops as they reduce the flow of dollars abroad.
world forum was anticipated, are expected to marched wearily Into Bagia. During March, following the an-
yield to the persistent Goldberg charm. They were searching for a Vietcong force nouncement of this program, the `;ub-
e is a natural to settle the strike of the which earlier had overrun a nearby govern-
ncmtlues payers, France and the Soviet ment strongpoint. It turned out the search committee on International Finance of
Union. He settled more strikes than any was fruitless. the Senate Banking and Currency Com-
Secretary of Labor in American history. Four men carrying a pallet with a wounded mittee held a series of hearings on the
We confided his formula to a reporter just man stared hatefully at American advisers problems of the country's balance of pay-
before he went Into action on theMetropoli- accompanying the Vietnamese marines and ments. These hearings included state-
tan Opera strike in answer to a soprano plea the cries of a woman sitting in the middle ments by responsible Government ofii-
fr m Leontyne Price: Find out the facts; of a dirt road cradling a baby and flanked cials, by representatives of banking and
hear out both sides; get in responsible peo- by two other small children caused some of business, and by economists. The ro-
pie who can make decisions; look for some- the Vietnamese troops to turn aside. ceedings, together with other analyses of
body in the entourages wbo can be talked Surveying the shattered stucco and bam-
to; search for mutual friends on the outside. boo homes and the machinegunned Catholic various aspects of the problem, were pub-
People who were a week ago -predicting church, one U.S. adviser said: lished by the committee.
the demise of the United Nations, are just "That's why we are going to lose this Another hearing was conducted in
as surely predicting today that Goldberg will stupid damn war. Senseless, It's just sense- May, and others are being scheduled. be-
brtng it back to life.' When Goldberg puts less." ginning August 3, and again on August
his mind to article 19 and sets about per- ragia. with a high percentage of Catholics, 17, to review progress of the program and
suading the debtors--or finding a face-saving was considered a pro-government village.
exit for the other nations--something will It was hit 3 days running with bombs, rock- other developments since March, and
give. It always has. During the airline strike ets, and cannon fire from American and Vlet- to consider problems that may lie ahead.
in the winter of 1961, during a 4-month namese fighter bombers. These hearings will include statements
deadlock, he made himself available around The 'first time was after the nearby out- by the Secretary of Commerce., by a
the clock to the contesting parties. He surely post, headquarters of the 51st Regiment was member of the Board of Governors of
will do the same among the nations. overrun by the Vietcong and two 105-milli- the Federal Reserve System, by other
ALWAYS AT HIM NOON meter howitzers were taken. The second businessmen and bankers, and in con-
time was following a rebel attack the next
He is a man of infinite resourcefulness night. elusion, by the Secretary of the Treas-
and unremitting good cheer. If Stevenson's The third, as an American Air Force officer ury, who will testify August 18.
personality had a dappled-sunlight quality, expressed it, was an insurance measure to Recently a number of statements have
Goldberg's clock is always at high noon. He clear the way for government troops moving been made by Officials and businessmen
believes simply that there Is no situation be- back into the area in a sweep to try to catch as to the progress of the program. :t ask
yond solution. And he shares with Steven- the Vietcong.
son, according to Wirtz, a good friend of The sweep was launched some 24 hours unanimous consent that, at the conclu-
both, capacity of infinite interest In whatever after the Vietcong regiment had pulled out sion of my remarks, there be inserted in
Is going on at the momenta of the area, one American adviser said later. the RECORD the following speeches: "In-
Against his dismay at deserting his col- Because the 51st Regiment was under- vestment Planning, Financing Abroad,
leagues on the High Court, is balanced his strength due to previous maulings at the and the U.S. Balance-of-Payments Pro-
oft-expressed feeling that all domestic prob- hands of the Vietcong and because Vietna- gram," by Andrew F. Brimmer, Assist-
lems are subsidiary to the questions of war mere troops normally fail to patrol aggres- ant Secretary of Commerce for Economic
and peace. sively and set out night ambushes, the Viet- Affairs, before the New York Society of
Now 'through an appointment that has cong had been able to come into the village Security Analysts, Inc., July 15, .19~i5;
brought Johnson more huzzahs than any in strength. "The Stake of U.S. Business in the VoY-
he has made so far, he can become mediator The villagers risked torture and death if ?
to the world. they tried to warn the outpost, so Bagia like untary Balance-of-Payments Progl am,
It any man can enjoy the job, it will be countless other villages in Vietnam, was by Albert L. Nickerson, chairman of the
Arthur Goldberg. caught In the middle and paid a terrible board of directors. Socony Mobil Oil Co.,
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 July 22, 1965
because the recently passed voting rights
bill collided with the Constitution that
I regretfully opposed it; not because I
am against laws to prevent discrimina-
tion against all persons who want to
register and vote.
If, however, we are to subscribe in
full measure to popular government we
should use the Constitution as the
proper vehicle to extend to the people
the unfettered right to select those who
hold high office and who make and en-
force our laws.
The Congress has moved to correct,
via the Constitution, the deficiency
which beclouds the problem of Presiden-
tial inability. When the State legisla-
tures of these United States act, our
Constitution will be amended so that
this Nation need no longer agonize over
the incapacity of the President-as hap-
pened for more than 80 days during
President Garfield's term, for some 16
months during President Wilson's serv-
ice and on two occasions when President
Eisenhower was in the White House.
Therefore, Mr. President, I am hope-
ful that Congress will delay no longer on
these other needed reforms.
In his state of the Union message of
January 7, 1965, President Johnson un-
equivocally advocated reforms in the
electoral college. Former President
Harry S. Truman endorsed national pri-
maries and more recently former Presi-
dent Dwight D. Eisenhower has also crit-
icized the national nominating conven-
tion procedure.
By acting on these reforms now and
sending them to the States for ratifica-
tion, Congress will have thwarted any
preemption of its powers by another
branch of Government. The record will
have been set straight.
I ask unanimous consent to Insert in
the body of the RECORD at this point an
editorial from the July 2, 1965, edition
of the Washington Post entitled "Obso-
lete Electoral System."
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
OBSOLETE ELECTORAL SYSTEM
An interesting challenge to the present
method of electing the President is taking
shape as a result of the Supreme Court's
one-man-one-vote ruling in the apportion-
ment cases. Projecting the reasoning of the
Court into the presidential elector system,
some lawyers have concluded that there is
no constitutional justification for the prac-
tice of giving all of a State's electoral votes
to the presidential candidate winning a ma-
jority of the popular vote in that State. The
challenge is to be carried to the Supreme
Court.
One suit Is being prepared in Arkansas. A
group of Republicans in that state will con-
tend that they are disfranchised because the
"general ticket system" has given all of
Aransas' electoral votes to the Democratic
candidate in every election since the Civil
War. Republican votes in Arkansas, they say,
never count for anything in the election of,
the President.
