Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 20, 2016
Document Release Date: 
November 21, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 14, 1966
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2.pdf3.3 MB
Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE trends, as well as to search scientifically for the causes of productivity growth. We need better estimates of the Nation's wealth. If we are to aim economic policy vo that demand grows in line with potential supply, we need better estimates of the growth of that supply. And we will need to know how much capital is needed to aug- ment capacity in different lines. The Joint Economic Committee, which has done so much to promote better statistics for this country through its Subcommittee on Eco- nomic Statistics, published an important re- port last year on this problem. We need to improve our price information. The United States has much the most comprehensive set of price measures of any country in the world. But our measures are not sufficiently sensitive, probably overstate price increases by inadequate allowance for quality improve- ment, and do not adequately reflect actual transaction prices or other aspects of total cost such as the period of delivery, freight absorption, etc. The report of the Stigler committee provides some important insights and suggestions. We must continue to strengthen our un- employment statistics, and supplement them with figures on job vacancies. We need bet- ter information on compensation per man- hour. With fringe benefits becoming an ever-larger share of total worker compensa- tion, we should have regular, periodic infor- mation on fringes along with straight wages. Further, a larger part of the labor force con- sists of nonproduction workers, and is en- gaged in the tertiary industries. We need more thorough coverage for these types of workers and these sectors. Finally, our statistical efforts must more fully serve this country's increased concern with its balance of payments. We need to do a lot more work on indexes of export prices, both for ourselves and for our major competitors. CONCLUDING COMMENTS The Federal Statistics Users' Conference has been a source of great strength to the Federal statistical program. I have outlined to you tonight some of the changing needs for our Information base for continued pros- perity. We shall look to you in the future as we have in the past for advice and guid- ance and for support in keeping our pro- grams up to the needs of the times. We are blessed that the challenges before us are the challenges of prosperity and not of de- pression. Speaking for those of us in the Government, let me express our gratitude for the support you have given us in the past and for the continued support I know you will give us in the future. Thank you. WISCONSIN'S DICK CUDAHY SHOWS HOW INITIATIVE STILL PAYS OFF Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I think we all would agree that loyalty, hard work, and initiative should be rec- ognized. That is what I want to do to- day in a brief comment on a young man who restored to fiscal soundness an old and famous family firm. The man is Richard D. Cudahy, a grandson of the founder of Patrick Cud- ahy, Inc., of Milwaukee. Richard Cudahy chose a career out- side the family business after World War II when he entered Yale University Law School, graduated, and began the prac- tice of law in Chicago. But by 1961, his grandfather was de- ceased and his father, Michael Cudahy, was ill. Without hesitation, Richard Cudahy picked up the reins of leadership. With the cooperation of the United Packing- house Workers, he initiated modern, ef- ficient, and productive meatpacking practices. The success of his policies be- came evident by the next year. His continued success is truly a tribute to those virtues of enterprise, imagina- tion, and thrift which we hear too little of today. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD an article of this high example from Meat Processing magazine. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: RICHARD D. CUDAHY, YOUTIIFUL LEADER OF PATRICK CUDAHY, INC., SWITCHES PROFES- SIONS To GUIDE 77-YEAR-OLD WIscoNstN PACKING FIRM Five years ago Patrick Cudahy, Inc., was faced with a situation that has confronted many packers at one time or another. Ris- ing labor costs, outdated production meth- ods, and unprofitable operations posed seri- in the Milwaukee suburb that bears his name, things had never been quite so desperate. Today, however, the 77-year-old firm is experiencing a relative prosperity that is sur- prising the industry. .Much of the credit for this turnabout can be traced to a new management team headed by the company's president, Richard D. Cudahy. WEST POINT GRAD Although a grandson of the founder, Richard Cudahy had severed direct relations with company operations early in life to pur- sue other career interests. In 1944 Cudahy joined the U.S. Army Air Force but shortly thereafter received an appointment to the U.S. Military Academy. After graduation from West Point, he served 4 years with the Air Force. Upon leaving the service in 1952, he attended the Yale University Law School where he received his LL. B. degree in 1955. With this background, Cudahy spent sev- eral years in Government legal posts but in 1957 the Midwest beckoned and Cudahy joined a prominent Chicago law firm. In 1961, Patrick Cudahy's plight came to a head. Michael Cudahy, president of the firm since the death of his father, was ill and unable to maintain effective company leader- ship. He summoned his son to take the helm-and that Richard Cudahy did. UNION 'HARMONY Cudahy explains that he rejoined the firm partly to carry on the family tradition as well as for the opportunity the new post pre- sented. "Meat packing is a fascinating busi- ness," he says. "Certain managerial policies were not working out in the late fifties, but I felt that a new approach could help resolve the problems." Cudahy thus had the chance to exercise his own ideas in regard to labor relations, personnel, and marketing. "This approach," says Cudahy, "is by no means original-but our plans call for continued development and emphasis of our more dis- tinctive and distinguishable products as op- posed to our commodity products." Cudahy became president in January of 1961. Through his efforts and with the co- operation of Local 40 of the United Packing- house Workers, wage scales were realined and a long-range modernization of produc- tion practices was initiated. The first bene- ficial effects of these policies were evident by the end of 1962-and from then on the bene- fits have been snowballing. Cudahy retains an etive interest in the legal aspects of burin ss. Associates reveal that when legal problems arise, it is alto- gether too easy to take them to Cudhay for solution-and if an answer is not readily apparent, he will research the problem until one can be found. In fact, Cudahy spends some of his leisure time as a lecturer in law at Marquette University Law School. ACTIVE DEMOCRAT In line with this legal background, he has been admitted to practice in three States and the District of Columbia and is a member of the American, Wisconsin, Chicago, and Mil- waukee Bar Associations. Cudahy is also on the Milwaukee Board of Harbor Commissioners and active in af- fairs of the Cudahy Marine Bank, the Wis- consin Regional Export Expansion Council, and a State subcommittee on education. He is president of the Milwaukee Urban League and has been active in Democratic political circles including membership in the Wis- consin delegation to the last Democratic Na- tional Convention. Still a young man at 39, Cudahy's prospects for the future are bright. Meanwhile, he is gaining valuable experience guiding Pat- rick Cudahy, Inc., on a new course. ON VIETNAM Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, one of the finest examples in recent years of debate in a free society took place less than a month ago. It was, in fact, an international debate between a trio at Harvard University and their opposite numbers in London. It was televised by CBS via satellite. Laurence Tribe, one of the Harvard students, states the U.S. goal most elo- quently when he said: The United States has no ambitions in South Vietnam. We have no interest in creating an outpost of American democracy there. Our purpose is not to impose a par- ticular government on South Vietnam. Our purpose is only to give them a chance to choose. The distinguished professor, Henry Kissinger, also contributed an eloquent summation when he said: I would like to emphasize that our goal is and should be freedom for the people of all of Vietnam to determine the future of their country. As Americans, we would far prefer to engage in tasks of construction. We would far prefer to do what President Kennedy said in his inaugural address, that to those people in the huts and villages of half the globe, we pledge our best efforts to help themselves. But we do not have the choice between de- fense and construction. Unless we can do both, we will not be able to do either. I would like to emphasize that our con- tinued efforts should be devoted to the goals so well stated by these two articu- late and outstanding Americans. Because television debates, despite their immense immediate impact, are perishable, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of that debate printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the text was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From "CBS Reports," as broadcast over the CBS television network, Dec. 21, 19651 TOWN MEETING OF THE WORLD (With CBS News Correspondent Charles Collingwood. Executive producer, Don Hewitt) Mr. CoLLINGwooD. Good evening. As part of our continuing special coverage of the war in Vietnam, this CBS News broadcast, "Town Meeting of the World," has arranged a transatlantic debate on the subject: "Re- Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE January 14, 1966 solved that the United States should carry out its commitment in Vietnam." The two debating teams, one in England and the other in the L nited States, are linked together via Early Bird satellite. They :: ce each other. On this side of the Atlantic, two Harvard students and a distinguished Harvard pro- fessor; on the other side, two Oxford stu- dents and a, famous Oxford graduate. At this time, I think I ought to introduce them to each other. First, on the subject, the debating side taking the affirmative ride of this resolution, the team arguing that the United States should carry out its commit- ment, this its Robert Shrum, a student at Harvard Law School. Mr. Shrum was picked this year as the top debater at the National Intercollegiate Debate Tournament. Next, Prof. Henry A. Kissinger, of Har- vard. Professor Kissinger is a leading scholar and theoretician on defense and foreign policy In the nuclear age. He's been an adviser to the U.S. Government under four Presidents and has recently returned from Vietnam. Mr. Laurence Tribe is, like Mr. Shrum, at Harvard Law School. He's also a notable college debater. his team having won the national championship in 1961. Now, Messrs. Shrum, Kissinger, and Tribe, I'd like you to meet your opponents in Eng- land. Mr. Tariq All, of Lahore, Pakistan. A former president of the Union at Oxford, lie's been quoted as predicting that he'll be president of Pakistan in 10 years. In the meantime, he's standing as candidate for Parliament in the radical alliance interest against British Foreign Secretary Michael Stewart. Mr. Michael Foot, who is presently a Member of Parliament and is generally re- garded as the ablest and most articualte spokesman for the Labor Party's left. Mr. Foot has also had a brilliant career outside of Parliament as an author and journalist. Mr. Stephen Marks, a former chairman of the Oxford Labor Club, has been called the most formicti.ble debater at Oxford. Now, gentlemen, let me give you the ground rules of this debate of ours. We're going to start with 1141-minute arguments from the students on each team. You may find that a little constricting, but there'll be time later. They'll be followed by 21/2 min- sites by senior members, Professor Kissinger and Mr. Foot; and when your time is up, I'll ring a bell, like that, carried across the At- lantic via Early Bird. Now, after the open- ing statements, we'll open things up for a give-and-take discussion among the two teams and later we'll invite the audiences In London and New York to give questions to you, and incidentally, I think I'd better in?- troduce the audiences. In London, students from Oxford, members of the Oxford Union. We're making no pretense, of course, that everyone at Oxford agrees with the view taken by the Oxford debaters; nor for that matter, that tie American college students from the various schools in the New York area here all agree with the views taken by the Harvard debaters. Now, after all that ado, but with no fur- ther, let's begin with the first American spokesman for the affirmative, Mr. Larry Tribe. One and a half minutes, Mr. Tribe. Mr. Tama. Ladies and gentlemen, Asians and Americans are dying tonight in order to preserve a world in which each nation can shape W, own future. Peace was pre- served in Cuba and Berlin because no one doubted that we would carry out our pledge not to back down.. We have made that pledge in Vietnam. Nowhere have we ,said more clearly, "We will stand." If we aban- don that commitment, imagine a future con- frontation and ask yourself, who would be- lieve us then? Vietnam was one country before it was divided; so was Korea, so was Germany. The issues are the same in Vietnam. There can be no peace when international lines of demarcation are challenged by military force, when the pen that draws those lines is challenged by the sword. Nor can there be peace so long as unrest and social revo- lution remains the prey of hostile powers, the focal point of global confrontation. We seek no military victory in Vietnam. We will withdraw when North Vietnam ceases Its support and guidance of the South, ceases its support of the war. That will come about when Hanoi is convinced of our resolve. To retreat before she is convinced would tempt aggressors everywhere. Mr. CoLL*_ricwoon. Thank you, Mr. Tribe. Now, for the negative. Mr. Tariq All, of Oxford. Mr. ALT. I would like to pick up where Mr. Tribe left off on the subject of neg,tiations. The Hanoi regime, before the Unit: ,d States started bombing North Vietnam and in- creasing its buildup of troops, told the Sec- retary General of the United Nations that it was prepared to negotiate. This offer W.I. not made clear to the American per-plc, with the results that we have the situr Lion-we have the situation as it is today. And this Is basically the point, that you can't expect people to negotiate when you are bombing their cities, when you are destroy'ng their villages. I think it is unfortunate, and I hope members-I hope members across the Atlantic forgive this callous remark that the United States and member citizei a of the United States don't really know what bomb- ing is. If they did, no decent U.P. citizen could support it. An American pilot told (a reporter) of the New York Times, "I don't like to hit a village. You know you're hit- ting women and children too, but you've got to decide that your cause is noble and that the work has to be done." This ituation, as this statement, saddens me, as it should sadden every human being, as it should sad- den Professor Kissinger, who just returned from South Vietnam and said that tie was very worried that the South Vietnamese Government did not enjoy the sipport of the people; and that is why you cannot equate Germany and South Korea with Viet- nam, because the majority of the people in South. Vietnam supports the Vietcong. Mr. COLLINCwoon. Thank you, Mr. Ali. And now, on the affirmative side of be argu- ment, another student at Harvard, Mr. Rob- ert Shrum. Mr. SrrauM. Perhaps no nation i-i the his- tory of warfare has ever known the horrors of bombing better than the United Kingdom, and yet the United Kingdom knew that in World War II, bombing was necessary to meet the Nazi threat, and if bombing is necessary in Vietnam to meet the Communist threat, then unpleasant as that course may be, it is the only real one that the United :htates can pursue. Why are we pursuing that. course? Not because we seek a military victory, not because we seek an economic advantage, but because we seek to see to it that the people of South Vietnam are not forced to choose their way of life at the point of a gun. Rather we seek for them a free election un- der International auspices in wdiich they can decide under what form of government they want to live. The form of negotiations proposed last year by Hanoi excluded the South Vietnamese Government. lt.'s totally antithetical to the American commitment in Vietnam for we aren't fighting for ourselves. We're fighting for the principle that people shall not have to submit their wills to ag- gression. We're there, fighting for the South Vietnamese. We surely could no abandon them at a time when negotiati.urs came about. Our principal purpose In S iuth Viet- nam is to repel aggression. When aggres- sion is repelled, when the North Vietnamese cease their aggression against South Viet- nam, then the bombing will no longer be necessary; then negotiations can take place, then the people of South Vietnam can de- cide their own future. Mr. COLLINOWOOD. Thank you. And new, on the other side of the issue, once again from Oxford, Mr. :Marks. MY. Maaxs. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm very frightened by those last two speeches, very frightened indeed, and I'd like to try, in the short time I've got, to deal with some of the frightening misconceptions that lie behind them. First of all, Mr. Shrum's statements-no, I'll start first with Mr. Tribe. He talked about America's pledge. Who was that pledge made to? The pledge the United States is defending In Vietnam was made to a government the United States deliberately installed there in the first place with the intention of frustrating free elec- tions as provided for in the Geneva agree- ment. That's how their government got there. It represents no one except Ameri- can dollars. That is all that government is there for, and the commitment to that sort of government isn't worth the paper it's written on. What other points did he make? Korea and Germany. Neither Korea nor Germany have specified for them in international treaties that they have to be reunited within a specified time under free elections. Amer- ica agreed to that pledge In 1954 in Geneva. She's broken her word. That's why the com- parison with Korea and Germany doesn't apply. What other points were made? Support and guidance from the North. We're told when that stops, America has no quarrel with the South Vietnamese. Then why was America intervening, giving military help in contravention of the Geneva agreement to South Vietnam before they started getting help from the North. From--sorry--from the day the Geneva agreement:, were signed, America was helping the South Vietnamese Government and there's no reason to think they will stop because if they did stop that Government would fall. That's just, the 'be- ginning. Mr. CoLLIrrswoon. Thank you, Mr. Marks. We'll hear from you later, but now we're go- ing to hear from the two senior members of each team beginning with Prof. Henry Kiss- inger from Harvard. Two and a half min- utes, Mr. Kissinger. Mr. KISSINGER. Ladies and gentlemen, the subject we are discussing this evening is whether the United States should honor its commitment to Vietnam. Let me first an- swer the point about to whom this com- mitment was made. I take it that the com- mitment is made to the people of South Vietnam to give them an opportunity to choose their own future, free of outside in- terference. We have an obligation as well to the peoples of other new nations that the dislocations that are inseparable from the process of their development not be used by more powerful or better organized neighbors. We have a responsibility toward our friends all over the world that they can rely on our pledges. And finally we have an obligation to the peoples of the world to be in the pur- suit of these obligations-will explore every avenue toward peace. If we withdraw from our commitment in Vietnam today, we will leave countless thousands to a brutal fate. We will strengthen all those in the Commu- nist world who argue that war is a means for settling disputes. In the pursuit of our re- sponsibilities, we have, of course, always to be careful that our measures reflect a polit- ical and moral purpose and not simply the momentum of past decisions. We arc---_,e have a responsibility to see to it that politi- cal and military means reflect the proper priorities. Of course, the war in Vietnam is a grim and desperate struggle, but those who defend the principle of peaceful change will always; be challenged in difficult situations. Of course, everyone watching the sacrifice and the suffering must suffer great anguish, most of all Americans whose sons are run- ning-are risking their lives daily. But we Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 211 are not in Vietnam because we want to stay. We are in Vietnam because we want to withdraw, and we will do so as soon as free choice is guaranteed to the people of South Vietnam. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Kis- singer. And now, from England, Mr. Michael Foot. Mr. FooT. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm still not clear, despite the statements made by the three movers of this motion, exactly what Is the commitment which the United States claims to be defending in Vietnam. We are told by Professor Kissinger that the commitment is made to the Government of South Vietnam, and, of course, it is true that the only possible excuse for the Americans having 170,000 troops or 180,000 troops on the other side of the world from the United States itself is that they should be there on the invitation of a foreign government. Now, of course, there will be many arguments, no doubt, in this debate as to who installed the government in South. Vietnam and whether, in fact, the United States did not help to in- stall the Government that has issued the in- vitation. There would be arguments about that. There may be arguments, also, as to whether in fact they are repelling aggression; but even if Americans sent troops-think they have the right to send troops to South Vietnam In response to an invitation from the South Vietnam Government, and even if we were to concede that, and even if we were to concede that the South had suffered aggression from the North-I con- cede none of these things; but even if we were to accept all those parts of the argu- ments put forward by those who sponsor this motion, it still remains the fact that the United States of America would not have the slightest right whatsoever, under the charter of the United Nations, in order to repel al- leged aggression, to bomb indiscriminately a neighboring country; and if South Viet- nam were subject to aggression, why did not the United States of America take this issue to the Security Council of the United Nations? Why did they not attempt to se- cure-why did they not attempt to secure the backing of other countries there? Why did they not go and put their case? Why did they not go and present their evidence to the other nations, or does the United States of America think that it has the right to decide these things for themselves on the other side of the world? Well, we contest that right. We contest that right partly because we don't think the American claims conform with the facts, but also because we do not believe that any single nation has the right to decide how it is going to respond to aggres- sion, particularly when they're doing it on the other side of the planet. