MOVE TOWARD VIETNAM PEACE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP67B00446R000400020005-1
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 72
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 27, 2005
• Sequence Number: 5
• Publication Date: January 27, 1966
• Content Type: OPEN

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 Doum.se 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 ye.sr. 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
',.......10.1.11.111/10,00ffilli*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, t.re 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
ihne.ss. 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 Vietnanu.se
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 Charl.er
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 W.th
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.
t.lr,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....11.1.14,111.10.111.141IMPW 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