Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 20, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
March 15, 1966
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1.pdf10.91 MB
5550 Approved For 6ZE 0004000400 ch 15, 1966 NAYS-102 Abbitt Fisher Passmau Abernethy Fountain Pike Andrews, Fulton, Tenn. Quie George W. Gettys Randall Andrews, Gross Reid, Ill. Glenn Grover Reifel Andrews, Gubser Robison N. Dak. Gurney Rogers, Fla. Arends Hagan, Ga. Roybal Ashbrook Haley Rumsfeld Ashmore Hall Satterfield Bennett Hansen, Idaho Scott Berry Harsha Secrest Bolton Henderson Selden Bow Hutchinson Sikes Skubita Brown, Ohio Jones, Mo. Smith, Calif. Broyhill, N.C. Jones, N.C. Stalbaum Buchanan King, N.Y. Stanton Burton, Utah Kornegay Stephens Cameron Langen Talcott Cederberg Latta Taylor Chamberlain Lennon Tuck Clancy McClory Tuten Conable McCulloch Utt Cramer McEwen Walker, N. Mex. Cunningham McMillan Watson Curtis MacGregor W eltner Derwinski Michel Whitener Devine Minshail Whitten Dickinson Morton Williams Dole Nelsen Wilson, Bob Dulski O'Hara, Mich. Wolff Edwards, Ala. O'Neal, On. Wydier Ei'lenborn Ottinger Younger NOT VOTING-41 Adair Fuqua Mosher Baring Hagen, Calif. Pool Ben Halleck Powell Bolling Hanna Reinecke Brown, Calif. Harvey, Ind. Roncalio Clawson, Del Holifield Roudebush Collier Ichord Sisk Conyers Landrum Teague, Tex. Davis, Ga. McCarthy Toll Delaney McVicker W aggonner Dowdy Martin, Ala. Walker, Miss. Downing Mathias Willis Everett Matthews Wyatt Fraser Miller So the conference report was agreed to. pairs: On this vote: Mr. Teague of Texas for, with Mr. Wag- gonner against. Mr. Downing for, with Mr. Davis of Georgia against. Mr. Delaney for, with Mr. Roncalio against. Until further notice: Mr. Baring with Mr. Harvey of Indiana. Mr. Holifleld with Mr. Collier. Mr. Sisk with Mr. Adair. Mr. Miller with Mr. Reinecke. Mr. Willis with Mr. Roudebush. Mr. Hagen of California with Mr. Martin of Alabama. Mr. Brown of California with Mr. Bell. Mr. Toll with Mr. Wyatt. Mr. Fuqua with Mr. Mosher. Mr. Landrum with Mr. Walker of Missis- sippi. Mr. Powell with Mr. Fraser. Mr. Ichord with Mr. Dowdy. Mr. Matthews with Mr. McVicker. Mr.'Conyers with Mr. McCarthy. Mr. Hanna with Mr. Pool. Mr. RUMSFELD, Mr. LANGEN, Mr. BROYHILL of North Carolina, Mr. FOUNTAIN, and Mr. SKUBITZ changed their votes from "yea" to "nay." The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid oNthe House Resolution 773, and ask for its im- time to time of shortages over in Viet- mediate consideration. nam. We realize that there are bound The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- to be isolated items of that nature and lows: we want these shortages to be elimi- H. RES. 773 nated as soon as possible. Resolved, That during the consideration of Mr. Speaker, I have here a letter from the bill (H.R. 13546) making supplemental a constituent of mine, a responsible citi- appropriations for the fiscal year ending June zen, who has a son, a lance corporal in 30, 1966, and for other purposes, all points the Marine Corps in Vietnam, who is of order against the bill are hereby waived. complaining of the lack of jungle boots The SPEAKER. The gentleman from for the Marine Corps troops over there Texas CMr. YOUNG] is recognized for 1 while the Army has them. I want to ask hour, the chairman to have someone on his Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 staff check on this matter, please? minutes to the distinguished gentleman Mr. MAHON. I would say with re- from California [Mr. SMITH] pending spect to equipment and clothing, for the which I yield myself such time as I may men in Vietnam that I know of no real require. shortage, no significant shortage. (Mr. YOUNG asked and was given per- Of course, there may be a temporary mission to revise and extend his re- shortage at a given place at a given me- marks.) Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 773 provides that points of order shall be waived in the considera- tion of H.R. 13546, a bill making sup- plemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 13546 includes $13,135,719,000, the amount of the budget estimate for the military assistance and economic assistance programs of the Government directly related to opera- tions in southeast Asia. This involves an increase in the numbers of both mili- tary and civilian personnel, the increases in the operation and maintenance costs of men, machines, and structures; the production of aircraft, ordnance, ammu- nition, and other materiel; military and construction projects; selected and spe- cialized research and development pro- grams; and also economic assistance. Mr. Speaker, in this connection I would like to address a question to the chairman of the Committee on Appro- priations. I wonder if the chairman would advise the House as to whether or not this bill appropriates a sufficient amount of money to carry on the war in Vietnam. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. YOUNG. I yield to the gentle- man. Mr. MAHON. I believe so, at least for the time being. With the funds included in this bill we will have made available for the current fiscal year a total of about $61 billion for the Department of Defense. We entered the current fiscal year with about $30 billion in the hands of the Department of Defense which had not been expended. Most of those funds had been committed for such things as missiles, airplanes, submarines, ships, .and other long lead time items. So I would say certainly from the financial standpoint the funds provided here are adequate for the foreseeable future. Of course, we cannot tell whether peace will come or whether war will remain at the present level or whether it will escalate. So we do not know how much additional funds may be required even this year for the further prosecution of this war if it merit. I shall be glad to present thls matter to the appropriate officials in the Department of Defense. We conferred at great length with General Greene, the commandant of the Marine Corps, and discussed with him some problems with regard to supplies, but he did not complain of any serious problem of sup- plies in Vietnam at this time. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YOUNG. I yield to the gentleman from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. I believe the hearing record is already clear that the commit- tee does not preclude the introduction of another supplemental appropriation bill with respect to expenditures for this pur- pose. I seem to get the very definite impression that another supplemental is not precluded at all. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, if the gen- tleman will yield, I do hope to leave the very definite impression that another supplemental is not precluded. In my opinion, and it would be my hope, there will be no further supplemental for fiscal 1966 related to the wax in Vietnam, but there may be a supplemental for fiscal 1967. We do not want to give to the Department of Defense a blank check. Last year we did not want to give the Department of Defense billions of dollars for which it could not define a specific use. So we feel, as I am sure the gentleman from Iowa feels, when funds are required the officials of the executive branch should come to the Congress and request the funds, and then we will pro- vide them, as we are undertaking to do in this case. However, no one can pre- dict the future. It has not been possible to predict it in any war which we have fought, Mr. GROSS. I understand that, but I am not too well satisfied, from a reading of the hearings, that you have adequately financed the situation as it presently stands. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, if the gen- tleman from Texas will yield further, we have just done the best we could under the circumstances. I must say that in another supple- mental bill which will be pending before the House of Representatives, probably continues. before Easter, funds will be carried al- YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I thank most to the extent of $1 billion because Mr SUPPLEMENTAL DEFENSE, APPRO- PRIATION BILL, 1966 Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, by direc- tion of the Committee on Rules, I call up . the .gentleman for that answer. I of pay increases for members of the wanted to point out that all of us are armed services ' and civilian employees concerned over reports that we hear from as a result of legislation passed last year. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 19Approved For85" R/J?p kC1 1 67SQ S 00040004 0'I2-1 had they come to us on their own two feet and in not such objectionable com- pany. Mr. Speaker, since I have been in Con- gress I have protested these discrimina- tory taxes in good times and bad-in time of budget deficits and budget surpluses. There is simply no right time to vote for an unfair tax. I submit that the admin- istration has not tried hard enough either through economies here at home or through recommendations for tax equal- ity to properly provide the revenue need- ed to fulfill our most pressing commit- ments. Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, since the President's state of the Union message, which contained his request for post- poning the repeal of telephone and auto- mobile excise taxes, I have been on rec- ord as strongly opposed to reinstituting these regressive taxes as a means of procuring the needed funds to finance the war in Vietnam. I was most encouraged when the Sen- ate last week adopted the amendment to keep the excise on residential phone service at its present 3-percent rate. Unfortunately, the conference commit- tee deleted the Senate amendment, with the result that the tax on local telephone service will again rise to 10 percent. Without any wavering in my strong sup- port for well-reasoned legislation to ob- tain the needed additional funds for use in Vietnam, I am reluctant to support the conference report because of the un- necessary burden it places on people in the lower income levels, to whom an automobile and telephone service are necessities, not luxuries, today. With this hesitation, I have decided to vote in favor of the conference com- mittee's compromise, because of another provision it contains. I am referring to the provision that will provide social security benefits to over 300,000 Amer- ican citizens who are reaching the age of 72 and are not covered by social se- curity under present law. This provi- sion is an important step in broadening our social security system to cover those who had retired or were near retirement when Congress acted to cover jobs they had held. I have been urging the passage of this amendment to the Social Security Act for over a year now. Across-the-board monthly benefits for persons reaching age 72 who do not meet normal quarter- coverage requirements was a major part of H.R. 5039, which I introduced last year-many provisions of which were later enacted into Public Law 89-97. Under this enlightened provision, per- sons who are not now receiving any State, Federal, or local pension, in most cases persons who are most in need, will receive $35 monthly through the social security system if they reach age 72 be- fore 1968. For persons reaching age 72 after 1967, this new provision provides that fewer quarters of covered employ- ment will be required for eligibility for social security benefits. Thus, over $120 million will be made available to persons who qualify under this section. . While I have very serious reservations about the wisdom of reimposing the same excise taxes which Congress worked so diligently to repeal just last year, I cannot with conscience vote down this very necessary and enlightened step in the broadening of our social security laws to cover needy senior citizens. I am gratified at the inclusion in this report of a major portion of my own social security legislative program. Thus, with noted reluctance, I am cast- ing my vote in favor of the conference committee's report on the Tax Adjust- ment Act. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Speaker, I rise to state that I will again vote, very re- luctantly, for this tax increase measure, called the Tax Adjustment Act of 1966: As I stated on February 23, when the bill was first approved by the House-sere page 3552 of the RECORD-only the ad- ministration's refusal to cut back on its unprecedented high level of domestic spending constrains me to vote for this bill. In this absence of fiscal restraint on the part of the administration, which increases the dangers of inflation it be- comes necessary to provide the additional revenues in this legislation. The costs of the war in Vietnam and threat of in- flation demands it. At the same time, I wish to add a word of high praise for the amendment adopted in the Senate to give older per- sons at least some assistance by extend- ing a measure of social security protec- tion to many of those excluded from the program through no fault of their own. I am proud of the fact that my State's senior Senator, NORRIS COTTON, played such a prominent role in sponsoring this amendment and getting it adopted. With all the money being poured out by the Government on various welfare pro- grams, it is good to know that at least some will now go to relieve the needs of senior citizens directly, without Federal controls or new battalions of bureau- crats. This is an antipoverty measure which I can support. It follows the precedent we established at Republican insistence, when we provided medical care for the elderly not covered by social security. GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members desiring to do so may include their re- marks at this point in the RECORD on the conference report. Also, Mr. Speak- er, I ask unanimous consent that I, the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. CURTIS], the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. BYRNES], and others who have spoken on this conference report may have permis- sion to revise and extend our remarks and to include certain tables and charts that refer to this conference report. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. AL- BERT). Is there objection to the re- quests of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the conference re- port. The previous question was ordered. The SPEAKER pro teiiipore. The question is on the conference report. Mr. MILLS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. 5549. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 288, nays 102, not voting 41, as follows: [Roll No. 361 YEAS-288 Adams Giaimo Murray Addabbo Gibbons Natcher Albert Gilbert Nedzi Anderson, Ill. Gilligan Nix Anderson, Gonzalez O'Brien Tenn. Goodell O'Hara, Ill. Annunzio. Grabowski O'Konski Ashley Gray Olsen, Mont. Aspinall Green, Oreg. Olson, Minn.. Ayres Green, Pa. O'Neill, Mass. Bandstra Greigg Patman Barrett Grider Patten Bates Griffin Pelly Battin Griffiths Pepper Beckworth Halpern Perkins Belcher Hamilton Philbin Betts Hanley Pickle Bingham Hansen, Iowa Pirnie Blatnik Hansen, Wash. Poage Boggs Hardy Poff Boland Harvey, Mich. Price Brademas Hathaway Pucinski Bray Hawkins Purcell Brooks Hays Quillen Broomfield Hebert Race Broyhill , Va. Heckler Redlin Burke Helstoski Rees Burleson Herlong Reid, N.Y. Burton, Calif. Hicks Resnick Byrne, Pa. Holland Reuss Byrnes, Wis. Horton Rhodes, Ariz. Cabell Hosmer Rhodes, Pa. Cahill Howard Rivers, S.C. Callan Hull Rivers, Alaska Callaway Hungate Roberts Carey Huot Rodin Carter Irwin Rogers, Colo. Casey Jacobs Rogers, Tex. Celler Jarman Ronan Chelf Jennings Rooney,N.Y. Clark Joelson Rooney, Pa. Clausen, Johnson, Calif. Rosenthal Don H. Johnson, Okla. Rostenkowski Cleveland Johnson, Pa. Roush Clevenger Jones, Ala. Ryan Cohelan Karsten St Germain Coimer Karth St. Onge Conte Kastenmeier Saylor Cooley Kee Scheuer Corbett Keith Schisler Corman Kelly Schmidkauser Craley Keogh Schneeboli Culver King, Calif. Schweiker Curtin King, Utah Senner Daddario Kirwan Shipley Dague Kluczynski Shriver Daniels Krebs Sickles Davis, Wis. Kunkel Slack Dawson Kupferman Smith, Iowa de In Garza Laird Smith, N.Y. Dent Leggett Smith, Va. Denton Lipscomb Springer Diggs Long, La. Stafford Dingell Long, Md. Staggers Donohue Love Steed Dorn McDade Stratton Dow McDowell Stubblefield Duncan, Oreg. McFall Sullivan Duncan, Tenn, McGrath Sweeney Dwyer Macdonald Teague, Calif. Dyal Machen Tenzer Edmondson Mackay Thompson, N.J. Edwards, Calif. Mackie Thompson, Tex. Edwards, La. Madden Thomson, Wis. Ellsworth Mahon Todd Evans, Colo. Mailliard Trimble Evins, Tenn. Marsh Tunney Fallon Martin, Mass. Tupper Farbstefn Martin, Nebr. Udall Farnsley Matsunaga Ullman Farnum May Van Deerlin Fascell Meeds Vanik Feighan Mills Vigorito Findley Minish Vivian Fino Mink Watkins Flood Mize Watts Flynt Moeller Whalley Fogarty Monagan White, Idaho Foley Moore White, Tex. Ford, Gerald R. Moorhead Widnall Ford, Morgan Wilson, William D. Morris Charles H. Frelinghuysen Morrison Wright Frledel Morse Yates Fulton, Pa. Moss Young Gallagher Multer Zablocki Garmatz Murphy, 111. Gathings Murphy, N.Y. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 1 966pproved';Fbr &WAgQ 19R RBP67 M%R0004000400+2-1 5551 Mr. GROSS. That is one of the items in your hearings here, and I am a little bit surprised that that item is not cov- ered in this bill. Mr. MAHON. If the gentleman will yield further, the pending bill includes funds for the new rates of pay for the additional men in the Armed Forces. We have almost 400,000 more men in the Armed Forces than we previously had programed in the original 1966 budget. However, this bill does not take care of the supplemental required, as a result of the pay increase, for the originally pro- gramed numbers of military, which we provided for at the old rates in the regular 1966 appropriation. Mr. GROSS. And yet this bill takes into account expenditures, other than for those directly related to Vietnam? Mr. MAHON. To some quite limited extent. Mr. GROSS. Yes, to some extent. This is the point I am trying to make, that this supplemental is not all-inclu- sive; that we are already looking at an- other supplemental to take care of the pay increase. Mr. MAHON. The gentleman is cor- rect. Mr. GROSS. And, I cannot help but be a little surprised that it is not con- tained in this bill rather than another bill yet to come to the floor of the House. Mr. MAHON. We had thought that we should present all the pay increases for the whole Government in one bill. It is anticipated that that bill may be be- fore the House for action week after next. Mr. GROSS. One other question: Will the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Yout' G] explain briefly to the House why points of order are waived in this bill? Mr. YOUNG. Of course, it is obvi- ous that the points of order ' are waived because the authorization bill has not been passed or signed by the President of the United States. Mr. GROSS. Has it passed the other body? Mr. YOUNG. Yes; it is in conference. Mr. GROSS. But it has not been signed by the President? Mr. YOUNG. No; it is in conference. Mr. MAHON. The economic assist- ance portion of the bill is in conference. Mr. YOUNG. The foreign aid part is still in conference, and the other part of the bill has gone to the President but has not been signed. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YOUNG. I yield to the gentle- man from Ohio, for a question. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to raise this question at this time, but since the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations has raised it, I am concerned about shortages of clothing that have been revealed during the hear- ings which have been held by the Com- mittee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives, as well as in the hear- ings which have been held by the Armed Services Committee of the other body. Do I understand the gentleman to say that there were no shortages of clothing in the Marine Corps, or that these short- ages were being taken care of? Mr. Speaker, I am addressing my ques- tion to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman from Texas will yield further, the Department of Defense is requesting additional funds here to meet certain requirements for additional manpower. We have increased manpower to the extent of about 400,000 men in the last year. Mr. Speaker, insofar as I know there are no significant shortages in South Vietnam. There are some shortages within the continental United States which are of no serious import in my judgment. And, these requirements are being met. Mr. Speaker, there could not be a mili- tary effort of this magnitude without some shortages showing up here and there. The Department of Defense has tried to husband its funds rather well, in my opinion, in recent years. Officials have not asked for supplies to last for the next 20 or 30 years of certain items, as has been the case in some isolated instances heretofore. Mr. Speaker, I believe this more accu- rate and careful budgeting procedure is in the public interest, and generally would be approved. Of course, we do not want any shortages that would be sig- nificant, we do not want any shortages at all, but these shortages will occur in any war. Therefore, we have to do the best we can to see that these shortages are not significant or hurtful to the fighting forces. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Speaker, if the gen- tleman will yield further, since the gentleman from Texas has mentioned General Green's testimony, his testimony before the Committee on Armed Services revealed that there were shortages of clothing, but that they were being taken care of through the medium of decreased clothing allowances. Mr. MAHOON. This relates to the con- tinental United States, and not to South Vietnam, I believe. Mr. LATTA. There will be no de- creased allowances as far as clothing is concerned for our South Vietnam fight- ing soldiers? Mr. MAHON. Not, I believe, for the soldiers in South Vietnam. There is no clothing problem about which I know, with reference to personnel in Vietnam, except some isolated instance here or there, but some of the clothing under order for the increased strength of the Marine Corps will take a little time for delivery. But there is no serious situa- tion here. And the gentleman to whom the gentleman from Ohio referred, when testifying before the House Armed Serv- ices Committee, points out that he thinks the Marine Corps will be able to handle this matter without any serious effect upon the readiness of the marines. Mr. LATTA. Likewise I will point out to the gentleman that General Greene in .his testimony before the Committee on Armed Services stated in their exami- nation of the problem, meaning the problem of ammunition as I recall, they found six different types of ammunition in which there were indications of short- ages. This Is General Greene's testi- mony., Are there sufficient funds to take care of these shortages? Mr. MAHON. The bill provides $2 bil- lion for ammunition and associated equipment. There are certain new types of ammunition that are not immediately available which would be desirable for use in Vietnam which are not now be- ing used. But we have sufficient fire- power to meet the requirements. What- ever the deficiencies are in our prosecu- tion of the war in Vietnam, they are not brought about by the lack of money or of supplies, in my judgment. Mr. LATTA. I thank the gentleman. Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the pending resolution. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. SMrrH]. Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may use. (Mr. SMITH of California asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks.) Mr. SMITH of California. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 773 does waive all points of order so far as the bill H.R. 13546 is concerned, the supplemental de- fense appropriation bill for 1966. As I understand it, the points of order were requested to be waived for two different reasons. The first is the two bills that have been passed, I think $415 million for the foreign aid bill, and I believe the other one having to do with the armed services and supplies, have not been signed by the President of the United States with the result that we cannot appropriate unless there is first a law on the books authorizing us to do so. That is the first point. The second point, as I understand it, is that there is certain language in the bill in the nature of legislation in an appro- priation bill which is against the rules of the House and the Committee on Rules was asked to waive that so that we could proceed with this legislation here today. I think the total amount of the bill is somewhere around $13 billion, $12.3 billion in new military spending and $415 million in connection with the foreign aid matter that we passed here a short time ago, the majority of which goes to Vietnam, some to Thailand, some to Laos, and some to the Dominican Republic. Then there is $375 million for military assistance projects previously authorized and begun. There has been some discussion as to whether or not the World War II lan- guage goes too far; whether that au- thority should be given to the Depart- ment of Defense or not. So far as I am concerned, I feel our men are in Vietnam and they are fighting and I, for one, intend to give them all the equipment and ammunition and everything that we can to help them to do their job so that we can get them back home as quickly as we possibly can. Mr. Speaker, I support the waiver of the points of order and I support the rule and I support the bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for time so far as I know. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5552 Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446ROO0400040012-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 15, 1966 Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question. The previous question was ordered. The resolution was agreed to. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 13546) making supple- mental defense appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes; and pending that mo- tion I ask unanimous consent that gen- eral debate thereon be limited to not to exceed 3 hours, the time to be divided equally between the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bowl and myself. Mr. Speaker, I do not think we will use more than 3 hours in general debate, but we do not want to preclude any debate that the House desires to have on this important legislation. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the gentle- man from Texas? There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas. The motion was agreed to. IN THE COMMITTEE Or THE WHOLE Accordingly, the House resolved it- self into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the consideration of the bill, H.R. 1a546, with Mr. WRIGHT in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. By unanimous consent, the first read- ing of the bill was dispensed with. The CHAIRMAN. Under the unani- mous-consent agreement, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHONI will be recog- nized for 11/2 hours and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bowl will be recognized for 11/2 hours. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHONI. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 10 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 10 minutes. Mr. MAHON. This is the first appro- priation bill to be considered by the Con- gress at this session. We have been re- quested by the executive branch to ap- propriate for the forthcoming fiscal year about $121 billion. The bill before us of course, is not applicable to the 1967 fiscal year but, rather, to the current fiscal year. There has been so much said about the war in Vietnam through all media and in many public places, including this body and the other body, that there are many who feel, perhaps, that they have heard enough. But this bill totals $13 billion. It is the first opportunity of the House of Representatives to express its will on the urgent request of the President for all of the additional funds to prosecute the war in Vietnam. This supplemental appropriation re- quest for the Department of Defense has occupied much of the time and ef- fort of many Members of the legislative branch in recent weeks. The President's request for the supplemental funds ar- rived here on Capitol Hill on the 19th day of January. The House Appropria- tions Committee began its hearings on the measure on January 26 and con- cluded hearings on March 3. Three subcommittees-the Subcom- mittee on Defense Appropriations, the Subcommittee on Military Construction, and the Subcommittee on Foreign Oper- ations-were all involved in the con- sideration of this request. The full Committee on Appropriations met last Friday and ordered the bill re- ported to the House, and it was sched- uled for consideration today. Since some of the amounts requested required additional authorization, several of the legislative committees of the Con- gress have given their attention to this matter. The Committee on Armed Forces of the House held hearings begin- ning February 3 and ending on Feb- ruary 17, having had 8 days of hearings onmany of the matters in the bill that is before us today. The authorization bill was reported from the House Armed Services Commit- tee on February 18 and passed the House on March 1. In the other body, joint hearings were held by the Armed Services Committee and the Defense Appropriations Sub- committee beginning on January 20 and ending on February 3-5 days of hear- ings. The bill was reported to the Senate on February 10. The Senate debate began on that day and continued until the Senate passed the bill on March 1. The conference report on that au- thorization bill was filed on March 10 .and was adopted by both the Houses last week, as the Members know. Since the pending bill provides sup- plemental appropriations for economic assistance, the Foreign Affairs Commit- tee of the House and the Foreign Rela- tions Committee of the Senate have con- sidered the matter and drafted the required authorizing legislation. The House Foreign Affairs Committee began hearings on January 26. The committee held 3 days of hearings. The authoriza- tion bill for economic assistance was considered on the floor on February 24. The Senate Foreign Relations Com- mittee began hearings on January 28 and continued hearings until March 3, hear- ings being held on a total of 8 days. The other body considered the Economic As- sistance Authorization bill, as we did, on March 10. The conference on this economic as- sistance part of the legislation has not yet been concluded, and the legislation, `of course, has not been signed into law. Neither had the military authorization portion of this legislation until today. .For that reason a rule waiving points of order was requested by the Appropri- ations Committee last week and granted by the Rules Committee. So it is evident that Congress has been preoccupied with the issue of the Viet- nam war since we assembled in January, and properly so, I would say. bast year, during the consideration of the Defense Appropriation and Authori- zation bills, it became apparent that a supplemental appropriation would be needed early this year if the war should continue. We were hoping and praying that it would not. This view was gen- erally taken by Members of the House and Members of the other body who deal in depth with military requirements. This view was also taken by officials of the Defense Department. We were told that additional funds would probably be needed, but since they could not then pinpoint the specific funds; they would not ask us for blank checks for financing the war. It was generally thought that early this year a request for additional funds would be presented. Early this year, on January 19, the request came. So it is no sur- prise that we have been engaged in re- cent weeks in debate and discussion of this important matter. Not only this, but during the course of the consideration thus far of the pend- ing $13 billion appropriation, it has been apparent that most Members feel that the additional amounts are required. The truth is that there has been no real question in the minds of the over- whelming majority of the Members of ,this body that the funds requested are needed. I will go further, and say that many feel that additional funds may be required in fiscal year 1967 for the De- partment of Defense, that is funds in excess of the budget request. This certainly is my view, but no one can tell the turn which the war will take and, therefore, what the requirements may actually be. It is true that we cannot predict, as I say, the course of the war, the chances for peace, or the degree of intensity of the fighting. We do not know what the Commu- nists might do in southeast Asia or else- where. We have no way of knowing. Hence, it is inevitable that some uncer- tainties will confront us in the future, as they have confronted us in the past in dealing with these matters. When and if additional sums are re- quired, I would make bold to say for the House of Representatives that everyone can be sure that those additional funds will be approved by the House of Repre- sentatives. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the able mi- nority leader. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chair- man, I am glad the chairman of the Com- mittee on Appropriations has pointed out that there are many, many uncertainties as to the precise course of the conflict in Vietnam. President Johnson, as the elected Commander in Chief, does not himself know exactly what decisions he must make in the crucial days ahead. We do not know today what the President must do in the way of a commitment for more strength on the ground or in the air or on the sea. However, I gather, from what the gen- tleman from Texas is saying, that a Member of the House who votes for this Defense Department appropriation is giving to the Commander in Chief the day-to-day authority to carry on the execution and implementation of our Na- tion's position of strength in South Vietnam. An "aye" vote on this bill today means that one supports adequate Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 19#*proved For ggg7t :OtMBg?000400040012-1 military strength to meet successfully the challenge of Communist aggression in South Vietnam. Mr. MAHON. This, I believe, would be a fair interpretation of a vote in favor of the pending legislation. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I thank the gentleman. Mr. MAHON. It is true that we can- not tell the degree of the escalation, but it is my view-and I have no inside in- formation-that the probabilities are that the war will escalate, that it will grow in intensity, because I do not think our opponents are yet ready to go to the conference table. We have given them ample opportu- nity. We have had the bombing pause, and we have been most tolerant and con- siderate in undertaking to convince our opponents, and the entire world, of our desire for peace. Our efforts have not been successful thus far. We have no other alternative than to prosecute this war to a successful conclusion. It is in this context and under these circumstances that the Committee on Appropriations brings this request to you today for your consideration. I would like to say that it is due to the foresight of Congress and to the fore- sight of the executive branch that we are as well prepared as we are for the conditions which confront us in the world at this time. Beginning in 1950 with the Korean war, we have kept our Military Establishment in a considerable degree of readiness. We have appro- priated large sums of money for defense. We have spent money for defense at a rather higli level since the early 1950's in order to be ready to meet aggression if aggression came. I should call your attention to some significant facts: First. We have carried more than 200,000 men and the. arms and equipment to support them and to support our allies' army of more than 800,000 men, by air and by sea, more than 10,000 miles from our shores. Second. We have wisely protected the lives of our flghtingmen by expending munitions at tremendous rates. We have the weapons and ammunition to make this possible. If we did not, more lives would be lost. We program the expendi- ture of 1 billion rounds per year of small- arms ammunition, for instance, and 1,700,000 bombs. Third. We have been building up our conventional forces substantially since 1961. For example: First. We have added $50 billion to the defense program since 1960 for this purpose. Second. We had achieved a 100-per- cent increase in airlift capability.' Third. The number of combat-ready Army divisions has been increased 45 percent. Fourth. The number of combat heli- copters, upon which the mobility of our forces in Vietnam depends, has been in- creased 45 percent. Fifth. The number of Air Force fighter squadrons has been increased 51 percent. If the Congress and the Defense De- partment had not had the foresight to program these increases, we would in- deed have had real supply problems and American lives would have been unneces- sarily sacrificed. So it is as a result of this policy, that the Members have supported, that we are as well prepared as we are for the war