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Thank you, Mr. Foot. Now we have the outlines of the arguments between the two teams on each side of the Atlantic. Let's carry on from there. Who on the American side wishes to answer Mr. Foot and the British side? Mr. Shrum. Mr. SHRUM. Mr. Tribe. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Sorry, Mr. Tribe. Mr. TRIBE. Mr. Foot asks why did the United States not take the issue to the United Na- tions? In August of 1964, it was the United States that invited Hanoi to take part in Security Council discussions on the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Hanoi refused. It was in September of this year that the Govern- ment of North Vietnam said bluntly any United Nations resolutions in this area would be null and void. Under those cicumstances, what sense would it make to go to the Security Council and simply make the motion of having been there? Secretary Goldberg- Ambassador Goldberg, in September of this year, pointed out the majority of the mem- bers of the Security Council are agreed that while the United Nations can be used in a conciliatory capacity in this area and that America has done on a number of occasions, it cannot effectively be used for anything other than quiet diplomacy. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. How about that, Oxford? Who wants to reply to that? Mr. FooT, Well, I don't know what right Mr. Goldberg has got to decide which mat- ters should go to the United Nations. This is the charter that we all signed, that the U.S. Government signed as well. Their obligation under that charter is that if they think they or their allies are subject to aggression, we should take this matter to the United Na- tions to be judged. My answer to the reason why the United States didn't take this major matter to be decided at the United Nations is because they had no clear case. They had no clear case that in fact the cause of the war in Vietnam was an aggression by the North against the South. I haven't any doubt that the North has given assistance to the South during the course of the war, but that's not the origin of the war. If you're going to go to the origin of the war, you have to go back at least to 1954, when an agreement was signed as to how a settle- ment should be made in Vietnam, an agree- ment which, among other things, specified that there should be elections in the whole of Vietnam within a period of 2 years; and the U.S. forces in Vietnam and the U.S. policy in Vietnam has upset the demand and insist- ence of the Geneva Conference that there should be general elections in the whole of Vietnam, so I would like to ask the question: Do the sponsors of this motion, does the Government of the United States now accept the terms of the Geneva settlement of 1954? Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Kissinger. Mr. KISSINGER. With respect to the United Nations Charter, article 51 specifically pro- vides for the right of individual and collec- tive self-defense. Secondly, the view that Mr. Foot has just expressed does not seem to be shared by the Government of North Vietnam, which on September 23, 1965, stated as follows: "The U.S. authorities are feverishly trying by every means to secure a United Nations interven- tion in Vietnam. They have, quote, 're- quested help from the United Nations mem- bership at large in getting peace talks start- ed.' This is a maneuver to use the United Nations to impose on the Vietnamese people negotiations under U.S. terms." There have been at least five other instances this year in which the North Vietnamese Government has asserted that the United Nations is not competent to enter the Vietnamese dispute. This Is the primary reason why the United Nations has not been apprised of this prob- lem. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Marks, you said at the end of your speech that that was "only the beginning." Do you have something that you'd like to address to the proposers of the resolution? Mr. MARKS. Yes, there are a number of points I'd like to add. I'm glad to get off the United Nations. The North Vietnamese don't think that it has much to offer and quite frankly, I agree with them. I'd like to take up this point which I think Mr.-where are we?-I think Mr. Shrum made. He said-and the others. He said that America was in favor of the people of South Vietnam choosing their own gov- ernment. Now, I remember reading a news- paper report on this. I'm afraid I don't have the detailed reference here, but I hope you'll take my word for it-of an interview recently with Vice President HUMPHREY, who said that the United States would not permit the Vietcong to take part in free elec- tions in Vietnam. Now, I'd like to know if Mr. Shrum means the same thing by free elections as President HUMPHREY, or whether he means the same thing as most Democrats mean by free elections. I'd also like to ask, since our own Foreign Secretary, Michael Stewart, who's usually an authoritative spokesman for the Washington line, tells us that there can be no free elections in Viet- nam until there's been a period of classifi- cation-of pacification. I would like to know whether this pacification is a polite word for killing all the Communists, because I have a rather great suspicion that it is. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Shrum. Mr. SHRUM. Well, I-before answering this question about elections, I do want to say that the United Nations is available. It could be very fruitfully used in this problem. I think that if North Vietnam were only willing to accept the good offices of people like Secretary General U Thant, then much of the Vietnamese difficulties could be cleared up. If Vice President HUMPHREY said that the United States should not allow the National Liberation Front of Vietcong to participate in elections, then I disagree with him. I very much doubt that he said it. I think that the U.S. aim in South Vietnam is to give these people any kind of government that they want as long as they freely choose that government in a ballot box rather than at the point of a gun. By pacification, I would suggest Mr. Stew- art probably means that the country must no longer be seething with violence and ter- rorism, because in that kind of atmosphere, free elections can never take place. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now, let's have a ques- tion from the American side to the Oxford side. Mr. Tribe. Mr. TRIBE. It strikes us that the idea that the Americans should not carry out their commitment in Vietnam may differ greatly from the reality that the gentlemen from Oxford want to impose. -We want to know whether they are advocating unilateral and immediate withdrawal. If not, are they simply advocating that we seek a negotiated end? If that's their point, I would like to remind them that the position of the U.S. Government has been and remains that we want peace in Vietnam, simply peace that will guarantee the right of self-determina- tion to that wartorn country. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Ali? Mr. ALI. Yes, I will reply to that, if I may. We have tried to point out, and not only us here in Britain this evening, but the North Vietnamese have been trying to point out that before the bombing of North Viet- nam started, there were peace feelers from Hanoi via U Thant which said that Ho Chi Minh was prepared to go to Burma and dis- cuss a negotiated peace with an American spokesman, but unfortunately, President Johnson was busy taking on Barry Goldwater and the elections, and Dean Rusk's sensitive mind thought that these offers were not sin- cere and, therefore, they were rejected. As to the second part of your question-do I think that the United States should get out of Vietnam now, my answer is yes-without any qualifications, that the only way-it's made out very often that this is a very com- plicated Issue. Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but to me it seems very simple. The United States is there, thousands of miles away from Washington. Surely you can't claim that this is self-defense and that the only way in which they can earn the respect of the world-better later than never-is by leaving Vietnam now, and this I think is the only alternative left to President Johnson. If De Gaulle can do it vis-a-vis Algeria, why not Johnson vis-a-vis Vietnam? Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Professor Kissinger?., Mr. KISSINGER. I would like to make a slight factual correction about the overture of U Thant. I'm not here to defend every action of the American Government and I have often been critical of it In other fields, Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 212 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966 but the facts of the situation seem to me to be as follows: There was a feeler through U Thant, which was very ambiguous and which required us to negotiate without the government ro which we were committed in Saigon. We attempted to determine through other sources just exactly what Hanoi had in mind and received very Inconclusive and rather negative answers and on the basis of this information, the Government decided that it would be better not to pursue this overture. But it is not correct to say that a clear offer to negotiate was rejected, and whatever one's judgment about that over- ture, there have been more than 15 Ameri- can proposals since then which surely could have provided an opening for another con- versation. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Shrum, you were bouncing around there in your chair. Do you want to reply to Mr. Ali? Mr. Saaum. Mr. Ali said that he is in favor of complete withdrawal. Now, I think that he should probably discuss the implications of this, especially in light of the fact that people like Lin Piao, who is Chinese Defense Minister, have delivered statements-the one I'm specifically citing was on September 2, 1965--saying that the war in Vietnam is it test case and that if the Communists can win there, they can then begin and start wars of national liberation all over the world. Of course, wars of national liberation is it euphemism for Communist takeover in these underdeveloped countries. I want to know whether he wants to substitute a new form of colonialism and a more iron tyranny for the one these countries have just gotten rid of. Mr, COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Ali, you'd better answer that Mr. ALI. Yes, I will answer both Professor Kissinger and Mr. Shrub-sorry, Mr. Shrum.. Professor Kissinger, first. I would like to make this point again, Professor Kissinger, with due respect to you and public opinion in the United States, that really, when you are bombing a nation, you can't expect that nation to negotiate with you. If the Japs had asked you to negotiate immediately after they started bombing Pearl Harbor, what would your answer have been? As far as Comrade Shrum's point is con- cerned-I don't accept that wars of national liberation all over the world result in Com- munist domination. The Sino-Soviet split has shown that communism too has its own nationalisms. And I would like to ask Mr. Shrum, that--does he really believe that 12 Communists in Santo Domingo con- stituted a national liberation movement and were sufficient reason for the United States to intervene in Santo Domingo? And an- other point I would like Mr. Shrum to an- swer, that what he quotes Marshal Lin Piao as saying, when responsible American gen- erals like Curtis LeMay say that the only way we can win this war is to bomb North Vietnam back into the stone age, when other responsible American commentators say that this is America's test case, when they are treating Vietnam as a war laboratory with. which to test new weapons, which could be used in the future in Latin America. Mr. Con uNGWO00. Well, we're getting a little far afield in Santo Domingo, but I think Mr. Shrum ought to have a chance to answer that. Mr. SHams. I don't think 12-I don't thnk: 12 Communists in Santo Domingo necessarily constitute a Communist national liberation front. I don't want to really talk about Santo Domingo, but I think that thousands of Communists in Vietnam do constitute a national liberation front, and a real threat to the peace and security of the United States and of southeast Asia. Yes, this is a test; casc7.for the United States of America, and it's a test case because the United States has to prove to aggression that It cannot sue-. ceed and that communism cannot expand all over the world, simply through wars of na- tional liberation. Because someone like Gen. Curtis LeMay sometimes might make an irresponsible statement does not discount Lin Piiao's statement when he said that wars of national liberation could begin all over the world, taking their inspiration from the war in Vietnam. I'm. not here to defend Curtis LeMay; I'm here to defend American policy in Vietnam, because I think it's right. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now from England- Michael Foot, we haven't heard from you for a while. Mr. FooT. We are told that the s im of the United States in Vietnam is to prove that aggression doesn't pay. First of all, as I have said, they haven't yet proved that it's aggression. They haven't attempted to prove that it's aggression before any independent tribunal. One of the reasons why they have not done so, is because they wish to draw a veil over what really happened, and what are the real origins of the war in Vietnam. This maybe is the reason why we have had no answer in this debate and no clear an- swer from the U.S. Government in all the negotiations over-and all the discussions over these years as to whether they accept in full the Geneva settlement of 1954. At the time, most of the other coun tries con- cerned accepted that agreement, with its commitment to free elections in the whole of Vietnam, which we were told by the spokesman here is what the United States Is fighting for in Vietnam. But, we've never had from the statement from the American Government that they accepted to full the Geneva settlement of 19.54. If they would say that, there would be some advance, but of course, if they accepted that, one of the difficulties is that it would destroy a large part of the American argument. Because the Geneva settlement also laid down that Vietnam is not two countries, there is one country, and therefore, what has been hap- pening throughout these years in Vietnam is not a war of aggression, but a civil war, and what the United States is doing is to intervene in a. civil war, intervene in a man- ner which they've certainly got no interna- tional claim under any international law to do. They intervene in a manner which they have not been prepared to put before any international tribunal. Now. this is a very serious matter indeed, and you cannot say that they are doing it in order to up- hold international law when they are not prepared to apply international law to their own actions and moreover, it's no good to say that they are repelling aggression. That's what the people in North Vietnam think they are doing. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Tribe? Mr. FooT. The people in North Vietnam say they want the right to shape their own right and to shape their own destinies. So they're fighting and will continue to fight very hard for those same things. Somehow we have to overcome that barrier and if we're going to do that, the American Government, the most powerful government in the world, will have to retreat from its present position, and be prepared to make proposals for a settlement very much in advance cf .rnything they've yet suggested. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. We'll give the American debating team an opportunity to answer the points made by Mr. Foot when we re- turn with "Town Meeting of time World" after this message. [Announcement] Mr. COLLINGWOOD. In this transatlantic debate between students of Oxford and stu- dents at Harvard and Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Foot on both sides of the Atlanti" via Early Bird, we've just heard a challenging state- ment, on American policy, its defects, ac- cording to him, by Mr. Foot. Who on the American side would like to reply to that? Professor Kissinger? Mr. KISSINGER. I would like to raake--to reply both to Mr. Ali and to Mr. Foot, briefly. Mr. All presented the beginning of American bombing as if it were a decision that Presi- dent Johnson took because he felt angry one Sunday morning and decided to proceed. I think the facts of the situation are that North Vietnamese - North Vietnam - had been encouraging, supporting and supplying an uprising in South Vietnam for 5 years; and it is not obvious to me what the moral distinction is between explosives carried on the back of foot soldiers and explosives car- ried by airplanes. Every argument that was made against negotiation on the part of Hanoi would apply equally well to negotia- tions on the part of Saigon, which has also been subject to attack. And I would say that the only way to escape this logjam, is to stop talking about the past and to try to see whether one can find comparable re- straints on both sides to stop the shooting and to begin the negotiations. Secondly, to Mr. Foot: It is not correct, I believe, to say that there were no inter- national commitments in the case of other countries. At least in the case of Germany with which l: am familiar, there was a com- mitment at the Summit Meeting of 1955, to settle--to achieve German unification on the basis of free elections, and no one would argue that the fact that no free elections have been held in East Germany, and that the government demonstrably does not en- joy the support of its population, that this entitles the West German Government to start a guerrilla movement in Eastern Germany. Thirdly, it is the Geneva settlement. It is my belief that the United States should accept the Geneva settlement as a basis for the settlement of the present war in Viet- nam, and it is my impression that the Amer- ican Government has indicated its readiness to do so. The issue in South Vietnam with respect to pacification is not to kill every Communist. The issue is to induce the Communists in South Vietnam to accept the principle of free choice, and as soon as -this is accepted, they should as individuals be permitted to participate in the political process. Mr. CoLLIIsGwoon. The audiences on both sides of the Atlantic have been following with great interest. Let's bring them into this discussion now. You may ask questions of either side or individuals on either side, no matter which side of the Atlantic you hap- pen to be on. Let's begin though with the American audience. Dave Diagan, do you have someone who wants to ask a question? Mr. DueAi. Charles, we have lots of peo- pie who want to ask questions. It's a neat- ter of getting as many in as we can. I think in section D? in the front row, there's a gen-? tleman, third from the aisle, who has a ques- tion if we could get a microphone to him. Question. Yes, I'd like to direct this ques- tion to Mr. Foot. Does he believe that the way to achieve peace is to allow the spread of international communism to go unc:hal-- lenged, much as Prime Minister Chamberlain did in World War II, when he gave Adolf Hitler Czechoslovakia in return for peace iii our time? Mr. FOOT. The prewar situation was that governments in Britain and America, were ap- peasing fascism, and I think it was a very dangerous policy to follow. But I don't be- lieve there's any comparison between what is happening in Vietnam and what happened in Czechoslovakia before the war. You see, I think what the United States is doing in Vietnam, so far from resisting the spread of communism, is increasing the likelihood of the spread of communism. I think that the more the United States continues to bomb North Vietnam, the more they will rally sup- port behind the Government of North Viet- nam, the more they will drive the rest of Asia into the hands of China. If that's what --~ Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE they want, if the U.S. policy was designed for spreading communism, then I think It's carrying it out extremely efficiently. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now-now let's have a question from the audience in London. Bob Trout, do you recognize someone? Mr. TROUT. Yes, Charles. After listening so far in comparative silence, I'm sure that our 50-odd Oxford students are eager to join the fray. Who does have the first question? In the first row on the right side? Question. Professor Kissinger, I find American Intervention in Vietnam as im- moral as Nazi and Italian Intervention in Spain before the last war. Why don't you? Mr. KISSINGER. I don't find the interven- tion in Vietnam immoral because our pur- pose is to give the people of South Vietnam a free choice. The Nazi intervention was to deprive the people of a free choice, and I would have thought that people in Britain should know the difference between Ameri- can and Fascist motivations. Mr. COLLINGwooD. Another question now ,from the New York audience. Mr. DUGAN. Yes, Charles, in section C there is a gentleman In the third row on the alsle- if we could get a microphone to him. Question. This question is directed to Mr. Foot. If you so ably agree with Mr. Cham- berlain, how else do you think communism would be able to be stopped throughout Asia if not by domination by the United States? Mr. FooT. I think it is a great folly and Indeed one of the-I think it is a great folly and indeed One of the great mistakes made by the Government of the United States, and one that we could all suffer for, to equate international communism or communism with prewar nazism. They're two very dif- ferent institutions indeed; and indeed, inter- national communism has not shown anything like the aggressive tendencies which were shown by fascism before the war. Indeed, the meaning of fascism was that it was ag- gressive in that sense. I don't think neces- sarily that the international communism is aggressive in that sense, although it some- times is aggressive. But you know, the United States is sometimes aggressive, and you see the actions of the United States in Vietnam are not merely actions taken in re- sponse to aggression. We've been trying to get to the bottom of this matter, right since this dispute began-this argment began. We asked Mr. Kissinger whether the U.S. Govern- ment accepted the Geneva settlement. If they accepted it, the war might never have started. There would be no necessity to resist in- ternational communism in Vietnam; and incidentally, what right has the United States to say that we're going to pick on Vietnam for carrying out your crusade against International communism. What right have you got to pick on Vietnam, only if you can claim that there was an aggres- sion that you had every right to resist, but you've never been prepared to take this be- fore any international tribunal whatsoever for them to judge. Moreover, Professor Kis- singer would not tell us whether the U.S. Government, his own government, accepted the Geneva settlement or not. He said they should accept it. Well, I agree, they should. Why don't they? He said it was his impres- sion that the U.S. Government does accept it. I think for an expert of Professor Kis- singer's eminence to say that it's his impres- sion that they accept it-why does not the United States say quite clearly they will accept the whole of the Geneva settlement. If they did that, then I think we would make progress toward real negotiations and an escape from the present-confrontation, which certainly will spread international commu- nism much more likely than it will kill it, Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now, I don't want to turn this into just a debate between Michael Foot and Henry Kissinger. I'd like to get some of the students in, but I think I really, must let Professor Kissinger have a chance to answer that. Mr. KISsiNGEs. I used the words, "it is my impression" in deference to the debating skill of my British friends. I have every rea- son to believe that the American Govern- ment accepts the Geneva settlement, what- ever may have happened in the past. I simply do not have the document in front of me in case I am challenged to produce the exact words. Mr. COLLrNGwOOD. Now let's have a ques- tion from the London studio, but let's ad- dress this one to one of the students and not to Professor Kissinger. Mr. TROUT. In the front right section, you have a question? Question. I don't mind which of the American students answers this question. The government which invited the American troops into Vietnam in the first place was not a democratically elected government. The government which is now supported by the American troops in Vietnam is possibly even less democratic, since it was installed by a military coup d'etat. I should like to know the legalistic basis on which the Amer- ican Government claims to be justified in sending troops to South Vietnam. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. They're both law stu- dents, but let's have Mr. Tribe answer that. Mr. TRIBE. I think it's important to re- member with regard to the particular gov- ernments in South Vietnam that our com- mitment is broader than a commitment to any one of them; but with regard to either the government of Diem or the government of Marshal Ky, Bernard Fall, recognized as an objective, impartial authority on this question, points out that at least 9 out of 10 of the member states of the United Na- tions have no greater a claim to legitimacy. It is not our contention, and it is not the position of the United States, that any particular government of South Vietnam is the preordained and necessarily legitimate representative of the people. That is the contention of the North when it insists that no settlement can be reached which does not accept the Vietcong and the National Libera- tion Front as prima facie the representative of the people. What we want is to ask the people that question, and you cannot ask them that when the Vietcong are conducting terrorist raids within Vietnam. The only reason America is in Vietnam is to create a condition in which the people- themselves can constitute a truly representative govern- ment. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Now, we have time for a very quick question from the American audience, and a very quick answer. Question from the New York audience, quickly. Mr. DUGAN. Yes, Charles, in section A, in the second row, can we get a microphone down to the second gentleman from the aisle, please. Question. A question directed to the American team. They have said that it is our purpose to give a free choice to the Viet- namese people. Let us attempt to expose this hypocrisy. As long as there is a chance, which is now good, that we will lose those elections, we will not permit them. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Quick answer, Mr. Shrum. Mr. SHBUM. We're committed to democ- racy, and as long as we're committed to self- determination in Vietnam, all the North Vietnamese have to do is agree to free inter- nationally supervised elections, and we will hold them. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Thank you very much. We'll be back with more of this transatlan- tic debate on "Town Meeting of the World" after this message. [Announcement] Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Let's have some more questions now from the audiences both in London and New York, addressed to the debaters on this "Town Meeting of the World." I think it's the London audience's turn. A questioner from London. Mr. TROUT. The gentleman in the Question. Would a member of the U.S. team like to state quite clearly whether or not the United States would accept a demo- cratically elected Communist government in South Vietnam? Mr. COLLINGWOOD. Mr. Tribe. Mr. TRIBE. The answer is yes. The United States has no ambitions in South Vietnam. We have no interest in creating an outpost of American democracy there. However, we think it is extremely unlikely that South Vietnam would be the first nation in the history of the world to accept in free elec- tions a Communist government-unlikely not only because of the 1 million people who fled the Communist government from the north, but unlikely as well because of the fact that the basic traditions in Vietnam, the traditions of land ownership, of family and of religious belief, are inconsistent with the fundamental tenets of communism. Even if it were true that Ho Chi Minh had some popularity, it is certainly not demonstrable that the people of South Vietnam would, in any free election, elect a Communist regime. But I emphasize, our purpose is not to im- pose a particular government on South Viet- nam. Our purpose is only to give them a chance to choose. Mr. COLLINGWOOD. And now a question from the New York audience. Mr. DUGAN. Yes, Charles, in section A in the front row, we have a gentleman right by the aisle, if we can get a microphone to him. Question. I address my question to Mr. Foot, who says the United States picks on Vietnam, and to Mr. All, who says the ma- jority of the people in South Vietnam sup- port the Vietcong. If this is true, how do you explain the half million South Viet- namese soldiers who have been fighting and dying, and often dying valiantly, for their country; and how do you explain the fact that there are 1 million North Vietnamese who have fled their country and are now living as refugees in Saigon? Mr. ALT. Yes, I'll answer to all three of your points. Point No. 1, how do I say that the Vietcong is supported by the ma- jority of the people in Vietnam? I say this because it has been admitted by every- almost every-newspaper correspondent in Saigon and, indeed, even admitted by Mr. Kissinger. When he returned from a visit from South Vietnam he said he was dis- tressed to find that the gulf between the Government and the people was very large. There's more evidence for this: the whole attempt to herd people into concentration camps or strategic hamlets, as you euphemis- tically call them, was an attempt to separate people from the Vietcong, an attempt which did not succeed. And also, the North Viet- namese, according to every American report- er and the State Department- Mr. COLLINGWOOD. At this moment. Mr. Ali, I must interrupt you because our time is running out and I want to ask the senior members of both teams for a brief summa- tion of the debate so far. And let's begin with Mr. Foot. - Mr. FOOT. Of course, all of us must be passionately concerned to see the end of this appalling war and I am glad that Pro- fessor Kissinger has said that the U.S. Gov- ernment now accepts the Geneva settlement of 1954. I didn't ask him that as a kind of trick question. I wanted genuinely to know, and I think it is correct that they have said sometimes that they do accept the Geneva settlement. Unfortunately, they may have accepted it in the letter, but never in the spirit. This very weekend we have Mr. Rusk in Paris saying United States still wants peace talks on Vietnam, but only if South Vietnam's independence and territorial in- tegrity are guaranteed. In other words, they are still saying two Vietnams. That Is con- Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD --SENATE January 14, 1966 traryy to the t_,eneva settlement. The Amer- i.cnns refused free elections. That is con- trary to the Geneva settlement. The Amer- icans are obviously refusing to neutralize the area. That is contrary to the Geneva set- c:lemen.t. If the United States would come forward with proposals for genuinely seek- ing a settlement on the basis of the 1954 agreements, Chen we could begin to end this appalling horror which, if it continues, could drag not merely the United States but the whole world into nuclear catastrophe. Mr. CoLLlraowoon. Sorry, Mr. Foot. And rurx, a last word, 1-minute summation from Professor Kissinger. Mr. KISSINCER. The war in Vietnam is a tragic and desperate effort. I'm distressed that so many of the questions seemed to challenge not the judgment but the motiva- tion of American policy. I would like to emphasize that our goal is and should be freedom for the people of South Vietnam to chart their own future, and freedom for the people of all of Vietnam to determine the future of their country. As American;:; we would far prefer to engage in tasks of can- ;aruction. We would far prefer to do what President Kennedy said in his inaugural. address, that to those people in the huts and villages of half the globe, we pledge our best riforts to help themselves. But we do not have the choice between defense and con.- struction. Unless we can do both, we will not be able so do either. Mr. COLLINCWOOD. 't'hank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen of Oxford and gentle- men from Blarvard, for an hour's interesting and provocative debate. Tis is Charles Collingwood. Good night. A]vNOUNCI':R. 't'his "Town Meeting of the World" was produced in cooperation with the British Broadcasting Corporation, using the facilil;ics of the Early Bird communications satellite. 'rhe Oxford students and Mr. Foot were seen from a BBC studio In London.. 't'he two Harvard students and Professor :Basinger were seen from a CBS studio in New York. We wish to thank the Oxford Union and universities in the New York area or their cooperation in helping us to select rhe student audiences on both sides of the Atlantic. RESERVATION OF CERTAIN PUBLIC LANDS FOR A NATIONAL WILD RIVERS SYSTEM The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair lays before the Senate the pending business, which is S. 1446. ':i'he Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (S. 1446), to reserve public lands for ii. National Wild Rivers System, to provide a procedure for adding addl.-? tional public lands and other lands to the system, and for other purposes. THE VIETNAM CONFLICT Jr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, the most pressing problem facing our Nation and the world today is the war in Vietnam. I hope our President will cosh- [sere to s.,rike out boldly for a peaceful settlement of this bitter conflict. Bona- tide peace negotiations mean concessions by its, concessions by the Vietcong and a cease fire with no one an abject loser and no one an arrogant winner. Unless there is a negotiated settlement, Amer- ican GI's are likely to be fighting arid dying in Vietnam until 1980. President Johnson is to be commended for directing; a pause in the bombing of North Vietnam. But standing alone, this is not enough. In his outstanding state of the Union age." That, to quote Gen. Curtis Le- message, the President set forth our May. Let us hope President Johnson goals in Vietnam when he said: rejects these proposals. Bombing Hanoi We seek neither territory nor bases, eco- would be compared with the Nazi bomb- nomic domination or military alliance in ing of Guernica in the Spanish Civil War. Vietnam. We fight for the principle of self- Furthermore, no one can accurately fore- determination that the people of South Viet- cast jL.st how damaging the reaction nam should be able to choose their own would be. It would certainly at least course, choose it in free elections without any nna.cihlP military gain. The people of all Vietnam should make a free decision on the great question of reuni- fication. We have also made it clear from Hanoi to Now York that there are no arbitrary limits to our search for peace. We stand by the Geneva agreements of 1954 and 1962. We will meet at any conference table. We will discuss any proposals-4 points or 14 or 40- and we will consider the views of any group. We will work for a ceasefire now, or once discussions have begun. I wholeheartedly agree with the goals set by our President. However, because in the past there have been conflicting statements by our officials on our sup- port for the Geneva, accords, on nego- tiations v: ith the Vietcong, and on free elections, we must further clarify our war aims and negotiating position. We sho.lld clearly announce our will- ingness to seek a settlement based on the 1954 Geneva accords providing neutral- ity, self-determination, and free elections for Vietnam. The Geneva accords which we agreed to but did. not sign state that "the military demarcation line at the 17th narnllel is provisional and should not in any way be considered as consti- tuting a political or territorial bound- ary." Historically, there is no North and South Vietnam. We should indicate explicitly our read- iness to participate in negotiations with all parties involved--I mean with dele- gates of the Vietcong, or National Liber- ation Front, so-called. We should agree to abide by the results of a peaceful, free election by the people of Vietnam of their own Government, their own leaders, and their own destiny. I know our CIA offi- cials in Vietnam and Prime Minister Ky, of the Saigon government oppose an armistice at. this time. Our President should overrule their views along with those of the Curtis LeMays. If our President moves deciooively for such peace our people will support him. If instead, he approves steadily expand- Ing military involvement, he will please our militarists, and warhawks in Con- gress. Then in the 1966 con;rressional elections and in 1968, as casualty lists mount, some Republican politicians, now urging acceleration of the war by bomb- ing Hanoi and Haiphong and even Red China, will be the first to den: unce this as "Lyndon's var." Were we to bomb Hanoi and Haiphong, thousands of Vietnamese civilians in- cluding women and children would be killed and wounded. Ii' we failed to de- stroy all the war planes of North Viet- nams some might bomb Saigon, and ele- ments of the North Vietnamese army, numbering some 400,000, would cross the demilitarized zone and invade South Vietnam. Pentagon gossip reports plans to bomb Haiphong and Hanoi followed by an am- I was in southeast Asia most of the tinge. I went, looked, and listened. Very soon I learned we are involved in a civil war over there. In South Vietnam I was at every airbase except one-traveling through the entire area by helicopter, airplane, and jeep. It is my considered judgment that South Vietnam is of no strategic importance whatever to the de- fense of the United States. Further- more, the fact is that the conflict raging in Vietnam is a civil war. General Westmoreland stated to me that the bulk of the Vietcong fighting in South Viet- nam were born and reared in South Viet- nam. General Stilwell, in Thailand, went further. He stated that 80 per- cent of the Vietcong fighting in the Me- kong Delta area south of Saigon, were born and reared in that area. They were not infiltrators or Communists from the North. Na matter how often we profess our intention to defend freedom in Vietnam, the increasing escalation of the war is raising grave doubts throughout Asia and elsewhere in the world as to the wisdom of our policy. Attacks with sophisticated weapons on unsophisticated and illiterate Asians are building a vast reservoir of anti-Americanism and misunderstanding of our country among the masses of the people in Asia. A military surrender to the United. States will never produce acceptance of American presence in Asia by most Asians. It would be a legacy of ill will which we should not leave to future gen- erations of Americans. Until Asiatic:, show more interest in defending them- selves, then unilateral American involve-, ment in Asia is doomed to failure. The ugly reality is that for the most part it is American GI's who are fighting and dy- ing in Vietnam for the alleged defense of freedom in Asia. Do we Americans have a mandate from Almighty God to police the entire world? President John F. Kennedy said on September 3, 1963, shortly before hi;; assassination : I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose if.. We can help them, we can give them equip- ment, we can send our men out there as ad- visers, but they have to win it-the peopls of Vietnam-against the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won sin- less the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Govern- ment has gotten out of touch with the people. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I ams glad to phibious landing at Haiphong and then yield to the distinguished Senator from "bombing Red China back into the stone Alaska. Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Mr. GRUENING. Is it not a fact that when President Kennedy made that statement in September of 1963, we had been in Vietnam for practically a decade? Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. The Senator is correct. Mr. GRUENING. Yet, at the end of 10 years of assistance of all kinds, in- cluding vast sums of money, we had a situation that was deteriorating; and it was clear then, was it not, that the gov- ernment of South Vietnam, either the puppet government that we had installed there, or its successors after various coups were out of touch with the needs of the people, were uninterested in those needs, and were doing little or nothing to bring about the reforms which Presi- dent Eisenhower had made conditional upon our giving them aid for 10, years previously? Is that not a fact? Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. That is true, of course. Mr. GRUENING. Is that not a dem- onstration of the folly of our policies there? Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I agree with the Senator from Alaska. Mr. GRUENING. I thank the Sen- ator. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, on our initial commitment to South Viet- nam made by President Eisenhower in 1954 in a letter to the President of South Vietnam stated: I am instructing the American Ambassa- dor to examine with you how an intelligent program of American aid can serve to assist Vietnam in its present hour of trial. He added: The purpose of this offer is to assist the Government of Vietnam in developing and maintaining a strong, viable state capable of resisting attempted subversion or aggres- sion through military means. The U.S. Gov- ernment hopes that such aid, combined with your own continuing efforts, will contribute effectively toward an independent Vietnam endowed with a strong government. That was a very "iffy" commitment made by President Eisenhower. Can anyone claim that Prime Minister Ky, of South Vietnam, who himself was born and reared in Hanoi, heads a strong, viable state? He could not re- main in power 1 week except for the op- erations of our Central Intelligence Agency and- the support of our Armed Forces. To justify sending a military advisory group to Vietnam and increasing its size from 327 in 1953 to 695 in 1961, President Eisenhower on April 7, 1954, said. The loss of Indochina will cause the fall of southeast Asia like a set of dominoes. That was in the Stalin era. Today, there is no bitter cold war between the Soviet Union and the United States as when Stalin was dictator. The Soviet Union is no longer a "have not" nation. It is veering toward capitalism. Its lead- ers and the Russian people seek coexist- ence instead of coannihilation. Moscow and Peiping are now in bitter conflict, This domino theory has been completely discredited. Red China is a paper dragon. It is overrated as a great power. It has crude nuclear capability, that is true. How- ever, it will take at least 5 or 10 years before it will have the know-how to de- liver any, nuclear warheads on targets. Its air force is inferior. It'has no surface navy except a few torpedo boats and gunboats-no modern transports-noth- ing except thousands of junks. It is an agrarian nation, with 85-percent of its population engaged in agriculture. On the Pacific, under the Pacific, and in the air, we have a more powerful Navy, sub- marine fleet, and Air Force than all the nations of the world combined. Red China does have a huge land army. The elephant can fight neither the eagle nor the whale. As General MacArthur in his "Reminiscences" stated: Anyone in favor of sending American ground troops to fight on Chinese soil should have his head examined. Can anyone claim that we would lose face and that our prestige in Asia would be damaged were we to withdraw from this conflict? France was bled white during the 8-year struggle to save her vast colonial empire in Indo-China. France became a greater and more pow- erful nation following her withdrawal from what is now North and South Viet- nam, Cambodia, and Laos. Further- more, did De Gaulle lose face or prestige when he surrendered Algeria, that vast domain larger than France? A great nation like ours does not lose face by withdrawing from a miserable war. We have lost face by messing around with it in the first place. The winds of freedom are blowing across the China Sea and elsewhere throughout the world in a manner and to an extent almost beyond belief. Surely we should not respond with our Armed Forces whenever the winds of change strike a country in southeast Asia or in Africa or elsewhere outside our hemisphere and sphere of influence. In Vietnam the security of the United States is not the issue. Saigon is not and never will be an outpost defending Seattle. Vietnam very definitely is of no strategic importance to the defense of the United States. We should have long since learned that the outcome of a guerrilla war in the swamps, jungles, and highlands of south- east Asia does not threaten the security of the United States. We should, if we wish, give money, food, or guns, giving this aid from afar. We should withdraw from implicating ourselves so deeply into this conflict converting it into an Ameri- can war. This steaming jungle where thousands of American GI's have already been afflicted with malaria and other jungle diseases is the worst place in the world for us to wage a ground war. Americans should not blindly accept the propaganda coming from Washing- ton. If mistakes are compounded on mistakes, then the conflict will be ex- In my judgment, our national interest requires a redirection of our policy in Asia. We should not be the sole def end- ers of freedom as we define freedom in Asia. The Joint Chiefs of Staff and our CIA should take a back seat when it comes to formulating foreign policy. I hope that President Johnson will reassert that civilian authority must remain su- preme over military authority. The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States provided that civilian authority in this Nation must always be supreme over the military. We should adhere to that. Any forces we have in Vietnam should be only part of the forces of many na- tions under the United Nations and for peacekeeping and not warmaking pur- poses. Vietnam is a land of breathtaking sea- coasts, green jungles, fertile rice paddies, picturesque mountains-a lovely Garden of Eden converted into a hell on earth by man's inhumanity to man. I have just quoted the distinguished senior Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER] who revisited the scene of his youth in the early part of World War II when he served as a marine in Vietnam. Let it not be written by future his- torians that American boys died need- lessly in far distant jungles because of weakness of diplomats and indifference of politicians. I wish I had as much confidence in the skill and intelligence of our diplomats in trying to settlp this war as I do in the bravery and high competence of our soldiers fighting the war. The primary reason for our being in Vietnam today is our stubborn. refusal to admit a mistake in our attempt to make Vietnam a pro-American and an anti-Chinese state. More than anything else, we are fighting to avoid admitting failure. As Walter Lippmann bluntly put it, "We are fighting to save face." The late President John F. Kennedy said, "Transforming Vietnam into a Western redoubt is ridiculous." Sallust, the Roman historian, about 40 years before the birth of Our Savior wrote: It is always easy to begin a war, but very difficult to stop one, since its beginning and end are not under the control of the same man. That is true now as it was then. President Johnson deserves praise for ordering a holiday in bombing North Vietnam while his executive department officials are seeking to secure an armistice and cease-fire at the conference table with representatives of the Vietcong or National Liberation Front, so-called, and Hanoi. We Americans should not be so much interested in saving face as in saving lives. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Ohio on his forthright, penetrating speech. I think it is one of the most important statements that have been made in Con- gress on the war in Vietnam. It deserves the widest attention. I am happy to wel- come the Senator from Ohio to the ranks of those of us who feel and for nearly 2 years have stated that our military in- volvement there is folly and represents a tragic mistake, perhaps the most tragic ever made by this country. As pointed out in the report of our distinguished majority leader, an expert on southeast Asia, and our colleagues who went to South Vietnam and other parts of the world, that unless we can bring the war Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966 to an end at the conference table there appears no prospect except more and. more destruction and killing. I think, we should get out in the best way pos- sible and admit that we made a mistake, Individuals who do this are honored. Great nations find it harder to do. I applaud President Johnson for the efforts he is making for peace, but I feel he is handicapped by some needlessly unqualified verbal commitments he has made. Three Presidents did not, as President Johnson has indicated-I think he is mistaken in this-promise military aid and establish thereby a national pledge. President Eisenhower offered only eco-- nomic aid, provided certain reforms were made. As the Senator from Ohio l Mr. YOUNG] pointed out, it was a very "iffy" offer, and was contingent upon improve- ment and reforms in the then Diem gov- ernment-reforms which never tool: place. During the 6 years of President Eisen- hower in the White House, there was no military involvement, that is, no Ameri- cans were sent into combat, only a mili- tary mision with an advisory role. Un- der President Kennedy, we sent military advisers, ;and President Kennedy con- tinued to maintain that it was South Vietnam's war-and that they had to win it. It has been only in the past year that we have become involved with our troops in combat-a tragic mistake. I hope the speech that the Senator from. Ohio has delivered will have wide circulation. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President I thank the distinguished junior Sen- ator from Alaska. Contrary to what. we sometimes read in the press, the Viet- nam issue was debated in the Senate dur- ing the past year; and as we settle down to the final session of the 89th Congress the debate is renewed. There is a great difference of opinion among Senators. It Is going to be a good thing that all. Senators debate this pressing problem, the greatest problem before the country at this time, and express their views. Mr. President, supplementary to what I have said, I have a letter from a Con- stituent of mine, Thomas A. Gianfagna, of 841 Alhambra Road, Cleveland, a vali- ant young constituent of mine. I do net know him personally, but he wrote me as follows: DFAR SENATOR YOUNG: I have followed With great interest your views on the situation In Vietnam. As an ex-GI just recently granted the blessing of rebirth into civilian life and as a veteran of 2 months service in the Geri-- tral highlands of Vietnam with the lst Cav- alry Division, I want you to know that :L agree with you 99 percent. As you say, we are not the policeman of the world. As you say, the situation in Viet- Rain is more a civil war than a war of aggres-? r,ion or subversion. Thank you for saying it so loudly. ']'hank you again. Yours truly, THOMAS A. GIANFAGNA. Mr. BREWSTER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? M.r. YOUNG of Ohio. I yield. Mr. BREWSTER. I believe I heard the distinguished Senator from Ohio state that the senior Senator from Mary - land had visited Vietnam during World War II. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I did so-inad- verteiatly. I meant Okinawa. Mr.. BREWSTER. I thank the Sena- tor, because I was in Vietnam only with the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. CANNON], where the three of us spent some time. My world war service took me to Espiritu Santos, Guadalcanal, Ulithi, Eniwetok, Guam, and Okinawa, but not until recently was I in Vietnam. My own observations are somewhat different from those of the Sene'tor from Ohio, but I appreciate the deep sincerity with which the Senator from Ohio has expressed his point of view. Mr. YOUNG.of Ohio. I greatly re- spect the Senator from Maryland who is a great Senator. He is one of the he- roes of World War II, and he Las a fine record in the Senate. It was a slip of the tongue when I used the word "Viet- nam" for "Okinawa," because I knew he was with the Marines who conquered Okinawa in World War II. I had two sons, both of whom served in the Pacific, and I know something about the hardships of those fine young men who, some 22 and 23 years ago, fought for their country in the Pacific. Whenever I see a marine like DAN BREWSTEP., of Maryland, who fought there, I feel like taking off my hat to him. Of course, I readily accept the fact that both he and Senator CANNON have views and conclusions somewhat different from mine. I know both of them and many other Senaotrs will express those views later this year. It was not a correct statement for any- one to assert that the Vietnam situation and the conflict there had not been de- bated in the last Congress; and it is fair to assume that it will be fully debated in the final session of this Congress. It deserves to receive more attention and no doubt will receive more attention, than any other issue. I yield the floor. BILLBOARDS Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, last year Congress enacted the so-called bill- board bill, or highway beautification bill, which many of us criticized vigorously and tried to correct in many different ways in order to make it a workable law. I do not believe the purpose of any- one in this area is too different. My own record in that regard, when this first matter came up, with the Senator from Oregon, Richard Neuberger, is very clear. The two of us supported the mea- sure on the floor at that time. However, as everyone know:,, the bill was hastily rewritten over the weekend and did not reflect the bill which the committee had reported, nor did it re- flect., in my opinion, the will of the ma- jority of the Senate, although the majority of the Senate voted for it. A tremendous amount of pressure was brought on the Senate from down the street, and it was changed when it was -taken up. As a consequence, as I have pointed out many times since, it is filled with faults. It is filled with errors, and it will have to be rewritten completely someday. I ask unanimous consent to insert in the RECORD at this point an article writ- ten by William Logan and appearing in the Rocky Mountain News of December 10, 1965, which points out a few of the problems that are beginning to rise in our own State, although it refers to other States in this, as a result of the hasty and ill-considered action that was taken on that bill. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. PROXMIRE in the chair). Without ob- jection, the article will be printed in the RECORD. The article is as follows: COLOR%Do BILLBOARD CONTROLS EXAMINED BY FEDERAL COURTS (By William Logan, Rocky Mountain News writer) The courts are going to have to decide whether Colorado and 21 other States that have championed highway billboard controls now face a prospect of being penalized in Federal funds for their efforts, State highway department officials believe. Colorado was among States that agreed under the original 1958 Federal law to use its police powers to control signboards under Federal standards. Last spring's legislature enacted a law to control billboards that be- came effective July 1. The new highway beauty bill of the John- son administration, enacted after the Colo- rado law became effective, requires ",just compensation" be paid to billboard owners when signs are removed. The Federal Government will pay 75 per- cent of the cost of removing signs and States must pay 25 percent, under the Federal law. CAN BE PENALIZED Any State that refuses to pay-or that re- fuses to control billboards-can be penalized up to 10 percent of its Federal road funds. under the new U.S. law. Many of the States that earlier enacted antibillboard legislation have listed the signs as public nuisances and have laws that pro- hibit payments to owners for removal. of nuisances. Colorado, in a series of notices just going into the mails to owners of signs found in violation by the highway department, is di- recting the owners to remove them. The State isn't planning to pay costs for removal, but isn't terming them nuisances either. The notices merely state the sLgns are in violation of the new State law and ask their removal. MOST NOTICES Darrell Vail, highway department main- tenance engineer, said most of the notices mailed thus far concern signboards erected since the law took effect "and are clearly in violation." Notices will be mailed shortly to owners of signs put up earlier, ordering their re- moval, he said. Each highway department maintenance district is charged with enforc- ing the law In its territory. Vail believes the fact Colorado is just be- ginning to enforce its law probably will mean the State can receive 75 percent of sign re- moval costs from the Federal Government. But it's up to the courts to decide the whole course of the antibillboard legislation, he said. A test case is pending in Denver District Court involving a sign on Interstate High- way 805, about 5 miles northeast of Brush, a section of interstate highway that opened this fall along new right of way. UNREASONABLE? Fred Efken, motel operator and plaintiff, represented by Denver Lawyer C. Hamilton Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966 from the human suffering and degradation that is involved pose a serious threat to peace. And second, to create a tribunal of opinion in which solutions can be organized. Much has been done. There are national freedom-from-hunger committees in so many countries. Much has been done by individ- ual countries, none more than by the United States. I don't know if you know of your Public Law 480, but millions of hungry people do. If I may give you just one example, the food provided under that law at this moment is feeding one-fifth of the total population of Bechuanaland, where they have had no rain for 3 years. Some of us are worried that the Public Law expires next year. Worried be- cause far too many of you don't know it. And we hope and pray and believe that the U.S. people and Government will continue to look at world hunger compassionately and creatively. What was planned as a 5-year campaign has become a permanent campaign. It's a long-term job, but it is a long-term job charged with urgency. The gap between the hungry and the overfed has widened in those 5 years, not narrowed. It's urgent because the hungry can't afford to wait. And it is urgent because the world can't afford to wait. Lord Boyd-Orr once said "hunger is the worst politician." And how right he is. If I wanted to preach communism it wouldn't be to you, it would be to the hungry. You can't digest Karl Marx on a full stomach. If I wanted to cause trouble in the world it would not be to you I would turn, but to the hungry. Hunger is the worst politician. There are two other things that most disturb me as a Christian. The one is that the mass of the hungry are, by and large, the so-called colored people. And the mass of the well- fed are, by and large, the white. And race relations, God knows, are bad enough with- out their being exacerbated by hunger. What's even more disturbing is that, by and large, the well-fed call themselves Christians. And, by and large, the hungry don't. And I find nothing in Holy Writ that links obesity with sanctity. It has been said that every war is either a crime or a crusade. I'm talking to you about a crusade. The war on want. It is a world problem. It is a governmental and inter- governmental problem. We can't do it by private societies, collecting subscriptions. The effort of every one of the rich nations must be harnessed if we are to achieve vic- tory. Only governments can do that and only they in concert. Aren't you relieved to hear that? So what? I'm not a govern- ment. But this, I say, neither precludes nor excuses the churches. God's purpose as re- vealed in Jesus Christ is to redeem the whole of human life. And if the church is to carry conviction that His Gospel is the only Gospel it must do so by showing that redemption is for the whole of human life and is offered by One who came not only that man might have life but have it more abundantly. And I am proud that there is so great a Christian re- sponse to this tragic need. In Germany, in Austria, in Switzerland, there are bread for my brother campaigns. Here in America, Church World Service and National Catholic Relief have been sending millions of tons of food to the hungry. And with your continu- ing compassionate help could send more. Again I say, it's clear that only massive inter- national action can begin to solve the prob- lem. But this depends for success on pubilo understanding, public compassion, and pub- lic support. And if we can get understand- ing in the churches and in the Y's, we'll get compassion. I know it. And where there is compassion there will be a wave of public support for the most liberal kind of govern. mental and intergovernmental action. If this campaign has a philosophy it might be the old Chinese proverb "If you give a man a fish you feed him for a day, but if you teach him how to fish you feed him for a lifetime." And the main theme of this campaign is to teach the hungry how to fish if you like, how to plow deeper furrows, plant better seed and grow better harvests. It's education. But I need not remind you that while you are be- ing educated your parents have to feed you. And every kind of emergency aid, the work of UNICEF, the work of the church agencies, the work of anybody who sends food to the hun- gry, helps to feed them while they're learning how to fish. And I am glad that not only member churches of the World Council of Churches, but the great Roman Catholic Church also, are committed to this ctm- paign. Pope John the XXIII said of it, rightly and holily, "Beloved children, must we repeat and exalt the principle of human solidarity and remember and preach loudly the duty of those communities and individ- uals who live in plenty to reach out to those who live in want." I treasure all, those phrases, but one I love most of all was when he says, "Preach loudly." I remember when I was an undergraduate I used to buy the gramophone records of some music-hall type who called himself Jack Smith, the Whisper- ing Baritone. I have an uneasy feeling that our pulpits are filled with the Reverend John Smith, the whispering preacher. Preach and preach loudly so that we may be heard out- side. Now one of the great privileges I have had in America is meeting many of my brother clergy who tell me that the pace of life in your country is so fast that apparently you all have tranquilizers for breakfast, and that their ministry consists almost entirely` of comforting the disturbed. And I thank God it isn't mine. If I were to define my ministry just now, it's disturbing the com- fortable, and nobody looks more comfortable than you do. Nicolas Berdaiev once said that "bread for oneself is a material preoccupa- tion; that bread for others is a spiritual pre- occupation." Give us this day our daily bread, not every other day as happens in some countries. And so I remind you again of our Lord's command. You give them something to eat. You remember the disciples replied, "We only have five loaves and two small fishes." You daren't give that answer. It wouldn't be true. But you do have an answer. It's the theme of your week. You give them something to eat. Yes, Lord. SENATOR HARRIS HONORED Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, I call the attention of the Senate to a signal honor which has been awarded to one of our colleagues, Senator FRED R. HARRIS, the junior Senator from my home State of Oklahoma. He has been named by the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce as one of the Nation's 10 out- standing young men in 1965, and has gone to St. Paul, Minn., for an awards congress scheduled Friday and Saturday. I believe my colleagues on both sides of the aisle join me in congratulating the honored Senator from Oklahoma. De- spite his youth-he is 35-he has made an excellent record since he won election in 1964 to serve out the last 2 years of the late Senator. Robert S. Kerr's term. He not only has been a faithful Member, with an excellent attendance record, he has presided hour after hour with the patience we ask of new Members. He also has made an extensive study of Sen- ate rules and procedure in carrying out what could have been a routine chore. Those of you who have served on the Public Works or Government Operations Committees with him have learned what a hard and effective worker he is. The senior Senator from Arkansas, chairman of the latter group, has appointed him to the chairmanship of a new Special Subcommittee on Government Research. Under his vigorous leadership, I am sure we are going to learn a great deal about our national research effort with answers to such questions as where it is done, by whom, whether or not there is dupli- cation, and whether or not its results are readily available. FRED HARRIS'S excellent first year rec- ord in the Senate undoubtedly had to do with his selection by the Jaycees. They probably also considered important the fact that a man, barely old enough to serve and making his first statewide race, won a runoff primary as well as a general election against impressive contenders. Elevation to high office at a minimum age has happened before to the junior Senator from Oklahoma. He was elect- ed to the State senate at the age of 25, a year and a half after his graduation from the University of Oklahoma Law School. He also has practiced law in Lawton, Okla., not far from his home- town of Walters, Okla. I congratulate both Senator HARRIS and the U.S. Junior Chamber of Com- merce for a wise selection. there are very few Members of Congress who have as clear an understanding of the history and the conflicting forces in- volved in the Vietnam war as has our colleague the distinguished junior Sena- tor from Alaska [Mr. GRUENING]. I am glad to say "junior." It happens that, according to the calendar, he is one of the older Senators, but in accord with his activity and with his thinking, he is one of the youngest and most vigorous. He was one of the very first of our statesmen to speak out repeatedly in op- position to the policy being pursued in Vietnam by the United States. Whether or not citizens agreed with his point of view, he has demonstrated outstanding leadership in helping to initiate a public debate on Vietnam, and our present policies in southeast Asia. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may be permitted to continue for 1 additional minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, on December 9, 1965, Senator GRUENING in a speech entitled "U.S. Policy and Ac- tions in Vietnam," delivered at Harvard and Boston Universities, made a master- ful and scholarly argument opposing our Nation's present policy in Vietnam. I commend this to my colleagues and ask unanimous consent that it be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 , anuai-j 11,., 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE Beyond that there should be a great in- crease in the planned movement of individ- uals between the Federal Government and the other worlds that make up American life-the world of business, the mil'tary, the universities, the labor unions, agriculture, State and local government. I have moved in several of these worlds, and I am continu- ally shocked at their mutual Ignorance of one another. That Ignorance breeds both com- placency and paranoia. Each of these worlds imagines that It Is uniquely close to the moral center of American life, and believes that the other worlds aren't really quite to be trusted with the American future. Of all these worlds, the Government serv- ice has the least excuse for being provincial. TI; should have the capacity to understand all of the other segments of society. Without that understanding it will not be able to serve them effectively. T would also favor an oversea assignment early in the career of those young Govern- ment people who seek to rise to the top. We have gotten past the day when only those Individuals who have an explicit interna- tional interest should think of going overseas. The work of Government at home and abroad needs the breadth of perspective acquired by experience overseas. Such ex- perience is valuable any time during one's career, but the earlier it comes the better. All the processes of refreshment I've men- tioned are particularly needed in the case of professional, scientific, technical, and schol- arly people. Government needs such people more and more. But it will neither get them nor keep them if it doesn't provide the op- portunities for further growth that they value so highly. There is no excuse for Government to lose out in the competition for talent. It has it built-in advantage over every other em- ployer. The cynics would deny this but the tirlith is that talented people are attracted 1,o Government because it gives them an op- portunity to render service to the entire :Nation. They come with the highest mo- ;ives. They leave when their purpose is thwarted or when they begin to feel trapped. Government cannot afford to be inhospitable ;o these people. The administration of the affairs of this Nation is complex and dynamic. They are going to become increasingly so. The Con- gress has just enacted a staggering amount of legislation which must now be translated '.nto action. It would be hard to overstate tither the magnitude of the tasks ahead or ?