Another attack will come from Delaware.
There the argument ' is that the "general
ticket system" gives an unfair advantage to
the big States with large blocs of electoral
votes. In a case before the Supreme Court
some months ago, Justice Brennan remarked
that a legislative districting plan might be
unconstitutional if it should minimize or
cancel out the voting strength of racial or
political elements of the voting population.
This is said to be what the "general ticket
system" does in presidential elections.
In our view the possibility that the Court
might intervene to upset the general ticket
system is remote. The Constitution is very
specific in authorizing each State to appoint
its presidential electors "in such manner as
the legislature thereof 'may direct." Never-
theless, these challenges to the existing sys-
tem are significant for two reasons. First,
they emphasize the many deviations from the
one-man-one-vote concept in our consti-
tutional system, thus perhaps encouraging
Congress to go forward with its proposed
amendment to restore to the States the right
of distributing seats in one house of their
legislatures on the basis of political units
rather than population. Second, they center
attention once more on the necessity of re-
forming our presidential election machinery.
Last January the Johnson administration
introduced a proposed constitutional amend-
ment to abolish the electoral college and let
the people vote directly for presidential and
vice-presidential candidates. Those receiving
a majority vote in each State would carry the
electoral votes of that State. Not much has
since been heard of this proposal. Although
it has some serious technical defects, it would
have the virtue of eliminating the electors,
who may sometimes be in a position to
thwart the will of the voters in the naming
of the President.
The best way to attack our obsolete presi-
dential election system is through the
amendment proces ,.rather than through the
sion, submerges drama in endless hours
of padded programing.
The TV spectator is left nodding in
front of his set and the delegates, weary
and sweaty, find themselves serving as
extras in a television production-sitting
on a convention floor behind a battery
of electronic eyes which see what is going
on while the delegates are in utter baffle-
ment.
If the modern convention has any of
the fascination that H. L. Mencken once
saw, it can only be that of the horror
sideshow.
Mr. President, turning now to the elec-
toral college, we find an even more timely
area of reform. If there can be said to
be general public acceptance of the "one-
man, one-vote" theory, it can be said that
public desire for a change in the electoral
college system is even greater and of
longer duration.
Three times in history-Adams in 1924,
Hayes in 1876, and Harrison in 1888-
that the electoral college system has
elevated to the highest office in the land
candidates who received fewer popular
votes than their leading opponents.
Providentially, the Nation has sailed
on. But the spectre of abuse still hangs
over the system. It is hardly an example
of democracy in action to have voters
cast 49 percent of the vote for a particu-
lar candidate and find that, because their
candidate did not receive a majority,
their votes count for nothing because of
the use of the present system. I
The Founding Fathers, of course, con-
trived the electoral college to retard the
danger of excesses in popular rule.
Today, when education is a major na-
tional goal, there is a well-founded be-
lief in the capacity of a free people to
render sound judgments-a belief which
must therefore reject the electoral col-
lege principle.
If my amendment is enacted, the peo-
ple will have a direct voice-the candi-
date who gets 49 percent of the electoral
vote will be the man who received 49
percent of the popular vote.
It will change the system in accord-
ance with other recent constitutional
amendments-all of which have been
intended to further extend the franchise
on. a broader basis.
The movement to enlarge the voting
privilege was bolstered in 1870 with the
15th amendment, assuring the right to
vote regardless of race or color; with
the 17th amendment in 1913, which pro-
vided for pop~lar election of Senators;
with the 19th amendment in 1920, which
provided suffrage for women; with the
23d amendment in 1960, which gave to
the District of Columbia the right to
vote for President and Vice President,
and the 24th amendment, authored by
my distinguished colleague, the senior
Senator from Florida [Mr. HOLLAND],
which last year abolished the use of the
poll tax in Federal elections.
Each of tlse established within the
'framework of the Constitution legiti-
mate expansion and protection of the
right to vote. And I might say, paren-
thetically, that this is the right and
proper course for all legislative effort
dealing with the franchise. It was only
No, 133-11
Approved For Felease 2003/10/1!5_CIA-RDP67BOO446ROO03O0180001-9
EDITORrA BY -15RURY BROWN
ON VIETNAM
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, one of
Idaho's newspaper publishers who has
made a real effort to learn about the is-
sues involved in the Vietnamese conflict
is Drury Brown, the editor and publisher
of the Blackfoot, Idaho, News. Mr.
Brown has run a series of thoughtful edi-
torials on Vietnam, including one en-
titled "The Escalating Viet War," pub-
lished in the July 12 issue. I ask unani-
mous consent to have this provocative
editorial printed at this point in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the editorial
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
THE ESCALATING VIET WAR
(Editorial by Drury Brown)
When one sifts the many conflicting state-
ments by spokesmen for the Johnson admin-
istration, the achievement of stalemate in
the war in South Vietnam seems to be the
prime objective agreed on by the consensus.
There still appear to be certain ground
rules governing the steady expansion of the
undeclared war. Not necessarily in the order
of their importance they are:
1. The people of the United States would
not support another Korea-like ground war
in the jungles of Vietnam.
2. The honor of the United States is at
stake. We are committed to protect the peo-
ple of South Vietnam, a nation that was cre-
ated at the end of the French. Vietnamese
war by the big nations that sat in on the
peace treaty at its conclusion. South Viet-
nam was arbitrarily created to provide a
haven for the minority of French-oriented
Vietnamese at the conclusion of the war of
revolution. (It was as artificial a division as
that which divided East and West Germany
at the conclusion of World War II.) Then we
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446RO000018OOO1-9
 17244
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE July 22, 196 5
and other signatories to the treaty guaran-
teed protection to South Vietnam.
3. As long as the North Vietnam invaders
think they are winning the war it will be im-
possible to negotiate an honorable peace with
them.
4. By applying airpower, in which we are
supreme, to bombing of guerrilla jungle in-
stallations, to supply routes, bridges, depots,
and troop encampments in North Vietnam,
we may force the invaders to conclude that
the game isn't worth the candle and they
will become willing to negotiate.
S. Once convinced there is no future in
subversion, the entire population of South
Vietnam will turn to sweet reasonableness
and will in democratic elections elect a civ-
ilian government that will represent all the
people but will still be anti-Communist.
6. To achieve these objectives it will be
necessary to keep the U.S. casualty lists low,
but at the same time feed enough U.S. ma-
rines and other ground fighters into battle
to be sure that our reluctant Vietnamese
allies do not give way before the attacks of
the more spirited and determined Cong.
I hope these apparent objectives repre-
sent the inner thinking of the administra-
tion. And that the administration will hold
to them. But there are disturbing signs that
events, which have moved the administration
from previously announced positions will
continue to do the same in the future.
Let those who think we cannot be esca-
lated into a major war over Vietnam con-
sider these items.