in which we find ourselves. I should like to say this: The United States has been better prepared for and has acted more quickly and more effi- ciently to cope with the demands of this war than any other war in our entire history. This understanding is necessary to a proper perspective of the situation. We hear allegations of shortages and inefficiencies. There are some shortages and inefficiences which should surprise no one in an effort this large. But the overall picture as to military strength and readiness is amazingly good. We have every reason to be proud of our men, and not only of our men but of the equipment which has been provided by the foresight of the Government in recent years. I say that for all of the administrations involved. No shortage of equipment or supplies has adversely affected the con- duct of the war insofar as our hearings have been able to determine. There is every indication that our forces in Vietnam are being well led. General Westmoreland seems to have the complete confidence of military and civilian leaders in the executive branch of the Government, and this, of course, includes the President. General Westmoreland also seems to have the full confidence of the Members of Congress who have made on-the-spot checks of the situation in southeast Asia. The bravery of our troops and their morale is without question. We have every reason to be proud of the per- formance of the Nation as a whole in this time of difficulty and trial. There seems to be little reason to argue about the amount of money re- quested in this bill. We are going to need all of these funds. We have spent 24 days in hearings in the Committee on Appropriations already this year explor- ing our military requirements for funds. One cannot separate this supplemental from the fiscal 1967 regular budget for defense. We have had Secretary Mc- Namara before our committee on defense requirements of the Nation a total of 5 days, and we have had many other wit- nesses, also. We have been giving con- sideration to this matter, and properly so, since the beginning of the session. We will continue to do so, and we hope that in a couple of months we can bring the new bill before you. However, cer- tainly, for the moment, we should sup- port this legislation and provide the equipment, the clothing, the ammuni- tion, and the other things that are needed now. In this bill before us we provide for 2,005 additional helicopters which are very much needed in the type of war that we are fighting. We are providing for the procurement of 906 fixed-wing air- craft. We are providing the huge sum of $2,078 million for munitions, weapons of war, and associated equipment. So it is very evident to me that this is an im- portant and necessary installment for the active prosecution of the war in Vietnam. Briefly, the bill provides- U.S. military-------------- $12,345,719,600 Military assistance to South Vietnam---------------- 375, 000,000 Economic assistance to South Vietnam---------- 415, 000, 000 Total---------------- 13,135, 719, 000 Funds for about 113,000 more military personnel than already approved for fis- cal year 1966. An additional $2,316,269,000 for opera- tion and maintenance to provide gener- ally for the increased tempo of operations. For procurement: Aircraft-------------------- $3,212,400,000 Missiles-------------------- 181,400,000 Munitions-----------.------ 2, 078, 000, 000 Other procurement such as electronic and communi- cations equipment-------- 1, 547, 600, 000 Total---------------- For research and development effort on weapons and equipment directly re- quired in southeast Asia, $151,650,000. For military construction in support of operational requirements in Vietnam, $1,238,400,000. The actual construction projects, although primarily located in Vietnam, are also located in the United States and in other countries such as the Philippines. When we vote for this bill I think we will show to the Nation and to the en- tire world that the elected representa- tives of the people stand firmly together in resisting any program of appeasement or of vacillation and are supporting a program of unyielding opposition to ag- gression. By our action in supporting this bill we put the country and the world on notice that we feel that we in this country have a vital stake in the outcome of the war in Vietnam. It is true that we want to be helpful to the Vietnamese, but we are not spending all of these billions of dollars and the lives of'our men only, to be helpful to the Vietnam- ese. We are trying to obtain, peace in the world, which happens to be very im- portant to the welfare of all humanity. Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Cali- fornia, the distinguished ranking mem- ber of the Subcommitee on Defense Ap- propriations on the minority side [Mr. LI 'scoMB 1 . Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, the bill before the House today, H.R. 13546, provides supplemental defense funds for the fiscal year 1966 budget totaling $13,- 135,719,000 in new obligational authority as requested by the President for mili- tary functions and military and eco- nomic assistance to support our opera- tions in southeast Asia. This measure is of vital importance to our security and welfare for the United States must remain ready and -able to act in the national interest and to sup- port such action fully. As approved by the Appropriations Committee, the Department of Defense portions of the bill, which total $12,345,- 719,000, provide for the following: Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5554 Approved For CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE 000400040`1M-arch 15, 1966 For military personnel, the bill pro- vides $1,620 million which will support, in addition to that previously approved, a net increase of approximately 113,000 military personnel and certain additions to the Army National Guard and other Reserve components. In the area of operation and mainte- nance, the bill proposes an appropria- tion of $2,316,269,000. For procurement of military supplies, the bill includes $7,019,400,000. Broadly speaking, this includes funding for am- munition, various types of rotary and fixed wing aircraft, various types of ve- hicles, electronic and communication equipment, and for other items such as ships, spare parts, clothing and other consumables. In some cases the stocks are ' exhausted or are dangerously low, and these funds are needed to replenish the supply. For research, development, test, and evaluation the supplemental request pro- vides $151,650,000, much of which will be devoted to special needs generated by the Vietnam war. This includes such programs as an increase in medical re- search to provide new drugs to combat a severe strain of drug resistant malaria, for work in developing aircraft suppres- sive fire systems, helicopter modification, developing a fast deployment logistic ship-FDL-and to speed up develop- ment of advanced radar techniques for surveillance purposes, and to modify air- craft to increase their effectiveness in their close air support missions in a southeast Asia environment. Military construction funds in the bill total $1,238,400,000. This is for con- struction projects both in the continental United States and in the southeast Asia area at bases, airfields, ports, and related facilities. Also the bill includes $375 million re- lating to military assistance and $415 million for the Agency for International Development for economic assistance in Vietnam. COMMITMENT IN VIETNAM Mr. Chairman, I support H.R. 13546. There should be no question in anyone's mind about the necessity of providing completely ample funds to support our commitment in Vietnam and related areas. Nor should there be any reserva- tion about the need to supply our Ameri- can boys fighting over there with the necessary arms, ammunition, and other requirements. Prompt passage of this measure would also illustrate to our fighting men, our citizens, and our ene- mies that we are willing and able to take the steps that are necessary to back up our country's commitment to insure free- dom in South Vietnam and prevent the further expansion of communism. At the same time, I believe that addi- tional comments on this measure and the defense picture generally are necessary. The escalation of the conflict in Viet- nam Intensified in February of last year. But even in view of the worsening Viet- nam situation last year the fiscal year 1966 defense budget originally submitted to Congress was tight," as described by Department of Defense witnesses before our subcommittee. No amendment to the fiscal year 1966 original request for additional funds was made by the admin- istration to support the increased activ- ity in southeast Asia during the time the House Appropriation Subcommittee on Defense held several months of hearings and the bill was taken up and passed by the House in June. The only action taken, which amounted in large part to a token gesture as far as the amount of funds was concerned, was the supple- mental request for fiscal year 1965 for a $700 million emergency fund for south- east Asia, approved by the Congress last May. Because of this fact and our deep con- cern that there must be adequate, timely funding for the defense program, two other members of the Defense Appropria- tions Subcommittee and I felt compelled to