-heir importance to the Nation. President Johnson made this abundantly clear in his state of the Union message on Wednesday. Now, let me ask these questions: is the Federal service capable of meeting .his challenge? O:f course, but to do so it :dust take some significant steps to renew its spirit and its people. 1s renewal compatible with the Federal merit system? It most certainly is. The merit system, now in its 83d year, represents e great advance in the personnel practices of government. We ire not about to return to it spoils system. Out tenure was not designed to trap peo- aie, to make them inert. It was designed to -'ree them from the capriciousness of politics. They need both the protection of it career ,system and opportunities for growth. We can preserve all the great traditions of he system and still maintain the vitality shat is so essential in this rapidly changing and infinitely challenging moment of history. Recognizing that the very size and nature of the system make it particularly suscept- ible to stagnation, we can make special ef- ::arts to build in arrangements for renewal. 'through some of the devices I have men- cioned we can turn the concept of tenure .nto a positive asset rather than a deterrent "o the full use of our talent. The momentum generated by the Presi- dent and the flood of legislation enacted by the Congress have given us unparalleled op- portcmitles to create new patterns of work and to bring new strength and vitality to the career service. I am optimistic that we will do so, and that optimism is based in no small measure on the fact that one of the boldest inno- vators in government today, John Macy, is also Chairman of this Commission. John Macy Introduced this session with some kind remarks about hie and I want to end it with a tribute to him. I think he is a superb example of the best that the Federal service can produce, and I am proud to have shared this platform with him. THE WAR ON WANT Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, while Congress was out of session, an outstanding sermon was preached at the YWCA service in Washington Cathedral by the Reverend Dr. Elf an Roes, who is secretary of the Commission of the Churches on International Affairs, for the Wor:'d Council of Churches, Geneva, Switzerland. In discussing "The War on Want," a world problem, on November 14, Dr. Rees urged public understanding, public com- pass'.ion and. public support for the most liberal kind of governmental and inter- governmental action to prevent widening of the gap between. the hungry and the overfed in the world. Be recalled the Chinese proverb: If you give a man a fish, you feed him .or a, day, but if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for a lifetime. While we are teaching the hungry to fish, "how to plow deeper furrows, plant better seed and grow better harvests," he added, there is need to feed the hungry, just as parents feed their children while they are being educated. I ask unanimous consent that this very pertinent sermon be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the sermon was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: You know my text very well. It is tare sentence from the Lord's Prayer: "Give us this day our daily bread." I know you all say the Lord's Prayer, but I don't suppose any one of you here has ever thought of saying it in the first person singular. My Father which art in Heaven, as though you wore the only chilld of God. Forgive .me my tres- passes as though you couldn't care less about the sins of mankind. Lead me not into temptation, as though the pitfalls of life to other people were immaterial. Now, this is not a bright. idea of mine. As long ago as 1400 the great Mcravian reformer, Jan Huss, preached a sermon in which he accused his congregation of doing exactly that. And I was so fascinated by the idea, as one is by a snake, I tried it myself just for the hell of it. And. it sounded like a prayer out of hell. And. the more I said it the more I began to feel that I. was separating myself from _mny family, from my community, and from m:.n- k:ind. And the words that stuck most in my gullet was when I said "give me this day Illy daily bread," as though it was immaterial what was on the table for my family-as though it mattered not that my neighbor next door was short of food--as though it mattered not that millions unknown to me were half starved. And then I remembered that one of the temptations of our Lord was that He should turn stones into bread. And He refused it because at that time it was only His personal hunger that mattered. But when later in His ministry He was told that thousands were hungry, you remember what He told His disciples? "Don't send them away. You give them something to eat." You know, as one who is too old and of the wrong sex to belong to the YW, one of the things that I'm sorry about your generation is that you have forgotten one of the great things of my generation. The four freedoms that were enunciated by Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Do you even re- member them? Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from fear, and freedom from want. Even in those dark days of 194:0 the specter of hunger was stalking the world. Today it is a much more material thing than a specter. The facts of life that happen around us today is that two-thirds of the world go to bed hungry every night. The privileged one-third, those of us who live in North America and Western Europe and Aus- tralia, we have 17 percent more food than we need. And the rest of the world has 24 per- cent less than is required to keep it reason- ably healthy. Let me put this in a more vulgar fraction. In the United States of America in a day the average person eats 41/2 pounds of food and very often looks like it. In Asia they eat 11/4 pounds of food a day, and 85 percent of that is rice. And in the big cities of India at this moment the rice ration has been cut by 50 percent. One- third of the world has to diet, two-thirds starve. And the grim factor in this situation is that the hungry are multiplying the popu- lation far faster than the wise are incre.s- ing food production. During the course of this service the population of the world will increase by 5,000. Ely this time tomorrow it will have increased by 120,000. We antici- pate 48 million more births than deaths in the next 12 months. You know, even In North America you have a sort of popula- tion explosion. Your population has in- creased 30 percent in the last 20 years. But during the same time your food production has increased by 50 percent. Why should you worry? You can use that unpleasant English phrase, "I'm alright, Jack." In Asia the population increase is also 30 per- cent, but the food production has increased only by 25 percent. Twenty years of tech- nocracy, of technical assistance, of charity, of science, and the food consumption of the hungry is down by 8 percent. You would think, wouldn't you, that this staggering problem of population explosion and the lag in food production would be one and in- divisible. But that is not so in fact. While scientists and the United Nations are bend- ing their energies to increase food produc- tion, far too many obstacles are being placed in the way of internationally planned faan- ily control. Let's be frank; too many of those obstacles are placed there by the Christian church o:r parts of it. And not. until we who call ourselves Christians have greater unanimity and greater wisdom on this problem can we play our proper role in this tragic situation. Meanwhile, we can turn ourselves to what we can do for the hungry with what we have. Five years ago the Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations started a freedom-from-hunger campaign. Like any- thing else in the United Nations it had to begin with a resolution. Sometimes that's where things end as well. And I want to read you the preamble of this resolution. "Considering," it says, "that a large part of the world's population still doesn't have enough to eat and an even larger part doesn't get the right kind of food * * *." Now this isn't a resolution by a church synod: this is a resolution adopted by hard-bitten diplo- mats and specialists. The campaign has two aims. First, to create a worldwide aware- ness of hunger and malnutrition which apart "' 'p" oved''rco R~C P6,7 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 203 U.S. POLICY AND ACTIONS IN VIETNAM Yet thost who disagee with our national as President of the Cabinet and in a subse- (Remarks of Senator ERNEST GRUENING de- policy in this area can support President quent plebiscite backed him against the livered at Harvard and Boston Universities Johnson's statement in his April 27 news playboy Emperor Bao Dal. December 9, 1965) conference, which is pertinent to recall. Now we come to what I consider the perti- I have been asked to address you on the Asked: "Mr. President, do you think any nent part of the history of U.S. involvement, subject of the U.S. Policies and actions in of the participants In the national discussion The United States did not sign the Vietnam. As you know, for reasons which I on Vietnam could appropriately be likened Geneva Accords but it expressed support of will discuss in detail, i am not in agreement to the appeasers of 25 or 30 years ago?" them in a unilateral statement. with those policies and actions. He replied: "I don't believe in character- This statement by Under Secretary of Recently those who have publicly criticized izing People with labels. I think you do a State Walter Bedell- Smith, dated July 21, those policies have come under Increasing great disservice when you engage in name 1954, was declared by him to be a unilateral attack. This is a surprising development. calling. We want honest, forthright discus- declaration of U.S. position in these mat- I would assume that in this land of freedom, sion in this country, and that will be discus- ters, and it stated: the right to speak out openly on behalf of sion with differences of views, and we wel- "The Government of the United States peace would be taken for granted. I would come what our friends have to say, whether, being resolved to devote its efforts to the consider It not only a right but a duty-an they agree with us or not. I would not want strengthening of peace in accordance with imperative duty. to label people who agree with me or dis- the principles and purposes of the United- As the St. Louis Post Dispatch-one of the agree with me." Nations takes note of the agreements con- Nation's finest newspapers-stated editorially It is not a secret that I have been one of cluded at Geneva on July 20 and 21, 1954." on December 2: those who have disagreed. I began voicing The statement declared its support of "One of the striking things about the criti- my disagreement in a full-length speech on paragraphs 1-12 Inclusive of the Geneva cism of Vietnam policy is its persistent re- the floor of the Senate on March 10, 1964, agreements and that "it will refrain from the fusal to be silenced. We hope that continues just 21 months ago. It was entitled: "The threat or the use of force to disturb them to be the case. Every citizen shares the United States Should Get Out of Vietnam." In accordance with article 2(4) of the Char- moral responsibility for his country's con- That was before our country had committed ter of the United Nations dealing with the duct. If he believes his country's conduct to a single soldier to combat, or dropped a obligation of members to refrain in their be wrong, but fails to speak out, he is betray- bomb. It would have been far easier to nego- international relations from the threat or ing his own obligations as a citizen. Just as tiate an honorable settlement at that time use of force," and second it "would view any public criticism of a no-negotiation policy and to obviate much of the slaughter and all renewal of the aggression in violation with brought about a policy of pro-negotiation, so else that has happened since and the grim grave concern and as seriously threatening criticism of mistaken objectives in Asia can prospect that now lies before us. International peace and security. bring about adoption of the right objectives. Among the imperative reasons for full "In connection with the statement in the It is vital that discussion of the Nation's public discussion and disclosure is because, declaration concerning free elections in Viet- Asian objectives be free and vigorous." in my view, the justification for the course nam my Government wishes to make clear Since the Bill of Rights, the first of the 10 which has now so deeply and tragically in- its position which it has expressed in a amendments to the Constitution, prohibits volved our country in Vietnam and in south declaration made in Washington on June 29, the Congress, and by implication all other east Asia, with apparently only a prospect for 1954, as follows: 'In the ease of nations now legislative and executive authorities in the further and deeper involvement, is that the divided against their will, we shall continue Nation and State, from abridging freedom of basis-the alleged basis-as I have studied to seek to achieve unity through free elec- speech, the burden of proof should rest it differs very materially from the actual his- tions supervised by the United Nations to heavily on any who would deny or seek to toric record. And it is not possible realis- insure that they are conducted fairly.' impair such freedom. I know of no right tically to appraise what should have been "With respect to the statement made by more precious or more inherent in our Na- our course of action and what it should be the representative of the State of Vietnam, tion's philosophy and its often reiterated pro- now and in the future without a presenta- the United States reiterates its traditional fessions. tion of that other side of how we got into this Position that peoples are entitled to deter- But our Nation is now at war-an unde- meas. mine their own future and that it will not Glared war, to be sure-and many of our fel- During World War rI the French colony of join in an arrangement which would hinder low citizens hold the view that it is our duty Indochina was overrun by the Japanese. this. Nothing in its declaration just made as patriotic Americans to support the ad- Fighting to liberate this area were Viet- Is intended to or does indicate any departure ministration, which has assumed the respon- namese and the Allied Forces at war with from this traditional position. sibility for our course of action in southeast Japan. The native aspirations-part of the We share the hope that the agreements Asia, and is conducting the war. When our worldwide revolt against foreign domination, will permit Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam men are dying In combat deep passions are against colonialism-were for independence. to play their part, in full independence and naturally aroused, the martial spirit becomes But the French wanted to regain their sovereignty, in the peaceful community of rampant, and dissent and protest become in- colonial possessions. Because of the fear nations, and will enable the peoples of that creasingly perilous. that Communist China would take over this area to determine their own future." Yet it is just at such a time that speaking area, the Eisenhower administration was You will note that in this declaration by out is more than ever essential. urged to assist the French in reconquering the United States, we speak only of Vietnam, Earlier this week I received a letter from their former colony. Certain voices in the not of South Vietnam or North Vietnam, a professor In a large western State univer- United States urged all-out military assist- but Vietnam, and we reiterate our tradi- sity, asking me to come there and address the ance. Others advised against it. President tional position that its People are entitled student body and faculty on Vietnam and Eisenhower declined to send our troops into to determine their own future. related matters. I quote from his letter: combat to aid the French although we did On the same day, July 21, 1964, President "We have had a small protest demonstra- give the French substantial financial assist- Eisenhower issued a statement confirming tion ''? * and this has produced a most vio- ance and some cooperation in military Under Secretary Bedell Smith's declarations. lent reaction which has assumed chilling pro- training through a military mission estab- Now the official justification for our sub- portions, creating a climate extremely un- lished in Saigon. But lacking this all-out Sequent and present military involvement favorable to rational discussion of these prob- support, the French were defeated by the there and our steadily increasing involve- lems." local forces, the Vietminh, suffering stagger- ment in South Vietnam was stated as fol. There in a brief sentence you have what is ing losses and surrender at Dienbienphu. lows: going on all over the country, and it em- In consequence, there was a meeting at In the state of the Union message in Janu- phasizes the need for presentation on both Geneva of representatives of 14 nations, there, 1965, 1965, first, Johnson said: ' on has sides of the case for and aaginst the U.S. poll- where accords were drawn up which fs, beca use a frie ndly nation in southeast Asia, and our armed inter- that 3 new nations should be born lot asked us for years against Communist rghelp. vention there. of the former French colony-namely Laos. Three sion. en years ago we pledged our help. So, whatever the consequences, I agree with Cambodia, and Vietnam. The accords pro- ThrePresidents have supported that pledge. the Post-Dispatch editorial that he who dis- vided that Vietnam was to be temporarily- We will abo break it. sents from his country's policy but falls to but only temporarily-divided into North John, s elabo Hopkins rated speech th on nApril 7, 1965, sprit 7, 9Ssa y- speak out, is indeed betraying his obligations and South Vietnam for reasons of demobi- - lug: as a citizen. lization, but that within 2 years an election Clearly it is not easy to oppose the publicly would be held to choose the officials who We are there because "Why are we in South we have Vietnam? expressed and reiterated declaration of pol- would govern the reunited Vietnamese. keep. Since 1954 every have an Presi- icy and related action by the President of The United States was in South Vietnam dent has offered sup every American the United States, policies largely supported with its military mission at Saigon, and with South Vietnam. We have helped to build, by the press-with some honorable and cou- the political demise of the French, was in and we have helped to defend. Thus, over rageous exceptions-and in behalf of which charge. It was the United States that many years, we have made a national pledge the powerful machinery of Government is brought Ngo Dien Diem back from monastic to help South Vietnam defend its independ. militantly mobilized. life in the United States. was installed by us euce Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966 "I intend to keep that promise. To (I's" might wish to impose a foreign ideology on hhold the old therele ti c the reasond they refused tst d?c to for honor that pledge would be an un-? yoi-ir free people." forgivable wrong." So here we have a third precondition for that it was felt that Ho Chi Minh would be Now let us go back and see what that first U.S. aid. The Viet Government was to be a elected President. But what principles are pledge was-- the pledge by the first of the government respected both at home and we espousing when we agree to go to an elcc- the unquestion- three Presidents President Johnson refers to, theoa abroad. of its people, how enlightened are going to lose it?itTha because It was s c unta od in a letter to President its purpose, how much respected at home- able record on this issue. How do we square It temfo Ei Diem as President of the Council of Minis- since a civil war broke out against. it. And that with cur national conscience and a tors of Vietnam on October 23, 1954. I will it was not respected abroad, as evidenced by tradition that would be inviolate under our read it. the fact that Ambassador Lodge :.,xpported standards? "DFaa Mrt. PRESIDENT: I have been follow- the removal of Diem and the Mills. Of Now, some deny that this is a civil war ing with great interest the course of devel- course, those conditions prescribed by Presi- and one of the partial myths on which we opments in Vietnam, particularly since the dent Eisenhower were not fulfilled by the base cur actions is that the whole trouble conclusion of the conference at Geneva. The Diem regime. But in any event nothing was stems from aggression from Hanoi. Well. implications of the agreement concerning said about sending in our troops. There was no one could have been better informed. or. Vietnam have caused grave concern regard- no promise or pledge of military aid. this issue than John F. Kennedy who war. fag the future of a country temporarily di-? This is further confirmed by a White House in the Senate since 1953 and who, in his newe vided by in artificial military grouping statement of November 3, 1054, which states conference of July 18, 1963, referred to "the weakened by a long and exhausting war ant, that President Eisenhower had ,structed civil war which has gone on for 1.0 years. ,s his spc the host16, prov des:1eWith agre faced enemies without and by their sc tsLt ve "toxexplore"s with Preside ntrDiem the c 3,ationartoficle "Your collaborators "Your recent requests for aid to assist in and his government how "to help them with effect from the date of entry into force of the requests within. the formidable project of the movement of their critical problems and to supplement present agreement, the introduction into several hundred thousand loyal Vietnamese measures adopted by the Vietnamese them- Vietnam of any troop reinforcements and est onal mil onnel is citizens away from areas which are passing b 1 esem Aratin, hat od.e Had there been,it is adAnd furtheritaryy phseffect fromr7theited.' under a de facto rule and political ideology by which they abhor, are being fulfilled. I am hardly likely that such a request would not of entry into force of the present agreement, wliy m Vietna t any glad that the United States is able to assist thave hat been mentioned. rThe mosbtethat forcem-ents inxthe form of all t p;,s of arms, that in this humanitarian effort." will note that what I shall read now, was implied was economic aid which was munitions and other war materiel, such as which follows those first two paragraphs of given, and President Eisenhower himself combat aircraft, naval craft, pieces of ord- President Eisenhower's letter to Diem, says declared a few months ago that h>n had only nance, jet engines and jet weapons and ar- nothing about a further request by Presi- offered economic aid. During the remaining moured vehicles, is prohibited." dent Diem for assistance. 