Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 27, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
January 27, 1966
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP67B00446R000400020005-1.pdf11.91 MB
Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP671300446R000400Q210005-1 2866 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 10, 1966 30 be ensigns Fidel E. Smith Charles H. McClure Christopher C. Math- ewson Otto P. Steffin Carl W. Fisher Arthur P. SiboId III John 0. Rolland Phillip F. Dean Steven M. Erickson Joseph L. Scott Lance W. Pape Glen R. Schaefer Harold D. Nilsson Duane D. Helton Lionel Greve James L. Murphy William M. Goodhue, William S. Richardson A. Conrad Weymann David L. Sweetland Gordon P. Dodge George R. Knecht Jack L. Wallace Henry M. GoghIan It Michael W. Chalfant Roy K. Matsushige Richard T. LeRoy Larry K. Nelson Arthur D. Ross Cohn L. Campbell Richard F. Coons Arthur J. Kuhn John K. Callahan, Jr. CONFIRMATIONS Executive nominations confirmed by the Senate February 10 (legislative day of January 26) , 1966: .S. AIR FORCE The following officers for appointment in the Air Force Reserve to the grade indicated, under the provisions of chapter 35 and see- tions 8373 and 8376, title 10, of the United States Code: To be major generals *Brig. Chen. Howard W. Cannon, FV383170, Air Force Reserve. Brig. Gen. J. Clarence Davies, Jr., FV- 901230, Air Force Reserve. Brig. Gen. Donald S. Dawson. FV582705, Air Force Reserve. *Brig. Gen. Benjamin W. Fridge, FV365107, Air Force Reserve. Brig. Gen. Richard C, Hagan, FV307796, Air Force Reserve. Brig. Gen. William C. Lewis, Jr., FV944440, Air Force Reserve. Brig. Gen. William D. Price, FV286176, Air Force Reserve. To be brigadier generals *Ool. Earl 0. Anderson, FV705280, Air Force Reserve. Col. Joseph W. Barron, FV123421, Air Force Reserve. Col. Richard T. Cella, FV378228, Air Force Reserve. Col. Stanley J. Czyzak, FV364077, Air Force Reserve. *Col. Dan B. Dyer, FV2212700, Air Force Reserve. Col. William R. Harpster, FV662780, Air Force_ Reserve. Col. Herman L. Harris, FV344153, Air Force Reserve. *Col. John W. Hoff, FV828596, Air Force Reserve. " Col. Joseph S. Hoover, FV907194, Air Force Reserve. Col. Joe M. Kilgore, FV437412, Air Force -tteserve. Col. Tom B. Marchbanks, Jr., FV669752. Air Force Reserve. Col. Maurice I. Marks, FV367334, Air Force Reserve. Col. James L. Murray, FV386624, Air Force Jteserve. Col. Gwynn If. Robinson, FV791240, Air Force Reserve. *Col. Martin H Scharlemann, FV402684, Air Force Reserve. Col. John H. Stembler, FV342806, Air Force Ite?serve. Col. Evelle J. Younger, FV391177, Air Force Reserve. The :follavving officers for appointment as Reserve commissioned officers in the U.S. Air Force, to the grade indicated, under the pro- visions of sections 8218, 8351, 8363, and 8392, title 10, cg the United States Code: To be major general Brig. Gen. Joseph P. Gentile, FG384460, Massachusetts Air National Guard. To be brigadier generals Col. Raymond A. Fortin, FG420587, Maine Air National Guard. Col. Roy A. Jacobson, FG2054045, Arizona Air National Guard. Col. Raymond J. Kopecky, FG740462, Cali- fornia Air National Guard. Col. Michael C. Malone, PG1849428, New York Air National Guard. Col. William D. Prescott, FC4484947, Penn- sylvania Air National Guard. Col. Valentine A. Siefermann, FG70470'7, Hawaii Air National Guard. Col. Walter E. Williams, Jr., FG766815, Colorado Air National Guard. (NorE.--Asterisk (*) indicates selection by 1963 selection board and submission provided for in section 8373(d), title 10, United States Code.) The following-named officers for appoint- ment in the Regular Air Force, to the grades indicated, under the provisions of chapter 835, title 10, of the United States Code To be major generals Maj. Chen. Jack N. Donohew, FR1319 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Thomas B. Whitehouse, FR1677 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj, Gen. Milton B. Adams, FR1712 (briga- dier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Charles R. Bond, Jr., PR1937 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Can. Horace A. Hanes, FR2060 (briga- dier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. (len. Thomas K. McGehee, 111.3809 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force) , U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Fred J. ASCa.111, FR4036 ( briga- cher general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Robert W. Burns, FR4142 (briga- dier general, Regular Air Force), US. Air Force. Maj. (len. James C. Sherrill, PR4910 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Abe j. Beck, FR5831 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. (len. Gordon M. Graham, F117761 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Harry E. Goldsworthy, 1,1t1631 (brigadier general? Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Ma), Gen. William B. Campbell, FR2000 (brigadier general, Regular Ai:r Force), .U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. John D. Lavelle, FR4359 (briga- dier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Chen. Donald W. Graham, FR4361 (brigadier general? Regular Air Force) , U.S. Air Force. Ma). (Sen. Otto J. Glasser, FR4368 i.briga- dier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Duward L. Crow, FR18061 (brig- adier general, Regular Air Force), US. Air Force. Maj. Gen. William J. Crumm, F118663 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force, Maj. Gen. John W. Vogt, Jr., FR8709 (brig- adier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. Lucius D. Clay, Jr., FR8956 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Maj. Gen. James W. Humphreys, jr., FR19928 (brigadier general, Regular Air Force, Medical), U.S. Air Force. To be brigadier generals Brig. Gen, Hugh B. Manson, FR1800 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Robert L. Delashaw, FR1913 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Alvan N. Moore, FR2062 (col- onel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. (len. Ernest A. Pinson, FR3117 (col- onel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. William L. Mitchell, Jr., F114063 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Robert W. Paulson, FR.3871 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig Gen. John L. Locke, FR4042 (colonel, Regular Air Force), 'U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen, Andrew J. Evans, Jr., FR4072 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig Gen. Harrison R. Thyng, FR4414 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Richard A. Yudkin, FR4480 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen, Kenneth C. Dempster, FR4633 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Albert W. Schinz, FR4646 (col- onel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Frank B. Elliott, FR4681 (colo- nel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen, Gordon F. Blood, FR4766 (colo- nel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force, Brig. Gen. Sam J. Byerley, FR4875 (colo- nel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen, Edward 11. Nigro, FR4889 (colo- nel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig, Gen. Robert F. Worley, FR4906 (colo- nel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. William Burke, FR4950 (colo- nel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. William C. Lindley, Jr., FR5006 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen John M. McNabb, FR5037 (colo- nel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. 'Gen. William B. Kyes, FR5064 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Farce. Brig. Gen. Robert L. Petit, FR5214 (colo- nel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Glen J. McClernon, FR5217 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Thomas N. Wilson, FR5255 (colonel, Regular Air Farce), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. John L. Martin, Jr., FR7556 (colonel, Regular Air Force) U.S. Air Force. Brig. Chen. Ralph G. Taylor, Jr., FR8660 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Lee V. Gossick, FR8679 (colo- nel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. James T. Stewart, FR8692 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. William H. R,eddell, F118874 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Andrew S. Low, Jr., F118890 (colonel, U.S. Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Chen. Richard D. Reinhold, FR8927 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. William C. Garland, FR8934 (colonel, Regular Air Force) , U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Howard E. Kreidler, FR9177 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen, George B. Simler, FR9236 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Norman S. Orwat, 10119489 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. John W. Baer, FR9820 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S, Air Force. Brig, Gen. David C. Jones, P119887 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. 'William W. Berg, FR9961 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Russell E. Dougherty, FR9985 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Richard F. Schaefer, FR10096 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Charles H. Roadman, PR3379 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. Brig. Gen. Archie A. Hoffman, FR 19222 (colonel, Regular Air Force), U.S. Air Force. U.S. ARMY Lt, Gen. Charles Hartwell Bonesteel III, 018655, Army of the United States (major Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 141, ?Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- APPENDIX "Consular Convention With the Soviet Union," minority views, Aug. 10, 1965, 03 Senator NORRIS COTTON, "The Consular Convention With the Soviet Union," Con- GitESSIONAL RECORD, Aug. 26, 1965, p. 21185. a, "Consular Convention With the Soviet Union," minority views, p. 2. O "L.B.J. Policy Edict Tied to Hoover," the Washington Post, Aug. 21, 1965. 3, "Top Soviet Intellectuals Castigate United States on Riots," the Washington Post, Aug. 22, 1965. 38 "Consular Convention with the Soviet Union," p. 29. Move Toward Vietnam Peace EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOE L. EVINS OF TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 27, 1966 Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr. Speak- er, President Johnson's effort to continue the peace offensive at the same time that he is protecting our commitment in Viet- nam is discussed with great insight and perception in an editorial published in the New York Times last February 3. The consideration of the Vietnam con- flict in the United Nations opens new avenues for discussions and negotiations and brings to bear the prestige and in- fluence of this international organization fora peaceful settlement. Under unanimous consent I insert this editorial in the Appendix of the RECORD, believing it to be of broad general interest to my colleagues and to the Nation. The editorial follows: MOVE TOWARD VIETNAM PEACE Despite the mountainous obstacles still to be overcome, the vote to place the Vietnam war on the agenda of the United Nations Security Council provides an opening for international action to move the conflict .from the battlefield to the conference table. The formal debate that has been authorized is far less important than the informal con- sultations now opening to prepare for that discussion. The objective must be to draft a resolution that can be adopted unanimously or, at least, will obtain a Soviet abstention. Moscow can be expected to use the threat of a veto to influence the shape of that resolution. Yet, there is reason to doubt that the Soviet Union will veto a responsible effort to bring about a negotiated settlement, even though it may feel obliged to stand aside Initially. What would a responsible effort comprise? No one is suggesting that the United Nations enter into the substance of the Vietnam dispute. Hanoi has just repeated its posi- tion that Vietnam "falls within the com- petence of the 1954 Geneva Conference on Indochina, and not of the U.N. Security Council." As Senator MANSFIELD pointed out yesterday, the task now is for other partici- pants in the Geneva settlement to move to reconvene the Geneva powers. France, as a key participant, has a special responsibility to join with Britain for this purpose, if Soviet reluctance rules out action by the two Geneva cochairmen, Britain and Russia,. Nothing in the Geneva accords lim- its initiatives to the cochairmen. The chal- lenge that faces the United Nations?and, particularly, the African nations that joined France in abstaining yesterday?is to find a way around the obstacles that block a Geneva meeting. What are those obstacles? The bombing of North Vietnam is one. But the United States already has suspended that bombing on two occasions. It may be surmised that Washington would not have initiated a United Nations debate were it not prepared to suspend the bombing again, if prospects for a peace conference could thus be im- proved. The chief bar to a new Geneva conference is the refusal of Hanoi to participate unless Its Four Points are accepted and the United States agrees "to recognize" the Vietcong's National Liberation Front. But Hanoi main- tains that the Four Points are nothing but "a concentrated expression of the Geneva ac- cords"?accords the United States supports. Hanoi's insistence that the Liberation Front is the "sole genuine representative" of the South Vietnamese people has all the out- ward marks of a bargaining maneuver to ob- tain maximum status for the Vietcong in the negotiations. The right to attend a recon- vened Geneva conference cannot?by this maneuver or any other?be denied to the Saigon Government, which attended not only the 1954 conference but also the one on Laos in 1962. Both groups will belie to be rep- resented. A Security Council resolution could well combine a request for suspension of the bombing of North Vietnam with a proposal that France, Britain and the African mem- bers consult the Geneva participants on a way out of the impasse. It could also call upon the International Control Commission in Vietnam to assemble the military com- manders of all the combatant forces on the ground in South Vietnam to discuss a cease- fire. Such a move, if successful, would open direct contact between the major political as well as military forces in South Vietnam? the South Vietnamese Army and the Viet- cong. And they undoubtedly would have to discuss a political settlement along with a cease-fire, since the two are inextricably intertwined in any guerrilla war. A resolution of this type could not be op- posed by Washington, which has expressed its willingness to discuss a cease-fire prior to a Geneva conference or as the first order of conference business. It would be difficult for Moscow to veto such a plan, even if Hanoi's reluctance to go to a conference pre- vents an affirmative Soviet vote. This is not the only resolution that could help advance negotiations on Vietnam. Now that the United Nations has been brought into the Vietnam conflict, the way is open for fresh minds and the freest exercise of diplomatic ingenuity. Peace is a world re- sponsibility; the tIN, was created to fulfill that responsibility. Vietnam could become its finest hour. In Your Interest EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, during the last session of the Congress I again in- troduced a truth-in-lending bill that is designed to protect would-be borrowers or credit users from some of the mach- inations practiced by moneylenders. At the present time the borrower is too often victimized by unscrupulous lenders A669 who engage in wily subterfuge in stating the nature .of finance charges and in- terest rates. I hope that favorable consideration will be given to my bill H.R. 8332 so that the would-be borrower is dealt with truthfully and honestly by those who lend money or extend credit. I recommend to my colleagues the fol- lowing article on lending practices which has been prepared by the Industrial Un- ion Department, AFL?CIO: IN YOUR INTEREST: THE NEED FOR THE "TRUTH IN LENDING" BILL "I recommend enactment of legislation requiring all lenders, and extenders of credit to disclose to borrowers in advance the actual amount of their commitment and the annual rate of interest they will be required to pay. 'The antiquated legal doctrine, `Let the buyer beware,' should be superseded by the doctrine, `Let the seller make full disclo- sure.' "?President Lyndon B. Johnson, in his message to the Congress, "The American Consumer," 1964. "Excessive and untimely use of credit aris- ing out of ignorance of its true cost is harm- ful both to the stability of the economy and to the welfare of the public. Legislation should therefore be enacted requiring lend- ers and vendors to disclose to borrowers in - advance the actual amounts and rates which they will be paying for credit."?President John F. Kennedy, March 15, 1962. Had any debts lately? Of course you have if you are like moSt Americans. But do you know how much interest or other financing casts you are paying for those loans and in- stallment purchases? If you do know, then chances are you are paying only a half or a third as much in financing costs as the person who doesn't know the rate of interest he is paying, ac- cording to arecent study. This study showed, for example, that among persons who had taken out loans for $500 or less, those who were told or took the trouble to find out the true interest rate charged were paying only 12 percent, while those who did not know the rate they were charged, actually were paying 37 percent. Just knowing makes a big difference. Do you?. TRUE RATES The true annual interest rate isn't always what you think. Do you know, for example, that: ' The 3-percent-per-month plan of small loan companies is really 36 percent per year? The 1% percent new car financing plan of some commercial banks is really 9 percent per year? The advertised 5-percent rate on home im- provement loans is not less than a 6 percent first mortgage, but nearly twice as much, or almost 10 precent per year? The so-called 6-percent rate for financing used cars offered by some dealers is at least 12-percent per year and sometimes very much higher-18 to 25 percent per year or more? The cost of teenage credit now being promoted by some retailers as only "pennies per week" is sometimes as high as BO percent per year? Don't feel bad if these facts puzzle you. Another recent study revealed the shocking news that at least 4 people out of every 10 don't know how Much they are paying in credit charges. But this study was only of persons with college educations. Probably closer to 8 out of 10 don't know the rates of interest they are paying. Unfortunately, it is frequently very dif- ficult for you to find out the true cost of what you pay to borrow money or to buy on an installment plan. You know how it goes. You and the family really want that new TV or that late model automobile. By the Vine you get to looking.seriously, you want it and need it right thea?not later after you have ..? ?.. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 A670 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD APPENDIX February 9, 1966 taken the time to read the fine print in the :sires contract. And the salesman or loan official makes those small monthly payments sound like a "breeze" to repay. Then, after you think, "I must have paid that off by now," and the bills still keep coming, you may wonder how much that purchase really cost in credit charges. EAGER BORROWERS Condoner credit has become one of the Nation's biggest businesses. Nearly every- body is a consumer of credit. Long-term consumer debt, primarily in the form of home mortgages, now amounts to more than $209 billion while short- and intermediate- 4:rin consumer debt is $83 billion, or a total ot $292 billion. This is almost the size of the entire national debt. What, is even more startling is the dra- matic rice in consumer debt in the last 20 years. lung-term consumer debt has in- creased 1,123 percent during that time; short- and intermediate-term consumer debt has increased 1,449 percent, while the na- tional debt has increased by only 18 percent. To make the comparison another way, if the Federal Government had increased its debt at' the same rate as the American consumer increased his, the national debt would be nearly $3 trillion. Perhaps the most striking figure of all, however, is the interest paid on consumer debt. The interest payments on long-term consumer debt are conservatively estimated at $11 billion a year, while short- and inter- mediate-term debts account for at least another $11 billion a year. Thus, the Amer- Man consumer, with a total debt slightly less than the national debt, is paying at least $22 billion a year in interest, or nearly double the annual interest charge on the national debt. TO'17AT. OF 229 PERCENT PER YEAR A U.S. Senate subcommittee, under the chairmanship of Senator PAUL H. DOUGLAS, of Illinois, recently held investigative hearings in Louisville, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, and Bos- ton to learn the practical effects of borrow- ers not knowing the cost of credit. These are only a few typical cases which witnesses described n the subcommittee: A man An Jersey City bought a TV set for $123.88. He was given a coupon book which called for 24 monthly payments of $17.50. The interen rate turned out to be 229 per- cent per year. or more than twice the cost of the TV for interest alone. What is even more tragic, he had to keep up the payments or lose his job. A housewife on the Lower East Side of Manhattan purchased a couch from a door- to-door salesman for $300. The payments were set at $12 eve-ry 2 weeks for 2 years. The total interest charge was thus $324 end the annual rate was 107 percent, although not a word of his was mentioned at the time of Use sale. A New Jersey bus driver borrowed $1,000 from a small loan company. He was told the interest rate was 4.5 percent. The actual rate turned out to be 29.5 percent, or more than 6lee times the claimed rate. Had the borrower known this at the start, he said, he would have dealt with a lower cost lender. A similar ease occurred in Pittsburgh when a witness testified that he borrowed $900 troin a small loan company and was told that his monthly payments would be $58.10 for 24 months. The interest rate in this case was fie percent per year. Another New York witness bought a tele- vieion set on credit for 30 months. The interest rate on this transaction turned out to he 1.43 percent. The committee asked Lime witness whether she would have signed ? the contract if she bad known the interest rate. The witness replied, "Never in my life." Testimony before the committee also re- vealed that Negroes and Puerto Ricans in New York were systematically and auto- rnatically charged a higher rate of interest, regardless Of their individual credit standing. NOT JUST THE POOR There examples and hundreds like them have been disclosed which show how not only the poor and the wage earners but salaried, middle class, and very well edu- cated Americans are often misled when they borrow or buy on time. Recent investiga- tions disclosed a very sorry field of deception in the case of college education loans. While Federal education loans are available for 3 percent and various State plans run from 3 to 6 percent, Senators were shocked to learn that some of the private loan plans which are offered to students and parents by our leading colleges and universitiee involved an interest rate as high as 60 percent per year. Interest rates on "low-cost education loans" Frequently ran from 26 to 54 percent a year. Or consider the facts revealed during a 1965 hearing before the House Banking and Currency Committee about :4 small-loan finance company which has systematically bilked our American servicemen, This com- pany specialized in auto loans and mas- queraded under an official-sounding name as though it were a Government agency. It charged interest rates as high as 100 percent over a 2-year period. It also added an exces- sive charge for insurance which sometimes didn't even exist. TRICKS OF THE TRADE Consumers simply do not know what rate of interest they are being charged on an in- stallment purchase or small loan. This brings terrible and sometimes tragic burdens on people and their families. Most of the blame for this lies not Just, or even pri- marily, in the ignorance of the buyer. The responsibility, as Mr. DOUGLAS' Senate hear- ings have shown, lies with the confusing practices of the seller. An economist who is a top executive with ,one of the largest automobile manufacturing companies once told a Senate committee: "The variety and complexity of finance and insurance arrangements and the charges for them are such as almost to defy compre- hension. It is impossible for the average buyer to appraise the rates for finance and insurance services offered, as compared with alternatives available elsewhere." A credit union manager with many years of experience in the lending field vividly de- scribed the dilemma of today's consumer. He said: "The average borrower is caught in a wonderland of credit where percentages mul- tiply and divide at will, where finance charges materialize on command and fees are collected on the way out: where sharp practices and rackets not only inflate the costs of credit, but also impose enormous financial hardships on the debtor, particu- larly those who can least afford it." Consider some of the practices used by many lenders which the subcom- mittee has uncovered and described after 5 years' study. . No rate quoted Often no rate at all is quoted t the con- sumer. This is the simplest and most di- rect method of obscuring the cost of credit. The borrower Is, for example, merely told that he will pay $10 down and $10 a month. Neither the total finance charge Ina' the in- terest rate is evident. Unless the borrower is a persistent questioner and skillful mathe- matician, he will not discover the true facts. The add-on rate The borrower is told that the finance charge will be $6 on a 1-year, $100 loan, re- payable in equal monthly installments. The lender represents this to be a 6-percent loan, but such a claim is merely a play on the number 6. The actual rate is almost 12 percent, or nearly double the stined rate, because the borrower is constanny repay- ing the loan over the year and does not have the use of the $1.00 for a full His aver- age debt Over the year is only about $50 In other words, the interest rate is quoted on the original amount of the debt and not on the declining or unpaid balance as; is the custom in business credit, government loans, or mortgage transactions. In reality the borrower is asked to pay interest ors atnounts he has already repaid. The discount rat c This is a variation of the add-on :ate. In the case of the add-on, the borrower re- ceives $100 in cash or goods and must pay back $106. In the case of the discount technique, the consumer "borrows" $100 but only receives $94. The finance charge again is $6 and is often represented as being 6 13er- cent interest. Again, the actual rate is slightly more than 12 percent, or twice the quoted rate because the borrower is periodi- cally repaying the loan. A simple monthly rate This rate statement method is' usually quoted by small loan companies and by re- tailers using revolving credit plans. The fi- nance rate is represented as being 1, 2, 3, or I percent per month. The true annual rate in this case is 12 times the quoted figure. or .12, 24, 36, or 48 percent per year, if the interest is based upon the unpaid balance at the end of each month. If it is based upon the entire original amount of the loan which is being gradually repaid, the simple annual rate is approximately 24 times the quoted figure, or in the illustrations cited 24, 43, 72, or 96 percent per year. "Loading the camel" Sometimes lenders compound the camou- flaging of credit by loading on all sorts ot extraneous charges, such as exorbitant fees for credit life insurance and excessive fees for credit investigations, processing, and han- dling. These charges are a cost of doing business, and should rightfully be figured in With the interest or finance charges. By BK- eluding them in a separate list, the interest rate can be superficially reduced. When these charges are separated from the interest. a comparison of the cost of the credit with other rates becomes impossible. This, of course, could be the purpose of all this sleight of hand in the first place. Some dealers are even unwilling to use the word "interest." They prefer to call it a "small monthly charge." TRUTH-IN-LENDING BILL The confusion?and subter fuge?whic characterizes the world of credit, along witn his concern for the effect on the economy of the tremendous growth in consumer cred- it, led Senator DOUGLAS to propose, with the cosponsorship of many of his Senate col- leagues, his truth-in-lending bill. The pur- pose of the bill is simply to give tile con- sumer the truth, the whole truth, and noth - ing but the truth about the charges he is asked to pay when buying on time or taking out a loan, In brief, the truth-in-lending bin requires that anyone who lends money or extends credit must supply the would-be borrower. or credit user with two simple but vital facts: First: A statement of the total finance. charge in dollars and cents; and Second: A statement of the finance charge expressed in terms of a true annual rate on the outstanding unpaid balance of the Mali- gatiorx. The bill does not attempt to regulate or control the rate of interest or the cost cif credit. The bill would enable the typical con- sumer to compare the cost of credit from various sources and make an intelligent de- cision. It would also assist him in deciding Whether or not to borrow, pay cash, or save toward the purchase instead. Suppose, for example, a man wants to borrow $1,50.0 to finance the' purchase of a car. Assume he goes to two lenders and the Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 ',.......,00ffilli*lititilitantlE04444441.{1.1.1110,009VIMAYMilffrffrMilinl,1 1111111110 115104*11, ,111.111.1104,111011001.01.110 A6621 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX February 9, 1966 not hurting our economy. In fact, many people mistakenly feel that we need this as a stimulus. A defense program by its very nature only buys us time, We must use that time to improve conditions and lessen the need for defense. We have the knowl- edge and manpower to produce equipment and methods to increase agricultural pro- duction in all parts of the world, and it is our moral duty to use them. We have advocated for the past 4 years use of skilled mechanics and operators by the Peace Corps to help operate and main- tain equipment to build farm-to-market roads and to increase agricultural produc- tion. I might point out that the UAW- will shortly have a Peace Corps auto mechanics program?the very first of its kind?in full operation in Guinea. We expect this to demonstrate that the Peace Corps has just begun to tap the great reservoir of tech- nical know-how waiting to serve around the world where needed. Our problem is not so much how to ac- complish this, but when, or how soon. My answer to that is?the sooner the better. Over 3 years ago at the World Food Con- gress here in Washington, I proposed a plan which could easily fit into any new program to step up food production. I proposed six courses of action, which I'd like to enumer- ate again very briefly. First, establish regional depots and distri- bution centers of capital equipment?where tractors, plows, pumps, road machinery, and other equipment to improve food production could be available on short notice and could be properly serviced and maintained. These regional centers could be within a given country or serve nationwide, depending on the geographic circumstances. Second, I propose regional universities? like our own land-grant colleges?to inten- sify seed experimentation and other scien- tific plans for improving farm productivity. This would be done to spread learning throughout the countryside. While there is still suspicion of new ways in many primitive countries, there must be better ways to pass along information to improve productivity. Third, closely related to this, regional con- centration and distribution centers for scien- tific equipment. As I said to the World Food Congress, "We are separated by only a very thin wall from a breakthrough into a world of plenty no science fiction has ever imagined." Fourth, we favor regional research centers focusing on the resources and needs of the area. This again is closely related with the other two proposals. Fifth, a coordinated worldwide effort to utilize wealth locked up in , every human being as investment capital. This is really why we are concerned about full employ- ment in the United States and eradicating hunger in the world. People?educated, well-fed people?are the greatest resource of all because it is people who ultimately fash- ion computers, cranes, bridges, turbines, and all the other wonders of this industrial age. Sixth and finally, we proposed a commit- ment by the United Nations and ourselves that the social and economic progress we seek can be accomplished only by a new worldwide agency to help establish free and forward-looking institutions so democracy can prevail. If we are to be successful in conquering poverty and hunger, there is another impor- tant resource we must develop. We have the know-how to split the atom. We will -go to the moon. We can conquer disease. But we have not learned to make one drop of water. There is the same amount of water in, on, and around the earth that there has been since the beginning of time. We can change the form, pollute and purify?we cannot produce water. We must find a way to provide an abundant supply of fresh water in all parts of the world. This in it- self can stimulate and increase agricultural production. President Johnson, speaking to the dele- gates to the desalinization symposium at the White House on October 7, 1965, said: "Over various areas of the world today water is the key to man's prosperity or man's poverty?the key to his comfort or his misery. Every 21 hours there are nearly 200,000 more people on this earth. A billion human be- ings also live on the ragged edge of starva- tion. Water is a prime necessity, for only If we have water can our growing population ever be fed. Only water can give future generations ' a chance to escape wholesale misery and wholesale starvation. "My country, as you know, supports with enthusiasm a continuing food-for-peace program. We support an atoms-for-peace program. We are committed to harnessing the awesome power of nuclear energy for the betterment of humanity. "And today I want to announce the begin- ning of a water-for-peace program. Under this new program we will join in a massive cooperative international effort to find solu- tion for man's water problems." I urge this Conference to endorse this pro- posal and pledge assistance toward the achieving of these goals. Any massive program to provide food for hungry people is a target for people whose favorite pastime is to give speeches against spending money. Let me say here and now that the members of the UAW are of a gen- eration which had jobs on WPA, worked in the CCC camps, ate from surplus food boxes, had their children eat school hot lunches, fought in World War II and Korea, and went to school on the GI bill of rights. In spite of all that Government "coddling" and spending, our gross national product has kept growing, and we are all a stronger Na- tion because of it. I submit, therefore, that if we want a world where human beings can live full lives, where their bodies grow strong, where there is light and sunshine, where little children can go to school instead of suffering in misery and darkness?then we must face up to the world food crisis. Since the end of World War II, we have now 20 years of experience in using our re- sources overseas. We have made our share of mistakes and will make some more. Let's not now turn our backs on the world. Let's not now say it can't be done. Either we conquer poverty or poverty will conquer us. We know that there are few obstacles in the world today which man's ingenuity can- not master if he sets his mind to it. We have the land, farm machinery, and technical knowledge to feed additional mil- lions of people. We have the know-how to help other nations develop seeds, fertilizer plants, and insecticides to enormously raise their food output. We should also consider cultivating those crops which are in short supply in the world. The only thing we are not sure about is?Do we have the will to do these things that need to be done? In the words of a UAW resolution on world peace at our last convention, let me con- clude by saying: "We should not expect the rest of the world to shape itself in the American im- age. In the struggle for equality and against poverty we must remember that the world cannot be made according to American patents, or conquered with American adver- tising slogans. Because the world is hungry both for food and equality, we must join with the people of the world, as coworkers and equals, in a search for a path out of present needs and troubles toward our hopes and visions." Fighting the War on Want EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. LYNN E. STALBAUM OF WISCONSIN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Tuesday, January 25,1966 Mr. STALBAUM. Mr. Speaker, one of the outstanding highlights of the Com- mittee on the World Food Crisis confer- ence on December 9 of last year was the presentation of Mr. Paul G. Hoffman, managing director of the United Nation Special Fund, who outlined the complex- ities of overcoming the hunger problem existing throughout the world of today. He praised the expanded program of technical assistance in agriculture of un- derdeveloped nations and urged renewed determination to speed up the battle against want and the elimination of hunger and the elimination of illiteracy. For the benefit of my distinguished colleagues who were not in attendance at this excellent program, I include the full text of Mr. Hoffman's remarks: ADDRESS TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE WORLD FOOD CRISIS, BY PAUL GRAY HOFFMAN, LUNCHEON SPEAKER, DECEMBER 9, 1965, WASHINGTON HILTON HOTEL Distinguished Congressmen and Governors, ladies and gentlemen, certainly the first re- sponsibility of a speaker is to cut himself down to size. And I think I can do that best by telling you an anecdote about a grand- son of mine who at the time this happened was 5 years old. We were living in California at the time, and he came out, 5 years old I think I said, tally equipped with chaps, two guns and a hat?a real cowboy outfit---and he made himself quite obnoxious running around the house saying, "stick 'em up," which is apparently the kind of teaching we get nowadays from television. At the pro- posed time to go back home his mother said to him, "Bruce, I think you ought to have a ride on a real horse before you' go back home." He thought that was wonderful, so the next morning he got himself all dressed up again; but as he approached the corral he began to have?to quake a little bit, and as the groom lifted him on the horse, he leaned over to him and said, "You know, I'm not a real cowboy, I'm just a little boy from Libertyville, Ill." and that is just the way I feel Senator. But believing as I do, that there is no task more urgent than feeding the hungry, you'll know how glad I am to be here today, and how encouraged I am by the evidence that there is spreading through America an understanding of the kind of a problem the world is facing. Of the world's 3 billion peo- ple approximately 500 million are perhaps overfed, and about a billion are fairly well fed, and about a billion are underfed. Now those of us who are well fed should be very much concerned about those who are underfed; not only for reasons of compas- sion, but in this world; this new world of ours, hunger on that kind of a scale is a gen- uine menace to peace. Now there is nothing new about hunger, the high percentage of people in the world, since history began, have been hungry; perhaps a higher percentage than there is today. The two new facts that we have to face, one of which has already been commented on by Senator McGovEarf, is that it is possible today to feed the world's population, because we have had such advances in technology Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX can no longer remain static while the Com- munists build up new stocks of men and material in South Vietnam. Mr. Johnson coupled his order to resume bombing with instructions to Ambassador Arthur Goldberg to act as quickly as possible to promote peace through the United Nations. The President's appeal to the U.N. repre- sents a departure from past policy, and indi- cates that this country will now give more emphasis to convincing the U.N. that Com- munist aggression in southeast Asia is a world problem, and not one just for the United States alone to deal with. Heretofore, the administration has wel- comed the U.N.'s concern over the Vietna- mese war, but it has appeared cool to any sug- gestion that the U.N. be given a major hand in settling the clispute. Yesterday, however Mr. Johnson called for an immediate meet- ing of the U.N. Security Council in an effort to bring the Vietnam conflict to the con- ference table. It is uncertain what role the U.N. can play. It seems unlikely that a peacekeeping force could be the answer. But there is no doubt that the problem should be before the U.N. for discussion and for the purpose of en- gendering whatever pressure the free nations may be able to bring to bear upon the Com- munist aggressors. It is widely regretted that the 37-day lull found no favorable Communist response to the President's peace efforts and that he found it necessary to resume the bombing. However, according to Mr. Johnson, his ad- visers had told him that if continued im- munity were given to those who support Vietnamese aggression the cost in American lives would be greatly increased. "In the light of the words and actions of the government in Hanoi," he said, "it is our clear duty to do what we can to limit these costs." Although it is regrettable to see the lull in the bombing come to an end, it is clear that the 37-day period?in which Mr. Johnson sought unsuccessfully in many places for a way to end the lighting in Vietnam?has ex- posed the Communists before the world as the aggressors in southeast Asia. Their refusal, even to talk about peace, and I,heir denunciations of Mr. Johnson's efforts, have left most people with the impression that peace is the last thing the Communists want. The resumption of the bombing is consist- ent with the President's policy of impressing upon the North Vietnamese this country's determination to remain in southeast Asia, while pursuing every path that might lead to peace. It is not an easy choice in Vietnam for Mr. Johnson?or for the Nation. It is hoped a way will soon be found to end the fighting, but in view of the latest developments it seems the Nation must be prepared to see the situation get worse before it gets better. [From the Knoxville (Tenn.) Journal I L.B.J.'s COMPREHENSIVE OFFERS Most Americans. and people in other coun- tries as well, must have by this time come to the conclusion there are three choices for the President where the Vietnam war is con- cerned. One of these is to pull out all American forces and thereby undermine confidence in our commitments throughout the world. The second choice would be escalation of the war against the Hanoi regime, with the possibility of finally undertaking a ground war against the Red Chinese. A third one would be the continuation of the war at its present level from the concen- tration of troops and airpower that have been built up over the past year. The third choice presumes a war of in- definite length, for one of its end purposes would be to outstay Ho Chi Minh and his 11111Ma 4141,11?41.111la AI hard core of Communists who now control the Hanoi regime. Ho is 75 years of age and, as the saying goes, he can't live forever. Whether he will have hard line successors equally dedicated to communism and anti- Americanism, only time will. tell. Actually, it was reasonably clear, a fact which the President no doubt took into con- sideration before he launched his "peace of- fensive," that nothing short of abject sur- render would satisfy the Hanoi Communists. Not every reader has in mind the depth and breadth of the offers the Johnson ad- ministration has already made in volunteer- ing to talk with Hanoi without conditions. Following is a summary of what the Presi- dent has already conceded: This country wants no military bases in southeast Asia. The United States does not want to keep troops in South Vietnam, once peace is assured. Free elections are desired in South Viet- nam to give the people a government of their own choice. Reunification. of the country can be determined by free decision. Countries of southeast Asia can be non- alined or neutral, if that is their wish. The United States is prepared to contrib- ute to reconstruction in southeast Asia at least $1 billion in which North Vietnam can share. 'The Communist National Liberation Front, or Vietcong, can be represented in talks, once aggression stops. The reader may well ask what other offer, or reward? could be held out to the Hanoi regime short of complete surrender. The answer seems to us to be that there is not a place for any other decoration on the Christ- mas tree. American Labor Movement Joins War on Hunger EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN C. MACKIE OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. MACKIE. Mr. Speaker, more than 300 persons from 32 States came to Washington recently to attend the or- ganizational meeting of the Committee on the World Food Crisis. One of the best speeches given at that meeting was delivered by Pat Great- house, a vice president of the United Autoworkers Union. Representative HAROLD D. COOLEY, chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, will start holding hearings next Monday on the world food crisis. On the eve of these hearings on one of the most important matters before Con- gress, I believe that Mr. Greathouse's excellent speech will be of interest to my colleagues: SPEECH By UAW VICE PRESIDENT PAT GREAT- HOUSE AT CONFERENCE ON WORLD FOOD Cassis I am here as a spokesman for the onion that makes the tractors, the combines, the ha,ybalers, the milking machines, and the trucks that have made American agriculture the marvel of all times. And I am here as a spokesman for the American labor move- ment, which believes we cannot live on a high hill with good food and housing, sur- rounded by starving millions upon millions of people_ The world food crisis is here. It is a ter- rifying day-to-day fact. Other speakers here A663 today will document what it means in caloric Intake per person, to young children, to whole nations, to vast continents. All I can say is that there is no longer any debating of the facts. Worldwide hunger is a desperate, agonizing fact. I am here to say that the UAW and the American labor movement are ready to respond with action, with compas- sion, and with readiness to serve as hunger fighters in this noble cause to sustain life for all mankind. The food-for-peace program is more than 19 years old now, and I submit that food for peace has demonstrated in a small way what can be done on a much bigger scale to feed the hungry, to mobilize resources, to help developing countries get on their feet. Food for peace has helped to build railroads, fertilizer plants, schools, hospitals, and agri- cultural training centers. But now we come to a time in history when we must rethink the dimensions of world hunger, see clearly what our American responsibility is, and then set out to do what needs to be done. We all know what the faultfinders will say. They point to the bloopers. Shipments will rot on docks. Road machinery will rust in the jungle. Some high-priced personnel will go astray, These things happen and will happen again. But they are absolutely no argument for putting our heads in the sand and ignoring our responsibilities to the rest of the world. You know, we've been pretty lucky in this country. We took this huge country, chopped down the trees, cleared its rich land, harnessed its waterways and power. laced it with roads of every kind. Our cities have never been bombed; we've never known mass starvation; and while life has not al- ways been a bed of roses, Lady Luck has been with us most of the time. Today we are locked tightly in a war many miles away where our sons and our fortunes are being lost in an ever-escalating cost in human lives and money. The war in Viet- nam is a tragic conflict for us, for the Viet- namese, and for the world. I mention this now to remind us all that history does not stand still. If we had been willing to invest the time, the money, the very lives that are now spent in war 10 years ago in a worldwide war against want and hunger, who knows? perhaps there would be no war in Vietnam today. The president of our union, Walter P. Reuther, has said many times, and it always bears repeating, that we must learn to dedi- cate to the positive cause of peace and brotherhood what we so readily give to the negative cause of war. I tell you today that it is better for us to send our people overseas armed with tractors and plows, slide rules, welding machines, ir- rigation rigs, and tool kits?than to draft them to go overseas with flamethrowers. bazooka guns, napalm bombs, and automatic rifles. We in the UAW said this 20 years ago?it is more true today than it ever was. Some people may say you will raise food prices at home. Others will say we should abandon all farm programs, take oil all restraints. Neither is the answer. We can protect farm income at home, and we must. We can do what needs doing without jeopardizing our economy. And we can still give the American consumer bargains in food. - What about the charge we are trying to dump our goods on foreign shores, wipe out or discourage necessary food production in countries with huge food deficits? Any program to be successful must com- bine emergency feeding with increased de- velopment and production. It was with Ibis in mind that the decade of the sixties was named the decade of development. We have now reached the point in time where we have the technical knowledge and resources to build any kind of a society we want, barring nuclear war. We are spending over $50 billion a year for defense, and it Is Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 a-AMMAR1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX The aim of freeing Congressmen for legis- lative activity can be achieved just as well, by giving them greater clerical and research help. The fatal flaw in the President's proposal is that it would remove Federal Government even further from popular control. Con- gressmen find it difficult enough now to as- sert their independence of the White House. If Congressmen were elected only in presi- dential election years, they would be still more beholden to the President. A popular check on the Federal adminis- tration every 2 years is not too often in these days of fast-moving events. Four years would be too long an interval. The effective Congressman does not fear going to the voters frequently. Part of his job is to know what his constituents are thinking and to inform them how he is vot- ing and why. This activity is not a waste of time, but rather is a positive good. Two-year terms for U.S. Representatives Should be retained. "Education: The New Frontier for Amer- ican Business"?An Address by Con- gressman John Brademas, Sales Ex- ecutives Club .of New York City, February 8, 1966 EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN BRADEMAS ? OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 2, 1966 Mr. BRADEIVIUS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the REC- ORD the text of an address I delivered on February 8, 1966, to the Sales Executives Club of New York City on the subject: "Education: The New Frontier for Amer- ican Business." The address follows: EDUCATION: Naw NEW FRONTIER FOR AMERICAN BUSINESS (An address by Congressman JOHN BRADEMAS, Sales Executives Club of New York City, February 8, 1966) I am here ?today as a practicing politician, one who sits on the committee of the House of Representatives with primary responsibil- ity for legislation in the field of education and, as a member of this committee I have, during the past 7 years talked with college and university presidents, students, and teachers here in our own country as well as In Buenos Aires and Berlin, London and Djakarta, Warsaw, and Moscow. This experience has given me at least some awareness of the challenges which now con- front the schools and colleges and universi- ties of the United States and which there- fore confront not only us in Government but you, as leaders of business and industry, as well. I say. "therefore" because it seems to me increasingly clear that the relationships among education and Government and busi- ness are growing more intimate in this coun- try rather than less. Let me make my point by citing some ran- dom events of recent days: 1. A few weeks ago John Maynard Keynes appeared on the cover of Time, a posthumous tribute to the new economics which has helped make possible Government policies that are now sparking the greatest business boom in history. 2. Next week Congress celebrates?and I use the word advisedly?the 20th anniver- sary of the passage of the Employment Act of 1946. 3. Yesterday the House of Representatives passed the cold war-GI bill, which will bring to veterans of Vietnam educational benefits approaching half a billiOn dollars annually by 1970. 4. Last week President Johnson urged Con- gress to pass the International Education Act of 1966 and companion measures de- signed, said the President, "to rid mankind of the slavery of ignorance and the scourge of disease." 5. A Harris poll reported yesterday that 72 percent of the American people believe the country can afford both guns and butter but that if domestic reductions should be- come necessary, the last two programs to be cut are aid to college education and health care. 6. The titles of two front page stories in last Sunday's, New York Times financial sec- tion read, "Technology Stirs Search for Profits" and "Electronics and Books: Merger Path," and the Times spoke of the "race for a probable multibillion-dollar prize." I was not at all surprised then when this week's mail brought me and other Congress- men a printed copy of a recent lecture by President Joseph Wilson of the Xerox Corp. entitled, "The Conscience of Business." GOVERNMENT, BUSINESS, AND EDUCATION DEPEND ON EACH OTHER For today, ladies and gentlemen, Govern- ment, business, and education are like three men in a boat, and all three depend in sig- nificant ways on each other. I spoke of the challenges which face our institutions of education. Here are just a few: The landing of Luna 9 makes clear the man's exploration of space, including a visit to the moon, the stuff of science fiction a few years ago, is now within reach. During our lifetime, men has learned to unleash against his fellow man destructive forces beyond the power of most of us to Imagine. Here at home, one long century after Lin- coln's Emancipation Proclamation, Negro Americans have burst into the national con- sciousness to insist that our country?and theirs?make real the bright promise of freedom, Each day's newspaper reminds us of new nations of the world pressing their claims not only for political independence but for a fairer share of the material benefits of the planet as well. Surely it must be clear that our capacity for coping with these challenges is directly related to the strength and resiliency of our system of education. PRESIDENTS KENNEDY AND JOHNSON AND 88TH AND BOTH CONGRESSES RESPOND TO CHALLENGES It was to increase the Nation's investment in education and thereby help respond to those challenges that, with the leadership of Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, both the 88th and present Congresses enacted into law a whole series of education bills. Even a partial recital of the litany of new measures may weary you. The Higher Educa- tion Acts of 1963 and 1965, the Vocational Education Act, the Health Professions Educa- tional Assistance Act, the Manpower De- velopment and Training Act, the Library Services and Construction Act, the State Technical Services Act, the National Defense Education Act and subsequent amendments, the Arts and Humanities Foundation Act, the Historic Elementary and Secondary Edu- cation Act, and all the programs embraced within the war on poverty. From fiscal 1964 to fiscal 1966, Federal spending on education has soared from $4.5 to $8.7 biniori, and the expenditures of the A661 Office of Education have jumped over four- fold in 3 years. My ponit here .is simple. It is that the Nation, is now making and will continue to make an enormous investment in educa- tion. But the passage of all these laws by no means solves all our problems. AMERICAN BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY HAS GREAT STAKE IN EDUCATION Surely American business and industrial community has a great stake in this invest- ment?for at least two reasons. As business- men, you can see very clearly that the revolu- tion in American education offers remark- able profitmaking opportunities. As citizens, you have a responsibility for helping our country meet the challenges of which I speak. I believe that education is, for both these reasons, the new frontier which should com- mand the best genius and enterprise of American business and industry. Let me try to explain why. I have suggested that education is big business. It is. We now spend about $40 billion annually for formal education in this country. Seventeen billion dollars of this amount are spent on purchasable manufactured items; desks, buses, paper, chalk, textbooks, maps, basketballs, cosmetics for school, blackout curtains, slide projectors, shop tools, insurance, toilets, easels, pianos, and globes. Schools are consumers and they consume in almost every area of industrial production. But there are ? other substantial if less tangible benefits which education holds for Industry. The progress of the American economy, as of every other sector of our national life, depends in very large measure on education. It is clear that our increasingly sophisticated economy requires an increasingly sophisti- cated work force. This is one reason I in- troduced the Technical-Education Bill of 1963, subsequently made part of the Higher Education Facilities Act of that year. The purpose of this bill was to help produce more 2-year college-level, semiprofessional technicians to help our scientists, physicians, and engineers. Education has long helped the American farmer achieve extraordinary feats of pro- ductivity. The land grant colleges and the rural extension programs are the Most famous symbols of the contribution of education to economic growth. With the passage of the State Technical Services Act last year, we hope in like fashion to help make available to American business and industry the latest findings of science and technology. For example, your firm under this new program could arrange with a local university seminars to upgrade your ,engineers. All the recent legislation to strengthen col- leges and universities and to 'enable more qualified young people to become students is aimed at producing well-educated men and women, a fundamental manpower re- quirement for American business and in- dustry. EDUCATION IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS Certainly educated men and women mean a better market for business. The high school graduate earns about $35,000 more during his lifetime than the dropout, and the college graduate earns $138,000 more than the high school graduate. And as the educational level of the consumer rises, so does his receptivity to new ideas, new prod- ucts, and new. services. We educate to a steadily rising standard of living. Educational expenditures not only lead to bigger markets for businessmen but also help cut production costs, For example, the better high school preparation young people get in mathematics, science and English, tile Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 A 462 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX February 9, 1966 eeiser met more cheaply hey can learn new techeiones in on-the-job-training pro- grams. I think it relevant here to note that a number or modern economists have begun to Is more stress on human as distinguished frian phwacat capital as a contributor to evonornic growth. Theodore Schultz of the University of Chicago and Edward Denison id the Brookings Institution are among the best known students of this relationship. agree that education, as it affects the of :tiny tit labor, has been responsible, over a id'o'ln period, for over 20 percent of the an- nual rate .if growth in the gross national prod uct. "an ten you by citing only one example? aral I could cite many more---that politicians iicrtainly recognize the close link between education and business. I refer to the mad scramble ror the Atomic Energy C0/11111IS- sion 's new 200-hey accelerator. Every Sena- tor and congressman knows that major scientific installations in his State or district mean better business and more jobs. So let us agree without my having to offer :my more evidence, of which there is an aiiiindance, that education attracts and holds business and industry, creates new re- :sauces, and builds new markets: the basic commodity of the civilized world is knowl- edge and the educator is its retailer. With the greatly increased financial support which government, especially the Federal Govern-- mutt, is now giving education, it is, I think, iielf-evident that we must develop a triangle of close cooperation among government. Ii usiness, and education. And there are hopeful signs. Major cor- porations seeking to diversify now look te the textbook and educational equipment arms as sound investments, You know the list better than I do. Private industry, with its long history of productive research programs, has already begun to develop and test teaching ma- chines, data, processing, audiovisual and other advanced and experimental teaching equipment and materials for the Nation's tu tols. Industry is only now becoming a major contributor to the network linking basic re- aearch to new educational tools, equipment to curricula, teaching methods to school organization, preschool training to post- doctoral results. WHY EDUCATION IS THE "NEW FRONTIER" FOR A 10 ;RICA N BUSINESS And all the bills we have been passing in Washington are obviously further stimulus to American business and industry to move inore and more boldly into the education market. iltd, the sudden availability of substantial nuns ral money to be spent on education is only one of the reasons that education is the new ifrontier tor American business. Too must believe me therefore when I tell you that the best educators of the country are ready for innovation; they want new ideas. You have consumers yearning to be sold and, as I have said, they have the money to buy, much of it Federal. indeed, a careful study of the major pro- visions of the recent education legislation will reveal that Congress, too, shares this de- e to encourage new and better ways to teach and to learn. A preoccupation with raising the quality of education at every level runs through the hearings on nearly all these it, was, for example, the principal mo- ..iiettion rn the Teacher Fellowship bill I au- inored last year which later found its way it ,u the Higher Education Act and which is eirned directly at improving the quality nut education in the Nation's elementary and :ssiondary schools by improving the quality t'it,lu- teachers. Coogress and the educators of the country only want more education: they want /sitter educatifin, Surely this concern to stimulate innovation and quaaity should spur the spirit of enter- prise of American industry. Another reason the hour is ripe for Ameri- can business to ride with all flags dying on to the Cold of American education is the sudden Confluence of major social forces making or change: the civil rights move- ment, the ecumenical movement the. papacy of John 23d, the war on poveity, and an activist, hard-driving President committed to education as has been no other President In American history and supported by strong majorities in both Houses of Congress who share his commitment. AMERICAN EDUCATION NEEDS EXPE tIll:NCE AND 'MAC/NATION OF AMERICAN Bit 5151555 AND INDUSTI X I hope that by now I have made clear to you that if war is too :important to be left to the generals, education is too important to be let, solely to the educators. For to solve the problems that face American edu- cation today, we also need the intelligence and experience, the imagination and in- verftiveness of American business and indus- try. Frankly. I believe it would be immensely valuable tor those of us in Washington with responsibility to make decisions about edu- cation, both in the excecutive and legisla- tive branches, to consult more often than we now do with you in the business and in- dustrial cA3mmunities. We need your ideas on how we can attack some of the prob- lems that beset us, and, if I may say so, I would hope that you would not suffer too greatly for having had coffee we h a Con- gressman. SOME TROU IIIESOME QUESTIONS ABOU' AMERICAN EDUCATION Let me here give you just; a sampling of the kinds of questions about American edu- cation Vitt are troubling some of us in Congress, questions where we need your counsel and advice and questions which I hope you will consider as you and'your firms do your Warming for the future and the future is risMt now. These Bre all questions the answers to which?if there are answers?are likely to lead to profits for business and will surely be to the advantage of the Nation. In architecture: What are the best kinds of buildings for teaching the children of the poor, for teaching other children? Are there optimum size classes for various teaching conditions? Should we be building play- grounds on rooftops in crowded inner cities? In teaching:: How do you teach the in- dividual child with his individual atrengths and weaknesses? Hew do you discover those strengths aTICI weaknesses? How can a teacher teneh .a variety of kinds of children in one classroom? When is the best time to introduce children to new fields of study? Are there better ways of teacli ing the mentally retarded? Integration: How do you overcome de facto segregation in northern schools? What is the relationship of patterns of Negro mobil- ity to the school systems in big cities? Poverty: How do you best tea-ll poor children? What kinds of materials? How do you motivate these children? How can you get at Cie deprivation that exteods into the rest of tieir lives in terms of inadequate food and clothing and housing? How do you reach :aid teach the parents of the children of poverty? Vocational education: How do ytit bring it into line with the manpower Leeds of today's business and industry, Can we re- structure vocational education to appeal more effectively to dropouts? Materials: What course materials audio- visual aids, best in enabling children of different apes, backgrounds, abilii ies, to learn? Tetothers: What is the best way I u teach teachers? How to reeducate them? How to bring new' materials and methods to both teachers and administrators? How 'Ito re?-? cruit good teachers? Preschool education: Should we, undertake a massive investment in preschool programs for all children? only poor children? Do we have enough child-development specialists? Are special buildings and equipment re- quired? Adult and continuing education: Should we have continuing education programs both to retrain workers in new skills and to enhance the value of their leisure time? What kinds of programs? teaching methods? Internatioual education: What kinds of education can we provide to the underd.evel- oped countries? What can we learn for American education from educational methods arid programs in foreign count-riot;? There are many snore questions I could raise. These are only examples, and perhaps not the right ones. I hope you have others. But above all, you should be thinking and thinking hard about the best ways to teach and to learn, and you should not wait mitt tomorrow. EDUCATION: BOTH A MARKET AND A RESPONSI- BILITY FOR AMERICAN BUSINESS For I must reiterate that the new frontier for American business is education. In the first place, education is a market which should excite and stimulate your profitmaking instinct, a wholly legitimate and nonsubyersive instinct. In the second place, improving American education is a responsiblity which, as Citi - zens of a democracy, you should enthusias- tically welcome. For I am sure you want to do more than make money. It was that great philosopher of education, Alfred North Whitehead, who said, "* * * a great society is a society in which its men of business think greatly of their functions." I hope you will think greatly if yours Editorials Say President's Peace Efforts Brand Reds as Aggressors EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOE L. VANS 01' TENNESSEE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 27, 1966 Mr. EVINS of Tennessee. Mr, Speak- er, President Johnson's peace offensive and the implacable refusal by North Vietnam to discuss peace have exposed the Communists as the aggressors in southeast Asia. This is the substance of a perceptive editorial recently pub- lished in the Nashville Tennessean, The Knoxville Journal in an editorial on January 18 has a telling analysis of the alternatives President Johnson and our Nation face in Vietnam. Under unanimous consent. I insert these editorials in the Appendix of the RECORD because of their broad general interest to my colleagues and to the Na- tion. The editorials follow: I From the Nashville Tennessean THE SEARCH FOR PEACE MUST STILL Be PUSHED President Johnson has sent Atnerica bombers back over North Vietnam, ending a 37-day lull during which he pushed peace talks around the world. The peace talks will continue?will perhaps be intensified?but the President has decided that the aituation Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 iii, pi,r I emma0r. 14 MINIM Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 A660 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX February 9, 1966 in a nuclear world?then on what matters will it touch? If the church has nothing to say on these great issues, it has little of significance to say about anything, because these are the crucial issues of our time. CHURCH VOICES ARE HEARD Fortunately, voices are being heard within the church of Christ which speak out fear- lessly and eloquently to urge the church and Christians as individuals to touch on the "weightier matters of the law." We hear one such voice in Dr. King who, more than any other American of our time, has moved our country toward realization of the conviction which we vaunt in words: that all men are created equal and are en- dowed by their Creator with certain unalien- able rights. ? - Indeed, I would single out two contempo- rary developments as the most influential forces shaping the present reawakening of social and political concern on the part of the Christian churches of America. The first, without question, is the civil rights movement. The Christian churches were a long time awakening to the sin of segregation, but they were stabbed awake by the Negro revolution. Most Members of Con- gress in 1964 knew full well that the church leaders brought genuine religious commit- ment?and, I may say, some political mus- cle?to the battle for civil rights legislation For the first time in a long .tIme, we heard from the-church on a major national issue? and it made a difference. The other event that shook the world? Christian and non-Christian, Catholic and non-Catholic?was the papacy of John XXIII. Pope John gave new meaning and fresh urgency to the Christian's responsibil- ity for the social and political order. Read his encyclicals on poverty, on race relations, on peace in the modern world, and you will find a spirit speaking with relevance and power to the "weightier matters of the law." THE CHRISTIAN IN POLITICS Although I do not advocate Christian political parties and although I find the phrase "Christian politician" suspect as bath self-serving and inaccurate, it must be ob- vious that I believe Christians should get Into politics. For Christians, subject to the limitations of all men, can nonetheless be inspired by the law of love to enter the struggle for jus- tice and be ready, even eager, to use political action as a legitimate weapon (but not the only one) in that struggle. The point is that politics, seen from a Christian perspec- tive, can be a Christian vocation just as much as being a minister or missionary. May I be,bold enough to offer some guide- lines to Christians in politics: 1. It is not sufficient to be a good Chris- tian to be effective in politics. You must also be a good politician?that is, know your job. 2. You must have or develop a thick skin. The other day I chanced upon a sermon preached on an election day in Hartford, Conn., by one Nathan Strong. Mr. Strong's admonition to politicians nearly 175 years ago is, I think, worth repeating today: "A ruler needs religion much more than his unofficered brethren, to support his mind under trials, and to guard him against temp- tations. When the respectable citizen rises from private into public life, he must expect to exchange quietness for trouble; honor, though alluring, has its bitterness and its dangers; enemies, before unknown, will rise up; the jealous will sift all his actions, and what man can be so guarded as to have his behavior escape censure? The ambitious, thinking him in the way of their own prog- ress, will be his enemies, To support the mind under these evils, and lead it into the exercise of prudence and patience, religion is necessary." 3. All policies, societies, goverturients, and all politicians are under God's judgment. None must be ? absolutized or defiled as in- carnating God's will?for none is righteous? no, not one. The Christian in politics will, therefore, always live under tension, always aware that he measures political achieve- ments by standards that require ever greater effort. He can never be satisfied. 4. The Christian in politics must be out- going and must actively seek justice and combat injustice. I should add, however, that there is no mandate on him to ride at full armor into every battle that comes along. If he does, he will soon deplete his forces and diminish his effectiveness. He must make realistic judgments on when and where to move. 5. The Christian in politics is armed with a unique understanding of human nature. He realizes that man is made in the image of God, yet prideful; he is aware of the role of self-interest in politics, of his own as well as that of others. He knows that, as an ac- tive participant in politics, he often will find himself in morally ambiguous situations. But as Dean Bennett said, "Instead of being unnerved by guilt or despair in their midst, Christians do know the experience of receiv- ing grace and forgiveness while they take re- sponsibility."3 It is this forgiving love of God which above all will sustain the Christian in politics as well as in every other work of life. Quotes from "The Church in a Society of Abundance" by Arthur E. Walmsley (Seabury Press, $3.95) used by permission of publisher. 3From "What Christians Stand For in the Secular World," as published in Student, 1944. 'Quote from "When Christians Make Po- litical Decisions" by John C. Bennett, a Re- flection Book (Association Press, 50 cents). U.S. Policy in Vietnam EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ED REINECKE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, February 3, 1966 Mr. REINECKE. Mr. Speaker, at the request of Rabbi Juda Glasner, spiritual leader of Congregation Mishkan Yiches- kel, Sunland-Tujunga, Calif., I insert in the RECORD for the benefit of those who are interested in the debate on U.S. policy in Vietnam, his views as reflected in a recent public statement. As U.S. prosecution of the war in Viet- nam gains momentum, so does debate here in Congress and elsewhere through- out the country and the free world?and, yes, even behind the Iron Curtain where opinion on the Vietnam conflict varies among those representing different ideo- logical factions in the Communist en- clave. I do not think anyone?with the pos- sible exception of the President?expects to reach a consensus on any issue which holds forth such grave and far-reaching ramifications as Vietnam. While not everyone will embrace Rabbi Glasner's position as their own, he does represent a viewpoint which is shared, either in part or in whole, by a substan- tial number of his fellow Americans. As one who supports full and open debate on our Vietnam policy, and who believes that all manner of opinion on this criti- cal issue deserves to be heard, I submit Rabbi Glasner's statement for the bene- fit of the RECORD: STATEMENT BY RABBI JITDA GLASNER ON THE VIETNAM WAR It is with deep concern that we learned about the endeavors of some religious organi- zations in urging the President of the United States to prevent any escalation of the war in Vietnam if present peace efforts fail. Religious leaders throughout the country are greatly disturbed about this statement since it does not reflect the thinking of the entire Jewish community throughout the Nation. Many religious leaders, including myself, believe that our primary task is to foster religion and to safeguard the religious way of life. In pursuing this objective we could serve our country much better by limiting our activities to the promotion of these spiritual and moral goals. In offering advice to the authorities whose responsibility it is to conduct the affairs of our country, we are intruding into a field in which we do not have sufficient background of knowledge and experience. The President and his Cabinet are eminently qualified to weigh the pros and cons of this grave situation and to de- termine which course of action will best serve the interest of our Nation. Any statements from religious organiza- tions suggesting policies to our Government are beyond the scope of such religious or- ganizations and will only emasculate the efforts of our Government to win peace with honor and dignity. We believe that we need to embark upon a program designed to rally around our Gov- ernment in support of those endeavors which will promote peace with justice and secure our own freedom as well as that of other nations. Retain Popular Control EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. DONALD RUMSFELD OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Thursday, January 27, 1966 Mr. RUMSFELD. Mr. Speaker, since the President expressed his support for a 4-year term for Members of the House of Representatives, there has been consid- erable discussion on this subject. This is, of course, a complicated ques- tion. I recognize the value of the 2-year term and the desirability of keeping the House responsive to the people of the Nation. The following editorial from Paddock Publications, Inc., Arlington Heights, Ill., publishers of 16 suburban newspapers, presents a forceful argument in favor of retaining the 2-year term: RETAIN POPULAR CONTROL Attention has been focused on the role of Congress as the result of President Johnson's proposal to elect U.S. Representatives for 4- year terms, the election to take place dur- ing presidential election years. The chief argument for the change is that It would free Congressmen from frequent reelection campaigns and therefore give them the time and peace of mind needed to become more effective legislators. This sounds good in a text-bookish sort of way. But a second look at the proposal re- veals it would do more harm than good. Men who are good legislators will be good not matter how long their terms, and those who are bad won't be cured by giving thein longer tenure. Perhaps they would become even worse. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Prfirwary 1)66 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX Life." This means that our religious faith imast touch every dimension of man's exist- ence?social, economic, and political as well its private and individual. if this is true, we must then have a specifi- early Christian perspective on responsibility or action in the political order. Surely one of the reasons Christians have such a difft- ?O it time coming to grips with politics is that I hey lack a perspective which is intellectually honest, theologically consistent, and realistic in the world. Some Christians suggest--in a kind of sen- timental, utopian way?that if only all men were to become Christians, we would be able to resolve the many social and political prob- lems that afflict mankind. But even if we were all Christians, there would still be Re- publicans and Democrats, business and labor, black and white. We still would have prob- lems, for there still would be conflicts of ge- ography, of interest, of viewpoint. inLEMMA OF RELATIoNSHIpS The core of the dilemma, as I view it, is that many Christians do not understand how they can relate the law of love to the world of politics. On toe one hand, they see Chris- tian love, agape. represented by Christ on the cross--utterly self-sacrificing, self-giving, other regarding love. On the other hand, they see the calculating world of politics, where "accommodation," "negotiation," and "compromise" are the words we characteris- tically use to describe what happens, for ex- ample, in a Congress composed of 435 Repre- sentatives and 100 Senators, working with or against one President?not to mention the other participants in the governmental pro- cess. Yet these are precisely the words which we ought to use if we want to get something done. But many Christians view these seemingly irreconcilable realms of religion and poli- tics?of the selfless Christ on the cross and the horse-trading Congressman?and con- clude that there can be no link, that the two worlds can have nothing to do with each other. Let the put the same point?that never the twain of politics and religion can meet?an- other way in the words of Arthur E. Walms- ley, an executive of the Protestant Episcopal Church whose field is Christian citizenship. Writing in "The Church in a Society of Abundance." ' he says: "in the new era, decisionmaking takes place increasingly within the context of ever larger structures: the modern corporation, the automated industry, the welfare state? group settings in which d.ecisionmaking by teams or task forces reduces individual ac- countability to a minimum. "How," he asks, "is power to be exercised responsibly in this setting? Traditional ap- proaches of personal accountability, as ex- pressed in the Protestant ethic, fail to come to grips with the nature of structure and context of the new era. * * * The human- ization of the social order does not reduce itself, in situations such as this, to the cate- gories of Christian love." Christians, sensing the extraordinary com- plexity of the modern age, notes Wahnsley, look with nostalgia to a simpler era when men made most of their important decisions face to face, and telt a sense of personal ciloiCe and personal accountability. But we live in a different time, in a more cast and complicated society, where men's lives are determined in large measure by powers and principalities?corporations, gov- ernment, unions?rather than by their next door neighbors or the family who lives down the road a piece. What, then, has the law of love?of utterly on-self-regarding love?to say to such a world, to a President or a Congressman? lines it, say to withdraw? Does it say we must reject making decisions about the use Footnotes at end of speech. 