Half the budget items provided by the
Associated Press wire service yesterday dealt
with the Vietnam situation. As is custo-
mary of news from the scene of fighting, our
air successes in shooting down opposition
planes was emphasized. But the report on
ground fighting told of the Vietcong smash-
ing a South Viet convoy in territory con-
sidered safe for our ally. The Lodge-Taylor
shift indicates all is not well on the diplo-
matic front. The new South Viet leaders
say a civilian legislature would be unreal-
istic. The boss of home niobilization in
case of war says the United States is pre-
pared to its, last bootstrap for any emer-
gency.
It is unfortunate that the ground rules
covering the war we are waging in Vietnam
are based On so many fallacies.
Under the leadership of John Foster Dulles
we helped create the artificial division of
South Vietnam against the wishes of a
majority of the people, both North and
South. Our participation in the war is un-
popular with other guarantors of South
Vietnam. Only Australia has contributed a
token handful of troops to fight beside us.
"Diem, the puppet ruler that we set up
knew that his government was unpopular
and would not survive a democratic election.
Therefore one was never held.
Our years of military and economic sup-
port to South Vietnam have built up a fat
and enriched class of officials in Saigon who
are reluctant to fight for themselves, but
spend their time intriguing for higher posi-
tion and self-preservation. Meanwhile, they
draft the farm boys and Montagnards to do
the fighting and dying in the jungles, secure
in the knowledge that the anti-Communist
sentiment that has been the key to 'U.S. for-
eign policy will not let them be overturned.
It is unfortunate that people in the United
States do not understand that Ho Chi Minh,
leader of the Vietnamese revolutionaries
that threw the French out, is a hero to most
of the people of South Vietnam.
Few South Vietnamese outside Saigon and
a few coastal cities have anything to be
thankful for to the United States. Through
our presence there they have found neither
peace nor an improved condition of living.
Their impression of the United States has
been formed by the bombers flying overhead,
the napalm bombs dropped on jungle vil-
lages; the regimentation imposed by what-
ever government was in the saddle in Saigon.
But once committed to a foreign policy,
it has been rare for any major government
to admit its policy is based on mistaken
premises.
And there is within the United States
today a vocal minority of ideological zealots,
who like the religious zealots of other cen-
turies, would prosecute a war against any-
thing with a Communist tag, regardless of
what a majority of the people involved
might desire.
THE OMNIBUS FARM BILL AND THE
PROPOSED REPEAL OF THE
RIGHT-TO-WORK LAW
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, ac-
cording to news reports in two South
Carolina newspapers, The State, of Co-
lumbia, S.C., and the Greenville News,
of Greenville, S.C., President Johnson
and Vice President HUMPHREY are cur-
rently engaged in trying to employ the
tactic of political coercion on Members
of Congress who represent States which
have farming interests. According to
these news reports, what they are at-
tempting to do is to force farm-State
Congressmen to support the President's
effort to repeal State right-to-work laws
in exchange for getting a farm bill
passed by the Congress this year. These
Congressmen have been bluntly told by
Vice President HUMPHREY that unless
enough of them vote to insure repeal of
the State right-to-work laws, there may
be no omnibus farm bill which carries,
in addition to various farm legislative
items, the continuation of the one-price
cotton system which is of interest to the
domestic textile industry.
The President even plans to call up the
right-to-work law for action in the
House of Representatives before the
farm bill is acted on with the hope of
coercing the farm-State Congressmen
into supporting his efforts to repeal sec-
tion 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act,
which authorizes State right-to-work
laws.
Indications are strong, however, that
most of our southern Congressmen and
also our domestic textile industry are
going to stand by their position in favor
of State right-to-work laws. This is as
it should be, and I am confident that our
farm population will agree that such a
brash tactic as political intimidation
should not be permitted to succeed
under any circumstances.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent to have printed in the RECORD at
the conclusion of my remarks the fol-
lowing articles: an article from The
State, dated July 17, 1965, and entitled
"Dixie Solons May Have To Back Right-
To-Work Repeal"; another article from
The State, dated July 21, 1965, an en-
titled "Right-To-Work Laws Fight: No
Compromise Seen"; an article from the
Greenville News, dated July 17, 1965,
and entitled "Rural Congressmen Put On
Spot: H.H.H. Ties in Farm Bill, Right-
To-Work Repeal"; another article from
the Greenville News, dated July 20, 1965,
entitled "Reports Confirmed: L.E.J.
Seeks Coalition To Pass New Labor
Bill"; and an editorial entitled "There's
a Word for This," published in the At-
lanta Times of July 20, 1965.
There being no objection, the articles
and editorial were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
[From The State, Columbia, S.C., July 17,
1965]
DIXIE SOLONS MAY HAVE To BACK RIGHT-To-
WORK REPEAL
WASHINGTON.-Southern Congressmen were
told Friday that they may have to drop their
opposition to the repeal of the right-to-work
provision (14-B) of the Taft-Hartley Act if
they want a farm bill this year.
That word came directly from Vice Presi-
dent HUBERT HUMPHREY during a breakfast
meeting arranged by the Agriculture Depart-
ment through House Agriculture Committee
Chairman HAROLD COOLEY, Democrat, of
North Carolina.
The session was called for the purpose of
briefing the lawmakers on the provisions of
the omnibus farm measure put together
earlier this week by the House committee.
it embraces a 4-year extension on the one-
price cotton program sought by growers and
the Dixie textile industry.
But HUMPHREY, in backing the bill as
essential to the farm economy, reportedly
made a point of stressing it couldn't pass
without the help of a lot of city Congress-
men, including those from heavy labor
districts.
And he made it clear they would expect to
be paid back with support for legislation
they want.
He said this was one of the legislative facts
of life and, according to some of those pres-
ent, left no doubt in anybody's mind that
the repeal of the right-to-work law, which
labor is seeking would be one of the areas
in which the payoff would be expected.
About 50 House Members, mostly from ttie
South and Midwest, were invited to the
session.
Among the States represented were the
Carolinas, Georgia, and Florida-all right-
to-work States. Early indications have been
that most of their delegation mehnbars
planned to vote against the 14-B repeal.
Even as the meeting was held, there were
indications that a race might develop be-
tween the farm and labor blocs to see which
measure can be brought to the floor first.
The farm bill is due to go to the House
Rules Committee about the middle of next
week for consideration.
That same committee, dominated by
Chairman HOWARD SMITH, of Virginia, is
currently sitting on the right-to-work repeal
plan but cannot hold it beyond next Fri-
day under the 21-day rule now in effect.
Thus, It will probably rest which of the
two bills come out first for floor debate anc,-
if the vote swapping develops-who is going
to have to make the initial payoff.
[From the State, Columbia, S.C.,
July 21, 1965]
RIGHT-TO-WORK LAWS FIGHT-No
COMPROMISE SEEN
WASHINGTON.-U.S. Representative JOHN L.