't'he only request 6 years of the Eisenhower administration, we The Geneva agreement provided for an of record was limited to assistance in moving had a military mission which did not exceed International Commission to supervise the several hundred thousand Vietnamese from some 600 officers and men; not me of these carrying out of the Geneva Accord and to see the north to the south. There is nothing to were engaging in combat, no American lives that its provisions were carried out in Viet- indicate that Diem was asking and that Pres- were risked or lost during that period. So nam. The Commission consisted of three ident Eisenhower was responding to a re- inuc:h for the first of the three Presidents. representatives, one from Canada, one from quest "for help against Communist aggrea_ Now we come to the second President, India, and one from Poland. They made vari- sion." John F. Kennedy, who was persto ded by his ous reports which indicated increasing viola- s now resume the quoting of Eisenhower's Secretary of Defense, Robert Me Camara, to tions of the agreements by both parties. letter: escalate our commitment to the extent of When one reads them objectively one gains "We have been exploring ways and means sending military advisers wise number the impression that the violations by the to permit our aid to Vietnam to be more rose before the end of his Presidency to some South Vietnamese under U.S. tutelage were , far extensi effective elfa eo make a greater of tof contribution lee1,000. an 3tmonthsebeas Scpteool~vr 2, fo a his death, in9an special report byathefCommission inVpars- the the welfare and stability the he Govern- merit of Vietnam. I am, accordingly, ;in_ interview with CBS newscaster, Walter Cron- graph 12 states: strutting the American Ambassador to Viet- kite, President Kennedy said: "I don't think "Since December 1961 the Commission's nam to examine with you, in your capacity that unless a greater effort is made by the teams in South Vietnam have been per- as chief of Government, how an intelligent Government to win popular support that the sistently denied the right to control and i i- program of American aid given directly to war can be won out there." spent, which are part of their mandatory your Government can serve to assist Vietnam So, President Kennedy had reached the tasks. Thus, these teams, though they were in its present how' of trial, provided that conclusion that Diem had not fulfilled Eisen- able to observe the steady and continuous had 9 arrival your Government the is prepared give assort yorto do conitions although he And then carriers wi hahe icopters onboard, wereeun- from 1954 to 1 63. had would as e standards of performance it years b be able to maintain in the event such President Kennedy ;goes on to sriy: "In the able, In view of the denial of controls, to de- aid were supplied." final analysis, it is their war. They are the termine precisely the quantum and nature Consider now this language. "We", ones who have to win it or lose it. We can of war material unloaded and introduced in- namely, the Government of the United give them equipment, we can send our men to South Vietnam." States, "have been exploring ways and meats" out there as advisers, but they have to win And it continues in paragraph i7: of aiding Vietnam. But that aid is to be it--the people of Vietn:-,m-against the Com- "As the Commission has been denied given only "provided that your Government nhumists. We are prepared to continue to mandatory controls, as pointed out earlier is prepared to give assurances as to standards assist them, but I don't think that the war in paragraph 12 above, it has not been able of performance it would be able to maint??.in can be won unless the people :support the to make a precise assessment of the number in the event such aid were supplied." effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 of military personnel and the quantum of Now to continue President Eisenhower's months the Government has gotten out of war materiel brought in. However, Pram letter: touch with the people." December 3, 1961, up to May 5. 1962, Cho "The purpose of this offer is to assist the ][ believe this record shows theft we did not Commission's teams have controlled the en- Government of Vietnam in developing and rri..ke a solemn pledge to support that Gov- try of 72 military personnel, and observed maintaining a strong, viable state, capable crument. And in any event that Govern- but not controlled 173 military personnel, of resisting attempted subversion or aggres- merit ceased to exist after its failure was 62 helicopters, 6 reconnaissance aircraft, 5 Hon through military means. The Govern- manifest. One of the reasons why civil jet aircraft, 57 fighters/fighter bombers, 25 inent of the United States expects that this war broke out against Diem in addition to transport aircraft, 26 unspecified types of aid will be met by performance on the part his own oppressive tactics of jailing hundreds aircraft, 102 jeeps, 8 tractors, 8 105-mm. of the Government of Vietnam in undertak- of people without trial, some of them being howitzers, 3 armoured carriers (tracked), 29 in1; needed reforms." tort red in prison, was the repudiation of armoured fighting vehicle trailers, 404 other t continue to quote from President Eisen- the provision to hold general elections in trailers, and radar equipment and crates, 5 bower's letter: July 1996. This was the most basic item in warships, 9 LST's (including 4 visiting the Geneva Accord and you will recall our LST's), 3 LCT's, 5 visiting aircraft carriers such aid, Government of bi the d ith unilateral commitment to it by Walter Bedell and spares of various kinds." "Ie (oho els the =looted) Hopes that aid, will contribute t Smith, Under Secretary of State, when he In the case of North Vietnam. the Com- your own continung efforts, will stated: mission (the Polish delegate dissenting, en odowed wed with a ltoward an inovernmenndent Vietnam am a "In Use case of nations now divided against which is not surprising since he represented ong toend, I hop v, errtheir will, we shall continue to seek to achieve a country behind the Iron Curtain) con- to nationalist f responsive to the he natit aspirations s of its people, unity through free elections." eluded that "in specific instances there was so enlightened in purpose and effective in Yet, the United States, which dominated evidence to show that armed and unarmed performance, that it will be respected both the situation of South Vietnam, approved personnel, arms and other supplies had been at hone and abroad and discourage any who and ratified that Government's refusal to sent from the North to the South with the ?,,ap,u8d m IWefll~6/1'~I'~fl~* C,I"t=RD17'BY~4~~IC} maw,.......... ' Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 205 purpose of supporting, organizing and car- ment of disputes by peaceful means. An- Vietnam and anywhere else in southeast rying out hostile activities including armed other violation war that of article 37 which Asia that he saw fit. This the President made attacks, directed against the armed forces provides that if parties to a dispute of the clear at the outset of his message, when he and administration of the zone in the south. matter referred to In article 33, fail to settle stated: "This is not a routine appropriation. These activities are in violation of articles it by the means indicated in that article For each Member of Congress who supports 10, 19, 24, and 27 of the agreement of cessa- they shall refer It to the Security Council. this request is also voting to persist in our tion of hostilities in Vietnam." Again not "may" but "shall." The United effort to halt Communist aggression in South Obviously, both sides, North and South, States has not done that. Vietnam. Each is saying that the Congress were violating the Geneva agreement. It So when those in authority in Washington and the President stand united before the would appear that those of the South were speak of "a national pledge" as a justifica- world in joint determination that the Inde- far larger and they had the support and tion for our course of action in Vietnam, I pendence of South Vietnam shall be pre- approval of the United States. The viola- find it difficult not to contrast that dubious served and Communist attack will not tions on both sides were charged by the conditional, qualified, tentative offer of help succeed." Canadian and Indian representatives who to a vanished South Vietnamese Chief of Since this money was not needed and was may well be credited with impartiality. State-who did not fulfill the conditions- to be used merely as a symbol of support for The Polish delegate, whose report may not with our violation of the unqualified treaty our policy, I found myself unable to vote for be accepted as unbiased, refused to join in commitments, of which there could be no it, as likewise did WAYNE MORSE, and we were the indictment of the charges against North more solemn category-the United Nations joined by another Senator, GAYLORD NELSON, Vietnam but joined with his colleagues Charter, the Southeast Asia Treaty, and the of Wisconsin. In the House, seven Members against those of the South. violations of the unilateral statement by voted against it. We now come to further U.S. violations. Under Secretary Walter Bedell Smith, reit- Going from these factual presentations to The United States is a signatory to the United erated on the same day by President Eisen- the realm of personal opinion, it is my deep- Nations Charter. In fact, the United States hower, that we would support Vietnam su- seated belief that we made a very serious mis- was largely instrumental in creating the pervised elections In 1956. take in getting involved militarily because United Nations. To review briefly what has happened in first, in my view, nothing that happens in Article 2, of chapter 1, paragraph 4, pro- the Congress: In August of 1964 it was re- South Vietnam jeopardizes the security of vides: ported that two, or possibly three, PT boats the United States. And even if it did so "1. All Members shall refrain in their in- had attacked our 7th Fleet in the Tonkin there is a question of whether that would ternational relations from the threat or use Gulf. But if, as reported (although it is justify our invading Vietnam and bombing of force against the territorial integrity or questionable whether the full facts have it any more than we can justify the seizure political independence of any state, or in any been'revealed to the American people), this by Stalin of the formerly independent coun- other manner inconsistent with the Purposes was an act of aggression-although perhaps tries surrounding Russia-Latvia, Lithuania, of the United Nations." as unimportant as an attack by a 14-year- Estonia, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary- Article 33 of chapter 6, provides: old boy with a beanshooter against Cassius on the grounds that their control was es- "1. The parties to any dispute, the con- Clay-the President was wholly within his sential to the security of Soviet Russia. Nor tinuance of which is likely to endanger the rights to order a retaliatory attack by air- do I subscribe to the domino theory which is maintenance of international peace and se- planes from the fleet on the base from which that had we not gone in, these nations of curity, shall first of all, seek a solution by these PT boats emerged. However, the next southeast Asia would have fallen into the negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conflation, day a resolution drafted in the White House hands of the Communist Chinese. And then arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to was submitted to the Congress not merely we are told in Sequent flights of fancy that regional agencies or arrangements, or other approving everything that had been done after southeast Asia the Philippines, Aus- peaceful means of their own choice." before in southeast Asia, but giving the tralia, New Zealand would fall and we would Now you notice that this article does not President unlimited power in his own dis- have to be fighting the Communists on the say that they may do this but that they cretion to use the Armed Forces of the United beaches of California. That to me is ar- shall do it, and lists eight alternative meth- States anywhere in southeast Asia. It rant nonsense. Certainly our control of the ods which should be used "first of all." Now Passed the House unanimously and in the Pacific by sea and air renders that absurd. we may well ask, did we, the United States, Senate there were two opposing votes-those Moreover I am not a pacifist and I do not when there were violations of the Geneva of Senator WAYNE MoRsE and mine. I could like and am utterly opposed to the advance of agreements, seek a solution by negotiations? not justify giving the President this unlim- totalitarianism anywhere. If a situation We did not. Did we seek a solution by Ited, unrestricted power out of which our should arise whereby a free government such inquiry? We did not. Did we seek a solu- steadily escalating military commitment as that of Australia or New Zealand were tion by mediation? We did not. Did we stems. For one thing the Constitution of threatened by attack and invasion by the seek a solution by conciliation? We did not. the United States is specific that only Con- forces of imperial communism and there was Did we seek a solution by arbitration? We gress can declare war. We are now at war, a request from those governments for our aid, did not. Did we seek a solution by judicial and in my judgment, and that of WAYNR I would be for giving that aid without stint settlement? We did not. Did we seek a solu- MORSE, who is a constitutional lawyer, we or limit. The situation in South Vietnam is tion by resorting to regional agencies or ar- are thereby in violation of the Constitution quite different. I am confident, and this is rangements? We did not. Or did we seek a In February last we started bombing North further in the realm of opinion, that had we solution by "other peaceful means of our Vietnam. The justification for this drastic stayed out entirely we would have three in- (their) own choice?" We did not. change of policy was that there had been an dependent countries formed out of French One of the "regional agencies or arrange- attack on one of our outposts at Pleiku. Indochina, that they would have installed ments" whose aid we might have invoked for Pleiku is about 200 miles south of the 17th their own social and political ideology, which a peaceful solution was the Southeast Asia parallel, the boundary between North and they would have had every right to do, and Treaty Organization which was created at the South Vietnam. At night a group of Viet- that a united Vietnam would have adopted instance and by the leadership of Secretary cong passed through the lines of the South communism as its social and economic sys- of State John Foster Dulles and whose sig- Vietnamese troops who were either too inert tem. But it would have been a Communist natories were the, United States, Australia, or uninterested to alert our men in the bar- regime independent of Peiping and there is France, New Zealand, Pakistan, The Philip- racks. The Vietcong opened fire with a evidence that many non-Communists are en- pines, Thailand and the United Kingdom. It mortar of American make, which they had listed in the civil war against the South Viet- reaffirms in article I the agreement to settle apparently secured from the South Viet- nam Government. The history of Vietnam international disputes by peaceful means namese forces, and killed 8 American soldiers, shows conclusively their people's dislike and and, to quote it exactly: There was no direct relation between this fear of the Chinese, and their war is largely "The parties undertake, as set forth in the incident and North Vietnamese infiltration, motivated by a desire to get rid of all foreign Charter of the United Nations, to settle any but It was made the justification for the rule. They want independence, and that international disputes in which they may bombing which has now continued for 10 should be a cause that ought to appeal to be involved by peaceful means in such a months with no appreciable result. It ap- Americans, They did not want the French manner that international peace and recur- pears rather to have hardened the deter- in. They did not want the Chinese, and I ity and justice are not endangered, and to mination of the North Vietnamese to con- doubt whether a majority want us in. In refrain in their international relations from tinue what they have been doing and rather Europe, to achieve a corresponding situation, the threat or use of force in any manner to increase their aid to the South Vietnamese namely in Yugoslavia, a Communist state in- inconsistent with the purposes of the United National Army of Liberation. dependent of Moscow, the United States in- Nations." Last May the President sent to the Con- vested $2 billion in aid for Tito, and our Thus having used force the United States gress an appropriation request of $700 million policy makers considered that, and now con- was also violating the SEATO treaty. I to conduct this undeclared war in Vietnam. sider it, a sound and profitable investment. have spoken ,of the violation of article 2, President Johnson frankly stated that this I need not detain you longer to point out paragraph 4, chapter 1 (which was specific- request was being made not because moneys what has happened and what is happening. ally mentioned by Under Secretary Walter were needed to supply our Armed Forces in I consider our bombing of North Vietnam Bedell Smith's declaration of U.S. policy Vietnam, for he could transfer money needed totally without justification morally, legally, which we would adhere to), and the viola- from other sources, but rather as a vehicle or otherwise. It is the sort of thing we tion of article 33, chapter 6, of the United to secure additional congressional approval condemned scathingly when done by totali- Nations Charter that provides for the settle- of his carrying on the undeclared war in tarian powers in past years; and as we have Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 19 66 seen now alter 10 months of such bombing, cumstances-this senseless war will go on it has merely stiffened the resistance of and get steadily more disastrous. those whom we are fighting. We are get- What the United States should do-in ting in deeper and deeper; not only are our sum--is to return to the rule of law. We casualty lists growing, but the toll of not should have invoked the United Nations at merely those fighting but of civilian non- the very beginning when we felt that treaty combatants mounts daily. It is my rea commitments were violated and wa have not coned view that in our effort to stop the: used the United Nations as we should have. advance of imperialist communism, we are: In this connection, the disci sures by actually aiding it. So far, at least, the sit_ Adlai Stevenson to :Eric Sevareid, which ap- nation must be to the liking of the Cons- peared in the November 30 issue of Look munist rulers of China, for to date they maga.zine, that both McNamara and Rusk have not committed a single soldier to thils war. And yet there we are--a great Western Power, the greatest in the world-engaging in. a desperate, bitter, and horrible struggle on the continent of Asia with a small Asiatic nation, sacrificing the lives of our youth and spending billions of dollars. The situation is different even from that of Korea. First, there was overt aggression from the North there. Second, we were there under a United Nations mandate. Third, the South Koreans wanted to fight. These factors are not present, at least not in the same degree, in Vietnam. There was no overt initial aggression from the North at the start. There has been infiltration, subsequent infiltration, but paralleling the U.S. support of South Vietnam, and at least not appreciably until our and Diem's re- fusal to hold elections. The United States went in unilaterally and until very recently, and only in response to great pressure from us, we had little support from our SEATO allies-none from Pakistan, none (to speak of) from Britain, none from France, and when administration spokesmen cite the total number of nations that are allegedly with us-in a kind of numbers game-we find that they have come In late and largely with only token assistance. In the Novem- ber 29 issue of Newsweek there was a little item in its Periscope column entitled "Spain Lends a Hand" which reads: "Spain is the latest country to lend a hand in Vietnam. After much prodding from L.B.J., the Franco government hopes to ship in four ambu- lances with medical crews. Actually the ambulances will have little significance (the helicopters do their work now) but the medics are wanted and the Spanish con.