11 1111, of power in such a world? My answer is "No." My answer is that there is a link be- tween the law of love and the practice of politics, a concept which relates the two. That concept is justice. 'rhe concept of justice varies in human history, but I suggest that at the very least justice means guaranteeing to every man his due, assuring that he gets what is coining to him?what he is entitled to as a man. JUSTICE IS NOT LOVE Now justice is not the same as love. Love does not count or reckon---but justice does. Justice must be calculating. It is not love, therefore, but justice that should be the im- mediate objective of political action. As Walinsiey says, "The balance of the rights and responsibilities of one group against those of another involves issues of justice." Tins "balance of rights and re- sponsibilities" of competing groups. of course, is the very stuff of politics. Justice, then, is not a hand-me-down kind of concept. "Justice seen in this light," Walmsley declares, "is not a crude approximation of love but the means by which the Chris- tian cooperates with the vsill of God precise- ly in the midst of life." As Theologian Reinhold Niebuhr puts it, "justice is the instrument of love." And as the late William Temple said: "As- sociations cannot love one another; a trade union cannot love an employers' federation, nor can one national state love another. The members of one may love the members of the other so far as opportunities of intercourse allow. That will help in negotiations; but it will not solve the problem of the relationships between the two groups. Consequently, the relevance of Christianity in these spheres is quite different from what many Christians suppose it to he. Christian charity mani- fests itself in the temporal order as a super- natural discernment of. arid adhesion to, justice in relation to the equilibrium of power." 2 Look at the greatest issue of our time here at home, civil rights and listen to Martin Luther King: "I'm not asking for a law to make the white man love me, just a law to restrain him from lynching me." 'Listen to the language of legislation: par- ity for farmers, equitable tax laws, fan: la- bor standards? and we hear echoes of the concept of justice. Is love then irrelevant to political action? No. On the contrary, it is our love for our fellow man?commanded us by Christ- that ge:aerates in us a concern that our fellow man be treated justly. Love is the force that motivates our commitment to justice. So we now have in the concept of justice, I believe, a link that binds together the worlds of Christian faith and political ac- tion?and does so in an intellectually hon- est, theologically consistent and realistic way. MEN ARE SINNERS Let me turn to yet another reason beyond the love commandment which imposes on us as Christians a religious responsibilit y to strive for justice among men. It is that men are sinnens?that men, you and I, tend to put ourselves rather than God at the center of life. 'This is, of course, simply another way of stating the doctrine of original sin. It is this doctrine, rather than the ie.ea that man is naturally good, that is the unarticulated view of human nature on which most politicia ns? at least the successful ones?proceed. This is not, 1 most emphasize, a cynical view, not one that declares: men are evil through and through. You may recall Machiavelli's comment: "Whoever organizes a state and arranges laws for the government of it must presup- pose that all men are wicked and that they will not fail to show their natural depravity whenever they have a clear opnortuaty, though possibly it may be concealed :for a while." Not so, for to paraphrase Niebuhr: Me:!ire good enough to make democracy wcrk. Men are bad enough to make democracy ITleccss; try. It is in part this more skeptical but Uncyni- cal view of human nature that caused the Founding Fathers to write into the fabric of our American Constitution a system of checks and balances. We do elect Mir one re of Congress and entrust them with ctsi powers, but for only 2 years. And even Senators of the United States are required to have their credentials reviewed every 6 years. The President has the veto power, but he can be overridden. Men are enough to make democracy work but bad enough to make democracy?with all its checks and limitations on the rulers -- necessary. It is this propensity of men to injustaie - to unwarranted self-seeking?that is a chief purpose of political action to curb and chan- nel while at the same time promoting a wider degree of justice, a fair share for all men. I do not say that all political questions /sin be resolved readily into simple issuer; of justice or injustice, for many problems facing government are primarily technical in nature, requiring expertise and know-how. Nor do I say that all political issues have two equal sides although sometimes, as with civil rights, there is clearly greater weight on one side than the other. THE POLITICIAN'S TASK In my view, it is the task of the politioiiin to seek in the given circumstances?with all the skill and imagination he can muster ? the greatest measure of justice for all concerned. I believe Christians have a particular oh- ligation to seek justice for the disinherited. As Dean John C. Bennett of Union Theologi- cal Seminary has said, "Christ himself con- centrated on the people of greatest Leer], the people whom respectable society ne- glected or despised." It is this aggressive caring for the people who cannot defend themselves which is essential when the Christian makes political judgments. It Is, I suggest, at least one of the major moti- vations behind the present war on poverty. The disinherited are now being heard both at home (witness the Negro revolt) and in the developing nations of the world. Pater- nalism will not do as an answer to this t?ry. I have said that all men's lives are today immensely influenced by what governments do, and that Christians have a religious re- sponsibility, motivated by love, to iccic justice for their fellow men. I conel e, therefore, that if the church of Christ is to say anything to men today, it must speak to them not only in their individual family capacities but also to the social economic, and political dimensions of 'lien existence. Niebuhr tells the story of how, at 1,0 beginning of this century, the late Bishop Charles Williams of Michigan was ap- proached by a young clergyman with a. plan for organizing a Christian layman's league. Learning that the league's chief objective was to close all movie houses on Sunday. the bishop said, "I should think that ra mid wait until you have solved the weightier matters of the law." Niebuhr warns that: "The church, as dee.; every other institution, sinks into triviality when it fails to deal with the weigO hir matters of the law, particularly the law of love or the basic concern of the self fol the neighbor." If the Christian church today fails to t Illh on the "weightier matters of the law" on. the outrageous treatment of Negroes in treth North and South, on the paradox of poverty in the richest Nation in human history. on the slums still festering in our great -cities. on the problems of devising a tolerable pisiee Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 11k114111E 11,1.11,11;1 11 N1,11,11111 4.114 M IPI AG58 Approved For RecteowGROM/Ai,Ch-89gtr_BOW 6 gm 0020005-hbructry.,9, .4466 The declaration that we have always op- posed the war, is true or false, accordingly as one may understand the term "opposing the war." If to say "the war was unneces- sarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President" be opposing the war, then the Whigs have very generally opposed it. When- ever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have said it on what has appeared good reason to them. But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the giving of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all the necessary sup- plies. And, more than this, you have had the services, the blood, and the lives of our poli- tical bretheren in every trial, and on every field. The beardless boy, and the mature man?the humble and the distinguished, you have had them. Through suffering and death, by disease, and in battle, they have endured, and fought, and fell with you. The Chicago Times?not to be con- fused with the present-day Chicago Sun- Times?of June .23, 1858, charged that Mr. Lincoln had voted against a bill appropriating money for the purchase of medicine and the employment of nurses for Mexican War veterans. The following day Lincoln wrote from Spring- field to Henry C. Whitney: Give yourself no concern about my voting against the supplies, unless you are with- out faith that a lie can be successfully con- tradicted. There is not a word of truth in the charge. On June 25 Lincoln went into detail about his votes in a letter to Joseph Med- ill, one of the Chicago Tribune's two co- publishers: I was in Congress but a single term. I was a candidate when the Mexican War broke out?and I then -took the ground, which I never varied from, that the administra- tion had done wrong in getting us into the war, but that the officers and soldiers who went to the field must be supplied and sus- tained at all events. When I came into Congress, money was needed to meet the appropriations made, and to be made; and accordingly on the 17th day of February 1848, a bill to borrow $18,500,000 passed the House of Representatives, for which I voted. "Again, on the 8th of March 1848, a bill passed the House of Representatives, for which I' voted. * * * The last section of the act * * * contains an appropriation of $800,000 for clothing the volunteers. "You may safely deny that I ever gave any vote for withholding any supplies what- ever, from officers or soldiers of the Mexi- can War. The first debate with his famous rival, Senator Stephen A. Douglas, was held at Ottawa, Ill., August 21, 1858. Doug- las, referring to Lincoln, said: Whilst in Congress, he distinguished him- self by his opposition to the Mexican War, taking the side of the common enemy against his own country. Here is Lincoln's reply to the charge: I think my friend, the judge, is * * * at fault when he charges me at the time when I was in Congress of having opposed our sol- diers who were fighting in the Mexican War. * * Whenever the Democratic Party tried to get me to vote that the war had been righteously begun by the President, I would not do it. But whenever they asked for any money, or land warrants, or anything to pay the soldiers there, during all that time, I gave the same votes that Judge Douglas did. * * * When he, by a gengral charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supplies from the soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican War, or did anything else to hinder the sol- diers, he is, to say the least, grossly and alto- gether mistaken. While engaged in the fourth debate with Senator Douglas at Charleston, Ill., September 18, 1858, Mr. Lincoln turned to the crowd on the platform and select- ed Orlando B. Ficklin, led him forward, and said: Mr. Ficklin * * * was a Member of Con- gress at the only time I was in Congress, and he knows that whenever there was an at- tempt to procure a vote of mine which would indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give such indorsement, and voted against it; but I never voted against the sup- plies for the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever a dollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise, for the benefit of the soldiers, I gave all the votes that Ficklin or Douglas did; and per- haps more. * You know they have charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved the soldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say that Ficklin knows it is false. There is of course no parallel between the origins of the Mexican and Viet- namese wars, as the latter conflict was already in progress when Lyndon John- son assumed the Presidency. Just as the Whigs of over a century ago joined the Democrats in voting the necessary funds and supplies for the war with Mexico, so will the Republicans of today join with their Democratic colleagues in voting whatever is necessary for fighting the war in Vietnam to a victorious conclu- sion. "Christian Responsibility in the Political Order"?An Article by Congressman John Brademas, of Indiana, Together Magazine, December 1965 EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. LEE H. HAMILTON OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, January 26, 1966 Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, under unanimous consent, I insert in the CON- GRESSIONAL RECORD a most thoughtful ar- ticle concerning the relationship between the Christian faith -and political action. The article, which appears in the Decem- ber 1965 issue of Together, a publication of the Methodist Church, was written by our distinguished colleague from Indi- ana, the Honorable JOHN BRADEMAS. Congressman BRADEMAS, himself a Methodist, spoke on this same subject earlier this year at the annual service in honor of Members of Congress at the Cleveland Park Congregational Church in Washington, D.C. The text of Congressman BRADEMAS' article, "Christian Responsibility in the Political Order," follows: CHRISTIAN RESPONSIBILITY IN THE POLITICAL ORDER (By JOHN BRADEMAS, Congressman, Third District, Indiana) It is less necessary than it once was to persuade Americans of the importance of politics in the modern world. We live, whether we like it or not, in a time when the lives of all of us are touched in some Important way by the actions of government. Moreover, because of our country's immense power, the lives of millions of people all over the world are affected significantly by deci- sions of the officials in our Government. I represent a congressional district in northern Indiana with nearly a half million people, and the problems they bring to my office typify the broad impact of government today: Social security and veteran's pension cases, small-business loans, defense-contract problems, manpower-retraining projects, new post offices, immigration bills. Nearly 2 years ago, I experienced firsthand the ways in which the resources of the Fed- eral Government can be mobilized to meet a crisis that directly touches the lives of thousands of people in a local community. I represent the district in which the Stude- baker automobile plant was shut down, throwing several thousands of people out of work and creating serious human hardships as well as economic distress. But we were able to bring together assistance from an extraordinary variety of Federal agencies? and not even the local chamber of commerce was decrying Federal aid 2 years ago in South Bend, Ind. We know, of course, that Government plays a most important role in the economy of every modern country. Two world wars, a depression, the cold war, and the general ac- ceptance of the welfare state are the prin- cipal reasons for the vastly increased im- portance of government in the United States. A year ago I traveled extensively in Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Yugoslavia, all Communist nations, where nearly the entire economic effort is under government direc- tion. And in the world's newly developing nations, government is often the focal point not only of economic planning but of nearly every important decision that is made in the entire society. My point is simple: in modern societies in nearly every part of the world, big govern- ment is here to stay. But if government is an increasingly im- portant factor in the lives of people, it is Imperative, at least in a society that claims to be free, for government to be the servant, not the master of the citizens. And in a free society this means recognition of the central?and legitimate?place of politics, of competition and conflict, of struggle for con- trol of power which government is. Surely then, there can be no denying the significance of government. Similarly, most of us can give at least tacit assent to the proposition that every citizen in a democracy has some obligation to participate in politics. OUR CONCERN AS CHRISTIANS The essential question for us as Christians, however, is this: why should we be concerned about politics, about government? Is there a religious responsibility incumbent upon Christians for action in the political order? Some say no, that the Christian as an indi- vidual and the Christian church as an insti- tution must stand aside from the hurly-burly of politics. Separation of church and state, they argue, is the same as separation of poli- tics from religion. I strongly disagree with this contention. Moreover, I often find it a thinly disguised argument for maintaining the status quo. I am profoundly afraid of preachers who never preach on anything but how to find personal happiness. The theme of the great World Conference of Christian Youth in Oslo some years ago was "Jesus Christ: Lord of All Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 qtaril 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A657 Ifere is a clear statement of the facts on an issue of vital concern to us all and, because many will want to read and study this editorial. I herewith submit it for publication in the RECORD: [From the Rochester (N.Y.) Democrat and Chronicle, Feb. 2, 19661 TILE STORY OF 37 DAYS Something of a mantle of sadness, of res- ignation, but no doubt of understanding and, perhaps even of pride, must have settled upon the Nation when first President John- son, then Secretary of State Rusk, explained why we have resumed bombing of strategic targets such as supply lines in North Viet- What they told was the story of 37 days. It is a story unprecedented in the history of mankind. No matter what went before, no matter if or how much we erred in the past, the story of 37 days is an epic of a great, outgoing march for peace at any price short of abject s orrender and flight. And the fact that strategic bombing has been resumed is not the end of the story of 37 days. On the contrary, it is a continuing story; it is being pressed dramatically through the United Nations; it gets its power from a dic- tum of unmistakable clarity, expressed by tnie President in such phrases as "We have made it clear there are no arbitrary limits to our search for peace * * our decision to seand firm has been matched by our desire for peace." What is the story of 37 days? it Is the story of how we suspended bomb- ing in North Vietnam to prove our devotion to peace, despite evidence that Hanoi was using the pause to beef up its infiltrating 'forces. It is the story of how we sent 6 of our best diplomats to 32 capitals of the world to explain our cause and our goal, and why it is also their goal. It is the story tic how we contacted 115 governments in all, plus NATO, plus the Or- ganization of American States, plus the Or- ganization of African Unity, plus the Vati- can; and of how we met with understanding and support from the great majority. it is the story of how we kept a check with scores of governments and groupings of gov- ernments to see if Hanoi had made even the tiniest of responses. It had not. Only in- suits. ? it Is the story of how the President re- r eated again and again. in only slightly diff- erent language, that we were willing to sit clown anywhere, anytime, with anybody to iscuss peace, with or without a pause in the f:glyting. The story of 37 days is a satisfying story, if cad one. But it is a great story for what it has etiown. It has shown that Hanoi will listen to no peace bids of any sort. IL was imperative that this be determined. Hanoi has rebuffed direct American pleas. Rebuffed pleas from nonalined nations to negotiate. Rebuffed the Vatican. Rebuffed pleas from nonalined nations to negotiate. Rebuffed pleas from India to negotiate. ISebuffed pleas from the United Nations las Hanoi had as far back RS 1964 when Russia asked Hance to come before the Se- curity Council). Its answer has always been the same: The United States (and presumably allied forces aiding the South Vietnamese) must get out of Vietnam first; then there must be recog- nition of the Vietcong as the sole bargain- ing power from the North. Those stipulations are inhumane and un- necessary. They are inhumane because they spell mass slaughter of South Vietnamese, and im- pose communism on South Vietnam without a vestige of democratic process. They are unnecessary because the United States, even as the U:nited Nations, is com- mitted to permitting any nation to decide its political future as long as this is done by free and bloodless election. And we have said we will talk with the Vietcong. The story of 37 days has not been in vain. We have gained allies, we have made our cause clear, we have proved that peace can- not be unilateral. Whatever happens now, the story of 37 days stands in our favor. We can do Co more than what we have done and are now doing. ? Wasted Effort EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. DERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, rep- resenting as I do a Chicago area district, I found our metropolitan papers devot- ing considerable space in the past year to the trial of Drs. Ivy, Phillips, and Durovic in the Krebiozen matter. It is unfortunate that this long expen- sive trial has still not answered the fun- damental question of the value or im- potence of this drug. The Suburban Economist, in an edi- torial on February 6, emphasized tills point of view in a most practical fashion: WASTED EFFORT After a trial in Federal court lasting 9 months in local history, the most important issue still remains unsolved. That issue is whether Krebiozen has any merit in the treatment of cancer. The four defendants were tried on charges of using the mails to defraud, submitting false statements to the Government, viola- tion of the Food and Drug Act, and refweil to permit a laboratory inspection. Although 178 witnesses testified, the jury was not asked to decide whether the diens itself was a fraud. Certainly during tne 9 months that issue could, and should, have been explored. Of course, some witnesses testified the drug relieved or cured them of cancer, other witnesses, principally Govern- ment personnel, testified the defense wit- nesses did not have cancer or that surgery ultimately effected a cure. As a consequence, the acquittal of Drs. Andrew Ivy and William F. P. Phillips and the Durovic brothers is not surprising. The world is hoping and praying for a cure for the scourge ailment, and the average person believes any effort to find that cure should be encouraged instead of being tied to redtepe regulations. A suspicion also prevailed that a fortune awaits the discoverer of a cure and that cer- tain interests were more concerned in shar- ing in such a gain in developing the drug, just as the original biotics were im.proved tiircugh use and further experimentation. Now that the costly trial is over, with great financial loss to the Government and defendants, the Food and Drug Adminisla a- tion or some other suitable Federal Agency should begin at once whatever tests and re- search are necessary to not only determine the worth of Krebiozen, but also to improve upon it If possible, The original Salk vaccine against infantile paralysis and the original vaccines against diphtheria and other diseases were improved upon after being first introduced. Lincoln and the War With Mexico EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HAROLD R. COLLIER OS' ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 2, 1966 Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Speaker, over a century ago, a great American who had opposed our entry into the war with Mexico did all he could, not to obstruct the war effort, but to aid in its successful prosecution toward victory. Abraham Lincoln disagreed with President James Knox Polk, but as a Member of this body he voted for whatever was necessary for the support of the war. In these critical days, when so many-- but by no means all?of the civil rights leaders are making common cause with those who are hindering our war effort, the words of the Great Emancipator are well worth reading. On February 1, 1848, in a letter to his law partner, William H. Herndon, Con- gressman Lincoln wrote: I have always intended, and still intend, to vote supplies; perhaps not in the precise form recommended by the President, but in a better form for all purposes, except loco- loco party purposes * * *. The locos are untiring in their effort to make the impres- sion that all who vote supplies, or take part in the war, do, of necessity, approve the President's conduct in the beginning of it: but the Whigs have, from the beginning. made and kept the distinction between the two. In the very first act, nearly all kept the distinction between the two. In the very first act, nearly all the Whigs voted against the preamble declaring that war ex- isted by the act of Mexico, and yet nearly ail of them voted for the supplies. Mr. Lincoln wrote another letter to his partner June 22, 1848, in which be discussed the subject further: You ask how Congress came to declare that war existed by the act of Mexico. * The news reached Washington of the com- mencement of hostilities on the Rio Grande, and of the great peril of General Taylor's army. Everybody, Whig and Democrat, Was for sending them aid, in men and money. a was necessary to pass a bill for this. The Locos had a majority in both Houses, and they brought in a bill with a preamble, say- ing?whereas war exists by the act of Mexico. therefore we send General Taylor men find money. The Whigs moved to strike out tile preamble, so that they could vote to send the men and money, without saying anything about how the war commenced; but, being in the minority they were voted down, and the preamble was retained. Then, on the passage of the bill, the question came upon them, "shall we vote for preamble and bill both together, or against both together" They could not vote against sending help ho General Taylor, and therefore they vosed for both together. Representative Lincoln addressed the House of Representatives on July 27, 1848. The following paragraph con- concerns the Mexican War: Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 IMAINSUMMINPV 110,1 A656 Approved For RgaiCeRittgiftig< 8PCP1?147130114ENRibli0002000elbruarY 9, 1966 North Vietnamese uniforms. But almost every expert on this war?in Saigon and Washington?agrees that the initial revolt in 1958 was spontaneous. It was Communist- led, to be sure, and received moral support from North Vietnam and China. But it was South Vietnamese revolt. Today, of course, it is being sustained by 'Communist China and North Vietnam with arms, trained cadres, and since last year, with regular troops from the North Vietnamese army. There is some evidence that Ho Chi Minh joined the con- flict with a certain reluctance, but like our own government found it difficult to extract himself without losing face. It is simpler, of course, to say that the whole revolt of the Vietcong was planned and executed accord- ing to orders from Hanoi or Peiping. The Communists do not have a lock on the good guy versus bad guy theory of history. ? Meanwhile, the war is stepping up. The Vietcong is now drafting young men with the same brutal press gang methods used by the Vietnamese Government. The area of battle is widening. We may have a half million American troops here before the year is out, and some- people think the number will rise to a million by the next Presidential election. The napalm is skidding across the mountains, villages are burning, schools are being bombed and young- men are dying. Balance of Payments EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to report that Caterpillar Tractor Co., whose home office is in Peoria, has announced that 75 percent of its $607 million in sales outside of the United States were products exported from American plants. This will result in a $461 million improvement of the Nation's balance-of-payments problem. The com- pany also reports that for the 10-year period 1956-65 the net contribution of Caterpillar was $2.9 billion. This is an impressive achievement, which underlines the necessity of mutu- ally advantageous international trade. Foreign nations use dollar earnings from their exports to increase their purchases of American-made equipment. The healthy flow that results from this ex- change contributes to new markets and greater profits for industry, more em- ployment opportunities for the working- man, and an increasingly stronger bal- ance of trade surplus for the Nation. Mr. Speaker, the article, Peoria Jour- nal Star, February 4, 1966, that reports Caterpillar's contribution toward eas- ing our balance-of-payments problem follows: CAT AIDED BALANCE BY $461 MILLION More than 75 percent of Caterpillar Tractor Co.'s $607 million in sales outside' of the United States were products exported from American plants, the company reported yes- terday. Primarily as a result of this, the company said that it helped to improve the Nation's balance-of-payment problem by $461 million last year. The company's contribution, its largest for a single year, was 20 percent more than the $373 million contributed in 1964, according to Caterpillar President William Blackie. For the 10-year period 1956-65, the net con- tribution of Caterpillar, the largest private employer and industrial exporter in Illinois, was $2,9 billion, Blackie noted that Caterpillar has been co- operating with the Federal Government in its request that major exporters and firms with substantial investments abroad try to im- prove their net contributions to a more fav- orable balance of payments. In an effort to maximize its own balance of payments, he said. Caterpillar began building facilities abroad in the early 1950's. These have contributed materially to an in- crease in exports from the United States be- cause products manufactured abroad use substantial quantities of U.S.-built com- ponents, Blackie said. Arrows and Olive Branches EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JAMES C. CORMAN OF CALIFORNIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Los Angeles Times, on February 1, accu- rately analyzed the course of events which required the resumption of U.S. bombings in North Vietnam. The Times has consistently demonstrated a respon- sible attitude toward the President's pol- icies in Vietnam. Their editorials have reflected the sentiments of an over- whelming majority of Americans that we must continue to be firm in our resist- ance to Communist aggression while al- ways remaining ready to negotiate a peaceful solution. The Times' admo- nition that there are "just no easy an- swers" to the present crisis is a sound one and it is my hope that this reality will be accepted by my colleagues as we undertake to formulate national policy in southeast Asia. The editorial follows: ARROWS AND OLIVE BRANCHES The U.S. bombing of North Vietnam has resumed after a pause of 37 days, during which time the American effort to sound out Hanoi on mutual steps toward de-escalation met with total failure. Indeed, even if the bombing suspension had lasted 37 weeks, it is doubtful whether the Communists would have given any con- crete indications?not necessarily an agree- ment to negotiate?that they were prepared to diminish the tempo of the war. Secretary of State Rusk said yesterday that Hanoi had been told the United States was willing to continue the bombing pause if some quid pro quo were offered. Ho Chi Minh gave his answer the other day when he called U.S. peace overtures an "impudent threat." In the face of such intransigence, both military and political needs dictated a re- sumption of the air raids. The future course of events may in fact require an expansion of the air war. This is for the Commander in Chief and his military advisers to determine. Meanwhile the United States will continue to pursue diplomatic steps aimed at securing a reduction in the level of confrontation or in bringing about talks to end the war. The first move is scheduled at a ILK Security Council meeting today, called at U.S. request. Recourse to the United Na- tions at this time, however, is somewhat puzzling, particularly since both U.S. and U.N. spokesmen have recently made it clear that no practical role in the Vietnam issue is seen at this time for the world body. Quite probably the U.N. move, along with other continuing diplomatic initiatives, is intended to demonstrate that even while the war goes on, the United States remains pre- pared to talk peace. There is nothing mu- tually exclusive in pursuing both the mili- tary and political paths, nor anything dan- gerous, so long as the military effort is not compromised in any way by false hopes about what the Communists are willing to do. It must be recognized, though, that pros- pects for a political settlement at this time are slim indeed. The Communists have been told with no ambiguity that they will not be permitted to gain by negotiations what they are trying to gain by force, control of South Vietnam. Continuing military pressures', in the air and on the ground, may eventually convince them they can't win by fighting. This con- viction won't necessarily propel them to the conference table. The domestic debate on Vietnam mean- while goes on. Liberal critics of the admin- istration's policies have not been silenced by the bombing pause, but in Hanoi's re- sponse they at least were answered. Nor will more belligerent critics?particularly those who see air power as the answer to every- thing?be silenced or satisfied by the lim- ited resumption of bombing. What this means is that Vietnam as a political issue will be very much with us this year, and perhaps for some time to come. The dangers of demagogy on both sides are great. Perhaps the best standards of judg- ment for the listening public to keep in mind is that inietnam, there are just no easy answel irs V The Record Is Clear EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. HUGH L. CAREY OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. CAREY. Mr. Speaker, before re- suming air strikes over North Vietnam, this country tried every conceivable way to get Hanoi to the conference table. We went the second mile, and the third, and the fourth. The limits to which this country did go in its search for peace is best summed up in an editorial I read in the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle. "The Story of 37 Days," the editorial states, is the story of how we suspended bombing in North Vietnam to prove our devotion to peace; of how we sent 6 of our best diplomats to 32 capitals of the world, of how we contacted 115 govern- ments in all, plus various organizations and the Vatican in a search for peace. This editorial says: It is the story of how we kept a check with scores of governments and groupings of gov- ernments to see if Hanoi had made even the tiniest of responses. It had not. Only in- sults. According to the Gannett newspapers: The story of 37 days has not been in vain. We have gained allies, we have made our cause clear, we have proved that peace cannot be unilateral. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Plebr:ary 9, 19 6Ap p rove&KiMagiiififilathit6108/11PMA--R-DORBOUMR000400020005-1 lation of policy for bilateral negotiations and to insure that such policies are prom passed down?and Implemented. Vietnam: The Endless War?Article I EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM F. RYAN OF NEW YORK IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. RYAN. Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 7, the New York Post started a series of articles entitled "Vietnam: The Endless War" by correspondent Pete Hamill, who writes with great insight about this cruel conflict. I urge my col- leagues to read this article as well as the rest of the series which I will insert in the Appendix of the RECORD as they appear. (Prom the New York (N.Y.) Post, Feb. 7, 19661 VIETNAM: THE ENDLESS WAR (By Pete Hamill) StacoN.--There are, of course, no good wars. But today, in a small country on the far side of the world, the mightiest military power on earth is engaged in one of the dirtiest, most frustrating, most casually, brutal wars of modern times, and can see no immediate prospects for victory. As a nation, we are spending billions of dollars, and permitting Che deaths of thousands of young men, but the most optimistic progress reports say only that we are no longer losing the war. We have 200,000 troops scattered across the Re- public of South Vietnam and they are still not enough.. They are battling as I write this, those young men, in some of the cruelest terrain soldiers have ever been asked to fight upon. They are fighting in the filth of rice paddies, in the dark crawling recesses of trackless jungle, in the mosquito-ridden Central High- lands, on the spits of barren beaches. They are using the most destructive weapons in man's history, short of nuclear arms, yet each day the enemy grows in strength. That enemy?whether called the Vietcong or the National Liberation Front?is one which specializes in assassination, terror, and refined cruelty. The countryside of South Vietnam has beers fertilized for 8 years now with the bodies of murdered hamlet chief- tains, schoolteachers, priests and anonymous citizens. Every day of every week. the Viet- cong destroy bridges, schoolhouses and the homes of people who have committed the sin of disagreeing with them. For the Vietcong, the most potent political weapon is terror. A village which has seen its chieftian ripped from neck to navel, his children smashed against a wall and his wife bleeding to death with her breasts cut off will not oppose these people the next time around. They are doing all of this, they claim for the greater good and future happiness of Vietnam. If one needed at this date a case study in the ruth- lessness of the committed Communist revolu- tionary, the Vietcong would certainly provide it. Each day, these young Americans are a fraction more brutalized by this war, just a bit more cynical. In Da Nang several weeks ago, I asked a marine sergeant whether he had any solution for the problem of South Vietnam. "Yeah," he said. "Pave it." This country we are spending our national treasure on, and allowing our young men to die for, has been in existence only 12 years. It was carved out of the remnants of French Indochina, along with Laos, Cambodia, and North Vietnam. It runs about 450 miles from the southern tip of the Mekong Delta to the 17th parallel above Hue, which slices it away from North Vietnam. The majority of the 15 million people live in the delta and on the coastal plains which run off from the long mountain range that traverses the republic from north to south. Americans have been involved in the fight- ing in South Vietnam since before the fall of the French at Dienbienphu In 1954. Originally, our military men were advisers in the true sense of the word: we helped train the South Vietnamese Army, which was then fighting with the French against the V let- Minh. By the time the Geneva Agreements were signed in 1954, we had some 600 mili- tary men and civilians there on official busi- ness. The number has grown yearly since then. It happened gradually, so gradtally that we did not really seem to see it hap- pening at all. Today, whether we like it or oot we are engaged in a growing undeclared land war in Asia. Most people I talked to in this country are aware of, and disturbed by, the moral dilemmas posed by this war. They see it as the inevitable confrontation with Commu- nist China. Some of them admitthat we are acting in our own self-interests and that the interests of the South Vietnamese themselves don't really matter. They know that the war will be a long one. The most conservative estimates I heard have the war lasting at least 10 years, at the cost of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives. "This," said one top political officer in Saigon, "will be the longest war we've ever gotten our- selves into. We could be fighting It still in 1990." The more one probes into the can of worms in Saigon, the more acute that moral dilemma becomes. The Government of South Vietnam?like its Communist counter- part in the north--has never held a free national election, allows for no dissenting political parties, censors the press. Its ideology is anticommunism. It is led by the latest in a series of military juntas. The credentials of these men for leading a nation into war seem to be only a desire for power and quick fortunes, and the abil- ity to express a glib anticommunism. The more unstable the Government of South Vietnam becomes, the stronger our commit- ment. That of Nguyen Cao Ky is no better and no wores than its predecessors. In Saigon, the small talk says Ky himself will soon be out. President Johnson's trip to Honolulu looks like a desperate measure to prop up the government. It doesn't seem to matter; our policy is like betting more and more money on a horse which falls farrher and farther behind. On the Vietnamese lunar calendar, this is the year of the horse, but no one with sense is betting on it. It would be a mistake to believe that the Vietcong are a band of hardy, noble Robin Hoods marching out of Sherwood Forest to do battle with the wicked Sheriff of Notts's g- hain and his American allies in Saigon. But unfortunately they have recognized that South Vietnam is a country ripe for revolu- tion. They know that the social structure of the country is a tangle of feudalism and corruption and their popular support rests on that and a crude form of nationalism. "I would hate to be the man in the White House, given the true facts in South Viet- nam," said one civilian political officer, who has; worked in the country for several years. "It is one thing to send money to a country, If that country is prepared to fight for its life. But when we decided to send in. a large army last year we admitted that Gov- ernment could not fight its own battles. So we have young Americans here now, dying in larger and larger numbers, for a Government which does not really care.." These young Americans are dying. among A655 other reasons, to allow the merchants of Saigon a continuing free lunch at the trough of American wealth. While supplies for our soldiers are backed up in the Saigon River, and loaded ships are forced to Wait at enormous expense in harbors as far away as Manila, the merchants of Saigon refuse to move goods from their jammed warehouses until the prices are driven up or the rental becomes sufficiently huge. They, at least, never had it so good. They are dying to make sure that no rice paddie farmer's son will ever have the effrontery to ask for a university education. They are dying to make sure that one of the most in- competent groups of civil servants anywhere can continue its long, slow suck of the country's marrow. They are dying so that the daughters of the members of the Cercle Sportif can vaca- tion at Cannes in the summertime, while the children in the countryside die in stunned silence, their stomachs distended by disease. The young men are dying, some military strategists have told us, because if South Vietnam falls to the Communists, the other nations of southeast Asia will follow, like so many dominoes. Cambodia, Laos, Thailand will go, followed by Malaya, the Philippines, Indonesia, even?I do not exaggerate--Aus- tralia. Eventually, this theory goes, we will be fighting the Chinese Communists in Hawaii or San Diego. This might be true. and certainly the United States, as a world power, must Make clear to China that it will not fold up before the rhetoric of violence. But while we are pouring arms, money, and men into the war in South Vietnam, the other pieces in the domino theory are falling anyway. The guerrilla war has been fought in South Vietnam since 1958. But Cambodia is already a dead loss, in the hands of one of the prime sovereign clowns in the Orient; Laos is split betwen a soft neutral govern- ment and the Pathet Lao Communists along the Vietnamese border, and guerrillas :are already prowling the countryside of Thailand. Obviously, something is going wrong. Something is wrong when the Vietcong, who had about 5,000 men in 1960, can ex- pand to an estimated 150,000 after 6 years of defoliation, bombing, napalm, heicopters, and all the rest of our modern arsenal. Something is wrong when some of our Con- gressmen make brave speeches about bomb- ing Hanoi and Haiphong, while the Vietcong already have in their control 75 percent of the territory and 50 percent of the popula- tion of the South. "It's too late in the game to think we can solve this problem by bombing the North," one American political officer told me here several weeks ago (before the resumption of bombing). "Sure, their weapons are corn- ing from the North, and we should continue to bomb the Ho Chi Minh Trail. But hell, our Vietnamese are getting their weapons from us. Under those terms the North Viet- namese Government should have the right to bomb Seattle. "The fight for South Vietnam is right here, in the countryside, and you don't solve that problem by blasting Hanoi off the map." We have been told for years now that we are involved in South Vietnam for simple reasons. At the request of the legitimate government, we have been asked to help defend that republic against armed aggres- sion from North Vietnam. But in the opin- ion of most observers, there never has been a legitimate government of South Vietnam. Even more debatable is the extent of actual aggression being committed by the North against the South. It is certain that North Vietnamese regulars took part in last No- vember's fierce fighting at Pleime and the Ia Drang Valley. And in the recent battle for Bong Son I personally saw dead men in Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 11 1 11,1111 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 A646 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX . February 9, 1966 What I hope the 1960's will be remem- bered for are the steps we have taken in education and health and in the under- ' standing of our fellowman, not just in the 50 States of this Union, but in all the con- tinents of the world. It may just be a few thousand or a few million that starts the program. The poverty program was really started with the NYA and the CCC back in the 1930's, and it has developed from there. The whole great con- servation movement in our water resources in this country started with something we probably called TVA that Senator Norris did. The health program that this man picked up when he was a lone wolf?when he got lonely he went to see Mr. HILL in the Sen- ate, but outside of the two of them there weren't many around that could believe you could do something about it. Yet there are people in this room today that are living testimonials to the fruits of his research. It gives me such a great satisfaction to at- tempt in the best way I can to pay tribute to Congressman FOGARTY from the great State of Rhode Island. Elkhart, Ind., Truth Praises the Work of the Inter-American Development Bank EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN BRADEMAS OF INDIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 2, 1966 Mr. BRADEMAS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert in the REC- ORD an editorial from the January 27, 1966, Elkhart, Ind., Truth praising the outstanding record of the Inter-Ameri- can Development Bank in the advance- ment of hemisphere development and good relations. The editorial follows: DEVELOPMENT HANK HELPS LATINS The Inter-American Development Bank has an outstanding record in the advancement of hemisphere development and good rela- tions. "One part of the alliance for progress that no one complains about," Time magazine has called it. The IADB enjoyed a record year for lend- ing in 1965. The Bank granted 66 loans last year for a total of $373,500,000?an average of roughly $1.75 for every human being in Latin America. The old record for loans in 1 year was $325,500,000 in 1962. Since making its first loan in February 1961, the Bank has made $1.5 billion available to its clients. Under the shrewd direction of Felipe Her- rera, a Chilean, the Bank is in good condition as it begins its sixth year. It has resources of more than $3 billion and a sound international reputation. For many Latin Americans, the IADB was the first solid sign that the United States really cared about Latin America. The Bank represented the first major move after World War II to give special U.S. attention to Latin America. Latins for years had wanted their own bank, arguing that the existing World Bank and Export-Import Bank failed to fill their special needs. The Bank's legal existence dates from December 30, 1959, and it for- mally began operations on October 1, 1960, a month before John F. Kennedy was elected President. The United States is the principal patron of the Bank?this country has put up more than half the money for it so far, but the Latin Americans themselves have contrib- uted more than $200 million. Mexico and Venezuela have put in more than $100 mil- lion apiece. Each of the 19 Latin American members (Cuba is not one of them) has anted up at least $9 million for the Bank to use in lending. The U.S. voice in the operation is sub- stantial and continuing. But it neither has nor wants absolute con- trol. Besides, there is Herrera: "Felipe is a strong man," says an American who knows him well. "He would never consent to sit anywhere. that he was just a rubber stamp." For 1965, the direction of the Bank's loans followed a typical pattern: $90 million for projects in Brazil, $60 million to Mexico, and $50 million to Argentina. More than 40 percent of the money loaned by the Bank since 1961 has gone into these three countries. Nevertheless, every member has been helped a little. So far, says the Bank, not one of the coun- tries has failed to make its loan repayments on time. For the United States, that's an almost-unprecedented success story in an area where things often go wrong. 1\J Rehabilitation of Wounded Vietnamese Soldiers EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. OLIN E. TEAGUE OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the Honorable Ted C. Connell, former na- tional commander in chief of Veterans of Foreign Wars, recently visited Viet- nam and saw firsthand the medical fa- cilities for wounded Vietnamese soldiers. He has also visited the group of 56 para- plegic Vietnamese patients who are pres- ently undergoing treatment in the Vet- erans' Administration hospital at Castle Point, NX. Mr. Connell has made sev- eral recommendations which deserve consideration. Our gallant Vietnamese allies deserve all of the medical help we can give them, and they deserve the ex- pressions of friendship which would be demonstrated by carrying out Mr. Con- nell's recommendations. I am inserting below the letter from Mr. Connell regarding this: KILLEEN, Tax,. February 1, 1966. HOD.. OLIN E. TEAGTJE, U.S. House of Representatives, Sixth Congressional District of Texas, Washington, D.C. DEAR CONGRESSMAN TEAGUE : As an average American citizen, I visited and talked with the 56 paraplegic Vietnamese patients and of 14-member staff of trainees who accom- panied them to America. Words will not convey the good this hu- manitarian act by our President has done, not only for the patients, but the doctors and staff, who after training, will return to their homeland to better serve the unfortunate in South Vietnam. You have made 70 good will ambassadors for America, for as long as they live, they will continue to tell all of the world they come in contact with, of not only the excellent care they received while here, but also of the warm heartfelt attitude of thousands of Americans who wrote them let- ters, sent Christmas cards, and came to visit. Prominently displayed in each patient's room Is a Christmas card from the President of the United States of America. Mr. Vincent W. Powers, hospital director, and his staff are doing an excellent job. They have nothing but praise and admiration for the assistance and moral support given them by Dr. Howard A. Rusk, director, Institute of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation of New York University Medical Center. His valu- able counselling, moral support, and untiring efforts has endeared this dedicated American to all who work with him. I was told that the majority of the patients would be ready to return to their country in 3 to 6 months. That the doctors and nurses would be ready to return to set up a paraplegic center in South Vietnam in 9 months, a program sorely needed in that war-torn country. I would like to respectfully recommend the following: 1. That the program be expanded to in- clude other paraplegics and amputees in South. Vietnam, as no other organization in the world has the experience in this field as our Veterans' Administration. 2. That we continue to bring a team with each contingency of patients, remembering that in a country of over 16 million people, they have less than 800 doctors, 500 who are in the army; only 28 hospitals with surgical facilities, while in 1964 the civilian popula- tion had over 11,000 casualties. 3. That out of the 20 Vietnamese nurses in our country on scholarships from USAID, several are graduating in January 1966. At least 3 or 4 should be assigned immediately to Castle Point for a period of at least 3 months to work with the 56 patients there. (Elizabeth Darden at USAID in Washington heads this program.) 4. That 'before the medical team leaves our country, the team be afforded an opportu- nity to tour Veterans' Administration reha- bilitation centers in America. Respectfully yours, TED C. CONNELL, The Cost of Welfare EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. EDWARD J. DERWINSKI OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. IDERWINSKI. Mr. Speaker, much has been written on the cost and mismanagement of the war on poverty program, yet specific items must be iso- lated and emphasized for us to get the proper picture. The Hegewisch News, an independent publication serving the southeastern sec- tion of Chicago, carried a very timely and practical editorial in its issue of February 4: THE COST OF WELFARE "Even in the Great Society, it would be cheaper to send the unemployed to Harvard." That wry editorial comment comes from the Charleston, S. C., News SE Courier. It has to do with some revealing facts concerning training projects in Virginia, as disclosed by Senator ROBERTSON of that State. Ex- amples: 36 unemployed kitchen helpers were being trained at a cost of $33,601. Sixty un- employed persons were being trained ,7,s nurses' aids at a cost of $78,390. Eighteen Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Yebi.ltary 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX l'INDIEY, of Illinois; Representative LYNN E. STALSAUM, of Wisconsin; and myself. Senator MCGOVERN'S remarks were Mier and to the point and I asked unani- mous consent to have them printed in the ttECORD: N TROD UCTORY HE r4ARKS OF k.',NATOR GEORGE MCGOVERN AT THE ORGANIZATIONAL MEET- G, OF THE COM M ITTFE ON THE W 0 RLD FOOD Ceisis I want to congratulate the Committee on the World Food Crisis for its leadership in it LIIn Mg this meeting. We are here to concentrate new attention in the most important problem in the world?the present fact of human hunger and the mounting race between food and people. Malnutrition is public enemy No. 1. It lies close to lffie base of man's most fundamental roncerns. It is a breeder of disease, prema- ture death, economic stagnation, and politi- gat disorder. It is the most acute challenge to idle agricultural technology, the political imagination, and the moral conscience of mankind, I have just returned :from a tour of Viet- i 110 Followed by an address to the United Illations Food and Agriculture Conference in Rome. The comparison between the tragic destruction in Vietnam and the quiet but effective crusade against hunger discussed at I he Rome Conference was a painful contrast indeed. No nation has ever sent abroad a more teillant and superbly trained group of men than our lighting. team now doing battle in Vietnam. But the grim fact is that a grow- ing number of them will face death unless the diplomats can find a breakthrough to the conference table. That is the only course that makes any sense in this bleeding land I hat is afflicted with so many problems that th's not respond to a military effort. One wonders even if military victory should come after years of slaught-A!r and devastation, if there could then be built on such a chaotic Foundation a polifinal structure capable of resisting the appeals of Communist Cadres. t saddens one's heart to see the lives of so many brave men committed to a cause with meta an uncerttin political base. In the hotinitals near Saigon, in the refugee camps along the coast, and with the marines in the held near On Nang and Chulai. I found my- self recalling the doubtless oversimplified words of Benjamin Franklin: "There never wati a good war nor a bad peace." lint however bad war may be and however uncertain its outsome, there is one war that is a good war and that can end in victory for all mankind. That is the war against Intnger?the most important war man must light for the rest of the century. And this I : the war to which this Conference is com- mitted. 'i'hero is no doubt in my mind that we can win the race against population and famine III time years ahead. We have the tools and tIre knowledge to drive hunger from the earth within the IteXt decade. We can end I his century with a better fed world than we have today in spite of population growth, d: we rtonciuct the war against hunger with a fraction of the zeal. and resources we now bring to military conflict. Victory over the dread killer, hunger, will require bold and imaginative commanders; it calls for the per deployment of troops and the wise :Ise of ammunition and logistical support; :I; calls tor enlistment for the duhation by notit the developed and the less developed of the globe. 'I'his conference represents an important tiart of that commitment. We are led by Chairman James Patton, an internationally enown statesman of agriculture. We are led, too, by the executive director of the iag:rrmizmlig committee, Robert Koch, one of 01114101101404111111114 the most brilliant men in the field of food and agriculture today. And we are led by a distinguished committee of such respe,::ted names as Hershel .Newsom, Dwayne Andreas, Pat Greathouse, Robert Liebenow, and Mon- rice Atkins. These are men who have spoken clearly for a quarter ot a century and more on the challenges and opportunities in the liettf of agriculture. It must be a source of at is- faction to them and to others that public opinion is now responding to their message. ffie organizing group has given us a great American as our speaker for today's lunch- eon. He iii one of the men whom I most ad- mi-:!e in th.e entire world. If there is i'aich a i-treattire inc. Dui ugly American, there is alsci the beautiful American. And no one rep resentsthe best of America any more clearly than our distinguished speaker todite brilliant industrialist, an accomplished pub- lie official, iind international statesman, and, beginning January 1 of next year, the lased of the new United Nations Development Pro- gram----Mr. Paul Hoffman. Mr. Hoffman. we are glad you are here, and we look foc,,iirel te what you hitee to say. Hvart of the Year Award Goes to Hon. John E, Fogarty EXTEr.C3I.ON OF REMARKS OF HON. SAMUEL N. FRIEDEL OF MARYLAND IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIV Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. FRIEDEL. Mr. Speaker, dining the past few years the Committee on Iniierstate and Foreign Commerce, of wrich I am a member, has handled some of the most important health legislation ever enacted by the Congress. Them is no doubt that these measures, such as the Community Mental Health Centers Construction Act, the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act, the heart, disease, cancer, and stroke amendments, the Medical Library Assistance Act, and the Nurses Training Act will help us to conquer many dreadful diseases which now take a heavy toll of lives each year. However, we are all very much aware that it would serve no purpose to enact the authorizing legislation if we did not also provide the funds to carry out these programs. The champion in this :field for many years has been our distin- guished colleague, the Honorable Jean( E. FOGARTY. as chairman of the Subc?orn- mittee on Labor, Health, Education, and Welfare Appropriations he has handled legislation to insure that these progyams are funded in the best interest of the American people. We have all heard han speak eloquently of the need for ade- quate funds to insure the success of pro- grams to wipe out disease and mental Because of his outstanding work in this field, I was very pleased to note that he has been selected by the Amer- ican Heart. Association to receive the Heart of the Year Award. There is no doubt that he is truly a man with a big hart for all who suffer from illness and disease. President Johnson paid a great tribute Lu JOHN FOGARTY last week when he pre- sented him vvith this award and I insert A6.15 the President's remarks at this point in the REcoaa: REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT UPON Pacsorsr,!- TION OF HEART OF THE YEAR AWARD OF TI 'Ti AMERICAN- HEARS' ASSOCIATION TO CONCRE:11. ; - MAN JOHN E. FOGARTY IN THE THEATER Congressman FOGARTY, Dr. Taussig, lathes and gentlemen, when we read that a fanctioning heart is possible within 5 yesis, we pay tribute to congressional leaderabio, and particularly to Congressman Jotiti FOGARTY of Rhode Island. When we finally call a halt to the whole- sale murder of heart disease, all of us wql bless the clay that Congress took effective! action. Joenir FOGARTY represents the little State of Rhode Island in the U.S. Congroes, but his crusade for better health has led itim. often to the first house of the land. He came here last August 4 for the Signilug of the Community Facilities Act. He was back again the next day at the signing of the Community Health Services Extension Affi? Community Mental Health Centers one week; Community Health Service Extension Act t,t e next week. Four dava later he came back to see a sponsor of the National Institutes of Heat in for the Signing Of the Health Reses Facilities Act. In October he was back it White House again for the signing of the heart, cancer and stroke amendm.ents, to establish regional medical centers to heip us in fighting these killer diseases: Now he is back with us again this 1110111- ing. He doesn't have a bill in his pocket a congressional bill, I mean, but this, I think I can tell you: When he comes to thss flu inn he is always welcome. Pm' JOHN FO /kR'I'Y knows what we all muet, learn, and that is that no society can be great which is not first of all healthy. The healing miracles that we achieve must not he gifts for Americans only, and that is why we have suggested another health measure ri.r this Nation to discuss, debate, consider, and, I hope, ultimately act upon... That is Die International Health Act of 1966. That is to launch a cooperative effort by all of the world's people to make a determined and organized attempt to conquer disease wherever it exists in human beings. I don't let you in on any secret when I say I am hopeful that after this International Health. Act of 1966 is considered in the House and Senate that it will not be Icing before Jcs:sm VOGARTY is back here, and Dr. Taussig, Pay- ing us another visit, and waiting for his pen. The world cannot wait. The clock is ticking. I know that as we work on these messeges, outline our hopes and our purposes, our ambitions in the world, that some peoffie may think that we have too many good It that we are pretty visionary, and that we have something for everyone. The cynical sometimes are critical. LW fa know of no more worthy motive or purpfsaa that a human being can have than to try la lay out as his or her goal a program that i: dl educate the mind and that will conquer dis- ease in the body and that will permit your children and your people to live in an at- mosphere and an environment of beauty and culture and enjoy the better things of hid. Now, we cannot conquer disease and wg cannot educate all humanity and we cannot have a symphony in every town, and we can- not have a Mellon Art Gallery in every capi- tal, but we can hope for them and we con work for them and we can give what we have to thesis, and we can urge them :nail provide leadership and ideas and try to susa?-a I was reading a speech late taut night the Postmaster General under Pree:iltilit Roosevelt made, and he talked anout his first 100 data and his first 100 bills, and Icier most of them lived on today and 110ik, of them had ever been really repealed. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 A AA, . nommtcaLSlrrAIIIM11141111111.1111?11111111111MINIR WITIMINISIMIMOWN111111111111,1111110111.1.1101110W PlimimomilmarrowswiroorinneolooliMINNIONROMMONSMIONAMIAMINNOMMIN Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP671300446R000400020a05-1 A644 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD APPENDIX r eoruary 9, 1966 ranked this section) , and least important as a basis for opposition is the belief that "U.S. national security is not involved." Yet many stressed the danger of escalation to all-out war" (cited first by 21 percent) and the feel- ing that "The South Vietnamese people do not want us there (19 percent) . And al- though the belief that the "United States has not kept its commitment to seek peace at any time in any place" received fewer first rank- ings than any of the other listed reasons, this response nonetheless ranked nearly evenly in all categories. Of particular significance is the extent to which people qualify their support or op- position. Although those who oppose U.S. policy in Vietnam are, proportionately, more inclined to qualify their general feelings than are those who support the war effort, fully 10 percent of the supporters indicated a fear of escalation?though only 2 to 4 percent cited each of the other three reasons for opposition. On the other hand, those who oppose U.S. policy qualified their opposition rather evenly among the four reasons offered for support- ing the war in Vietnam; each reason was cited by 6 to 8 percent of the opponents. Yet opponents of the war in Vietnam need not be overly .disheartened by the over- whelming (63 percent) support given U.S. policy. For while present policy aims at Viet- cong capitulation, only 27 percent of those polled favor such capitulation as a basis for negotiations. (Could it be that some of the supporters don't understand U.S. policy?) A resounding 63 percent call for "U.N. medi- ation" and 9 percent desire "Unilateral U.S. declaration of a cease-fire." Furthermore, the majority (62 percent) of those polled be- lieve that in negotiations the U.S. should "Agree to any settlement acceptable to a majority of the South Vietnamese people," while only 38 percent call for "a settlement that would guarantee a non-Communist gov- ernment for South Vietnam. Finally, when asked what they would do if drafted, only 48 percent of the Stanford men would "be willing to serve in Vietnam," while 41 percent would try "to be assigned elsewhere, but accept unwillingly service in Vietnam"; 11 percent declare that they would "Refuse to serve in Vietnam." Or, as one girl on the row wrote in the margin: "If drafted, I would burn my draft officer." Vietnam policy poll Overall total Undergraduates Men W omen_ Graduates Faculty Political leanings: Republicans -Democrats_ _ Neither Residence: Wilbur Stern Fraternity Clubs Union Bran/Roble Lagunita Flo Mo Row Class: Freshmen Sophomores -Juniors Seniors Field of study: Social sciences Humanities Engineering Math/science Undeclared Number l'ereent For Against Neither. No opinion 1,512 1,361 079 424 105 22 612 494 372 297 185 347 129 11 146 59 111 76 443 466 307 295 304 501 313 147 295 228 63 66 68 60 39 14 82 46 53 70 66 73 57 9 63 68 55 02 67 70 69 63 17 62 50 80 07 65 26 23 21 20 49 82 8 44 31 19 18 31 01 24 17 31 21 20 18 23 23 32 28 38 9 21 22 10 10 9 11 11 4 8 9 13 10 9 10II 2 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 10 14 12 12 10 9 7 12 10 9 10 11 11 10 3 2 3 5 At an average of $1.10 a bushel, the value of the 1965 Illinois corn crop was just above $1 billion. This amount does not include Government payments received by farmers under the feed grain program. These pay- ments were near, or above, $100 million. The State average corn yield was 92 bushels per acre, which was 14 bushels higher than in 1964 and 7 bushels above the previous rec- ord set in 1963. Illinois had the second highest yield in the Corn Belt. Indiana was first with 94 bushels. Yields in other States were: Iowa, 82; Wisconsin, 76; Ohio, 75; Missouri, 72; Nebraska, 67; Michigan, 62, and Minnesota, 61. Some of these States may have higher yields in 1966, but yields in Indiana and Illinois are not likely to equal those of the past year. BIGGEST SOYBEAN CROP Illinois farmers produced 175 million bushels of soybeans in 1965. This amount was 22 percent more than in the previous year and 6 percent more than the previous record crop produced 2 years before. The big crop was the result of a large acreage and high yields. The USDA esti- mated the harvested acreage to be 6,021,000, which was 5 percent more than in 1964 and 8 percent more than in 1963. The State average yield was 29 bushels per acre, 4 bushels more than in 1964 but one-half bushel less than the record yield of 1963. Soybean production in 1966 could equal or exceed 1965 levels. Soybean prices are receiving support from high prosperity in the industrialized nations, food shortages in the underdeveloped coun- tries, and threats of international conflict. Cattle feeders made unusually good profits in 1965. Prices of Choice steers at Chicago averaged about $26 a hundred pounds, the best in 3 years. Since these cattle had been bought at unusually low prices, the profit margins were very good. Cattle now in feedlots have cost much more than those sold in 1965. Consequenty, profits may be lower even if prices of fat cattle exceed those of last year. BEST HOG PROFITS IN A LIFETIME Hog prices advanced spectacularly in 1965. 3 The average price of barrows and gilts at Chicago rose from $14.43 in November 1964 to over $28 this past December. Hog prices seem likely to hold up well in 1966, especially dur- ing the first half of the year. We are now In what may prove to be the most profitable 3 period in a lifetime for hog producers. 2 1 2 1 3 Illinois?First in Soybean and Corn Production EXTENSION OF REMARKS Os. HON. ROBERT H. MICHEL OF ILLINOIS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, the Stark County News on January 26, 1966, has reported that Illinois has become the first to produce a billion-dollar crop of any kind. Illinois corn production to- taled about 912 million bushels; this is a 25-percent increase over 1964. The State also had an increase of 22 percent in its soybean production, a total of 175 million bushels of soybeans. ? The article follows: ILLINOIS BECOMES FIRST STATE To PRODUCE A BILLION-DOLLAR CROP Will this year match 1965 as a good year for midwestern farmers? Maybe. But last year was an exceptional one in the Mid- west, especially in Illinois. Our crops, par- ticularly corn, were very good. And profits from livestock production were unusually high. Corn is by far the most important element In Illinois agriculture. About half of the State farm income originates in our corn- fields. In 1965 Illinois farmers produced a corn crop worth a billion dollars, making Illinois the first State to produce a billion- dollar crop of any kind. The final 1965 official estimate of the Illi- nois corn crop was 892 million bushels of grain. This amount was 25 percent more than the 1964 crop and 19 percent more than the previous record output fri. 1963. It was enough to put Illinois in first place among the States in corn production. Corn made into silage included an additional 20 million bushels. Corn production in 1965, therefore, tOtaled about 912 million bushels. Imaginative Measures War Against Needed To Win Hunger EXTENSION OF HON. JOHN C REMARKS . MACKIE OF MICHIGAN IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. MACKIE. Mr. Speaker, the orga- nizational meeting of the Committee on the World Food Crisis was held in Wash- ington recently. Senator GEORGE MCGOVERN, of South Dakota, former director of the food for peace program, was one of the speakers at a congressional panel discussion on ways and means to wage an all-out effort to end hunger, malnutrition, and want In the world. Other panelists included Representative HAROLD D. COOLEY, of North Carolina; Representative PAUL Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? tITAT,;;LOENT OF AMRASSADOR EriwAne A. CaaliK ON 12,FLUMN TO AUSTRALIA FROM TUI: ill`TITED STATES: JANUARY 23, I l016 tie-lends and allies, I bring you greetings from the Protadent mad the people of the. State te have just returned to Aus- tralia from a. 3-week visit there. I visited the eresident both at his ranch in Texas and at the White House in Washington. He remem- bers with great happiness his wartime service we and always says that the only person he'd trade jobs with is me. Next to being tdaisident of the TTnited States, he'd rather be Ambassador to Australia than any other job in the world. I' vented our lour banks in Austin. Center_ Ban Augustine, and San Benito: my law office it Austin, Tex ; my own lands in the piney woods of east Texas: and my grandchildren in the Slate or Misaissippi on the banks of that great inland waterway, the Misaissippi River. visited the r,ffice of the State Department (External Affeirs to you) in Washington, our National Cant tat. I visited the big cities et Taxes, Dallas. and HouSton I talked to eaakera, oilmen, big ranchers, and little tree farmers ?a cross section of America. The words of Sir Walter Scott reechoed in my heart: "This is my own, my native land," but sicily there was another echo in my heart., another dream intruding in my slumbers of In' broad and beautiful land which is now my second homeland. My friends, I am happy to be home again with you. Beyond your imagination is the interest and affectionate feeling T. found in the States for Australia. Such words as, "Those folks think ,tuat like us." I met a man traveling around the world from Australia. He told. me that next to Australia, he'd like to live in west Texas_ A great musician asked two questions: "What time is it ie Australia?" end "How can I buy some land?I'd like to own a small piece of that continent." A for- mer soldier proudly introducing his beau-Li-- lel wife says: "Australia gave me my greatest inset. I. love that. country." If the distance were not; so great. I'll warrant the exchange in visitors would be so great we'd have to expand our hotel facilities to take care of them in the United States and in Australia. As Sir Stanley Burbury in Hobart said after his trip around the world, "Time and distance are nothing; only money." We thee going to have to find is way to reduce that, cost with. group flights or some other imaginative echeme so that, there can be more exchange between our two friendly peoples. Then there wart the big question asked from top to bottom; :from the President to the most callow schoolboy, "Do the Austra- lians support us in Vietnam?" I was able to look them all dead in the eye and proudly proclaim, "They do." Australians know where their interests lie, and they carry their share of the Mad. Diggers voluntarily_ willingly, have shouldered their Mathildas again, and. just as they did fit Gallipoli, at El Alatnein, in New Guinea, they are marching beside American doughboys, pulling their share with equal efficiency and cheerfulness, be- cause they know the United States and Aus- tralia are riefendine; the same frontier; that Ire a tier is not the Rhine, but Vietnam_ Letter From a Patriot EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. J. RUSSELL TUTEN oF GEORGIA 31 eliE ROUSE OF REPRESENTATIVF.S Wednesdny, February 9, 1966 Mr. TUTEN. Mr, Speaker, I recently cceived a letter from a friend and pa- APPENDIX A6t3 triot that expressed, the sentiments of my people of the Eighth Cong.tossional District ol' Georgia concerning the war in Vietnam. Under unanimous consent I insert it in the Appendix of the R- FIRST FEDERAL SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATI Sint-071.'i Island. Ga., -January I.196S. Hon. J. RUSSELL TUTEN, Representative in Congress. Washington. D.C. DE1R RUSSELL: I note ft am the lt. teat edi- torial of HIS. World News the Sent tors and Dongresamen feel the war in Vietnaie should be brought to a conclusion as early is possi- ble and the military should be given the op- portunity to win the war anti not seek a stalemate a.s was done in Korea. I ;deo :note they do not feel the use of ground forees and putting our boys through the "meat grinder" by degrees ia not the way to fight ,his war as this kind of war is the kind the Vietcong would like tr3 fight. It is further noted the Rouse and Senate both feel we shou'd bomb the sources of supplies and military and power installations in North Vietnata in. or- der to bring the war to a rapid colt elusion. The consensus of opinion seems te be this could be done without involving Red China or Soviet Russia in a third world vrar, Of course, I know the administration leis a lot of facts we do not have but I do net think there should he any group called "hawks and cloves." I am sure "the hawks" do rail want to escalate the war but they do want to fight the war to win and not, as stated, c,yntinue to use up our boys fighting he war Lae Viet- cong would like to have us fight it. I have a married son 23 years of isite who is a graduate of the University of Georgia, who has volunteered and has been aeceptted in the Officers Training School foe Army Service. I am myself a war veteran and our family has not hesitated to serve theia coun- try and I would like to reiterate we feel they should dot have to fight with their hands iiied behind their backs but should be "flowed to win victory for their country with our young naell are giving their lives for h.. I am sending a copy cif this letter to Secre- tary Dean Rusk and to President Jermson, hot I doubt seriously if anyone in the .;;drnin- istration will over see it. With warm personal regarda. I rernale Sincerely yours, Nts.) It4 NoirmaN A. WAY'. Stanford Backs Our Policy in Vietnam, EXTENSION OF RF MARKS OF HON. HAROLD R. COLLIER OP :iLLINots IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATI'SIts Wednesday, February 2, 1966 Mr, COLLIER, Mr. Sneaker, 1: :re- cently received a copy of a poll con- filleted at Stanford University in which 63 percent of those polled expressed sup- port of America's policy in Vietaam. Inasmuch as 12 percent failed to express an opinion one way or the other, actual support for our policy was 71 percent,. Steve Hoglund, who formerly served the minority as a House page, recently wrote an interesting article for the S tan- To,:d Daily, in which he analyzed the :re-- suits of the poll. Under leave to extend my remarks, I am including his article and the breakdown of the poll: Preis Snows 63 PERCENT OF COM Berries AMEEIC.AN POLICY IN Vs, it.: (By Steve Hoglund) Are you a Republican? An engt major? If so. the odds are 4 to 1 that yeil support the present U.S. policy in Vietnam_ But if you are a Democrat, or if your field is humanities, it's an even bet. These ore but a few of the intriguing patterns which_ emerge from tabulations of the Srenftusi Vietnam poll taken last November 29 and 30, which indicates that a large majorilf of the Stanford community, 63 percent fa- vors the war effort, while 26 pe'a't 'I op- poses it. The poll, sponsored by the Pothirial Uniakt and distributed in residences and it, rlepayt mental offices,, was designed not only In esti- mate the extent of support and camosition to United States-Vietnam policy, but. Disci to determine, if possible, what basic beliefs ac- count for this support and opposi tion. hi addition, the poll sought to indicate feelintaa about the conditions for and the goat; of ne- gotiations to end the war. The tabulation.; provide a backdrop for the winter quarter FOCUS program of the Political Uniou en- titled "U.S. Policy in Southeast Asia." and consisting of 5 weeks of coordinated lecturea and discussions of the various issues in- volved. A similar poll will be conducted at; the end of the quarter, in order to trace changes in Vietnam sentiment. MORE POLLS LATER Computer correlation of general feelings about United States-Vietnam policy with class, residence, political leanings, and field of study (see table below) revealed the fol- lowing: 1. A marked drop in support for policy, from the freshman to the g,ritcluate. level. (Note: Difficulties in distribution and collection of polls made it impossible to obtain a sampling of graduate students and faculty either sizable or representative enough to warrant generalizations.) 