MCMILLAN predicted Tuesday that southern
Congressmen would steadfastly refuse to
compromise their opposition to the propo ed
elimination of State right-to-work laws.
The South Carolinian said pressure is grow-
ing on the Dixie bloc in the House to sr,p-
port repeal of section 14(b) of the Taft-
Hartley Act in exchange for the backing of
urban members on the omnibus farm bill.
MCMILLAN, a member of the House Agri-
culture Committee Which hammered out the
farm package as it now stands, said most
southerners are too strongly committed on
the right-to-work issue to switch their po-
sitions.
He pointed out that 82 percent of the U.S.
Representatives come from big-city areas and
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 July 22, 1965 Approved Fotg Ia9s%1AVR18JRP6A000300180001-9 17239
road money,, for any city that seeks new
funds without such a plan. Those cities
affected include New York, Cincinnati, Cleve-
land, Omaha, Shreveport, and San Francisco.
The Bureau has estimated that the pro-
gram will cost $5.8 billion more than the
$41 billion previously forecast. Increased
revenues will bring in' an added $2 billion
to the trust fund through 1972, the Bureau
says, but an additional $3 billion in Federal
money is needed to meet increased costs.
Because Interstate System costs are al-
ready outstripping revenues, the quarterly
apportionment set by the Bureau for the
States last August was not released until
last month, 3 months behind schedule.
Should the House Ways and Means Com-
mittee fail to enact legislation increasing
taxes for the program until 1966, another
3-month delay in appropriations could re-
sult. This is slowing work in some of the
more advanced States.
The House committee, which may hold
hearings on the matter later this month, is
reported reluctant to raise truck taxes.
Highway sources report that the committee
might propose a patchwork tax program, in-
cluding an extension of the tax period and
use of 1 percent of the automobile excise
tax to finance the added costs.
STRETCHOUT OF PROGRAM
Alfred E. Johnson, executive secretary of
the American Association of State Highway
Officials, estimates that failure to obtain the
$3 billion in added money would amount to
a 1-year program stretchout.
The prospect of a stretched out interstate
program does not appeal to State highway
officials and contractors, who would face lay-
offs and reduced operations. They want to
keep the project going full blast, and to
follow it up with another massive road pro-
gram. Most experts agree future spending should
be concentrated in urban areas. There is
also considerable sentiment for standardizing
the Federal share of Federal-aid highway
projects at around 65 to 70 percent of costs.
The Government's share of federally aided
road programs normally was 50 percent be-
fore the interstate project, and the Govern-
mgnt continues to spend only 50 percent on
most of its noninterstate road programs.
JOHNSON APPROACH
There are serious misgivings within the
Johnson administration, however, about the
propriety of this approach to determining
transportation needs. Some transportation
experts within the administration favor a
comprehensive study of the proper balance of
funds that should go into all modes of trans-
portation.
Most transportation experts here believe
that Alan. S. Boyd, named last month as
Under Secretary.of Commerce for Transpor-
tation, has been given a mandate by Presi-
dent Johnson to put transportation spend-
ing on a more rational basis.
Such a move, in the view of most econo-
mists, would include cost-benefit studies,
which weigh spending against the value de-
rived from it.
"I can assure you that we're going to build
roads on the basis of cost-benefit studies,
which I hope will be the logical and rational
approach to it," Mr. Boyd has stated.
Most sources believe President Johnson to
be an ardent Interstate System supporter.
They doubt that he would shape any policy
to bring about a sharp dispute with the
strong petroleum, automobile, trucking, and
construction tar ts'in the road lobby.
V1ET AN 1Vh- IMPORTANCE OF
MAINTAINING A LARGE AND
READY MERCHANT MARINE
Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, re-
cent difficulties involving the shipment
of vital war material to Vietnam have
pointed up, once again, the importance
to our national security of maintaining
a large and ready merchant marine.
Last Week the Department of Defense
embarked upon a program of reactivat-
ing vessels from the U.S. Reserve Fleet.
These reactivated vessels will be used to
transport defense cargo to southeast
Asia.
This emergency action contains sev-
eral lessons for those concerned with
maritime policy. First, some of the ship-
yards contacted about the work neces-
sary to reactivate the older ships have
reported that, due to the decline in the
industry, skilled workers are simply not
available. As a result, the reactivation
of these vessels might be delayed. The
necessity of maintaining a strong ship-
building industry could hardly be more
dramatically illustrated.
Second, newspaper reports indicate a
shortage of qualified engineers to man
these ships. It is apparent that a fleet
which has fewer and fewer vessels under
American flags will find difficulty in re-
taining a sufficient number of qualified
seamen. This Is precisely the situation
in the American fleet.
The U.S. merchant marine numbered
over 2,300 vessels at the end of the
Second World War. It ranked as the
world's leading maritime power. To-
day, the fleet has shrunk to barely 900
vessels. This country ranks fourth in
the free world-and may soon be sur-
passed by the Soviet Union as well. Em-
ployment of seamen on American-flag
vessels has fallen by 25,000 in the past
10 years. This decline in the U.S. fleet
contributes to the American balance-of-
payments problem and works to the det-
riment of the 100,000 workers in the
maritime industry. What is of greater
urgency at the moment, however, is the
fact that the shipping and shipbuilding
capacity of the United States has de-
clined to the point where It adversely af-
fects our national security. In a world
which will very likely see an increasing
need for the sea transportation of mili-
tary goods to combat Communist aggres-
sion, we must maintain a merchant ma-
rine equal to the task.
A very perceptive article dealing with
this disturbing situation appears in this
week's America magazine. The author
points out that American shipping re-
quirements during the Korean war called
for some 600 carrier vessels. Given the
present state of American shipping, it
is inconceivable that similar require-
ments could be filled by the U.S. fleet
today. As a result, we find ourselves
faced with the necessity of shipping
vital military carge on foreign-flag ves-
sels. Such a situation is obviously un-
desirable from a national security point
of view; yet, the present sad state of our
maritime industry leaves us no alter-
native.
I submit, Mr. President, that these
recent events are but another indication
of the aimless drift which seems to char-
acterize our present merchant marine
policy, a policy which-unless it Is
changed-may cause serious disruptions
to our military efforts in the future.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the article from America to
which I referred be printed in the
RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
WEAK SPOTS IN Ous DEFENSES
(By Rear Adm. John D. Hayes)
(Since Korea, our country's share of world
shipbuilding has dwindled to a mere 5 per-
cent and 85 percent of our merchant ships
are now over 20 years old. Perhaps, the
author suggests, the struggle in Vietnam is
going to bring us a nasty moment of truth.)