- tingent wi1.1 be welcomed as evidence of sup- port for the United States and Saigon." When I was in South America last January I found that every American Ambassador had received orders to go to the President of the country to which he was accredited to 're- quest support for our efforts in Vietnamm. Many of them were reluctant to do this and in many cases their pleas were unheeded, while in others there was the same kind of token compliance which we now see we have canning from Spain. These countries are all recipients of lavish American aid and the United States is, in effect, paying for these tokens and is in a position to apply pressure. I could only wish there could be a ready and quick answer to and a way out of the tragic dilemma that the President, his act- visors, and the people of the United States find themselves in. We are now so deeply committed that a way out is extremely di:ili- cult to find. There have been numerous sug- gestions made and we should explore them all actively. Our so-called unconditional discussion; are not unconditional as long as we do not firmly pledge willingness to nego- tiate also with the people who are doing the fighting, the National Liberation Front, or Vietcong; guarantee the carrying out of the general agreements to which we once pledged support, namely supervised elections in all Vietnam, but whose violation we approved, anal make every effort for a cease fire and simultaneous phasing out of the combatants of both sides. Unless we make such modAi- cations in our attempts at negotiation and stop the bombing of North Vietnam-he- cause no people will yield under those cir- turned a deaf ear to the efforts of U Thant to secure negotiations which were then pos- sible, are very disturbing Because I strongly value adherence to law, I c.. onot approve the action of a cow of our draftees in burning up their draft cards. They are in violation of the law and must take the consequences, however one may sympathize with their feelings that we should never have been in Vietnam and that what we are doing there is morally wrong and self-defeating. But peaceful protests and freedom of speech should remain in- violate and we should continue _o urge al- most any sensible solution that would put an end to the killing. It would be much better than the dark prospect of more and more slaughter which lies ahead and which ultimately, in my judgment, will result in a solution which could have been achieved bloodlessly a few years ago. The sad fact is that we cannot wi:a this war. When I say "win" I do not necessarily mean that in a strict military sense. If we continue to pour troops into southeast Aria, blast its villages from. the air with bombs and napalm, kill more tens of thousands, we may in time im- pose a military domination, although even that Is by no means certain. But even if we did, what then? Sooner or later the problems of Asia will be settled by Asians, as they should be. We should h:,.ve learned that the white man cannot settle t' :ern for the Asians. We will be told that there are some Asians fighting on our side, as fa the case of the Koreans, but they are bgh' Iden to us, .and in general, it appears to me that we have very litle spontaneous enthusiasl.ic support from almost any source. :I cannot conceive that it is desirable or wise for us to throw our young; men into every cockpit in the world where Clommunist totalitarianism rears its ugly lead. And why should we assume the role of self-ap- pointed "citizen fixit," of world policemen, all over the globe? If the cause i sufficient- ly good and urgent, an approach should al- ways be made under the United Nations on a basis of international legality and with the support, from. the very beginning, of others who believe that freedom is truly at stake and that those for whom we fight also know and value freedom and are prepared to do their share. This is far from the reality in Vietnam. There are still other impending grave casualties of our military plunge into the quagmire of southeast Asia. T l date over 1,500 fine young Americans have been killed in action. Several hundred more have died in noncombat fatalities. Ten thousand have been wounded, many crippled fr life, and that ghastly toll is just beginning. Mean- while, the great achievements on the domes- tic, front of President Johnson and the 89th Congress in its let session-and they were great-will be largely nullified. They will be nullified just as their implementation was to begin. The inspiring vision of the "Great Society" will be b'turred if not il:ascked out. There will not be the means b th for the construction of that society at h, me and the destruction of war abroad. Most tragic of all, apart from the human sacrif.ces and the blighting of countless homes, is the fading of the national image of our beloved country, of which, despite some of its failings, we have had every right to be proud. to cherish, and. to wish to maintain. I can only express the fervent hope that we can, somehow, soon, call a halt before that image and that vision of this great land be- come a memory. Let us all do our utmost to bring that about. PROXMIRE POSTMASTER BILL SUP- PORTED BY ARTHUR D. LITTLE, EFFICIENCY EXPERT Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, last year I introduced legislation which would place postmasters' appointments under the civil service system. At that time I pointed out that the present system of political patronage injured post office employee morale. Postal employees are forbidden by Federal law to participate in the very political activities that are essential under the patronage system if they are to get a postmastership. I also indicated that patronage matters of this kind tie up valuable staff personnel. They create dissension in State and local parties. For every party worker who is a successful postmaster appointee, there are 5 or 1.0 who are disappointed and resentful. The distinguished management con- sultant firm of Arthur D. Little has re- cently cited the present postmaster ap- pointment system as an example of time wasted "on nonpolicy business by Con- gress that could be saved without signifi- cant political cost or effect." This con- clusion was included within a manage- ment study of the Congress commissioned by NBC News in connection with its special report "Congress Needs Help." The specific language of the Arthur D. Little report states: The time spent on postmaster and service academy appointments serves little useful purpose. Some 21,000 postmaster appoins- ments and all appointments to the military academies clear through congressional offices. These appointments * ? * are an avoidable distraction. In the judgment of many Con- gressmen, the political values of this time- honored custom are not commensurate with the amount of time it takes. I agree with the report's comments. I hope that the Post Office and Civil Service Committee will schedule early hearings on my proposal, S. 252, in the coining year. CHURCH CONCERN FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, on November 12, 1965, the board of directors of the Council of Churches of Greater Washington passed two resolutions which I deeply hope the Senate heeds in carry- ing out its duties and responsibilities to the citizens of the District of Columbia and the Nation at large during the id session of the 89th Congress. The first resolution expresses the council's support for appropriations to implement the rent supplement program authorized by Congress last year as part of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1965. As a member of the Hoas- ing Subcommittee of the Senate Bank- ing and Currency Committee, :I am par- ticularly aware of the long hours spent in committee and in conference on, tiLis legislation. All of my colleagues in the Senate remember the thorough floor IPTP Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE January 14, 1966 same spirit that so many Alaskans showed in rebuilding after the Good Friday earthquake of 1964. Rather, my purpose is to call national at- tention to the loss of a building on which it is impossible to place a value-St. Michael's Cathedral. Estimates have been made on the cost of reconstructing St. Michael's, but I know of no way to put a price on the historical value of the church. The cathedral is' believed to be the oldest church in Alaska and was one of the few buildings remaining from the days of Russian rule. - The cathedral, called by the National Sur- vey of Historical Sites and Buildings the finest example of Russian architecture In the United States, was dedicated in 1848. Construction began 4 years earlier. From 1848 until 1862 and from 1905 until the present it was the cathedral for the Russian Orthodox Church P Alaska. Some of the ornaments ',Inside the cathe- dral date from an earlier church at Sitka. The icon of the Archangel St. Michael, patron saint of Sitka, was brought to the colony in 1816 by Father Alexis Sokoloff, the first priest assigned to the town founded 17 years earlier. Father Ivan Veniaminov, the great Rus- sian missionary, came to Sitka, capital of Russian-America, in 1834. He returned to Russia 4 years later to appeal for an expan- sion of church activities in Alaska. Father Veniaminov came back as Bishop Innocent of Alaska and launched a program which included schools and theological semi- naries. It was under his leadership that the cathedral was built. Sitka became the home of the bishop. For a time after the Alaska purchase the church continued to receive support from Russia, but since 1918 local congregations have been the sole support of orthodox clergy and churches in this country. In 1933 the ruling bishop of the Russian Orthodox Church of North America declared the church on this continent to be temporarily autonomous from the Communist-controlled organization in the Soviet Union. As cathedrals go, St. Michael's was not im- posing in size. Built in the shape of a cross, the church was 97 feet long and 66 feet wide. Despite its modest dimensions, the build- ing had a graceful grandeur and beauty seen against its backdrop of beautiful mountains. A four-story bell tower, constructed of mas- sive, hand-cut logs, supported an octagonal belfry which held eight bells ranging in weight from 75 to 1,500 pounds. A carrot- shaped steeple topped by a gilt cross rose above the belfry. A dome, like the steeple, showing the in- fluence of oriental architecture, covered the center of the church. The interior of the cathedral was as ornate as the wood exterior was plain. Walls were covered with painted cloth, but of most in- terest were the many sacred objects, paint- ings, and icons on display. I won't attempt to note all that the church contained, A brief description of the iconostas, the partition in an Eastern Ortho- dox Church which separates the main part of the church from the sanctuary, will suffice to give an idea of the richness of the church's interior. The partition was adorned with 12 icons, splendid examples of repousse art. In this art form, figures are painted on canvas. Then a craftsman, working with a thin sheet of silver, beats out the form of clothing worn by the. figure, reproducing folds and ornaments in the original painting. The 12 icons on the St. Michael's iconostas required 50 pounds of silver. Perhaps the cathedral's most famous icon is the Sitka Madonna, known throughout the world. The painter of the icon was Vladimir Lukich Borovikovsky, a great portrait painter who died in 1826. Employees of the Russian- American company gave the icon to the church. Fortunately, through the efforts of firemen, priests, and residents, all of the precious items of the cathedral, with the exception of a single painting, were saved. Unfortunately, the church books, dating back to the early 1800's, were destroyed. There are many reasons why St. Michael's should be rebuilt, but the most compelling reason is to give these beautiful ornaments, sacred objects, paintings and icons saved from the flames a proper setting. While a reconstructed church will not be of equal ,historical importance as the original, it seems only right that the ornaments be dis- played in a church which recreates as closely as possible their original setting. It will be possible to rebuild a replica of St. Michael's because detailed plans of the cathedral are on file in the Library of Con- gress. The plans are on file because of a project of the National Park Service known as Mis- sion '66. In 1956, Congress approved appro- priations so that the Park Service could em- bark on a 10-year program to upgrade na- tional parks which had been neglected during and immediately following World War II. Part of that effort was directed toward re- suming the Historic American Building Sur- vey, which had been suspended during World War II. The six measured drawings of the cathe- dral were done as part of the survey. I think the tragedy at Sitka demonstrates the value of that survey. Because of that survey, it will be possible to reconstruct the cathedral. I am happy to report that a drive to raise funds for construction of a replica already has been started by interested Alaskans. Contributions are being sent to the St. Michael's Cathedral Fund established by the Bltka Historical Sites Restoration Committee, a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization under the chairmanship of James T. Thomason. The drive has attracted statewide support. For example, a formal campaign has been launched in Anchorage. The committee is headed by Merrill Mael, and includes among others Mayor Elmer Rasmuson, William Hop- kins, an aid of the Governor, and Robert D. Arnold, my special assistant in Alaska. It was reported that the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce has pledged $10,000 to the fund. A radio station in Cleveland, acting on its own, reportedly made an appeal for funds. A nationwide effort is being planned, and I am pleased to serve as the honorary chair- man of this portion of the drive. Estimates on reconstructing the church range from $500,000 to $800,000. I hope that money will be raised and that Sitka will once again be the site of historic St. Michael's Cathedral. In closing I would like to quote from a study made for the National Park Service. Better than I could, the quotation sums the historical importance of the cathedral: "In our opinion, St. Michael's Cathedral is of sufficient national historical and cultural significance to qualify as a national historic site. "First, as the cathedral and spiritual center for the Russian Orthodox Church in Alaska for many years, both during the Russian and American periods of Alaskan history, it is the structure best suited to commemorate the in- fluence of the Eastern Orthodox Church in the development of Alaska. "Second, as the oldest known surviving re- ligious structure in Alaska and as a splendid any typical example of Orthodox church architecture in Alaska, it is eminently quali- fied to illustrate for future generations one of the cultures which has contributed to the formation of our American civilization and our national scene. "Third, as one of the very few structures of any type still remaining from the period of Russian occupation, it symbolizes and commemorates the meeting of Eastern and Western cultures on the western edge of America. "Fourth, because of its association with Father Veniaminov it commemorates one of the great, though little known, men of the American missionary frontier. "This site is a natural point at which to present these broad aspects of American his- tory. No other national historic site com- memorates these particular phases of our country's history. Nearby Sitka National Monument presents another, though related, phase of Alaska's story-the culture of the natives and their resistance to white settle- HE MANSFIELD REPORT ON VIETNAM Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, our distinguished majority leader, Senator MANSFIELD, of Montana. and his col- leagues, Senators AIKEN, MUSKIE, INOUYE, and Boccs, deserve the highest com- mendation for their forthright report on the grim realities of the situation con- fronting us in Vietnam. If there is to be a meaningful debate in Congress on the war in southeast Asia, it must be based upon a realistic assess- ment of where we are, whence we came, and where we are headed. Too much mischief has already been done by the instant victory advocates who keep as- suring us that the Vietcong will collapse, if we will just push the war up still an- other notch. The sobering effect which the Mans- field report should inspire cannot help but add new momentum to the quest for a rational settlement of the war in Viet- nam. Mr. R. H. Shackford, staff writer for the Scripps-Howard newspapers, has given a fine appraisal of the Mansfield report in an article published in the January 10 edition of the Washington Daily News. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: VIETNAM DEBATE WARMS UP-THE MANSFIELD REPORT HAS STIRRED HAWKS AND DOVES (By R. H. Shackford) Senate Democratic Leader MIKE MANS- FIELD'S grim but extraordinarily candid re- port about the mess in Vietnam has set the hawks and thn doves at it again. It has created the background for a debate, already under way, that is certain to grow in intensity as Congress reconvenes and Presi- dent Johnson faces new decisions. The hawks in private denounce Senator MANSFIELD for his candor, claiming that his report aids and abets the enemy and will mislead Hanoi about U.S. Intentions. The doves praise the report, especially for its candor. They argue that it is about time some one courageously painted the real, pes- simistic picture as a contrast to the ones created daily by U.S. military and diplomatic spokesmen. The hawks, who include those who for years have argued that just a little more pressure will bring the other side to its knees, claim the situation is more hopeful than Senator MANSFIELD sees it-provided a little more escalation is ordered. The doves suggest that the outlook in Vietnam is eve_i bleaker than Senator MANS- FIELD'S public report and that the Senator's Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE fire protection, and sanitation. The initiative for creation usually came from the citizens of the community. The legislature granted broad powers and duties to the governing boards of these municipalities, including complete power to determine their organiza- tional structure. This made it far simpler to centralize the administration of cities and towns. MI )RE SERVICES Paced later with demands by the people for services, the legislature granted power to counties to decide whether other activities should be carried. on, and if carried on, the extent to which performed. Thus the legis- lature has authorized counties to establish public health programs, to establish and maintain hospitals and, more recently, to provide mental health services, libraries, agri- cultural extension programs, trade and voca- tional courses, industrial education centers, and community colleges. The legislature has authorized counties to protect property through firefighting programs, building codes, and zoning, and to build and operate airports, to establish, recreation programs, to maintain civil defense programs, and to con- duct other activities. 'l'hns counties today serve a twofold pur- pose. They are subdivisions of the State and they are units of local self-government. Because of the county's role as a subdivi- sion of the State the direction of county gov- ernment is a matter of State policy. It is true that county officials often have their own suggestions with respect to activities they administer, but because of the State- county partnership they share the initiative with others. External influences, which grow out of the traditional role of the county as a subdivision of the State, thus have a substantial bearing on the direction of county government. UBRAN COUNTY ]PROBLEMS The large urban counties have a growing mobile population and an expanding urban area. These combine to create problems. First of all, the urban counties are faced with the problem of taking over and provid- ing on a countywide basis some of the serv- ices traditionally performed by cities. For a number of years there has been a movement toward countywide operation of library serv- ice, for example. Since World War II, county activity in hospital construction and main- tenance has far outdistanced municipal in- terest. An interest in airports has recently become evident, and if county experience in North Carolina follows county experience elsewhere, there will soon be an increased in- terest in parks and recreation. None of these activities is a respecter of municipal boun- daries, and counties will become more and more involved in all of them. A second problem lies in the demands of people in unincorporated areas for services traditionally provided by cities. Many coun- ties have recently received demands for water and sewer service in unincorporated areas, and some have come from areas into which the nearby city cannot justify ex- panding its service. The near future may bring demands on counties for pure water on a wholesale basis for both unincorpo- rated areas and smaller municipalities, and the same may be true of demands for the disposal of sewage. There are already the faint stirrings of. Interest in housing and renewal to clear up slums in unincorporated areas. A third problem is developing as communi- ties spill across county lines and make re- gional cooperation imperative. This is mak- ing itself apparent in the physical planning area. The organization of the Piedmont Crescent 2,000 Commission recognizes the fact that land development is no respecter of county lines. Regional cooperation in .hospital planning has already developed in several areas and will develop in others. We may see in the future a recognition that decentralization of industry has advantages in the overall development of an area, whereas at present each county desires maxi- mum industrialization for itself. A, fourth problem of the large urban county lies in the necessity for developing rural- urban cooperation and communication. Ur- ban growth patterns affect rural areas quite dramatically, not only through the effects of changing land uses on property values, but also through tax increases on rural as well as urban property to meet the cost of growth. Finally, there is the problem of recsga- nization. Most large counties have already reorganized internally to meet the challenges ahead. They have county managers and county planning departments to provide centralized administration and long-range planning. Will there be it need for external reorganization, like city-county consolida- tion or "metro" government? In North Caro- lina, we do not have the overlapping and duplication of activities that have led to this kind of development elsewhere, and we may achieve the major advantages of con- solidation merely through cooperatiol; in planning between counties and munici- palities. RURAL COUNTY PROBLEMS The small rural county has a different, set of problems. More often than. not, there is a decline in population, through small in- creases in town population will often partly offset the declining population of the rural areas. But size, more than population loss, presents the problem of providing adeq,.late services with too few people to serve and too few taxpayers. The schools may have too few students for a full curriculum geared to the needs and abilities of the students. The welfare de- partment may have too few cases to justify the intensive services that some people re- quire; child welfare service is a typicai ex- ample. Many departments have too little work to justify the salaries demanded by highly trained people. And finally there is the limited tax base that must finance these services. Some of these difficulties are being offset by multicounty operations, particularly in the health and library areas. Joint opera- tions in other areas may follow. But the regional arrangement is easier in some cases than others, and problems arise where moun- tains or water add transportation difficulties. The problem of sufficient population must be solved, or the people in these smaller counties will suffer. Merger of counties is no answer, for merger itself can do little to overcome the problems presented by a ,:scat- tered population. A second. problem faced by the small rural county is the need for industry and job op- portunities. The competition, however, is terrific. There are some :14,000 communities in the United States engaged in the hunt for new industry, and industry continues to be attracted to the more populous areas where other business is succeeding. A third problem may lie in reapportion- ment. Recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions announcing the "one man, one vote" rule, unless changed by constitutional amend- ment, will mean loss of representation to many of the smaller counties. Legislative representation, certainly, has been one of the biggest single factors militating against merger of counties, and loss of representa- tion could change the picture. Whether re- apportionment itself will affect the direc- tion of county government cannot be fore- told. One important problem that faces all counties is the necessity for obtaining and retaining sufficient competent personnel. In small counties, the salary problem is cou- pled with the necessity for finding people who want to live in smaller communities. An additional problem lies in money. for all counties will be faced with increased de- mandr for services, and these demands will mean higher taxes. The one thing worse than higher taxes is the consequences of failure to meet the demands. If they are not met, people will turn to the State capitol and Washington for help. History tells us that there the call will be answered. Gen- erally speaking, it has proved true that the demands for services are stronger than the demands for economy in government, and the greatest threat that faces county govern- ment in the years ahead is failing to provide what the people want and demand. SIGNIFICANCE If the problems are met, this itself will give a changing direction to county govern- ment. If the problems are not met, we can expect to see increased State and Federal activity, and this, too, will affect county government's direction. One difficulty is that large counties are faced with different challenges from those of small counties. Large