2. Greater opposition, proportionately, among undergraduate women than among undergraduate men. (Note: Women aro underrepresented in the poll; the percent-. ages polled at Union (16 percent) and Lag- unita. (20 percent) fall considerably lielow the overall number of undergraduates polled (33 percent), while those at Wilbur (42 percent) and at the Eating Clubs (39 per- cent) are above the total percentage.) 3. A decided split among Democrats, It bare plurality favoring present U.S. policy. 4. Considerable opposition among fresh- men sponsors to the war in Vietnam Ilhite: Compare the freshmen totals with the Bran- ner/Roble-Wilbur totals in the table below). 5. Much greater opposition among those iii. the field of humanities than among those in other fields. (Note: This may, however, re- flect a disproportionately large number of graduate students in this field who were polled.) 6. A significant number (8-12 percent in nearly all groupings) who are neither his nor against the present war effort. ANTICOMMTJNISM The poll listed four possible reason,, for support of U.S. policy in Vietnam and tutted that they be ranked in order of their ita- portance to each individual. By far the most important (cited first by 59 percent; oi those who ranked this section) is: "It is essential to the containment of communism. for U.S. national security." The other three, in de- creasing order of their importance, are: (2) "It promotes the freedom and independence of the South Vietnamese people"; (3) "it j-3 necessary for us to keep prior commitments.", (4) "As a U.S. citizen, I feel it is my duly 1,0 support U.S. foreign policy." No such clear-cut ranking emerges amoitg those who oppose U.S. policy. "It violates my moral principles" stands out as the rnost im- portant reason (cited first by 25 percent ieVI) Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 ,fol, II'I mtmsm'Im Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 A642 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX February 9, 1966 transportation and lower prices to the con- sumer, water resource development, water supply, power, -recreation and conservation. So I join you in opposing special charges and user taxes on America's historically free waterways. Such taxes would retard essen- tial development, upset competitive balance, bring economic hardship to businesses which depend on water commerce (and many do), raise prices of transporting goods and mate- rials, and it would be an economic hardship to inland cities like Louisville and Jefferson- ville. JEFFBOAT And the milestone reached today of pro- ducing the first seagoing vessel by Jeffboat since World War II symbolizes the contribu- tion of Jeffboat and its parent company, American Commercial Lines, Inc. Jeffboat is a producer. In 1965 it com- pletes its greatest peacetime operation in its history?with 233 barges, 2 towboats, 1 deepwater vessel. In 1966 things look even better-250 barges, 7 towboats, and an- other deepwater vessel. A barge a day. Jeffboat is a wealth creator. In 1965 its revenue will exceed $20 million and in 1966 this figure is expected to exceed $25 million. It is now the Nation's biggest manufacturer, tonnagewise, of barges, towboats, and related marine equipment. And it meets a stagger- ing production schedule. Jeffboat is an employer, too-920 people approximately were employed in 1965 and this figure will probably exceed 1,000 next year. Its present annual payroll is approxi- mately $6.3 million. And, of course, it's a consumer, too, using, for instance, about 9,000 tons of steel a month. Jeffboat and the American Commercial Lines have had a distinguished history reaching back into World War II when it produced 125 LST's. It was honored five times by the U.S. Navy. The best is ahead. So I am exceedingly pleased to be here because this is a happy occasion. All of us want to build and grow and create. And you have done this in a remarkable way. You are helping the Ohio River Valley and southern Indiana and the Louisville metro- politan area take a giant stride forward in meeting the needs of its citizens. You are conserving, improving, and making use of our natural environment?the waterways? to the benefit of all of us. And many of us here today draw strength and encouragement from what you do?do for yourselves and for the Ohio River Valley and for the Nation. I look forward to a great future for the Ohio River Valley?a future in which we will match our performance with our potential, our wealth with our resources, our power ?with our purpose. I look forward to an Ohio River Valley? Developing its natural environment. Harvesting its rich crops. Achieving in the arts and sciences. Using its Waterways to make the economy vital and vibrant. And I salute you in the major part you are playing to bring the Ohio River Valley to its finest hour. Necessary Step EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ROMAN C. PUCINSKI OF ILLINOIS ? IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 / Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, for ?some time now I have taken the floor to support President Johnson on his deci- sions in Vietnam. The record continues to mount on how right the President is. We Americans love peace and want peace, but by now it should be clear to all of us and, indeed to all the world, that the long pause in bombing raids did not persuade Ho Chi Minh to make even the slightest gesture toward peace. On the contrary, Hanoi only reiterated its demand that the United States sur- render its commitment and withdraw from Vietnam. This, the administration will not do. Meanwhile, the search for peace will be continued?and the bombing has been resumed. In an editorial entitled "United States Still Seeks Peace," the Detroit News stated that? This Nation put a stopper on its bombing power for 37 days in its pursuit of a Vietnam peace, but because the Communists did not take even one short step to meet our appeal, North Vietnam is no longer an immune sanctuary. It adds: This Nation could no longer leave as a hostage to ill fortune the security of 200,000 American fighting men or the security of allied Vietnamese forces or even the sedurity of the villagers whose freedom we help defend. As Mr. Johnson stated: It is our clear duty to do what we can to limit the cost in lives. The newspaper says: We will keep knocking on all doors which might lead to peace. Adding that? What we could not afford was to prolong the pause and thus risk having the-Com- munist aggressors think our heart wasn't in the job of defending the south's freedom and also risk lives on our side by pinioning one hand behind our back. Because I was so impressed with the good common sense I found in this edi- torial I would like to recommend it for the perusal of my colleagues, and with their permission it will be inserted in the RECORD: [From the Detroit (Mich.) News, Feb. 1, 1966] SECURITY REQUIRED NEW BOMBING, BUT UNITED STATES STILL SEEKS PEACE This Nation put a stopper on its bombing power for 37 days in its pursuit of a Vietnam peace, but because the Communists did not take even one short step to meet our appeal, North Vietnam is no longer an immune sanc- tuary. This Nation could no longer leave as a hos- tage to ill fortune the security of 200,000 American fighting men or the security of allied Vietnamese forces or even the security of the villagers whose freedom we help defend. As President Johnson told the Nation and the world, those are the reasons the bomb pause is over. It won not a response but denunciation and rejection. To persist in a diplomatic effort while continuing to expose our military Ranks was impossible. "It is our clear duty to do what we can to limit the cost in lives," is the sober way Mr. John- son put it. However agonizing the ultimate decision, the alternative to persisting in the lull was an simple as that. The carrot was ignored. The stick is brought back into play. But the carrot is not withdrawn. That is why this Nation has brought the issue of more war Or of peace to the U.N. Security Council, so often a meaningful ,compromiser, but be- cause of the veto and a lack of military power, rarely a decisionrnaker. The resolution we present there is respon- sive to "the spirit of the renewed appeal for peace of Pope Paul," Mr. Johnson says.' The key word here is "spirit." What the Pope suggested was that neutral nations at the United Nations should arbitrate. The gen- uine impartiality of some neutral nations is not in doubt. But the motives of others which profess to nonalinement are suspect. One-third of the U.N. membership is Afri- can and professedly nonaligned in the cold war. But as a bloc these nations have pledged themselves over Rhodesia, for exam- ple, to a war of "national liberation of the enslaved," much as North Vietnam and Red China are pledged to rid the "enslaved" of South Vietnam from imperialist warmongers. Nevertheless the decision to bring peace in Vietnam to the attention of the Security Council is welcome, commendable, and even shrewd. It demonstrates that despite the resumed bombing the pursuit of peace Is not abandoned. The world, which witnessed?and in large measure commended?the many-pronged American peace offensive, now sees us on record as calling on the ultimate world peace authority to use its good offices. Moreover this calls on the Soviet Union (with its veto) to stand up and be counted, It either wants peace in Vietnam or more war. As cochairman of the 1954 Geneva con- ference, it can no longer fence straddle. Moreover, the recourse to the council de- mands that De Gaulle (with his veto) act and not preach. All the doors to peace on which this na- tion has knocked in the last month are still open?except, it would appear, some Red doors. Now we've flung open a new door. We could do no more. We could do no less. What we could not afford was to prolong the pause and thus risk having the Communist aggressors think our heart wasn't in the job of defending the South's freedom and also risks lives on our side by pinioning one hand behind our back. Ambassador Edward Clark's Statement on His Return to Australia EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. J. J. PICKLE OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. PICKLE. Mr. Speaker, a few days ago our distinguished Ambassador to Australia, the Honorable Ed Clark and Mrs. Clark, visited Washington in order to talk with the President, the State De- partment, and other officials. He brought us a message of high patriotism and reminds us again how strong are the ties between America and Australia. In his brief tenure as Ambassador, Mr. Clark has traveled more miles and visited more cities than most of the other Am- bassadors to that country put together. He has brought credit to his country by his open friendliness and colorful char- acter and his genuine interest in the people of Australia. When he returned to Australia last week he made an arrival statement that I think again shows how deep are his feelings and his affection for the Aus- tralian people and that statement is as follows: Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP671300446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ---- APPENDIX eral law place a tremendous handicap on a small merchant. We have, for instance, some managers ot- minor departments that we just can't afford to pay $150 per week (executive scale). They are part of our management team but we have to make them punch the clock. It takes away their prestige and harms their pride and initia- tive. It is a sorry situation." A small merchant lists as his No. 1 prob- lem "Our Federal Government setting mini- mum pay scales. Very difficult for a small store in a comparatively small town to main- tain a $1.25 minimum pay scale and not re- duce the amount of service our customers are used to." A medium-sized retailer ha a city of about 40,000 lists as his third most serious prob- lem the Federal wage-hour regulations (after (1) State and Federal income taxes and (2) State personal property taxes). "We are greatly concerned over the Federal wage act before Congress as it will be dif- ficult for all small businesses to compete on this hourly basis. It will tend to compel many of the smaller stores to discontinue business and certainly curtail the services now enjoyed by the public. "I think the big thing that is bothering me Torn, is the proposed minimum wage laws which seem to be gaining momentum. We in the smaller towns are faced with an entirely different picture on minimum wage. Quite frankly we can put up with some in- ferior help at the rate we are paying, but if they make the move to $1.25 I have two em- ployees who must go. Nice girls, but they will never command this rate, and when I,hey leave here under a $1.25 minimum no one else will use them either. Our labor market being as restricted as it is makes it difficult to get the kind of help you need to he able to pay the price the Government thinks they can earn. Let's face it, some people will never he able to be worth certain values such as the minimum wages pro- posed. In my opinion they will create unem- ployment. [INTIM-PLOY ME NT COMPENSATION federalization of unemployment (compensation) is about as needed as an- other hole in the head. It is a free handout to the loafer and nothing more, again who wants to work for pay when the Government will give a man -up to two-thirds of the State average wage." The leading merchant in a city of about 1.0,000 says right now his big worries are wage-hour laws and the Federal -unemploy- ment compensation bill. "It is really going to hurt our merit rating. We've earned this through many years of careful planning with our employee relations program. Now with one swoop the Federal Government will wipe out this rating (we have earned and deserve because we haven't contributed to any noticeable degree to the unemployment problem.) In fact, we helped the overall em- ployment picture by giving steady employ- ment to around 35 employees year in and Year out Bringing the Ohio River Valley to Its Finest Hour EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. CARL 0. PERKINS s.' uENTUCILY IN TUE HOUSr; OF REPRESEITIATIVES Wednesday, February 9. 1966 LVI r. PERKINS. Mr. Speaker, I have just had an opportunity to read the re- marks of my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana I Mr. HAMILTON 1, who was principal speaker at the christening of the first seagoing vessel built on the Ohio River since World War II. His salient observations point up the importance of this great river to the general economy of the entire valley and, indeed, its value to our Nation. Like the gentleman from Indiana L Mr. HAMILTON], I foresee the Ohio River's vital role in our future progress and economic prosperity. I commend his remarks to the atten- tion of all the Members and under unanimous consent I insert them in the Appendix of the RECORD: REMARKS OF HON. LEE H. HAm STON, Misbasa. ou CONGRESS I'ROLT INDIAN-A, AT CHRISTENING OF M./ V -.PHAEDY-A," JEEFBOAT, INC., BOA T- TARDS, JECEERSONVILLE, IND., DECEMBER 18, 1065 You rm,y Oct be aware of it but todav you are witnessing a historic occasion in the life of the Ohio River Valley. You may not be aware of it from my speech because I'm not that good at conveying thoughts, but in spite of my speech, ancl not because of it, tins is a historic occasion. In Shakespeare's "Henry V." the king is about to lead his men into battle; he gives them a stirring oration urging them to arms. In part he savs "And gentlemen in En, ;land now abed shall think themselves acurseci they were not here." Well, I don't know if your friends and neighbors who are not here to-- day will think themselves accursed 5 or 10 or 20 years hence, but I do think they might regret it became this is a significant day in the history of the Ohio River Valley. It is significant because Jeffboat has reached is milestone by producing a seagoing vessel, the fast since World War II. And it is because a milestone has been reached that our thoughts naturally turn today to our in- land waterways, their importance to the Na- tion, to the Ohio River Valley, and to Louis- ville, Jeffersonville, and Jeffboat. This is a day to remember because we see today, the evidence that the Ohio River Val- ley is on the move in meeting one of its and the Nation's greatest needs?good transpor- tation. The evidence is all about you. IMPORTANCE TO THE NATION The milestone reached today reminds us of the importance of the inland waterways to this Nation. Water carrier; today move 431 million tons of freight annually-141, percent of all of the Nation's domestic freight. And they do it at an average cost to the shipper of 3 mills per ton-mile. This compares with an average cost to th.e shipper by rail that is five times that of the water freight cost or la mills per ton-mile. Truck freight service costs the shipper an average of 61/7 cerns per ton-mile?and average aircargo rater; are in the range of 22 cents per ton-mile. The savings realized on our waterway transportation are diffused widely -through- out, the Nation's economy. Coal is an ex- cellent example of that and very important to us because almost 47 million tons moved on the Ohio River in 1964. The savings in transportation costs of coal if; reflected, for example, in the price of electricity in home n.d factory. The inland wn terwaya are the workhorse of our transportation system. They have se] the floor under transportation pricing in this country for many years and will con- tinue to do so as long as water transporta- tion is an effective competitor for business. Our :inland waterways have had a substan- tial effect on water resource development. Navigation requires that a stable supply of wciter be maintained in a channel in order to provide a standard operating depth for commercial vessels. In most water resource development projects, this is done by build- ire; a series of dams which create relatively A 6.11 deep stillwater pools. But in order to feed that system, dams are built on headwaters and tributary streams to conserve water supplies which feed into the main channel. The water supplies created in these navi- gation projects are among the most precious and most valuable assets which this Nation has. Our inland waterways are big business in America. The United States has 25,260 miles of usable, navigable inland channels exclu- sive of the Great Lakes; the Ohio River alone is 981 miles. In all, there are some 1,700 companies operating on the waterways, some 2,600 tank barges, more than 14,000 dry cargo barges and scows and approxi- mately 4,000 towboats and tugs, representing a total investment of over $1.6 billion. The inland waterway business is booming. It stands in stark contrast to our oceangoing merchant marine which required a total Gov- ernment subsidy during the calendar year 1964 of $319 million for construction and operational differentials. The inland waterway system is a recognized instrument of national defense. IMPORTANCE TO OHIO RIVER VALLEY This milestone reached today of producing the first seagoing vessel since World War II reminds us of the importance of inland wa- terways to Jeffersonville, Louisville, ;did southern Indiana,. In my congressional district, we talk a great deal about industrial development. And the history of recent years shows that; off-river plants constitute the industrial base of much of southern Indiana: the powerplant in Madison, the distilleries in Lawrenceburg, Jeffboat, and the detergent and soap busi- ness in Jeffersonville. In the last decade a high proportion of industries' capital In vest- ment dollars have been spent in adding new facilities or expanding existing facilities along the navigable inland channels?or very close to these channels. These waterways become vital to the com- munities. Traffic on the Ohio River doubles on an average of once every II years. It is now pushing 90 million tons annually. In 1963 there was an average of 64 tons for every household in Louisville. It is easy to see what an impact on income and prosperity the waterways have in the Louisville metro- politan area. And for each 100 water-based jobs, it is estimated there are 100 to 135 ad- ditional jobs created by the waterways. In my congressional district, I have said repeatedly that we have no greater concern than the development of our water resources. I usually say this in the context of reservoirs, watersheds, flood control, and water supply which are very important to my district. But the same concern applies to the develop- ment of waterways which abut the Ninth Congressional District in Dearborn, Ohio, Switzerland, Jefferson, and Clark Court ties. A sound use of our waterways creates a firm industrial base, helps create jobs, produces income and brings economic vitality rind prosperity to the region. So I share your concern that the Nation's future is vitally dependent on full develop- ment of water resources, vigorous prosecu- tion of a dynamic policy of water recource development. American national policy, from the writing at least of the Federalist papers and the famous Northwest Ordinance of 1787, has been for the free use of the Nation's rivers, harbors, lakes, and water courses. The Northwest Ordinance said "Navigable waterways shall be common highways, and forever free?without any tax, impost. or duty." This policy is based on the sound recogni- tion that the waterways have served and will continue to serve a variety of basic pub- lic purposes. Among them are unification of the country, furtherance of western ex- pansion, defeat of sectionalism, low-cost Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 PSHRIIRAVIIIIIMPINOIRIINBRPS ,1,4111..041,11MENIIRMAIIIIIIM*11416.14111111110110PWIN10.,1101111 MOP Approved For Release 2005/06/29 :A7RDP6713004M114000200(}ktructr_ 9, y 1966 A640 CONGRESSIONAL REWKI3 ? AP? "We are not at war with China, and we never will be unless they initiate it. How- ever, Russia wouldn't be unhappy if we went to war with China," he said, adding chances are greater of war developing between Russia and China. lie said democracy would better suit the peoples of southeast Asia than communism because of the economic prosperity it would bring. "With the exception of Russia, commu- nism has stunted the economic growth of every nation in which it has developed," he said, contrasting this with the prosperity that earmarks the democratic nations of Japan and West Germany. He said the United States should attempt to agriculturally develop the Mekong Delta, now the scene of some of the fiercest battles with the Vietcong, once thb war is settled. "It would be easy to pull out and go home?leaving this part of the world to be eaten up by the 'peaceful revolution' of communism, but this would not be the best thing to do. "The war in Vietnam is giving Americans an opportunity to discover whether they really believe in democracy," he said. "I believe we should support the Presi- dent In his Vietnam policy?even if we think he's wrong," the Reverend Kenneth Shirk of Epiphany Church, Pleasantville, said, adding he personally supports Lyndon B. Johnson's war policy. He said Americans have the right to con- scientiously object to U.S. participation in the war so long as they don't break the law by so doing?as in the cases of burning draft cards. The Reverend Shirk said the reason many America young men seem to be unenthus- iastic about the war is because it is unde- clared. He noted that if the war grew to the enormity of World War II, these men would rally to their Nation's side. "We gain nothing by not having diplo- matic relations with Red China," he said, citing the danger of that nation entering the Vietnam war. He said he would favor admission of Red China to the United Nations "if she alters her terms for joining." Those terms call for immediate expulsion of Nationalist China from the U.N. "It is no longer possible for a limited war to take place. If a world war begins, we are in ?for a major holocaust. And if a nuclear war develops, China's sheer numbers will be to her favor. "If there is a nuclear war, the only 'thing we can do is run to the nearest bomb shel- ter?and pray to God," he said. An Overriding Concern: The Government EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. ANCHER NELSEN OF MINNESOTA I IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. NELSEN. Mr. Speaker, the exec- utive vice president of the Minnesota Re- tail Federation, Inc., Mr. Thomas H. Hodgson, has provided me with sam- plings of a most unusual survey he has taken among small businesses in Min- nesota. Mr. Hodgson stated in an ac- companying letter that "A handful?of surveyed stores?may have annual sales of $1 to $2 million. A vast majority has sales substantially under $300,000 or $200,000, and some sell as little as $50,000 to $100,000." The survey, according to Mr. Hodgson, revealed: Thousands of small and large retailers, hi our State are having their troubles, strangely enough in a period of unprecedented expan- sion, high economic growth, and general na- tional prosperity. -What are these troubles? Mr. Hodg- son observed: The overriding concern of the merchants centered on laws and growing governmental regulation. Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be help- ful to Members of Congress to read for themselves representative observations of storekeepers in Minnesota about such matters as governmental relations, wage- hour legislation, and unemployment compensation. Under unanimous con- sent I insert these appropriate survey comments in the RECORD today. SURVEY COMMENTS GOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS Government's regulations and reports re- quire full-time secretary which raises our costs higher proportionally. (Small store in town of 3,000 population.) We have all but lost our voice in Govern- ment. The boys in Washington couldn't care less about what is going on in Windom, Minn., even when we tell them. Unfortu- nately, our State government is acting the same way. The Federal Government and also the State have lost sight of the small businessman. They think the small businessman does one- half million in volume and up and that they can afford some of the garbage the Govern- ment is. trying to pass off on us. what about the guy who does $100,000 or less, or under $200,000. We can't afford high-priced book- keepers for Government recordkeeping and for keeping within the varied and sundry laws that we are under. We do it ourselves. Tom, we have all we can do with trying to keep our heads above water. Federal interference through wage-hour law, medicare, raising unemployment bene- fits for undeserving people. Biggest problem?growing encroachment of Government on business. Large firms can add people to handle these things at a di- rect cost to the company. "The small mer- chant doesn't have the wherewithal to em- ploy additional personnel and * * * is forced to assume the duty himself or split it among other present employees to the detriment of their present duties. Any governmental regulations that don't take into account the size of the business and the locally oriented problems cannot be equitable and can only serve to crowd out the small guy. The head of a large State retail associa- tion lists as the first problem governmental regulations and taxes. Our greatest problem is government regu- lations. Because we are small and I have no one to advise us on our individual prob- lems, we never know if we are properly com- plying or not. (Town population about 500.) Continued takeover by Federal Govern- ment by more and more regulations. Initiative-killing bills?repeal of 14(b) (taking away a man's rights), reducing to $250,000 the qualification to come under the new minimum wage and hour law and fed- eralization of unemployment compensation amendments to eliminate experience rating and dispensing our money from Washington instead of locally. "The greatest problem the small retailer has today is to be under Federal control of wages and hours. The Government says that Federal control * * * dOes not effect the small retailer but it definitely does. Many of us are next door to J. C. Penney's, Woolworth's, Montgomery Ward, etc. How can we hire girls for $1 to $1.25 an hour and have the girls next door receiving $1.75? It will force us to pay $1.75 but at the same time we will have to operate our business with one or two less girls, which will create more unemploy- ment. Another problem has to do with the cleri- cal work we do for the government. It's get- ting more voluminous daily. The govern- ment owns a lot of computers * * * why doesn't it go into a timesharing deal with smaller retailers so that we could feed the information for our firm into their com- puter. It could be programed the way the government wanted it so that the govern- ment reports would all be on time and cor- rectly processed by their own computer. Or is that too naive? In the absence of that, how about rebates for our doing government work, or the government sending someone to do the work for us? Recordkeeping. "We are expected to keep records on so many things: wages and hours worked, social security, withholding taxes, unemployment compensation, and many more. It's time consuming and expensive. "Business today is not working for itself but for the government due to the many un- necessary rules, laws, regulations, etc. Reg- ulations are running rampant and not until we can get a conservative government that is not labor controlled can we start digging out of this mess. Government today channels everything to interest the voter and it is the vote that keeps them in power and builds for further power. "We have many employees in our store and community who own their own homes, and cars, are debt free, and have sent or are send- ing children to colleges, who earn less than $3,000 per year. We do not appreciate 'Big Brother' in Washington telling them they are poverty stricken and neither do they. The government wage scale and ideas of pov- erty are not applicable to every geographical and economic area of the country. "Living in northern Minnesota we have seen what happens to the American Indians when they are put on reservations and be- come wards of the government. We are forced to be pessimistic about the future of our country when we are faced with the rising trend toward making everyone in the country a ward of the government. The peo- ple should be running the government, not the government running the people." Too many duplicate Government forms (for reporting) that take up too much of a retailer's time. "It is especially difficut for the small mer- chant to assume additional duties foisted on his business by the Government because his primary means to stay competitive are his abilities to use his imagination and im- plement his programs. When tied down with routine duties his efficiency is curtailed and his creativity dulled. Without the small merchant working in his most efficient manner, the sociological and economic prob- lems may make some of the present problems in these areas small by comparison." WAGE-HOUR "We need some definite guidelines on wage- hour regulations having to do with commis- sioned big-ticket salesmen. We don't kmiw how liable we are on minimum wages for these people." Because he's doing a little more than $250,- 000 volume a year, a merchant located in a very small rural town fears being saddled with unrealistic wage-hour controls. Federal wage and hour regulations have "kept our expenses top heavy for the past 3 years and made it almost impossible for our store to show a profit. A 10-cent-an-hour raise to our employees costs us $8,000 to $9,000 per year. We can't recover from one jolt before we get another." "The restrictions, regulations (wage-hour) and compensation required to meet the Fed- Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 79p proved RECORD ? A PPENDIX A 639 try in industrial and urban areas may be necessary, but the draft regulations of the Department of Commerce are most punitive in their effect. I feel that their adoption would at best be an unfair and unwarranted step toward the complete destruction of a valuable advertising in- dustry and at worst is a direct violation of both the spirit and the letter of the Highway Beautification Act. H.R. 12410 Provides Education and Other Benefits for Veterans of Service After January 31, 1955 tlPEECH HON. HARRIS B. McDOWELL, JR. ELAWARE TN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Monday February 7, 1966 Mr. McDOWELL. Mr. Speaker, I vig- orously support H.R. 12410, the bill to provide education and other benefits for veterans of service after January 31, 1955. This bill was unanimously approved by the Veterans' Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives. It is a good bill, and a major step forward in provid- ing cold war veterans realistic compen- sation for service in Vietnam and else- where. The bill is more far reaching than the bill passed by the Senate last year, and it contains most of the provisions of my own GI cold war bill, HR. 12215, which introduced On January 20, 1966, and which extended the provisions of the Korean conflict GT bill. The new GI bill provides a permanent program of educational assistance for individuals serving after January 31, 1955, on the basis of a month of training for each month of service up to 3 years. It also providea. the same educational benefits as those provided by the Korean conflict CH bill. The loan-guarantee provisions are the same as for veterans of the Korean service. The Veterans' Administration auarantees as much as $7,500, and direct ioans also are authorized where private ananeing is not available, up to $17,500. H.R. 12410 also contains all of the im- portant provisions for medical care and job training for veterans as were pro- vided in the Korean conflict GI bill. As a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, I a.m glad that so many of the provisions of my bill have been in- cluded in HR. 12410, I am satisfied that this bill is complete in all essential details and will adequately provide for vat:mains of the Vietnam conflict as well as areas of potential conflict. t am confident that the President will sign this legislation promptly. During the congressional recess it was my privilege, as a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, to travel to Vietnam, and to observe firsthand the hazards faced by American fighting men, aad to see their dedication to duty in !,he swamps and jungles under the most ,.lifficult conditions. It was also my privilege to visit our troops in Korea which are holding the cease-fire line in that sensitive and im- portant area which was won at such g:reat cost. Every Member of Congress who has visited these areas has been impressed with the quality of character and dedi- cation of American fighting men who are serving on the frontiers of freedom. Today our servicemen are serving under combat or near-combat condition; in many areas of the world. During the period of time which is covered by this bill, our Nation has gone through a series of crises associated with Cuba. the Do- minican Republic, Taiwan-Matsu, Leba- non, Berlin, Laos, and now Vietnam. As the committee report .says, "The perpet- ual cold war condition, with its crises, compulsory military service, and ex- panded overseas commitments, makes this bill necessary if our services son, during this tense period of history, are to receive equitable treatment." In Vietnam, in Korea, in the Domini- can Republic, in Berlin, and in other posts which are now, or may at any moment become hot spots in this cold war period, American fighting men must be ready at any moment to make great sacrifices to preserve our precious heri- tage of freedom. The cost of stopping aggression is a high one. It is, therefore, entirely proper and fitting that we at home express our grati- tude to and support of our lighting men of the Armed Forces now, as we have in the past, to veterans of World War II, and the Korean conflict, and of World War I. In my opinion, there is no better way to do this than to establish the permanent program provided in HR. 12410, which will assist these men in ob- taining educational benefits and other assistance upon their return to civilian life. Those who serve in the Armed Forces in this cold war period shoulder a dis- proportionate burden of citizenship. While they are exposed to great hazards in the service of their country, other young men of their age at home are pre- paring for occupational or professicnal careers. Here at home we must make ceri sin sacrifices to insure that our Armed Forces personnel can, when they return, pick up their lives and progress at a normal rate in our rapidly changing society and economy. We must assist our veterans to adjust to our economy at home when they return, as we pri they isy will. Clergymen Back President's Policy EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. THOMAS C. McGRATH OF NEW JERSEY IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVE Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. McGRATH. Mr. Speaker, an article of great significance appeared on Monday. February 7, in the Atlantic City Press, the leading daily newspaper in Atlantic County, New Jersey's Second District, which I have the honor to repre- sent. This article containing the views of Atlantic County clergymen on our par- ticipation in the Vietnamese warfare makes worthwhile reading for the ideas which my district's men of the cloth ex- press, and I would like to reproduce it here and commend it to my colleagues for their illuminaton. The Atlantic City Press article follows: CLERGYMEN FROM AREA STJPPORT L.B.J.'s 'IET POLICY (By Joseph Di Leo) A shadow has been cast across the face of southeast Asia. It is all encompassing, le- thal in character and woven with deception. Tcday nearly 200,000 American GI's are engaged in the deadly business of battling the elusive Vietcong troops who lurk in the sweltering jungles of war-torn South Viet- nam. For these men, the reality of war has be- come a way of life. Whether the limited war in Vietnam will mushroom into a worldwide conflict un- doubtedly is uppermost in their minds. Whether these men will see their families again is a matter of grave concern to them. "What is the Mekong Delta, and why must I die there?" American soldiers in Vietnam often wonder. "Who will remember me ? and who will dig my grave?" The loneliness and doubt felt by many GI's in Vietnam undoubtedly has been height- ened by the variety of opinions among Amer- icans as to the feasibility and morality of Ute war. However, a poll of Atlantic City area clergy- men indicates they support the President's policy regarding the war in Vietnam. On Sunday night, the press called three local clergymen for their comments on the war. "Americans to decide who will lead the Nation. Our decision is demonstrated at the polls on election day. After that we can only have confidence in our leaders," Rabbi ,Je- rome S. Lipsitz of Temple Beth El, Margate, said. Rabbi Lipsitz, who served as an Army chaplain during the Korean war, said the United States has a "vital commitment" to the defense of South Vietnam but added we should attempt to peacefully settle the war. Citing the similarities between the KOEC:111 and Vietnam wars, the rabbi said "we shouldn't draw lines, such as the line that divides North and South Korea, in seeking settlement to the war. "If we have to negotiate along such lines, we should only accept a divided Vietnam on a temporary basis," he said, predicting that North and South Korea will be reunited within 20 years. Rabbi Lipsitz noted that during the Ko- rean war American GI's were beset by frus- tration because they had to fight their way to the tops of mountains like Old Baldy and Pork Chop Hill?in a nation so distant from the United States that it hardly seemed worth the trouble. "The situation is similar in Vietnam, and the cause is just as worthwhile," he added. The Reverend Charles F. Rinck of Grace Lutheran Church, Somers Point, said, "the United States must stop the spread of com- munism." He added that he supported the policy of the late Gen. Douglas MacArthur to exit tact the Korean war into Red China. When asked if he thinks the United States should bomb Hanoi, the minister said: "If we can are one bullet in this war, we bomb Hanoi. The scope of the war is not so important as we make it out to be." However, he noted that bombing Hanoi may have dangerous consequences in that brings Red China into the war. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 1.1,1,111f1H4 5 II 1{1 OV,,, Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP671300446 _R00_400020005-1 A638 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX enruary :9, 1966 It must have been pleasing to the great liberal bloc of Congress, which views the Federal Treasury as a vast and unending source of loot and solutions for all of man- kind's ills. It must, however, trouble anyone who has watched TV's late-show pitchmen perform great feats of financial legerdemain by which boobs are convinced they can get something for practically nothing. Quite frankly, we don't see how he can have it all: to rebuild cities, to provide addi- tion largess and benefits to all, to expand medical care (he even mentioned physical examinations) and to fight a costly war and close the budget to near balance (if you happen to think a billion dollars or so is an insignificant sum) and not tax us until we are bloody. His expanded Great Society will, of course, expand the Federal dominion in the States and the cities. This would be further heightened by his contemplated revision of workman's compensation, Federal intrusions into jury selection and what seems to be the beginnings of a true Federal police force to enforce special Federal laws to be created for the protection of civil rights workers. Laws are needed, he said, "to strengthen the authority of Federal courts to try those who murder, attack, or intimidate either civil rights workers or others exercising their constitutional rights." The conduct of southern juries and courts does, of course, add persuasiveness to this approach. But it would be to enter a realm of constitutional 'upheaval, a swift approach to the "Big Brother" state and, we think, to kill a swarm of gnats with atomic weapons. The foreign policy portion of the address contained no surprises and seems to have encountered only that opposition which could have been expected. It was a simple reassertion. It went into no additional de- tail as to present aims in Vietnam. It re- vealed again that the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong are having none of our overtures for peace. Somewhat significantly, the President re- ceived great applause when he called ?for te constitutional amendment to increase con- gressional terms to 4 years. Doubly signifi- cant, and giving a quick study of the rubber stamp 89th Congress, was the enthusiastic applause which greeted the President's praise of its efforts last year, which were truly re- markable as to quantity if not quality. It does not seem as if we are to have a year of close study of that which has been wrought with so many imperfections and gross miscalculations. If the Great Society leaks a bit the solution apparently is to load it rather than patch it, which, in the case of gas balloons and tires can be disastrous. U.N. Assignment EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WILLIAM D. HATHAWAt OF MAINE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Speaker, the Vietnam issue has been referred to the proper authority with the U.S. request for the U.N. Security Council to use its "immense prestige in finding a prompt solution." The task will not be easy. But we can take hope, remembering that it was in the U.N. corridors that the Berlin block- ade problem was finally resolved. Moscow and Washington were not able to find a way by themselves but conver- sations in the United Nations led to a settlement. Taking the Vietnam problem to the United Nations was hailed by the New York Journal-American, which stated: It is a victory for the United States and the administration because it dramatizes be- fore all the world the sincerity and persist- ence of the President's drive for an honorable peace?a truly impressive effort that has ex- plored every possible diplomatic approach. It adds: It is a victory for the United Nations be- cause it affirms that body's basic reason for existence, which is to restore and maintain peace wherever it is violated. Because it deals with a matter of such vital urgency, I suggest that the editorial to which I have referred be published in the RECORD?and it is herewith sub- mitted. A Bto WIN IN U.N. The United States, President Johnson's ad- ministration, and the United Nations itself, have won an important victory in the vote of the Security Council permitting a full- scale debate on the Vietnam war. It is a victory for the United States and the administration because it dramatizes be- fore all the world the sincerity and persist- ence of the President's drive for an honorable peace?a truly impressive effort that has ex- plored every possible diplomatic approach. It is a victory for the United Nations be- cause it affirms that body's basic reason for existence, which is to restore and maintain peace wherever it is violated. The 9 to 2 vote (with four abstentions) of the Security Council is, on the other hand, a shameful indictment of the Soviet Union and its curious companion, France, which led the opposition to the debate. Russia voted "No" along with Bulgaria. France took transparent refuge in abstaining, along with Mall, Uganda, and Nigeria, which was a "chicken" way of saying "No." They all, in effect, were acting against the primary pur- pose of the U.N. Our Ambassador Arthur J. Goldberg han- dled the administration's case magnificently in turning back the vitriolic attack on the United States by Soviet Delegate Nikolai T. Fedorenko. The little nation of Jordan, which cast the decisive vote, deserves applause for seeing the issue clearly and acting accordingly. It is not a conclusive victory, of course, because the vote on the U.S. resolution itself is yet to come and opens the way for a veto. But it was a big victory just the same. Intent of Congress Was Not To Destroy the Billboard Industry, But Rather To Develop a Program of Beautification With Reasonable Regulations EXTENSION OF REMARKS HON. JAMES H. MORRISON OF LOTJ/SIANA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. MORRISON. Mr. Speaker, re- cently, the Department of Commerce published a draft of standards which they are proposing to regulate the use of billboards on Federal highways in cities and industrial areas. I feel very strongly that the draft standards rep- resent a serious misinterpretation of the intent of Congress in passing the High- way Beautification Act, and will serious- ly jeopardize, perhaps almost destroy, the outdoor advertising industry. I supported the President's highway beautification program when it came to us on the floor of the House, and I still support it. I feel that we can vastly im- prove the beauty of our countryside by fair and judicious control of billboard advertising. The general appearance of our cities, too, can be improved by lim- ited control of billboards. However, no interpretation of the Highway Beautifi- cation Act can accurately describe the intent of Congress as being desirous of the destruction of the outdoor advertis- ing. On the contrary, the bill was de- signed to assist the outdoor advertising in its development consistent with the mutual desire to improve the appearance of our cities and countryside. Therefore, the draft standards came as quite a shock to many, for they go far beyond the stated intent of Congress and indeed in some places violate the lan- guage of the law itself. The standards are also in violation of the expressed in- tent of Commerce Secretary John Con- nor, in his explanation of the proposal as originally put forth by the administra- tion. When the House of Representatives debated the highway beautification bill, as it was passed by the Senate, it passed the Tuten amendment which called for the adoption of standards "consistent with customary use." The standards proposed by the Department of Com- merce are, I feel, in violation of this lan- guage. The draft standards would impose a size limitation of 300 square feet for any billboard within 150 feet of the roadway, require a minimum setback of 25 feet for all signs, limit the height of billboards to 30 feet, and require that signs be placed at least 500 feet apart with the maximum limit of 6 per mile. A pro- minent businessman in my district rightly referred to the size limitation as a "postage stamp" approach and said that advertising effectiveness would be seriously hampered by the imposition of such limitations. The requirement of a 150-foot setback for larger signs Is ex- tremely unrealistic and unfair in that such setbacks are virtually, impossible to find in industrial or heavily populated areas. The imposition of a minimum 25- foot setback for all signs would, at least in the industrial areas of my district, cause the destruction or removal of a large percentage of billboards and result in an unreasonable financial loss to out- door advertising companies. The height limitation would, of course, eliminate al- most all advertising on top of buildings. And most important of all, the proposed regulation limiting the number of bill- boards to 6 per mile would in itself virtually eliminate the industry. None of these regulations can by any stretch of the imagination be considered as following "customary usage" as re- quired by the law. I certainly feel that some regulation of the billboard indus- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 1966"Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 9, CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX A637 Young Cincinnatians Learn Skills in Classes at Job Corps Camps EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JOHN J. GILLIGAN 0I. OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. GILLIGAN. Mr. Speaker, a re- porter, Margaret Josten, of the Cincin- nati Enquirer, has written a seven-part series on the antipoverty program in Cincinnati. Today, I include the sixth part of her series to illustrate the kind of reporting that helps inform the public about the various antipoverty programs at work in our communities under the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. YOUNG CINCINNATIANS LEARN SIULLS /N CLASSES Al' .10/3 CORPS CAMPS (By Margaret Josten) Camp Kilmer. N.J., may have seen more exciting days?if not in World War II when it. was the U.S. staging area for the European theater, perhaps in 1956, when it was a tem- porary dwelling for refugees from the Hunga- rian revolution. Now the sprawling complex of weatherworn barracks on the Jersey coast is the showcase of the Job Corps, major youth program of the war against poverty. It has never been the subject of a headline screaming "trouble." Because of the headlines about a few of the 75 camps strung throughout the Nation, however, the visitor to Kilmer is pleasantly surprised when he sees no evidence of the young ruffian who has become the Job Corps man's prototype for many who read the news- papers. The Internatiomi Telephone and Telegraph Corp., a leader in electronics and communi- cations, operates this camp for the Govern- ment. And it appears to be giving about 1,200 young men between the ages of 16 and 21 the kind of skills which may one day produce a reduction in welfare rolls. Depending upon their talents the young men can take courses in elementary and ad- vanced electricity, welding, logistics, auto- mobile body repair and finishing, refrigera- tion, appliance repair, the building trades, office machine operation, even cooking. "We have been successful so far," says John W. Guilfoyle, IT&T vice president. "Kilmer graduates have been hired by large and small firms and have been accepted by the Armed Forces," Mr. Guilfoyle adds. "We have every indication that American business is opening the doors to the graduates of this ,incl every other training center." Businesses like TT&T, itself planning to hire at least 100 Job Corps graduates, were chosen to run the camps for approximately 40,000 young men and women throughout the Nation. The businesses know the problems and they know how to get results, explains R. Sargent 'ehriver, Director, U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, "Kilmer management knows what a body repair shop is," Mr. Shriver says. "It has had -ecperience; there is no play-acting." Although there are no Job corps Camps 'near Cincinnati, well over 100 young men and women from this area are in installations 'which have been set isp in both urban and iltral centers. A number of Cincinnatians are at Kilmer, which was named for the "Trees" composer. Cecil Hamilton, 18, formerly a resident of lillsinore Street. in Mt. Adams, has gained 32 pounds since he arrived at the center in May 1965. He is learning to be an automobile .4,4111,40F11,11 RAM mechanic and hopes he may one day put his skills to use in Cincinnati. Young Hamilton, who recently took first place in Khmer's pool shooting tournament, says, "There's a good chance for every boy here." Then there is George C. Vanderpool. 17, 1703 Carl]. Street, who completed the 8th grade at Heinold Junior High School. He, as well as all other corpsmen, is enrolled in an academic program. But he, too, is learning the basics of automobile mechanics. Richard 'W. Clift, 8406 St. Clair St., says he likes everything about the Job Corps but the food. (It is basically the same as that served in Army camps.) At any rate young Milt is also learning- to be an automobile mechanic, apparently a popular vocation here and in other camps. He wants to return to Cincinnati. Among Job Corpsmen who visited the Youth Opportunity Center, 108 E. Seventh St., while home on holiday education: Willie Curry, 19, 1400 Linn Street, stationed at Camp Gary, San Marcos, Tex. He had gone as far as the 11th grade and had done no more than weekend restaurant work before leaving Cincinnati. Now he is learning weld- ing. Ralph Bartholomew, 20, 148 W. 73d Street, Carthage, stationed at Mexican Springs, N.M. He had attended school until the 10th grade, but now is becoming acquainted with the basic elements of electricity. Harry Needom, 21, 396 W. MeMicken Ave- nue, now at Camp Gary, San Marcos, Tex, Young Needom says he could neither read nor write acceptably before entering the Job Corps. "At first I couldn't even read letters from home," he declared, adding, "But Ern improving a lot." Now he is learning laundry management, explaining, "Some hospitals are begging for people who know this work." 0:E0 officials ask how anybody can con- demn a system which is zeroing in on such problems. Clear Analysis EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. WALTER H. MOELLER OF OHIO IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. MOELLER. Mr. Speaker, in end- ing the 37-day pause in the bombing of targets in North Vietnam, President Johnson said he did so because "only denunciation and rejection" came from Hanoi and Peiping in reply to his peace offers, and because a continuation of the Pause would cost American and Allied lives. In this peace-searching period the only fact brought to light, according to an editorial in the Columbus Dispatch, "was the stubborn intention of Peiping and Hanoi to press their luck to the bitter Cnd." The Dispatch states that: Behind the President's decision was a reckoning of the cost in lives and money a- n, continued diminished military effort against the lesser overall cost of definitive action. The newspaper believes that? The world that pays attention to the truth Is well aware, after the 37-day lull, of the U.S. good intentions and of the sincerity of our peace offer. Because this editorial gives such a clear analysis of a subject of great concern to all Americans and to all the world, I in- sert it in the RECORD: [From the Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, Feb. 1, 19661 SECOND LESSON BEGINS Now After a fruitless 5-week suspension of bombing of North Vietnam during which our pursuit of a negotiated peace was in- solently rejected by Hanoi, President John- son has made the reluctant but inevitable decision again to bring to bear the might of the U.S. Air Force against the centers of support and supply which abet the Vietcong attack on South Vietnam. The only fact brought to light in the search for a way to the negotiating table was the stubborn intention of Peiping and Hanoi to press their luck to the bitter end. Behind the President's decision was a reckoning of the cost in lives and money of a continued diminished military effort against the lesser overall cost of definitive action. In ordering renewed bombardment of North Vietnam, the President made it clear he still holds the door open for Hanoi and Peiping should they find negotiation to be more profitable than further fighting. The world that pays attention to truth is well aware, after the 37-day lull, of the U.S. good intentio:ns and of the sincerity of our peace offer. What remains now is to convince the Peiping-Hanoi axis that we are dedicated to the defense of democracy whether by con- versations around a table or bombing around the clock. L.B.J.'s State of the Union EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. CLARK MacGREGOR OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. MiteGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, de- velopments in the past 4 weeks demon- strate the insight expressed in an edi- torial from the St. Paul Dispatch of Jan- uary 13, 1966, published the day after President Johnson's state of the Union message to Congress and the American people. This editorial accurately places in print the thoughts that many of us had after listening to the President. The editorial follows: L.]3.J.'s STATE OF TI-XE UNION It will be possible to analyze fairly Presi- dent Johnson's plans to provide both guns and butter only as specific proposals are sent to Congress, but on the face of it his state of the Union address Wednesday night comes across as an election year document full of a good deal of windy nonsense. We are to enlarge and broaden the Great Society, to provide for every human want. We are to continue to support much of the world, even, as we heard, help educate it, and we are to parsue the war in Vietnam with vigor. All of this, so help us, at no additional cost to the taxpayer save in resumed excise taxes on automobiles and telephones. This was an address filled with glad tidings for big labor, despita.his admonition to both business and labor to keep an eye on inflation and despite his plea for some sort of weapon to settle such strikes as that which tied up public transportation in New York City for 21/2 weeks. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 1010111:1!! I ,111010611111111fftlEltIlitt.EMIP13=t11.11111.1M111111Mia 404141PsI5Mwim4., 4, A632 Approved For Reclearde0k12,9 ? CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 MONA RECORD ?APPENDIX February 9, 1966 ANALYSIS OF SENATE VIETNAM STAND The William S. White article on this page today dealing with Senators' positions on Vietnam policy is interesting and, we think, significant. The columnist asserts that strong opposi- tion to resumed bombing of North Vietnam is limited to 10 or less Senators. There is an additional group of perhaps 25 who have ex- pressed themselves as being opposed in vary- ing degree to bombing "right now." Con- cerning these Senators, who kept hoping in the face of all the evidence that something would turn up to make bombing unneces- sary, White writes: "Once the hard decision has been taken at the White House to resume what must be resumed to protect our troops, this bloc of 25 will vanish like the mists after sunrise." Concerning the 10 or fewer who would "be left manning the barricades," the columnist declares that their position is in fact no posi- tion at all. They simply want to withdraw, which means surrender. And that, according to this analysis, is why there hasn't been and won't be any "great debate" on the issue. For, White declares, at some point these Senators "would be re- quired at long last to say plainly what it is they really want." So, White estimates, no more than 10 per- cent of the Senate, and perhaps slightly less, would like to "cut and run." Ninety percent would back the President and his advisers on measures ;they consider necessary. The Chronicle agrees with the majority viewpoint. Minnesota Precinct Caucuses EXTENSION OF REMARKS OS' HON. CLARK Ma-GREGOR OF MINNESOTA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. MAcGREGOR. Mr. Speaker, Min- nesota politics is among the most excit- ing in the Nation. In each election year the two major political parties are re- quired by law to _conduct precinct cau- cuses in each precinct in the State. Both the Minnesota Republican Party and the Minnesota Democratic Farmer- Labor Party are conducting these cau- cuses this winter. The Minneapolis Tribune has done an outstanding job of building interest in precinct caucuses through a series of three articles on its editorial pages. Because I believe so deeply in the precinct caucus as the proper instrument for citizen participa- tion in politics and because I hope that other States will follow the Minnesota lead, I am inserting in the RECORD today this fine series of articles written by Miss Miriam Album of the Tribune editorial- opinion-page staff: From the Minneapolis, Minn. Tribune, Jan. 1, 1966] P_HiCINCT CAUCUSES GIVE VOTERS CHANCE To SPEAH THEIR MINDS (By Miriam Album) Both major political parties are gearing up for biennial precinct caucuses?to be held February 7 to 16 by the Minnesota Republican Party, and March 1 all over the State by the Democratic Farmer-Labor Party. Why should the average voter bother to go to a precinct caucus? To the uninitiated, the very word "cau- cus" may suggest factional political wrang- ling, or a kind of grubby, low-level organi- zational meeting that only the "pros" find fascinating. What matters to most voters?according to this casual reasoning?is voting for the candidates for important offices. And that comes intich later. These impressions, however, don't fit the realities of the precinct caucus. And those who stay away don't know what they're missing. The caucuses form the broadest base of the Nation's political pyramid and serve as the source of much of the political structure and activity that follow. Many candidates for both low and high offices get their initial push at the precinct level. Moreover, little groups of citizens gathered together on caucus night have been known to launch ideas that could change the character of a village government or com- mand the attention of the National Con- gress. Essentially, the precinct is the neighbor- hood unit of political organization. And so the precinct caucuses are held An ordinary neighborhood locations?in home living rooms, school gyms, church bqssments, cor- ner coffeeshops and the like. The group is usually small and the mood informal, and everybody gets a chance to talk, or not talk, as he chooses. One of the few things leaders of both parties agree, upon is the importance of broad particiaption in precinct caucuses. They urge attendance by professionals and average voters, those familiar with such meetings and newcomers, older and younger adults. "No matter what you hope to achieve po- litically, the precinct caucus is a good place to start," says George Thiss, State Republi- can chairman. "By not attending, you hand over the political process to someone else," George Farr, State DFL chairman, points out. For those inclined to be suspicious of party systems, the professionals point out that the best guarantee the public has against machine politIca,1 control is high attendance at the local caucuses. They serve as a great leveller: The high-ranking poli- tician in his home precinct has a single vote, and so does the man or woman who never went to a political meeting before. The questions asked by newcomers often provide an informative, useful balance in discussion of candidates, issues, resolutions, and party philosophy. Even those in attendance who choose to listen and remain silent lend some stability to the situation. Their votes and their mere presence as witnesses assure that a little handful of leaders can't take over in ways not approved by the other voters. The League of Woman Voters of Minneapo- lis, as part of its continuing program of throwing a bipartisan spotlight on politics and government, will sponsor a precinct caucus kickoff luncheon at 1 p.m. Wednes- day at the Pick-Nicollet Hotel. It is planned as a briefing session for the public, with talks by both State party chairmen. [From the Minneapolis (Minn.) Tribune, Feb. 1, 1966] "UNORGANIZED" PRECINCT CAUCUS IS A GRASS- ROOTS FREE-FOR-ALL (By Miriam Album) A contingent of Russians had arrived in Minneapolis to introduce an art exhibit, and it occurred to one of their official hostesses that they might be interested in attending an old-fashioned American precinct caucus. The scene was a church basement in the second ward, with precinct groups meeting separately before merging for a ward meet- ing. It was crowded. It was noisy. For the strangers, it was difficult to figure out Who was doing what or why. But the Russians were fascinated and im- pressed. "It seemed so informal, so unorganized to them?but they really did see democracy at work," one of their escorts recalled the other day. "They saw nominations come from the floor. They heard resolutions debated. They witnessed competition for delegate positions, and they were surprised at the number of articulate people there. They had heard about this sort of politics, but had to see it to believe it. "They did comment, however, that the process seemed wasteful of time and energy," we were told. By American values, the precinct caucus, however chaotic or inefficient or frustrating at moments, is never a waste of time. The very freedom and diversity of discus- sion which made it seem cumbersome and unsystematic to the Russians are what make it a cherished grassroots free-for-all to American voters. If you've never been near one before, ,you, too, may wonder whether you're really help- ing the democratic system?as political leaders say so nobly in speeches?or just contributing to the confusion. "Who, Me?Go to My Precinct Caucus?" is the title of a folder prepared by the St. Paul League of Women Voters and widely used as a primer. "Yes, you. Take part in the party of your choice," is the primer's obvious answer. State law protects the system?by requir- ing parties to set dates, times, and locations and by defining a few ground rules. Other details of procedure have grown up by cus- tom within the two parties and are not exactly alike. Who is eligible to participate? "You may attend if you are a qualified voter or will be by the next general election. * * You should be in agreement with the principles of the particular party and have either voted or affiliated with the party at the last general election, or intend to do so at the next general election," explains the primer. By law, a precinct caucus must remain in session for 1 hour. By practice, it may last much longer. Democrats move directly Into ward meetings (the next step up), the same evening at the same places. Republi- cans hold ward conventions at later dates. Both are laying groundwork for the signifi- cant county conventions, legislative district meetings, and State conventions. Voters at a precinct caucus start by signing a roster, and a temporary chairman launches the session. A permanent caucus chairman and secretary are elected. Then the business moves on to election of permanent officers (for a 2-year period) and convention dele- gates. Any nominee may be questioned about his stand on public issues and candi- dates for higher offices. The resolution field is wide open. Some participants come with prepared statements. Some may tentatively voice concern about problems as far apart as dog leashing and Vietnam?and if others agree, the ideas will be put into resolution form for voting. In 1964, Republican precinct caucuses were electrified by the controversy over, Senator Barry Goldwater. The philosophical split between "moderates" and "'conservatives" may again erupt at the precinct level. In both parties, the caucuses will offer op- portunities for the first voter-level tests of support for candidates, announced or unan- nounced, for Governor. And leaders of both parties expect lively discussion of tax prob- lems. [From the Minneapolis (Minn.) Tribune, February 2, 1966] PARTIES NOT ALWAYS SWAYED BY IDEOLOGY (By Miriam Album) Precinct caucus night is the beginning of a new period in politics?the time when each party begins to renew itself from the bottom Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966APPmveMaYggft5149i15111Mk9Ar_RNIWW9M6R000400020005-1 A631 Standard-Star arid Mr. Allard's article will be printed in the RECORD following toy remarks: 'From the New Rochelle (N.Y.) Standard- Star, Jan. 25, 19661 WESTCHESTER TODAY?NEW ROCHELLE VISTA: LOCAL PEACE CORPS VISTA?Volunters in Service to America? a domestic version of the Peace Corps, is rep- resented in New Rochelle in the person of Joseph Allard, of Lowell, Mass., supervisor for the antipoverty project known as Pay- check, Inc., which provides jobs and job raining for disadvantaged youngsters. Mr. Allard, 22, says of Paycheck, "It's sort ..}1.? a private version of the Neighborhood Youth Corps, only better." He has been working hand-in-band for 6 months with Paycheck director, Boris Feinman, a New Rochelle businessman who set up the orga- nization in July 1964. The corporation runs a series of small pri- vate enterprises and employs only teenagers who come from low-income families on wel- fare. "Our biggest enterprise," Mr. Allard stated, "is a 450-car parking lot. The lot is located on a vacant urban renewal parcel downtown, which has been undeveloped for 10 years." In running the lot, Mr. Allard continued, the boys learn how to keep books, manage their own time records, file the necessary taxes and learn all about economic self- reliance. Mr. Allard's job consists of super- vising youngsters, giving them supplemen- tary tutoring in English, mathematics and providing counsel for them and their fami- lies. Mr. Allard is enthusiastic about Paycheck, and thinks it is well worth copying in towns and cities all over the country. SELLING OLD GLORY "Another enterprise we created," he said -was selling American flags door-to-door. The flags cost $3 wholesale and the boys sell them to residents for $6. In the process they learn the value of a smile when they deal with the public. "This project is. one of the hottest things going in the whole country in the war on poverty," Mr. Allard added. "Not only are the kids involved, but the whole community has taken an interest and cooperated with as 100 percent. "The reason this project is so great," he stated, "is that it teaches these youngsters the risk of loss, and how to run a business efficiently. The corporation is not a play- thing. If we don't earn enough money to stay in business, we fold and they lose their jobs." Among the other enterprises run by the youngsters are office cleaning, house painting and a restaurant. "It takes 12 youngsters," he continued, "to run the parking lot, at one time we had as many as 40 youths involved in the various enterprises." They are constantanly looking for new services they can perform which will make money. The son of Eveline G., and the late Arthur .7. Allard, he is a Lowell High School graduate. He also attendee. Northern Essex College in llaverhill, Mass., and the University of Mary- land School of Social Work. Fox TE LESS FORTUNATE.: Why did he volunteer for VISTA? He was sitting home watching television when it suddenly struck him how lucky he was. He resolved to go out and do something to help those persons less fortunate than he. "I felt there was so much to do in this world, and at first I thought I would join the Peace Corps,' he said. "But then I real- ized that we have some very big problems right here in our own country, that there was a tremendous opportunity here and that had to take it." %MT Mr. Feinman speaks very highly of the young man, describing him as "dedicated, pleasant, knowledgeable, likeable, hard-work- ing, capable and personable." PAYCHECE. ( By Joseph R. Allard, VISTA volunteer assigned to Paycheck) Operation Paycheck is a youth-oriented business training program which strives to reach the disadvantaged youth of the city by providing job opportunities for them. It's helping to answer President Johnson's re- quest to employ youth and to train them or the future. Paycheck creates businesses for the sole purpose of providing jobs for youth in need of such assistance. The entire staff, consists of youngsters 14 to 16 years of age. Examples of such jobs created are: a 450-acre parkmg lot, a snack bar at a municipal marina, a sales division selling American flags door to door, office maintenance work, sign painting, impresarios who sponsored a concert, con- cessionaires for concerts. During the recent water shortage in New York, the youngsters pumped water from city lakes and sold it to residents so that they might save their prized shrubbery. MORE THAN JUST A JOB While the youngsters earn $1.25 an hour, they receive individual counseling as well as family counseling. Also constant contact with New Rochelle's senior high school and its two junior high schools is maintained. Both school guidance counsellor and Pay- check help iron out the youngsters problems. Paycheck stimulates youngsters to observe better working habits such as promptness. responsibility, courtesy, and good health habits. Education and community involvement is stressed. Tours of various civic agencies ar part of their job training. Tours of the New York Stock Exchange, courthouse to witness a trial, city council meetings and the like, are included. These are intended to make the youth aware of their responsibility tr the community and to prepare them to play their role as future leaders. Paycheck provides a real and practical service to the community. All its created businesses have provided the people of New Rochelle with needed services. When an employee leaves Paycheck, he has a darn good idea of employer-employee rela- tionship, he knows what to expect and what is expected of him. This is a, service well appreciated by all employers. One of the most unique qualities of Pay- check is that it is the only "privately financed," profitmaking antipoverty program in the United States, which donates to other charities. Certainly this is an ideal example of the poor helping themselves. As President Johnson said, "We must open the doors of opportunity. But we must also equip our people to walk through these doors." Paycheck has opened the door]] and It has trained its people and equipped them to walk thru these doors to a brighter future and a more fruitful life. Welcome Change EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. FRANK M. CLARK OF PENNSYLVANIA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTAT11. ES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. CLARK. Mr. Speaker, there was a new and welcome note of realism in President Johnson's message on foreign We must concentrate on countries that are not hostile to us? He said? and that give solid evidence that they are determined to help themselves. The New York Journal-American recently hailed this as a welcome change, commenting that this should be "pleas- ing news to American taxpayers who, far too often in the past, have seen their money go to countries tacitly or openly hostile to us, or 'neutral' against us." Because the editorial praising this message makes good sense, I suggest that others may want to see it, and I herewith offer it for the RECORD. WELCOME CHANGE There was one refreshing emphasis in President Johnson's foreign aid message to Congress, calling for $3.4 billion in fiscal 1967. The President is committed to giving more help to countries that help themselves. "We must concentrate," he said, "on Coun- tries not hostile to us that give solid evidence that they are determined to help themselves." That should be pleasing news to American taxpayers who, far too often in the past, have seen their money go to countries tacitly or openly hostile to us, or "neutral" against us. Congress has debatable topics in the pro- posals for a long-term, 5-year authority for foreign aid, and for the global program itself to be split into separate economic and arms aid bills. But taxpayers owe the President a vote of thanks for steering foreign aid onto a more realistic course. Analysis Given EXTENSION OF REMARKS or HON. BOB CASEY OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. CASEY. Mr. Speaker, before the announcement that bombing in North Vietnam would begin again, there was widespread discussion in this country as to whether it should or should not be renewed. Now, however, once the deci- sion was made and clearly stated, the Nation has united behind the adminis- tration. The columnist, William S. White, pre- dicted that this would happen, and one of the newspapers, the Houston Chron- icle, which prints his column commented that White's analysis "is interesting and, we think, significant." According to his analysis, there has not been and will not be any great de- bate on the issue. White estimates that only a fraction of the Senate would want to "cut and run," and that 90 percent would "back the President and his advisers on meas- ures they consider necessary." The newspaper adds: The Chronicle agrees with the majority viewpoint. I found the editorial to be of great in- terest and in the belief that others will also find it helpful, I offer it for the RECORD. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 ,11111. wtp A624 Approved For RVomiggLOV29 ? CIA-RDP671300446R000400020005-1 1ONAt RECORD ? APPENDIX February 9, 1966 their political leaders to win the war in Viet- nam for them, and they have been given en- couragement by a few noisy Americans, in- cluding some Members of Congress. This is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from their completely negative re- ponse to President Johnson's unprecedented peace initiatives and Hanoi's declaration of its intention to continue the conflict. It ac- tually was the men in Hanoi who made the decision for a resumption of the bombing of military targets in North Vietnam since, if the war must continue, the effort to reduce or prevent the flow of men and supplies into South Vietnam from North Vietnam must continue. President Johnson took obvious military risks when he suspended the bombings for more than a month. He felt that these were outweighed by other considerations, and he was correct in doing what he did. At the same time, the military situation imposed definite limitations upon how long the sus- pension could continue. In fact, the re- straint shown by the President and American military commanders was in itself unprec- edented. It is clear the Communist leaders believe that, as was true of the French prior to 1954, the American people will become weary of this kind of war and its cost and that the war will become such a hot domestic issue in this country that President Johnson or a succes- sor in the White House will be forced t6' sur- render and retreat by withdrawing American forces from South Vietnam. A report that the Communist leaders have decided to continue the war through the 1968 presidential election makes sense, in a situa- tion where there is very little sense. They hope that, if they cannot force President Johnson to capitulate, they can bring about the election of another President who will. Their appraisal of the internal American political situation, as well as that of Ameri- can character, has been encouraged by the conduct of some Americans. It is, of course, desirable that U.S. policy with respect to Vietnam be debated. This is true of all governmental policies. It is true likewise that debates of this kind actually strengthen democracy. But it also is true that people who do not understand democ- racy and the functioning of the American democratic system can easily be misled, and very few, if any, Communists have this un- derstanding. Time, we are convinced, will show the Com- munists that they were misled, that their ap- praisals and conclusions were erroneous. This is not the first time, nor is it likely to be the last, that the world has had to pay a very high price in blood, treasure, and suffer- ing for the miscalculation of a few men who happen to have within their control the in- struments of national power. The tragedy is that all this waste, death and suffering could be avoided. It still can be avoided anytime the Communists will abandon their aggression and lust for con- quest. President Johnson has made it clear that his pursuit of peace will go on, in the United Nations and elsewhere. It must, but there is not much hope for success so long as the Communists believe that the American people will win their victory for them. The Recognition of God in Our Public and Private Lives EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. STROM THURMOND OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. THURMOND, Mr. President, one of the most controversial and important issues facing the American people today is the subject of the recognition of God in our public as well as our private lives. The Supreme Court has been instrumen- tal in secularizing our public life through its series of decisions which began with outlawing voluntary, nonsectarian pray- ers in public schocils. Mr. Gene Rickett has published a book of poems entitled "Poems of Inspiration," which are a significant contribution toward a better public awareness of the issue which faces the American public. This book of poems was published by the Marlboro Herald- Advocate, of Bennettsville, S.C., and Mr. Rickett has been kind and generous enough to present me with an auto- graphed copy of his book. One particular poem bears directly on the subject of prayers in schools. I ask unanimous consent that this poem en- titled "God Out Of School," be printed in the Appendix of the RECORD. There being no objection, the poem was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: GOD OUT OF SCHOOL (By Gene Rickett) The Supreme Court made a decision today To put God out of the schools in the U.S.A. And now the problem that we have to face, Is what will become of the human race. Are we better today than we were long ago Or have we just reached an all-time low? And "We the People" could be a lot worse When we face the Maker of this great universe. And these Justices, who claim they stand tall, Who took an oath, under God, to serve us all, And did they really have so little to rule, Than to pick on God, to put Him out of school? Can we send our children to an atheist school, Where they can't even mention the Golden Rule? Where God isn't welcome, He was even ex- pelled! By this decision that was straight out of hell. Is it freedom of religion, or freedom of speech, When the Government tells us what we cannot teach? Is it justice, or just tribulation And doesn't it warrant an investigation? Dr. Frederick P. Whiddon, 1 of the 10 Outstanding Young Men in America EXTENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. JACK EDWARDS OF ALABAMA IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. EDWARDS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Junior Chamber of Commerce has, for the past 28 years, conducted an annual project in which it names 10 outstanding young men of the year. The awards are determined by exten- sive study as a means of honoring some of the most capable, dedicated, and in- spiring young men of the Nation. Men who have won this honor in the past in- clude some of the most important names of our national leadership, in govern- ment, medicine, education, space explo- ration, and other important fields. One of the 10 men selected for this extraordinary honor for the year 1965 is Dr. Frederick P. Whiddon, president of the University of South Alabama located at Mobile. He is worthy of the honor. Dr. Whiddon is 35 years old, is married, and has four children. He is a native of Henry County in Alabama. He took his undergraduate study at Birmingham Southern College, and his Ph. D. at Emory University, in 1963. In November of 1963, he was selected to be president of the University of South Alabama, an institution which was then created: the first public institution of higher learning to be established in Ala- bama in nearly 70 years. At 33, Dr. Whiddon was judged to be the youngest college president in the Nation, according to a study of 2,046 colleges and universities. But the more significant accomplishments of this young administrator over the next 18 months brought added laurels from the general public and the field of higher education. Within that period he engaged and organized an administrative staff and faculty of 100 members, recruited an initial student body which now surpasses estimated capacity by 100 percent, de- veloped a basic curriculum, supervised purchase of 60,000 carefully selected books for the university library, and inaugurated first classes with 274 stu- dents in the summer of 1964. Approximately 2,000 students are en- rolled at the university now, and enroll- ment for the next several years appears limited only by the physical facilities. Dr. Whiddon has a rare combination of the diligence and insight of a scholar and the business acumen of a man of action. He has needed these attributes In his successful efforts to translate the ideals of visionaries into the bricks and Mortar of si university. . He is one of the first State university presidents in the South to handle racial Integration without incident. He early established a policy of guarantees for academic freedom, and frequently has been called upon to defend it. This policy has been a major factor In attracting highly qualified faculty members from throughout the Nation. Located as it is in a major port city, the University of South Alabama has faculty members from Europe, Central America, and the Far East, and, with foreign stu- dents, the institution already has an international atmosphere. President Whiddon has moved strongly ahead to establish the second medical school in the State, and $3 million has been committed toward its development. Dr. Whiddon financed his own educa- tion by contracting and building nine houses. When it came time to build the new university's presidential home he refused to use public funds for it, and instead, financed, designed, and built it himself. He holds a clear concept of the sig- nificant role of education in our lives. He believes that Alabama's full potential will be realized only when thousands more of its citizens' have available the opportunities for higher education. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? APPENDIX the States of the Northwest. Idaho's en- titlement to fully participate ought to be perfectly clear. The downstream dams be- long fully as much to us as they do to the people of Oregon and Washington. And fully a fourth of the water turning their generators furnished by Idaho. So, if were not going to shortchange our- selves, the time has come for us to seek a Onlumbia Basin account. Its easy enough to ?lame others for our failure to secure one long ago. But the truth is that we haven't gotten together to work for one, and the blame is ours. Still, I think the time is ripe and the opportunity exists in Congress. Accordingly, the legislation I shall intro- duce in the upcoming session of Congress to authorize the southwest Idaho water develop- ment project will contain the necessary "breakthrough language," and I hope that both Senator JORDAN and I will have the united support of Idaho in our attempt to achieve this breakthrough in the months ahead. It means a great deal. Without it, as I have said, the full development of our water resources in southern Idaho can never he achieved. Well, I also wane to talk about the farmer in a larger context this evening. I don't know whether you folks have heard the story shout the Texas rancher who came to visit an Idaho potato farmer. One morning the rancher stepped out onto the porch of the farmer's house. He looked to the right and he saw the fenceline nearby. He looked off to the left and, down a little piece, he saw the other fenceline. So, he turned to his 'Idaho friend and said, "You ought to see that Texas ranch or mine. Why, I get up early in the morning, get into my car, and etart to drive fromn one of my fencelines toward the other. I drive and I drive and I drive, and late in the afternoon, when the eon is beginning to set, I finally reach the other fenceline." "You know," replied the Idaho farmer, "I used to have a car like that myself." I wish I had as ready an answer for the big question which continues to perplex all of us concerning the American farmer and his future. I don't possess a crystal ball. I can't give you a certain forecast of things to come. But I can tell you, on the basis of signs in Washington and obvious develop- ing facts abroad, that I strongly sense that the role of the American farmer is going to change; that instead of expensive farm pro- grams to cut back on the production, we're very likely to find the American farmer soon enlisted in a national effort to produce more instead of less. Why do I say this? Not because our na- tional food consumption is going to expand enough to change things for the farmer, but because of the world situation. The fact of idle matter is that we are faced today with the specter of spreading starvation in the world. Half the world's people are suffering Mom a chronic insufficiency of food, with every likelihood that their plight will worsen. Only 3.5 percent 01 the earth's surface is arable, and most of that is already under eultivatiOn. But world population, which took 100,000 years to reach 3 billion, will double in size in the next 35 years. just returned from Rio de Janeiro, where I went with Secretary of State Dean Rusk to attend the Hemispheric Conference of the American Republics. In Latin America, 35 years ago, they were exporting grain. Today, Latin America imports far more grain than it exports. There is insufficient food being produced to feed its present population of some 250 million people. Yet, between now and the end of the century, the population will increase to over 600 million. In India, in the next 15 years, 200 million people will be added, a larger number than the present population of the United States, inevitably, the world's demand for food is ;ming to soar, in the years immediately ahead. In the face of this prospect, there is a growing feeling in Washington that we can- not keep on paying farmers for not produc- ing when spreading starvation stalks the world. So ills that food, in my judgment, will soon become our most precious weapon for peace. Better that we unleash our farm- ers; that we declare all all-out war against hunger for the balance of this century, than suffer the consequences that spreading star- vation will bring. This means that we should not only cern- mence to share more fully in the commercial food markets of the world, but that we must expand upon our food-for-peace program, in Africa. Asia and in Latin America, where the best efforts to produce more food will fall short of meeting critical needs. Now, it must be recognized that deliber- ately producing farm commodities for use overseas represents a departure from past policy. Present food-for-peace efforts are based largely on the distribution of cur.. pluses that have accumulated in spite of farm programs to prevent them. It must also be recognized that in most cases it is preferable, if not essential, for developing countries -to supply most of their own food needs. But the fact remains that for the foreseeable future, these countries cannot in- crease their production fast enough to meet their needs -without food shipments from the 'United States. The question is, Will we, at enormous pub- lic expense, continue to support farm pro- grams designed to cut back on production, while mounting hunger spreads across the world? I don't think we will. Morally, I don't think we can. It is impossible to justi- fy subsidies to cut back production when the money could be better spent to protect the producing farmer through export subsidies, especially when the food we send abroad is the best weapon we have for peace and sta- bility. I serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where I try to work for sensible foreign aid programs. I have become con- vinced that, of all the different kinds or aid we give, the food is- the best. Much of the money we are spending on other projects is often wasted. It may well be that the Amer- ican farmer is destined to become the most Important single contributor to American foreign policy. The second and more fundamental front in the war against hunger is the urgent need for a rapid acceleration of food produc- tion abroad. We and other advanced coun- tries must assist the developing world to undertake the kind of agricultural revolu- tion which we have experienced in the last hundred years. There is an urgent need for the knowledge and skills of our agricultural technicians, research scientists, extension workers, and experienced farmers. An American Fanners Corps consisting of retired farmers or 'work- ing farmers willing to take leave of heir own farms for a time could perform ar: in- valuable service abroad. There is great need, too, for more fertilizer, pesticides, ireiga- tion development, hybrid seed and Iced- mixing equipment. Enlightened land own- ership and tax policies, improved distribu- tion systems, and low-cost credit are essen- tial to rural development. So is an improved system of rural education. This type of aid is not inexpensive nor is it easy to implement. But food and igni- cultural assistance are less expensive than military hardware and they are much more constructive and helpful to the peoples we assist. As -one watched our two impoverished friends, India and Pakistan, shooting at each other with American arms, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that both countries need tnEr food and our farm know-how more than they need our guns. Furthermore, the strengthening of the diets and the agricultural economy of the developing countries?far from removing them as potential American markets?would AG23 open the way for new long-range U.S. markets.. Those nations with advancing agricultural and industrial productivity are also our best commercial customers. Can- ada with a tiny fraction of the population of India is a larger American customer than India. After assisting postwar Japan de- velop its agricultural and industrial economy, we discovered that she has become the larg- est purchaser of American farm produce. Communist China has called for a "peo- ple's war" in Asia, Africa, and Latin America to win the world over to communism. But Red China has failed on the agricultural front and the situation has been worsened by drought and other natural hazards. She cannot win a "people's war" against the de- veloped world if we will place the welfare of people above short-term goals of military maneuvering and cold war strategy. So let us take the lead in a "people's war" with corn instead of cannon, with farmers instead of marines, with agricultural technology in- stead of battle plans, with food instead of fear. The future of the American farmer Is big? not bleak. Then, let us begin to build big again for the future of Idaho's farmer. Let our plans match the dimensions of our rivers and our deserts. Let us move ahead, no longer the prisoners of pessimism, but as pio- neers once more with promises to keep. If we will do that, our grandchildren, long after we are dead and gone, will remember us in their prayers. Hanoi's Decision EX IENSION OF REMARKS OF HON. BOB CASEY OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES Wednesday, February 9, 1966 Mr. CASEY. Mr. Speaker, "we will not grow tired." The President has repeat- edly said this, but it is a fact which un- fortunately has :not penetrated into the thinking of Hanoi. This is the reason for Hanoi's com- pletely negative response to peace offers. There some leaders expect that we may win their war for them. The War for them would be won if the United States should tire and give up the fight against aggression. This point is made abundantly clear by the Houston Post which states that: Communist leaders are counting heavily on the American people and their political lead- ers to win the war in Vietnam for them. Actually, says the Post: It was the men in Hanoi who made the decision for a resumption of the bombing of military targets in North Vietnam since, if the war must continue, the effort to reduce or prevent the flow of men and supplies into South Vietnam from North Vietnam must continue. The tragedy over there can be stopped "anytime the Communists will abandon their aggression and lust for conquest." Because many concerned Americans will want to ponder the wisdom of this arti- cle, I think it should be printed in the RECORD, and with permission of my col- leagues this will be done: [From the Houston Post, Feb. 1, 19661 BOMBING DECISION MADE IN Haeror Communist leaders in Hanoi, and presum- ably in Peiping and Moscow as well, are counting heavily on the American people and Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 RN 0' 400,114000#01 TT Approved For Release 2005/06/29 ; CIA-RDP67B00446R000400020005-1 2688 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE February 9, 1966 should be restored to such condition, in or- der to promote sound water conservation, and promote the public use and enjoyment of the scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recrea- tion values. NATIONAL WILD RIVERS SYSTEM SEC. B. (a) The following rivers, or seg- ments thereof, and related, adjacent lands, most of which are public lands, as depicted on maps numbered "NWR-SAL-1001, NWR- CLE-1001, NWELLROG-1001, NWR-RIO-- 1000, NWR-ELE-1000, NWR-CAP-1000, and NWR-SHE-1000" are hereby designated as "wild river areas": (1) Salmon, Idaho?the Salmon from town of North Fork downstream to its confluence with the Snake River and the entire Middle Fork. (2) Clearwater, Middle Fork, Idaho?the Middle Fork from the town of Kooskia up- stream to the town of Lowell; the Lochsa River from its junction with the Selway at Lowell forming the Middle Fork, upstream to the Powell Ranger Station; and the Selway River from Lowell upstream to its origin. (3) Rogue, Oregon?the segnient extend- ing from the Applegate River to the Route 101 highway bridge above Gold Beach. (4) Rio Grande, New Mexico?the segment extending from the Colorado State line downstream to near the town of Pilar, and the lower four miles of the Red River. (5) Eleven Point, Missouri?the segment of the river extending from a point near Greer Spring downstream to State Highway 142. (6) Cacapon, West Virginia?entire river and its tributary, the Lost River. (7) Shenandoah. West Virginia?the seg- ment of the river located in the State of West Virginia. Said maps shall be on file and available for public inspection in the appropriate offices of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Agriculture. FEDERAL-STATE PLANNING FOR ADDITIONS TO SYSTEM (b) The Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of Agriculture where national for- est lands are involved, after consultation with interested Federal agencies, are directed to consult with the Governors and officials of the States in which the rivers listed be- low are located to ascertain whether a joint Federal-State plan is feasible and desirable In the public interest to conserve segments of these rivers. They shall submit to the President their recommendations for inclu- sion of any or all of them in the National Wild Rivers System, and the President shall submit to the Congress his recommendations for such legislation as he deems appropriate: (1) Buffalo, Tennessee?the entire river from its beginning in Lawrence County to its confluence with the Duck River. (2) Green, Wyoming?the segment extend- ing from its origin in the Bridger Wilderness Area, south to its confluence with Horse Creek. (3) Hudson, New York?the segment of the mainstem extending from its origin in the Adirondack Park downstream to the vicinity of the town of Luzerne: Boreas River from its mouth to Durgin Brook; Indian River from its mouth to Abanakee Dam; and Cedar River from its mouth to Cedar River flow. (4) Missouri, Montana?the segment up- stream from Fort Peck Reservoir toward the town of Fort Benton. (5) Niobrara, Nebraska?the mainstem segment lying between the confluence of Antelope Creek downstream to the head- waters of the proposed Norden Reservoir east of the town of .Valentine, and the lower eight miles of its Snake River tributary. (6) Skagit, Washington?the Skagit from the town of Mount Vernon upstream to Gorge powerhouse near the town of New- halem; the Cascade River from its mouth to the confluence of the North and South Forks; the Sauk from its mouth to Elliott Creek; and the Suiattle from its mouth to Milk Creek. (7) Susquehanna, New York and Pennsyl- vania?the segment of the Susquehanna River from a dam at Cooperstown, New York, downstream to the town of Pittston, Penn- sylvania. (8) Wolf, Wisconsin?the segment reach- ing from the confluence of the Hunting River downstream to the town of Keshena. (9) Suwannee, Georgia and Florida?en- tire river from its source in the Okefenokee Swamp in Georgia to the gulf, and the out- lying Ichetucknee Springs, Florida. (10) Youghiogheny, Maryland and Penn- sylvania?from Oakland, Maryland, to the Youghiogheny Reservoir, and from the Youghiogheny Dam, downstream to the town of Connellsville, Pennsylvania. (11) Little Miami, Ohl?the segment of the Little Miami River in Clark, Greene, Warren, and Clermont Counties from a point in the vicinity of Clifton, Ohio, downstream to a point in the vicinity of Morrow, Ohio. (12) Little Beaver, Ohio?the segment of the North and Middle Forks of the Little Beaver River, in Columbiana County, from a point in the vicinity of Negly and Elkton, Ohio, downstream to a point in the vicinity of East Liverpool, Ohio. (13) Pine Creek, Pennsylvania?the seg- ment from Ansonia, Pennsylvania, to Water- ville, Pennsylvania. (14) Delaware, Pennsylvania and New York?the segment from Hancock, New York, to Matamoras, Pennsylvania. (15) Allegheny, Pennsylvania?the seg- ment from the Allegheny Reservoir at Kin- zua, Pennsylvania, to Tionesta, Pennsyl- vania, and then from Franklin, Pennsyl- vania, to East Brady, Pennsylvania. (16) Clarion, Pennsylvania?the segment from where it enters the Allegheny River to Ridgway, Pennsylvania. (17) West Branch Susquehanna, Penn- syvania?the segment of the West Branch Susquehanna from Clearfield, Pennsylvania, to Lock Haven, Pennsylvania. RIVER BASIN PLANNING FOR ADDITIONS TO SYSTEM (c) In all planning for the use and develop- ment of water and related land resources, consideration shall be given by all Federal agencies involved to potential wild river areas, and all river basin and project plan reports submitted to the Congress shall dis- cuss any such potentials. The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall make specific studies and investigations to determine which additional wild river areas within the 'United States shall be evalu- ated in planning reports by all Federal agen- cies as potential alternative uses of the water and related land resources involved. OTHER ADDITIONS TO SYSTEM. (d) The Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture shall also submit to the President from time to time their recommendations for inclusion in the Na- tional Wild Rivers System of any other river or segment thereof. The President shall submit to the Congress his recommenda- tions for such legislation as he deems ap- propriate. (e) Recommendations made under thiS section shall be developed in consultation with the States, those Federal agencies which normally participate in the development of recreation plans and comprehensive river basin plans, any commissions established pursuant to interstate compacts the assigned responsibilities of which would be affected, and commissions or other bodies which may be established for the purpose of developing a comprehensive plan for the river basin within which the contemplated wild river area would be located. Each such recom- mendation shall be accompanied by (1) ex- pressions of any views which the agencies and States consulted pursuant to the fore- going may submit within ninety days after having been notified of the proposed recom- mendation, (2) a statement setting forth the probable effect of the recommended action on any comprehensive river basin plan that may have been adopted by Congress or that is serving as a guide for coordinating Federal or Federal and State programs in the basin, and (3) in the absence of such plan, a state- ment indicating the probable effect of the recommended action on alternative beneficial uses of the resources of the basin. (f) Whenever it is proposed to add a river or segment thereof to the National Wild Rivers System, and the river or segment runs through non-Federal land, recommendations with respect to its addition and with respect to whether it should be wholly or partly acquired, protected, and managed pursuant to exclusive State authority shall be made to the President by the Governor of each State concerned. Such recommendation to the President shall be accompanied by or based upon a general State plan which assures the effectuation of the purposes of this Act in perpetuity. The President shall submit to the Congress his recommendations with respect to the designation of such river or segment thereof as a part of the National Wild Rivers System and the administration of such area by State authority, together with such draft legislation that he deems appropriate. NEED FOR LAND ACQUISITION (g) Any recommendation for an, addition to the National Wild Rivers System shall indicate the extent to which land will need to be acquired by the State and by the Fed- eral Government, and the extent to which the acquisition of scenic easements or other interests in land may be an adequate sub- stitute for the acquisition of a fee title. ADMINISTRATION OF SYSTEM SEC. 4. (a) The Secretary of the Interior shall administer the wild river area desig- nated by subsection 3(a), paragraph (4) and the Secretary of Agriculture shall ad- minister the areas designated by paragraphs (2) and (5). The area designated by pare- graps (1), (3), (6), and (7) shall be admin- istered in a manner agreed upon by the two Secretaries, or as directed by the President. (b) Wild river areas designated by sub- sequent Acts of Congress shall be adminis- tered by the Secretary of the Interior, ex- cept that when the wild river area is wholly within, partly within, or closely adjacent to, a national forest such area shall be adminis- tered by the Secretary of Agriculture unless it is also partly within, or closely adjacent to, an area administered by the Secretary of the Interior, in which event the wild river area shall be administered in such manner as may be agreed upon by the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, or as directed by the President. The Secre- tary charged with the administration of a wild river area or portion thereof designated by this Act or by subsequent Acts may agree with the Governor of the State for State or local governmental agency participation in the administration of the area. The States shall be encouraged to cooperate in the plan- ning and administration of such wild river areas where they include State-owned or county-owned lands. Any Federal land lo- cated within a wild river area may, with the consent of the head of the agency having jurisdiction thereof, be transferred to the jurisdiction of the appropriate Secretary or State for administration as part of the wild river area. Any land transferred hereunder to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agri- culture for administration as part of a wild river area in connection with the National Forest System shall become national forest land. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE Mr. KLUCZYNSKI. Mr. Speaker, the anniversary of the declaration of Ukrai- nian independence is another reminder of the tactics and policies of the Soviets against the peoples of the world who love freedom and independence. It was in 1918 that these 40 million residents of the rich Ukraine moved to- ward self-government after the collapse of the Russian empire. But the Bolshe- viks with a Russian army invaded the new nation, set up their puppet govern- tnent and the territory went under the control of the Communist dictators. The familiar story of oppression and pillage followed. The resources of 250,- 000 square miles of fertile land, the mines and industry were diverted to the up- building of Communist power. Resistance was bitter and very costly. Massacre and famine followed. Millions were uprooted, sent to Siberia, to other Asiatic areas to face a bitter existence as slave laborers. And while we hear this talk of co- existence, let us remember the pattern of conquest, the ruin of peoples and of na- tions that have come under the Kremlins fist. In the United States today we have many Ukrainians who escaped the Communists. They have taken a place in their adopted country, are leaders in professions, citizens of the finest type. It is this group, with a full realization of the benefits of liberty, that are the voice of the 40 million behind the Iron Curtain that help keep us conscious of the dangers of communism in our country. As a nation of over 40 million people? the largest non-Russian nation behind the Iron Curtain?Ukraine stands as one of our most important and natural allies in the eventual defeat of Soviet imperial- ism. Its historic claim to national free- dom and independence cannot be ignored. Its place as a sovereign and equal partner in the mutual construction of the Free Europe of tomorrow must be assured, if the foundation of permanen peace among freedom-loving nations i to be impregnable. CENTRAL FLORIDA JUNIOR COL- LEGE BLOOD DONORS SUPPORT UNITED STATES TROOPS IN VIET- NAM (Mr. IIERLONG (at the request of Mr. ANNUNZI0) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous mat- ter.) Mr. HERLONG. Mr. Speaker. I should like to bring to the attention of the Con- gress an incident which recently occurred in the district which I represent. It is a refreshing contrast to the stories we read of the draft card bumings, and so forth. These young people are serving just as the men overseas are serving. The following story was provided me by Mr. R. N. "Bert" Dosh, editor emeritus of the Ocala, Fla., Star-Banner: One hundred persons donated a pint of blood each at Central Florida Junior College located at Ocala in mid-December in support of United States troops in Vietnam. The CFJC campus was the site of the "bleed-in" sponsored by the Central Florida College Civitan Club. Community residents as well as CFJC students, faculty, and staff were invited to participate in the blood do- nation program, according to Lester R. Gold- man, director Of student activities and col- legiate Clvitan sponsor. The blood was drawn by the mid-Florida Red Cross program with headquarters in Daytona Beach. Because whole blood will keep only 21 days, the blood drawn at CFJC was sent to the Squibb laboratories in New Brunswick, N.J., to be fractioned and subsequently sent to the U.S. Department of Defense for stock- piling for use by U.S. troops as needed. A number of organizations contributed to the "bleed-in" in various ways, including the Marion County Medical Association, Munroe Memorial Hospital, the Ocala Junior Worn- an's Club, the Marion County Chapter of the American Red Cross, the CFJC Department of Nursing Education, Libby, McNeill & Libby, Nehi Bottling Works, Public Market, and many individuals. The list of those who contributed follows: Kerr, William R., Ocala; Me.Kenney. Carl 0., Ocala; Barthlow, Arthur P., Ocala; Reames, Joe M., Gainesville; Ritterhoff. Dor- othy A., Ocala; Miller, Mark S., Ocala; Besea, Thomas R., Inverness; Childress, Joe B., Curs; Greene, John M., Ocala; Maguire, Glen, Greveland; Herrin, William, Ocala; Blake, Timothy M., Ocala; Thomas, William J., Ocala; Branan, William. V., Ocala; Cra- mer, John L., Anthony; Bryant, Robert C., Ocala; Brodbent, Albert S., Ocala; Miller, Curtis R., Gainesville; Aubrey, Ray IT., Jr., Ocala; Glanzer, Charles IT., Ocala; White, Benny C., Sparr; Denson, Jay T., Ocala; Bras- ington, John A., Ocala; Rittenhoff, Robert F., Ocala; Hart, Michael L., Oklawaha; Murphy, Arvid IT., Ocala; McCown, Bruce L., Umatilla, .Richerton, Darrell, Ocaia; Rou, Judy, Red- dick; Michelle, Georgini, Oxford; Jaffe, Den- nis J., Orlanda; Dare, Edward J., Orlando; Johnston, Jane, Gainesville; Waters, Robert A., Ocala; Wood, Lana Sue, Ocala; Cowart, Gayle, Mascotte; Miller, Kenneth D., Ocala; Stockdale, Irving, Ocala; Steele, William R., Ocala; Woods, Carolyn J., Ocala; Friel, Billie, Ocala; Purvis, Sydney R., Jacksonville: Ba- lamb, Paul J., Inverness; Kepple, Sharon K., Ocala; Fordyce, Joseph, Ocala; Callum, Don- na, Ocala; Bowser, Linda, Summer held; Futch, John E., Ocala; Stein, Roger A., Jack- sonville; DeVore, Henry F., Reddick; Conrad, Craig IT., Ocala; Mazourek, Alvin, Brooks- ville; Simonds, Edward P., Jr.; Perry, Eva S. Oklawaha.. Carter, 'Thomas P., Chief land; Aliff, James H., Ocala; Branswig, Norman L., Ocala; Johnson, John J., Inverness; Fennell, George A., Ocala; Hitch, John C., Gainesville; Lynn, Wade, Ocala; Baker, Pat, Hawthorne; Curtis, Wayne, Ocala: :Drummond, Arch John, Gainesville; Porter, Kenneth, Gainesville; Pfeifer, Michael, Newberry; Beasley, Elsa, Trenton; Sniper, Thomas G., Ocala; Gatrell, Donna, Reddick; Bass, Robert, Ocala; Han- cock, Anthony R., Ocala; Barber, W. B., Ocala; Russell, Dale, Ocala; Barnett, J. R. III, Fort Meade; Schnessler, Diana, Ocala; Garrar, David, Greenfield, Ind.; Neil, Ronald, Ocala. Amer!, Booshang, Ocala; Gray, Jeane Ito L., Ocala; Peebles, Jack G., Dunnellon; Treacy, Stephen, Lecanto; Turek, Richard W., Belle- view; Prime, Kermit, Cross City; Bridges, Robert T., Ocala; Corliss, Lawrence, Ocala; Robbins, George W., Ocala; Herndon, Bettie M., Oklavvaha; Stephens, Stanley E., Dun- nellon; Packard, Philip Bruce, Gainesville; Russ, Robert, Wildwoocl; Beshiri, Gerald A., Ocala; Brennan, John Jr., Brooklyn, N.Y.; Witter, Pam, Ocala; Ohlinger, Fred, Ocala; McClellan, Byron D., Ocala; Stone, Dottie, Ocala; Stephens, Charles, Ocala; Birch, Rich- ard, Ocala; Crenshaw, Mary A., Summerfield. 2687 INTRODUCTION OF WILD RIVERS BILL (Mr. SICKLES (at the request of Mr. ANNUNZIO) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous mat- ter.) Mr. SICKLES. Mr. Speaker, the preservation of rivers in their natural state, along with the adjacent land areas, is an undertaking of utmost importance not only to today's generation but for the enjoyment of the Americans who will be here after we are gone. I am introducing a wild rivers bill to- day identical to the first bill to pass the Senate in this session of the Congress. This bill establishes two basic wild river categories for the immediate fu- ture. In the first category, 7 rivers are designated immediately as wild rivers, and in the second category., 17 rivers are specified as meriting study as to whether they should be brought into the Wild Rivers System. In both categories, rivers are included which are 'of importance to the people of Maryland and Metropolitan Washing- ton. Included for immediate designa- tion as wild rivers are the Cacapon and Shenandoah in West Virginia. Desig- nated for consideration for future incor- poration are rivers in Pennsylvania, along with Maryland's Youghiogheny River in Garrett County. These rivers, as part of our original landscape, comprise part of our Ameri- can heritage which we should protect for posterity, and hope the Wild Rivers System will be established by the 89th Congress. Be it enacted by the Senate and 1101ISC of Representatives of the United State, of America in Congress assembled, SHORT TITLE SECTION 1. This Act may be cited as the "Wild Rivers Act". STATE MENT OF POLICY SEC. 2 (a) The Congress finds that some of the free-flowing rivers of the United States possess unique water conservation, scenic, fish, wildlife, and outdoor recreation values of present and potential benefit to the Ameri- can people. The Congress also finds that our established national policy of darn and other construction at appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be complemented by a policy that would pre- serve other selected rivers or sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes. It is the policy of Congress to preserve. de- velop, reclaim, and make accessible for the benefit of all of the American people selected parts of the Nation's diminishing resource of free-flowing rivers. For this purpose there is hereby established a National Wild Rivers System to be composed of the arms that are designated as "wild river areas" in this Act, and the additional areas that may be desig- nated in subsequent Acts of Congress. Areas designated as "wild river areas" by subse- quent Acts of Congress shall be administered In accordance with the provisions of this Act unless the subsequent Acts provide otherwise. DEFINITION OF WILD RIVER AREA (b) A wild river area eligible to be in- cluded in the System is a stream or sec- tion of a stream, tributary, or river?and the related adjacent land area?that should be left in its free-flowing condition, or that Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For RtAsealRFERI:, RIgleA7B0litay00400020005-1 2686 Eebruary 9, 1966 cult a time our retired citizens have in making ends meet, even with the benefit of such "privileges." I was appalled then, to read. in the Wall Street Journal article where the Mich- ? igan Board of Pharmacy has put a stop to the practice of offering a special drug discount to senior citizens on the grounds that it "discriminates" against younger people. The executive secretary of the Michi- gan Board of Pharmacy, a Mr. Allen Weatherwax, is quoted as saying: Old people can get free drugs through wel- fare and old-age assistance. What an incredibly calloused remark. Certainly it deserves to be ranked with the infamous retort Of Marie Antoinette, who when told the people of France were crying for bread snapped: "Let them eat cake." Because, Mr. Speaker, when Mr. Weatherwax was asked to let this drug discount plan for senior citizens con- tinue?so that they could meet their medical needs with dignity and inde- pendence front their own meager re- sources at no cost to the State?his re- ponse was: "Let them go on welfare." This way, of course, they could get drugs but only after putting on their beg- ging clothes and being stamped with the welfare stigma. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Wall Street Journal article to which I refer be inserted in the RECORD at this point in my remarks: THE PRIVILEGED CLASS: STORES, GOVERNMENTS GIVE BREAKS TO ELDERLY?SHOFS SAY PLANS OFTEN LEAD TO NEW ORDERS FROM 'YOUNG; DRUG FIRM RUNS INTO TROUBLE (By Jerry Flint) DEraorr.?Want to know how to get a dis- count on your taxes, a free checking account, a cheap fishing license, a cut rate on medi- cine, a half-price ticket to the ball game? Here's how: Grow old. It seems that nearly everybody is trying to help out the old folks these days. But it's not all as altruistic as it looks. "Many old- sters have children, and their children have children. The youngsters are very grateful for what we can do for their parents, and this leads to new business," says Charles Rosen, executive vice president of Revco Drug Stores, Inc., a big Midwest chain that gives people over age 60 a 10-percent discount on pre- scription drug prices. And Marvin Criger, senior vice president of the bank of Dearborn, Mich., says the bank provides free checking accounts to older people because it wants to help them out. But he adds: "Their children are grown and live in this area, too. If we do something nice for the old folks, it's likely they'll say something nice about us to their children." He figures the free accounts cost the bank about $1,000 a month. A TAX BREAK Whatever the reason, the number of privi- leges for this privileged class is definitely on the rise. In Michigan, the legislature last year enacted a law giving most homeowners over 65 a special discount on local home property taxes; the plan is expected to save the eligible homeowners an average of $90 a year. Delaware recently passed a property tax exemption for elderly homeowners earning $3,00 a year or less. And Michigan cut the price of fishing licenses for oldsters to 50 cents from $2, effective last month, and plans free dental service for the elderly. In the Los Angeles area, people over 65 get special rates for Dodger and Angel base- ball games, movies and other entertainment, and cut rates on drugs and discounts from some neighborhood grocery and furniture stores. Los Angeles County even has a de- partment of senior citizens' affairs, which encourages old people "to go in (to stores) and ask for special benefits," says John Walker, assistant director of the agency. The over-65 crowd?which soon will be get- ting Government-financed medical care along with its other benefits?is happy with the in- creasing discounts and would like to see more. "Senior citizens should have free hunting, fishing, and trapping licenses," says Jttlius Johnson, 72, a retired Ford Motor Co. worker in Detroit. Gordon Brocklebank, 69, a former warehouseman, says he would "like to see the 4-percent sales tax taken off food for us." LIVING CLOSE TO THE LINE One reason many oldsters want more bene- fits is that they say they can barely get along on the money they have. Says Julius John- son's wife: "You have to live too close to the line. Groceries have gone up so high. You can't make a little money go a long way anymore." Harry Riflin, 77, a retired tailor here, agrees. "Those discounts are a good idea," he says. "Older people can't live on what they get. Take off rent and medical insurance and there's not much left." The plans for the elderly definitely have brought in new business from their younger friends and relatives, say banks and the Revco drugstore chain, but they ooneecle they can't accurately measure the impact. The manager of a Detroit bowling alley says a special price for older people?three lines for $1 instead of the usual 50 cents a line?has boosted business to as many as 200 oldsters an afternoon from 20 to 25 before the plan was started. Businessmen don't always respond, of course, to pleas by older people for special discounts. In Detroit, letters by oldsters to newspapers recently asked for special rates for haircuts, but barbers apparently are deaf to the demand. In Lansing, Mich., a plea for cutrate taxi charges also has failed. When special rates are introduced there generally is little opposition, although Reyco has run into some from Michigan's Board of Pharmacy, which figures the plan "discrimi- nates" against younger people. The board forced Revoo to stop enrolling old persons in the discount plan in Michigan, although it allowed the company to continue the dis- counts for those already signed up. "Old people can get free drugs through welfare and old-age assistance," says Allan Weatherwax, 59-year-old executive secretary of the pharmacy board. And he adds: "Young people may need more help than old folks." Noting that the State itself has legislated some special discounts for older persons, Mr. Weatherwax comments: "There is a difference between what is right and wh0 t is politically motivated." WHY FIGHT IN VIETNAM? (Mr. FARNUM (at the request of Mr. ANNUNZIO) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous mat- ter.) Mr. FARNUM. Mr. Speaker, on Tues-. day, February 8, the Washington Eve- ning Star published an editorial, entitled "Why Fight in Vietnam." It is in the belief that there can never be too much clarification or reiteration of this position that I call to the atten- tion of my colleagues this fine interpre- tation. Besieged by critics from all sides who often propose simple solutions, the Presi- dent has once again defined our Nation's commitment to peace in the world. A lesser man would not have the courage to steadfastly maintain this difficult and complex posture in what is a disagree- able, distasteful situation. By his example we must all realize there are no easy, painless solutions. We must also realize the alternatives are clear cut. As the President stated in his remarks upon arriving in Honolulu: If we allow the Communists to win in Vietnam * * we will have to fight again someplace else. Mr. Speaker, since this is a matter of utmost concern to us all I insert it in the RECORD where it can be given careful study by my colleagues: - WHY FIGHT IN VIETNAM? Once again the President has tried to answer those among his critics who say they do not understand why the United States is fighting in Vietnam. The critics will not be satisfied with the answer. For there is nothing new in it. But it is hard to know what more the President might have said in his remarks upon arriv- ing in Honolulu. In substance, this is what he had to say: We are fighting to determine whether aggres- sion and terror are the way of the future? a question of the gravest importance to all other nations, large or small, who seek to walk in peace and independence. If the Communists win in Vietnam they will know they can accomplish through so-called wars of liberation what they could not accomplish through naked aggression in Korea?or in- surgency in the Philippines, Greece, and Malaya?or the threat of aggression in Turkey?or in a free election anywhere. At this point, Mr. Johnson, in perhaps the most significant phase of his remarks, decided to lock horns with his senatorial critics, especially those in his own party. "There are special pleaders," he said, "who counsel retreat in Vietnam. They belong to a group that has always been blind to ex- perience and deaf to hope. We cannot accept their logic that tyranny 10,000 miles away is not tyranny to concern us?or that subju- gation by an armed minority in Asia is dif- ferent from subjugation by an armed minor- ity in Europe. Were we to follow their course, how many nations might fall before the aggressor? Where would our treaties be re- spected, our word honored, our commitment believed. * * * If we allow the Communists to win in Vietnam * * * we will have to fight again someplace else?at what cost no one knows. That is why it is vitally important to every American family that we stop the Communists in South Vietnam." It could not have been easy for a consensus man to say these things. He knows his ex- planation will neither satisfy nor silence his critics. But there it is. The President has taken his stand and it will be difficult if not impossible for him to turn back. Nor is it at all likely, the critics notwithstanding, that Mr. Johnson intends to turn back if he thinks he has the support of the American people, to whom his comments were really addressed. UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE (Mr. KLUCZYNSKI (at the request of Mr. ANNUNZIO) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.) Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE California. In submitting this legisla- tion to the House, I want to emphasize the importance of size and location, in establishing a true Redwoods Park. Anyone who has been fortunate enough to stand for a moment among the tall and majestic redwoods of Cali- fornia and see the light rays filter down between the trees can only support legis- lation to create a Redwoods National Park to sustain this sight for an urban America which increasingly flees to such natural areas for relaxation and re- generation. But this is accepted--the need to con- serve our forests and rivers and sights has not been a debatable proposition since the days of our esteemed and energetic President Theodore Roosevelt. The question of conflict revolves instead around whether we are to preserve the best of what we have. This bill proposes that a redwood park be established along Prairie and Redwood Creeks in Del Norte and Hum- boldt Counties. This site is far supe- rior to others which have been suggested. First because it includes the largest re- maining concentration of virgin red- woods with both major groves and rec- ord trees. Over half of the 90,000 acres proposed is virgin growth. This is sig- nificant as we realize that only 200,000 acres are left of the original 2 million. This area would provide a balanced park with diversified recreational oppor- tunities--18 miles of coastline and 22 miles of Redwood Creek, valleys and for- ests. It is recommended by the National Geographic Society, the major conserva- tion organizations and a year ago was the first choice of the national park Service. Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will recognize the very great benefits of this bill which will establish a National Park in a region which still boasts of the beauty and naturalness which we are attempting to preserve. I urge my col- leagues' support of HR. 12711. NOTIFYING THE NEXT OF KIN (Mr. KORNEGAY (at the request of Mr. ANisruiczio) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous mat- ter.) Mr. KORNEGAY. Mr. Speaker, re- cently I received a letter and a copy of an editorial from Howard White, a con- stituent of the Sixth Congressional Dis- trict of North Carolina, and editor of the Burlington, N.C., Daily-Times News. Mr. White's letter and editorial pointed to a situation which concerns me very deeply. He criticized a procedure fol- lowed by the Department of Defense in notifying next of kin of the death of a serviceman. In his editorial, Mr. White described how a bereaved mother was notified of the death of her son. A commercial taxi driver drove to her home at night and calmly and impersonally handed her a telegram which contained the shocking news that her son had been killed. I am writing to Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara to suggest, as does Mr. White, that there must be a better way MIVIe1411101,1146111111#11MIMIIMINIRBOWSIMI 'flat/It, to inform the next of kin that their loved ones are dead. We owe those who have made the great sacrifice of a son or husband more than this. They deserve more respect than this cold knock on the door by a cabbie. They have given their most precious pos- session to their country. Can their country not give them the respect, the understanding and compassion they de- serve? Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you will agree with Mr. White. There mtht be a better way. For the benefit of my colleague, who I know will be as concerned as I am in this matter, I would like to include in my remarks a copy of a letter I am dispatch- ing to Secretary McNamara, as well as copies of Mr. White's letter and editorial: FEBRUARY 9. 966. Hon. ROBERT S. MCNAMARA, Secretary of Defense, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mrs. SECRETARY : I want to call your attention to a situation which concerns me deeply, as I know it will you. recently received a letter from MI. How- ard White, editor of the Daily Times-News in Burlington, N.C., along with a clipping from the editorial page of his newspaper. (Copies of Mr. White's letter and accom- panying editorial are attached herewith.) Mr. White, in his letter and in Ins edi- torial, asks the very timely and cogen' ques- tion: Is there not "a better way" to notify isext of kin of the death of a serviceman." I am hopeful that the procedure outlined in the Times-News editorial is an isolated instance and not generally used to notify a mother of the death of her son?or daughter. The thought of an impersonal taxi driver aoldly delivering a death message to the home of the next of kin of an American service- man is a chilling one to me. T would not be so told as to outline a better solution, for you and your subordinates are much better equipped to prescribe more suitable approaches to the problem ban I am. I would only repeat Mr. White's plea for a "better way." There must be a better way to inform a mother or a wife of the most stunning and tragic news she cs a ever receive?that her son cc husband bar been idlled. We owe them more than that since -6'icy have made the great sacrifice ol their loved one for his country. There has so be a "better way," one which entails the com- passion, the humaneness, and understand- ing which the recipient of this woeful news deserves. After you have read Mr. White's edi am sure that you will agree with bdth of us. There must be a "better way." And, with the increasing bitterness of the struggle in Vietnam, this matter becomes more im- portant with every fatality occurring there. Knowing of the many and heavy burdens that are yours now, I would be doubly ap- preciative of your consideration of thi, mat- With kindest personal regards and best wishes, I am, Sincerely yours, HoRmiE R. KORNI (LIY. THE DAILY TIMES-NEWS. Curlington, N.C., February 5, t 966. Hon. HORACE R. KORNEGAY House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. DEAR HORACE: We ran into this sitoation again on procedure in notifying the hext of kin. I'm enclosing an editorial I had on ester- day's page. It simply seems to rae that there is a better way to handle this. 2685 A knock on the door, a mother by herself in the house, a telegram, her son is dead. I'm sure that across the Nation there are many mothers who have been in danger themselves through such a practice, for all would not be without some degree of shock, and so forth. This is a suggestion, for your consideration. Sincerely, A. HOWARD WHITE. From the Burlington (N. C.) Daily Times-- News, Feb. 4, 19661 NOTIFYING THE NEXT OF KIN The procedure of parents or next of kin being informed when a husband or son is killed while serving his country has not been changed. But each time a telegram is delivered with such a message, there comes a big question. The conclusion which always comes is that it should be changed. Western Union has followed a policy for several years, in agreement with the De- partment of Defense, that it delivers such messages. The simple requirement is that, the telegram be delivered by a bonified de- livery service. A taxi that has insurance is an example of a qualifying service. When the parents of Pfc. Hiram D. Strick- land of Route 2, Graham, learned of his death by telegram Wednesday night, it was by telegram delivered by a taxi driver. There must be some better way. Isn't it possible, we can ask, that the Chaplain's Corps at Fort Bragg be given the message, and a chaplain, in turn be the one to knock at the door and reveal the news? If that were not possible, could not the commander of our National Guard, or the head of our reserve unit, be responsible for such a service? There are many possible approaches to making the notification adjust closer into the Nation's respect for its men in uniform. for those who pay the supreme sacrifice, than the highly impersonal use of a tele- gram delivered by a commercial service. There is something missing in this link of national respect and the family suffering a loss when there is merely a knock on the door, delivery of a telegram, and departure. There could be problems in handling the notification in some other way. But they ?alma be larger than the prob- lem created in the hearts and minds of people within a family, or neighbors and friends, on a Nation accepting such a loss in such a routine, matter-of-fact way. THE PRIVILEGED CLASS: STORES, GOVERNMENTS GIVE BREAKS TO THE ELDERLY (Mr. FARNUM (at the request of Mr. ANNuNziO) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.) Mr. FARNUM. Mr. Speaker, on Fri- day, January 28, the Wall Street Journal published a front-page article headlined "The Privileged Class: Stores, Govern- ments Give Breaks to the Elderly." The article described certain discounts being made available to Michigan's senior citizens including reduced fees for fishing licenses, half-price tickets to ball games, cutrate prices for bowling, Tower property taxes on their homes, and spe- cial discounts, offered by some firms, for drugs and medicines. Let me say right here that I am heart- ily in accord with such practices. Sta- tistics on incomes, pensions, and so forth, illustrate only too graphically how diffi- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 V MIN Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP671300446R000400020005-1 2684 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE February 9, 1966 terrelated and interdependent purposes. The proposal to impose user charges or tolls an waterways could upset the delicate relationships and possibly cause irreparable damage to an important seg- ment of the Nation's transportation sys- tem which handles over 10 percent of all of the country's freight and upon which a sizable portion of its population de- pends for a regulator of transportation costs. The administration is again proposing to initiate toll charges in the form of a tax of 2 cents per gallon on fuel used by shallow draft commercial vessels. Tom Adams asserts that such a tax or toll on the waterways would not serve the best interests of the general public or the Nation. He holds they would raise water freight charges, thus reducing traffic, and affecting other aspects of water resource development; such as, flood control and water supply. This would result in re- ducing the economic benefits. The fu- ture of many areas in the Nation which are heavily dependent upon these water- ways could be jeopardized. This is most particularly true in the large areas served by the 22,000 miles of inland and intra- coastal waterways but would affect to some degree the whole country. Tom Adams is well qualified to speak on the subject. He has been a farmer, thus a user of waterways; served mag- nificently in the State senate where he was chosen as the outstanding freshman senator in 1957, and most valuable mem- ber of the 1959 session of the legislature. His long and sustained interest in and study of water resource development was climaxed in 1959 when he was appointed to the U.S. Commission, Southeast River Basins. Upon becoming secretary of state of Florida in 1961 he was named the most effective State administrator. Tom Adams was active in the organi- zation of the National Waterways Con- ference, Inc. in 1960. This is composed of members of the Nation's basic indus- tries?oil, chemical, iron and steel and grain companies who use waterways of public industrial development agencies, port authorities and other local govern- ment bodies; of water carriers and waterway service industries. All are es- sential cogs in the economic machinery of our Nation and their welfare, devel- opment and prosperity is basic to that of the Nation at large. The address made by Tom Adams, one which I strongly recommend to you, is a very cogent and purposeful delineation of the , problem and its solution by one eminently qualified to do so. (Mr. WOLFF (at the request of Mr. ANNuNzro) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.) [Mr. WOLFF addressed the House. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Appendix.] AGRICULTURE FAILS TO GET A FAIR AND EQUITABLE SHARE OF THE NEW BUDGET (Mr. HANSEN of Iowa (at the request of Mr. ANNuNzio) was granted permis- sion to extend his remarks at this point In the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.) Mr. HANSEN of Iowa. Mr. Speaker, somewhere along the line those who formulated the budget have gotten their signals crossed. On the one hand there are White House proposals for more effective edu- cational programs. On the other a re- duction is proposed in the school milk program fund. How, by any stretch of the imagination, can it be presumed that hungry youngsters can learn at a normal rate. On the one hand there are predictions that our rural areas will soon be required to produce at an expanded rate to meet the growing food needs of the world. On the other we see a proposal for the re- duction of funds in the soil conservation program. This is an important part of the plan for the development of maxi- mum productivity in the future. It does not seem to me that we are being far- sighted enough in our program planning. Certainly the programs of the past that have been proved successful should not be brushed aside so that new and untried programs can get a start. Further evidence that agriculture fails to get a fair and equitable share of this new budget is found in the drastic cut in the REA loan program?a program that makes little demand on our Federal resources because the loans are returned with interest and the investment in powerlines adds to the growth and ex- pansion of our rural economy. This brings in more revenue to meet Federal expenses and helps to reduce the pres- sures to increase taxes. The budget recommendations ignore the annual survey of rural electric loan applications for fiscal 1967, which show a need of $675 million, by seeking au- thorization of only $220 million in new loan funds. This is one-third the amount required. Adding to this curtailment of future credit requirements affecting some 10 percent of our population is the curtail- ment of current authorizations already made by this Congress. This cut amounts to a total of $132 million. De- spite the growing volume of loan applica- tions $35 million of current loan author- ization has been impounded. Further, $60 million in contingency funds we voted at the last session are to be lost and will not be available to reduce the current program loan needs. Finally some $37 million of 1965 contingency funds re- leased by the Budget Bureau only after repeated demands by Members of this House are being impounded. It is pro- posed that some of these funds be held for use in both fiscal 1967 and 1968. The need is now?not a year or so hence. The Congress is aware of this loan need and in its judgment made provision to meet it. Now we learn that the problem is compounded and increased because of Budget Bureau restrictions. Can this "brownout" of REA credit funds be allowed to grow into a "black- out" for rural and farm areas? How can a farmer plan to go all-electric in adopt- ing new feed programs to step up his animal units if he cannot get a larger transformer, a larger distribution line, a new substation to feed the growing de- mand for energy required by him and his neighbors? How can our farmers grow the additional supplies for any in- ternational attack on hunger if they can- not get the basic electric energy to in- crease production, lower costs, and offset labor shortages? Private utilities announce that their construction investments will soar to $4.8 billion in the year ahead. Rural and farm people are power minded too. If rural areas are to move forward, if they are to respond to President Johnson's efforts to improve the rural economy, they will need growth and improvement in their electric and telephone systems to be competitive. We hear of plans to organize rural districts through which development of rural plans can be co- ordinated and moved forward. Yet the Budget Bureau proposes to slash REA credit and slow down the resources of rural America to have adequate, basic electric service. Again, REA credit is not a "cost" but an investment. If squeeze we must, let's squeeze on doubtful proposals whose value is questionable. Rural electric loans add to the rural economy and ex- pand the tax base and to that extent lessen the pressures for increasing tax rates. These rural electric systems, nearly 1,000 stretched across this land of ours, are serving some 10 percent of the popu- lation. If they are starved for capital funds this large and important segment of our economy will be seriously hurt. If the budget cut in REA loan author- izations applied across the Nation on an equal basis, the amount of credit avail- able for the additional facilities needed by Iowa rural electric consumers' would be about $5 per user, or $750,000 for the 48 operating distribution systems which have an investment of a quarter of a billion dollars. It is just simply not realistic to think the proposed limited appropriation comes anywhere meeting the need. Rural electric borrowers themselves have taken steps to try and solve this problem through supplementary finan- cial proposals of their own. However, it takes time to get such plans into effective operation. I am pleading for adequate funds now to enable the rural electric systems to keep abreast of their respon- sibilities until alternative plans can be set up and become workable. Addition- ally I suggest that a serious analysis be made of the reductions proposed by the Bureau of the Budget in a variety of basic programs and their effect on rural life in America. TO ESTABLISH A NATIONAL REDWOODS PARK (Mr. EDWARDS of California (at the request of Mr. ANNUNZIO) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include ex- traneous matter.) Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a bill, similar to that by my good friend and distinguished colleague, the gentleman from California [Mr. ConELAN], to create a Redwoods National Park in northern Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE vertical or horizontal separation, or be- cause of faulty weather reporting, or for other reasons. But each of these faults and inadequacies can be corrected and should be corrected. The traveling public has the right to Ily under the safest possible conditions, not under conditions which are thought to be safe enough, or safe com- pared to other modes of travel as com- puted by some statistical method?but under the safest possible conditions. In my opinion, the conditions of air travel could be made considerably safer than they are today. With unanimous consent I am insert- ing in the RECORD a copy of the article from the New Republic by Leticia Kent. AERIAL GARBAGE "Smoking is going to kill us just as sure as the sun comes up in the east (whether or not we can see it) regardless of what the American Medical Association or tobacco ex- perts say. Not cigarette smoking, pipe smok- ing, or cigars, but the unscrupulous dumping of garbage in the atmosphere. If I sound like I'm off on some kind of a crusade kick, that is only because I am, namely, to see if can't hit a sensitive nerve in someone's conscience who will have the guts to stand up and be counted by turning the first wheel some place, some way, to put a stop to air pollution before it kills us all, not on the ground but in the air." So began a recent letter from an airline pilot, Capt. 0. M. Cockes, to the Airline Pi- lots' Association's director of air safety. The letter asserted that near-collisions between aircraft have increased because of smoke pollution "to a point where you have had a dull trip if you don't experience at least one on every sequence as a scheduled airline pilot." The letter went on to accuse the U.S. Weather Bureau of incorrectly reporting the smoke as haze. The official glossary of the Bureau, it said, defines haze, a natural phenomenon, as "salt crystals or dust" and does not include "smoke" in that definition. Smoke is a mixture of soot and dirt. Haze- based fog dissipates quickly in sunshine; smoke-based fog does not. For years, a pilots' campaign, inspiring let- ters like Cocket;', has been conducted by Capt. William L. Guthrie, pilot and renowned clear air buff. During the recent New York mayoralty race, Guthrie conferred with both the Ryan and Lindsay teams, to no notice- able effect excepl; that the candidates began to allude to "aerial garbage." For years, Guthrie has seen from his cockpit that there exists, nationwide, a blanket of smoke reach- ing as high as 31,000 feet, which moves with major weather systems, He believes that public efforts to prevent air pollution (such as smoke) cannot begin until the problem is accurately staled and assignment of re- sponsibility correctly made. Guthrie's allegations (corroborated by 2,300 fellow Eastern Airlines pilots) remain uncontested; but his correspondence and messages to the Federal Aviation Agency, re- questing review of inaccurate weather re- porting, remain unanswered. On October 7, Captain Guthrie refused nightdeck access to an FAA inspector. FAA inspectors, representing the public interest, conduct routine en route airline checks and are entitled to access to the pilot's compart- ment of the aircraft, during flight. Guthrie considered that the FAA lacked concern for the public interest in failing to investigate pilot allegations of incorrect weather re- ports. A disciplined airline pilot with an enviable 35-year record, he apparently de- liberately violated Federal aviation regula- tions. He was grounded, but has appealed the ruling. "The airline pilot," Guthrie says, "privi- .1"10111111.11.411111W11,111111.11,11.111,110- leged, with a front seat from which ,0 view the ever-changing and ever-dirtier sky, has a special interest in demanding correct weather reports. Once smoke is consist- ently identified, it can be stopped at its source and, responsibility for it can be es- tabliehed. By the time pollution gets into the air, there's no way to control it. "If the Federal Government will simply lake the position that the dumping al pri- vate property (waste material) in the Na- tion's sky is undesirable, and set s time schedule of dumping penalties as a deter- rent, we- will see the ingenuity of our indus- trial machine producing a clear sky. "If aerial durxming of waste is severely penalized," Guthrie continued, "then bil- lions of dollars worth of retention and sal- vage equipment will be designed, manufac- tured, sold, installed, serviced, replaced by better equipment." Guthrie's suggestions have already been successfully tried in the town of Palm Beach Shores in Florida, which enacted a 1964 ordi- nance penalizing aerial dumpers $20 per -ton. When this was done, the local powerplant quickly announced it would convert from residual fuel oil to natural gas, thereby less- ening aerial contamination (but not elimi- nating it). More recently the President's Science Advisory Committee recommended that careful study be given to taxlike sys- tems in which all polluters would be sub- ject to 'effluent charges' in proportion to their contribution to pollution." Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall is interested in offering economic incentives for pollution abatement. Urban critic Jane Jacobs fore- sees the rise of a new growth industry in our cities concerned with retention and silvage oil wastes. Someday, despite depressizg in- dications to the contrary, the problem of aerial garbage may be solved. THE DELAWARE AIR NATIONAL GUARD DELIVERS TO VIETNAM CARGO VITAL TO THE DEFENSE OF FREEDOM (Mr. McDOWELL (at the request of Mr. Azorm\rzro) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.) Mr. McDOWELL. Mr. Speaker the Delaware Air National Guard has just completed another flight to Vietnam de- livering cargo vital to the defense of freedom, according to Lt. Col. Forest C. Shoup, its commanding officer. This flight makes the seventh mission since December 1, 1965, in which Dela- wareans and their neighbors from Penn- sylvania, Maryland, and New Jersey have given freely of their time and tal- ent to carry out a task of major im- portance. I take this occasion to commend the members of the Delaware Air National Guard who participated in this mission on a voluntary basis and who took time from their civilian jobs and their fam- ilies to support the Regular military Air Force in transporting vital materiel to Vietnam. I include as part of my re- marks the following letter from Lt. Col. Forest C. Shoup: 142D MILITARY AIRLIFT SQUADRON, DELAWARE ADI NATIONAL GUARD, New Castle, Del., January 29, 196. Congressman HARRIS B. McDowsue House Office Building, Washington, D.C. :DEAR CONGRESSMAN MCDOWELL : I am hsppy to inform you that the Delaware Air National Guard has just completed another flight to 2683 Vietnam delivering cargo vital to the defense of freedom. The men listed below participated in this mission on a voluntary basis taking time from their civilian jobs and families to sup- port the regular military Air Force in trans- porting materiel to the Far East. This flight marks the seventh mission since December 1, 1955, in which Delawareans and their neighbors from Pennsylvania. Mary- land, and New Jersey have given freely of their time and talent to accomplish a job that must be done. Best regards, Forest C. Shoup, Lt. Col., Delaware Air National Guard-, Aircraft Commander; Capt. James A. Moore, 1st Pilot, Havertown, Pa.; Capt. Jack K. Bel, 1st. Pilot, Riverside, N.J.; Maj. Hugh P. Goettel, Instructor Navigator, Wil- mington, Del.; Capt. Jay R. Herr. Crew Navigator, Lancaster, Pa.; 2d Lt. James R. Sisson, Student Navigator Media, Pa.; M. Sgt. Floren McNichols, AF Adviser, Wilmington, Del., M. Sgt. John Weber, Flight Engineer, Wil- mington, Del.; T. Sgt. Scott Rice, Flight Engineer, University of Delaware; T. Sgt. Bernard W. Coll, Loadmaster, Wilmington, Del. TOM ADAMS AND THE NATION'S WATERWAYS (Mr. FASCELL (at the request of Mr. ANNUNZIO) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous mat- ter.) Mr. FASCELL. Mr. Speaker, there is being held in Washington at the present time a conference by the Mississippi Val- ley Association attended by over a thou- sand people whose interests and liveli- hoods are vitally concerned with the de- velopment and utilization of the Nation's waterways. One of the principal speakers was to be Florida's very capable secretary of state, Tom Adams. Unfortunately he will be unable to be present because of illness. However, and fortunately, he has pre- viously made a very able presentation of the value of waterways to the Nation's economy and of the threat to them rep- resented by a proposal which looms large In the future welfare of inland and in- tracoastal waterways and the shippers, industries and citizens so dependent upon them?user charges or tolls. The National Waterways Conference, Inc., of which Tom Adams has been pres- ident since 1961, has been sponsoring regional conferences of waterways users and other interested persons at which their problems and future are discussed. On January 19, 1966, Tom Adams was the principal speaker at such a confer- ence in Little Rack. His address, which I strongly recommend to your attention, has been inserted in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of February 1, 1966 on page 1639, by Representative CLAUDE PEPPER. This address was a very able exposi- tion of the multipurpose development of the Nation's water resources, of the full-scaled development of river basins for flood control, water supply, hydro- power, fish and wildlife enhancement, water pollution abatement, recreation, and navigation. Complete development, to be economi- cally sound must include all of these in- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 1111'1,1111 1'.111 111 1111,111 1 2670 Approved For Re teligpallNatgApivic *Atlanta B001141M10400020005etruary 9, 1966 The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gen- tleman from Ohio [Mr. ASHBROOK] is recognized for 15 minutes. [Mr. ASHl3ROOK addressed the House. His remarks will appear here- after in the Appendix.] ATTEMPTS TO CREATE AN ANTI- MISSISSIPPI ATMOSPHERE BY EMOTIONAL ASSERTIONS The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Mississippi [Mr. WALKER] IS recognized for 30 minutes. (Mr. WALKER of Mississippi asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks and to include extrane- ous matter.) Mr. WALKER of Mississippi. Mr. Speaker, on February 8, 1966, a mimeo- graphed letter from my colleague the gentleman from New York [Mr. RES- Nrcx] was circulated to the Members of this body, in which he attempted to create an anti-Mississippi atmosphere by emotional assertions of, "the eviction of the homeless and hungry people from the abandoned Air Force barracks in Greenville, Miss., last week." I feel that I cannot and must not let these charges go unanswered. First, I question the motive of the gen- tleman from New York, and whether he has genuine concern for those on whose behalf he speaks. I believe that the National Labor Rela- tions Board records will show that on two occasions in a span of 10 years, the Chan- nel Master Corp. had charges relating to their suppression of the rights of his workers successfully prosecuted against him. Can he sincerely be interested in the rights of citizens of Mississippi when he acted in such disregard of the rights of the workers in his own company? Recently when the gentleman from New York visited my State back during congressional adjournment, he made charges, after only 3 days of visits, that he had found widespread discrimination against Negroes in the Agricultural Stabilization and Soil Conservation Com- mittee elections. Since he was a strong supporter of the illegal Freedom Demo- cratic Party's attempts to unseat the Mis- sissippi congressional delegation, and since his trip to Mississippi was promoted by this same group, I seriously doubt that my colleague could be objective in reaching his conclusions. As far as the statement in his letter of February 7, regarding a recent takeover of a Greenville Air Force Base by a group calling themselves the Poor Peoples Con- ference, I cannot understand how the gentleman from New York can condone such unlawful actions. The various lef t- wing groups whether they be called SNCC, COFO, the Council on Human Re- lations, the NAACP, the Freedom Demo- cratic Party, or the Poor Peoples Con- ference, I understand use "freedom of assembly" as their excuse for demon- strations. However, the law does not permit such a group of demonstrators to literally take over Government property. The fact that this property happened to be inactive at the time is immaterial. The next time it could be the naval air station at Meridian or the Air Force Base at Biloxi. I call to the attention of my colleagues a recent account of this case of illegal trespassing on Government property. The article appeared in the Jackson, Miss., Daily News. It follows: AIR POLICE ON WAY TO INVADE GREENVILLE BASE (By Kenneth Tolliver) GREENVILLE?CiVil rights squatters, 1; Air Force, 0. That's how the score stood at the end of the first day of the invasion of the Green- ville Air Force Base by about 50 Negro and white civil rights workers. But the score may be different Tuesday. Lt. Col. George Andrew, officer in charge of the old base, said Monday night that air police were being flown to Jackson and would come up by bus to take charge of the situa- tion. He also said that Gov. Paul B. Johnson had offered the use of the Mississippi High- way Patrol and of the National Guard. "I think we will see some action tomorrow," he said. The total on the base was boosted by six Monday night when six more climbed the fence and joined the others inside the build- ing. The invasion started at 7:15 Monday morn- ing and continued until after lunch. ROAR THROUGH Early Monday morning a caravan of cars and a small bus pulled up at the C gate of the 2,000-acre deactivated air base and told the guard they were headed for the Southern Airways ticket office. When the guard pro- tested, they roared through the gate. The group then broke into a locked Air Force building, moved in complete with sleep- ing gear and a few suitcases and issued a printed list of demands. Among the demands made for food, heat, jobs, and training, the group asked to be given the land the base stands on and the more than 200 buildings on the land. The land belongs to the city of Greenville and the Air Force was in the process of re- turning the control of it to the city when the invasion occurred. Ironically, the city of Greenville intends to open a vocational training school and a college at the former base; and classes would be open to white and Negro alike. The Negroes' statement identified them- selves as the Poor People's Conference and claimed connections with the Freedom Dem- ocratic Party, Mississippi Labor 'Union, and the Delta Ministry of the National Council of Churches. WANT FRESH MEAT The statement also charged that Federal commodities were "old and full of bugs and weevils" they said they wanted fresh veg- etables, fruits and meat. "We want to de- cide what foods we want to eat," the state- ment read, Further demands included that poverty programs be taken out of the hands of coun- t" supervisors because "they don't represent us. We want the Office of Economic Op- portunity and the U.S. Department of Agri- culture to hire poor people we say represent us. We, the poor people, want to distribute the food." President Johnson was called on to answer the question "whose side are_ you on, the poor people or the millionaires?" KICKED COLONEL The squatters were asked to leave by Colonel Andrew, and for an answer, one of the white civil rights workers kicked him in the shin. "It might have been accidental," the colo- nel said later. About noon more Negroes, including babies and elderly persons arrived and moved into the frame building. Because the base had been deactivated, no electricity, water, or heat was available and the squatters brought a pair of coal stoves to keep warm. They broke the glass from two windows under the watch of FBI agents and poked their stovepipes out into the air. They then proceeded to fix lunch. . The demonstrators were openly hostile to reporters and shouted words of contempt to anyone who questioned their actions. They sang and chanted familiar "freedom songs" and asked all who came near for food, clothing, and jobs. One Negro asked a Clarion-Ledger reporter to "take me home, I am your brother." Earlier in the day, the Washington County sheriff's department and the Greenville po- lice had gone to the base to confer with Colonel Andrew but later Washington Coun- ty Attorney John Webb declared the matter was an Air Force concern and ordered the lo- cal law enforcement officers to leave the base. This action had a visible effect on the Air Force and the 27 civilian employees at the sprawling base. COLONEL SHRUGS Colonel Andrew spoke several times with Air Force generals on the telephone, called Washington and consulted with the Justice Department and the Pentagon and ended up with a shrug of his shoulders when asked the results. "I would like to know myself," he smiled at reporters. Earlier he said he was concerned with the safety and welfare of the squatters and said that he feared the building might catch fire and burn. Inside the frame, one-story structure, the demonstrators crowded around their stoves and sang. Since there are no sanitary facilities op- erating in the building, they have been step- ping outside and relieving themselves in the snow. Inside, they huddled together in their blankets, both white civil rights workers and Negroes, both male and female. "Hey, take our picture," a Negro male called to a reporter as he cuddled with a blonde white woman. "This will make news." FBI agents maintained a watch on the proceedings and took photographs, but made no effort to interfere. JUST OBSERVING One agent said that although Government property had been damaged and that a Gov- ernment building had been broken into, "until the Justice Department issues war- rants and makes complaints, we can do noth- ing but observe." Sleet and snow were forecast for the area and from all indications the group had no intention of moving on. On the door of the building they had placed a crude sign saying, "This Is Our House?Please Knock." Attorney James Turner from the Civil Rights Commission in Washington would not comment to reporters after he arrived on the scene, but did say "It is up to the Air Force." The Air Force may be fierce in Vietnam, but In Mississippi, it seems to have met its match. The gentleman from New York un- doubtedly will make assertions of racial discrimination in my State. I would ask him:. How concerned was he when riots In his own State of New York took the lives of 5 people and injured nearly 500 at a cost of nearly $5 million to his State? The following article that ap- peared in U.S. News & World Report, September 14, 1964, gave a very accurate account of racial violence in and around Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 /96pproved Feb ? CIA-RDP671300446R000400020005-1 2669 Pebrua ry 9, WLN(IKESSIlUIN AL KE.CORD ? HOUSE Vietcong to move without getting stained. The dye might also be used to criss-cross the Ho Chi Minh trail to mark many Vietcong and North Vietnamese regu- lars before they even get to the south. None of these people have any spare clothing to replace that stained. Their skin discoloration would last as long as suntan. Thus their guerrilla useful- ness would be seriously impaired for many weeks while the discoloration persisted. Inescapably a number of Vietnamese who are not guerrillas would be stained. This is not a serious objection from the military security standpoint since al- ready there exists a monumental prob- lem in separating even unstained Viet- namese between VC and non-VC. Pres- ence of the discoloration would reduce the magnitude of the problem by turn- ing up many, many more guilty suspects to put through the separation process. it is interesting to note that "dye isombing" is considerably cheaper and more simple than explosives bombing. The latter requires aerodynamically ef- ficient bomb casings, rugged fuses, and other paraphernalia. Dye could be dropped in as simple a container as a wax paper milk carton. TNT bombs cost -roughly $1.25 per pound. Dye bombs would cost only a few cents per pound. The cost of explosive bombs for a single 30-aircraft B-52 raid in Vietnam ap- proaches $2 million. Dye bombs would cost only a fraction of that sum. Even the addition of fluorescent chemicals such as used in household detergents to produce "whiter than white" laundry would not greatly increase cost. They are harmless and possibly could be made persistent. In closing it is well to anticipate the bleeding hearts who will throw up their hands and raise their voices in wretched screams over the alleged inhumanity of dyeing people yellow, even if they are killing America's sons. They should be- come aware of the fact that U.S. chemical companies today are actually selling "people dye" to some countries which use it on election days for the humane and honest purpose of preventing repeti- tive voting. They might also recall some million American soldiers and sailors who fought World War II in the Pacific wear- ing sickly yellow complexions from tak- ing Atabrine to avoid malaria. In this connection the psychological significance of this physically harmless weapon must not be overlooked. It is illustrated by the story of the GI in New Guinea who, being upbraided by his sergeant for sag- ging morale, quipped, "Yea, but it does something to you to go around looking like a banana month after month." It is sincerely hoped the President's discussions at Honolulu with military commanders and Republic of Vietnam counterparts may lead to a healthy re- evaluation of the conduct of the war and :)pen up, at least to consideration, fresh ideas regarding it. MOTION TO RECOMMIT ONE OF THE RESOLUTIONS OFFERED CALLING FOR THE CITATION FOR CON TEMPT OF THE HOUSE 'rhe SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gen tle- man from Massachusetts [Mr. CoisrEl is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, during the limited debate in the House on Feb- ruary 2 regarding the seven privileged resolutions from the Committee on Un- American Activities, calling for the ci- tation for -contempt of the House of seven witnesses who had been sub- penaed to appear before the committee, I presented a motion to recommit one of the resolutions offered. That motion to recommit would have referred the resolution to a select com- mittee composed of seven Members of this body, appointed by the Speaker, Iiind instructed to exanaine the sufficiency of the resolutions for contempt citations under existing rules of law and relevant judicial decisions. After completing such an examination, the committee would have reported the resolutions back to this body with a statement as to its findings. Along with my colleagues, who offered similar motions and supported my mo- tion for recommittal, I felt there had fmot been enough time allowed for thorough study and thoughtful deliberation of the resolutions and the consequences which would ensue from their passage. The motion to recommit was defeated by a vote of the Members of this body. How- ever, my conviction that the proposed Procedure of that motion is a sound and much more justiciable one than that under which we presently operate laas not been lessened by the action taken here in this instance. The experience we have just had, under the rules now dictating the action of this body in the consideration of citations for contempt, is an apt illustration of the weaknesses and summary unfairness of our pressmt procedure. The issues before this body in its con- sideration of the resolutions were com- plex, posing intricate and involved ques- tions of fact and laW. The rights end privileges of the individuals cited 'for contempt, as well as those of the House, as a body, were inextricably intertwined with the question whether there had, in fact, been a contempt of the House. It was a serious threat to the propriety of the results and an assault on the pm- priety of the procedure that the state- ments of fact, the hearing records, and the actual text of the citations were not available to the Members for a period of time sufficient to study the issues, to weigh the facts, and then to arrive at a reasonable balance of the interests involved. We are charged, in situations such as this, with the responsibility of initiating a serious Federal proceeding. That re- sponsibility can hardly be competently discharged when the facts of the case are virtually unknown to us. The important documents containing the record of the proceedings out of which the citations for contempt originated, when printed in the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, covered some 63 pages of triple-column, fine print. Yet, they were not available to the Mem- bers until the start of the meeting of the House during which the votes were to be taken. I believe it is evident from the wording of my motion that my dissatisfaction was not with the work of the committee nor a protective move for any organization which has, or will be, investigated by it. My concern was a procedural one, as was indicated by my vote for the resolutions, while offering and voting for the motion for recommital of the resolution. I also believe the integrity and effec- tiveness of the sanction of citation for contempt of the Congress must be pre- served. The action taken by the House, in the manner it was taken on February 2, does a disservice to this important right of the House to the extent that it dissipates the effectiveness of our action and lessens the credibility of the charges made. Such has been the case in the past with unfortunate results. The rec- ord shows some 93 percent of the cita- tions coming out of the House have not resulted in convictions. The efficacy of the present procedure is challenged by the fact that such a large number of the contempt citations initiated by this body have turned sour. The absolute necessity for reform of that procedure is evident from the low per- centage of convictions which have been obtained by the Federal proceedings en-- suing from our actions. Therefore, I am joining today the company of a number of my distin- guished colleagues who have introduced legislation for procedural improvements in contempt citations by the Congress, by filing legislation providing that res- olutions for these citations be handled. as a permanent part of the procedure of the Congress, in the manner proposed by the language of my recommital mo- tion. One does not have to be a legal schol- ar to realize the ineqities and injustices of our present procedure. Nor need one be a statistician to see the virtual inef- fectiveness of that procedure. We must take action now to uphold this sanction of the Congress for the preservation of its rights and the digni- ties of its member bodies. The lip- service we have paid the existing proce- dure in the past has served to remove the sting from this sanction. The con- tinued erosion will soon find us without means of enforcment where the will of this body or its committees has been unjustifiably defied. I am proud to add my name to the roster of the Members of this body who have introduced this legislation. I urge its early consideration by the Commit- tee on the Judiciary, while the lesson we have once again been taught by these recent proceedings is fresh in the minds of us all. Thank you. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 'Droved Forasle.ass_e 2.005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1 ' ? NuRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 2667 The U.N. resolution which gives rise to today's discussion was adopted on December 18, 1965. The essence of the resolution is that the-General Assembly: 1. Takes cognizance of the fact that the Republic of Cyprus, as an equal member of the United Nations, is, in accordance with the charter of the United Nations, entitled to and should enjoy full sovereignty and complete independence without any foreign interven- tion or interference; 2. Calls upon all states, in conformity with their obligations under the charter, and in particular article 2, paragraphs 1 and 4, to respect the sovereignty, unity, independence, and territorial integrity of the Republic of Cyprus and to refrain from any intervention directed against it; 3. Recommends to the Security Council the continuation of the United Nations mediation work in conformity with Resolu- tion 186 (1964) . The resolution was adopted 47 to 5, with 54 abstentions. The United States, voting "No," found itself joined only by Turkey, Iran, Albania, and Pakistan, an unlikely combination to say the least. I know that there are some who will jump to the conclusion that this vote in- dicates that the United States favors Turkey in the dispute. If so, they mis- read our position. I do not believe we have arrayed ourselves irrevocably or even temporarily in favor of either one side or the other. Let us analyze the vote. The yes votes were gathered largely from Africa and a scattering of Latin American and Asian nations. Abstaining were the entire So- viet bloc and all of Western Europe. This certainly suggests that there was some- thing more to the issue than a mere re- affirmation of the general principle of self-determination. It must be admitted, however, that the abstentions made pos- sible the passage of the resolution. America's vote must be viewed in the light of the subtle diplomatic considera- tions involved. These include our stand- ing with our Turkish ally, which we twice restrained from invading Cyprus in 1964, the belief that the United Na- tions may weaken its influence in the dispute if it favors one side over the other, and the necessity of looking at the substance, not only the appearance, of the resolution. What was the purpose of the resolu- tion? Speaking as one sympathetic to the Greek majority on the island, I must observe that, while the resolution seemed to call for merely an endorsement of the right of self-determination, it was actu- ally a well-considered political ma- neuver. I do not condemn the Greek Cypriot leadership for this. We can admire their political astuteness in undertaking such a tactic while reserving our right to put the tactic in perspective. The adoption of the U.N. resolution was calculated to improve the bargain- ing position of the Greek Cypriots by bringing pressure of world public opin- ion to bear in their favor. But it Pro- vides no panaceas; it advances no real solutions. The Turkish Government cannot be expected to yield to the opin- ion expressed. Realistically, the Turk- ish Government can be expected to ig- nore it. What are the realities in Cyprus? One of the realities can be summed up in the words "No more Zurichs." That is, there can be no longer be any prospect of an Imposed agreement, as happened in Zurich in 1960. True, agreements be- tween governments require compromise, but the Zurich Agreement contained such awkward compromises that it was Inevitable the formula would break down. While -the Zurich agreement professed to follow the general principle of "major- its rule with guaranteed minority rights" the practical affect was that a veto was given to the Turkish minority and effec- tive government was stalemated. Some may regret that the Turkish Cypriots, one-fifth of the island's pop- ulalation, should have such importance, In view of the fact that they did not significantly participate in the re- sistance against the British "when the rock devoured the unjust mountain." There is bitterness over the fact that the Turkish Cypriots were boosted to equal' rank by the British policies of the 1950's, which sought to play one side off against the other. But the Turkish "awakening" is nevertheless a fact; the views of the Turkish Cypriots cannot be ignored. All parties must deal with the situation as It is rather than as it might have been which can also be said about our in- volvement in other parts of the world. Quiet reigns on the island today, an uneasy quiet. There have been few in- cidents during the past year. This can be attributed partly to the presence of the '7,000-man U.N. farce and partly also to the apparent belief by both sides that time favors them. The Turkish minority seems to feel that by staying in its enclaves it em- phasizes that the Turks cannot live peacefully among the Greeks and thus its demands for partition as the only solution is reinforced. The Greek ma- jority, with 80 percent of the population and even higher percentages of the wealth and the educated elite, controls the island's government and economy. They feel that they can afford to sit tight, and that eventually the Turks will decide to leave their enclaves. In my judgment, there is no early solu- tion in sight. What is clear is that no "agreement" is viable without the par- ticipation and approval of Archbishop Makarios. Indeed, now that Cyprus has become an internal political issue in Turkey, the views of the Turkish Cypri- ots must be taken very seriously in An- kara. Thus, there can be no bilateral Athens-Ankara agreement nor an agree- ment imposed by the great powers. This means that eventually there must be seri- ous talks between the Greek Cypriots and the Turkish Cypriots. Enosis is on the back burner, but even- tually it must be considered a likely de- velopment. It make take 5, 10, 20 or-50 years but it almost certainly will come to pass. After all, it was the drive for Enosis?together with a thirst for free- dom?that generated the revolt against the British. And Enosis remains in the hearts of the Greek Cypriots today. Nationalism is by far the strongest "ism" on the island. But it is a na- tionalism which yearns for attachment to the respective mainlands. Recent visi- tors to the island capital of Nicosia tell me that you see Greek flags and Turkish flags flying but the only Cyprus flag to be seen flies over the Cyprus museum. This indicates that the motherlands count for more with the people than any feeling of Cypriot nationhood. Indeed, It suggests that the Zurich Agreement making Cyprus an independent nation was only an unavoidable intermediate step. The United States must exercise tact and patience in exploring gently and cautiously the prospects for agreement. In this regard, Dean Acheson's 1964 efforts to mediate are to be commended. The temper of the participants and the course of events may some day reacti- vate his unofficial proposals as a basis for renewed negotiations. In general, Mr. Acheson suggested Enosis, with the renunciation of Turkish rights of intervention, in exchange for the leasing of a Turkish or NATO base on the island and the transfer of a small Island in the Dodecanese to Turkey. And what of the Soviet Union? The Russians have constantly shifted posi- tion, playing for their own personal ad- vantage. They support no alternative to instability. They shrink from Enosis, for it would bring NATO to Cyprus. They do not favor partition, for it would bring NATO to Cyprus twice. They are unlikely, therefore, to play a constructive role. Although no early solution is visible, things seem to be moving gradually in favor of Archbishop Makarios and the Greek population, which is overwhelm- ingly devoted to him. The main danger to peace, they feel, does not come from forces within the island, but from a Turkish government which may grow impatient and mount an invasion. A delicate waiting game is being played, edged in danger. Well-intentioned me- diators must tread softly. Secretary General U Thant, in his lat- est report on Cyprus, said in December 1965: The U.N. force is needed in Cyprus. It may be no exaggeration to say that it has become almost indispensable for the time being. On the other hand, it would seem clear that it cannot be kept there indefinitely; possibly not even for very much longer. Financial stringencies alone would probably dictate this, although there are other considerations which would make such a prolongation un- desirable * * * one of the latter being that overreliance on the United Nations to pre- vent recourse to armed force and even to help maintain the status quo could be a fac- tor in reducing the sense of urgency of the contending parties about seeking solutions for the underlying differences that caused the eruption of violence in the first place. U Thant also said that? The key to the settlement lies in the last analysis, with the parties primarily con- cerned. He expressed the conclusion that: Mediation in some form offers the main hope for a breakthrough to future harmony and tranquility in that troubled isle. In this context, the U.N. resolution is not decisive. It is a phase. The main Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 2668 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE February 9, 191;1; steps to eventual and permanent peace remain to be taken. We are all for self-determination. But how do we apply it? This is the chal- lenge to the patience and wisdom of all interested parties. GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. PUC1NSKI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and include extraneous mat- ter, and that all other Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on this subject. The SPEAKER pro tempore. With- out objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. THE JOHNSON-McNAMARA MISCAL- CULATION OF THE WAY TO BEAT VIETCONG GUERRILLAS AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. At- ma). Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from California I'Mr.. HosmEtt] is recognized for 25 minutes. Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, we now have almost, 300,000 fighting men in South Vietnam. The number is increas- ing rapidly. Soon it may reach half a million. Fast becoming apparent is the Probability of the United States getting bogged down in an Asian land war?the trap that delights the Communists of Peiping and Moscow alike?and is the very thing Gen. Douglas MacArthur warned against saying, "No sane men would get into a war like this." Although most Americans fly their flags high in support of the men fighting and dying in Vietnam, by the millions they are beginning to suspect something is tragically wrong with the way Presi- dent Join aeon and Secretary McNamara are running the war. It is an unconven- tional war. Its time and place were the choices of the enemy. Its war of libera- tion strategy and guerrilla tactics were chosen by the enemy. The Johnson- McNamara response to this unconven- tional challenge has been the troop build- up. In light of the MacArthur warning this may well be seen through Hanoi's eyes as Lo lie advantage, not to ours. 'elm reason is simple. Secretary Mc- Namara himself has declared that a 10 to 1 manpower superiority ratio is needed to overwhelm Vietcong guerrilla forces. It is estimated that at the beginning of this year some 225,000 Vietcong were in action. 'the Defense Secretary believes Hanoi is capable of sustaining up to 300,000 Vietcong in the field. Applica- tion of his 10 to 1 ratio reveals a need for 21/4 to 3 million men on our side fight- ing against them. Not over one-hail mil- lion of these ever are likely to be South Vietnamese troops. Few of our so-called allies are likely to come up with any sub- stantial manpower. The net result of calculations of this kind is that six to eight times the number of Americans fighting overseas at the height of the Korean war will be needed in Vietnam. Moreover, even if we achieved such a superiority ratio?which is highly un- likely on a regional basis, let alone throughout South Vietnam?there is a chapter in the guerrilla handbook which instructs the Vietcong exactly what to do. They are simply told to slip back up to the Ho Chi Minh Trail long enough to get us in a mood "to bring the boys home," then slip back down again the moment the ratio reduces to their favor and pursue their drive for conquest to success. If we are to achieve in Vietnam what- ever will legitimately pass for a victory, we cannot do it by playing patsy for the enemy's unconventional warf am strategy and ibactics. In the end it is sure to de- feat us, no matter what euphoric termi- nological inexactitudes the administra- tion uses to filter, flavor, disguise and de- odorize the outcome. An unconventional war must be fought uaconventionally if it is to be fought suc- cessfully. Last Monday I mentioned to the House a number of psychological warfare actions that might be productive in North Vietnam. Many of these might be put to effective use against the Viet- cong in the south. By strumming on the myths, superstitions and ignorance of the Vietcong their morale and will to fight can be damaged severely. Already we have in South Vietnam an intelligent and dedicated group of U.S. Information Agency and military experts trained and wise in the ways of psychological war. They are not getting the encouragement and not given the freedom to operate they should be. They should be un- leashed and enthusiastically financed and suniorted. In the past they have experienced difficulty even in getting nr-oe5,stiry aircraft to drop pamphlets and communicate recorded messages by laudsoiee kers. At the same time, President Johnson and Secretary McNamara?who are tightly running this war?must get re- leased from their self-hypnetic vision that the way to overcome guerrillas is to immobilize them beneath the sheer weight of vast numbers of Americans in uniform. The "10 to 1 technique" was used successfully by the British in Ma- laysia only because the number of guer- rillas was relatively small. Even there the successful outcome was due less to getting a heavy manpower superiority than it was to the fact that die British managed to develop dossiers on almost every last guerrilla. Many desosiers even included the subject's photogriph to fur- ther assist in the identification process. In short, the President and his Secre- tary have tragically miscalculated what it takes to defeat guerrillas, It is not principally numbers of antiguerrillas, but numbers in combination with identifica- tion of who the guerrillas are. Identifi- cation is the key factor because it denies guerrillas the use of guerrilla tactics and they just are not guerrillas anymore. 'rhe situation in Vietnam explains why. The Vietcong do not wear uni- forms. They never have. 'rhey never will. They wear the same "black pa- jama" costume all Vietnamese wear. They hide in the forests and rice paddies and in the mangrove swamps. Often our soldiers on land and sailors patrolling the inland waterways have no way to join battle with them except to discover their whereabouts by getting shot at, then firing back in the general direction from which the bullets are coming. The un- recognized Vietnamese walking past you in a village by day may be the Vietcong guerrilla attacking you by night Such attacks can, and do, occur almost any- where in South Vietnam. Vietnamese workers on a U.S. base may be the plastic explosives sabotage experts who infil- trate that base under cover of darknees to destroy our aircraft and blow up Americans--or even bicycle boldly up to a barracks in Saigon and bomb it. They successfully get away with their guerrilla tactics because it is difficult, if not impossible, to identify them. More often than not they slip away from the scene of their carnage for the same rea- son. As long ago as 1776 by cutting to pieces George III's Redcoated regulars Massachusetts guerrillas proved that "hit and hide" tactics are essential for a 10th-class power to bring a 1st-class power to its knees. If you let them get away with it by letting them keep on hiding, the same result can be expected in 19.66, a full 190 years later. It makes no sense whatever to neglect the use of any effective and civilized means there may be to identify the Viet- cong,. It only makes dead and wounded Americans. Yet a great hullabaloo went up when our commanders in Vietnam took the simple, humane initiative to use common teargas to flush guerrillas from hiding places. The use of this non- lethal and only temporarily disabling chemical 'was equated with the release by the Germans of deadly cruel and terrible gases during World War I. The resulting shock wave reverberated the Johnson-McNamara political antennae and almost prohibitive restrictions were slapped on the use of measures again it the Vietcom.7,, which any police chief can use against Americans in any city of the United States. Fortunately they have been eased somewhat. Tear gas has its specialized use and is not valuable as a generalized means of wide scale Vietcong identification. There are several ingenious, practical and rela- tively cheap and simple suggestions far going about this. I will discuss one of them today. It is the use of a harm:nes, long-lasting bright yellow dye to stain their clothing and their persons. Dyeing the Vietcong could, in the end, prove more effective than killing them. Throughout South Vietnam there is almost continuous bombing by aircraft of suspected Vietcong concentrations lo- cated by intelligence means. It can be seen frequently from the rooftops of Saigon. Last year 1 ton of bombs cost- ing about $2,500 per ton was dropped for every Vietcong in action. Not too many Vietcong are killed, even by colossal 111-52 raids, simply because it is blind, area bombing. The Vietcong cannot be seen beneath a cover of tropical growth. A clever effort to locate and bomb them around their hidden cooking fires at mealtime using infrared heat detectors was quickly foiled. The Vietcong simply began lighting a large number of fires and cooking over only a few of them. If instead of dropping TNT bombs over an area, an equal tonnage of dye were dropped, it would not be possible for the Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 1001010M, WV, February 9, 19Approved For Relltaggsf8K/A0f/R:c9MD_Pg/giojefeR000400020005-1 66c CONG man Act. The three banks not ex- empted by the bill would be measurably helped by a new uniform test that does not put all of the eggs in the antitrust basket. One of those is the State of my dis- tinguished friend from Missouri, one is Tennessee, and another is California. Those three banks merged after the deci- sion of the court. They knew they were subject to the antitrust laws. The De- partment said, "Do not merge." They merged. The House said, "You will have to fight it out in court." In connection with the merger which occurred in the State of my distinguished friend from Missouri, it appears to me that the Department of Justice might well reexamine its decision to bring this suit, particularly in the light if the new standards provided in the bill for judg- ing the propriety of bank mergers. In the House committee report, which I obtained unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD yesterday for the information of the Senate, the commit- tee expressed its deep concern over the manner in which that case was handled. The facts which caused the committee to express its concern are set forth in de- tail in the supplemental views of the Congressman from Missouri. I 'share that concern. Mr. HOLLAND. What is the situation with respect to others that merged prior to that time? Mr. ROBERTSON. They are all in the clear under the proposed bill. Mr. HOLLAND. The mergers will be viewed as an accomplished fact, not- withstanding any difference of opinion in the Department of Justice? Mr. ROBERTSON. The Senator is correct. There is no statute of limita- tions. They cannot go back on it under the bill. Mr. HOLLAND. I thank the Senator. I believe that is the salutary part of the bill. There has been much confusion, great expense, and great difficulty occa- sioned by what has seemed to be the picayunish position of the Antitrust Division. Mr. ROBERTSON. I wish to express my heartfelt appreciation for the fine tribute given me by the Senator from Texas and others for my work in con- nection with this legislation. Really, it has been more than a matter of months; it goes back to 1956, when I worked with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT]. At that time we were able to get a bill through the Senate, but could not get it through the House. The Senator from Arkansas then left the Committee on Banking and Currency to become chair- man of the Committee on Foreign Relations. I sponsored a bill in 1959. It passed both bodies in 1960. We thought the issue had been settled, but the Supreme Court unsettled it. Then I sponsored one bill last year, and we have been working with it ever since ',thank the members of the Committee on Banking and Currency for the fine support they have given me on the bill. I thank the members of the House Com- mittee on Banking and Currency for agreeing on a bill, because, as the Sen- ator from Florida [Mr. HoLLANal says, this is a very vital matter, one which is necessary to set some disputed points at rest. I commend the House for passing the bill by an almost unanimous vote. And I want to pay a special tribute to Congressman ASHLEY of Ohio for his work in connection with this bill. His untiring and constructive efforts have brought about the virtual unanimity in the House Committee and the House itself. I commend the friendly spirit of my colleagues on the committee who did not want to kill the bill, but who did think there should be some changes in it. After making their position clear, they said they would not go to the point of filibustering against the bill or trying to kill it. I pay special thanks to the distin- guished minority leader [Mr. DIRKSEN] for arranging to bring the bill up today. I do not have words at my command to thank the distingiushed Senator from Utah [Mr. BENNETT], who IS the rank- ing Republican member of the commit- tee. I really do not know how I could function without him. I never make a move without first asking his advice. He is a wonderful, able man, sound in his views. It is a great pleasure to work on a committee with a man like the Senator from Utah. Mr. President, I renew my motion that the Senate concur in the amendment of the House to the Senate bank merger bill. The motion was agreed to. Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I move that the Senate reconsider the vote by which the motion to concur in the amendment of the House was agreed to. Mr. TOWER. 'Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. pi The motion to lay on the on was agreed to. THE ILLEGALITY OF THE UNDE- CLARED WAR IN VIETNAM?THE ANSWER OF THE SPECIAL LAW- YERS' COMMITTEE Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, in the last 2 years while I have stood shoul- der to shoulder with the able and dis- tinguished senior Senator from Oregon [Mr. MoasE] in opposing U.S. military involvement in Vietnam, we have re- peatedly asserted that the United States Is there engaged in an undeclared war? a war contrary to the express provisions of our Constitution. Last September Senator MORSE and I invited the attention of the Senate to a memorandum of law prepared by a num- ber of eminent and learned lawyers, grouped together in a Lawyers' Commit- tee on American Policy Toward Viet- nam, which fully supported our ques- tioning the legality, under the Constitu- tion, of our military activities in Viet- nam. Among those endorsing the memoran- dum of law are Profs. Quincy Wright, of the University of Virginia; Wolfgang Friedmann, of Columbia University; 2551 Thomas I. Emerson, of Yale; Richard A. Palk, of Princeton; Norman Malcolm, of Cornell; D. P. Fleming, of Vanderbilt; David Haber, of Rutgers; Roy M. Mersky, of the University of Texas; William G. Rice, of the University of Wisconsin; Chancellor Robert M. MacIver, of the New School for Social Research; Profs. Robert C. Stevenson, of Idaho State Uni- versity; Alexander W. Rudzinski, of Col- umbia; Darrell Randell, of the American University in Washington, D.C., and Profs. Wallace McClure and William W. Van Alstyne, both from Duke University and the World Rule of Law Center. The lawyers' committee itself is headed by an able and distinguished lawyer, the former attorney general of the State of California, the Honorable Robert W. Kenny, as honorary chairman. On January 25, 1966, the lawyers' committee sent that memorandum of law to the President saying in part: The rule of law is the essential foundation of stability and order, both between socie- ties and in international relations. When we violate the law ourselves, we cannot ex- pect respect for the rule of law by others. Our present unilateral intervention is an offense, we submit, against the spirit of American institutions. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the lawyers' committee and the memorandum of law on American policy toward Vietnam be printed in the RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks. There being no objection, the letter and memorandum were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: LAWYERS COMMITTEE ON AMERICAN POLICY TOWARD VIETNAM, New York, N.Y., January 25, 1966, Hon. LYNDON B. JOHNSON, President of the United States, Washington, D.C. Mr. PRESIDENT: Following the issuance by the Department of State in March 1965 of a memorandum captioned "Legal Basis for U.S. Actions Against North Vietnam", our committee, in consultation with leading au- thorities in the fields of international law and constitutional law, undertook to re- search the legal issues, culminating in the memorandum of law (here enclosed) . Our committee's memorandum of law has been endorsed, among others, by Profs. Quin- cy Wright of the University of Virginia, Wolf- gang Friedmann of Columbia University, Thomas I. Emerson of Yale, Richard A. Falk of Princeton, Norman Malcolm of Cornell, D. F. Fleming of Vanderbilt, David Haber of Rutgers, Roy M. Mersky of the University of Texas, William G. Rice of the University of Wisconsin, Chancellor Robert M. MacIver of the New School for Social Research, Prof. Robert C. Stevenson of Idaho State Univer- sity, Alexander W. Rudzinski of Columbia, Darrell Handel' of the American University in Washington, D.C., and Profs. Wallace Mc- Clure and William W. Van Alstyne, both from Duke University and the World Rule of Law Center. For the reasons documented in our mem- orandum our committee has reached the regrettable but inescapable conclusion that the actions of the United States in Vietnam contravene the essential provisions of the United Nations Charter, to which we are bound by treaty; violate the Geneva Accords, which we pledged to observe; are not sanc- tioned by the treaty creating the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization; and violate our own Constitution and the system of checks and balances which is the heart of it, by the prosecution of the war in Vietnam without a congressional, declaration of war. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 2552 Approved For MinetrAl NR/B Bez5Z6711(104rE000400020y0e6-1 b ry 9, 1966 The principal argument advanced in the State Department's memorandum is that our Government's action in Vietnam is justified under article 51 of the United Nations Charter sanctioning "individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations". However, South Vietnam is indisputably not a member of the United Nations and, indeed, under the Geneva accords of 1954, is merely a temporary zone. Moreover, since the Geneva accords recognized an of Vietnam as a single state, the conflict in Vietnam is civil strife and foreign intervention is forbidden. We do well to recall that President Lincoln, in the course of our Civil War to preserve the union of the North and the South, vigorously opposed British and French threats to inter- vene in behalf of the independence of the Confederacy. In addition, the right of collective self- defense under article 51 is limited to those nations which are within a regional com- munity which history and geography have developed into a regional collective defense system. The United States?a country sepa- rated by oceans and thousands of miles from southeast Ada and lacking historical or ethnic connections with the peoples of that area?cannot qualify as a bona fide member of a regional collective defense system for southeast Asia. The State Department's memorandum also contends that the actions of the United States "being defensive in character and de- signed to resist armed aggression, are wholly consistent with the purposes and principles of the charter and specifically with article 2, paragraph 4." Yet article 2, paragraph 4 de- clares in clear and unambiguous -language that "All members shall refrain In their in- ternational relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the pur- poses of the United Nations". The State Department's memorandum also. attempts to justify our Government's ac- tions in Vietnam on the ground that the "North Vietnamese have repeatedly violated the 1954 Geneva accords." But this state- ment ignores our Government's antecedent violations of the pledges we made. On July 21, 1954, Under Secretary of State Walter Bedell Smith in a declaration confirmed by President Eisenhower, pledged that our Gov- ernment would not "disturb" the Geneva ac- cords and would "not join in an arrangement which would hinder" the rights of peoples "to determine their own future." However? the United States departed from these pledges when on July 16, 1955, the Diem re- gime announced, with American backing, that it would defy the provision calling for national elections, thus violating the central condition which had made the Geneva ac- cords acceptable to the Vietminh. And the United States also chose to ignore the ban on the introduction of troops, military per- sonnel, arms and munitions into Vietnam and the prohibition against the establish- ment of new military bases in Vietnam ter- ritory?provisions set out in the Geneva ac- cords. It is a historical fact that the re- fusal to hold the elections prescribed by the Geneva accords coupled with the reign of terror and suppression instituted by the Diem regime precipitated the civil war. In the light of the foregoing, more fulfy detailed and documented in the enclosed memorandum, we submit, Mr. President, that the State Department has incorrectly ad- vised you as to the legality of U.S. actions against Vietnam. We further submit, Mr. President, that the frequent citation of the pledges given by Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy to aid South Vietnam afford no justification for U.S. intervention in Vietnam. President Eisenhower has stated that his administra- tion had made no commitment to South Vietnam "in terms of military support on programs whatsoever." President Kennedy insisted that the war in Vietnam was "their war" and promised only equipment and mil- itary advisers. Hence the historical facts fail to support the point advanced. Beyond this, these Presidential pledges do not even have the status of treaties, not having been ratified by the Senate. Manifestly, the ob- ligations assumed by our Government under the United Nations Charter with the advice and consent of the Senate, transcend any Presidential pledge undertaken vis-a-vis the South Vietnamese regime. Our Government has often urged that our presence in South Vietnam is solely ;to pre- serve freedom for its people and to uphold the democratic process. Yet the series of regimes supported by the United States in South Vietnam have been authoritarian in character, quite without popular support and largely indifferent to the welfere of the local population. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, on June 30? 1964, commenting on the consequences of massive American involve- ment in Vietnam, stated, "Well, that means we become a colonial power and I think it's been pretty well established that colonial- ism is over. I believe that if you start doing that you will get all kinds of unfortunate re- sults: you'll stir up antiforeign feeling; there'll be a tendency to lay back and let the Americans do it and all that I can't think that it's a good thing to do. As we have stated, our committee has also come to the painful conclusion that our Gov- ernment's action in Vietnam violates the clear provision of our Constitution which vests in Congress exclusively the power to de- clare war?a power not constinutionally granted to the President. The debates in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia make explicitly clear that warmaking was to be a purely legislative prerogative and the President was not to have the power to wage a war or commit our Nation to the waging of a war, although the Executive was in- tended to have the power to repel sudden attacks. In pointing out that the President lacks constitutional power to make war, our com- mittee does not imply that a declaration of war by the Congress is desirable. Rather, we mean to point out that the failure to abide and conform to the provisions of our Consti- tution inevitably lead to tragic situations. In alerting the American people to the un- constitutionality of the war being waged in Vietnam, we are following the example foie- lowed by Abraham Lincoln who, in a speech made on January 12, 1848, before the House of Representatives opposing the war under- taken by President Polk, set out the reasons which impelled him to vote for a resolution which declared that "the war with Mexico was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President." Our committee conducted its research be- cause of a deep sense of responsibility as members of the bar and because of our dedi- cation to the principle of world peace through law. It was the American lawyers who conceived and nurtured this principle, and after holding conferences on four con- tinents (San Jose, Costa Rica; Tokyo, Japan; Lagos, Nigeria; Rome, Italy), finally convened the First World Conference on World Peace Through Law at Athens, Greece, in July 1963. In the proclamation of Athens, the decla- ration of general principles for a world rule of law, among other things, declered that, "All obligations under international law must be fulfilled and all rights thereunder must be exercised in good faith." Mr. President, we submit that our Govern- ment's intervention in Vietnam falls far short of the declaration of principles at Athens, Greece, in July 1963, and 11; in viola- tion of international agreements. The rule of law is the essential foundation of stability and os-del', both between societies and in in- ternational relations. When we violate the law ourselves, we cannot expect respect for the rule' oflaw by others. Our present uni- lateral intervention is an offense, we submit against the spirit of American institutions. As lawyers, we feel that the national inter- est is best served?indeed, it can only be served?by (a.) a commitment that our Gov- ermnent will be bound by and implement the principles of the Genera accords of 1954, and that the main provisions thereof be the basis for the establishment of an independ- ent, unified, neutral Vietnam; (b) an invoca- tion of the provisions of the United Nations Charter to assure peace in southeast Asia; and (c) a declaration that there will be no further bombing of Vietnam, that we will agree to a cease-fire, and publicly declare that the United States is willing to nego- tiate directly with the National Liberation Front?a point endorsed by leading Senators and Secretary General Thant and mandated by article 33 of the United Nations Charter requiring that "The parties to any dis- pute * * * shall first of all, seek a solution by negotiatio:n * * ? or other peaceful means of their own choice," and that all elements of the South Vietnamese people should be represented in that country's postwar gov- ernment. Respectfully yours, ROBERT W. KENNY, Honorary Chairman. WILLIAM L. STANDARD, Chairman. AMERICAN POLICY VIS-A-VIS VIETNAM, IN LIGHT OF OUR CONSTITUTION, THE: UNITED NATIONS C HARTER, THE 1954 GEN EVA AC- CORDS, AND THE SOUTHEAST ASIA COLLECTIVE DEFENSE TREATY MEMORANDUM OF LAW (Prepared by Lawyers Committee on Ameri- can Policy Toward Vietnam, Hon. Robert W. Kenny, Honorary Chairman) Executive committee: William L. Stand- ard. chairman; Carey McWilliams, vice chairman; Joseph H. Crown, secretary. Lawyers Committee on American Policy Toward Vietnam, 38 Park Row, New York, N.Y. AMERICAN POLICY VIS-A-VIS VIETNAM The justification of American involvement* in Vietnam has troubled lawyers in the light of the literal language of our Constitu- tion and the United Nations Charter. Though the United States initially entered South Vietnam only to advise, American troops, now numbering 125,000, have moved from a passive to an active combat role. American forces have mounted repeated air strikes against targets in North Vietnam. Is such action, raising the threat of large-scale war, consonant with our Constitution, our Obligations under the United Nations Char- ter, the provisions of the southeast Asia col- lective defense treaty? Observance of the rule of law is a basic tenet of American democracy. Hence it is fitting that American lawyers examine the action pursued by your Government to deter- __ _ *For a historical background, see "Rob- ert Scheer, "How the United States Got In- volved in Vietnam" (A Report to the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions, Post Office Box 4068, Santa Barbara, Calif., 93103); sample copy free. President Johnson, in his news confer- ence of July 29, 1965, stated: "I have today ordered to Vietnam the Air Mobile Division and certain other forces which will raise our fighting strength from 75,000 to 125,000 men almost immediately. Additional forces will be needed later, and they will be sent as requested." (Presiden- tial Documents, vol. 1, No. I, p. 15, Aug. 2, 1965.) Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 ,Ifvfmswiffringrwwwwww.p...umweemmwwwwwwwwwweINNIMORINNIIIIPFINSIONVOINIMAIRRIPPAIIIIMFMMilmm 000400020005-1 February 9 , 1 9PAP "wed FcMINSMICA2VratiVIMMIR 2553 mine whether our Government's conduct is justified under the rule of law man,clated by the United Nations Charter, a charter adopt- ed to banish from the earth the scourge of war. We shall explore and assess the grounds advanced to justify the course of conduct pursued by our Government vis-a-vis Viet- nam. In section I, we examine American policy in the light of the United Nations; in section II, in the light of the Geneva accords and the southeast Asia collective defense treaty; and in sections III-IV in the light of our Constitution. Mindful of the grave im- portance of the issues, we have exercised the maximum diligence in the preparation of this memorandum which is fully documented. 1. The United States in Vietnam: The United Nations Charter The charter of the United Nations was signed on behalf of the United States on June 26, 1945, by the President of the United States, and was ratified on July 28, 1945, by the Senate.6 Thus, the United States be- came a signatory to the charter, along with 55 other nations (there are now 114), obligat- ing itself to outlaw war, to refrain from the unilateral use of force against other nations, and to abide by the procedures embodied in the charter for the settlement of differences between States. In essence, the obligations assumed by member nations under the United Nations Charter represent the princi- ples of international law which govern the conduct of members of the United Nations and their legal relations. The Charter of the United Nations is a presently effective treaty binding upon the Government of the United States because it is the "supreme law of the land." 9 Indeed, the charter constitutes the cornerstone of a world system of nations which recognize that peaceful relations, devoid of any use of force or threats of force, are the fundamental legal relations between nations. The following provisions of the charter are relevant: (a) "All members shall refrain in their in- ternational relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state or in any other manner inconsistent with the pur- poses of the United Nations" (ch. I, art. XI(4) ). (b) "The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression, and shall make recommendations or shall decide what measures shall be taken * * * to main- tain or restore international peace and se- curity." (Ch. VII, 39.) 9 See Historical Note under title 22, United States Code, sec. 287. By the act of Dec. 20, 1945, c. 583, 59 Stat. 019 (22 U.S.C. 287- 287e) , Congress enacted "The United Nations Participation Act of 1945," em- powering the President to appoint represen- tatives to the United Nations and to render various forms of assistance to the United Nations and the Security Council under specified terms and conditions. 3 The treaties to which the United States is a signatory are a part of the fundamental law, binding upon all officials and all govern- mental institutions. Art. I, sec. 2, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution confers power upon the President to make treaties with the con- currence of two-thirds of the Senate. Art. VI, clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution provides that treaties so made, together with the Constitution and the laws of the United States made pursuant thereto, are "the Supreme Law of the Land." Missouri v. ;Holland, 252 U.S. 416, 432-434; Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 62-63; United States v. Pink, 315 'U.S. 203, 230-231; Clark v. Allen, 331 U.S. 503-508. No. 22-10 It is thus plain that signatory members of the United Nations Charter are barred from resorting to force unilaterally and that only the Security Council is authorized to deter- mine the measures to be taken to maintain or restore international peace (apart from the question as to whether or not the Gen- eral Assembly has any residual authority by virtue of the "Uniting for Peace" resolution for this purpose when the Security Council is unable to meet its responsibilities) .4 It may be recalled that in 1956, Israel jus- tified its attack on the Egyptian forces in the Sinai Peninsula "as security measures to eliminate the Egyptian Fedayeen 'com- mando' bases in the Sinai Peninsula from which raids had been launched across the Israel! frontier." Starke, "Introduction to International Law," fourth edition, London, 1958, at page 83 et seq. When Great Britain and France introduced their troops into the Sinai Peninsula, under claim of a threat to their vital interests, the "preponderant reaction of the rest of the world was to condemn this action as inter alia, a breach of the United Nations Charter." Starke, "Introduction to International Law," fourth edition, London, 1958, at pages 85-88. When the Soviet Union suggested a joint military operation with the United States to restore the peace in the Middle East, Secre- tary of State John Foster Dulles, rejected this proposal as "unthinkable" (New York Times, Nov. 6, 1956). Dulles declared: "Any intervention by the United States and/or Russia, or any other action, except by a duly constituted United Nations peace force would be counter to everything the General Assembly and the Secretary General of the United Nations were charged by the charter to do in order to secure a United Nations police cease-fire." At a news conference on November 8, 1956, President Eisenhower, answering an an- nouncement of the Soviet Union at that time, declared that the United States would oppose the dispatch of Russian "volunteers" to aid Egypt, saying that it would be the duty of all United Nations members, including the United States, under the clear mandate of the United Nations Charter to counter any Soviet military intervention in the Middle East. The President said: "The United Nations is alone charged with the responsibility of securing the peace in the Middle East and throughout the world." United Nations Action in the Suez Crisis. Tulane Studies in Political Science, volume IV entitled "International Law in the Middle East Crisis." To the fundamental substantive and pro- cedural requirements and conditions vesting sole authority in the United Nations to authorize utilization of force, there are only two exceptions set forth in the charter. The first exception is found in article 51 of chap- ter 7: "Nothing in the present charter shall im- pair the inherent right of individual or col- lective self-defense If an armed attack oc- curs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken meas- ures to maintain international peace and security," Article 51 of the charter marked a serious restriction on the traditional right of self- defense. As was stated by Prof. Philip C. Jessup in his work, "A Modern Law of Na- tions," published in 1947 (at pp. 165-166) : "Article 51 of the charter suggests a fur- ther limitation on the right of self-defense: it may be exercised only 'if an armed at- tack occurs.' * * * This restriction in article 51 very definitely narrows the freedom of action which states had under traditional The constitutional validity of the "Uniting for Peace" resolution adopted in 1950, is disputed. law. A case could be made out for self- defense under the traditional law where the injury was threatened but no attack had yet taken place. Under the charter, alarming military preparations by a neighboring state would justify a resort to the Security Coun- cil, but would not justify resort to anticipa- tory force by the state which believed itself threatened." 5 The traditional right of self-defense, even prior to the adoption of the United Nations charter, was limited. As stated by Secretary of State Daniel Webster in the Caroline case,6 and as adopted in the Neurenberg Judgment in 1945, any resort to armed force in self-defense must be confined to cases in which "the necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming and leaving no choice of means and no moment of delibera- tion." 7 In expressly limiting independent military action to instances of armed attack, the founding nations explicitly and implicitly rejected the right to the use of force based on the familiar claim of "anticipatory self- defense," or "intervention by subversion," or "pre-emptive armed attack to forestall threatened aggression," and similar rationale. Such concepts were well known to the founding nations if only because most of the wars of history had been fought under banners carrying or suggesting these slogans. More importantly for our purposes here, however, the United States was aware of these precepts before the Senate ratified the United Nations Charter and consciously ac- quiesced in their rejection as a basis for in- dependent armed intervention), It has been authoritatively said that the exceptional circumstances stipulated in ar- ticle 51 are "clear, objective, easy to prove and difficult to misinterpret or to fabricate' .6 The wording was deliberately and carefully chosen.10 Hence article 51 can under no circum- stances afford a justification for U.S. inter- vention in Vietnam, since the Saigon regime is indisputably not a member of the United Nations and, indeed, under the Geneva Ac- cords of 1954, South Vietnam is merely a temporary zone not even qualifying politi- cally as a state (See Section II infra), even if it be assumed that an "armed attack," 61n support of his views, Professor Jessup noted: "The documentary record of the discus- sions at San Francisco does not afford con- clusive evidence that the suggested inter- pretation of the words 'armed attack' in Ar- ticle 51 is correct, but the general tenor of the discussions, as well as the careful choice of words throughout Chapters VI and VII of the Charter relative to various stages of ag- gravation of dangers to the peace, support the view stated." (Jessup, "A Modern Law of Nations," p. 166.) 6 See, Louis Henkin (Professor of Law and International Law and Diplomacy, Columbia University), 57 "American Society of Inter- national Law Proceedings," 1963, at p. 152, Moore's "Digest of International Law," vol. II, p.412. 7 Henkin, ibid. 6 Hearings on U.N. Chaster, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 79th Cong., 1st sess., July 9-13, 1915, at p. 210. 9 Henkin, ibid. 10 11 ? * * at the Conference itself, every word, every sentence, every paragraph of the Charter's text was examined and reconsid- ered by the representatives of 50 nations and much of it reworked." (Report to the Presi- dent on the results of the San Francisco Con- ference [by the Chairman of the U.S. Dele- gation, i.e., the Secretary of State, June 26, 1945), hearings on U.N. Charter, Commit- tee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 79th Cong., 1st sees., at p.41.) Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 2554 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - ? SENATE February 9, 1966 within the meaning of article 51, has oc- curred against South Vietnam. For, as has been shown, article 51 is operative only in the event of "an armed attack against a member of the United Nations." Hence, neither the right of individual self-defense nor the right of collective 11 self-defense can become operative. It has been claimed that United States in- tervention in Vietnam is sanctioned under article 51 on the ground (1) that South Vietnam is an independent state; (2) that South Vietnam had been the victim of an armed attack from North Vietnam and (3) that the United States, with the consent of South Vietnam. was engaging in "collective self-defense" of that country, as claimed by the United States in a communication to the United Nations Security Council in March, 1965 (U.N. Chronicle, vol. 2, p. 22). To sus- tain this claim, all three elements must be satisfied. This claim is untenable, however, on sev- eral grounds. First, South Vietnam was not recognized as an independent state at the 1954 Geneva Conference (see sec. II, infra) . Even if it had became a de facto state in the course of events since 1954, the infiltration from North Vietnam cannot be deemed to constitute an "armed attack" within the purview of article 51. Since the Geneva Accords recognized all of Vietnam as a single state, the conflict whether of the Vietcong or Ho Chi Minh against South Vietnam is "civil strife" and foreign intervention is forbidden, because civil strife is a domestic question?a posi- tion insisted upon by the United States in its Civil War of 1861. Ho Chi Minh can com- pare his position in demanding union of Vietnam with that of Lincoln. when Britain and France were threatening to intervene to assure the independence of the Confederacy (and with the added point that the national elections mandated for 1956 in the Geneva Accords were frustrated by South Vietnam with appare:nt support of the United States; see sec. II, infra). Nor should it be over- looked that Lincoln had very little support from the people of the South, who generally supported the Confederacy, while Ho Chi Minh has a great deal of support from the people in South Vietnam organized in the National Liberation Front whose military arm is the Vietcong. There is, therefore, a basic issue whether the hostilities in Viet- nam constitute external aggression (by North Vietnam) or "civil strife." Here it should be noted that the United Nations is author- ized to intervene where civil strife threatens international peace, as the United Nations did in the Congo, in accord with article 39 of the charter?but individual states are not permitted to intervene unilaterally. The third element requisite for the invoca- tion of the right of collective self-defense under Article 51 presupposes that the na- tions invoking such right are properly mem- bers of a regional collective system within the purview of the United Nations Charter. The point here involved is: Can the United States validly be a genuine member of a re- gional system covering southeast Asia? Arti- cle 51 and Article 53, dealing with regional systems, were interrelated amendatory pro- visions intended primarily to integrate the Inter-American system with the United Na- tions organization (see In. 8, 13, 15). The concept that the United States?a country separated by oceans and thousands of miles from southeast Asia and bereft of any his- torical or ethnic connection with the peoples of southeast Asia?could validly be con- sidered a member of a regional system im- planted in southeast Asia 113 utterly alien to the regional systems envisaged in the charter. The "Southeast Asia Collec- ,11;upra. tive Defense Treaty"?connecting the United States with southeast Asia, archi- tectured by Secretary of State Dulles, is a legalistic artificial formulation to circum- vent the fundamental limitations placed by the United Nations Charter on unilateral actions by individual members. However ingenuous?or disingenuous?the Dulles ap- proach, SEATO is a caricature of the genuine regional systems envisaged by the U.N. Char- ter. A buffalo cannot be transformed into a giraffe however elongated its neck may be stretched. The Dulles approach to collec- tive defense treaties employed legal artifice to circumvent the exclusive authority vested in the United Nations to deal with breaches in the peace. .Articles 51 and 53 were in- tended to make a bona fide integration of regional systems of cooperation with the world system of international security?but these envisaged regional systems which his- torically and geographically developed into a regional community?not contemplating a regional system which fused a region like southeast Asia with a country on the North American Continent. SEATO is not a re- gional agency within the letter or spirit of the U.N. Charter as to authorize the United States to claim the right of collective self- defense even if there had been an armed attack on a member of the United Nations geographically located in southeast Asia. If artifices like SEATO were sanctioned, the path would be open for the emasculation of the United Nations organization and the world system of international security as- siduously developed to prevent the scourge of war. Hence article 51 cannot be properly in- voked for (1) South Vietnam does not have the political status of a state; (21 even if South Vietnam were deemed a de facto state, the infiltrations do not constitute an "armed attack" within the purview of article 51; and (3) the United States cannot claim the right of "collective self-defense" in respect of a regional system involving southeast Asia. Apart from article 51 (inapplicable to the situation here), the only other exception to the renunciation of the "threat or use of force" by member states is found in chapter VIII of the charter dealing with regional arrangements. Article 53 of said chapter contains two paragraphs of particular significance: (a) "The Security Council shall, where ap- propriate, utilize such regional arrangements ' or agencies for enforcement action under its authority. But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council, with the exception of measures against an enemy state, as defined in paragraph 2 of this article." (Ch. VII, art. 53(1) ). Paragraph two of that article provides: (b) "The term enemy state as used in para- graph 1 of this article applies to any state which during the Second World War has been an enemy of any signatory of the pres- ent charter." With respect to regional arrangements therefore, it is clear that no eniorcement action may be undertaken without the au- thorization of the Security Council of the United Nations, save and except in only one instance; against any state which, during World War II, was an enemy of any of the chartera to wit, Germany, Italy and Japan. Since Vietnam was manifestly not an "enemy state" within the purview of article 53(b), enforcement action under SEATO is unau- " The reason for this exception appears clear. When the charter was signed in San Francisco on June 26, 1945, peace treaties had not yet been finally signed by the allied nations with each of the enemy states. Rep- arations, sanctions, territorial changes, had thorized and cannot be justified in view of the express restrictions set out under article 53(a) of the United Nations Charter. In summary, the United Nations obligates all of its signatory members to re- frain from the threat or use of force, and only the Security Council (apart from the residual authority (see footnote 4) granted the General Assembly under the "uniting for peace" resolution) is authorized to deter- mine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace or act of aggression and to determine the measures to be taken to maintain or restore international peace. To these salient provisions, there are only two exceptions: the first, the right to self-de- fense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations; and, the second, the right of nations to enter into appropriate ''regional arrangements," sub- ject, however, to the provision that no en- forcement action shall be taken under such arrangements without the authorization of the Security Council, the only exception to the latter requirement being with respect to measures against an enemy state, as defined in the charter. We have shown that none of the afore- stated exceptions can be invoked by the U.S. Government with respect to its conduct in Vietnam. It follows therefore that the fun- damental requirements of the United Nations Charter with respect to the renunciation of force and the threat of force are directly applicable to the actions of the United States. One other noteworthy charter provision is article 103 which subordinates all regional and treaty compacts to the United Nations Charter. "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the pres- ent charter shall prevail." (Ch. XVI, art. 103). This supremacy clause was drafted to meet the predictable reassertion of dominance by the great powers within their respective geographic zones or hemispheres. Because of the unhappy history of a world frag- mented by such "spheres of influence," the supremacy clause and the restrictions on the use of force under regional agreements emerge as limitations upon the superpowers even within their own geographic zones. It is significant that the United States not only accepted these limitations, but actively supported their incorporation within the chartera3 not then been finalized. And so, in order to permit necessary flexibility in these respects, this sharply limited exception, permitting ac- tion against an enemy state in World War II by an allied government, was spelled out. 13 Hearings on U.N. Charter, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 79th Cong. 1st sess., supra, n. 6, at p. 306. On May 15, 1945, Secretary of State Stet- tinus issued a statement at the San Fran- cisco Conference regarding the Act of Cha- pultepec vis-a-vis the United Nations or- ganization which declared (so far as here pertinent); Hearings on U.N. Charter, op. cit., p. 306; "As a result of discussions with a number of interested delegations, proposals will be made to clarify in the charter the relation- ship of regional agencies and collective ar- rangements to the world organization. "These proposals will? "1. Recognize the paramount authority of the world organization in all enforcement action. "2. Recognize that the inherent right of self-defense, either individual or collective, Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 118111N.911, nice February 9, 9, ARroved For551wAIMD.6/29 ? GIA7RDP67B00446R000400020005-1 NAL RECORD -- SENATE 2555 Article 103 makes clear that the obligations of the United Nations Charter prevail vis-a- vis the obligations of the SEATO treaty. Indeed, article VI of the SEATO expressly recognizes the supremacy of the United Na- tions Charter (see sec. II, infra). Moreover the frequent citation by President Johnson of the pledges given by Presidents Eisen- hower, Kennedy, and himself to aid South Vietnam afford no justification for U.S. inter- vention in Vietnam." In the first place, these pledges or commitments do not even have the status of treaties, for these Presi- dential pledges have not been ratified by the Senate. And even if these Presidential pledges had been solemnly ratified by the Senate, any obligations- thereunder must yield to the obligations imposed under the United Nations Charter by virtue of the supremacy clause embodied in article 103. remains unimpaired in case the Security Council does not maintain international peace and security and an armed attack aaginst a member state occurs. Any meas- ures of self-defense shall immediately be reported to the Security Council and shall in no way affect the authority and responsi- bility of the Council under the charter to take at any time such action as it may deem necessary to maintain or restore interna- tional peace and security. "3. Make more clear that regional agencies will be looked to as an important way of settling local disputes by peaceful means." The first point is already dealt with by the provision of the Dumbarton Oaks pro- posals (ch. VIII, sec. C, par. 2) which pro- vides that no enforcement action will be taken by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council. It is not proposed to change this language. The second point will be dealt with by an addition to chapter VIII of a new section substantially as follows: "Nothing in this chapter impairs the in- herent right of self-defense, either individ- ual or collective, in the event that the Secu- rity Council does not maintain international peace and security and an armed attack against a member state occurs. Measures taken in the exercise of this right shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under this charter to take at any time such action as it may deem necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security." The third point would be dealt with by inclusion of a specific reference to regional agencies or arrangements in chapter VIII, sec. A, par. 3, describing the methods whereby parties to a dispute should, first of all, seek a peaceful solution by means of their own choice. The United States delegation believes that proposals as above outlined if adopted by the Conference would, with the other relevant provisions of the projected charter, make possible a useful and effective integration of regional systems of cooperation with the world system of international security. This applies with particular significance to the long established inter-American sys- tem. "President Johnson, in his news confer- ence of July 28, 1965, declared: "Moreover, we are in Vietnam to fulfill one of the most solemn pledges of the American Nation. Three Presidents-President Eisen- hower, President Kennedy, and your present President-over 11 years have committed themselves and have promised to help de- fend this small and valiant nation" (Presi- dential Documents, vol. 1, No. 1, p. 15). President Eisenhower has stated that his administration had made no commitment to South Vietnam "in terms of military a-import on programs whatsoever" (the New York Times, Aug. 18, 1965, p. 1). Nor would the illegality of U.S. intervention in Vietnam be altered by the circumstance that the Saigon regime may have invited the United States to assume its role in the Viet- nam conflict. The supremacy clause of the charter manifestly prevails and cannot be annulled by mutual agreement of third parties. It is by virtue of the supremacy clause that the Secretary General of the United Nations has called the world's attention to the emasculation of the authority of the United Nations resulting from actions taken by regional agencies without reference to the Security Council. We believe that any fair study of the United Nations Charter will affirm the ob- servations of Prof. Lewis Henkin, of Co- lumbia University, when he speaks "of the law of the charter": "So far as it purports to prescribe for the conduct of nations, it consists, basically, of one principle: Except in self-defense against armed attack, members must refrain from the threat or use of force against other states * * " the rule of the charter against unilateral force in international relations is the essence of any meaningful concept of law between nations and the foundation on which rests all other attempts to regulate international behavior. It is a rule which all nations have accepted and which all have a common interest essential to law." It appears difficult to escape the conclu- sion therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, that the action of the U.S. Government in Vietnam controvenes essential provisions of the United Nations Charter. The U.S. Gov- ernment has decided for itself to use armed forces in South Vietnam and to bomb North Vietnam without authorization of the Se- curity Council or the General Assembly of the United Nations. The failure of the United States to honor its obligations under the United Nations Charter is a regrettable but inescapable conclusion which we as law- yers have been compelled to reach. We, as lawyers, urge our President to accept the ob- ligations for international behavior placed upon us by our signature of the United Na- tions Charter. II. The United States in Vietnam.' The 1954 Geneva Accords and the SEATO Treaty Officials of the U.S. Government have nevertheless asserted, on different occasions, that the actions of the United States in Viet- nam are consistent with the U.S. duties and obligations under the United Nations Charter and sanctioned by the treaty creat- ing the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO)." The conduct of the U.S. Gov- ernment has been justified as support of a legitimate government defending itself against insurrection from within and aggres- 17 in 57 "American Society of In- ternational Law Proceedings," 1963, supra, n. 6, at p. 148. See also in further explication of Professor Henkin's succinct conclusion: Statements of Hon. Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., Secretary of State, the testimony of Senator Millikin, and the testimony of Mr. Pasvolsky, Special Assistant to the Secretary of State for International Organization and Security Affairs, in hearings on U.N. Charter, Com- mittee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, '79th Cong., let sess., supra, n. 8, at pp. 34- 147, 210, 95-100 and 304-307; Jessup, "A Modern Law of Nations" (1947); Proclama- tion of Athens and Declaration of General Principles for a World Rule of Law, adopted by the First World Conference on World Peace Through Law, Athens, Greece, July 6, 1963; Francis T. P. Plimpton, U.S. Repre- sentative to the United Nations, State De- partment Bulletin, vol. XLIX, No. 1278, Dec. 23, 1963, pp. 978-979. 36 Geneva Conf. Doc. No. IC/42/Rev. 2, in 1 "American Foreign Policy"; 1950-55 Basic Documents 750; New York Times, July 24, 1954, p. 4. sion from without. We have demonstrated above that even if this latter position were accepted on its face, unilateral conclusions and actions taken by the Government of the United States upon the basis of such con- clusions are violative of the firm obligations under the United Nations Charter. How- ever, we do not let the matter rest with this assertion, but proceed to an examination of the validity of the claims made by the U.S. Government in support of its conduct in Vietnam. The Geneva agreement under which the war between Vietnam and the French was terminated, effected the division of Vietnam into north and south, at the 17th parallel. The said "agreement on the cessation of hos- tilities in Vietnam," entered into in Geneva on July 20, 1954, provided that the division, of Vietnam at the 17th parallel was only "a provisional military demarcation line," on either side of which the opposing forces could be "regrouped"-"the forces of the Peoples Army of Vietnam to the north of the line and the forces of the French Union to the south" (ch. I, art. 1) .17 - The Geneva agreement makes plain that the division of the 17th parallel was to be temporary and a step in the preparation for a general election to elect a government for a unified nation. Pending such election, "civil administration in each regrouping zone [was to]be in the hands of the party whose forces are to be regrouped there" [art. 14(a)]. The day after the aforesaid cease-fire agreement was entered into, representatives of Cambodia, the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (Vietminh), Laos, France, the Peo- ples Republic of China, the U.S.S.R., and the United Kingdom affirmed The Final Declara- tion of the Geneva Conference on the Prob- lems of Restoring Peace in Indochina, July 21, 1954." The declaration emphasized that the north-south division was solely a means of ending the military conflict and not the creation of any political OT territorial bound- ary. Article 6 of the declaration stated: "The Conference recognizes that the essen- tial purpose of the agreement relating to Vietnam is to settle military questions with a view to ending hostilities and that the military demarcation line is provisional and shall not in any way be interpreted as con- stituting a political or territorial boundary." 17 It is relevant to note that at the time this provision was agreed upon, the Viet- minh occupied all but a few "islands" of ter- ritory to the north of the 17th parallel as well as approximately two-thirds of the ter- ritory south of that line. See map showing areas of South Vietnam under Vietminh con- trol at end of May 1953 in Henri Navarre, "Agonie de L'Indo-Chine" (1953-54) (Paris, 1956) P. 37. Thus, by the cease-fire agree- ment the Vietminh gave up substantial areas of territory in what is now called South Viet- nam. An article in the New Republic, May 22, 1965, p. 29, by the Honorable Henry W. Edger- ton, senior circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, bril- liantly delineates the provisional character of the "Government" of South Vietnam and casts doubt on the juridical claim to the existence of that government. 18 See "Further Documents Relating to the Discussion of Indo-China at the Geneva Conference" June 16-July 21, 1954 (London) (Her Majesty's Stationery Office, Cmd 9239), 1954 (referred to as "Geneva Accords".) The French-sponsored Bao Dal regime, which was not endowed as yet with any real politi- cal substance, did not sign the Geneva ac- cord; not until 1956 did France relinquish control over South Vietnam; the Republic of Vietnam was proclaimed on Oct. 26, 1955, but French troops were not completely evac- uated from the country until Nov. 1, 1956. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 1,1[11[111-1111 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP671300446R000400020005-1 2556 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE February 9, 1966 This constitutes a recognition of the his- torical fact that Vietnam is a single nation, divided into two zones only temporarily for administrative purposes pending an election. This being so, the action of the North Viet- namese in aiding the South Vietnamese, to the extent that it has taken place, neither affects the character of the war as a civil war nor constitutes foreign intervention. It cannot be considered an armed attack by one nation on another. The United States is in fact a foreign na- tion vis-a-vis Vietnam; North Vietnam is not. The latter by the Geneva agreement was to participate in an election not to de- termine whether North and South Vietnam should be united, but to select a government of the nation of Vietnam, constituting all of Vietnam?north, south, east, and west. It was the refusal on the part of the Diem regime and the subsequent "governments" of the south, supported by the United States, to participate in such elections that opened the door to the present conflict. ft was also stated in the declaration that the clear objective of settling political prob- lems and unifying the nation, was to be by means of free general elections. Article 7 of the declaration provided: ''The Conference declares that so far as Vietnam is concerned, the settlement of political problems effected on the basis of respect for the principles of independence, unity and territorial integrity, shall permit the Vietnamese people to enjoy the funda- mental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institutions established as a result of free general elections by secret ballot. In order to insure that sufficient progress in the restoration of peace has been made, and that all the necessary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will, national elections shall be held in July 1956, under the supervision of an international corn- mission." l* The reference to "national elections" re- inforces the evidence of the historical status of Vietnam as a single nation. To present the picture, as the United States repeatedly has done, as though North Vietnam were an interloper having no organic relationship to South Vietnam is to ignore both the ap- plicable legal principles and treaties and the facts of history. Although the United States participated in the discussion leading up to the Geneva Accords, it did not sign the final declaration. Instead, the U.S. Government, through its Under Secretary of State. Walter 13edell Smith, made its own unilateral declara- tion on juiy 21, 1954. In this declaration.. the United States took note of the Geneva agreements and declared that the United States would 'refrain from threat or the use of force to disturb them, in accordance with article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations dealing with the obligation of tnembers to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force." Referring to free elections in Vietnam, the United States declaration stated: "En the case of nations now divided against their will, we shall continue to seek to achieve unity through elections super- Note that article 7 stipulates that the elections were to be antecedent to and a necessary condition for the "fundamental freedoms, guaranteed by democratic institu- tions" and that the elections were to be held "in order to insure * * * that all the neces- sary conditions obtain for free expression of the national will." This particular por- tion of the Geneva Accord has frequently been quoted out of context, with the key phrases in reverse order, in order to justify the refusal to hold elections on the grounds that the necessary conditions did not exist. See "Extracts From Verbatim Records of Eighth Plenary Session," Geneva Accords. 