At the opening of the Korean hostilities,
the U.S. merchant marine, although its ebb
had already set in, was. still the greatest the
world had known. Its quiet, effective service
made that war appear logistically easy and
gave- rise to the dangerous assumption that
the United States would have little trouble
conducting limited wars overseas. Today, it
is difficult to see how the residue of that
once great fleet can properly support our
present commitment in Vietnam-soon to be
100,000 troops, the South Vietnamese forces
and an enlarged 7th Fleet.
If military operations in Vietnam are al-
lowed to expand even to the extent of the
Korean war, we must be ready to accept
severe and lasting strains in our economy
and foreign relations. For we do not have
now, as we had in the similar situation in
1950, the merchant shipping under our own
flag to carry on a major overseas campaign.
A few figures are sufficient to describe the
changed situation. In 1950, the United
States had 3,400 relatively new merchant
ships. Half of these were then in active
service, carrying our domestic and 40 per-
cent of our foreign trade, plus Marshall plan
aid and much needed coal for Europe. To-
day, American flag merchantmen are carry-
ing only 9 percent of the country's seaborne
trade. In 1950, U.S. tankers were bringing in
53 percent of our petroleum imports; they
haul only 5 percent today.
The anomaly is that the United States
still has the world's largest merchant marine.
Of the ships that compose it, however, 85
percent are now 20 years old; they are slow
and unfit for military operations. The only
section of U.S.-flag shipping in any state of
health is the subsidized liner fleet composed
of about 300 ships built since World War II.
But if these ships are withdrawn from their
present established routes for military pur-
poses, maritime countries will eagerly move
in to capture this last vestige of our foreign
trade still under the U.S. flag.
It was the Marshall plan, beginning in
1948, that revived the ancient craft of ship-
building in Europe, and the Korean war
proved to be another Marshall plan, in this
regard, for Japan. Shipbuilding in the
United States, however, was not correspond-
ingly stimulated. The Suez crisis, too,
stimulated shipbuilding but little -in the
United States. As a result, the average age
of the fleets of the maritime nations is
around 10 years. Today, only 5 percent of
world shipbuilding is being done in the
United States.
While the American people and the U.S.
naval profession allowed the U.S. merchant
marine to decay, world seaborne trade has
been increasing. Since 1951 It has doubled;
indeed, the movement by sea of petroleum-
the lifeblood of modern industrial economy
and of modern war-has tripled. Much is
heard these days about air movement of
troops, and this form of military transport
is bound to increase. But the giant jet air-
craft that will do this work are insatiable
consumers of fuel, which must be trans-
ported overseas to their terminals. Airlift,
instead of easing the shipping problem, will
augment it in the area where we are most
vulnerable, the tanker fleet.
How much shipping will be needed for
support of our Vietnam commitment? I
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R0003.00180001-9
 17240
Approved For R e e /a /1A5R BRPD67BRg XIV0300180001-9July 22, 1961
suspect that Pentagon planners do not know.
In view of the successful support of the
Korean war, the present demands appear easy
to meet; but logistics for the affluent U.S.
Armed Forces have a way of ballooning. The
tonnage required for Korea in 1952 equaled
that for the entire Pacific operations of the
last year of World War 11. It is not un-
realistic to expect that the tonnage required
for Vietnam will reach the Korean figure.
To support 500,000 men in Korea, half of
them Americans, a daily supply of 20,000
tons of dry cargo and 125,000 barrels of petro-
leum products (full loads for 2 standard
dry cargo ships and 1 tanker) had to be
transported across 6,000 miles of ocean. For
this, 350 ships were needed in the trans-
Pacific supply line, as well as 250 more in
the Western Pacific for troop movements and
support from Japan.
Where are ships in such numbers to come
from, today? Neither our mothball nor sub-
sidized fleets can provide them. They must
therefore come from the same source that
is carrying our normal seaborne trade, namely
foreign-flag ships of the traditional mari-
time nations and the American owned flag-
of-convenience fleet.
To envision how grave this military pre-
dicament is, the lay reader, may imagine
the United States turning over responsibility
for ground, naval or air defense to a foreign
country without even protection of treaties
or compacts. Because we have to depend on
chartered foreign shipping to support our
military operations, we have lost our free-
dom of action to control and use the seas
in the cold war. Without such control,
we have no seapower, despite a Navy that
includes a nuclear carrier and Polaris missile
submarines.
Columnist Raymond Moley (Newsweek,
May 17, p. 112) calls attention to the fact
that while our military policy in southeast
Asia is now more in tune with geography
and reality, we are nevertheless still not
using the most effective tool against North
Vietnam-'a blockade. Any small-scale map
will reveal that the only way for sizable
shipments of arms to reach that country is
by sea, and Moley mentions 201 ships enter-
ing the ports in 1964. In my opinion, the
reason we are not bloclkading is simply the
likelihood of protests from our friends, who
must make their living from the sea and
who oppose restrictions of any sort on sea-
borne traffic. The open reluctance of the
British to join in an economic blockade of
Cuba should be fresh in American minds.
There remains to us, then, the American-
owned flag-of-convenience fleet (whose bulk
cargo types could possibly fill our petroleum
needs for Vietnam, though not our dry cargo
needs). A Panamanian or, Liberian flag
flying from the stern of a giant modern
tanker or ore carrier Is a common sightIn
U.S. ports. Chances are one in four that
such a ship, manned by a foreign crew, is
American owned. Although she is a contri-
bution to our economy that is not costing the
American taxpayer one dollar, she is not
legally a U.S. vessel.
In the case of a flag-of-convenience ship,
a citizen of one state uses the nationality of
another state for private purposes. The
seas are free for all to use, but international
law requires that a ship, like a person, have
nationality. Some small states choose to
use their rights to the sea to gain revenue
by allowing shipowners of other countries
to register under their flag. The shipowners
thereby avoid their own country's restrictive
maritime laws, high taxes and labor costs.
Prime users of the flag of convenience are
American oil, steel and aluminum companies.
This legal expedient, however, is not popu-
lar with traditional maritime countries nor
with U.S. seafaring unions.
The concern of Americans generally should
be whether the availabilty of such ships
under flags of convenience Is certain in any
national emergency. Agreements for their
return to the U.S. fiat have been made with
the owners, though only tacitly with the
countries of present registry. By virtue of
these agreements, the Navy Department and
Maritime Administration claim they have
effective control over these ships, but there
are some Members of Congress who doubt
this. The right of transfer of flag between
belligerent and neutral has never been defi-
nitely settled in international law, and our
relations are not good with one flag-of-con-
venience' country, Panama. Our need for
foreign shipping to support the Vietnam
operation could give the European maritime
countries a lever for checking this American
practice.
Finally, the Soviet Union has both a large
submarine force and a growing merchant
marine, which in a decade may be among
the world's largest. With its increased in-
terest in maritime law, it may be expected to
be heard from in the not too distant future
on the touchy subject of the flag of conven-
ience.