counties will need help from small counties In solving their problems, at least where legislation is needed. And small counties will need help from the large counties in financing expanding serv- ices to serve people who live in the rural areas and small towns. As we look at the direction of county gov- ernment, we can count ourselves fortunate that we do not face the problems of those States where one metropolitan area is domi- nant. Our more even spread of population in North Carolina, is advantageous in that problems are more widely shared and under- stood. But with the differences we do have, small counties and large counties can develop to- gether. Working together, we can continue to build, and the direction of county govern- ment, like the direction of State and munic- ipal government, will be in the tradition. of good government. A NEW CATHEDRAL FOR SITKA Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on behalf of the distinguished senior Sen- ator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETTI, I ask unanimous consent to have printed at this point in the RECORD a statement prepared by him concerning a new ca- thedral for Sitka. There being no objection, the state- ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: STATEMENT BY SENATOR BARTLETT On January 2, fire, spread by 15-mile-an- hour winds, swept a section of the city of Sitka in southeast. Alaska. Before the fierce flames were extinguished, 2 churches and 11 buildings housing 21 businesses and 8 apartments were razed. According to figures I have received, the loss in real and personal property was close to $2 million. Perhaps a more important figure is the estimate of $3.5 million put, on rebuilding the burned-out section of,Sittka. Insurance will cover only $835,000 of the loss. For Sitka, a small city, the loss is exten- sive. However, I am happy to report that residents led by Maj. John W. O'Conn.ell, launched plans to rebuild their city almost immediately after the flames were put out. They will have the aid of the Small Business Administration, which already has declared the city eligible for disaster loans. Robert E. Butler, SBA Alaska Director, and two aids, inspected the site of the fire the day after the tragedy. I know I speak for the people of Sitka when I say the speed with which the SBA investigated and acted was greatly appreciated. But my principal purpose in speaking today is not to pay tribute to the courageous people of Sitka who are demonstrating the hmawmh~~Mmaamnwmmu nmm~n,umA'd"""~'I ~~~1~i"~nur;~lz,7 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 January 14, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE private report to President Johnson was much more ominous about the future. NOT THAT SIMPLE The hawk-dove formula is a gross over- simpllflcation of official Washington. And there are no known official doves who would cut and run. But the hawk-dove formula today does de- scribe roughly the views of those who, given today's facts, would proceed quite differ- ently-those who would go all out for a mili- tary solution and those who would hold only what we have and play for time. Within the next few days and weeks, after the President's state of the Union message and the end of the jet-borne diplomatic mis- sion (both American and Soviet), the battle lines for the debate will be much clearer. Response to the Mansfield report, however, already has shown the broad outlines. GOP UNITY Republican leaders, including Senator EvEaETT DIRKSEN, Republican, of Illinois, whom the President has done so much to flatter and woo, have put their prestige be- hind the hawks who want total military vic- tory before negotiations. Democratic leaders are divided. - Some of the conservative congressional, committee chairmen, such as House Armed Services Chairman MENDEL RIvERs, Democrat, of South Carolina, would light the fuse, even if it leads to Peiping, if Hanoi does not back down immediately. But other influential Democrats oppose further escalation and would, in fact, seek ways to deescalate, even unilaterally. The value of the Mansfield report is that it states without flinching several facts that Johnson administration officials have con- ceded privately for some weeks but have been unwilling to spell out for the public. These include: The vast U.S. escalation of the war in Viet- nam has failed to produce the original objec- tives-to reduce Communist military activity and to bring Hanoi to the conference table for a negotiated compromise settlement. Senator MANSFIELD says the Communists have matched the increased U.S. commit- ment. Senator MANSFIELD estimates that the ac- celeration of Vietcong efforts is so great that it is doubtful the Saigon government can even hold what it has, let alone extend it, without a further augmentation of Ameri- man forces on the ground. The situation is already perilously close to where it will no longer be possible to retain the myth that it is a Vietnamese war. The mere weight of American involvement makes it an American war. Weekend reports from Saigon confirm this trend-the huge U.S. troop operation against the Vietcong's "iron triangle" was undertaken without even tell- ing the South Vietnamese high military com- mand anything about it. After nearly a year of high-intensity bomb- ing, both in the north and south, and bloody ground-fighting, the control of the country- measured by both terrain and popula.tionr- is no better than it was early in 1965 when, Senator MANSFIELD discloses, the Saigon re- gime was about to collapse and sent an S 0 S to the United States for American ground troops. Vietcong recruiting in the south continues to be successful. And the North Viet- namese-undeterred by our bombings-have doubled their infiltration rate and are ex- pected to triple it to 4,500 per month soon. A high desertion rate in the South Viet- namese army continues and, Senator MANS- FIELD warns, there is no chance of the South Vietnamese substantially increasing their regular forces much above the current 300,- 000 figure. All the American military talk about the pro and con effects of the monsoon on the military operations of both sides was a mis- calculation and pcor judgment. Senator MANSFIELD said the consequences of the mon- soon were minor, if there were any at all. Weekend news stories from Saigon quoting Air Force pilots achieving "excellent results" from large raids on the Ho Chi Minh trail in Laos will be taken with a grain of salt by readers of Senator MANSFIELD's report. He says the trail is "not easily susceptible to aerial interdiction" because moat of it is protected "by double canopies of jungle foliage." Senator MANSFIELD's basic conclusion is the center of the debate-that there is "only a very slim prospect of a just settlement by negotiations" with the "alternative prospect of a continuance of the conflict in the di- rection of a general war on the Asian main- land," meaning war with Communist China. Privately, many administration officials have agreed with that appraisal, if our mili- tary policy continues unchanged. In fact, some thing it is inevitable in the long run, and a few would argue the sooner the better. Senator MANSFIELD warns that Asians, fre- quently portrayed by administration officials as wholeheartedly behind us, are most fearful of a United States-Chinese war, but recognize their "relative powerlessness" to influence the big events. THE SIGN AT TASHKENT Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, Mx. Walter Lippmann, ever the journalist of substance and insight, has given us an- other profound statement on the mean- ing of the recent events at Tashkent. I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Lipp- mann's column, which was published in the Washington Post of January 13, 1966, be printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the column was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE SIGN AT TASHKENT (By Walter Lippmann) Death came to Shastri at a high moment in his life, and the grief which is worldwide is therefore lighted with the poetic grandeur of the circumstances. He did his best day's work and died in the evening when he had completed it. The world is the better for what was done in Tashkent. For mankind has needed badly to be shown that it is still possible to get on top of the intractable violence of human affairs. None will suppose that peace has now been established. No doubt the way ahead will be full of trouble. Nevertheless, we have seen at Tashkent at least a part of the pat- tern of what might be the shape of things to come. The conflict between Pakistan and India could become a catastrophe for hun- dreds of millions of people. What we have been shown in Mr. Kosygin's mediation has been that the primary responsibility for mak- ing peace lies with those who are most di- rectly concerned. The powers most directly concerned are those who are nearest to the conflict-Pakistan, India and the Soviet Union. Mr. Kosygin was able to do what neither Mr. Wilson nor Mr. Johnson could have done. That is not because he is cleverer than they, but, in the last analysis, because he is nearer. Great Britain, in spite of the ties of the Commonwealth, has been helpless; the Unit- ed States, in spite of its wealth and power, has been ineffective. The critical advantage of the Soviet Union has not been due to race, color, or culture, but to geography. The So- viet Union can talk with authority about peace in Asia because it is a power with an Asian frontier of thousands of miles. I have come increasingly to think that the cardinal defect of our own foreign policy in this century of the wars and disappointments and frustrations has been the pursuit of idealism separated from the geography of the world. The American globalist school of thought has dominated American strategic and diplomatic policy since 1917. In that time we have fought and won two have always been too high minded to make peace after either of them. The globalists have always been too high-minded to make the compromises and concessions which are the essential ingredients of any peace settle- ment. Now we are engaged in a war which has no visible limits, and the reason given to us by our globalist leaders comes down to saying that we have appointed ourselves the guardians of the peace of the world. .Before the globalist illusion came upon us, we thought it was our business to define our vital interests and defend them. As against the gross self-delusion of globalism, there is the traditional realism which holds that a sound foreign policy is based on a careful and constant study of the geography of the world. This leads to the realization that American power cannot be equally effective all over the globe, A full understanding of this simple, self-evident, profound truth is the beginning of wisdom in foreign affairs. Globalism is the thinking of those who have not learned the facts of life. They include the zealots of the world revolution who expect all mankind to imitate and fol- low them. They include also the idealists who have overreacted from their old isola- tionism and expect to enforce everywhere their own views of the moral law. They cannot do that, and when they try to do it, the reality of things asserts itself and the reckoning cannot be long postponed. POLITICAL LUXURIES Mr. JORDAN of Idaho. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have print- ed in the body of the RECORD an editorial entitled "'Political Luxuries," published in the Wall Street Journal of today, Jan- uary 14, 1966. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: POLITICAL LUXURIES "I have not come here tonight to ask for pleasant luxuries or for idle pleasures."- Lyndon B. Johnson in the state of the Union message. In the sense that, but for Vietnam, the administration presumably would be asking for much more domestic spending, the Pres- ident's claim of modest budgeting is correct. All the same, th4programs he has sketched seem amply supplied with luxuries and pleas- ures for a time of grievous war. Mr. Johnson argues that his civilian rec- ommendations represent a sort of minimum that must be done for schoolchildren, the sick, and the poor. Any sacrifices required by war, he insists, must not come from cut- ting back on aid to those most in need. It follows, then, that anyone who ques- tions this huge spending on the homefront is a monster of hardheartedness. The un- fortunate fact nonetheless is that the proj- ects the Government has embarked on and now wants to expand are not necessarily in the interests of those they are supposed to help. In some cases, like the notorious busi- ness of urban renewal dispossessing the poor, they are injurious. Consider the so-called war on poverty, which the President asks Congress not only to continue but to speed up. At present it is a costly and wasteful chaos which benefits politicians but scarcely the poor. Instead of a speedup it needs a pause for an examina- tion of its faults and to see why it is being run so badly. Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 Approved For Release 2006/11/06: CIA-RDP67B00446R000400010013-2 For another example of good governmental management, look at Mr. Johnson's remark- able plea for a new Department of Trans- portation-because, as he puts it, the exist- ing structure of no less than 35 agencies, spending $5 billion a year, is practically incapable of serving the Nation's needs. No institution except Government could get away with failure on that grand scale. What would benefit the people, including the poor (and the poor taxpayer) is Federal austerity to reduce the danger of a serious inflationary outbreak. Here, too, in imply- ing that the forthcoming budget will be noninflationary, the Government appears on weak groundd; the President himself suggests so when he warns we must all increase our vigilance against inflation. Tito budget forecast is for fiscal 1967 spend- ing of nearly $113 billion, a staggering drain on the economy. But with the hope that revenues will reach $111 billion the antici- pated deficit is "only" $1.8 billion as com- pared with much higher earlier estimates. Tiro revenue expectation may well be un- duly optimistic and will prove wildly op- timistic if the economy should slow down Jost: it bit or fail to expand between now and the end of the period 18 months hence. Ac- cep-: the revenue figure at face value and it still depends on rescinding the excise tax cuts put in effect only at the beginning of this year acid on various gimmicks such as accelerating corporate tax payments. I?von if they were not excessively expensive and inflationary, the administration's plans rest on an intellectual confusion that Fed- eral outlays are good for your soul as well as your body. "A great nation is one which breeds a great people," says Mr. Johnson. "A great people flower not leans wealth and power but from a society which spurs them to the fullness of their genius ` * ? This year we must con- tinue to improve the quality of American life." In practice, though, that noble dream turns, out to have very little to do with quality; it is, and in the nature of government must be, almost wholly quantitative and ma- terialistic. Doling out dollars does not auto- matically make education better, and cer- tainly it does not spur people to the fullness, of their genius. The hand of Government pressing down everywhere is more likely to demean the quality of life, including the precious quality of individual liberty. We agree with the President that this Nation is strong enough to fight in Vietnam. and do what is necessary at home. It Is difficult to agree that all the proposed do-? mestic spermcting is necessary, wise or effective. And there can be no guarantee of continued. strength if the Government persists in in.- Bulging in the political pleasures of handouts and the exorbitant luxury of inflation. RENEWAL OF THE GOVERNMENT SERVICE Mr. MONRONEY. Mr. President, to-. day marking the 83 years since the estab- lishment of the Civil Service Commission, the Honorable John W. Gardner, Secre- of Health, Education, and Welfare, de- livered an address on "The Renewal of the Government Service." 'Phis excellent address commemorated the 33 years of the merit system service in the U.S. Government. It preceded the awards for distinguished service of Civil Service Commission employees. Secretary Gardner emphasized that the duty of the career service was not only to search out the gifted young, people of our schools and colleges for recruitment into Government service, but to continue their growth and education and qualifications after formal education ceases. All organizations of our society today are competing desperately to get their share of the flow of talent- Secretary Gardner said- but few are developing that talent properly after they get it. I commend this excellent speech to the attention of the Congress, and ask unanimous consent to have it printed at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the address was ordered to be :printed in the RECORD, as follows: RENEWAL of THE GOVERNMENT ~:J:LVICE (By John W. Gardner, Secretary :1 Health, Education, and Welfare) We are here to commemorate an important beginning and to honor a fine tradition. The civil service is one of our ;;,ablest so- cial institutions and I am proud to have a part in this tribute to it. But I have learned from long experience that it is not really necessary to congratu- late institutions. They have built. in mech- anisms for self-congratulation that are mar- velously effective. Having particil~lted inti- Inate;.y in the life of Government agencies, the military services, business firm.,. and uni- versities, I feel that I can make that gen- eralization on the basis of fairly comprehen- sive experience. So I am going to honor the civil service by talking about the goals ahead rather than the laurels already won. First, let me clear away some general ques- tions. Is the Federal Government bureau- cratic? It is indeed. But so arts business firms, colleges and universities, the military services, State and local governments, and philanthropic organizations. Is the Federal Government in danger of going to seed? It is in the gravest danger. But so are all other organizations large and small. I think most of you know my views on the decay and renewal of organization Briefly, I believe that most human orga- nizations that fail in their missions or fall short of their goals do so not because of stupidity, not because of faulty doctrines, but because of the internal decay . nd rigidi- fication to which they are all subject. They get stiff in the joints. They get in a rut. They go to seed. I know that many of you are familiar with my diagnosis of what brings that condition about. So I am going to limit myself today to a few brief comments on what I regard as the most important single line of therapy for moribund organizations. Organizations go to seed when the people in them go to seed. And they awaken when the people awaken. The renewal of organi- zations and societies starts with people. And since the first and last business of the civil service is people, this seems an appropriate occasion to examine the problem. Specifically, I want to talk about what the Federal Government does to develop tal- ent-after recruitment. Recruitment itself is worthy of discussion, and there is a vastly better job to be done on that front, but that is not the problem that interests me at the moment. As a society, we are pursuing energetically, almost feverishly, the identification and nur- ture of gifted young people in our schools and colleges. In contrast, we are quite hap- hazard about the provisions for their contin- uing growth after formal education ceases. Almost all organizations in our society today are competing desperately to get their share of the flow of talent.. But few are developing that talent properly after they get It. January 14, 19,66 The still untapped source of human vital- ity, the real unmined reservoir of talent is in those people already recruited and there- after neglected. The quickest and most effective road to renewal of the Federal service is the mining of that untapped resource. It is not only a means of tapping unused talent and open- ing up new stores of vitality, it is it solution to the old, old problem of developing a gov- ernment service that is responsive---respon- sibly responsive-to changing top leadership. Vital people, using their gifts to the full, are naturally responsive. People who have stopped growing, defeated people, people who no longer have confidence in the use of their own powers, build bastions of procedure be- tween themselves and any vital leadership. Now, how does one go about renewing the people in the Government service--or any- where else for that matter? There are maiiy sources of renewal, of course. One is the uninvited crisis. Wars and depressions bring a certain amount of renewal, though the price is far higher than sensible people are willing to pay. Another source is challenge and competi- tion, and in this respect our Constitution has built-in provisions for the renewal of elected officials. But appointive officials, not facing the challenge of an election, are de- nied that stimulus. Another source of renewal is rapid growth. Very rapid expansion of an agency is apt to have a highly stimulating effect upon the people within it. Still another source of renewal is the sheer vitality of top leadership. I think, for example, that President Johnson has been as vigorous, if not cyclonic, it force for renewal as we have seen in this Government- But what about the more mundane things that good government administrators can do to renew their organizations'? What about the good personnel practices and procedures that will insure renewal? I'm going to give you an oversimplified answer, but an over- simplification bared on having observed the personnel field with a professional eye for 30 years. I am going to assert that the best means of inducing growth, developing talent, and insuring continued vitality in the individual is change. The change may take many forms-a change of troubles, a change of assignment, promotion, living in different parts of the country, moving in and out of Government., sampling the different worlds that make up this society, serving abroad, serving in an organization that is itself rapidly changing. It follows, I believe, that the single con- dition that would contribute most to greater vitality in the Government service today is flexibility of reassignment. In his state of the Union message, President Johnson pledged bold. leadership to bring this about The size of the Federal Establishment and the diversity of activities it encompasses offer unexampled opportunities for imagi- native reassignment. With such an array of possibilities it Is unforgivable that any reasonably competent Government; servant should suffer in a job that does not suit hie talents. It is unforgivable that any Government servant should lack the stimulus to personal growth that comes with change. The indi- vidual should be allowed to move and the agency should be allowed to move him with- out damage to his status or his feelings. Free, frequent, and fluid movement among all the agencies of Government should be the accepted rule. The ambitious or merely restless young person who wants to sample several different lines of work should not be punished or penalized. Restlessness and vitality go together. And especially prom- ising young people should be systematically reassigned through several ar-ncies to in-, sure their growth.