411111111'111Vt, 11111 11111,1, vised by the United Nations to insure that they are conducted fairly." 21 Thus the United States recognized the ifact that Vietnam was a single nation. Nevertheless the justification of United States policy today ignores this admitted fact. The United States persists in its denial that it is intervening in a civil war. It seeks to justify the bombing of North Vietnam by the United States on the basis that North Vietnam is a foreign aggressor in South Vietnam. Nor is this. all. The United States further pledged "that it will not join in any ar- rangement which will hinder" the reunifica- tion of Vietnam, and concluded with the hope that: "The agreement will permit Cambodia, Laos, and Vietnam to play their part, in full independence and sovereignty in the peaceful community of nations, and will enable the peoples of the area to determine their own future." No election was ever held pursuant to the Geneva Accords, although both the Interna- tional Control Commission (composed of India, Poland, and Canada) and the United Nations announced readiness to supervise such elections. South Vietnam announced that it did not regard itself obliged to take part in the elections because the participa- tion of North Vietnam would render such elections not free, a position apparently sup- ported by the State DepartmenV? In 1955, following the Geneva Accords, then Prime Minister of state Diem repudiated the Gene- va agreements and refused to hold the elec- tions. Former President Dwight 1/ Eisen- hower, in his memoirs, suggests a further reason for Diem's refusal to hold elections pursuant to the Geneva Accords: "I have never talked or correspos ided with a person knowledgeable in Indo Chinese af- fairs who did not agree that had elections been held at the time of the fighting pos- sibly 80 percent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader rather than Chief of State Bao The consequences of the repudiation of the Geneva Accords were delineated by Sen- ator :ERNEST GRUENING in a speech to the Senate on April 9, 1965: Nowhere in its own declaration did the United States recognize the political :parti- tion of Vietnam; insofar as it referred to the country, it designated it as "Vietnam," not "South Vietnam" and "North Vietnam." 22See, Question No. 7, "Questions and Answers on Vietnam," Department of State publication No. 7724, August 1964. p. 8. See also footnote 19, George McT. Eakin and John W. Lewis, professors of government at Cornell University, in their article, "The United States in Vietnam," which appeared in the June 1965 issue of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, note (op. cit. p. 31) : "When on July 16, 1955, the Diem, govern- ment announced, with American backing, that it would defy the provision nailing for national elections, it violated a central con- dition which had made the Geneva Accords acceptable to the Vietminh. Regardless of what sophistry has been employed to demon- strate otherwise, in encouraging this move the United States departed from the posi- tion taken in its own unilateral declaration. And France in acquiescing abandoned the responsibility which she had unsquivocally accepted a year earlier." (Citing.?Allan B. Cole, ed., "Conflict in Indo-China and International Repercus- sions," a documentary history, 1945-1955 (Ithaca, r?T.Y.) 1956, pp. 226-228; end Donald Lancaster, "The Emancipation of French Indo-China" (Oxford, 1961), pp. 370-372, ,aDwight D. Eisenhower, "Mandate for Change: The White House Years, 1953-1956" (London, 1963), p. 372. "That civil war began?let me repeat, be- cause this is crucial to the issue?when the Diem regime?at our urging--refused to carry out the provision contained in the Geneva Agreement of 1954 to hold elections for the reunification of Vietnam. That was one of the underlying conditions of the Geneva agreement. The civil war began and has continued with intensified fury ever since * * *. For over 800 years, before its conquest by France, Vietnam was a united country. After defeating the French in 1954, the Vietnamese went to the conference table at Geneva, agreeing to a settlement only on condition that reunification elections be held. Yet, nowhere in President John- son's speech of April 7, 1965, at Johns Hopkins University is there held out a hope of ulti- mate reunification of Vietnam. He con- ditioned the ultimate peace `upon and inde- pendent South Vietnam instead'." In view of all of the aforesaid, the assump- tions and justifications for our governmental policy in Vietnam do not appear to have support, either in law or in fact. The con- duct of the U.S. Government in Vietnam appears plainly to violate the terms of the Geneva Accords and to repudiate solemn pledges to "refrain from the threat or the use of force" to disturb the Geneva Accords. Moreover, nothing in the provisions of the southeast Asian Collective Defense Treaty Would appear to justify the conduct of the U.S. Government in Vietnam. The SEATO Treaty was signed in Manila some 7 weeks after the signing of the Geneva Agreement on the Cessation of Hostilities in Vietnam. The SEATO Treaty became effective in February 1955, following the treaty ratifica- tion by eight member states?the United States, France, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Pakistan, and the Philip- pine Islands. By the preamble and by Article I of the SEATO Treaty, the parties acceded to the principles and supremacy of the United Nations Charter in accordance with article 103 thereof, which it will be recalled, pro- vides as follows: "In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the members of the United Nations under the present charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present charter shall prevail." The supremacy of this provision was ex-? pressly reiterated by the eight SEATO na- tions under article VI of said treaty, in which each solemnly agreed that the SEATO Treaty: "* * ? does not affect the rights and ob- ligations of any of the parties under the Charter of the United Nations, or the re- sponsibility of the United Nations for the maintenance of international peace and security." The key provisions of the SEATO Treaty are to be found in article IV. Paragraph 1 thereof permits the use of force by one or more member states only in the event of "aggression by means of armed attack." But where the integrity or inviolability of any territory covered by the treaty is threat- ened "by other than armed attack" or "by any fact or situation which might endanger the peace of the area," then, paragraph 2 of article IV requires, as a prerequisite to inter- vention, that "the parties shall consult im- mediately in order to agree on the measures to be taken. * * *" The consent of all eight SEATO nations was originally required before any military action under article IV could be undertaken by any of them (New York Times. May 28, 1962). Later, this rule was modified so that action could be undertaken if there was no dissenting vote?i.e., an abstention would not count as a veto (New York 'nines, April 19, 1964). At the last two annual meetings ef the Ministerial Council of SEATO, France Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 1,111, ,11 11,1,1 1, RI, Approved For Release 2005/T /Rat_DTKOH6R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESS1ON A 2557 has refused to support a communique pledg- ing SEATO backing for South Vietnam against the Vietcong (New York Times, April 15-16, 1864; May 3-6, 1965; see also, Los Angeles Times, May 3-4, 1965). It would appear that with the threat of a French veto a formal SEATO commitment in Viet- nam has not been sought by the United States. However, even if there had been unanimity among the SEATO nations, the provisions of article 53 of chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter will still prevail: "But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council. * * *" Manifestly, no such authorization has ever been conferred, either by the Security Coun- cil of the United Nations, or by_the Gen- eral Assembly, from which it follows that American action in Vietnam clearly cannot be supported by reference to SEATO. So long as the United States remains a member of the United Nations, our right to intervene is circumscribed by the provisions of the United Nations Charter. As members of SEATO, our right to intervene is limited, both by the requirement for unanimity among all of the eight treaty nations and, in addition, by the superseding requirement of article 53 of chapter VIII of the United Nations Charter, prohibiting any enforce- ment action under a regional arrangement without the authority of the Security Coun- cil. Our justification for acting contrary to our solemn obligations under the United Nations Charter appears tenuous and in- substantial. The fact of the matter is that the U.S. Government has simply acted as its own judge of its own interests in patent dis- regard of the fundamental law embodied in the United Nations Charter. lir. Constitutional aspects of United States intervention in Vietnam This disregard of the rules of the charter, inherent in U.S. intervention in Vietnam, is compounded by the fact that such inter- vention is also violative of our own Consti- tution. Whatever doubts may have existed prior to the President's "Report to the Na- tion Following a Review of U.S. Policy in Vietnam" 2, (set out at his news conference on July 28, 1965), as to whether U.S. action in Vietnam constituted the conduct of a war, the President in that report made it ex- plicitly clear that "this is really war," noting that "our fighting strength" was being raised from '75,000 to 125,000 "almost immediately" and that "additional forces will be needed later, and they will be sent as requested." Can the President's conduct be squared With our Constitution (apart from the obligations imposed upon member states by the United Nations Charter) ? It is the genius of our constitutional sys- tem that ours is a government of checks and balances. A dangerous concentration of power is avoided by the separation?in Arti- cles I, II, and III of the Constitution?of the legislative, executive, and judicial powers. The doctrine of "separation of powers" is fundamental to, and is one of the "great structural principles of the American consti- tutional system." 2' The Supreme Court has recently characterized this "separation of powers" as "a bulwark against tyranny." United States v. Brown, ? U.S. ?, 33 Law Week 4603 (June 7, 1965). The Supreme Court had earlier said: "The power to make the necessary laws is in Congress; the power to execute in the , Presidential Documents, vol. 1, No. 1 (Aug. 2, 1965), pp. 15-19. See also State De- partment bulletin, April 26, 1965, p. 606; State Department bulletin, May 24, 1965, pas- sim; State Department bulletin, May 31, 1965, p. 838, Krock, "By Any Other Name, It's Still War," New York Times, June 10, 1965. 25 Corwin, "The President: Office and Powers" (New York, 1957), p. 9. President. Both powers imply many sub- ordinate powers. Each includes all author- ity essential to its due exercise. But neither can the President, in war more than in peace, intrude upon the proper authority of Con- gress, nor Congress upon the proper author- ity of the President." Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall 2, 139 (1866). Classically stated by Blackstone 26 and de- rived from Plato, Aristotle, Polybius, Cicero, Machiavelli, Harrington, Locke, and Monte- squieu,2, this? constitutional separation of powers was deliberately carried over by the Framers into the conduct of foreign affairs. For, contrary to widely held assumptions, the power to make and conduct foreign pol- icy is not vested exclusively in the President, but is divided between him and Congress, with each endowed with complementary, but separate 28 powers and responsibilities.22 Thus, in making and carrying out general foreign policy, Article II, Section 2 requires the President to have the "Advice and Con- sent of the Senate, to make Treaties, pro- vided two-thirds of the Senators present concur." And the President also requires the advice and consent of the Senate to "appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls." When statecraft fails and the question be- comes the ultimate one of war or peace, the Constitution imposes a tight rein upon the President. His participation ends at the threshold of the decision ?whether or not to declare war. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 11, that power is confided exclusively to the Congress?, There is no mention of the President in connection with the power to "declare war." Under the Constitution, Congress alone must make this decision. The Clause does not read "on recommendation of the President," nor that the "President with advice and consent of Congress may declare war." As former Assistant Secretary of State James Grafton Rogers has observed "The omission is significant. There was to be no war unless Congress took the initiative." Rogers, "World Policing and The Constitu- tion," p. 21 (Boston, 1945). "Nothing in our Constitution is plainer than that declaration of war is entrusted only to Congress." Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer, 343 13.5. 579, 642 (1962) (Jackson, J.). That the President lacks constitutional power to make war is underscored by the historic statement made by President Wood- 2a Blackstone, "Commentaries on the Law of England," 146 (7th ed. 1775). 22 Cf., Sharp, The Classical American Doc- trine of "Separation of Powers", 2 U. of Chi. L. Rev. 385 (1935). 2, "One of the most striking facts in the institutional philosophic history of the United States (is) that the legislative-execu- tive quarrels during the colonial period con- vinced the colonists of the desirability of a separation of powers rather than a union of powers." Wright "Consensus and Con- tinuity," p. 17 (Boston, 1958). "The doctrine of separated powers is im- plemented by a number of constitutional provisions, some of which entrust certain jobs exclusively to certain branches, while others say that a given task is not to be performed by a given branch." United States v. Brown, supra?U.S. at p. 33 Law Week, at p. 4605. 20 Story, "Commentaries on the Constitu- tion" (Boston, 1833) , passim, Dahl, "Congress and Foreign Policy" (New Haven, Conn., 1950); Robinson, "Congress and Foreign Policy-Making; A Study in Legislative In- fluence and Initiative" (Ill., 1962). 20 Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the Con- stitution reads: / "The Congress shall have the power: "1. To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules con- cerning captures on land and water." row Wilson on the night of April 2, 1917 When he addressed the Congress in a joint session: "I have called the Congress into extraordi- nary session because there are serious, very serious, choices of policy to be made, and made immediately, which it was neither right nor constitutionally permissible that I should assume the responsibility of making." 81- President Franklin Roosevelt also heeded his constitutional responsibilities and was also mindful and sensitive of the consti- tutional limitations applicable to the Pres- ident when, before a joint session of the Con- gress on December 7, 1941, he requested the Congress for a declaration of war following Pearl }labor. The decision to place the responsibility for declaring war exclusively in Congress as the direct representative of the people, and not even to provide for the President's partici- pation in that decision was a most deliberate one by the Framers. The Conetitutional Convention had been urged to rest the power to declare war, the "last resort of sovereigns, ultima ratio regum," in the executive, or, alternatively, in the Senate. 3 Story, "Commentaries on the Constitution," par. 1166. The arguments were made that "large bodies necessarily move slowly" and "despatch, secresy, and vigor are often indispensable, and always useful towards success." Story, ibid. When the issue was debated at the Con- vention, Mr. Gerry stated that he "never ex- pected to hear in a republic a motion to em- power the Executive alone to declare war." Madison and Gerry "moved to insert 'declare,' striking out 'make' war; leaving to the Ex- ecutive the power to repeal sudden attacks." The motion carried. Farrand ed., "Records of the Federal Convention" (New Haven, 1911) .11, pp. 318-319.32 n President Wilson went on to say: "With a profound sense of the solemn and even tragical character of the step I am taking and of the grave responsibilities which It involves, but in unhesitating obedience to what I deem my constitutional duty, I advise that the Congress declare the recent course of the Imperial German Government to be in fact nothing less than war against the Government and people of the United States; that it formally accept the status of belligerent which has thus been thrust upon it; and that It take immediate steps not only to put the country in a more thorough state of defense but also to exert all its power and employ all its resources to bring the Government of the German Empire to terms and end the war." 82 The Framers concluded and provided "that the power of declaring war is not only the highest sovereign prerogative; but that it is in its own nature and effects so critical and calamitous, that it requires the utmost deliberation, and the successive review of all the councils of the nation. War, in its best estate, never fails to impose upon the people the most burdensome taxes, and personal sufferings. It is always injurious and some- times subversive of the great commercial, manufacturing, and agricultural interests. Nay, it always involves the prosperity, and not infrequently the existence of a nation. It is sometimes fatal to public liberty itself, by introducing a spirit of military glory, which is ready to follow, wherever a 51.1CCeS- sive commander will lead; ancf in a republic whose institutions are essentially founded on the basis of peace, there is infinite danger that war will find it both imbecile in de- fense, and eager for contest. Indeed, the history of republics has but too fatally proved, that they are too ambitious of mili- tary fame and conquest, and too easily de- voted to the views of demagogs, who flatter their pride and betray their interests. It should therefore be difficult in a republic to decalre war; but not to make peace." Story op. cit., ? 1166. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For RVease 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 2558 oN c7REss IONAL RECORD - SENATE February 9, 1966 Nowhere in the debates is there support for the view that the President can wage a war or "commit" our Nation to the waging of a war. On the contrary, warmaking was to be a purely legislative prerogative. The only use of force without a declaration of war that was contemplated as the debates clearly show, was "to repel sudden attacks." " These constitutional provisions that only Congress shall have the power to declare war and that Congress has the sole responsibility to raise and support the armies, to provide for a navy, and to impose the taxes to provide the funds to carry on a war, reflected a pro- found distrust of executive authority and a corresponding reliance upon the legislature es the instrument for the decisionmaking In this vital area. Bemis, "The Diplomacy of the American Revolution" (New York, 19351, pp. 29-35. These provisions reflected things painfully learned during the early colonial period, when every major European war had its counterpart on the American frontiers. The Colonies were therefore determined to end the imperial authority to decide for them what wars they should enter and what the outcome of those wars should be. Savellte, "The American Balance of Power and the :European Diplomacy 1713-78," in Morris ed., "The Era of the American Revolution" (New York, 1939), pp. 140-169. The Convention was not only determined to deny warmaking power to the President. but was also unwilling to entrust it to the Senate alone. To assure the fullest consid- eration, the Framers therefore provided that, the House of Representatives larger and more representative than the Senate, should also be brought in to decide this vital ques- tion. The action and decision of the whole Congress were therefore constitutionally made necessary to this fateful undertaking. "The Constitution says, therefore, in ef- fect, 'Our country shall not be committed formally to a trial of force with another na- tion, our people generally summoned to the effort and all the legal consequences to peo- ple, rights and property incurred until the House, Senate and the President agree.' Rogers, "World Policing and the Constitu- tion" (Boston, 11)45), p. 35. Concededly there have been many in- stances when the President has sent U.S. Armed Forces abroad without a declaration of war by Congress!" These have ranged from engagements between pirates and Amer- ican ships on the high seas to the dispatch of our Armed Forces to Latin American coun- tries. These precedents cannot justify the pres- ent actions without bringing to mind Swift's comment on "precedents" in Gulliver's Travels: "Ti is a maxim among these lawyers, that whatever hath been done before, may legally be done again; and therefore they take spe- cial care to record all the decisions formerly made against common justice and the gen- oral reason of mankind. These, under the name of precedents, they produce as author- ities to justify the most inquitous opinions; and the judges never fail to directing accord- ingly." Here it is important to distinguish our country's involvement in the Korean war.. For the United States fought under the aegis. ,s Manifestly the residuary power left to the President---" to repel sudden attack" con- templated attacks on the country's geo- graphical territory-not "sudden attacks" in far-off lands, such as southeast Asia. Cf. Tonkin Bay Joint Resolution of Aug. 6-7, 1964, discussed in section IV, infra. ur See U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and Committee on Armed Services, hearing, "Situation in Cuba," 87th Cong., 3d sess., Sept. 17, 1962 (Washington, G.P.O., 1962), pp. 82-87; Rogers, op. cit., especially 93 123. 6mte 1111111411MEMAIAANt of th.e United Nations pursuant to a definitive resolution of the Security Council authoriz- ing and directing the employment of armed forces of member states, so that the United States was thus performing its solemn obli- gations undertaken in becoming a signatory of the United Nations Charter, a treaty which is the "supreme law of the land" But in the Vietnamese situation, there has been no authorization by the Security Council; in- deed the Security Council has not even been seized of the matter, has not been requested to entertain jurisdiction of the present con- flict. It is therefore unfortunately vit .tlly neces- sary, although trite, to recall that "the Gov- ernment of the United States has been em- phatically termed a government of laws, and not of men." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cr. 137 (1803). Under a government of laws, the President is not free from the checks of the Constitution of the United States: the Presi- dent is not free to assume the powers en- trusted solely to the Congress. Ours is not a government of executive suprenetcy.35 Here it is fitting to recall that an May 6, 1954, at a time when the fall of Dien Bien Phu was imminent, then Senater Lyndon Johnson, as Democratic leader of tele Senate, at a Jefferson-Jackson dinner, criticized the Eisenhower administration in these terms: "We will insist upon clear explanations of the policies in which we are asked to co- operate. We will insist that we and the American people be treated as adults-that we have the facts without sugar casting. "The function of Congress is not simply to appropriate money and leave the problem of national security at that." m A New York Times survey (June 14, 1965) reports widespread "uneasiness" over the President's foreign policies: that the Amer- ican academic world "is intellectoally and emotionally alienated from the President, to whom it gave such strong suppoet in the election"; that there is "increaeing-and mutual-hostility between the Pro- Went and many segments of the press"; that many Democratic Members of Congress are "restive and unhappy * * * over what they regard as [the President's] high-handed manner of making and carrying out decisions in foreign affairs"; that many friendly govern- ments abroad "are apprehensive about Mr. Johnson's use of national power"; that among these views are expressione of "dis- may," the unreliability of CIA and FBI reports which the President accepted, the lack of clear policy, the disregard of "prin- ciples, support, or advice." It is therefore imperative that Congress guard zealously against any executive usur- pation of its exclusive power to declare, or to decline to declare war. President Johnson has not been unmind- ful of the damaging consequences inherent In the violation of the separation of powers. As recently as August 21, 1965, the President vetoed a $1.7 billion military construction bill, calling it "repugnant to the Constitu- tion." In a stern message to Congress, the President described certain sections of the bill as clear violations of the "separation of powers"; warned Congress to stop .neddling in the prerogatives of the executive branch [New York Times, Aug. 21, 1965, p. 1]. Yet the President has not hesitated to in- trude upon the exclusive power seated in Congress to declare war. u "With all its defects, delays, and incon- veniences, men have discovered no technique for long preserving free government except that the executive be under the law, and that the law be made by parliamentary de- liberations," Mr. Justice Jackson, concurring in Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company v. Sawyer, supra, 343 U.S. at 655 (1952). 2,, Jackson, "Role and Problems of Congress With Reference to Atomic War," May 17, 1954, publication No. L 54-135, Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Iv. Congress has not declared war in Viet- nam; its joint resolutions are neither a substitute for a declaration of war nor do they make President Johnson's warmaking constitutional Congress has not declared war in Vietnam and the President does not claim that any declaration of war supports his actions in Vietnam. In fact, the President is reported to be extremely reluctant to ask Congress directly to declare war!" Instead, the Presi- dent is reported (New York Times, June 1St, 1965, p. 10) to believe that authority for his actions may be inferred or extracted from the Tonkin Bay joint resolution of August 6-7, 1964 (B:.J. Res. 1145; Public Law 88-408, 78 Stat., 384, 88th Cong., 2d seas.), and the joint resolution of May 7, 1965 . (H.J. Res. 447; Public Law 89-18; '79 Stat. 109, 89th Cong., 1st seas.), making a supplemental ap- propriation to the Defense Department for the Vietnam. operations. The Tonkin Bay resolution is not a decla- ration of war. At most, it is an ultimatum-- if that. It "approves and supports the do' termination of the President, as Commander in Chief, to take all necessary measures to repel any armed attack against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." It goes on to express the view that "the maintenance of international peace and security in southeast Asia 'is vital' to the national interests of the United States" and declares the readiness of the United States to take all necessary steps, including the use or armed forces, to assist any member or pro- tocol SEATO state to defend its freedom. The resolution, however, provides that all such steps shall be "consonant with the Con- stitution of the United States and the Char- ter of the United Nations and in accordance with its obligations under the Southeast Asia Collective Defense Treaty." It is clear that Congressmen who voted for the Tonkin Bay joint resolution were not. voting a declaration of war in Vietnam. 'The resolution does not mention North Vietnam nor China; indeed it does not even mention Vietnam. It, was "passed in the fever of in- dignation that followed reported attacks by North Vietnamese torpedo boats against U.S fleet units in Tonkin Bay." CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, June 9, 1965, p. 12528. There is no evidence that Congress thought or under- stood that it was declaring war. It took no contemporaneous action which would have implemented a declaration of war. And the remarks of several Members of the House and Senate during and since the debate on the resolution reinforce the conclusion that the Tonkin Bay resolution was not regarded as a declaration of war. Congress manifestly cannot delegate to the President its exclualve power to declare war; and even under the specific terms of the Tonkin Bay resolution, the President's actions neither conform nor are consonant with the Constitution-and as we have seen in the earlier analysis, the President's actions are not consonant with the Charter of the United Nations, nor with the SEATO Treaty. In passing the May 7, 1965, resolution, au- thorizing a supplemental appropriation for the Vietnam operations, Congress was con- fronted with a fait accompli which severely circumscribed its action. Its consti tutional check on the will or errors of the Executive was by the President's message reduced to its power of the purse. Such a circumscription will not necessarily prevent unwise or un- popular decisions or allow for the exercise of the full discretion which the Constitution in- tended Congress to have, and for it alone to exercise. Nevertheless, a resolution authoriz- ing an appropriation does not constitute a declaration of war, nor can it constitutionally authorize the President to wage an unde- clared war. 21 Wall Street Journal, June 17, 1965, "The U.S. May Become More Candid Oct Rising Land-War Involvement," pp. 1, 16. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Ith 1,,th .111411,11 - Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE The presidential assumption of powers vested exclusively in the Congress concern. a,rrogations of power Which convert repub- lican institutions, framed for the purpose of guarding and securing the liberties of the citizen, into a government of executive su- premacy. If the Constitution has such elas- tic, evanescent character, the provisions for its amendment are entirely useless; presi- dentially determined expediency would be- come then the standard of constitutional construction. Under tile rule of law, compliance with the forms and procedures of the law are as im- perative as compliance with the substance of the law. A lynching is a totally inadequate substitute for a trial, regardless of the guilt of the victim. What Mr. Justice Frankfurter wrote in another context is equally applica- ble here: "The history of liberty has largely been the history of observance of proced- ural safeguards." McNabb v. United States, 318 U.S. 832, 34'7 (1947). Under our system, constitutional powers must be exercised in a constitutional man- ner by constitutionally established institu- tions. Disregard of fundamentals in an area concerning the highest sovereign prerogative affecting the very lives and fortunes of its citizens in the interest of a short-term ex- pediency undermines "'constitutional moral- ity' to such an extent that the maintenance of the order itself is endangered." Fried- rich, "The Philosophy of Law in Historical Perspective," p. 216 (Chicago, 1963). Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that even a declaration of war by the Congress would not negate the violations of our ob- ligations assumed under the United Nations Charter or negate the violations of inter- national law inherent in United States in- tervention in Vietnam. Conclusion A learned authority in international af- fairs has stated: "Bluntly, all the rules about intervention are meaningless if every nation can decide for itself which governments are legitimate and how to characterize particular limited conflict. Unless we are prepared to continue a situation in which the legality of inter- vention will often depend upon which side of the fence you are on, and in which, there- fore, our policy becomes one of countering force with force, we must be willing to refer questions of recognition (i.e., legitimacy of the government involved) and character- ization of a disorder (i.e., whether an armed attack from abroad or a civil war) to some 'authority other than ourselves. The United Nations is the most likely candidate for the role." Le The United States has not observed the letter or spirit of its treaty obligations with respect to the action taken in Vietnam. World order and peace depend on the will- ingness of nations to respect international law and the rights of other nations. The United Nations is a symbol of the rejection of fatal policies which led to World War II, and an acceptance by the peoples of the world of the principles of collective security, and the avoidance of war and the use of armed forces in the settlement of differences between nations. The United Nations was intended to insure the preservation of inter- national peace, security, and justice, through rules of law, binding upon all member na- tions. The fundamental condition for the effective functioning of the United Nations is the observance on the part of all signatory nations of the obligations assumed under the charter. Only in this way can the awe- Roger Fisher, professor of law at Har- vard University, "Intervention; Three Prob- lems of Policy and Law" found in. Essays on Intervention, a publication of the Mershon Center for Education in National Security, Ohio State University Press, pp. 19-20. some potential of a third world war be prevented. We have concluded that the U.s. Govern- ment is In violation of its treaty obligations under the U.N. Charter. We urge upon the Government that all steps be immediately taken to undo this illegality by an inunedi- ate return to an observance of the letter and spirit of the provisions of the U.N. Charter. This is a solemn hour in history. We have a moral obligation to history to return to the high purposes and principles of the United Nations?to honor the pledges we solemnly assumed?to settle international disputes by peaceful means?to refrain in international relations from the threat or use of force. At this fateful hour, we do well to recall the prophetic dream of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the architect of the United Na- tions, who upon his return from the Yalta Conference in his last address to the Con- gress in March 1945, said; "The Crimea Conference * * * ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries?and have aways failed. We pro- pose to substitute for all these, a universal organization in which all peace-loving na- tions will finally have a chance to join." Should we not, 20 years after President Roosevelt's hopeful dream-20 years after the advent of the nuclear age with the awe- some potentiality of incineration of our planet and the annihiliation of our civiliza- tion and the culture of millenia?should we not "spell the end of the system of unilateral action * * * that has been tried for cen- turies?and has always failed"? THE UNDECLARED WAR IN VIET- NAM?CONFUSION CONFOUNDED Mr. GRUEN1NG. Mr. President, this morning's New York Times carries four items worthy of note and thoughtful contemplation by those who are con- cerned about the U.S. confused policies In the conduct of the undeclared war in Vietnam. The first item is a penetrating edi- torial entitled "Questions After Hono- lulu" in which it is stated: What remains essential is explicit com- mitment by Saigon to peace talks with the Vietcong. The people of South Vietnam have been at war for 25 years and war weariness is deep in their bones. Peace is what they want more than anything else. until the Saigon Government faces the need to offer a prospect of peace as well as con- tinued fighting, it will be avoiding the issue that is most likely to help it mobilize sup- port within South Vietnam and abroad. The second item is a critical analysis by James Reston under the title "Ships Passing in the Night," in which he dis- cusses recent maneuverings on the peace and war fronts by the administration. He says, in part: The critics of the administration cannot be sure they have all the facts, but they are entitled to feel that the administration is reaching its decisions in a careful, orderly, unemotional way, with some relationship between Vietnam and other world responsi- bilities, and this is precisely the feeling they do not have. The third item is by C. L. Sulzberger and is entitled "Roots of Befuddlement." Mr. Sulzberger emphasizes the danger of nuclear confrontation in our continued escalation of our military involvement in southeast Asia. 2559 The fourth item is a letter to the ed- itor sent by George F. Thomas, professor of religious thought at Princeton Uni- versity?a former Rhodes scholar?in which he rightly calls the U.S. resump- tion of the bombing of North Vietnam a "tragic mistake." I ask unanimous consent that these four items from the New York Times of February 9, 1966, be printed at the con- clusion of my remarks. There being no objection, the four item were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: [From the New York Times, Feb. 9, 1966] QUESTIONS AFTER HONOLULU The Honolulu Conference has followed the classic pattern of summit meetings that are hastily called without thorough preparation in advance: it has left confusion in its wake, with more questions raised than answered. The kindest construction to be placed on President Johnson's tough opening remarks, which bitterly belabored his domestic critics, is that they were primarily intended to gain a sympathetic reception from South Viet- nam's leaders for his concurrent insistence that "the search for peace must continue." But PFemier Ky and General Thieu clearly were More interested in Mr. Johnson's promise to fight to victory, despite their agreement to a communique emphasizing peace efforts. Saigon's leaders indicated that they favored stepped-up bombing of North Vietnam, which President Johnson opposes at present, and a further American military buildup in the south, on which Washington has yet to reach firm decisions. Their idea of a nego- tiated settlement is one that rejects all com- promise. The most critical difference?because it bears on immediate efforts in the United Na- tions to convene a new Geneva conference? is on the Vietcong's status in the projected peace talks. The Saigon leaders clearly op- posed any negotiations with the Vietcong. Yet, just before the Honolulu meeting, Am- bassador Harriman announced that the ad- ministration now is prepared to have the Vietcong participate "as an independent group who have an interest in the discus- sion." This was a vital concession both to the administration's critics in the United States and to the nonalined countries at the U.N., which are seeking an acceptable formula for negotiations. The one important area of agreement at Honolulu, apart from continuation of the military efforts, was on an expanded program of rural construction. The prospective dou- bling of American economic aid, however, will be futile unless it is accompanied by a veritable social revolution, including vigor- ous land reform. Premier Ky cast some doubt on his intentions in this field by his emphasis on moving slowly. His Minister of Rural Pacification envisages action in only 1,900 of South Vietnam's 15,000 hamlets this year. Vice President HUMPHREY evidently has his work cut out for him in his followup visit to Saigon. Unless some way can be found to give more momentum to this effort, the new economic aid program may go down the same drain as all previous programs of this kind. What remains essential is explicit commit- ment by Saigon to peace talks with the Viet- cong. The people of South Vietnam have been at war for 25 years and war weariness is deep in their bones. Peace is what they want more than anything else. Until the Saigon government faces the need to offer a prospect of peace as well as continued fight- ing, it will be avoiding the issue that is most likely to help it mobilize support within South Vietnam and abroad. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP671300446R000400020005-1 2560 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE February 9, 1966 The questions raised by the Honolulu Con- ference must now be taken up in public dis- cussion in the United States. The country will remain divided and uncertain unless the pertinent issues are illuminated by thorough. debate. [From the New York (N.Y.) Times, Feb, 9, 1966] WASHINGTON : SHIPS PASSING IN THE NIGHT (By James Reston) WASHINGTON, February 8.?There is a great deal of motion on Vietnam these days, but the central figures in the action seem vaguely unrelated to one another, like ships passing in the night. The administration's diplomacy at the 'United Nations was designed to arrange a peace conference at Geneva, but the admin- istration's diplomacy at Honolulu seems to have committed the United States more com- pletely to the Saigon Government and there- fore reduced the chances of a peace confer- ence with Vietcong representatives. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is holding open hearings in the hope of clari- fying the issue in Vietnam, but the adminis- tration seems less interested In listening to the voices in the Senate Chamber than in drowning them out. GU LDUP CONTINUES Meanwhile, the one clear fact is that the military buildup is proceeding steadily on both sides. Present plans here call for dou- bling the American manpower commitment in the present calendar year, from 200,000 to 400,000, and going up to 600,000 in 1967. President Johnson, it is understood, has not committed himself to carry through this entire program, but he is going along with this scale of reinforcement on a month-to- month basis. Everything in the Johnson strategy seems to be done in twos--something for the hawks and something for the doves; bomb North Vietnam and go to the U.N. Security Coun- cil; step up the military forces and increase the pacification program and send HUBERT HUMPHREY to Saigon at the same time; criti- cize the Saigon Government in private and commit American power and prestige to it in public; assert that America cannot police the world but proclaim simultaneously that tyranny in the jungles of continental Asia is just as much America's concern as tyranny and subjugation of the peoples of Europe. Do these policies complement one another or cancel each other out? Does half a war offensive, and half a peace offensive, exclud- ing the enemy doing most of the fighting, add up to a whole policy or no policy? Will an American commitment to win a military victory in Vietnam and oppose tyranny al- most anywhere in the world really encourage the South Vietnamese and the other allies to light harder or will it encourage them to leave more and more of the struggle to Uncle Sam? These are some of the questions that are still troubling Washington, especially since the recent moves by the President give some impression of impulsive improvisations in- spired in part by domestic political consid- erations. The appeal to the Security Council was made before there was a detailed exploration of the problem in the capitals of the mem- bers se the Security Council, and only a short time after our own and the U.N. officials were saying a debate there would merely increase the divisions. Tim Honolulu conference was called on such short notice that even the normal se- curity arrangements for a President crossing the ocean could not be made. And the Koreans, the Australians, and the New Zea- landers, who also have troops in the battle, were not even invited. The new thing here on Vietnam is not the policy but the process of deciding policy. 44tItt11,110111M1111 The administration cannot disclose all the information that leads to its decisions with- out helping the enemy. The critics of the administration cannot be sure they have all the facts, but they are entitled to feel that the administration is reaching its decisions in a careful, orderly unemotional way, with some relationship between Vietnam and other world responsibilities, and this is pre- cisely the feeling they do not have., JOHNSON'S MOOD On the contrary, the President has recent- ly been giving the impression that he is not following I. clear strategic policy, but that he iS thrashing about, rejecting peace offen- sives and then trying them, stopping bomb- ing and then starting bombing, rejecting the U.N. and then appealing to the U N., send- ing Vice President HUMPHREY to brief Asian leaders on the Honolulu conference which he did not attend?all in an atmosphere of restless experimentation and self-righteous condemnation of anybody who differs with him. Even his handling of the Senate, usually so effective, has recently been clumsy and scornful. At Honolulu his public statements left the impression that all his ort tics were "special pleaders" who counsel -retreat," and that "only the callous or tined" could ignore the cause of the Vietnamese which is a bold statement since most of the allied world is ignoring them. In short, he is leaving little room for the possibility that his policy may be wrong and this attitude, far from silencing his critics, is merely addling to their uneasiness. [From the New' York Times, Feb. 9, 1966] FOREIGN AFFAIRS: ROOTS OF BEFU DDLEMENT (By C. L. Sulzberger) PARIS .?International opinion is quite as bewildered as American opinion concerning U.S. policy in Vietnam. This is as true for adversaries of the United States as for friends. Senator Frunstcnr was re- ferring only to Americans when he said he had never seen "such dissent, reservation, groping and concern." But he might just as well have been referring to the outer world, choosing Russia and China for a start. The Chinese proclaim our Vietnamese pol- icy is part of a Russo-American global con- spiracy to encircle China, Moscow's friend Castro throws ?the ball back into China's court, likening Peiping's actions to those of "Yankee imperialism." No wonder the aver- age American gets mixed; Uncle Sam can't win_ NUCLEAR ESCALATION The southeast Asian conflict is the first since 1945 that contains an implicit danger of nuclear escalation--which was never a serious threat in Korea. This implicit dan- ger adds a muddled element to political thinking on Vietnam. Since Hiroshima many U.S. liberals and Intellectuals have been increasingly reluc- tant to endorse Washington's diplomatic actions, especially if they are tough. Such groups have unconsciously developed a mood of appeasement especially in Asia, that con- trasts with the attitude of liberals and in- tellectuals toward Europe before World War H. This pattern is confused by the traditional U.S. policy conflict between "Asia first" and "Europe First" schools. Broadly peaking, American liberals have always tended to be- long to the latter group. Following World War II, U.S foreign policy focused primarily on European matters; Korea being an ex- ception. The "Europe First" school has never been happy about accepting risks in the East. It took dramatic aggressions like Pearl Har- bor or the invasion of South Korea to pro- duce a consensus on our foreign policy be- tween liberal "Europe First" and conservative "Asia First" groupings. The gradual In- tensifying of the Vietnam crisis by disguised aggression never achieved the same result. Foreign opinion is bewildered for different reasons by American involvement in Viet- nam. When the United States was firmly wedded to a "Europe First" policy is spurned General de Gaulle's request for a three-power conunittee, the United States, Britain, and France, to coordinate global strategy. This request, made in 1958, was never seriously pondered in Washington although De Gaulle made it clear that if no such arrangement were devised he would reduce French par- ticipation in NATO. We have come full circle. The United States now urges its allies to help us in Vietnam but Europe, stripped of its Asian colonial possessions, is content to pursue its own version of a "Europe First" policy. Europeans want to avoid taking sides in com- munism's intramural dispute between Pei- ping and Moscow. They are more concerned with the problems or German unification than that of 'Vietnam; the present emotional atmosphere of the United States is not felt here. DOUBLE SWITCH Many Europeans, led by the French, Were once extremely eager to attract Washington into Far Eastern commitments and an "Asia First" policy, a prospect then welcomed by American conservatives and opposed by liberals. But now that Washington has moved in this direction formerly desired by such Europeans, they in turn have shifted to our own previous position. The "dissent, reservation, groping and con- cern" noted by FULBRIGHT can thus be detect- ed abroad also but for entirely different reasons. The old thing is Shat when Amer- ican policy shifted from "Europe First" to "Asia First," those Europeans who originally wished to bring us into the East objected most. Both the United States and Europeans who now criticize us have been on the same side of the policy fence?in fact on both sides?but at different times. Each has managed the strange feat of simultaneously reversing its positions. AMERICAN LIBERALS For a third of a century American liberals and intellectuals have been more inclined to endorse appeasement in Asia than in Europe. The nuclear danger in Asia has only reinforced this traditional position. But the U.S. Government has shifted the emphasis of its policy interests from West to East. Some 20 years of hegemony in world power politics have apparently persuaded Washing- ton that its views always represent the gen- eral interest?even when such views are switched. Trouble comes when some Amer- icans can't get used to the switch and sonic foreigners can't get used to its timing. [From the New York Times, Feb. 9, 1966] CONTRADICTION IN U.S. Posner To the EDITOR: The resumption of the bombing of North Vietnam urged upon President Johnson by military and other advisers is a tragic mis- take. The confident belief at the time the bombing began that it would break the will of Hanoi to fight and would prevent further infiltration into South Vietnam has been proved wrong. Visitors to North Vietnam have reported that it actually produced greater eplidarlty and a stronger determination to continue the war. Moreover, the pause in the bomb- ing did not endure long enough to test adequately the willingness of Hanoi to ne- gotiate a settlement. The resumption al- most certainly destroys the possibility of such a settlement by stiffening resistance. Above all, it will probably lead to a fur- ther escalation of the war, requiring an even greater commitment of our Armed Forces, vastly increasing the danger of war with Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 FiRsPKW,11-1,1,1t '0480. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 ? CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL' RECORD ? SENATE 2561 China, and further alienating the Soviet Union and other countries whose support we would like to have. Do those who urged the renewal of the bombing fully realize these dangers? HOLDING CITIES AND COAST Does the President's act in referring the case to the United Nations indicate that he Is now aware of the dangers and is seeking to extricate us from a situation which threatens a world war? If so, should he not reexamine the suggestion made recently by both military and political experts that we should stop the bombing but continue to hold the cities and the coast until a settle- ment can be negotiated? Although this might not please the Pentagon, could any- thing be worse than to continue to destroy Vietnam in the process of trying to save it? One can believe that the President is sincere in his repeated assertion that he is eager for negotiations. But there is a con- tradiction between our stated policy of leav- ing the Vietnamese free to choose their own form of government and our refusal to allow the participation of the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam in the negotiations. If we think that by sheer military might we can force a settlement on our terms, we shall only deceive ourselves, earn the un- dying hatred of the unhappy people of Viet- nam and defeat our own purpose of check- ing the spread of communism in southeast Asia. GEORGE F. THOMAS, Professor of Religious Thought, Princeton University. PRINCETON, N.J., January 28, 1966. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING anoiCER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- out objection, it is so ordered. ADMINISTRATION PLANS TO DE- STROY SMALL BUSINESS ADMIN- ISTRATION AS AN INDEPENDENT AGENCY Mr. PROUTY. Mr. President, I have learned that the Johnson administration is electioneering among private groups to gain support for its plan to destroy the Small Business Administration as an independent agency. This explains why the President has failed to appoint a new Administrator of SBA. This explains why the funds of the agency have been so dried up that hun- dreds, perhaps thousands, of small busi- ness loan applications are gathering dust in the regional offices of the SBA. This explains why Eugene P. Foley, former Administrator of the Small Busi- ness Administration, has been trans- ferred to the Department of Commerce. Perhaps we are seeing a new trend in politics that first became manifest when the Democratic leadership in the Senate opposed the efforts of Republicans to give the Senate Small Business Commit- tee legislative authority. This "small business be damned" attitude, which de- No. 22-11 stroyed the attempt to give the Senate Committee the power it should have, has now been unleashed again and may bring about the undoing of the Small Business Administration as an independent agency. Yes, we are witnessing a strange de- velopment in American politics?a devel- opment that will see the President em- brace big business with his right arm while clasping big labor with his left. And woe unto any force that stands in the way of this great triumvirate. Before reaching their present exalted status, both Lyndon B. Johnson and Hu- BERT H. HUMPHREY spoke with passion about the need for an independent agency to give small business an effective voice in government, but it seems that times have changed and each has re- mained silent about the proposal to put small business under the heel of the De- partment of Commerce. Why is all this happening, Mr. Presi- dent? No one really knows, but perhaps some speculation is in order. The spe- cial report of the Congressional Quar- terly for the week ending January 21, 1966, may provide the clue we are seek- ing. That report points out that of Democratic individual contributions, in the last presidential campaign, 6 percent were in sums of $500 or more, whereas the bulk of Republican contributions came from the truly small giver. "Put up or shut up" used to be a gam- bling expression but it may soon become the password of the Democratic admin- istration. One wonders what will happen to the small entrepreneurs of America if they must come as supplicants to the Depart- ment of Commerce. Will a department long accustomed to dealing with corporate giants care much or know much about the problems of the small firm? Can such a department un- derstand how difficult it is for a small businessman to stand up to the competi- tion of his powerful competitors? Mr. President, I think we all know the answers to these questions. Lyndon Johnson was right years ago when he supported the establishment of the Small Business Administration as an independent agency. He is wrong now if he plans to let this agency slip down the drain of the Department of Commerce. Let all the facts come out, Mr. Presi- dent. Those of us who want small busi- ness to survive are ready for a fight. Mr. ALLOW subsequently said: Mr. President, I congratulate my distin- guished friend the Senator from Ver- mont on his remarks with respect to the Small Business Administration. Many of us have been interested for a long time in making the Small Business Committee of the Senate a committee which would have legislative authority. As the Senator from Vermont has so well pointed out, this has been supported In the past, when those gentlemen were Members of the Senate, both by the President and the Vice President of the United States. What the Senator from Vermont has called attention to is something which should demand the attention of every- one in the Senate. He, in doing it today, has been extremely timely, with the steps which are being taken, I am afraid, to de- grade the Small Business Administra- tion. I think it would not be inappropriate, at this point, to make a few remarks about an experience that the Senator from Colorado had with the Small Busi- ness Administration during the floods which afflicted the State of Colorado in 1965, during the month of June. As everyone knows, the part played by the Small Business Administration is quite great in disaster areas. At that time, Mr. Foley, who has since been transferred to the Department of Com- merce, was the Administrator of the Small Business Administration. Over a period of a month, I called Mr. Foley's office I do not know how many times, and finally, through the assistance of other people in the Government, was able to get a call back from him when he was in California. He seems to be one of the most peripatetic men in the whole ad- ministration, and that is saying a great deal. At least, I could never find him in his office, and was able to talk with him, in a period of 30 or 45 days, on only one occasion; and I had to talk with him from California that time. The only way I could get any action or any answer out of the Small Business Administration, administered by Mr. Foley, was to go through the Office of Emergency Planning, the office directly under the President, which is charged with the planning of aid and assistance following major disasters. If the Small Business Administration should be moved, as perhaps some people plan, to the Department of Commerce, I am afraid it might go back to this unable Administrator who was formerly the Ad- ministrator of the Small Business Ad- ministration; and if that should happen, the small businessman in this country might as well give up the thought of being able to get a fair and equal shake In the economics of this country under the legislation we have passed to help him. These days we hear much about pros- perity and unemployment. But, Mr. President, as I go throughout my own State and throughout the country, lean- not but observe that while it may be that the big businesses of this country are prosperous, or their financial records seem to indicate, one cannot walk up and down the streets of the cities of this country, whether they are big cities or small towns, and find many small busi- nesses which are prospering?one out of a hundred, or maybe perhaps fewer. It is time for those of us who are charged with legislative authority to start thinking seriously about what we can do to preserve the small businessmen in this country, because they are suffering in a hundred ways, under the tax yokes and other burdens and restrictions under which Congress and, more so, the regu- latory agencies, have put them. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 2562 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE February 9, 1966 FLOOD CONTROL ALONG THE SOUTH PLATTE AND ARKANSAS RIVER BASINS IN COLORADO Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point House Joint Memorial 1002 of the House of Repre- sentatives of the State of Colorado, re- lating to the Chatfield Dam, the Nar- rows Dam, and others in the State of Colorado, and House Joint Memorial 1003 of the House of Representatives of the State of Colorado, relating to expe- diting the construction of flood control and other multiple-purpose projects along the Arkansas River Basin in Colo- rado. There being no objection, the memori- als were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL 1002 (Memorializing the Congress of the United States to take all action necessary to ex- pedite the ultimate construction of flood control and other multipurpose projects along the South Platte River Basin in the State of Colorado, so as to prevent a re- currence of the disastrous floods experi- enced by the State of Colorado in 1965 Whereas in the week beginning June 14, 1965, eastern Colorado experienced the worst natural disaster in the history of the State, principally by the flooding of the South Platte and Arkansas River Basins with a total estimated damage of $543 million to the State and its citizens; and Whereas as a result of the June 1965 floods, considerable public attention has been given to two proposed projects in the South Platte River Basin; namely, the Chat- field Dam and Reservoir, and the Narrows DR/II and. Reservoir; and Whereas the Chatfield project has been authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers, with the feasibility study ex- pected to be completed during the first part of 1966; and the Narrows Dam project was authorized as a unit of the Missouri River Basin project by the Federal Flood Control Acts of 1944 and. 1946; and Whereas, because of the lack of support in the 1950's by business interests and other affected persons in the project areas of the proposed Chatfield and Narrows Dams, ac- tion by the Congress and the Federal agen- cies involved was not continued on these projects, with the exception that a further feasibility study was authorized on the Chat- field Dam; and Whereas the 1965 flood emphasized the fact that dams and reservoirs must be built on the South Platte River and its tributaries In order to capture floodwaters generated by exorbitant amounts of rain, and by the heavy runoff waters in the high drainage areas of Colorado which flow down tribu- taries to the main rivers; and Whereas the Corps of Engineers has made a study and recommended the construction of the Mount Carbon Dam to be located just below Morrison, Colo., and said dam is con- sidered necessary in order to prevent a flood disaster down the tributary Bear Creek flow- ing into the South Platte, which could equal the June 16, 1955. disaster; and Whereas at the present time, business in- terests, civic groups, intercounty regional planners, affected individuals, and State agencies in Colorado are showing an awak- ened public conscience for the need of uni- fied flood control and water conservation programs in Colorado, and the Colorado Wa- ter Conservation Board is coordinating all such efforts toward the immediate construc- tion of the Chatfield Dam and the eventual construction of the Narrows Dam, a,s well as smaller flood control projects on some of the tributaries of the South Platte River: Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the 45th General Assembly of the State of Colorado (the Senate concurring herein), That the Congress of the United States is hereby requested to take all action necessary in order to expedite the construction of the Chatfield Dam and Reservoir on the South Platte River by authorizing the necessary preliminary funds therefor at the current session of the Congress, and also to take such action as may be necessary to expedite nec- essary studies to be undertaken by the Bu- reau of Reclamation in connection wit ii the future construction of the Narrows Dam and Reservoir on said river; and that the Corps of Engineers be urged to take other necessary action in order to effectuate the construction of the Mount Carbon Dam; and be it further Resolved, That the Congress, by this me- morial, is assured of the complete and uni- fied cooperation of the vast majority of the citizens of eastern Colorado, the members of this general assembly, and the various State agencies involved, wholeheartedly end using flood control and water conservation pro- grams in the South Platte River Basin, par- ticularly as outlined in this memorial; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this memorial be transmitted to the Honorable PAT MeNsmsaA, chairman of the standing Senate Committee on Public Works, to the Honora- ble GEORGE H. FALLON, chairman of the standing House Committee on Public Works, and to the Members of Congress from the State of Colorado. ALLEN DINES, Speaker, House of Representat, oes. N:VELYN T. .DAVIBSON, Chief Cleric, House of Representerb ROBERT L. KNOUS, President of the Senate. MILDRED H. CRESSWELL, Secretary of the Senate. HOUSE JO/NT MEMORIAL 1003 Memorializing the Congress of the United States to take all action necessary to ex- pedite the construction of flood control and other multiple-purpose projects along the Arkansas River Basin in the State of Colorado, so as to prevent a recurrence of the disastrous floods experienced by the State of Colorado in 1965 Whereas in the week beginning June 14, 1965, eastern Colorado experienced the worst natural disaster in the history of the State, principally by the flooding of the Arkansas and South Platte River basins, with a total estimated damage of $543 million to the State and its citizens; and Whereas two major projects which are scheduled for construction in the Arkansas River Basin would provide added flood con- trol protection for that area, and the Corps of Engineers is also reviewing the feasibility of a system of small flood-control dams along the numerous tributaries of the Arkansas river; and Whereas one of the major projects s the Pueblo Dam and Reservoir to be constructed approximately 6 miles west of the city of Pueblo. Colo., as a part of the Fryingpan- Arkansas project, said construction to begin In September 1968; the other major project being the construction of the Trinidad Dam, which as early as 1956 was authorized for construction by the Corps of Engineers, to be located on the Purgatoire River in Las Animas County; and Whereas flood damage between the pro- posed dam at Pueblo and the John Martin Reservoir is presently estimated at $708,000 annually, although the 1965 flood damage greatly exceeded said figure; and Whereas the flood menace to the city of Trinidad can be abrogated, and the economy of this area stabilized, if the Multipurpose dam proposed by the Bureau of Reclamation is constructed above the city of Trinidad; and Whereas the 1965 flood in Colorado empha- sized the fact that dams and reservoirs must be built on the Arkansas River and its tribu- taries to prevent future flood damage, and at the present time there is a coordinated effort in Colorado, under the direction of the Colorado Water Conservation Board, backing the construction of the Pueblo and Trinidad Dams and Reservoirs, as well as smaller flood control projects on some of the tributaries of the Arkansas River: Now, therefore; be it Resolved by the House of Representatives of the 45th General Assembly of the State of Colorado (the Senate concurring herein), That the Congress of the United States is hereby requested to take all action necessary in order to expedite the construction of the Pueblo and Trinidad Dams and Reservoirs as well as smaller flood control projects on trib- utaries of the Arkansas River; and be it further Resolved, That the Congress, by this me- morial, is assured of the complete and unified cooperation of the vast majority of the citi- zens of Colorado, the members of this gen- eral assembly, and the various State agencies involved, in wholeheartedly endorsing flood control and water conservation programs in the Arkansas River Basin; and be it further Resolved, That copies of this memorial be transmitted to the Honorable PAT MCNAMARA, chairman of the standing Senate Committee on Public Works, to the Honorable GEORGE H. FALLON, chairman of the standing House Committee on Public Works, and to the Members of Congress from the State of Colo- rado. ALLEN DINES, Speaker, House of Representatives. EVELYN T. DAVIDSON, Chief Clerk, House of Representatives. ROBERT L. KNOITS, President of the Sena:le. MILDRED H. CRESSWELL, Secretary of the Senate. Mr. ALLOTT. With respect to the latter and perhaps to both of these me- morials, Mr. President, I cannot help but say that I feel that the Corps of Engi- neers has far too long dragged its feet in its plans and studies for the control of the flood situation, particularly along the Platte River and its tributaries and the Arkansas River and its territory. We have had flood plans studied and restudied for years and years. We pro- vided additional money for the Corps of Engineers last year to escalate these studies; and after the harrowing experi- ence the citizens of nearly all of eastern Colorado went through last year, they expect the Corps of Engineers to start escalating and accelerating their studies, and to come up with some concrete plans and proposals to avoid repetition of the disastrous floods. It is high time that this area of the country receive the at- tention to which it is entitled. It has been neglected, as the record will show, for many years, and we can tolerate its disregard no longer. CRIME ON THE STREETS Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, my attention has been called to an editorial by Robert L. Chase in the Rocky Moun- tain News dated Friday, January 28, 1966, and I have waited for this opportunity to say a few words about it. I ask unani- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 qr, t, mats a iiim11?111IMPINIMMIPMINPO VIWWWWWPWAMAIN, IIINVONIOfflik-MUMINNION -.41.11111111 Aaproved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, /Wid CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 2523 village and to take all steps necessary and do all things which he believes to be necessary or expedient on our and their behalf to avoid the discontinuance of passenger service over the right-of-way of said railroad, and to co- operate with other municipalities that are or will be affected by a discontinuance of pas- senger service and with the interested gov- ernmental departments or agencies of the State of New York, the county of Westches- er, the State of Connecticut and its affected municipalities, and it is further Resolved, That copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Interstate Commerce Com- mission at its office in Washington, D.C., to Gov. Nelson A. Rockefeller, to our representa- tives In the New York State Legislature, to Senator JACOB K. JAvrrs, Senator ROBERT F. 'KENNEDY, and to Congressman OGDEN R. REID, Office of Transportation of the State of New York, Westchester County Executive Ed- win G. Michaelian, County Attorney Gordon Miller, and the mayors of the cities of New Rochelle, Mount Vernon, and Rye and the villages of Pelham Manor, North Pelham, Pelham, Mamaroneck, and Port Chester, and the supervisors of the towns of Pelham, Mamaroneck, and Harrison. Resolved, That this resolution shall take effect immediately. Adopted by the following vote. Ayes: Mayor Ryan, Trustees Goldsmith, Merkert, and Forrest. Nays: None. Absent: Truste Wanderer. VIETNAM Mr. McGEE. Mr. President, in yester- day's Evening Star there appeared an editorial and an article which seem to me to come close to the heart of the matter regarding the conflict in Vietnam. The editorial sets forth the basic prem- ise that we cannot accept the logic that "tyranny 10,000 miles away is not tyranny to concern us?or that subjuga- tion by an armed minority in Asia is dif- ferent from subjugation by an armed minority in Europe." The article is a column by Richard Fryklund, which details the relationship between "take and hold" and "search and destroy" operations. This column very lucidly explains a tactic that may well be the one which?over the months and years?may bring stability to Viet- nam. Mr. President, I commend the editorial and article to the attention of my col- leagues and the world, and I ask unani- mous consent that they be printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the editorial and article were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: WHY FIGHT IN VIETNAM? Once again the President has tried to an- swer those among his critics who say they do not understand why the United States is fighting in Vietnam. The critics will not be satisfied with the answer. For there is nothing new in it. But it is hard to know what more the President might have said in his remarks upon arriving in Honolulu. In substance, this is what he had to say: We are fighting to determine whether ag- gression and terror are the way of the fu- ture?.a question of the gravest importance to all other nations, large or small, who seek to walk in peace and independence. If the Communists win in Vietnam they will know they can accomplish through so-called wars of liberation what they could not accomplish through naked aggression in Korea?or in- surgency in the Philippines, Greece, and Malaya?or the threat of aggression in Tur- key?or in a free election anywhere. At this point, Mr. Johnson, in perhaps the most significant phase of his remarks, de- cided to lock horns with his senatorial critics, especially those in his own party. "There are special pleaders," he said, "who counsel retreat In Vietnam. They belong to a group that has always been blind to experience and deaf to hope. We cannot accept their logic that tyranny 10,000 miles away is not tyranny to concern us?or that subjugation by an armed minority in Asia is different from sub- jugation by an armed minority in Europe. Were we to follow their course, how many nations might fall before the aggressor? Where would our treaties be respected, our word honored, our commitment be- lieved. * * * If we allow the Communists to win in Vietnam * * * we will have to fight again someplace else?at what cost no one knows. That is why it is vitally important to every American family that we stop the Communists in South Vietnam." It could not have been easy for a consensus man to say these things. He knows his ex- planation will neither satisfy nor silence his critics. But there it is. The President has taken his stand and it will be difficult if not impossible for him to turn back. Nor is it at all likely, the critics notwithstanding, that Mr. John.son intends to turn back if he thinks he has the support of the American people, to whom his comments were really addressed. WASHINGTON CLOSE-UP: THE LOGIC OF TACTICS IN VIETNAM (By Richard Fryklund) The defensive strategy in South Vietnam remains the same year after year despite Honolulu conferenecs and arguments among the generals. Given the military and political situa- tion, there just does not seem to be any alternative to the formula?clear-and-hold plus search-and-destroy plus government- building equals, some day, victory. This was the strategy under the Diems; it remains the strategy today, and it will be the strategy as long as the war is fought. The terminology changes and the scale of effort changes, the weapons change and the minor tactics change, but the formula en- dures. Here is the logic that dictates the decisions of all the high-level conferences, bringing retired generals ever closer together in their public arguments and bringing relative har- mony to the private sessions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The enemy's strategy is the starting point. He has chosen to spread out through the countryside rather than seize section and try to expand along a clearly marked front. He has chosen, or has been forced through lack of support, to leave the cities pretty much alone. The problem of our side, then, is to clear the countryside of guerrillas and regular army units and to restore loyal governments In the cleared areas. Since the war became a real one in the early 1960's, the first step for the defenders has necessarily been to set up bases from which to operate. Our side has to start with secure areas where it can rest troops, guard its weapons, train soldiers and direct operations. These secure areas now dot the entire country. They can be as small as a special forces camp in the mountains where a few score of South Vietnamese and American soldiers have builtsome huts. They can be a city and a jet airfield, like Da Nang, where the Marine Corps is building its major base. They can be carved out of the wilderness, like the 1st Cavalry Division's base at An Khe, or they can be smack in the middle of a city, like the headquarters complexes at Saigon. But once established, they must be pro- tected. So the military forces inevitably set up a perimeter defense, a permanent but ever- shifting ring of soldiers and guns around the base. Since enemy weapons can shoot several miles, the defensive ring must be several miles out from the base. Therefore, our forces must push the enemy out of a circle a mile to 10 to 50 miles in radius, depending on the size and importance of the base, and must keep him out. This is the start of the clear-and-hold Operation. Sothe of the largest battles have resulted from this effort to push the enemy away. Our side has won them all. As a result, you can measure some thousands of square miles that have been taken from the enemy and handed over to the government. It is almost impossible to hold a perim- eter without aggressive patrolling outside the ring. Without this, the enemy can gath- er for sudden assaults and keep the defend- ers too busy to do anything but survive. How far you sweep depends on your own strength. If you can round up a few thousand sol- diers, you "patrol" right through the heart of enemy sanctuaries a hundred miles or more from the base. The objective is still to keep the enemy off balance, disorganized and tired. These patrols are called search-and-destroy operations today. They go everywhere, but they are still sporadic and small. But the farther and the better you do search and destroy, the farther and better you can clear and hold. Search and destroy is a leaky shield for clear and hold. Clear and hold is then a strong shield for the final step toward victory, government building. As base areas expand, they take in con- tested villages and their people. The South Vietnamese province or district governments then move in to set up new local govern- ments. If these governments provide what the people want?a school, a clinic, a water- supply system, an honest chief, a home-guard outfit, a police force?and if the clear-and- hold operations keep Vietcong infiltration down to the level of safety provided by, say, an American slum area after dark, then the war is being won. Depending on how hard you try to use the basic formula and how hard the enemy tries to break it up, victory approaches or recedes. It's as simple as that. THE RUSSIAN BID FOR MARITIME SUPREMACY Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey. Mr. President, the current issue of the Re- porter magazine has a most disturbing article on the rapid growth of the Soviet merchant marine and a discussion of the concentrated and successful effort of the Russians to become a major shipping power. In less than 10 years the Rus- sians have moved from 12th to 7th place among the maritime nations. They are adding merchant tonnage at the rate of a million tons a year: at this rate, the Russians will equal the British fleet in 1980. The Russian fleet already is larger than the active American mer- chant fleet. In startling contrast our merchant fleet has declined sharply in size. Today the Russian fleet carries the greatest part of its foreign trade; American ships only carrying 9 percent of our exports. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 2524 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? - SENATE February 9, 1966 As the author, Noel Mostert, points out: Unquestionably, Russia's ultimate goal is the domination of world trade. The immense strategic and political advantage a dominant merchant marine would give to Russia is obvious. The rapid growth of the Russian merchant marine is in shocking contrast to the continued decay and decline of American merchant shipping. This article shows the need for a sound merchant marine policy on the part of the United States? a policy that will unite government, labor, and management in a sound and practical program of rebuilding and strengthening our badly weakened merchant marine. I ask unanimous consent that the article, "Russia Bids for Ocean Supremacy" be printed in the REcoria at this point. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: RUSSIA 11105 FOlt OCEAN SUPREMACY (13y Noel Mostert) LON DON.? rhousands of Britons, attracted by broadcast publicity, recently flocked down to the London docks, to inspect the new 20,000-ton Soviet passenger finer Alexander Pushkin, built in East German shipyards. It was the ship's introduction to the Western public, Which Moscow hopes will patronize her when she starts sailing between Lenin- grad and Montreal this spring via European ports. The sightseers found a beautifully streamlined vessel, perhaps a little more garish than her Atlantic rivals but certainly as comfortable. Caviar, needless to say, will be a featured course. The Alexander Pus/skin's visit was really the advance celebration of a reasonably cer- tain fact: 1966 will be Russia's year at sea. Moscow fully expects to achieve goals that most people didn't even know the Soviets were aiming for, the principal one being in- ternational recognition of the U.S.S.R. as a major maritime power. No other country can possibly match, proportionately speak- ing, Moscow's creation over the last 10 years of one of the largest merchant fleets in the. world. Any champagne corks that pop aboard the Alexander Pus/skin on her maiden voyage undoubtedly will be to toast the dream of eventually having the largest. 