The threat to our commitment in Viet-
nam portends a far more ominous danger: a
decline in U.S. seapower. Unless steps are
soon taken to improve our alarming mari-
time position, the United States might well
become a. second-rate or third-rate power
early in the 21st century. For a historical
analogy, we need only remember Spain in
the 17th century after her greatness in the
previous one, and what has happened to
Great Britain in little more than a genera-
tion.
The American economy now devours 50 per-
cent of the world's raw materials. Until
World War II, most -of what the Nation re-
quired was found within our own borders, but
60 years of accelerating economic progress
and two world wars have levied a severe
drain on our forests and minerals. By 1980,
the United States may be one of the world's
poorest nations in high-grade ores. Our
country, which too many Americans still
think of as a rich heartland, is in fact fast
becoming an industrial island, depending
increasingly on imports from overseas and
forced to compete with other areas demand-
ing a larger share of the earth's resources,
Our seaborne trade is made up of two sep-
arate and unlike segments: importing of raw
materials and exporting of processed goods.
The import segment is by far the more Im-
portant, for it is part of our basic industries
and essential to our economic life. The bulk-
carrier ships that bring these vital necessi-
ties to our shores are almost all under for-
eign flags. The largest and most automated
ships being built in foreign yards are of this
type, but a bulk-ore carrier has not been
built in a U.S. shipyard in 20 years. Our laws
require that a ship, to fly the American flag,
must be built in the United States.
American sea communications are vulner-
able in another area, or what is sometimes
called noncontiguous shipping. The new
State of Hawaii is overseas, and so is populous
Puerto Rico. Alaska is virtually so. These
outlying areas are just as much parts of the
United States as Virginia and Iowa, but
unlike the latter they must depend on over-
seas shipments for their necessities of life.
The sealanes to them are exposed not only
to the submarine but also to the perhaps
more dangerous long-range, jet-powered,
rocket-armed, land-based aircraft. Should
the sealanes to the State of Hawaii be cut,
those islands would be on short rations with-
in a month.
Americans are not a sea-minded people,
and these facts of life do not disturb them.
When we think of our merchant marine at
all, it is with a feeling of annoyance at its
apparently Insoluble troubles. Our national
character has not been formed by the sea
around us, and so we do not know what it
offers, what it can deny, what must be forced
from it. Even our statesmen give evidence
of not comprehending seapower and the
Nation's need for it, and the U.S. naval pro-
fession has not tried very had to make it
understandable.
A shipping crisis over Vietnam would be
a blessing in disguise; for only a-near dis-
aster will expose and dramatize the Achilles'
heel of American greatness, and awaken the
American people to the imminent peril that
want of a fourth arm of defense poses to
their national security and way of life. A
sensational disclosure of our inability to con-
duct military operations in southeast Asia
without the aid of foreign ships may goad
Congress into action.
TRIBUTE TO G. MENNEN WILLIAMS
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, Gov.
0. Mennen Williams of Michigan, was
one of the best appointments made by
President Kennedy, following his elec-
tion in 1960. As Assistant Secretary of
State for African Affairs, Governor Wil-
liams,has done a fine job of intelligently
interpreting African interests. He has
gained wide respect among responsible
leaders in Africa, just as he has always
enjoyed that respect in his own country.
On July 20, a biographical sketch of
Governor Williams appeared in the
New York Times. I ask unanimous
consent to have this article printed at
this point in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECOR o,
as follows:
INFORMAL DIPLOMAT: GERHARD MENNEN
WILLIAMS
WASHINGTON, July 19.-Late In 1960, when
Gerhard Mennen Williams was preparing to
leave the Governor's office in Lansing, Mich.,
to take up his new duties as Assistant Secre-
tary of State for African Affairs, newspape;^-
men in the capital composed a little far,:-
well ditty that began:
"Far across the ocean blue,
Kasavubu waits for you,
Bye, bye, Soapy."
Today it became known through friends
that after 41/2 years of dealing with the prob-
lems of Congo President Joseph Kasavubu
and other African leaders, Mr. Williams is
thinking of turning back across the ocee n
blue 'to Lansing and a possible return
Michigan politics.
It was no surprise to anyone who knew the
56-year-old crewcut former Governor. His
love for Michigan politics is as strong and
enduring as his addiction to the polka-dotted
green bow tie that is his personal trade-
mark.
STAID ATMOSPHERE
Indeed, to many it had seemed that Mr.
Williams carried the habits and customs of
his political career into the normally more
staid atmosphere of Foggy Bottom.
It was not just a matter of his wearing
the polka--dot bow tie to even the most for-
mal diplomatic affairs. It was also his serv-
ing as caller for a rollicking square dance fpr
African diplomats in Washington-the same
kind of square dance at which he would de-
light the Grange wives in Michigan.
On his frequent swings through Africa, he
would shake hands, pose for photos, and ex-
change souvenirs with everyone from the
prime minister to the women pumping water
at the village well.
He crammed his office in the State Depart-
ment's executive wing with so many treas-
urers of his African tours that it began to
resemble a corner of the Museum of African
Art. It was all an expression of the enthu-
siasm and empathy that made Mr. Williams
the unbeatable champion of Michigan poli-
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180061-9
 July 22, 1965 r~WWrcveu CONGRESSIONXLuRECO'k'~i - S N Mvr%uuujuu louuu l 17193
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. DOUGLAS. My colleague the
junior Senator from Illinois is well ad-
vised to ask for a quorum call-we all
wish to hear him speak-as a means of
saving his strength for the great struggle
which will shortly be upon him. We
want him to be in full vigor for that.
Many of us feel as intensely on this
subject as my colleague does. We do not
desire to interrupt the business of the
Senate, as My colleague has virtually
served notice that he intends to do. But
we shall fight it out, if it takes all sum-
mer, all fall, and all winter.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I am for that.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. DIRKSEN. I yield.
Mr. MURPHY. As one of the newest
Members of this body, and one who has
tried to keep in close contact with his
constituents in his home State of Cali-
fornia, I assure both the junior Senator
from Illinois and the senior Senator from
Illinois that there is no question which
is more important to be under considera-
tion for the people of the State of Cali-
fornia than the question now to be re-
solved. I bring notice again that a bi-
partisan committee has been working
for sometime. That committee is made
up of the leader of the minority party
and the leader of the majority party. I
should like to aline myself with my
leader on the minority side. I shall
make arrangements to be,here all sum-
mer, whether the egg's are smaller or
larger, and whether the bread is fresh
or stale.
I congratulate the Senator, and I aline
myself with him.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I am deeply grateful
to my distinguished colleague from Cali-
fornia.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that I may suggest the absence of a
quorum without losing my right to the
floor; and I suggest to the Senate at-
taches that the quorum call will be a live
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, the Senator from Illinois
will retain the floor. The absence of a
quorum having been suggested, the clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll, and
the following Senators answered to their
dames,
[No. 199 Leg.]
Aiken
Fannin
McGovern
Allott
Fulbright
McIntyre
Anderson
Gore
McNamara
Bartlett
Gruening
Metcalf
Bass
Harris
Miller
Bayh
Hart
Mondale
Sennett
Hartke
Monroney
Bible
Hayden
Montoya
Boggs
Hickenlooper
Morse
Brewster
Hill
Morton
Burdick
Holland
Moss
Byrd, W. Va.
Hruska
Mundt
Cannon
Inouye
Murphy
Carlson
Jackson
Muskie
Case
Javits
Nelson
Church
Jordan, N.C.
Neuberger
Clark
Jordan, Idaho
Pearson
Cooper
Kennedy, Mass. Pell
Cotton
Kennedy, N.Y.
Prouty
Curtis
Kuchel
Proxmire
Dirksen
Lausche
Randolph
Dodd
Long, Mo.
Ribico8
Dominick
L rig, La.
Robertson
Douglas
Magnuson
Russell, Ga.
Eastland
Mansfield
Saltonstall
Ellender
McClellan
Scott
Ervin
McGee
Simpson
Smathers
Talmadge
Williams, Del.
Smith
Thurmond
Yarborough
Sparkman
Tower
Young, N. Dak.
Stennis
Tydings
Young, Ohio
Symington
Williams, N.J.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Tv-
DINGS in the chair). A quorum is pres-
ent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
junior Senator from Illinois has the floor.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, earlier
this afternoon, the distinguished Senator
from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK] came
to me and said he had a speech that
probably would take an hour or more to
deliver and that it was quite imperative
that it be made today. I shall gladly
yield to him with the understanding that
I shall not forfeit my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection? The Chair hears none, and
it is so ordered.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I do not
object. I ask my friend the Senator
from Illinois or my friend the Senator
from Pennsylvania if I may be permitted
to ask a question of the Senator from
Illinois concerning a matter to which he
alluded in his earlier remarks.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I shall be
happy to yield to the Senator from In-
diana without losing my right to the
floor.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I look for-
ward with a great deal of interest to
what I know will be a comprehensive
presentation on the part of the Senator
from Pennsylvania, who feels very
strongly about the matter.
I have had a great deal of experience
in seeing this matter unfold in the sub-
committee and in the full committee.
I should like to get the thought of the
Senator, if I can, concerning a matter
which he mentioned. I believe that this
is such a serious matter that we should
debate it on the floor and make a deter-
mination up or down.
I should refer, as the Senator knows-
and I have discussed this matter at some
great length-that the measure go
through the normal committee proce1.
duce, However, since that has been cir-
cumvented, I see no other alternative
than to have a full and comprehensive
discussion about it.
I am concerned about the reference
made by the Senator from Illinois to sec-
tion 14(b). He alluded to any issue that
might be coming down the pike, so to
speak. Would it not be best if I, as an
insignificant junior Senator, were to sug-
gest that, rather looking in the future
at any and every bill as another battle-
ground, we agree to do battle at this
particular time and thus, not in dilatory
manner, logjam the Senate once the
decision has been made.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I would
be perfectly agreeable to joining issue
and doing battle.
I am perfectly agreeable also to accom-
modating myself to the imperative needs
of the Senate. For example, I should cer-
tainly not want to stand in the way of
a defense appropriation bill when we
stop to consider what is going on 12,000
miles away from here in Vietnam.
I try to be circumspect about these
things. However, I tried to make two
things emphatic. The first is that I play
for keeps. The second is that I use what-
ever weapons are in the rule book.
I have had that rule book under my
arm, and the House rule book also, for
the past 32 years. A grizzled old Texan
said to me the third day after I came to
Congress, "Young man, if you expect to
be useful around this place, you take that
rule book home with you every night."
Every night, I took the rule book home.
That is the Bible. Of course, therein are
the weapons, and therein we will find al-
lusion to the precedents. I have to do
battle in the best way that I can.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, I want the
record to show that I recognize that the
Senator from Illinois is an extremely
worthy adversary, I having been in the
rather undesirable position of confront-
ing him on opposite sides of one or two
issues, as well as having been on the
same side on others.
I want to make sure that the best in-,
terpretation of the battleground and of
the rules would be the use of the rule
book to the full extent in a battle. Once
the issue has been joined and has been
decided, we should then proceed to the
consideration of other Important mat-
ters which face the Senate and the
country.
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, I em-
phasize point No. 2. One battle does not
make a war. I may lose the first battle.
I approach it with a high degree of hope.
However, if I lose the first battle, I must
fight on and on until the victory is won.
This is only the first battle. If, per-
chance, destiny will let the laurels of suc-
cess perch upon my lamps and my
shields, I shall be happy. If not, I must
gird myself again and get the energy
reservoir filled with what it takes to drive
one on. I must look at the arsenal of
weapons, take my choice, and continue
the fight in the only way that I know,
on the floor as these things come along.
I have all the precedents very care-
fully analyzed as to what I can or can-
not do. Because of my fidelity to the
State-Federal system that our forefa-
thers gave to us, and because I believe
that there is such a thing as sovereign
power in the States and that there are
some rights in the States, I propose in my
feeble way to undertake to protect them
as best I can.
Mr. BAYH. Mr. President, as the
Senator from Illinois knows, the junior
Se ator from Indiana is in agreement
with the junior Senator from Illinois on
most of the things to which he has al-
luded. I know that the Senator from
Illinois does not have the reputation of
being dilatory in doing battle. I look
forward to a full discussion of this mat-
ter.
Mr. DIRKSEN. I trust so. And I
trust that finally we can render a conclu-
sion.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, may I
say for the benefit of my colleagues that
I shall occupy the floor for some time,
possibly between 1 and 2 hours. I sus-
pect that few, if any, of my colleagues
Approved For Release 2003/10/15: CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 17194
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE July 22, 1965
will share my own enthusiasm for the
subject which I intend to discuss which
is full employment and international
finance.
I consider this to be extremely impor-
tant subject. However,it is not. the
kind of subject which I expect would
cause very' many of my colleagues _ to re-
main in the Chamber and listen to it.
I hope that some of them will read the
speech. It deals with an important
matter. I make these Comments with
the thought that some of my colleagues
might prefer to leave the Chamber.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CLARK. I yield.
Mr. GRUENING. Is a speech on in-
ternational finance in conformity with
the germaneness rule which the Senator
has so stoutly advocated In the past?
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, it has al-
ways been my view that we play the game
In the Senate according to the rules
which are in effect at the time the
whistle blows. The time for the ger-
maneness rule to take effect expired at
2 o'clock today. So it Is not necessary
forme to,seek permission.