13REARING THE ICE The North Atlantic venture itself repre- seats only one of the main goals. For the first time in lila tory, Russia will be a full and regular participant in the Western ocean's trade. Actually, the entering wedge came a year ago with a Soviet initiative that has gone largely unrecognized: sending ships to Montreal in the winter, when the St. Law- rence is frozen and to all intents and pur- poses closed to shipping. A couple of Euro- pean shipping lines were ahead of the Soviet Union in pioneering Montreal as a year- round port. They had used small, tough vessels, but the shipping world was still skeptical when the Murmansk Arctic Steam- Maio Line announced a service between Mon- treal and North Sea ports with three 7,500- ton ships that were virtually icebreakers and were manned by veterans in ice navigation. This was merely a prelude. For example, the Russians have now entered the cruising business. A sister ship of the Pus/skin's, the Ivan Frank?, which entered the tourist trade last year, is now about to start a year's char- Ler with the French vacation enterprise Club .IVIedliterranee, to carry Frenchmen on low- cost cruises to the Mediterranean and the Caribbean. Another Russian liner will take British schoolchildren on Scandinavian cruises. Furthermore, Russia also expects to achieve its goal this year of moving '16 percent of its foreign trade in its own vessels. It will graduate a record number of officers from national maritime academies. Hun- dreds of new ships will enter the Soviet mer- chant marine, slid several new shipping serv- ices are to be started, linking Ruseia with countries with which it has not traded di- rectly. More significantly, the Russians are deter- mined to establish in 1966 a new and closer mercantile association with Europea n coun- tries, particularly Great Britain, rise ex- perience as operators of the largest n erchant marine in the world they eagerly wish to share. The Soviet credentials to the western ship- ping world usually arrive in the form of their eminently approachable and (Mullient Minister of the Merchant Fleet, Victr Baka- yev, the closest Soviet approximation to a dedicated western executive, whoee great abilities have received scant appraise' in the West. Last fall he was dispatched to Lon- don to explain the purposes and intentions of the Soviet merchant marine, and the out- come was one of the more remarkable decla- rations of cooperation that the Russ ins have ever made. For 1966, Bakayev promised the opening of a northern route for shipping from Europe to the Pacific, to be maintained by a Soviet atomic icebreaker; he approved a British re- quest to ship metals to Iran via the Trans- Russia Canal; and he announced th:tt Russia would join and not undermine the Atlantic shipping conferences, which the st eamship lines privately form to regulate passenger and freight rates. "Russia does not want. to build up her merchant navy as a sort of monopoly with certain exclusive rights." Bakayev as- serted, "and so we do not propose to ignore existing international organizations for co- operation in shipping." REFUTING MAHAN Bakayev seems to have remark able au- thority to do and say what he w.shes. If there is flair in what the Russians do with their merchant marine, it undoubtedly is due to Bakayev. He more than any other man is responsible for its created'. The astonishing fact is that the job has been done mainly during the past 5 years. 3:n a celebrated series of lectures on naval strategy delivered at the U.S. Naval War College at Newport during the closing years of the last century, Capt. A. T. Mahan, U.S. Navy, observed the fact that 'r* * * Rus- sia has little maritime commerce, at least in here own bottoms; her merchant flee is rarely seen; she * * can in no sense be called a maritime nation." Less than 10 years ago, Mahan 's remark remained substantially true. Since then Russia has moved from 12th to 7th place among the maritime nations. It has ac- quired some 7 million tons of shipping, most of if. modern and fast and superbly designed. This is being added to at a rate of more than a million tons annuedy, under a 20-year series of plans that by 1980 will provide the Soviet Union with a fleet of over 20 million tons?the equivalent of the British merchant marine of today By that time, depending upon what the Japanese do with their own ambitious plans for mercantile expansion, and assuming that the present rate of decline of Western shipping continues, the Russians may have she largest and most modern and diversified merchant fleet afloat. Indeed, maritime authorities here in London regard this program as second only to the Soviet space successes in political significance. They have no doubt at all that the merchant fleet will be Russia's most powerful economic weapon of the future. Unquestionably, Russia's ultimate goal is domination of world trade. But even if it fails to attain the top rank, it is sure to come pretty close to it. Moreover, its effective power in this area both now and for the future must be assessed in the light of the fact that several of the Eastern European satellites have also built up sizable fleets and shipbuilding capacity, notably Poland and East Germany, Rumania, Bulgaria, even landlocked Hungary, and Czechoslovakia (whose flag is being increasingly seen) are also expanding rapidly. The Soviet-bloc na- tions now operate largely as an integrated maritime unit, pooling their shipping serv- ices with a degree of harmony that they do not always achieve in other common enter- prises. Yugoslavia, too, has an impressive shipping industry, with a variety of services through- out the world; but, while working closely with the bloc, which assigns it large ship- building orders, it tends to go its own way in trade just as it does politically. In the long run, however, maritime independence may be. less easy to maintain than political autonomy, and Yugoslavia may join rather than fight. The shipbuilding achievements of the bloc are impressive: the Polish yards alone have launched 2.5 million tons since the war, and nearly 500 Polish-built ships are sailing under the flags of the Soviet Union, Indonesia, Communist China, Brazil, Cuba, Switzerland. the United Arab Republic, India, and surpisingly, Britain and France. But far more interesting is the diversity of shipping services that the bloc has established. There is scarcely a trade route where its ships don't operate. Russia itself now trades in its own bottoms with more tha ii 60 nations. Its ships are sailing from Baltic, Black Sea, and Far Eastern ports to all parts of Asia, Africa, the Indian Ocean, the Caribbean, South America, the Mediter- ranean, and, intensively, to both coasts of Canada. Its trawlers, though technically not part of the merchant fleet, are seen everywhere, off Australia, southwest Africa, Newfoundland, the Antarctic. The examples of the bloc's combined mer- chant services are numerous. Polish. Czech. and Russian ships provide a joint schedule between Rumanian ports and the Midcile East; Polish, East German, Czech, and Rus- sian ships sail to West Africa from East Ger- man ports. Between Cuba and the Baltic ply Russian, East German, Czech, Polish, and Hungarian ships. Polish and East Ger- man vessels operate to a variety of African ports not included in the West African serv- ice. Polish ships also run liner services to Mexico, South America, the Indian Ocean, and the Far East. By 1970 it will be ex- ceptional to enter any large port and not encounter several of the bloc flags. A LEGACY OF DISTRUST The speed and success of this Soviet-bloc merchant expansion and its ingenious in- sertion into the trading patterns that have been virtual Western monopolies for 500 years was scarcely noticed by the West until recently. Bedeviled by their own compli- cated rivalries and ruthless competition. which already have done much to under- mine the power and potential of the tradi- tional maritime powers, particularly Brit- ain, the Western nations have begun tose- riously assess the possible consequences. Lloyd's Register of Shipping, the best known international authority, puts out an- nually the roost detailed information we:. Hs able on Soviet-bloc shipping. Considerable time and effort are required to evaluate Vila information, since Communist statistics are not always reliable and the Soviet bloc does not report full details of its shipbuilding to Lloyd's for publication, as almost every other nation does. Nonetheless officials of Llcade:i declare their information to be a "reasonably accurate and fairly complete picture." They see the merchant fleets of the bloc as ZL "formidable challenge" whose aim is "to cap- ture cargo trade held previously by British and other lines." Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 MIRIPIIMMIIIIIIMM1411114111IIMMINIVM711#1111,41111.1111111111111111 4111110114111111AMMIN111,440111064111111404100114141041444,114144MAIMMAIIP4131M01,1011=1.1:11Mile, 1H111N*4111111111.1,41,1.11111110.1111W.,....111.11111.110.41101111111111111111,10,114/411111011111MME MAW Approved For Reletzgfa5106/29 ? CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 2522 RESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE February 9, 1966 of humanity at the other reminds me irresist- ably of British political life during most of the past century * * * the old imperial and liberal Britain writ large." That sounds like a fair, if rough estimate of our moral and intellectual condition. But statesmen must deal with today's practicali- ties simultaneously with theories of tomor- row. In 1966 it is just conceivable that the big initiatives will come from Russia, simply because it seems to be that nation that must make crucial choices of direction. For us, the question that must be answered in 1966 is how to make the Vietnam war a foundation stone in the construction of an Asiatic balance of power and not a pit into which we anil China slide, bringing down everyone else with us to unmeasurable CURRENT MILK SHORTAGE TEMPORARY Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, the Washington Post recently carried an ex- cellent article by Loren H. Osman, dis- cussing the current milk shortage. Mr. Osman, whose reporting is of consistently high caliber, has made it clear in the article that the milk shortage is due to a number of temporary factors which can be expected to correct themselves. Among the factors cited by Mr. Osman are: First. A drought which cut feed sup- plies in Eastern States while rain dam- aged forages in the Midwest. Cows did not milk as well on the resulting low- protein diets. Second. High priced beef and hogs, causing farmers to switch from milking to feeding. Third. A labor shortage which enticed dairy farmers into higher paying indus- trial work. All of these factors can be expected to change in the future. The result will be more plentiful milk. Unfortunately the result will also be additional surpluses purchased and stored at Government expense. This is one of the reasons I have been fighting against a cut in the special milk program for schoolchildren. The pro- gram by increasing the utilization of milk and creating good drinking habits in our Nation's schoolchildren lessens the pres- sures on the Government's price-support program. A cut in the school milk pro- gram will simply mean that the cost of the dairy price support program will go up. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent that the Osman article be reprinted at this point in the RECORD. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: MILK PRICES COULD RISE?WISCONSIN DAIRY- LAND STRAINS TO MEET NATIONAL SHORTAGES (By Loren H. Osman) MILWAUKEE, Was., February 5.?Where did all the milk go? America's dairyland, tradi- tionally the source of a great river of milk? and mountains of surplus butter and cheese?is straining to meet demands. Giant highway tankers, hauling 6,000 gal- lons each, are rolling out of the State in an endless stream. They are unloading in far- flung markets from the Carolinas, Florida and Tennessee to Arkansas, Missouri, Texas and Colorado. Last month 300 loads of "supplemental" grade A milk left Wisconsin, three times as many as in January 1965. The boom started last fall when deficits began cropping up in other States. It gave Wisconsin a market for nearly 120 million pounds, 50 million more than 1964. FACTORS IN SHORTAGE This is only a drop in the milk bucket for Wisconsin, whose 2 million cows put out nearly 19 million pounds a year. But it is part of a nationwide kink in the dairy situa- tion being felt back at crossroads plants and, which may turn up in the price of milk on the doorstep. Among the factors behind it are these: Drought cut feed supplies in Eastern States, while rains damaged forages in the Midwest. Last winter, 60,000 acres of Wis- consin alfalfa smothered under ice. Farm- ers resorted to annual grass until they could re-establish legumes. But feed quality was poor, fall rains hampered silage making and some corn froze. Cows didn't milk as well on low protein diets. High priced beef and hogs, caused many farmers to switch from milking to feeding. Dairy herds were culled sharply to take ad- vantage of good meat prices. A labor shortage enticed dairy farmers into enterprises with less work or off the farm entirely?following the inducement of high factory wages. Wisconsin, which had 130,000 herds is 1952, probably is down to 80,0001. BOOST IN PRICE ASKED Nationally, the 1965 production of 126.5 billion pounds was off a billion from 1964. The Corn Belt was down 3.6 percent. Wis- consin barely held its own but in meeting out-of-State demands, its butter production dropped 6,percent and cheesemaking skidded in the fall months. Farm leaders have urged Agriculture Sec- retary Freeman to boost the support price of milk, now at $3.24 a hundredweight for milk for manufacturing uses (75 percent of par- ity) , to halt the exodus of dairy farmers, in- crease incomes, and relieve shortages. The Government bought 26 percent less dairy products last year to prop prices than in 1964 and might be apprehensive about getting back in the butter and cheese busi- ness if boosting supports brought more sur- pluses. Supports are reset April 1. Farm milk prices have improved, wound up last year at $8.86 a hundred pounds in Wis- consin, highest since 1952. The average in- cludes fluid markets. Linked with the drop in milk from farms has been a bounding cheese market. Paced by more pizzas and cheese replacements for steaks and chops, consumption has climbed. At the Green Bay Cheese Exchange, cheddar is 5 cents a pound higher than a year ago, swiss up 7 cents. OUTBID BY CHEESE PLANTS Cheese plants have been outbidding but- ter factories for farmers' milk, and like every- one else's business, volume is the key to suc- cess. Some less efficient or less flexible oper- ations have shut down entirely. Dairy lead- ers say realining supports would correct the disparity between cheese and butter. Prosperous cheesemakers have even wooed away producers from normally higher fluid markets. This enabled the 22 cooperatives supplying Chicago to win an extra 30 cents a hundredweight from milk dealers last week, in a contract for the next year's supply, to put an extra $8,500,000 into the pockets of 13,500 farmers, in premiums over Federal minimums. Pure Milk Association, largest bargainer on the Chicago market, also has asked the Ag- riculture Department to tighten "pooling provisions" of country plants. These plants now need to send only 20 percent of their volume to the market to share in the mar- ketwide averaging of dealers' paying prices, can put the rest into cheese. PMA wants the percentage raised to assure supplies. The involved milk picture may be partly righted by pasture time. Experts predict the national supply to regain half of last year's loss, by the end of 1966. The impression will remain, however: surpluses can evaporate in a hurry. PROPOSED CURTAILMENT OF SERV- ICE BY THE NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO. Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD at this point a resolution regard- ing the application of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co., to dis- continue all interstate passenger trains, adopted by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Larchmont, N.Y., on Jan- uary 3, 1966. There being no objection, the resolu- tion was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: RESOLUTION REGARDING APPLICATION OF NEW YORK, NEW HAVEN & HARTFORD RAILROAD CO. TRUSTEES TO INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM- MISSION TO DISCONTINUE ALL INTERSTATE PASSENGER TRAINS Whereas there is now pending before the Interstate Commerce Commission an appli- cation by the trustees of the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co. to discontinue all interstate passenger trains, being Finance Docket No. 23831; and Whereas the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad is the only direct means of public transportation between the village of Larchmont and Grand Central terminal in New York City and between the village of Larchmont and other Westchester County communities and communities located on the said railroad right-of-way in the State of Connecticut; and Whereas the village of Larchmont is a first-class village of over 5,000 residents and a great number of its residents use said railroad daily for the purpose of transpor- tation from Larchmont to their respective places of business in New York City; and Whereas many residents of the village of Larchmont purchased homes in Larchmont relying on the public transportation fur- nished by the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad Co.; and Whereas the discontinuance of the pas- senger service would have an adverse effect on real property values in the village of Larchmont due to the fact that many of the residents who use the New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad would be forced to vacate their residences; and Whereas the discontinuance of passenger service would increase the vehicular traffic in the already overcongested traffic in the city of New York; and Whereas the merchants and small busi- ness people who conduct their business in the village of Larchmont rely upon the fam- ilies of commuting residents, not only of Larchmont but of the neighboring villages of Mamaroneck and Scarsdale and the city of New Rochelle for their livelihood; and Whereas the public convenience and neces- sity require the continuance of the passenger service: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That this board opposes the ap- plication of the trustees of said railroad to discontinue passenger service and requests permission to intervene and send its repre- sentatives to hearings on this matter before the Interstate Commerce Commission; and be it further Resolved, That the mayor of the village of Larchmont is hereby authorized to appear and testify in said hearings being conducted by the Interstate Commerce Commission on behalf of this Board and the residents of this Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SEN ATE bind a little bit of: highly institutionalized public housing. Neither course has involved a look at the total need of the community to provide educational, health, and recrea- tional facilities on a broader base. The re- location of families has been looked at as a way to clear the land, but not as a way to build new communities. Probably because many of these families are regarded by the rest of society as unde- r, .rable for social or economic reasons, no effort has been made to relocate these faro- ie:3 so as to provide them with a new en- vironment and a new opportunity to partici- rate in the better schools, finer libraries, pleasanter neighborhoods. They have, on toe whole, been relocated in neighborhoods cry much like the ones they left, the older, poorer, less well served 'neighborhoods. And tilic relocation has too often recreated the problems which were the basis for. the orig- inal slum clearance legislation of the 30's which is the predecessor of the present laws or rebuilding our cities. Today every displacement of low-income families should be looked upon as an oppor- tinity to locate (not relocate) families in :Filch a way as to avoid future problems of eegregation by class or race into schools and institutions which reflect the weakness and inability of the poor to secure for themselves 1,lie share of even public facilities which they need. The problem then is not to stop the displacement of low-income families, but use it in such a way as to provide society with an opportunity to build healthy neigh- horhoods, healthy schools, and healthy pub- 'it, facilities. Viewed in this way, reloca- non of low-income families is a goal of :lociety, not just the unpleasant byproduct -el urban renewal. ROBERT G. "BOBBY" BAKER Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. rresident, in the January 29, 1966, issue of the Minneapolis Tribune there ap- peared an article by Clark Mollenhoff, entitled "Baker Loses Vending Pact With Northrop." Even though the Defense Department extends a security clearance to Mr. Baker and his company I am glad to note that the defense plants have seen tit to cancel these contracts which, to say the Neast, were obtained under very question- able circumstances, ask unanimous consent that this arti- cle be printed in the body of the REcorm. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, r011OWS: HAILER LOSES VENDING PACT WITH NORTHROP I Fly Clark Mollenhoff) WASHINGION, D.C.,--The Bobby Baker fi- nancial enterprises have suffered another set- hack in losing a vending machine contract with Northrop Corp. Officials of Northrop told the Tribune Fri- day that Baker's fiery-it Vending Co. is no longer serving any or Northrop's plants. It was explained that Baker's contract ex- pired at lire end oi the year, and bids were i,e,Ited. for a new contract for the Northrop elants at Ventura and Anaheim, Calif. The etintracts that Baker had with the Ventura and Anaheim plants constituted about 25 to :to percent of the Northrop vending business. Automatic Canteen had the bulk of the husiness at the main Northrop plant at tawthorne, Calif. Baker was not the low bidder, Northrop said, and so he was dropped. Within the last 2 months, North American (",,viation Co. stopped doing business with ere-U. That was the first major financial ,11111FIIMIMOIIMIPPIIIMM11,0141.4,1.10 blow to Baker's lucrative food vending blue- ness with big defense contractors. The North American contract grossed more than $2,500,000 a year for Serv-U Vendinee The 'Northrop contract was reported to be in excess of $500,000 a year. Together, these two contracts made lip "the backbone of Baker's financial empire." according to the Republican minority report on the investigation of the "gross impro- prieties" of Baker, the former secretary to tile Democratic majority of the Senate. Baker's vending business with big defer tie contractors cariie in for sharp criticism frc the Democrats as well as the Republicans in the Senate Rules Committee. The Republican minority in its official port stated that "until such time as defense contractors such as North American Aviatlm and Northrop decide they no longer want to do business with Baker, his complete finsli- cud empire may continue." TOWARD AN ASIAN BALANCE CP POWER Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, this may not be the easiest time for the United States to take a long view of its foreign policy, embroiled as we are in the day-to-day tensions of a war of potentially catastrophic dimensions. Na- tions, like soldiers, do not plan their fu- ture from foxholes. And yet events can force upon us shadowy conclusions which point tow' the future. The very inability of the United States to work its will in Aeia van force a realization, as Eric Sevareid wrote recently, that: The concept of America as miesionary rid the world as our sick oyster declines in the face of ancient realities. While writing this Mr. Savareid, has grown increasingly concerned our Asian policy in recent weeks, spoke of the need to achieve in the Far East en half of the globe the "rough but so tar effective balance of power" worked ut in the Western World, largely betwecn the United States and Russia. Mr. Sevareid concluded: Far us, the question that must be ,11- swered in 1966 is how to make the Vietnam war a foundation stone in the construcle on of an Asiatic balance of power and not a pit into which we and China slide, bring- ing down everyone else with ue to unmeas- tire ble grief. This long view of American policy is extemely necessary. Mr. Sevareot's thoughtful comments deserve to be cc : to- fully considered, and I ask unanimous consent that his weekly column, appear- inn in the January 27 edition of the Ida ho Observer, be printed in the REc,:ozo. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: TOWARD AN ASIAN BALANCE OF POWER (Ey Eric Sevareid) Da this second( third, now ending, of the brutal and brilliant 20th century, Etrope lost its 2,000-year-old position as the dynamic source of both thought and power, and the power, at least, has been reformed in and three new centers of America, Ruesia, and China. The three have been groping and thrusting, half blindly, to affect and to discover the terms of existence in this oew, three-cornered world of power. 2521 Russia and the United States have been at it longer than Communist China, which consolidated its internal order only a few years ago. The first two have had, by now, a long series of sobering experiences with each other, both as hot war friends and cold war foes, and they have therefore changed much more in their outlook and tactics than have the old ideologists still alive in Peking. It is too early for an incautious acceptance of the idea of "parallelism" in foreign policy between the United States and Russia. Bit, they parallel one another in the basic spirit of desiring to minimize the risks of another global war. The confrontation over the Cuban missiles was a major turning point; they have backed warily off from one another since, certainly on Berlin, certainly on Africa's troubled waters, and in degree on Vietnam. And in the meantime a potential of common in- terest and attitude in calming China down has developed. It was only a few years ago that Moscow looked with philosophical favor, at a mini- mum, on exterior wars and upheavals. Yet now we see the significant spectacle of Mos- cow acting as peacemaker between India and Pakistan. The chief reason for this is simple: it is China. A rough but so far effective balance of power has been worked out in the Western World, with Europe, and partly over the head of Europe. If Vietnam can be kept, down to the scale of an episode, however violent, in the groping search for an order i:n Aria, then the chief international business of the last third of this century is likely to be the working out of a lasting balance of power for the Far Eastern half of the globe. The resources, the attention, and the nerves of Americans are now deeply and perhaps permanently committed both east and west. We enter 1966 with more than 1 million American military men stationed beyond our borders, and when one adds their dependents and all the civilian workers, both private end governmental, there is a total of around 21:', million American citizens now living in end daily affecting foreign societies. Except during the two great wars of this century we have never had this experience on such a scale. We are having extreme diffi- culty even in comprehending the meaning of this American impact abroad, let alone man- aging it. The small problems involved, of course, multiply endlessly. But while the domi- nating problems of our very security hove greatly changed in these years, they have not, by any means, all changed for the Worse. Western Europe did not, after all, fall into the Soviet orbit, West Berlin still stands. The destructive illusion of remorselessly ad- vancing Russian power, both terrestial and spatial, was broke:n with their retreat over Cuba and by our own leaps in space. The frightening specter of a stupendous Russian-Chinese power collectively has borer laid. The fear that there was an automatic inevitability about the spread of communism in Asia, Africa, and Latin America has been greatly relieved by events in Indonesia, in a dozen African States and by the democra 1.10 resilience demonstrated by countries lite Venezuela and Chile. As we live and learn in our new world rele, philosophical shifts are detectable, in Wash- ington and in the universities. The concept of America as missionary and the world as our sick oyster declines in the face of ancient realities. The European spirit of holding moral obligations within the boundaries of practical capacities seems to grow stronger. A certain dichotomy develops at home. As the London Economist expresses it, "The combination of intellectuals studying the in- terest of the state at one end of the scale while other intellectuals protest in the name Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 I IIM111,4 ,140 I- OW WIMP 2508 Approved For Relekw4116CMCgkisTwffemiNKimpt,p0020005_1Febrwtry 9, 1966 international law on blockades, background of Security Council decision on Korean war, method Security Council acts on charges of aggression, power lack of General Assembly In ease Security Council inactive. HARRY H. BERGBAUER, FEBRUARY 9, 1966. Mr. HARRY H. BERGBAUER, Monterey, Calif.: You should go back to school and learn about the most elementary tenets of inter- national law and right of free Americans to be protected from governnient by secrecy. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator. TRIBUTE TO SENATOR BYRD OF VIRGINIA Mrs. SMITH. Mr. President, the new- est Member of the U.S. Senate is the son and the nephew of two of my closest friends. I am delighted that he is a member of two of my committees?the Armed Services Committee and the Aero- nautical and Space Sciences Committee. In the short time that he has been in the Senate he has given clear evidence that he is molded in the image of his father and that he will unfalteringly follow in the illustrious footsteps of his father. Recently he made an extremely inter- esting speech at a luncheon meeting of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. It is a speech worthy of your attention and so I ask unanimous consent that the address of Senator HARRY F. BYRD, JR. before that institute on February 3, 1966, be placed in the RECORD at this point. There being no objection, the speech was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SPEECH BY SENATOR HARRY F. BYRD, JR., DEM- OCRAT OF VIRGINIA, BEFORE LUNCHEON MEETING OF THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS, NATIONAL CAPITAL. SECTION, NATIONAL PRESS CLUB, WASHINGTON, D.C., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1966 I have come here today to meet members of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, National Capital section, my new friends of air and space. As the newest Member of the Senate, the newest member of the Aeronautical and Space Sciences Committee, and therefore the newest expert in the field, I am hard pressed for something to say to you about your own business. I am a Virginian and a Democrat. When I am hard pressed -for words of wisdom, it is natural that I turn to Thomas Jefferson. As usual, he has something appropriate to say. In a 1788 letter to Ralph Izard he said this: "I have never thought boys should un- dertake abstruse and difficult sciences * * * til 15 years of age, at soonest. Before that time they are best employed learning the languages, which is merely a matter of mem- ory." I am over 15. So it is all right for me to undertake committee work in aeronautical and space sciences. I had not majored in the language before, but I am learning it now. NASA has provided me with a dictionary in the language of art. With it and your help, I am applying myself enthusiastically to both the homework and the committee classroom study. I want you to know that while I may be new to the aerospace committee, my interest is not new. I am fascinated by the whole span of the subject from Virginia to Mars. I think I am entitled to start With Vir- ginia because we have not only highly im- portant Government aeronautical and space activities, but also a rapidly increasing edu- cational and industrial interest in the field. NASA's Langley Research Center?under NACA in earlier days?has been working on the aeronautic and space frontiers since 1917, and it is a pioneer in the Apollo plan to land U.S. explorers on the moon. At Wallops Island?Virginia's Cape Ken- nedy?NASA has its principal readout station in eastern United States, and from here hun- dreds of rockets have been, launched in the interest of rocket technology and knowledge of the earth's atmospheric makeup. The new Virginia Associated Research Cen- ter-Cyclotron complex?a NASA-higher-in- stitution-of-learning venture in the Hamp- ton-Newport News area?with adjacent re- search park, is attracting technical industry attention. As chairman of the Virginia Advisory Board on Industrial Development, I am ad- vised that NASA prime contracts totaling nearly $120 million were awarded in 27 Vir- ginia counties and cities between 1961 and 1965. The rising amounts of these contracts are evidence of the increasing aeronautics and space-related industry in the State. In 1961 the contracts totaled $6.8 million. In 1965 they totaled $42.8 million. I hope this kind of industry?electronics, aeronautical, space and related?will con- tinue to increase in Virginia. Perhaps noth- ing dramatizes our changing world so much as the achievements in aeronautical and space sciences. Nonetheless sure, if less dramatic, are changes in other lines of endeavor?in busi- ness and government?and as businessmen and individuals we must be alert to change. As businesnien and individuals we must look ahead. Legislators, also, must look ahead. We must be alert to changing times, condi- tions, and opportunities. I want to be a friend in court to all who are engaged in sound progress. Progress means change. But in science, business, and government we must recognize that there are certain fundamentals that do not change. The arithmetic table, for example, does not change. Two and two still make four. The fact that taxes are paid in the sweat of every man who works is another fundamen- tal that I cannot forget. I hope my position in the field of aeronau- tics and space sciences will be characterized by a balanced combination of fiscal responsi- bility and dedication to the search for new knowledge and its useful application. I am aware of the responsibilities incident to legislating in the space age. We have passed a milestone in history and started a new epoch. The bond of gravity has been broken. Manmade devices have orbited the sun and photographed the moon. My uncle, the late Adm. Richard E. Byrd, undertook some pioneering and exploring in his day. The closest I ever came to exploring even the earthly reaches was riding in his New York tickertape parade. My Senate committee assignments not- withstanding, I may want to ponder a little more the idea of keeping vigil alone on the 1Vloon and exploring Mars. Meanwhile, we look forward to supersonic transports.. I notice in a recent speech by NASA Administrator James E. Webb, that he sees hypersonic transports a little further in the future. We look forward also to broad- casts via satellite directly to home receivers, probes of distant planets, conventional take- off and landing in space vehicles, nuclear en- gines, an.d so on. These achievements in the future will be no more fantastic than the accomplishments of the past 10 years. They are the products of industrious men who are giving new thrust to the old sciences?astronomy, phys- ics, chemistry, and geology. To these are added the force of new tech- niques and engineering in materials, struc- tures, fuels, power sources, and electronics. We tend to think of the spectacular break- throughs of the space age. Equally impor- tant are the side results of space require- ments for improved standards, and reliability of performance?mechanical and human. We are getting new materials?metals, fabrics, plastics, and lubricants?which are tougher, long 'lived, and more versatile than we have previously known. We are getting better washing machines, household appliances, television sets, and so on. Weathered-in as we have been for the past week, the job of the weather satellites comes particularly to mind. The Weather Bureau has estimates showing that 5-day weather predictions annually would save the econ- omy $2.5 billion in agriculture; $4 billion in water resources management; $100 million in surface transportation; $75 million in re- tail marketing; and $45 million in the lumber industry. Comsat (Communications Satellite Corp.) is approaching its third anniversary. Its Early Bird satellite, launched less than a year ago, opened a new and promising com- munications era. Dr. Joseph V. Charyk, before our com- mittee on January 26, said Early Bird suc- cessors would be capable of transmitting television, telephone, and data service simul- taneously. He said 48 nations had signed agreements for the establishment of an international partnership, owned 55 percent by COMSAT, to establish and operate the space portion of a global satellite system. The purpose is creation of a single global commercial communication satellite system at the earliest possible date. The 48 sig- natories account for at least 90 percent of the potential international world telecom- munications traffic that might be served by the system. Our national policy stresses peaceful space exploration and use of this new domain, Un- fortunately space developments to date have military implications which impose awe- some responsibility. While we seek cooperative peaceful de- velopment, we have no choice but to acquire space capabilities for the protection of our national interest and humanity. I wish I could close without reference to war. But we are still sitting on a world war powder keg at this moment. I pray that it will not develop into a nuclear holocaust. Despite our great private and public in- terest in peaceful aeronautic and space de- velopment, the Vietnam war is the dominant question before the Nation today. It is a conflict which is of deep concern in both the executive and legislative branches of the Government. It is of deep concern to me, and to you, and to fathers and mothers of draft-age sons all over the country. As a member of the Armed Services Com- mittee, I completed yesterday a -week of secret committee sessions studying testi- mony by Secretary of Defense McNamara' and the military Joint Chiefs of Staff. The proceedings are classified, but I be- lieve each witness answered frankly the mul- titude of questions put to him. Without breach of security, I can say many of the statements by both witnesses and Senators were cause for thoughtful concern with re- spect to basic policy. There was no quibbling among members of the Armed Services Committee about es- sential military expenditures. For myself, I shall support all military expenses necessary to bring the Vietnam war to successful con- clusion. It will require time to assimilate the views expressed by our top military authorities in a weeklong interrogation. Until then, we can only hope that this war?which at the Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP.67ABIOR446R000400020005-1 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SIAN 2507 morally right and politically wise. your /lends are legion. Press on. ItIcHARD L. IfAewowfi-L. MANCHESTER, CONN., February 4, 1966. nator WAYNE MORSE., Si nate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your forthright state- ments today on TV. Thank God for your sanity and courage. Mr. and Mrs. ROBERT C. VATER. LL VALLEY, CALIF., February 4, 1966. '-;,ula for WAYNE MOR.f,E. tliashington, D.C.: Applaud position l or open Senate hearings, in! levels regarding Vietnam. NANCY A DLEY. nANGELY, COLO., Pcbruary 4, 1966. S.inator WAYNE MORsE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Thank you for insisting on onen hearings to the public and less secrecy in Government stuff. We need more people like you. TOULA TIIEOS. 4)RANGE, CALIF., February 4, 1966. Henator WAYNE MORAE, Senate Office Building, Washington, .D.C.: God bless you. May your investigation end thiS barbaric Vietnani war and save numer- iais lives. Mr. and Mrs. THEODORE SI1APIN. SIIE:,:MAN OAKS, CALIF., February 1, 1966. Oietiator WA YNE MORSE, ;!'nate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations On your stand today re- .:a.rding McNamara's appearance. Wish we could vole for you here. (LevitERINE SCHNEIDER. WEBB CITY, Mo., February 4. 1966. !ema tor WAYNE MOR.,;E.,flate Chamber, Washington. D.C.: ftravo. Keep pushing to inform the public. JOANN BEASON. ANAMOSA, IOWA, February 4.1966. i.Imitator WAYNE MORSE, !,;e nate Foreign, Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Loor the benefit 01 humanity insist im ap- rearance in public of McNamara, Wheeler, Rusk. Godspeed, Moats A. Sparru. IN PARK, CALIF Vet?-uary 4, 1966. ierialor WAYNE Moses, Washington, D.C.: We support your stand in Senate hearings op Vietnam regarding present illegal and eniiiral war. Mr. and Mrs. RICHARD GARRISON. -A10 ALTO, CALIF_ February 5, 1966. tia Oa' WAYNE Mm us]:, 2:1/1.ington. D.C.: A million that for your magnificent staled against secret and dictatorial govern- ment, graft, waste, dishonesty, disloyalty, and Die criminal waste of the lives of American boys in Vietnam. Keep it up. You are per- ferming a long overdue service to the Amer- iiian people. Please have secretary write us roeeipt. Mr. ana Mrs. DAVID E. WILLIAMS. 1010mat0011111111M1110 Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, [also ask unanimous consent to have some addi- tional telegrams I received, with my replies. There being no objection, the tele - gram.s were ordered to be printed in tho RECORD, as follows: BROOKLYN, N.Y., February 8,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington. D.C.: think you should support our boys ma Vietnam. I am an ex-marine. TERRY MCFAUL. FECRUARY 9, 1966. TERRY MCFAUL, Brooklyn, NY: You are the one who is not supporting ma* boys because :you agree they should be sacri- ficed in an unconstitutional and indefensi- ble war. WAYNE MORSE, U.S Senator --- WARWICK, RI., February 4,1966 Senator WAYNE MoRSE, Senate Office Building, Washington., D.C.: You are a demagog. B. J. SIRE, FEBRUARY 9, 1966. B. J. SIRE, Warwick, R.I.: I hope you feel better. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator N EW onx, N.Y., February 8, 1966 Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Americans of Crish Descent Club back the President. Mr. CONLAN, .President FEBRUARY LI, 1966 Mr. CONLAN, President, Americans of Irish Descent Club. iVew York. N.Y .1 ,AR' not impressed. WAYNE MORSE, U.;-;. Senate. WHEATON, ILL., February 8, 196b. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: "Mr. President, whom do you refer te ?" You, of course. - The refusal of appeasers and pacifists to recognize the ultimate goal of communism DICSe past 30 years is the reason our boys are dying. Their young lives must be sacrifLed because of your stupidity. Continue your bombasts so more Amiiri- CallE can get to know you. With contempt. Mrs. Jon N F. SEEMAT,, FlA3RUARY 9. 196ii. Mrs.. JOHN P. SEEMANN, Wheaton, Ill.: Oar men are dying in Asia because rntiir Government is violating the constitutional and treaty obligations it owes to them Aid tile rest of the American people. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate .% NEw Yoss, N.Y., January 1, 196;. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Senator. inasmuch as you have so no.leh to :say about the President's policy in south- east Asia including Vietnam. I consider you a turncoat. If I were you. I would go to Russia and apply for a seat in the Russian Presidium because that's where you belong. CARLOS J. Russ. FEBRUARY 9, 1966. CARLOS J. RUIZ, New York, N.Y I was not elected to rubberstamp the President's unconstitutional war but it is obvious that you wouldn't understand the meaning of constitutional rights. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator. THE DALLFS, OREG., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Remove at once our names from your mailing list. As lifelong registered Demo- crats we are not ready to change horses in the middle of the stream as you apparently are. EARL L. AND VERDA R. Roccits. FEBRUARY 9, 1966. EAru, L. AND VERDA R. ROGERS, The Dalles, Oreg.: I am sorry you are so upset over the facts concerning our unconstitutional war in Asia. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator. NORTHAMPTON, MASS., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You have a priority on secretiveness our security declare your source of information in committee hearing if you wish public opinion to go along with you on McNamara and Wheeler. Mrs. STEN H. STENSON. FEBRUARY 9, 1969, Mrs. STEN II. STENSON, Northampton, Mass.: McNamara and Wheeler would be asked only to discuss U.S. policies that got us into this war and their policies for continuing it. All secret matters that involve security questions would be answered only in execu- tive sessions. Public is entitled to public hearings on policy questions. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator. _ WOODBURN, OREG., February 5, 1966. WAYNE mortar, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: As a senior citizen of Oregon I have sup- ported you. After today's report going back to Republicans. M. R. CRAWFORD. FEBRUARY 9, 1966. Mr. M. R. CRAWFORD, Woodburn, Oreg.: May I ask good naturedly when you go back to the Republicans are you going to support Hatfield whose views on foreign pol- icy are similar to mine? If you study more about the facts of our unconstitutional war in Asia you may think better of my on the issue. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator. MONTEREY, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAY NE MORSE., Senior Staff Assistant, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Re today's hearings shocked you let your Senator appear so uninformed concerni ng Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 40 0 II tf,, 2506 Approved For ReleamiW9a0Mf8Nae,-Rp8socIttfigiNstofflo 0 20 0 05-1 February 9, 1966 battles. It is far too expensive in American lives and dollars. Keep fighting for us. Mrs. S. Srmow. OSSINING, N.Y., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Previously I have not agreed with you. Watching your hearing today I can only say as a World War II veteran?let's have a strategic retreat and let them try to come our way. WILLIAM L. ANDERSON. ^ HORSE CAVE, KY., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Behind you 100 percent. Keep the good work going as you see fit. OTIS E. GILPIN. JACKSONVILLE, FLA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations, keep going. K. DIETER. WILMINGTON, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Foreign Relations Committee Washington, D.C.: Thanks for your stand on McNamara. We are with you. Gzo. and HELEN SWARTZ. ROCKY MOUNT, N.C., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Impressed by you this morning as part of Foreign Relations Committee. I hope you are against the United States offering help to Britain in its Rhodesian situation as a bribe for withdrawing its trade with the Vietcong. I would appreciate your views. Mrs. MARY I. ELMORE. FOSTORIA, OHIO, January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Foreign Relations Committee Chairman, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for what you're doing. Please give us more TV hearings; the public needs to know. Mr. and Mrs. ROBERT. GAINESVILLE, FLA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you, thank you. Keep it up until hell freezes over. JOHN H. REYNOLDS. ALTADENA, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Want the facts on Vietnam. This is a democracy or we live in vain. PAUL and NORMA MULLER. MISSION, TEE., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The Vietnam war is the result of our dis- astrous foreign policy. We are world med- dlers. One dollar of foreign aid is too much, especially when it comes out of the baby's piggybank. You are right all hear- ings should be in the open. It's high time we lend our best brains toward getting out of Vietnam and come home where we be- long. Thanks. Best regards. C. F. SPIKES. CLEAR WATER, FLA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. The Nation needs more leaders like you. Thanks. LEO and MARY KOTRASCHECK. CHICAGO, ILL., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Just heard your statement on Vietnam war on TV. Want you to know I support your position. ROBERTA RAY. WESTON, CONN., January 4, 1966. Senator MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: God bless you on your stand against war. We pray for your efforts toward peace. Mr. and Mrs. IRVING WHITE. STEVENS POINT, Wis., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.; Congratulations on your stand in foreign policy. Our faith renewed. Dr. and Mrs. PAUL SOWKA. CHICAGO, ILL., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are thoroughly behind your statements made this afternoon on TV as to this war and hope that you can continue to press your views. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. DONALD C. NYGREN, LOS ANGELES, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Thank you for being a good American. Today it is a wonderful thing to hear someone call a spade a spade, to have someone represent you who is not afraid of the den of lions. I admire you, respect you. Sincerely, Mrs. BEATRICE HENDERSON. LANCASTER, PA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Hear, hear. JULIA and GEORGE WARWICK. PHOENIX, ARIZ., February 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good fight. Commonsense may yet prevail. You are absolutely right in demanding that the administration be forced to explain its actions. They have been wrong so many times in the past with regard to Vietnam that the public has a right to question every aspect of this issue. Thank God you've got the guts to do it. LEW MATER. TULSA, OKLA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Please, please stop this war that's killing all our young boys. If Johnson wants to go on let him go and fight. Thank you, Sen- ator, for your stand on this issue. GEORGE BUELKE. CAMINO, CALIF., January 4, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: America exists only as in idea and an ideal. You are one of the few protecting the Amer- ica in which I believe. My gratitude and ad- miration are yours. MAR/AN WISHART. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We support Senator MORSE. All witnesses in Senate Foreign Relations hearings be open to public. Mr. and Mrs. EDWARD SINGLER. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support Senator MORSE on open hear- ings. No more Government policy by secrecy. ROSE and GEORGE LEEDOY. NORTH HOLLYWOOD, CALIF., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Five adults watching TV, all agree with thee, God bless you. M. J. DINNEEN. NEW YORK, N.Y., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Thank God for your state- ments in the committee room this a.m, while speaking to Mr. Bell. American people will give their lives for an open, honest, decent Government but will balk when asked to defend, what to them, is unjust and not according to our Constitution. Thank you for your stand on these matters. Sincerely, MRS. M. E. KAUFMANN. SPOKANE, WASH., February 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: After today public television, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ED HO/ER. CHARLESTON, S.C., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your speech today on TV. We heartily agree with what you ex- pressed. God bless you and keep working for us. MTS. HOWARD MCI VER. SHERMAN OAKS, CALIF., February 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Profound respect for your courage, perspi- cacity, and integrity. Believe you to be Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 r r February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SEN ATE 2a0a who at a time in history stands alone breath- nip: some sanity into the incredible indif- ierence of his colleagues. Mr. and Mrs. JEFFERY TROY. - itOOSEVELT, January 4, 1966. ;enat,or WAYNE MORSN:, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: hre love what you're doing. Keep it up. FRANK and JEAN HERMAN. OAKLAND, CALIF., January 4, 1966. ;.,leno,tor WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, W ashington, D.C.: You are a true patriot. I am with you. Keep it up. t rATHERINE DMYTRYK. atOVELAND, FLA. January 4, 1966. scitator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Before all is lost, our freedoms are being revived by your couragous leadership. We are praying for your fearless ongoing efforts :tad on continued iirm dedication to truth. iAc thank God for your statesmanship. OLGA ROSEN. MlatIoN STATION, PA., January 4, 1966. Sal-tater WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I applaud your tireless work in investigat- log the situation in Vietnam. You are to be nigratulated for your honorable service to the people of our country. CHLOE D. ROME. ILENDALE, CALIF., January 4, 1966. lionorable WAYNE MORSE, .,enate Office Building, ashingtan, D.C. nymt SENATOR iVionsE: Thank you, thank you for your firm stand today. Sincerely, Mrs. DOROTHY REID. BALTIMORE, MD., January 4, 1966. senator WAYNE MORsE, i'-aited States Senate, i3enale Office Building, Washington, D.C. Commend sanity your position Vietnam. .lipport Senate's comprehensive re-evalua- ,ion Vietnam policy. Urge return to 'utiliza- tion advise and consent role. Posture re ,;.blina rigid uninnIginative. Diplomatic. re- lations other intercourse essential to elimin- ,n.e historic antagonisms. China must par- ii,i,Mate international community if stability out nuclear control Co he achieved,. ii3OBERT Z. ALPERN. :tERKELEY, January 4, 1966. ;,t ? ruttor WAYNE MoRsE, ::'nate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Uciod work, but no Asian war, get out of 'VD! ttuttn. PRO .SECTS COMMITrEE OF TOE VIETNAM DAY COMMITTEE. _ TA MONICA, CALIF., January a, 1966. HAt14:4LoT WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: What are we doing in Vietnam? United ,atiis of America needs schools, nospitals, binising in the South of United States of A o ceriGa. I am with you. Mrs. RAYMONDE NOTMANN. _No 22? REDWOOD CITY, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Have a soldier son. Watching you on tele. vision. Agree with you wholeheartedly. Warmest wishes. Congratulations. Our prayers are with you in your efforts for peace. Warmest personal regards. Looking forward to mee ling you in person. Mrs. DAVID (RTIIII) HAUCK. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations for this afternoon's per- formance. There are millions behind you. FROM THE VOICES IN THE WILDERNESS. t 'OM ENCINO? CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MoasE? Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good work in helping the tar- payers. RICHARD MALOSEIC. BOSTON, MASS., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building? Washington, D.C.: Thank you for providing some long awaitd.el information on the question of Vietnam. B. A. RAY. -- ANAHEIM:, CALIF,, January 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Foreign Relations Committee, New Sena le Office Building, Washington,, D.C.: As an American citizen I thank you for your courage in speaking out re the illegal war we are waging in Vietnam. I share your points of view and love for our country. You have my deepest admiration. Sincerely, ELAYNE LAING PEABODY, MASS., January 4,1966. :Sens tor WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. InAR Sin: Thank you for your firm oft, ad on airing our involvements in southeast tn,ia, Please make all efforts to place our spec- tacled knight in shining armor (the band- leader) before the committee and the ican people in a public hearing. This cru- sader needs an airing. Congratulations from America's conscience. ROBERT MAURIL. CLEVELAND, OHP January 4, 196,;. Senator WAyisin MORSE, t:enate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo. Your statement Government by secrey and comments Vietnam. You have my trust. Mrs. H. C. HomiNsrit,. P.ipo, January 4, 196.i. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington., D.C.: While seeing and listening to your v,nNs on our illegal war, military, and corporate war makers, and Government secrecy, Pres- ident Johnson announced he was lea;ing the country and taking Rusk, McNanoara, and others with him. In my opinion, your views are validated by this new attempt. to evade public exposure of administrative clu- plicity. Thank God for men like you in. the Senate. FRANK M. DUMAS, Ph. D., Department of Psychology, Ripon College. -- CEDAR FALLS, IOWA, January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Agree with your comments on Vietnam situation wholeheartedly. There are many loyal Americans who feel as you do. Do all you can to bring this illegal war to an end. Mrs. S. A. RIDENOUR. -- Los ANGELES, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your eloquent remarks to Mr. Bell on Thailand this afternoon. MARY ANN PAYNE. -- EAU GALLIE, FLA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good work. Do not give up. You are right. I sin a Republican. Mrs. ANNA BARTELSON. -- BENSON HARBOR, MICH., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Information of a indigenous compels me to believe that you should enlarge upon your probe. JAMES T. 1VIoslasesv. CLEVELAND, OHIO, January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Behind you 100 percent on Vietnam stand. Wish were more like you in Washington. Mr. and Mrs. JOHN DELL'ARCO. LOS ANGELES, CALIF. January 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: May God bless you in your courageous fight to preserve article 1 of our Constitution. TED BIRNBERG. REDWOOD CITY, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I strongly urge you to continue investi- gating U.S. position in Vietnam. Continue your good work. PHYLLIS PATTER,SON.. ST. PETERSBURG, FLA., January 4, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Wholeheartedly support your position on Vietnam. PAUL C. SHAW. ATLANLIC CITY, N.J., January 4,1963. Senator WAY NE MORSE, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your viewpoint against our position in Vietnam. Feelings on this are the same. We cannot fight everyone's Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 owitoNTNNIOARR: ii n ills ."l Wlllll tor tow. tot 2504 Approved For Releemaa/MiAGIA:ROP67B00446R000400020005-1 L RECORD ? SENATE February 9, 1966 MOBILE, ALA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, 17.5. Senate, Washington, D.C.: My recollection is that after Mr. Harold Wilson's visit with Mr. Johnson last year Washington Journalists Robert Allen and Paul Scott wrote that Mr. Johnson agreed not to interfere with British shipping into North Vietnam in exchange for British oral support of administration's Vietnamese policy. Please check with mentioned journalists. Mrs. Jorny H. MELVH.LE. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your firm stand today insisting Secretary McNamara appear for a public hearing before the Senate Foreign Re- lations Committee. I am a confused citizen too. Your committee and NBC have done a great service to all Americans presenting witness David Bell today. When possible please continue televising hearings so vital to the present and future of our country. Mrs. GRACE S. CORWIN. LAKES/DE, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE L. MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thanks we are with you. Mr. and Mrs. J. H. HUNTLEY. ONTONAGON, Mien., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations generally, and specifically on your refusal to be a party to closed session testimony. Dr. and Mrs. D. H. ARCHIBALD, Mr. and Mrs. DAVID HUNT, Mr. and Mrs. MArr VraoLA, Mr. and Mrs. LA URI WESA, Mr. TED TRUDGEON, Rev. and Mrs. GEORGE LECIANI. LENOX, MASS., January 4, 1966. Senator MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Bravo. I envy the people of Oregon their great privilege of being represented by you. NATHAN GEORGE HORWITT. SACRAMENTO, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: God bless you thank you for your efforts for peace. RAMONA VEGLIA. CLIFTON, N.J., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Johnson's Vietnam policy is inhuman, bestial and depressing. I compliment your noble thoughts voiced on television last Sunday. You are a "profile in courage." I am a New Jersey resident and have informed Senator WILLIAMS about my distaste for this war. Sincerely, Mrs. S. QUAT/NETZ. EL CERR/TO, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE -MORSE, Washington, D.C.: May you strong voice continue to awaken American people and Congressmen to danger of Government by Star Chamber sessions. Congress and confused public have allowed U.S. public representative Government to be increasingly replaced by secret White House-Pentagon session. The people cannot be trusted? Big brother Government is here. This insidious erosion of democracy has al- ready produced the Vietnam mess. Your courageous efforts to expose the machina- tions of the executive branch and by such exposure to possibly end this terrible Viet- nam debacle has the warm support of my family, my friends, and colleagues. Mrs. RICHARD DEMOREST. JONESBORO, ARK., January 4, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senator from Oregon, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: I greatly appreciate what you are doing. Don't let up. JAMES A. Hurcinsow, Ph. D. PARK FOREST, ILL., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C. Thank you. WALTER PERRY. ROCKFORD, ILL., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE of Oregon, Washington, D.C.: Got a lot of questions answered today but more investigation, please. Thanks, a tax- payer. VIOLA FERRE. WAUSAU, Wee., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The public hearings by your committee are restoring lifeblood to America. Nearly everyone I've heard comment on these is doing so enthusiastically and is right behind you. Keep them up and we may yet save the world. CARL KLINE, M.D. DAYTONA BEACH, FLA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I am completely behind you on what you said this afternoon against the war in Viet- nam. H. BRUCE MARTIN. HELENA, MONT., January 4,1966. Senator MORSE, Washington, D.C. SENATOR MORSE: Bless you. You are not in Johnson palm. Just paid my income tax and had to borrow money to pay it. Russia said they will spend ourselves to death and no fooling. Keep on the ball. NANCY N. KAIN. BOSTON, MASS., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo your eloquent TV statement on our illegal war. More should hear you. PAUL TOUCHETTE. DEERFIELD BEACH, FLA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We stand behind your conviction on Viet- nam. Keep fighting. Mr. and Mrs. D. O. MCMURRAY. Coemouz, N.Y., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your position on Vietnam is a welcome re- lief from the war-bound dictatorial Johnson administration. We support all your efforts toward bringing our country back to law and order. Mr. and Mrs. JULIUS SCHUBERT. ROCHESTER, N.Y., January 4,1968. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations to a dedicated American. LOUISE QUIGLEY. NEW YORK, N.Y., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE E. MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Please never give up your magnificent fight. STEPHEN M. ROSENTHAL. YAK/MA, WASH., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C. I am behind you in your good thinking about telling the American people the facts of our commitments in Vietnam. R. J. CASH. WORCESTER, MASS., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Keep up the fight?with you 100 percent. Anxious to hear you in Worcester March 25th. ABBOTT HOFFMAN. SILVER SPRING, MD., January 4, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Senate Foreign Relation COmmittee should be represented in President's entourage to Hawaii. Why does President Johnson ex- clude members of your committee? You should be admitted to his discussions with Vietnam leaders. JOHN CUNNINGHAM. DERBY, CONN., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Continue the campaign to end the war in Vietnam; impress your legislative colleagues with this urgent necessity; Americans in in- creasing numbers demand that this legis- latively unsanctioned conflict be brought to a close, so do I. VICTOR L. SWINTON. PADUCAH, KY., January 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: I fully support your position on the Viet- nam war; thank you for a courageous pres- entation on television today. Sincerely, PAUL ROWLAND. NEWTON, MASS., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: All Americans owe Oregon a debt of grati- tude for its wisdom in choosing a brave man Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Cebritary 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 2503 are both renegades. You deserted the Repub- licans and I deserted the Democrats but we have one line thing in mind, it is our country. After hearing you today on TV talking to Boll I wondered what is right, should we have an independent party. There are so many of ;la in between, keep up the good fight to keep na as we should be. Please answer. CHARLES COFFMAN. VENTURA, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Sanator WAYNE MORSE, Smate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support and endorse your request to have Secretary McNamara appear in open public hearing to answer questions about America's involvement and conduct in South Vietnam. VICTOR GOERTZEL, For 25 members of the Ventura Peace Committee. ANGELES, CALIF., February 5, 1966. ;tinator WAYNE MORSE, :,nate Office Buildmg, Washington. D.C.: Congratulations. Good job well done. No more Hiroshimas. Keep up the good work. ieet wishes. DAVID RUBY. klASTON, Mn., February 5, 1966. Senator MORSE, .0emoerat, Oregon, Washington, D.C.: We feel like Americans, although still Re- publicans, for the iirst time since F.D.R. be- :aid to teach dictatorship. After watching you today we cried "We are so happy we could spit," self-respect again. Democracy again. No matter what happens in Vietnam you and your friends have given us simple people face in a world for our grandchildren. if our son survives, its our fault. We allowed ourselves to be at the mercy of fools for more than a whole generation. God help you dig Us not. The IEDWARDSES MARYLAND. PALO ALTO, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Urge inclusion of National Liberation Front representative at United Nations Honolulu Conference. JUDITH KRAKAUER. 'ALO ALTO, CALIF., February 5, 1966. HOU. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: God bless you. Thank you for words YOU a[ioke against our part in this war. Mrs. MELTZER, IOWA CITY, 'IOWA, February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: In our 35th day of vigil we with moral, ethical, a.nd religious concerns commend you for submitting Vietnam crisis to the United Nations. Deplore the resumption of bomb- ing in North Vietnam. Urge cessation of the bombing and urge negotiation directly with the National Liberation Front of South Vietnam. Jon Armstrong, Roger C. Betz, William Buckles, William E. Conner, Anne llogben, Martha Jablonski, Jim Koti- ros, Vae O'Mara, John O'Mara, Irving I). Marshall, Donald L. Spencer, Michael R Theis, May Tangen, Joyce Thompson. Gary Smith, William teL Weir, Betsy Woodman, Jonathan J, Woodman. STUDIO CITY, CALIF. February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: ?We commend you for your honest and courageous stand on Vietnam. Carry on. Dr. and Mrs. NORMAN 0. LAVET. ANGOLA, N.Y. February 5, 1966, Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, .D.C.: Greatly encouraged by your televised statements and reasoning regarding United States involvement in Vietnam. Support your views completely. Have felt shame for years over our vicious hate propaganda against nations and peoples labeled Com- munists. Glad to see probe of the termi- nology. Unless identified with a specnic nationality the word has little meaning. I inn ao grateful we have you in a position of influence. Keep up pressures for all these issues for ending war, closer congressional control and less executive power. Respectively, Mrs. Hanaaani C. BUSH GOFFSTOWN. N.H., February 5, 1966 Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are with you. No secret committee. Stop the bombing. Mr. and MTS. RICHARD HAND, SILVER SPRING, MD., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C... Support entirely your stand regardIng hearings, McNamara, and war in Vietnam. Bravo. Mr. and Mrs. EARL L. Fox. -- PALO ALTO, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Fie,TatOT WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Strongly support your Vietnam attitude. Delighted at your insistence McNamara And Rusk 'testify publicly. MTS. ROBERT COATq. SANTA BARBARA, CALIF., February 5, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate' Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support you fully in your position Senate Foreign Relations Committee hear- ings this date. Mr. and MTS. Wee. T. RILEY, Jr., Mr. and Mrs. ROY G. RILEY. Mr. and Mrs. Rossrer U. RILE r. Mr. R. S. RILEY. BERKELEY, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE. Washington, D.C.: Heartily approve opposition to secret meet- ings. Americans entitled to know truth. VINCENT and KATHLEEN LAWTON. CICERO, ILL., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Wish to commend you and WILLIAM PilL- BRIGHT arid other patriotic Senators on magnificent and courageous stand on Viet-. nat. May be last chance to prevent atomic holocaust. Incidentally what is difference be- tween Vietnamese refugee camps and con- centration camps of World War II? Mr. and Mrs. LLOYD POWELL. GREAT NECK, N.Y., January 4, 1966. Senator MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D .0 . Increasing percentage of Americans recog- nizing futility of administration Vietnam. policy. Immoral to send Americans to die in undeclared war. WE are inevitably moving toward vast land war in Asia without world support. Senate cannot abdicate its responsibilities. Time is running out and it is not on our side. Aren't we big and power- ful enough to admit a mistake and reverse a bad course. Let's have fewer pious words and more honest appraisal and action. STEPHEN RUBEL. ERIE, PA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building., Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: At last a Voice of inspiration and truth to a frightened mother this past week has been a time of hope tor me after the televised debate last Sunday and the Senate hearing today. I agree with you entirely on the Vietnam situation and hope you continue on forcing the truth on these war profiteering hypocrites. I am a mother of two teenage boys who finds it hard enough to instill truth, justice, and con- sideration in her children. But after seeing the televised action of one of our young men in Vietnam during the Christmas holidays where he shot a young Vietnamese mother of three toddlers for not understanding or per- haps protecting her own, I wonder if it is worth it all to struggle to teach ones sons to be good and considerate of others only to have them be turned into storm troopers like the Nazis did. I object to our young men being taught this type of brutality. I want to thank you for a spark of hope. Yours truly, Mrs. EMMA PINNELL, -- LOS ANGELES, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, of Oregon, Washington, D.C.: What this country needs are more Demo- crats like you. If we had them I would join your ranks. Keep up your excellent work. We appreciate you. IRENE A. DAVIS. OAKLAND, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: I heartily support your courageous investigation of our Viet- nam policy. PENNY SHEPHARD. CrATLINBURG, TENN., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington. D.C.: Televised public hearing Senate Foreign Relations Committee is a historic step for- ward in democratic government. Congra I u- lations and continued success. HUBERT BEIM. PORT ISABEL, TEX., January 4, 1966. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations your stand against Gov- ernment secrecy relative our foreign affairs. J. G. MITCHELL. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 PIF, M1,10114 Approved For ReletiV00/06/29,. CIA-RDP671300446R000400020005-1 2502 uRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE February 9, 1966 STOCKTON, CALIF., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE Mons, White House, Washington, D.C.: I am with you 100 percent. Keep going strong. MARY MCNOVLE'BOSCOE. NEW YORK, N.Y., February 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep fighting to slow down the war. Sup- port you 100 percent. ROLAND and ELAYNE GARRETT, WAYNE, MICH., February 5,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We wholeheartedly agree that Secretary McNamara should testify in public session. As a former serviceman who shed sweat, blood, and tears in that war I think the public should know what is really happening. Bravo. JAMES and JOAN HARRINGTON. AMARILLO, TEX., February 5, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D .0 . Demand of President that McNamara, Wheeler, and any other Government official, be ordered to appear before Senate Foreign Relations Committee in open public sessions. We the people who are supplying money, men, are entitled to know full details. Military has too long hidden their stupidity behind security reasons. DALTON and DORICE MYERS. MIDLAND PARK, N.J., January 4, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Disapprove most your policies. Heartily approve your attitude on blockade expressed on tonight's newscast hearing. LAWRENCE W. O'DONNELL, Esq. PASADENA CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Once I was on Okinawa for 18 months. We had a black market right under the noses of the Army, everything was stolen and offered for sale. Vietnam cannot be so dif- ferent regards to scrip, many Americans take advantage of the call in of scrip. Think of the native people who hold scrip and cannot exchange it. Many Americans have taken advantage of opportunities, your position makes me feel that there is yet a need for people like you. CLAUDE CLINE. NEW YORK, N.Y., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We appreciate your stand on public rather than secret testimony about the Vietnam war. D. S. GERSTOFF. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: You have our full support in your moves to enlighten the American people about Viet- nam. Good luck. Mr. and Mrs. SEYMOR YESNER. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington D.C.: You have our full support in your moves to enlighten the American people about Viet- nam. Good luck. Mr. and Mrs. KENNETH J. ENKEL. HOUSTON, TEX., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.0 Your candor and honesty are refreshing. We have a right to know the truth about this ridiculous war. Good luck and keep digging. HOWARD PORPER. HUNTINGTON, N.Y., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support your public position concern- ing U.S. foreign policy and in particular your demand that Secretary McNamara openly testify before Foreign Relations Committee. Muriel Ka,ntner, Nanett Salzman, Betty Sue Lentz, Sam Raskin, Gertrude Al- berts, Seymour Alberts, Jean Levine, Theodore Saldman, Betty Barkell, Richard Barkell, Ruth Kelsey, Sally Lineweaver, Stephanie Elkind, Louis Kantner, Valetidh Sculthorpe. CHICAGO, ILL., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your valiant stand today against bureaucratic secrecy. The des- tiny of our country must be shaped on the understanding you promote?not Johnson militarism. PHILLIP G. STRON. LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Heard your broadcast today on television. _Long may you live and fight for peace. God bless you, HELEN M. HAYBALL. PHILADELPHIA, PA., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank God for your stand on Vietnam. Don't let the Pentagon run our country. F. EUGENE V. THAYER. LUBBOCK, TEX., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Stick by your guns there's still who would like to know what's going on in this Great SOciev,. We do not need those top three. CHARLES H. CHAMBERLAIN, NEW ORLEANS, LA., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations to you and the few who have Joined your side. We the people have had enough of political generosity outside the United States which has only made enemies for us. Your State must be very proud of you. The overburdened American taxpayer deserves better than such total- itarian tactics. SYBIL and PETER FITZGERALD. LOS ANGELES, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratuations on protest against Govern- ment secrecy and demand for Rusk and McNamara public testimony. M/LDRED ROGERS. LEWISBURG, PA., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations, the President may not approve but history will. If Secretary McNamara continues to refuse to testify publicly, suggest that you release to press series of questions on his past predictions. WILLIAM HARBOUGH. BATTLE GROUND, WASH., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Issues you raised today on TV urgently need airing. Please continue your pursuit. C. W. BROWN. FRESNO, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Force McNamara to testify before your committee. RAY SNYDER. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Your championing of our right to know is deeply appreciated. I understand we are against communism but what are we for. Our foreign policy seems to be a kiss of death. HARVEY STRZOK. GLEN ELLEN, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thanks for representing us. Wish we had more Senators with your guts. HARRY CUTHBERTSON. Senator 'Warms MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Two Americans are behind you 100 per- cent in today's action. Please continue to fight. FRESNO, CALIF., February 5, 1966. DOLORES SNYDER. NEY YORK, N.Y., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Heartily approve of your attitude. Please keep it up. McNamara is a Lord North. GILBERT. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR MORSE: Congratulations on your speaking up for the people today. We SAN FR.,,,CISCO, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE UPPER LAKE, N.Y February 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign If Committee, Washington, D.C.: Regarding David C. E. Bells testimony as of today, only minutes ago I heard and saw you on television, make a statement relating to certain Government officials hiding behind is curtain of secrecy when asked to give pub- lic testimony. You are to be congratulated. 'ilicretaries McNamara and Rusk are eating out of the executive branch hands; namely, l'resident Johnson. WARREN KAY. MONTPELIER, kr.r., February 4, 1966. ; tEl tor WAY NE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We endorse your demands for open public liearings on Vietnam policy. Courage. Major and Mrs. C. R. CooNos. ALEXANDRIA, LA., February 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington. D.C.: Thank you for your stand for public open hearings. Stay with it. T. L. BLACK. i AEA YETTE, LA., February 4, 1966. Sena tOr WAYNE Mretsx, Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, Washington, D.C.: The mothers and fathers of this country hack your position on no further closed door hearings on Vietnam. We would like to know if U.S. Government was not primarily more interested in obtain- Mg a military base within Vietnam to in- crease our encirclement of Russia. and China more than the purported purposes to aid ILD South Vietnam people from aggression. The latter reason served only as a purpose to gain a means. We are now caught in quicksand. The harder we struggle the more we become involved. WILLIAM H. WHITE. FLUSHING, N.Y., February 4,1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thanks to you and your colleagues for representing the public. S. K. JOUANSSON. I3ROOKLYN, N.Y., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE tVloasE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Warmly support your views and present investigation of Vietnam war. Nia.t. MILLER, ELKHART, IND., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE Miatsx, Washington, B.G.: Watched TV ill morning. Public hearing wonderful and proper. Agree with you. Mrs. HELEN STUMP. I1ROOKPARK, OHIO, February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your open hearing policy with respect to McNamara and Wheel- er. Wish there were more legislators with your views. Mr. and Mrs. WAYNE GANDY. SCOTTSDALE, ARIZ., February 4, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington., D.C.: Tremendously proud of your courage and wisdom re Vietnam and Government by secrecy. Your supporters are many. Stick by your guns for the sake of this Nation. J. N. CHRISTIANSON STURGEON BAY, WTS., February 4, 1966 Sena tor WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: High time somebody has courage to pase bona fide questions and demand truthful an- swers. The people have the right to know the truth. You have reflected the feelings of millions. RICHARD and CAROLYN LEHMANN CHICAGO, ILL., February 4, 1966. Senator WA INC MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington. D.C.: Please continue to insist that Vietnam pol- icy be examined in open hearings. CHARLES GDOEHRER. -^ MIAMI, FLA., February 4, 1966. Senator W A YN E MORSE, Washington, D.C.: You have my support on your stand re- garding McNamara and Rusk. Howfure H. HYDER. -- HonNELL, N.Y., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You're just as great as Senator Norris. Rosser SULLIVAN. -- YOUNGSTOWN, OHIO., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington. D.C.: Congratulations. Glad to see that some- one has the nerve to speak up against Mc- Namara today. Mrs. THOMAS HNIE K. TONAWANDA, N.Y., December 4, 1965. Streator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You have my thanks for the courage you displayed in saying the American people should know what's going on in our Federal Government. Yes, we do want the facts, Senator MORSE, and I appreciate getting them first-hand rather than the interpretations of newsmen. Mrs. THOMAS DA VTS. ^ HOUSTON, TEX,, Deceinber 4, 1965. SENATOR WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Just heard your TV statement regarding McNamara and our Government "closed door policy" and extend congratulations for your initiative and fortitude. MELvni DAVIS. BALTIM ORE, Mn.. February 4, Z 966. SENATOR WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We strongly support your stand on Viet- nam. Approve stand against secrecy in hearings.. Mr. and Mrs. Loins Silos. 2501 ATLANTA, GA., February 4, 1966. SENATOR WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Thank you from my heart for your cour- age this morning. I wish I could claim you as my representative but as an American thank you again for making democracy ring true. Mrs, GEO. SMALL. MOBILE, ALA., February 4, 1966. SENATOR WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. Heartily agree with your strong stand against committee hearings secret. Public needs knowledge. Mrs. WALKER R. ORE AYES. -- HAVERFORD, PA., February 5, 1966. Senator MORSE, Washington., D.C... One hundred students conducting 8-day fast as expression of extreme protest against administration Vietnam policy. HAVERFORD and BRYNMAWR COLLEGE FASTERS, SEATTLE, WASH., February 5, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We have just been viewing the TV pro- gram and we concur whole heartly with your stand on bringing Mr. McNamara and Mr. Rusk out in the open to face certain ques- tions which will tend to clear up the gray area which has existed for a long time and still exist today. I am father of two sons both within military age. I think the Ameri- can public is most appreciative of your stand. I know that I am as a father, a citizen, and a veteran. A. Mlmovlcmi. CHERRY HILL, N.J., February 5. 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Wish to express profound gratitude for your statesmanship, honesty, humanity. You are a great American. RUTH H. KRAUSE and JOSEPH M. KRALTSE. PHILADELPHIA, PA., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Think you and Senator FULBRIGHT are wonderful and I agree with all you both say. Keep up the good fight against this disas- trous war. Mrs. ARTHUR D. NEwaoim. BETHLEHEM, PA., February 4, 1966. Senator MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Saw you on TV last Sunday and today. The more we hear your voice the more we realize you stand for sanity in foreign rela- tions. God give you strength to continue your constitutional protest. Upon you rests the very future of the United States. Be of good heart. There are millions behind you. T. MC FADDLN. PITTSBURGH, PA. February 5, 1946. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for your stand on Vietnam. Mr. and Mrs. EDWIN W. HALL. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 ,',1,1111011q010,1,11,11/11*,,,,NPRIPIV 5101100411.0C5OINVYMPT,WIWP55IIMIt? 011001111014 ago, rmrpopoo.rilionommoroant,utottra .,,1,1111.1....11.1.14, X1, ?.? Approved For Releeae.2905/06/29 ..? CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 2500 OINGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE February 9, 1966 CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo for your insight, clarity, and courage in today's proceedings. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. LAWRENCE CRANBERG, CRAWFORD, NEBR., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Senator my thanks for your stand on let- ting Americans know the facts. Mrs. MARY S. MILLER. SANTA ROSA, CALIF., February 4, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senator from Oregon, Washington, D.C.: Hooray for you?no secret testimony. Mrs. R. J. RYAN. Mrs. PAT CARR. MIAMI BEACH, FLA., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for statement this morning re- garding Secretary McNamara. We wish to hear open hearings with the Secretary. Would also like to know why Mr. Bell can formulate what seems to be military tactics or policy in the economic application of aid in Vietnam. CHARLES and HALINA MARGULIES. CHICO, CALIF., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: I fully support your attitude on the cur- rent investigations. ANN ZWIEBEL. EUGENE, OREG., February 4, 1966. Senator MORSE, Care of Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I heartily support your Insistence that the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State be rquested to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in pub- lic session. Keep up the good work. HAROLD MOLENKAMV. CORONADO, February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: My deep appreciation to you Senators CASE, CHURCH, FULBRIGHT, CLARK, and PELL for the genuine contribution each of you is making toward better public understanding of aid and our problems in southeast Asia in the televised hearing. I share your concern for the very reasons you have expressed. Mrs. Joni/ G. THOMPSON, SHELBURNE, VT., February 4, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. SIR: Your views on Vietnam appear clear and sound. Congratulations on your at- tempt to bring Wheeler and McNamara be- fore the Fulbright committee to defend and clarify muddled U.S. policy in Vietnam. Best wishes for a successful hearing. The concerned citizens. LORNA M. CROSS. CHICAGO, ILL., February 4, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Sm: Wonderful work. I may move to Ore- gon Just to be your constituent. Letter fol- lows. Very truly yours, W. N. L. BURBANK. SAN DIEGO, CALIF., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE L. MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We citizens want to know the facts. Agree with you no secrecy sessions for McNamara in Senate Foreign Relations Committee. We parents are very concerned. Our boys' lives are at stake. Mr. and Mrs. ANGELO J. MION. BEVERLY HILLS, CALIF., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D .0 . I agree with you 100 percent, Keep it up. Mrs. DAVID SOLOMON. CINCINNATI, OHIO, February 4, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on stand against govern- ment by secrecy?public hearing Vietnam. Mr. and Mrs. A. J. HENRICH. PINE BLUFF, ARK., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: For your good and courageous work I say God bless you. R. a. COURL'rER. WEBSTER GROVES, MO., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE L. MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Heartily endorse open session McNamara- Wheeler. People have right to know. Grate- ful thanks to you. Mr. and Mrs. ERWIN H. BLUMER. WASHINGTON GROVE, MD., February 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Heartily second your remarks this a.m. Continue to insist on open hearing. Mrs. ROBERT B. MYERS. SAGINAW, MICIE, February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep meetings open to public. Your Re- publican friends. HAROLD and DORA WEGNER. NEW ORLEANS, LA., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Have been listening to you on TV. I am in hearty accord with your position respect- ing keeping American public fully informed. We need more stanch Americans like you to watch this southeastern Asian situation most carefully. ROBERT J. DECKER. FORT WORTH, TEX., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Senator MORSE, we and I am sure millions of other Americans, appreciate your stand against the Pentagon's refusal to appear be- fore open session on the war policy in Viet- nam. Along with many others we are exceedingly concerned with growing secrecy of the U.S. policy. I sincerely hope the American public will continue to watch the program and see for themselves which Sen- ators will be outspoken and refuse to become a stereotype. Congratulations. Mr. and Mrs. FOSTER C. HOWELL. TULSA, OKLA., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Viewing hearing this a.m. Commend you on your stand, appreciate your efforts. Mr. and Mrs. DOUGLAS KINCAID. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: As puzzled taxpayer, support your protest regarding Pentagon refusal to testify in public on Vietnam war prosecution. JOHN AATON. GARDEN GROVE, CALIF., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: I thank God for your stand, wish we had more like you. Mrs. 0. L. RAINEY. WORCESTER, PA., February 4, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for your long arduous years and courageous work for peace. NICOLA and WALTON GEIGER. BUTLER, PA., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Regarding TV broadcast February 4, 1966. Bravo. Perhaps the reason so many young people are rebelling today is because they're smart enough to want all the facts. The overworked, underrated, long-paying parent Is worried, too. May God give you strength to continue such wisdom in this troubled world. Mrs. EARL BARTHOLOWMEW. OMAHA, NEBR., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Commend your stand against government by secrecy. Vietnam came 'Without public debate. HOWARD ROLLM AN. BLOOMINGTON, IND., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations to you, to Senator PVL- BRIGHT and others in your courageous stand. The hearings which you implemented are most valuable, informative. It is high time the policymakers were held accountable for their questionable and secret policies to the American public who are paying dearly in men and money. You have my full support. LORRAINE SARAH. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 oarr Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 2499 am debacle. We have been and will con- tinue 1,0 support you and your position in Ste future. May you continue as a solid supporter toward peace. ANGELINE and CARL SANDELL. LA GRANDE, OREG., February 4.1:166. iAniator WAYNE MORSE, STnate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Want McNamara and Wheeler testify pub- ] iely. ANIES and JOETTA CLINE. PORTLAND, OREG., February 4.1966. l5enator WAYNE MORSE, ,Icizate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are with you 100 percent, just as we :stye been in the past. Boa and CHARLOTTE BOSSISM. -- PORTLAND, OREG., February 4, 1966. t.s!nator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Good work. Make them answer. Doing a swell job. Saw you on TV. Mr. Ind Mrs. GEORGE MILLER. WASHINGTON, D.C., February 1. 1966. Holl. WAYNE MORSE, Senate, Washington, We support your continuous efforts to change Vietnam policy and, your resolution ;.,a rescind Gulf of Tonkin mandate. NATIONAL STUDENT CHRISTIAN PEDERA- TioN POLITICAL CoMMIssION. EUGENE, OREG., February d, 1966. Senator WAYNE MOREE, Washington, D.C.: You are truly great. And have our com- plete support. Keep up the fine work. Mr. RMS. Mrs. WINDSOR CALKINS. PORTLAND, OREG., January 4, 1966. -irtnator WAYNE MORSE, Was D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Been listening to you on 'TV. Thanks. Were behind you 100 percent. HARRY ANDERSON. PORTLAND. OREC., January 4, 1966. enator WAYNE MORSE, :;enate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on the progress you are making to preserve legality in government. Illegality by Government officials is far more reprehensible than that of the private citi- :son. Every public servant in a democracy should be willing to account to the people s a. his official acts. K. C. TANNER. roaTLAND, February 5, /966. MoasE, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for your position otti Vietman. You have this Enmity's full support,. Mr. and Mrs. PHIL ILICKABAuGH. l'oRTLAND, OREG., Feb/ nary 5. .t9d6. WAYNE MORSE, !Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on boycotting secret meetings on Vietnam. You respect and pro- tect our democratic traditions. Johnson and McNamara do not. You will live in Ms- tory as great and good, they will not. Can we help? and ELIZABET il ORE wS. PORTLAND, OREG., February 5, 1966 Hon. WAYNE MORsE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Solidly support your stand on public re- view of U.S. policy in southeast Asia. You are asking questions we Americans wa at answered. Mr. and Mrs, R. L. BROWN PORTLAND, OREC.. February 5, 1966 Senator WAyNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations etv al adapted to Sen. Le hearings. VIRGINIA WAGNER ANGOLA, N.Y.. February 5, 1966 Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your statements during televised Senate committee Vietnam hearings today were im- pressive. Share your concerns and strongly support position demanding open hearings with Defense and State Department heeds. .Pub:.ic entitled fuller disclosures rejection of open hearings suspect. Keep probing in- clude CIA need stronger congressional pervision and fewer secret moves by ip- oolntees. L. B. ILmmut. PORT/AND, OREG., January 4, 1966. Senator VIA INS MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Just heard your comments on televition and I agree with you 100 percent. The co an- try needs you. A taxpayer and voter. Mrs. Diem, HARDY. PORTLAND, OREG., February 4, 1966 Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington. D.C.: We did not vote for you last time but tow are sorry we did not for we admire both your stand and your stalwartness. Continue ti in- sist on a full debate both in the Senate and United Nations. Dr. and Mrs. GEORGE P. LYMA MIAMI, PEA., FE:I/race/9 4, 19, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, Dr.: Bravo. Keep up the good work. Louisa: L. FORR EAST ALTEN, ILL., February 4, 19 iL Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for your insistence that Mc- Namara and Wheeler appear before the Eul- bright committee in public. Keep up your good work., Mrs. IJEONA KLAS7, ft TULSA. OKLA., February 4, 1,4. Senator WAY NE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Agree American people must be infooried of the conditions concerning the proV stroll Of our country. Mrs. FRANK MCCEL LAN CR0011. ES. , LAKE FLA( ID, FLA.. February 4, 1166. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Cow.mi.t tee, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations to you for your in terest in the American taxpayers and their Republic. What this country needs is more stiatenmen like yourself. Best regards. Mrs. JOHN SACENIAN, PoCATELLO, IDA/I0, February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Good for you. Hope others back you in demanding open hearing by Rusk ad McNamara. Mrs. AUDRA DELASIIMUTT, WESTBORO, MASS., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE Moreau. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up your good work in Senate Poreisrt Relations Committee. Cheers! Cheers! Cheers! Rev. HENRY IL Wressuatrurt, FORT WORTH, TEX., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: I heard with great pleasure your remarks in the committee hearing this morning. I wish I were able to come to Washington to shake your hand. It is a real joy to find someone who thinks as I do. I wouldn't have missed it for a thousand dollars. With real sincerity, ROYCE R. B1owN. MINNEAPOLIS, MINN., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thanks to NBC we have heard the morn- ing session of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee. Oregon is fortunate to have you represent them in such a courageous way. Many of us in Minnesota feel that, you speak for us also. Just want to express our thanks. Mr. and Mrs. STANLEY R. BERGLUND. NEW YORK, N.Y., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We and growing numbers of reasonable peo- ple support your courageous stand against continuing senseless immoral Vietnam war. Mr. and Mrs. MILES CAT! a. KLAMATH, CALIF.. February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your stand. No closed doors re foreign policy or other Government policies. JOHN and BETTY WHITE. MIAMI, FLA., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. Stand firm. CHARLES and GLADYS DE LA VERA BOWLING GREEN, OHIO, February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE Mossy., Washington, D.C.: Congratulations for your stand regoirsling government by secrecy. Thank God. Mr. and Mrs. ROBERT SNYDER. BOWLING GREEN, OHIO, February 4, 1916. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations for your stand regarding Government by secrecy. Thank God. Mr. and Mrs. ROBERT SNYDER. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 au 11154Ft St topouftwx,rmimilool,10011111191Kalingtemionottudimitarliii,iiiiPONAHNIIMINI,,411111,,MuL maw, 111 1111 110,411,11 r1:1 Epl. 11111 I, riiiv.rd.,11 2498 Approved For ReleetzMIEMATAM60004M0A100020005-1 February 9, 1066 EAST ORANGE, N.J., February 5, 1966. Se/later WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Hitler was just another political hack until he dissolved the Reichstag. Democracy as well as peace appears at stake in your hear- ings. C. KELSEY, Jr. VANCOUVER, WASH., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You can be assured of more aid in your efforts to save our Nation and world from destruction. EUGENE VAN TREES. ORLANDO, FLA., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Regarding McNamara's reluctance to ap- pear on a public hearing with you and your committee, I am in favor of your approach, give him the ax. JACK BRATTON. SANTA BARBARA, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Bravo, on your stand against secret ses- sions and fighting without formal declara- tion of war. Wish more leaders had your guts and common sense. Particularly glad you were on TV for millions to see and hear because, unfortunately, many brainwashed newspapers conveniently omitted it from their report of the proceedings. Mrs. L. A. SAYER. OAKLAND, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I support congressional debates. Keep up good work. Get our boys out of Vietnam. Mrs. TALBERT SMITH. PALO ALTO, CALIF., February 6, 1966. Senator MORSE, Washington, D.C.: I oppose the war in Vietnam and support and appreciate your efforts to end it. CAROL MARKLEY. SEAWLE, WASH., February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We are grateful for your strong voice. We support you and trust you will hold fast. Mr. and Mrs. DAVID B. GRIFFITHS. PALO ALTO, CALIF., - February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: I oppose the bombing in North Vietnam. I support your efforts to prevent war. JEFFREY HORN. PALO ALTO, CALIF., February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Keep up your valiant fight for sanity and decency in our foreign policy. Mrs. B. Mumma PALO ALTO, CALIF., February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: I support your position on Vietnam War. Please inform American people of U.S. mistakes. RICHARD CALENDAR. STOUGHTON, MASS., February 3, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We commend your forthright stand on the Vietnam war. PERRY AND ELEANOR OSTROFF. BUFFALO, N.Y., February 6, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Strongly support your courageous stand on Vietnam. E. BERGER, NEW YORK, N.Y., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: It's about time someone did something about Vietnam. I agree with your views. ABRAHAM MOGITZ. FRESNO, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Please force McNamara to testify before the committee, Tired of secrecy in our officials. Mr. and Mrs. J. F. DAVIDSON. BREA, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please accept our support in your fight against government by secrecy. LARRY and SHARON DEAN. CHICAGO, ILL., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington D.C.: Heartiest congratulations on your effort to halt the.nseless slaughter of our young generation and waste of our resources. China is the dominant power in Asia as we are in the Americas. Let us contain com- munism here in our hemisphere and the western part of Europe with which we have been allied for years. Also get rid of the two mistakes in the cabinet, Rusk and Mc- Namara for the many mistakes they made and their highhanded attitude. Let us not promote them but fire them. The public is aware and concerned about not being con- sulted in such grave matters. Mr. and Mrs. L. P. KENT. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Many, many of us continue to support your stand against this immoral war in Vietnam. CHARLOTTE GRUNIG. ROANOKE, VA., February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: We are at war so why not declare it and fight to win instead of spending our men and money on a situation that could go on for- even or get out of Vietnam we could also avoid a raise in taxes and great stress to our economy by really cutting foreign aid and the ridiculous socialistic giveaway program. At home McNamara should be forced to testify and come out with the truth for a change. Respectifully submitted. Mrs. CHARLES E. VIA, Jr. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 5,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Your devotion toward our beloved country and people is exemplary. My admiration for your wisdom. MALVINA ROTH. STANFORD, CONN., February 5, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We cheer your effort to end Government by secrecy and to halt this immoral war. EDITH and HOWARD FRENCH. GLENCOE, ILL., February 6, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Thanks for your outspoken, sane stand on Vietnam and your defense of our liberties. Mrs. HAROLD FRIEIVIAN. SAN RAFAEL, CALIF., February 6,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support your views on Vietnam, applaud your courage, and urge debate for good of our country. W. A. and JANE SCHELLENBERG. VERNAL, UTAH, February 5,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good work. Vitally necessary Congress regain its power usurped by the President. CLAYTON SIMMONS. FARGO, N. DAT.c., February 5, 1966. Hon. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate Budding, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your fortitude to de- termine the facts in the Vietnam crisis. ORAL A. HOLM. PORTLAND, OREG., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good work. Give our regards to the other supporting Senators. ALVIN AYERS. PrFTSBURGH, PA., February 7, 1966. Senator WAYNE L. Moasz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Strongly support your stand on telecast January 30. PAUL and DOROTHY SCHWEIKHER. EUGENE, OREG., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We were grateful and pleased at your part in the interrogation of Mr. Bell of AID in re- gards to the position you take on the Viet- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For ebruary 9, 1966 CO erisis this is not an overstatement. I felt that not only the great American family but indeed the members of your committee as acknowledged by them must have profited from the deeply reflective and extremely competent appraisals and judgments of Gen- eral Gavin whose intellectual courage is surely a match for his professional endow- -nent and distinction. Please do not take valuable time of yourself or staff to acknowl- edge this wire. I would deeply appreciate it t if you Would see that copies were channelled to at least Senator FULLBRIGHT and General Gavin. Today "America, the beautiful" be- came "America in democracy and sanity the lsiunl,iful." IRVING CAESAR. VALLEY, CALIF., February 7, 1966. Sena tor WA NE MORSE:, Senate Office Buildrng, Washington, D.C.: Thanks and congratulations for insisting on lull and public debate on unconstitu- tional Vietnam war. And what do you think about President Johnson going to Honolulu ix) meet General .Ky whose reported hero is Adolph Hitler? F. E. OWEN. SEATTLE, WASH., February 1, 1966. :;ellatOr WAYNE MORSE, 41 .8 ? Senate, Washington, D.C.: The Nation is rooting for you and Senator VurtssicHT. Don't give up until you have questioned the 1VIeNamaras and ail the rest. The people expect and trust you to bring them all to account for the tragedy they brought on this country. Even Hawaii Mould not be too fur to bring them to an- suer. Mrs. CECILE MAIN. ANCOUVER, WASH., February 5. 1966. ;enator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.. hope you can flush out McNamara. Keep lap the good work. Eveasrr E. STEP. VoRT W ORTII, SEX., February 5, 1966. Ae.nator WAYNE MOR:I;E, Washington, D.0 Thousands Texans grateful you, Fora.- [MIGHT, ?EVENING, sane legislators. Stand against Federal support ugly Viet dictator- l',EATnICE M. ROSNER. ltatocit.ToN, Miss., brim; y 6. 1966. Senator WAYNE More-iE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.? heartily agree with your thoughts on our :;euseless war in Vietnam, 'ROSE LICIIAIAN. USOCKT0N, MASS., ',February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: 1-eingratulations on your courageous stand droteAing our Involvement in Vietnam. WILLIAIW NAGLE. iaOCKTONT, MASS. February 6, 1966. f-,:vnator WAYNE MoRSE, SCAate, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your stand in opposi- tion to she U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Mrs. NORMAN LIEBER. No. 22-----. Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 NGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 2497 NEW YORK, N.Y. HOUSTON, TEX., February 6, 1966 February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Foreign Relations Committee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Washington., D.C.: We are with you wholeheartedly in to2ic Make McNamara testify. Public entitled televized 4th of February, 1966. to entire truth. Call Bundy, Lodge, and Lyn - SHIRLEY and NAIL PAYZA, don if necessary. Mr. and Mrs. MARTIN ELFANT. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. February 6, 1966 Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Urge you vote to rescind President John- son's emergency powers. HARRY J. OLASSCOCE . NE,Ar Ymix, N.Y., February 6, 19611 Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your fight to reestablish control over Presidential prerogatives is vital to our fu- ture as a democratic Nation. We support your criticisms of this illegal and immoral and unwise war. Mr. and Mrs. A. H. EDELMAN, TACOMA, WASH., February 6, 196. .2tt_truttor WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Support your magnificent stand for sanity 4,ittl peace and your rejection of secret Gov- ernment. Dr. HAROLD B/V.,4. CARBONDALE, ILL., February 5, 1966. MADISON, Wis., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: You were magnificent on TV. Please keep up your good work. Mrs. DAVIS SYFTESTAD. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE:, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Am in full accord 110,M. Ills your stand on Viet- J. DANIEL E. Cirif, ST. PAUL, MINN., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: It has been a long time since so many nice things have been said about one man and what a man. Congratulations. JUDY LEVITT. TORRANCE, CALIF., February 5, 1965. Hon. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Capitol Building. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Washington, D.C.: The term "courage" is most often used u hen We are proud of your stand on Vietnam heady speculation in the balance of pow- and necessity for public debate. Congratu- er has netted dubious national glorifies Lion lations. while sacrificing the principles of interna- R. A. and ELIZABETH BALLINGER. 0.onal law and justice. In your heart au- thentic courage linked with truth foresees a new and healthier view of ourselves. Our generation has seen no finer congressional inspiration. LARRY H. CATIGHR(,N. WILLIAM E. KNApP. MICHAEL L. Hairr,, ;?-lAN FR.ANCISGo, CALIF., February 5, 19 6. Senator WAYNE Mortsz, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I support your attempt to stop Joh eson, Rusk, and McNamara from continuing their war in Vietnam. ETHELWYN STEE.,,;E. PALO ALTO, CALIF., FebrUare Hon. WAYNE MORSE? Washington. D.0 it strongly endorse your attempts to exam- ine Johnson's executive war. Urge you to Continue. LEITH SPEID':N. MINEOLA, N.Y., February 5, 1 Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington. D.C.: enjoyed watching the Senate hes rings yesterday. Mr. Bell seemed to be very le ,nest. You, Senator, were very astute. When is Secretary of Defense McNamara takine the stand? ILLITAN 'NEW as:. PALO ALTO, CALIF., February 6, 1 i66. Senator Moust:: Washington, DC.: I am completely in support of your policy C,11 the Vietnam war. Mrs. ELIZABETH Jo: r ES. CAMBRIDGE, MASS., February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Support criticism of Government by se- crecy. Urge open Vietnam hearings in For- eign Relations Committee. VINCENT and AGNES O'DONELL. CLEVELAND, Onm, February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The undersigned heartily concur with grout; views on the Vietnam situation. Make the administration differentiate be- tween Communist nations with regard to their actual behavior as nations, not what isolated members of those nations may say in public. Let the administration not forget that certain American politicians have made exceedingly belligerent public statements in the past.. No nation is without nonrepresen- tational voices. It is a time needful of the congressional discussion of facts not decisions made secret- ly, of farsighted internationalism, not in- secure shortsighted jingoism. PETER E. HAIMna. PAULA J. THoATAS, SAN JosE, Cm. EV. Senator W.1YNE MORSE, Foreign Relations Committee, Senate office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank God for men like yourself and Sen- ator FULBRIGHT who have courage of their Convictions. Who can I help. Sincerely, Mrs. DORIS N. GLENN. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 im4P, gi. Miodum 4., 1111111 AIN,.11/11MM '11,11#04.0111111.1M1101111.101Mfo. nrmemismrrorommoomompowt.0111WWW5Iql 2496 Approved For ReleemaRg.6/AL2.9..: ClAr_IMP67_B00446R000400020005-1 siutN REGORD ? SENATE February 9, 1966 ALTADENA, CALIF., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on stand opposing Vietnam war. We must stop senseless slaughter of Vietnamese and Americans. Mrs. GERTRUDE KLAUSE. NEW Yaw, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Heartily support your opposition to Viet- nam policy. Hope you will continue your courageous stand. OLGA GECHAS. BRENTWOOD, CALIF., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I fervently support your action and view in regard to Vietnam policy. NATHAN FISHER, Brentwood Pharmacy. DAYTON, OHIO, February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I heartily agree with your views on our unfortunate involvement in Vietnam, on the right of American people to know how taxes are spent, on State and Defense Departments. Many Americans grateful to you and Sen- ators GRUENING, FuLBRIGHT, and others con- cerned for humanity. Your reply today to President excellent. MARGARET STE/NDORF, BELLEVUE, WASH., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: American people need to be reminded our military might did not force on China the government we chose for her. It only changed China from friend to enemy. We applaud your effort to show who It is that is blind to experience in Asia. Mr. and Mrs. PATON B. CROUSE. CHICAGO, ILL., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You represent not Oregon but thoughtful Americans everywhere as you fight TN. God bless you. Mr. and Mrs. ROSCOE HILL and STEPHEN. SANTA BARBARA, CALIF., February 8, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. Sm: You have our continuing support for your courageous and forceful stand in oppos- ing executive military adventures. In par- ticular we support your stand on the Vietnam military involvement. We extend our personal regards as former constituents and Salem-Oregonians. Mr. and Mrs. ROBERT E. Eras. Ntw YORK, N.Y., February 8,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. HONORABLE SIR: We applaud your position on Vietnam war. Please continue the fight with our wholehearted support. Respectfully, Mr. and Mrs. ISIDOR SCHLANGER. BROOKLYN, N.Y., February 8,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are in support of your stand on. Ameri- can foreign policy in Vietnam. Dr. and Mrs. MARTIN Rosnoo. STATE COLLEGE, PENNSYLVANIA, February 8,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Our admiration, gratitude, and support for your accurate appraisal of the Vietnam mess and the administration's attempts to keep this from the public. PAUL C. SHAW, JAMES W. CLARK. Sr. Lours, Mo., February 8,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the gallant effort. Your questions are helping the people see the truth. GARNET BLAKE. SHELBYVILLE, KY., February 6, 1966. Hon Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Public Foreign Relations Committee hear- ings are reestablishing the authority of Con- gress. Press hard for public testimony from Rusk, McNamara and others. Our Nation's greatness is badly marred by this illegal and unnecessary war on a small nation. Our in- volvement there is bad world leadership. W. FOREST SMITH. JAMAICA, N.Y., February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE Morms, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We share your deep concern with the di- rection of U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Agree that there should be discussion and reevaluation of our policy. The stopping of bombing of North Vietnam and negotiations with the national liberation front are vital factors. All measures to bring peace should be investigated. JAMAICA COMMITTEE FOR SANE NUCLEAR POLICY. Ds MOINES, IOWA, February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are for you. QUENTION and LEONTINE HILL. MEmpnrs, Trnw., February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Capitol Building, Washington, D.C.: Heartily agree your feeling and views re public appearance McNamara and Wheeler before your committee. For sake of American people please pursue this to maximum length. B. E. WALSH. HOUSTON, TEE. February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We favor your investigation of our involve- ment in the Vietnam war, we agree with your views on the war and urge you continue your fight against it. Mr. and Mrs. HAROLD BELIKOFF. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF. February 6, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Support your stand against Vietnam war and oppose sending Americans to fight against their will. EDWARD DE WATH. BERKELEY, CALIF. February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Keep up protest wholeheartedly support pulling troops out Vietnam war. GENE BERNARDI. AUSTIN, TEX., February 6;1906. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We approve and support your views on Vietnam. Mr. and Mrs. C. J. ZERN. OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., February 7, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Our family appreciated the patriotic stand you have taken on Vietnam. Than,k you for your effort. We back your opinions. The DALE CARGILL Family. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 7, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Hail your leadership in fighting for peace in Vietnam. Approve fully a public hearing. RUTH LOWENKRON, Queen Anne Democratic Club. MAPLE HEIGHTS, OHIO, February 7, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on Vietnam public hearing stand. All Americans, indeed all world in- volved when American blood flows. We all have need to know effects. Dr. and Mrs. JOHN SABOL. CLEVELAND, OHIO, February 7,1966. Se/later WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Heartily endorse and support your resolu- tion to withdraw the Tonkin Bay resolution of August 1964. We agree that President Johnson must not be allowed further use of this resolution to escalate the war in Vietnam. Dr. PAUL OLYNYK, Chairman, Cleveland Sane. NEW YORK, N.Y., February 7, 1966. Se/later WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Your judgment and wisdom on the war are unexcelled. Keep up your good work. We can win only by getting out of Vietnam. WILLIAM FLETCHER. NEW YORK, N.Y. February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Because on one or two occasions we met this is addressed to you and meant of course to be shared with Senator FULBRIGHT and the members of the committee. I am despite the length of this message speechless and alniost tearful in appreciation of the day's hearings. With millions of others I wit- nessed the apotheosis of the American dream. Democracy at work, come alive. I believe it has been one of the brightest days in the history of our legislators in the role of public servants. Considering the time of Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 249 We have a conscience and would rather die in brotherhood and poor than have the horror of continued American aggressions on our conscience. VIRGINIA DOWNES. New YORK, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The whole question of our Asian policy may be at last investigated. Support for your position is widening daily. STEVEN HLADIS, JAMES SCHULER, FLORA STERNER, EAEF ANDERSEN, EDWARD MELCARTH, DANIEL BROWN, WILLIAM TARMAN. --- SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., February 7,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We support you completely in your efforts to end war. FAMILY R. AEON. SA.NTA BARBARA, CALIF., February 7, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building_ Washington, D.C.: We appreciate and actively support open debate on U.S. foreign policy. Thank you. 'AVID WEAVER FAMILY. EVANSTON, ILL., February 7, 1966. sienator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: support your views on Vietnam 100 per- ent, I thank God for your courage. MRS. LLOYD L. SHANKS. LOS GATOS, CALIF., February 8. 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: 1. Proud of your stand on Vietnam war Poau 1633 Massachusetts Avenue NW., Wash- ington 6, D.C., tells us its religious war is mostly Buddhists versus few Catholics. We believe in religious freedom. Do our war leaders? Surely there is a better way. 2. Please vote for cable TV up McKenzie River. Few get any good TV why deny us any clear TV? In FCC now. 1_1ENEVRA DAVIS. NEW YORK, N.Y., February 7, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Got copy of miracle plan solutions to Viet srisis from Fulbright. OLIVER H. PERREAULT. DETROIT, MICH., F.^bruary 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your reply to President's speech in Hawaii impresses my own thoughts. You have my support. ARNOLD SADAROFF. MERCED, CALIF., February 8, 1966. :A9latOr WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I do not approve of the President's policy or escalation in Vietnam. HARRY WOOLSEY. LANSING, MICH., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thanks for your courageous answer to the President. We are those millions who were hoodwinked by his peace platform, however there is strong undercurrent among Demo- crats for no confidence vote for those sup- porting this administration's naked aggres- sion and two faced policy. STANLEY H. SHILP. 'WILMINGTON, DEL., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Sin: May I respectfully suggest Contours of American History by William Appleton Williams, pages 422 and on, as a source of reference for relations with China past and present. If the mayor with this work good thank God and a few brave men for some truth about present policies of our Government. F S. LOGUE PALO ALTO, CALIF., February 8, 1966 Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you for courage above and beyond the call of duty. You are not alone. Mrs. BETTY FERREIRA, HAYWARD, CALIF., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C. Warmly applaud Foreign Relations Com- mittee and you especially for exposing John- son's tragic folly in Vietnam. ED and VIRGINIA PEEl. ----- LONGIVLONT, COLO., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your persistence of in- vestigation of Vietnam policy. PEACE PROMOTERS. ? ? Soyssm, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations and many thanks for your mockery statement. We resent Presidential welcome to South Vietnamese dictators and his debasement of American name and peace intentions. Mr. and MTS. E. R. STABLE R. Los ANGELES. CALIF., February 8, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S.. Senator, Washington. DC: Keep up the pressure. Your efforts are indispensable. DAVID M. CALLAHAM. -- SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., Febnary 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE. Washington, D.C.: support your position on Vietnam; mske adrainistration tell us when this fiasco will end. J. SPIRER. CLEVELAND, OHIO, Febuary 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: The President had no right to commit us to the Vietnam war. The right to declare war is a legislative power and cannot be delegated to anyone else by Congress. Presi- dent had no moral right to deliberately waste American lives in a useless, meaning- less war which no one wants. Only a cou- rageous stand will prevent the national catastrophe which is facing us. Keep up the good work. HENRY and SARAH DU LAURENCE. KANSAS CITY, MO., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We applaud your courage in taking such a courageous stand against the Johnson-Rusk foreign policy. Please continue to be the conscience of our country. Mr. and Mrs. IRA STEIN and family. SAN MATEO, CALIF., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: You are one American that has the courage to stand against the warmakers. I support you. GERTRUDE R. ANDERSON. LOS ANGELES, CALIF., Febuary 8, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We strongly support your efforts to obtain an open hearing on our policies in Vietnam and are so advising our two Senators. Mr. and Mrs. HOWARD L. HOOVER. POMONA, CALIF., Febuary 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We support your position on Vietnam 100 percent and urge that you do your hest to get McNamara in open session before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee so that all Americans can know what's going on in Vietnam. AL RAMPERSHAD, HUGO CELAYA, JACK MORNOE, SAM LASALA, School Teachers. BROOKLYN, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Strongly support your speech deploring resumption of bombing. Urge strenuous opposition to illegal administration position. OIPFARD. SEACLIFE, N.Y? February 8, 1966 Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Hold firm. Thank you and God bless you. Mr. and Mrs. J. E. ISBEI Deritorr, Mein, February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I applaud your courageous response to President Johnson's slur on the peace forces of the Nation. You are an inspiration in your struggle for a real congressional debate. You are representing not Just Oregon but all of us who don't want to see a nuclear war and perhaps the end of civilization. Thank you and keep up your brave struggle. JOHN G. CONLEY. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Altallt11.111111111111,101111,11'1,11 Iii..11'r 2494 Approved For ReIMRTMAIRAIW803-9? WNW? 2 - 00 00054 ebruary 9, 1966 LAFAYETTE, IND., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations. You have just stated the minds of millions of Americans regarding open hearings. Stand by your convictions. WALTER E. KLINKER. INDIANAPOLIS, IND., December 4, 1965. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I watched you this morning on TV. I agree with you and I thank you for your time and I appreciate what you think. You are for us and our taxpayers. I am a Hoosier agree- ing with an Oregon Senator. S. P. SHERRIN. JERSEY CITY, N.J., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I watched you on TV. Think you right. JOHN MCLAUGHLIN. BRAINTREE, MASS., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Heartily concur with televised remarks re- garding secrecy. Congratulations on cour- age. CLARA CULLEN DONATELLO. NEW ORLEANS, LA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We agree with you. Stand your ground. Mr. and Mrs. J. G. HAMMOND. BROOKLINE, MASS., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Thank you very much for your courage. God bless you. Dr. and Mrs. WILFRED CALMAS. UTICA, N.Y., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE Monsu, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your open committee hearings. Keep pushing. JOHN P PERTH AMBOY, N.J., January 4,1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Three cheers your stand against closed sessions for McNamara and Wheeler. Please give my congratulations to Senator CASE supporting you. JAMES T. BIRCHALL. COLORADO SPRINGS, COLO., January 4, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Foreign Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C.: Please, for sake of people, do all you can to get McNamara in public session. Mrs. SCHERER. ORLANDO, FLA., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up the good work in your debate. We Americans are behind you. DELORES KENDALL. CALABASAS, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Many mature responsible people back your views on Vietnam. We cannot have compas- sion and support needless slaughter. I am at your service. Mrs. CLAUDE (PAT) SMITH. PUTNAM, CONN., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Lust for power in White House. Protect our country. Stop war. Stop spending. Close pocketbook. Mr. and Mrs. CAPELLETTE. COLLEGE STATION, TEE., December 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Bravo. Your views on secrecy in Govern- ment. Can David Bell issue a direct reply? Please keep plugging you're our brightest hope yet. Mr. and Mrs. PETER D. WEINER. WILTON, CONN., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Your words condemning Government by secrecy refusing to allow McNamara, Wheel- er, and Rusk to testify secretly should be cast in bronze a mile high. Our country is in bad trouble. We, the people, want to know why and how so we can do what is necessary to get back to a free, open consti- tutional Government. Letter follows. Respectfully, WARD M. STERLING. FORT WORTH, TEX., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We were exceedingly interested and share your views that the American public should be thoroughly informed on the true picture of all the facets regarding the escalating war in Vietnam. Mr. and Mrs. J. D. BALDRIDGE. LODI, CALIF., January 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: We support your views on illegal war in Vietnam. Mr. and Mrs. CLIFTON J. PRATT. PORTLAND, OREG., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We support your effort to force congres- sional investigation of undeclared Vietnam war. Good work. Dr. and Mrs. K. N. TANNER. EUGENE, OREG., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We are proud of your stand on Vietnam. Don't let the brutes grind you down. Mrs. RUTH BUEHLER. CORVALLIS, OREG., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your stand on Vietnam in best American tradition of freedom and dissent. We support you wholeheartedly. THERESE AND CHARLES CORMACH. Los ANGELES, CALIF., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Tonight on TV we were proud of you. WARDEN MCDONALD AND FAMILY. FLUSHING, N.Y., February 7, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: God bless you for Viet stand. Continue to speak out. Save us from war III. MARY ROBBINS. NEW YORK, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Have just heard your clear precise analysis on television. Thank heaven the voice of sanity can still be heard. I wish you were our Senator from New York. ROBERT SCURLOCK. NEW Yortx, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We are appalled at President Johnson's airport speech and militant policies and we applaud and fully back the comments you made about it on television. You have cou- rageously represented the truth about Viet- nam from the beginning and millions of us from Maine to Hawaii giv6 you our allegiance and gratitude for your fine work. Mr. and Mrs. THOMAS J. KNOWLES. Nnw YORK, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We approve your stand on Vietnam. We believe that you represent the hopes of mil- lions of Americans to stop the war in Viet- nam and the danger of escalation into a suicidal world war. We look to you in our hope that we will not be led into a dictator- ship. Respectfully, H. MARCUS. NEW YORK, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: May God grant you strength to continue your loyal opposition and your courageous fight against this illegal war. We support your bill to rescind the blank check resolu- tion passed at time of Tomkin Gulf incident. Mr. and Mrs. I. R. NEUGEBAUER. NEW YORK, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Representing many silent Americans, may I take the liberty of expressing our spirits in asking you to continue your courageous stand in Congress for your country and for so many Americans who look to you for leadership? You have been brave in ex- pressing our conviction. We are not weak. We love our boys who are dying in the Asian land war. Please, Mr. Congressman, finan- cial interest are keeping Americans like me and my silent friends quiet when American motives are being challenged by the world. Maybe we are not the money conscious peo- ple the world takes us to be. We have a choice of financial loss?higher taxes and more American boys dying, or the loss of some countries. We never belonged in E.G., Aus- tralia, the Philippines, and Hawaii and the loss of revenue in those countries. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 February 9, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 2493 WII1TE PLAINS, N.Y.. February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, ii'en,ate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations your recent stimulating apeech regarding Vietnam. Capt. JOHN S. BURROWS. WEST PALM BEACH, FLA., February 1, 1966. e',enator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Press for McNamara, public hearing, Ameri- oan role on foreign aid. Appreciate your i.tuda and concern. Mrs. GEORGE R. WEAVER. FLUSHING, N.Y., February 8, 1966. _.enator WAYNE Moaer, Senate Chambers, Washington, D.C.: Please accept our thanks for your intelli- gent, courageous, sane views on Vietnam. nwin and ELLEN PATRICK. i3OS GATOS, CALIF., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Pon the sake of the lives of our boys and welfare of all mankind we heartily endorse your opposition to President Johnson's policy in Vietnam. Dr. and Mrs. GEORGE A. MUERCH, NEW YORK, N.Y.. February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senator from Oregon, Senate Office Building, Washington. D.C.: Congratulations and heartfelt thanks for your magnificent stand against that obscenity in the White House who should be im- peached. How proud Oregon and Alaska must be of their Senators who show such integrity of mind How I wish New York could feel the same about their Senators. PHYLLIS LLEWELLYN. BRIGANTINE, N.J.. February 8, 1966. Br011. WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington. D.C.: Approve unqualifiedly your challenging statements to the President. Have we for- gotten Eisenhower's farewell address when he warned us to beware of the military indus- trial complex. PAUL M. COPE. Duouom, February 8, 1966. [Ion. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, W ashingtcrn, D.C.: You have demonstrated an unquestionable concern regarding a matter of serious conse- quence to every inhabitant on earth. Through the public hearings on foreign rela- tions you have made it possible for many to object or agree with U.S. policy while having reasonable understanding of the facts. Thank you, Senator. MARTIN A. ODOM. OAKLAND, CALIF. February 8, 1966. -non. WAYNE MORSE. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: My wife and I wholeheartedly support the inquiry into the administration policy in the Vietnam war. We believe the Nation's Foreign policy needs to be evaluated to deter- mine whether it is really furthering the democratic ideals that this country is sup- posed to stand for in such places as Vietnam and the Dominican Republic and with hind- sight, Cuba. ROBERT L. REYNOLDS. KALAMAZOO, Micas., February 8, 1966, Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We support your Vietnam policy. Mr. and Mrs. KENNETH IRISH --- BROOKLYN, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: Thank you. ROBERT M. MESSINGER. --- FAIRFIELD, CALIF., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your bringing before the public an intellectual discussion of the Vietnam situation. Also please extend con- gratulations to General Gavin for his out- standing efforts on behalf of our country. DONALD G. VINZANT. - ? PENNYAN, N.Y., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U. S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: We commend you and agree completely with your statements of concern over the speech given by President Johnson, in Hawaii. Regarding Vietnam. Please keep your sensible statements coming to the pub- lic. Although your statements are in dis- agreement with the strategy advocated by President Johnson and advisers, it is only through dissent that the democratic process can survive. MARGUERITE and DAVID PFIEFFER. STOWE, VT., February .9, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Very interested in discussions of South Vietnam. No one I have discussed this prob- lem with from Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Vermont. Have agreed with administration policy. That is Con- gress should decide if we're going to engage in a war let our Representatives decide it. In other words I agree with you implicitly. JOHN H. CHAMBERS. KNOXVILLE, TENN., February 9, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE. Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: I find thousands of Tennesseans believing that the legislative branch of the U.S. Gov- ernment should act in behalf of citizens in war declaration and war actions and not the executive branch of U.S. Government. The people are beginning to question why 400 men should be elected to the legislative branch of the Government since their judg- ment and actions are relegated to the judg- ment and actions of 12 men in the executive branch of the Government. Why the 12 judgment predominating instead of the 400 judgment. US people elected and depend upon to act for us under U.S. Constitution. R. E. CARROLL GRAY. --- ST. LOUIS, MO., February 9, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please accept my thanks and encourage- ment for the Vietnam hearings. This open discussion is past due; hope the American people will learn about the terrible prospects of escalation and find a way with your guid- ance for an honorable settlement. LEONARD ZWEIG_ BEVERLY HILLS CALIF.. February 9, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: We support your stand on Vietnam. Please continue cry out against this illegal war. MARION and JEROME B. LINDEN. DEERFIELD, ILL., February 9, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: We have sent telegrams tonight to the President, to our Senators, and our Repre- sentatives asking for a change in our Viet- nam policy. We applaud your efforts to re- store sanity to our foreign policy. You are a beacon of hope in a sea of despair. A. J. SCHAPS. LOS GATOS, CALIF., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Your speech exposing Johnson hypocrisy in Honolulu was great, you have our grati- tude and support. Dr. and Mrs. ROBERT W. FAN BRUGGEN. STOCKTON, CALIF. February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Keep up resistance to administration in- sane Vietnam policy. SYBIL STICHT. NASHVILLE, TENN , February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. Thanks for your American approach of February 4. My regards to your supporters. GENE H. PARRISH LOUISVILLE, KY., February 4, 1966 Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senator from Oregon, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR: Bravo for you in speaking Up for the American people. There isn't any- thing going on in a foreign country that is worth one American life. Charity and aid belong at home first and with all that is needed here in America I think it about time we have the proper representation such as you so openly and unafraidably give. Sincerely, VIRGINIA KENDALL, (MRS. G. H.) ? HILLSDALE, N.J., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Bravo, keep up the good work. I admire your stand on Vietnam. Mrs. FRED SCARANO. GREENVILLE, N.C., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your stand for the secrecy on the Vietnam conflict for a con- fused citizen. ELWOOD R. KDIVARDS. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 1,4t414,MAIRIMIIIM1011111111411414.141100111044114.444.4,4,...44114.04.41Nigia.44.A1.4.e 11111111111M41111421111V 414 [4 RN !p[44441114;444 4,401 11 11114111M1 111111 nti 14,1' 1'11111 1'1 February 9, ARRroved Forftne.EiRM6 RekEMBP6 peT4ALTE o o 0400020005-1 nel we so desperately need to combat crime and fire in our Nation's Capital, and furthermore, it will help to retain the qualified men already serving their community. I firmly believe that this pay increase must be an essential part of any program to reduce crime in our Nation's Capital. I respectfully urge my colleagues to give this legislation their strongest sup- port. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill will be received and appropriately re- ferred. The bill (S. 2910) to increase the sal- aries of officers and members of the Metropolitan Police force and the Fire Department of the District of Columbia, the U.S. Park Police, and the White House Police, introduced by Mr. BREW- STER, was received, read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia. AUTHORIZATION FOR COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION TO FILE SUNDRY REPORTS DUR- ING RECESS OF THE SENATE Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be per- mitted to file sundry reports during the recess of the Senate. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF JOINT RESOLUTIONS Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at its next printing, the name of the Senator from Colorado [Mr. Domnaex] may be added to the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 12) pro- posing an amendment to the Constitu- tion of the United States providing for the election of the President and Vice President. The PRESIDING 0.1010.[CER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. RIBICOFF. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the names of Senators CLARK and SPARKMAN be added as cosponsors of the joint resolution (S.J. Res. 130) to establish May 8 to May 14, 1966, as National School Safety Patrol Week. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILL Under authority of the order of the Senate of February 1, 1966, the names of Mr. ALLOTT, Mr. KUCHEL, Mr. LAUSCHE, Mr. LONG of Missouri, Mr. PEARSON, Mr. SALTONSTALL, and Mr. SCOTT were added as additional cosponsors of the bill (S. 2857) to increase the investment credit allowable with respect to facilities to con- trol water and air pollution, introduced by Mr. COOPER (for himself and Mr. RANDOLPH) on February 1. 1966. NOTICE OF HEARING ON NOMINA- TION OF WILLIAM J. LYNCH TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on the Judi- ciary, I desire to give notice that a pu' blic hearing has been scheduled for Thurs- day, February 17, 1966, at 10:30 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, on the nomination of William J. Lynch, of Illinois, to be U.S. district judge, north- ern district of Illinois, vice Michael L. Igoe, retired. At the indicated time and place per- sons interested in the hearing may make such representations as may be perti- nent. The subcommittee consists of the Sen- ator from Arkansas [Mr. McCtELLAN], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Dimosn] , and myself, as chairman. NOTICE OF HEARING ON NOMINA- TION OF WILLIAM K. THOMAS TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, NORTH- ERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Mr. EASTLAND. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on the Judiciary, I desire to give notice that a public hear- ing has been scheduled for Thursday, February 17, 1966, at 10:30 a.m., in room 2228, New Senate Office Building, on the nomination of William K. Thomas, of Ohio, to be U.S. district judge, northern district of Ohio, vice Paul Jones, de- ceased. At the indicated time and place per- sons interested in the hearing may make such representations as may be perti- nent. The subcoinmittee consists of the Sen- ator from Arkansas [Mr. McCtEr.I.Ax] , the Senator from Nebraska [Mr. HRUSKA], and myself, as chairman. ADDRESSES, EDITORIALS, ARTI- CLES, ETC., PRINTED IN THE APPENDIX On request, and by unanimous con- sent, addresses, editorials, articles, etc., were ordered to be printed in the Ap- pendix, as follows: By Mr. CHURCH: Address entitled "Farming in Idaho: A Look Ahead," delivered by him at the farm- city banquet of the Kiwanis Club of Twin Falls, Idaho. By Mr. BENNETT: Editorial in tribute to the late Henry Y. Kasai., published in the salt Lake Tribune of February 1, 1966. By Mr. McINTYRE: Article entitled "New England's Big Come- back, Latest Success Story," published in the U.S. News & World Report of Febru- ary 7, 1986. By Mr. THURMOND: Poem entitled "God Out of School," by Gene Rickett, dealing with the recognition of God in public and private lives. By Mr. JAVITS: Article entitled "Thais Expanding Armed Strength," written by Hanson W. Baldwin and published in the New York Times of February 4, 1966. STRANGE TYPE OF MALARIA FE- VERS AFFLICTS OUR SOLDIERS IN VIETNAM Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, in Vietnam, Okinawa, Japan, and at Clark Air Base near Manila the hospitals of our Armed Forces are jammed with wounded and sick from Vietnam. Many 2491 GI's are being terribly wounded in jungle "booby traps" so concealed as to escape detection even if extreme care is exer- cised. The ratio of our wounded to those killed in combat is about 10 to 1 because of these tactics. Our fine young soldiers fighting in Vietnam are afflicted with malaria of such a virulent nature that modern medical science has been hard put to cure them. In fact, unfortunate- ly, a number have died. Others are be- ing honorably discharged by reason of physical disability. This form of malaria fever and other jungle fevers are taking a terrible toll. The fact is that this vicious malarial strain is afflicting from 500 to 800 of our soldiers each month and is one of the greatest problems facing our military commanders and medical officers in Viet- nam. Mr. President, there appeared in the Washington Post of January 30, 1966, a United Press International news item entitled "Strange Type of Malaria In Vietnam Vexes Pentagon," setting forth this problem in detail. I ask unan- imous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at this point as part of my re- marks. There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: STRANGE, TYPE Or MALARIA IN VIETNAM VEXES PENTAGON A Vietnam jungle mosquito that breeds "upside down" is giving Defense Department doctors almost as much worry as wounds inflicted by Communist Vietcong guerrillas. The insect is the anopheles bacabacensis. It carries a tough strain of malaria known as fulciparum. It is felling 500 to 700 U.S. soldiers a month in Vietnam war. It is immune to malaria drugs now available. The Defense Department has launched a $29 million crash program to develop an effective counteragent. Unlike other mosquitoes, this jungle pest lays its eggs on the bottom of a tree leaf. Pesticides sprayed from the air leaves the anopheles bacabacensis untouched. Two other strains that also apparently resist present antimalarial drugs have been uncovered in neighboring Thailand, adding to the Pentagon's worries. The new kind of malaria also has played an important role in drastic increases in quinine and quidine prices. The increases and an apparent shortage of quinine are being studied by congressional investigators and the Federal Trade Commission. Pentagon officials said the current inci- dence of cases involving the new malaria is moderate. But they expect it to increase as U.S. troops move into more severely in- fested Vietnam areas. Some Pentagon planners were described as having an "absolute shaking fit" over the idea of a large number of troops being in- fected where they cannot be treated effec- tively. Quinine has proved effective against some of the new cases. But military medical of- ficials note that quinine can cause nausea and dizziness, thus hampering a soldier's ability to fight. The researchers hope to develop a drug that would be effective both as a treatment and a preventive, similar to the choloroquine drug used against older malaria strains. Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President, while hospitalized, many of our young men are placed on temporary cots. Yet, at Oak Harbor and Port Clinton, Ohio, two 200-bed field hospitals are stored and have been' stored for civil defense pur- poses since 1958. This outrageous situa- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP671300446R000400020005-1 2492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE P eoruary 9, 1966 Lion is duplicated in other cities in Ohio and in other States. Officials of the De- partment of Defense should make use of such hospital beds and equipment in- stead of continually buying new equip- ment. The civil defense program has been a stupendous hoax and waste of considerably more than a billion dollars of taxpayers' money. This so-called civil defense shelter program is a huge boondoggle. The Soviet Union poses no threat of nuclear attack with intercon- tinental ballistic missiles. Its leaders seek coexistence. They are veering to- ward capitalism. No other nation has any capacity to assail us with nuclear warheads. Mayor John Lindsey recently an- nounced that he would abolish New York City Office of Civil Defense and said that scrapping it would mean a considerable saving for the city. Let us hope that other mayors and Governors follow this commonsense action of the mayor of New York. Finally, how can the Secre- tary of Defense continue to defend his waste of taxpayers' money for a civil de- fense shelter program which is so silly? Our efforts and money should be con- centrated on saving lives of wounded GI's and those afflicted with malaria nd other jungle diseases. VICE PRESIDENT HUMPHREY'S TRIP TO SAIGON Mr. JAVLTS. Mr. President, I wish to say a word about the dispatch of the Vice President to Saigon and other capitals by the President. It seems to me that recent events are now producing the American consensus on what should be done about Vietnam, and that this consensus falls into three categories: First, to pursue the military effort within the present order of magnitude, but without escalation beyond that point. Second, to pursue the effort to bring about a realization of the social revolu- tion in Vietnam through an enhanced foreign aid program, and especially through the development of reforms such as sanitation, health, housing, food in- take, and food supplies, with special em- phasis on land tenure, because land re- form in South Vietnam is very important. Let; us stop deluding ourselves about the government in Vietnam. Its military effort, with which we are associated re- quires that South Vietnamese reforms will have to be made on the basis of self- help and mutual cooperation. If the U.S. position there is to be tenable at all, the, United States must insist upon reforms. The government in Saigon was not elected; it took power. It is impossible to do anything else, but it is also impose. sibie to do anything else but engage in economic and social construction in Viet- nam, and we must insist on it if we are to stay there. The third part of the American con- sensus is to pursue the peace of with undiminished vigor, notwithstand- ing the foot that Hanoi, Peiping, and MOSCOW have been so unreceptive. believe this is what the American people support. But the President should add a fourth element to the con- sensus, and that is to invite backing by Congress and the people by sending an appropriate resolution to Congress up- dating the resolution of August 1964, in respect of Vietnam to meet the present situation. The President is a good enough politi- cian to know that he has nothing to fear; that he will receive an overwhelming vote. But it would associate the Con- gress with him in making this portentous decision for the American people. I see too many fissures in the Presi- dent's own party, as well as in the coun- try, for the President not to take advan- tage of this great opportunity to con- solidate the Congress and the country with him---and I emphasize that such a partnership is needed to pursue our purposes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. JAVITS. I ask unanimous con- sent that I may have 1 additional minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without abjection, it is so ordered. Mr. JAVITS. No one is talking about victory. There is no one to vanquish. There are only objectives to attain. These objectives are embodied in the four-part consensus I have just mentioned. Let me add, one further point. When I returned from Vietnam some 3 weeks ago, I urged the President to give special attention to the real and underlying cause of war in Vietnam?social and economic privation. To meet this basic problem, I urged the President to place a top coordinator in charge of the aid program. He has done that. He could not have selected a better man than the Vice President. Now, the only action the President need take is to add the fourth point--namely, congressional ac- tion--which will show the support of the American people in such a way as to inspire the world. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further morning business? Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I sug- gest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING VIETNAM CONFLICT Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may insert in the RECORD certain telegrams pro and con, which I have received in connection with my statements with respect to what I have said is the unconstitutional, il- legal war in Vietnam, and to also insert my answers to the critical wires. There being no objection, the com- munications were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: PORTLAND OREG. February 5, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: First continue your stand on Vietnam. Oregon voters back you. How can I help? DoriornY McKENzm. MEDFORD, OREG., February 6, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Building, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations on your efforts to expose the waste in our foreign aid efforts, and we confirm your judgment of getting out of the Vietnam war. Sincerely, Mr, and Mrs. RAY F. BAKER. -- TILLAMOOIC. OREG., February 9, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: May I please add my name to your growl :ng list of Oregon voters re your Vietnam stand. I am BOYD E. HARTMAN. PORTLAND OREG., February 7, 1966. Hon. WAYNE MORSE, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Congratulations and continued support to you, Governor Hatfield, and the Members of the Congress of the United States who seek peace rather than war. The war should be on poverty and disease, not the creator of both as in Vietnam. NONA GLAZER. EUGENE, OREG., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, .D.C.: Behind you 100 percent, Keep up your work to end the war now. Mr. and Mrs. PETER SIIROYER. KENILWORTH, ILL., February 8, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Can I as an individual help stop this mad- ness in Vietnam with my best individual co- operation. Our double-talking President is getting completely out of hand. H. H. HANLON. EUGENE, OREG.. February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Washington, D.C.: Salute your courage and strength on Viet- nam war opposition. Please don't be pres- sured into silence. LAURA BOCK. -- PORTLAND, OREG., February 4, 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: We support your voiced opinions 100 percent. Listening to televised investi- gation with full attention. Be assured of Oregon's support Democrat and Republicans as this family represents. Sincerely, MTS. H. E. HOWARD. FORT WORTH, TeX., February 4. 1966. Senator WAYNE MORSE, Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Washington, D.C.: Bravo. Stay in there and pitch. MAC BROWN. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 P111. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1 2510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE February 9, 1966 show that a cutback in the program will mean a decrease in school milk consump- tion, There simply is no way to get around this fact. Yet the program has been cut by 10 percent this year, bath because insuffi- cient funds were appropriated by Con- gress and because the Bureau of the Budget in a completely phony economy move has withheld some of the funds that were appropriated. The adminis- tration plans to cripple the program even more next year?cutting it to one-fifth its former size and imposing an onerous means test on those who receive milk under the program. I would like to bring to my colleagues' attention this morning a study made by the University of Illinois College of Agri- culture in 1960 that indicates the value of the program in increasing milk con- sumption. The report states: In the first 5 years the special milk pro- gram was in operation, consumption per student In Illinois increased 21/2 times. Certainly this shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that full funding of the school milk program is essential if student milk consumption is to continue at its present high level. The study reiterates this point by stating: If the school milk program were not in operation, the student price would frequently be as much as 10 cents per half pint, and consumption in schools would be very likely to suffer a major decrease. The low student price made possible by the school milk pro- gram is one of the basic reasons for high consumption in schools. As I understand the fiscal 1967 pro- poSal to cut the program from $103 mil- lion to $21 million the intent is to sup- port the disbursement of milk to the needy who would be chosen by the school administrator. Also, milk would con- tinue to be provided under the program to schools not having a school lunch program. This means that millions of schoolchildren would for the first time pay more than 10 cents per half pint. I say more than 10 cents because the 1960 study of course does not reflect the price Increases that have taken place in the Intervening 5 years. Mr. President, can anyone doubt the tremendous impact this will have on milk consumption? Can anyone seri- ously believe that millions and millions of children will not drop out of the pro- gram when the cost of having two half pints a day is $1 a week? And among these children will be those who are too proud to qualify themselves as poverty cases or not quite poor enough to be chosen to receive welfare milk from th tfFederal Government. THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND THE VIETNAM DEBATE Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, an edi- torial which appeared in the February 5, 1966, edition of the Washington Post points up, as I have done in my Vietnam report, the close parallel between the current U.S. policy in Vietnam and the Truman doctrine. Then, as now, the critics felt that the doctrine was aggres- sive and open ended, that it would lead to and escalate wars. But, the doctrine was applied with caution and restraint, and it was "a peacemaking and not a warmaking doctrine." I call the attention of my colleagues to this editorial and ask unanimous con- sent to have it printed in the RECORD. There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE Senate Foreign Relations Committee hear- ings on administration policies in South Viet- nam ought to clarify opposing views and might even help in reconciling some differ- ences on foreign policy. It is to be hoped that the committees witnesses will grapple with the fundamentals in a way that the Congress did in 1947 when the country em- barked upon the policies we have followed ever since. The Truman doctrine was recognized in 1047 as a historic declaration. The Presi- dent in his March 12 message to Congress said bluntly: "I believe that it must be the policy of the United States to support free peoples who are resisting attempted sub- jugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." The Congress and the country agreed with him and American aid was sent to Greece to back up the British in resisting the first of the wars of "national liberation" that have been a unique military and diplo- matic phenomenon of our times. That re- sistance proved to be brilliantly successful and Greece and the Mediterranean were saved for the West. Since 1947 the pursuit of the policy then enunciated has led us into diplo- matic and military confrontations around the globe?notably in Lebanon, the Congo, the Philippines, in Latin American countries, in Vietnam, and in the Suez crisis. If there is any constant thread in our foreign rela- tions it is the resistance to subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures. It has not been universally directed against Communists as such?it has been applied, with pain and reluctance, against the policies of even our best friends as it was at Suez. We can see the wars and diplomatic con- frontations the Truman doctrine has in- volved us in; but we cannot see the aggres- sions that we have not had to check because of knowledge in the world of the existence of the Truman doctrine. In the current debate on that doctrine?and that 1 a what any meaningful debate will be about?the wars that have not happened ought to be remem- bered, as well as the trials that have afflicted US. At the time the doctrine was embraced, it did not go unchallenged. Many Senators pointed out then that it might eventually involve us around the world?even in China as the late Senator Arthur Capper, for one, pointed out. And Walter Lippmann at- tacked the policy both in its application to Greece and in its worldwide implications. He described it as "a vague global policy which sounds like a tocsin of an ideological crusade that has no limits." And he de- plored "entangling ourselves as partisans in a Greek civil war." The criticism was use- ful, for it resulted in a cautious and re- strained application of the doctrine gener- ally. And the critics were prophetic in see- ing the far-reaching consequences of this policy. The truth is that the Truman doctrine, like so many of the spunky President's utter- ances, came close to putting the national im- pulse into a single sentence. It reflected what Walter Lippmann had said in 1944 about the continuing and profound interest of Americans in conditions everywhere in the World. Lippmann called it this persistent evangel of Americanism. And he thought it reflected the fact that no nation, and certainly not this Nation, can endure in a politically alien and morally hostile environ- ment; and the profound and abiding truth that a people which does not advance its faith has already begun to abandon it. President Truman's March speech and Mr. Lippmann's global eloquence faithfully mir- ror the impulses of our countrymen. But at the same time, on alternate occasions and off days, this expansive inclination has been matched by caution and restraint and a sense of our limitations. Lippmann, in dis- cussing U.S. war aims in 1944, expressed a -widespread anxiety about the reach of Amer- ican or Western power in Asia. "We must take it as decided," he said, "that the tute- large of the western empires in Asia is coming to its predestined end." And that was and Is an authentic reflection of American judg- ment. So the two impulses meet now in Vietnam and will manifest themselves in their curi- ous contradictory way in the Senate hear- ings, no doubt. If the Senators are to have a fair chance of reconciling this dichotomy, they must remember that in application the Truman doctrine turned out to be a peace- making and not a warmaking doctrine. Even in Greece, the object was to secure the freedom of Greece?not to produce a con- frontation between the Soviet Union and the West. The trick then was to save Greece without having a war with the Soviet Union. And it was accomplished. The aim now ought to be to save South Vietnam without having a war with China. This is essentially the policy the administration is pursuing. It is the policy that the Senators will be examining. It is the Truman doctrine enun- ciated in March 1947?a doctrine that not all Americans have caught up with yet?nearly 20 years later. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS Mr. WILLIAMS of Delaware. Mr. President, on January 26, 1966, as ap- pearing in the RECORD on pages 1166- 1170, I discussed how this adMinistra- tion had conceived a questionable plan for raising campaign contributions from corporations by describing them as ad- vertisements. At that time I emphasized that the corporations making these contributions were in effect being subjected to political blackmail, particularly if they were in- terested in obtaining defense contracts or if they were involved in important decisions that would be rendered by Gov- ernment agencies. In this connection I ask unanimous consent that there be printed in the- RECORD at this point an editorial appear- ing in the Journal of Lorain, Ohio, on January 29, 1966, entitled "It Pays to Advertise," There being no objection, the editorial was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: IT PAYS To ADVERTISE The list of American businesses whose suc- cess can be attributed in part to a very successful program of advertising is long. On this list are some of the largest and most successful companies in the United States. A new advantage to advertising has been re- cently revealed, and since it affects a corpora- tion which is considering becoming part of Lorain, the facts are worth noting. United Artists was an advertiser who placed a full page ad in the 1964 Democratic Na- tional Convention program. The cost of this ad was $15,000. The same corporation also took a full page ad in the Democrats' adver- tising book "Toward an Age of Greatness" published in December 1965. Again the cost was $15,000. Both of these ads appeared in Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67600446R000400020005-1