Mr. VIN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield so that I may propound a
parliamentary Inquiry?
W. CIJiRK. I Yield.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator will state the parliamentary in-
Mr. ERVIN.. Mr. President, are we
about to witness a filibuster by the non-
filibusterers?
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, a point
of order.
The Senator from North Carolina has
not propounded a proper parliamentary
Inquiry.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
point of order Is well taken.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, a
point of order.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, must I
yield for a point of inquiry?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senator has the floor, He does not have
to yield.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I refuse
to yield to my friend the Senator from
Alaska.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield for a parliamentary in-
quiry?
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, I yield
for a parliamentary inquiry, if the Sen-
ator from New Jersey behaves himself
in connection with propounding it.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, the Sena-
tor would not insist that I return to my
seat, would he?
Mr. CLARK. No.
Mr. CASE. I thank my colleague.
I ask if it is in order to raise the ques-
tion of germaneness because I believe
the Senator from Pennsylvania is incor-
rectin stating the period of germane-
ness has expired for this session. I un-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. In re-
sponse to the parliamentary inquiry
raised by the Senator from New Jersey,
under section 3 of rule VIII, the 3-hour
germaneness period starts to run at the
conclusion of the morning hour or after
the unfinished business or pending busi-
ness has first been laid before the Senate.
Since the pending business of the Senate
today was first laid before the Senate at
approximately 11:05 a.m., the 3-hour
period was over at 2:05 p.m. Therefore,
the germaneness rule Is not now in effect.
Mr. CASE. Is it in order to interrupt
a Senator, regardless of his wishes, to
raise the question of germaneness?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
second point is well taken. Although a
Senator who has the floor does not have
to yield for a point of order, the ger-
maneness rule would be meaningless un-
less a Senator could Interpose an objec-
tion that the speaking Senator was not
observing the rule of germaneness and,
therefore, under rule XIX a Senator may
call the Senator who is addressing the
Senate to order at anytime.
Mr. CLARK, If the Senator from
New Jersey is happy, I would like very
much to proceed.
Mr., CASE. The Senator from New
Jersey slid not Intend to make the point
of order. He lus,,,t w&ted to know If he
could. ka
T E SITTZAT IN VIETNAM
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, as I said
earlier, newspapers are full of referen-
ces to high-level conferences which are
taking place at the White House between
the President and Secretary of Defense
McNamara and other policy advisers.
The question has been raised in the
press, in a number of articles which ap-
peared this morning, as to what our war
alms in South Vietnam are and what the
rationale is on the basis of which we
continue to fight in that country and,
indeed, continue to build up American
forces in that part of the world.
I ask unanimous consent that three
articles, first, an editorial entitled
"American . Honor in Vietnam" which
appeared In the New York Times this
morning; the second, a column by
Walter Llppmann entitled "The Larger
War," which appeared in the Washing-
ton Post this morning; and the third, an
article entitled "U.S. Professor Reports
Flexibility in Hanoi Stand," under the
byline of a well known international re-
porter, M. S. Handler, which appears on
page 3 of the New York Times of this
morning, may be printed at this point
in my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
and articles were ordered to be printed
in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the New York Times, July 22, 1965]
AMERICAN HONOR IN VIETNAM
Speaking of Vietnam in a recent press
conference President Johnson said: "Ourna-
tional honor is at stake. Our word Is at
derstand it does not expire until 3:30 p.m. stake." it was not the first time that the
or thereabouts. It seems to me, if I may administration has taken this position, but
say so before yielding to the Chair to the emphasis and the timing of Mr. Johnson's
remark gave it special importance.
answer my question, that it is a little The commitment involved in the Presi-
strange If it is Impossible to Interrupt a dent's statement is so portentous that it de-
Senator. serves careful examination. Obviously, it
the honor of the Nation is at stake to such
a degree that American aims must be
achieved, then the struggle is a wax to the
finish whatever the cost. If the United
States were to lose its honor in Vietnam it
Would lose its prerominant place in world
affairs, whilethe Communist bloc would win
a victory of staggering proportions. This,
clearly, would be unacceptable.
But the question does arise whether the
honor of the United States is at stake in
such a drastic and precise sense of the word.
It the United States were to give up, pull
out of Vietnam and leave the country to
its fate there would, of course, be a lots of
honor-but very few Americans would argue
for such a solution today. Between doing
that and forcing Hanoi to sue for peace on
American terms there is a whole gamut of
possible settlements that would not be at
all dishonorable to any except those demand-
ing a complete "victory" over the Vietcong
and North Vietnam.
A statement like the one Mr. Johnson
made arouses uneasiness because of its cate-
goricai nature. The stakes in the Vienaraese
conflict are being raised steadily. The Viet-
namese conflict-rand no one needs to tell
this to Washington-holds within it the pos-
sibility of a war with Communist China and
a world war.
It is neither cynicism nor appeasement to
point out that the word "honor" Is not a
scientific but an emotionally charged term
of very high voltage. If President Johnson
means that Americans would not accept a
refeat so humiliating that it represents a
loss of national honor, he is right. The risk
comes in determining when, if or how honor
would be lost. There are even such th mgs
as honorable defeats and dishonorable vic-
tories. And in between there are all kinds of
compromises that are neither one thing nor
another-but sensible and realistic.
In international politics it is wise to avoid
extreme positions. American honor must
by all means be preserved; It should, how-
ever, be given a reasonable connotation.
[From the Washington Post, July 22, 19?5]
THE LARGER WAR
(By Walter Lippmann)
Secretary McNamara's return from Saigon
has set the stage for a decision which has
been anticipated for a long time. Ever since
it has become evident that the air strikes
would not bring the Indo-Chinese war to an
end, it has been virtually certain that the
American troop commitment would be greatly
increased.
The air strikes were tried out as a relatively
cheap and easy way of compensating for and
covering up the defeat of the South Viet-
namese army. In the past 6 months the
plight of the Saigon army has become worse
and worse, and today its reserves are used
up, its troops are deserting in masses, the
villages from which it could draw new re-
cruits are in Vietcong hands, communica-
tions with the few centers that it still holds
are substantially cut.
The decline of the South Vietnamese army
has gone so far that President Johnson is
confronted with the question of waging an
American war. The crucial question which
has to be decided is not how many more
American soldiers shall be put ashore in Viet-
nam. Although this question is of enormous
importance to the men themselves and to
their families, although Congress and the
country are vitally interested because it is
certain to involve at least a partial mobilisa-
tion, the crucial question nevertheless is
what the president intends to ask this large
American army to do. Will he give it a mis-
sion that can be accomplished? Or will he
send it on a fool's errand, as all our previous,
missions in South Vietnam have proved to
be-the conquering and occupation of the
Approved For Release 2003/10/15 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000300180001-9
 MPP1 VV U r-VI rxumcl,C LVVJ/ All/ IU .