make the following statement in addi- tional views in the committee report last June on the regular fiscal year 1966 budget as submitted to the House: It is our firm belief that appropriations must be sufficient to carry out successfully U.S. commitments anywhere in the world. American personnel in Vietnam must be equipped and supported in such a degree as will give maximum assurance of safety and a capability to carry out their duties. We be- lieve the President should immediately revise this fiscal year 1966 defense budget with a view toward requesting the Congress to pro- vide for the unplanned and unprogramed expenditures which have resulted from his decision to assume a greater role in southeast Asia (H. Rept. No. 528, 89th Cong., let Bess., p. 63). Despite repeated 'urgings such as this, no change in the original fiscal year 1966 budget request was received until August of last year, almost 7 months after the increased action in Vietnam. Then, the request was made for a $1.7 billion south- east Asia emergency fund add-on which was amended into the House version of the defense bill by the Senate. Even then, this added amount covered only a fraction of the needs, to start increasing production rates and construction proj- ects, and some other items that were critically needed. It was too obvious not to be widely recognized at the time that the $1.7 billion amendment did little more than begin to provide the funds needed. The $12.3 billion supplemental request we are considering today for Department of Defense, military functions, was pre- sented to Congress in January, only sev- eral months later. We were told by wit- nesses who appeared to testify for the $12.3 billion defense portion of the sup- plemental bill that the needs were not precisely known before this time. It is of course, understood that our needs in situations such as this cannot be iden- tified precisely. As a matter of fact it is clear from the testimony that the needs are still not precisely known., But from the evidence on hand it seems clear also that had the budget request been sub- mitted earlier, it could have prevented extensive budgetary manipulations that have been going on within the Depart- ment of Defense. DEFICIENCIES IN BUDGETING AND PLANNING Let me illustrate some of the results of this type of budgeting and planning in the defense program. The Secretary of Defense has used all of the discretionary funds he had avail- able in the construction program for Vietnam. He has virtually exhausted research and development emergency funds. In addition there has been extensive use of his transfer authority and reprograming of funds to meet criti- cal needs. As a matter of fact it was brought out in the testimony that this bill would have to be approved by approximately March 1, which of course passed 2 weeks ago, to prevent further budgetary maneuvering and the use of emergency actions. Secretary McNamara himself stated that if the funds were not provided by March 1: We might have to take certain emergency actions to keep on schedule and those ac- tions would not make for as orderely an operation and as efficient an operation as we would have if the bill is enacted by March 1. MILITARY PERSONNEL In the area of military personnel, for the first time funds for military person- nel have been requested and are in this budget covering the escalation of activi- ty. Also, for the first time the matter of combat pay for our men in southeast Asia is adequately covered since the escalation of activity. The Department of Defense up until this time has been handling the increased regular personnel and combat pay requirements by using up available personnel funds. This is just no way to budget and to handle financing for the pay of our military personnel. This supplemental does not even in- clude funds to take care of military pay increases approved last year. The De- partment of Defense has submitted still another separate supplemental request for this purpose as part of a Government- wide bill. That request, for an addi- tional $863 million, was submitted to Congress March 8, 1966. Serious diffi- culties meeting personnel expenses can be expected if the supplemental pay re- quest is not approved soon. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Though the Vietnam escalation began last February, this bill provides the first appropriation for operation and mainte- nance for fiscal year 1966 funds to reflect our increased needs in southeast Asia. Operation and maintenance includes such critical items as fuel, logistical and operational support, and medical sup- port to all the services. The fiscal year 1966 budget, including the $1.7 billion add-on for southeast Asia, which was signed into law last September did not include such funds. Increased require- ments in this area have been handled by the Department of Defense by shifting of funds to meet emergency needs. PROCUREMENT Procurement for vital military equip- ment such as aircraft, weapons, vehicles, and ammunition at more than $7 billion makes up the major portion of this sup- plemental request. Analysis of this item reveals that a portion of the request is for replenish- ment of war reserve stocks. This need, in my view, should have been recognized many months earlier, for our stock levels were and are known and it should be readily recognized, that any escalation would dip further into the stockpiles. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 19 fW proved for 4 p ,L99fi QI f IN 000400040012-1 After the various branches of service submitted their individual requests to the Department of Defense for the origi- nal. fiscal year 1966 budget, numerous cuts were made by the Secretary. This action is expected and generally is neither unusual nor objectionable. How- ever, it does become a matter of concern when a budget is presented which should and could more adequately have antici- pated critical developments. This bill, and to some extent the August 1965 $1.7 billion amendment, contain some of the very items which were cut last year by the Secretary of Defense from the serv- ices' request for fiscal year 1966 in such areas as aircraft, spares, repair parts, and support material, all vital to the conduct of the war. Now we come to a situation almost completely opposite to the examples I have been discussing. While it is neces- sary to have funds required for our de- fense program requested and approved in a timely manner, it is equally true that responsible budgeting requires that money requests be considered in orderly schedules commensurate with our needs at the time and not swept through in supplemental bills. Some of the items that properly should be included in the regular defense budget for fiscal year 1967 which will come up later in the session have been injected into this supplemental. A num- ber of items amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars were deleted by the Office of the Secretary of Defense from the fiscal year 1967 regular budget re- quest by the service branches and moved into the supplemental request that we are discussing today. Additionally when it is realized that this $12.3 billion defense supplemental request is for fiscal year 1966 which has less than 4 months to go, other questions must be raised. For example, consider- ing the long leadtime needed to start up production or to increase production rates, this, coupled with the large quan- tities involved, indicates that a portion of the procurement funds could have been included in the regular fiscal year 1967 budget request. Sufficient funds could have been included in this supple- mental request to accelerate the produc- tion rate for long lead parts and toolpg and fund production items to carry through the 4-month period. Such a procedure would have had the effect of moving many millions of dollars into the fiscal year 1967 budget with no ill effects upon scheduled deliveries. This is the type of budgeting taking place in such a crucial area as procure- ment. One could come to the conclusion that this has been done in an effort to make the regular 1967 budget look lower. The picture is further clouded by the fact that items are to be procured to fill needed requirements as a result of attri- tion which occurred during the previous 3- to 4-year period. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION With regard to the request for supple- mental appropriations for research, de- velopment, test, and evaluation, it has been said repeatedly that our planning was aimed at enabling us to pursue the type of conflict as is going on in Vietnam in an expeditious manner. Yet it took an escalated activity in Vietnam to pro- duce a fund request to support a level of effort needed to make these new find- ings and weapons available quickly. Though we can hopefully say that these funds should provide a measure of im- provement, some other research and de- velopment programs are being funded at a level of effort lower than a realistic assessment of the overall threat would indicate they should be. LANGUAGE CHANGE This supplemental package includes equal to accounts payable. The new guage change contained in section 101 of the bill with regard to the working capital funds, known as stock funds. The language change will eliminate the requirement to maintain cash balances equal to accounts payable. The new language provides for transfer between funds and states that balances "may be maintained in only such amounts as are necessary at any time for cash disburse- ments to be made from such funds." If this change of language had not been proposed by the Secretary of Defense in this bill, it would have been necessary for the Secretary to ask for another $350 to $500 million. From an accounting standpoint and based on the brief look the subcommittee had of this item, it appears to be a rea- sonable proposal. However, because there was not time to completely eval- uate it, the committee is requiring the Department of Defense to provide quar- terly reports giving the financial status of each working capital fund, including information as to any adjustments that have been made as between the working capital funds. Congress must keep close watch on this item and take appropriate action if it is found that this procedure is not working properly. CONCLUSIONS Our men in Vietnam are serving bravely and with great distinction. They are fighting to preserve and ad- vance freedom in the world against Communist aggression. Based on my observations in Vietnam last fall and from testimony in the hearing, their morale is high, their motivation strong. They are there to win. Such practices as I have described here in my view are neither good man- agement nor do they reflect the maxi- mum in effective planning which is so necessary to insure that the men and material will be where they are needed in a manner which will afford our serv- icemen worldwide the ability to perform their mission and receive the maximum protection for their safety. The result has been patchwork defense budgeting in many respects, which is both unfitting of our great Nation and not in keeping with the seriousness and importance of the Vietnam effort. Congress should be concerned for the available evidence suggests efforts to re- duce congressional control over the de- fense budget. It suggests that better defense planning and management could be done. Congress should be disturbed because the evidence also suggests that the decisions as to when budgetary re- quests are to be submitted and how much 5555 each of these should contain are not necessarily determined solely by our military requirements, but that arbi- trarily shifting and juggling is done to influence, impress, or convince the public, depending en what is considered most needed at any particular time. A lack of effective planning could un- dermine not only our effort in Vietnam but weaken our national security as a whole. We live in dangerous times that warrant the utmost vigilance and pre- paredness. The threat to Vietnam is not an isolated incident, and therefore we cannot blind ourselves to problem areas in the rest of the world, now or in the future. I strongly urge the administration to review our overall defense posture and policies, with a broad view of our com- mitments, not just Vietnam. Because of the effect the conflict in Vietnam has had upon our defense structure there is a need for such a review immediately. I feel confident that Congress will assist in any way it can in such a review and provide the necessary authority for any legitimate increases or modifications that appear to be warranted. In this regard, Congress must receive the full benefit of military judgment without constraints. Congress must have frank discussions by both the civilian and military members of the Department of Defense in order to reach objective judgments and carry out its constitutional mandate responsi- bly. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill to pro- vide additional funds for southeast Asia. I felt it was necessary, however, to com- ment today in some detail on the bill and I also respectfully call attention to the additional views contained in the report calling for improved fiscal pro- cedures. It is my hope that the views expressed receive full consideration by the House. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. CELLER]. Mr. CELLER. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, I am very happy,to note that there is genuine bi- partisan support for this appropriation measure. I, of course, support this bill. Joining 39 Governors, I support the President on Vietnam. The $13.1 billion fund is essential for the support of our troops and for carrying out our commit- ments in South Vietnam. The direction of policy in this conflict is far from easy. It bristles with serious and awesome problems. The President must make the final de- cisions. He has his intimate advisers, yet he is like a lonely man atop a mountain. Many are his sleepless nights, espe- cially when he reads the tragic dis- patches. At times he is veritably torn asunder with doubts and fears. But courage and stamina are not lacking. He knows that patience is bitter but bears rich fruit. Like all who are responsible and dedi- cated, he is not insensible to criticism. He welcomes it when it is not mordant or abusive. Some of his frenetic critics seem more interested in crushing him than in our triumph against aggression in South Vietnam. Approved For Release 2005/06/29': CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5556 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R00040004001 -1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD HOUSE arch 15, 1966 I do not deprecate-nay, I would en- "It is very easy indeed to make plans to courage debate on this momentous topic win a war if you have no responsibility of Vietnam. Only on the anvil of debate for carrying them out." may we forge the truth. Mr. CELLER. I thank the gentleman. belt. Some are mere billingsgate. With the monotony of a drumbeat we hear some of these armchair strategists and "pinafore" admirals saying what should be done. Ofttimes they speak in pique and spite. For them whatever the Presi- dent does is wrong. Some ranted that he should have gone to the United Nations. Although he was told by his trusted advisers that such action would be futile, he nonetheless made the trek to the United Nations. When he did that the same detractors railed that such a move was ridiculous and bound to fail. These same carping critics ridiculed his efforts at peace and said he sought peace only halfheartedly. "Let him ap- peal to the Pope at Rome." He did. When his Holiness offered all in his power and did not succeed in budging Hanoi or Peiping, these same habitual faultfinders said, "I told you so." President Johnson made direct ap- peals to 19 nonalined nations with a view to having them persuade Hanoi and Peiping to the conference table. These nations did, but were rebuffed. The President sought particularly In- dia's intercession. The rulers of Hanoi and Peiping again showed their fangs. The President, you may remember, was savagely condemned for continued bombing of the north. He ordered the bombing stopped. The cessation yielded serious military disadvantage to us. The President received no credit for his ef- forts. The Vietcong were brought no nearer to the conference table. The President requested Soviet Russia to arrange another Geneva-like confer- ence. Russia demurred. Ho Chi Minh and Mao Tse-tung just turn their faces away from all who bring the olive branch of peace. Only yesterday, our offer of friendship, conveyed by Vice President HUMPHREY, was branded as the "kiss of Judas." Yet, the incessant defamers of the President continue to vent their spleen against him. Never do they utter a good word for anything he may do. They dip their pens in venom or gargle with gall, and write or speak "grapes of wrath." They refuse to realize the results of their incautious remarks, fail to under- stand that they create the false impres- sion abroad, that our Nation does not support the President. Nothing is fur- ther from the truth. I raise my voice in clarion tones to defend and applaud my President, and at the same time support this appropri- ation bill. Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CELLER. I yield to the gentle- congratulate the gentleman for his state- improved and developed into ment. I think it is apropos, timely, tem capable of delivering larg o forceful, and to the point. I especially of supplies. Food was no pr like what he said about the armchair Communists were living off t b , be- rice crop and they still are ls , dmi ra na f ore a h Pi e d t strategists an e cause, as Sir Winston Churchill once said, hold most of the countryside. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Florida, the chairman of the Subcom- mittee on Military Construction, who conducted some of the hearings on this bill. (Mr. SIKES asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, let me stress the fact that the Committee on Appropriations has been ready to bring this bill to the floor for several weeks. Under the able direction of the distin- guished gentleman from Texas, hearings were initiated immediately after the re- quest for funds for the Vietnam war was received. There is no disposition to with- hold any funds which are needed to in- sure victory. And ours is a bipartisan ef- fort. This is in some measure a guess. But it is the best estimate which is avail- able. We have to trust someone. We are placing our trust in the recommenda- tions of the Nation's military leaders. Now the gentleman from Texas has spoken at length about the state of readi- ness of our military forces when the con- frontation began and it is in fact a remarkable and commendable situation. But let us not disregard the continued efforts of district leaders in the Congress like the gentleman from Texas and many others to make this situation true. I regret to state to the membership that those who attempt to read the hear- ings, will find them in considerable part useless. The testimony has been so heavily censored, much of it incompre- hensible. Some of this is ridiculous. It serves only to confuse the Congress and the American people. Some of the cen- sored material has subsequently been released in uncensored form by other committees, or even by Pentagon officials. This makes a mockery of the efforts of this committee to cooperate on security matters. Now let us talk about the bill. I shall confine myself primarily to the con- struction problem on which separate hearings were held. As the House knows, the logistics problem in the Southeast Pacific is unbelievably large. Logistics is and has been the limiting factor. We are supplying large forces, 12,000 miles away from home, halfway around the world. Last fall the U.S. forces were built up to more than 200,000. This was neces- sary to stem the tide of victory which was rolling for Communist forces. They nearly won the war before we realized and acted on the threat. But it was also thought that we were putting enough forces into Vietnam to permit government forces to win. We underestimated enemy capabilities. They were building up too To win a war you must be prepared to deny territory to the enemy. The victorious sweep of United States and Vietnamese forces into enemy held coun- tryside are in most instances, followed by withdrawal to secure areas, and the Communists roll right back as we leave. To insure the defeat of expanding enemy forces and to secure and hold ter- ritory now in Communist hands, we must have additional forces in Vietnam. We are now in the process of doubling their number. That means doubling the logistics problem. We need port facilities, air- fields, encampments, storage facilities. In December, when I saw the area work on some of the facilities then needed for 200,000 men, had not begun. On others, the percentage of completion was ex- tremely small. The overall job is running a year behind schedule. This is not the fault of the construction team. They are doing an outstanding job. The enormity of their task is the main prob- lem and it is staggering in scope. Let us not take away credit for the work which has been done. The construction of essential opera- tional, logistical, and support facilities are a pacing factor in the deployment of allied forces and the conduct of mili- tary operations in southeast Asia. The nature of the terrain, the paucity of operational bases and the lack of national ports and other supply and logistical facilities in that area have resulted in a major construction effort if we are to adequately support our military require- ments. In addition, backup and train- ing requirements have generated other urgent construction needs in other areas of the Pacific and in the United States.. The amount of $417,700,000 has been made available to date in support of this program. Additional funds in the total amount of $1,238,400,000 are rec- ommended in the accompanying bill. This brings the total to date to $1,656,- 100,000 for construction. This is broken down as follows: Appropriations in support of southeast. Asia to date [In millions] Air Force Vietnam ------------- $115.2 $78.2 $77.6 $271.0 Philippines ----- - ---- 21.4 7.7 20.1 Guam--------------- .5 1.6 2. 1 Wake---------------- .7 .7 United States -------- 7.0 7.0 Various-------------- 40.0 17.6 50.3 107.8 Recommended in accompanying bill- Program lln millions] Air Force -men and Vietnam------------- $407.5 $207.1 $128.0 $742.6 Philippines --Philippines---------- 28.2 9.0 - 37.2 Guam 5.7 8.0 13.7 --------------- a road sys- United States -------- e quantities Other---------------- 34.1 138.3 24.3 24.4 5. 0 174.1 63.4 336.8 blem. The Planning------------ 29.8 14.9 (') 44.7 he Vietnam cause they March 15, 1961pproved Ford f&?R W19Rf&i~$P67fiM4pR000400040012-1 Appropriation there is waste and reckless spending in [In millions] some instances. I give you one illustra- Army------------------------------ $509.7 Navy ------------------------------ 254.6 Air Force __----------- 274.1 Defense emergency fund___________ 200.0 Total ------------------------ 1,238.4 tion which applies to the bill as a whole. The Army has contracted to buy a light observation helicopter in considerable numbers for $19,000 each per airframe. in the program before you the Army But ith proposes to buy the same helicopter w Appropriations and recommendations to date slight changes from the same manufac- d suMMARY [ In mlllionsl Army ------------------------------ $671.9 Navy------------------------------ 372.2 Air Force__________________________ 412.0 Defense emergency fund----------- 200.0 Total---------------- ------- 1, 658. 1 In the past, there has been a serious lack of central authority and coordina- tion in the construction efforts. Effec- tive coordination between the construc- tion and operational programs has been limited. The recent establishment of a general officer position on the staff of the Military Advisory Command in Viet- nam to effectuate this coordination should assist in overcoming the problem. Bttt vigorous efforts still must be made to properly coordinate the construction effort and make it fully responsive to operational requirements. An essential portion of the construc- tion problem is the lack of sufficient skilled labor forces in South Vietnam to meet the military construction effort which is needed. The present contractor effort is requiring all of the available local labor force plus generating a re- quirement for the use of foreign labor which naturally adds to the cost. The construction battalions of the Navy and the Army are doing heroic work in their activities there. Theirs is one of the outstanding contributions. If the es- calated construction program is to be successfully implemented, there is a need for more troop construction battalions from both the Navy and the Army. The requirement for these troops will be ac- centuated as additional facilities become operational and it becomes necessary to maintain them with troop labor. In order to meet the overall requirement for the construction and maintenance of facilities, steps now are being taken to double the troop construction units in South Vietnam. However, this is not enough. Through the use of only a part of the Reserve Engineer Construction Battalions and Navy Seabee Battalions- for which equipment is available-the' number of these forces in the southeast Pacific can be doubled again. To do this would save lives and time and money. This is one of the most important steps which could be taken, but there are no indications it is going to be done. Now, this is a costly program. This is not the end of it. It is no time to get careless on costs, and there always is the temptation to do so when money is readily available in unlimited amounts from Congress. It is the attitude of Congress that Ameri- ca's fighting men must have whatever they need to fight a war. But this is not an invitation for the Pentagon, to spend recklessly or wastefully. I am very much afraid that time will reveal that oes turer for $47,000 each. The Army not even seek to take full advantage of an option to buy additional helicopters at the contract price of $19,000. A compet- ing firm with a helicopter which is essen- tially the same recently offered to pro- vide heliCO tern at $29 800 each I am convinced that today there are is a num- ber of firms which would welcome an op- portunity to provide helicopters at a fig- ure much lower than $47,000. This is an inexcusable situation. Here is a place where heads should roll. And there may well be other instances. The Pentagon should launch its own investi- gations to determine that the specter of waste and careless purchasing does not belie the sacrifices of those who serve on the fighting front. I can tell you that this committee, through its chairman, has notified the Pentagon of our strong concern about the case in point. The Committee still is deeply con- cerned that the programed expanded labor force and improved construction capability will be insufficient to meet the construction requirements. Continuing effort must be made to provide the con- struction capability in South Vietnam necessary to support operational and lo- gistical requirements. To do less would seriously jeopardize the efforts our mili- tary forces are making to achieve the victory and peace desired by this Nation. There also is a tendency to utilize peacetime financial and programing procedures in the military construction program in South Vietnam. Steps have recently been taken to broaden these procedures so as to provide additional flexibility in the program. The Commit- tee is concerned that these changes might not be sufficient to meet the re- quirements for the proper implementa- tion of the program. It will be expected that the Department of Defense will con- tinually examine this phase of the pro- gram to insure that the necessary flexi- bility is provided within the overall con- struction program to meet changing tac- tical and logistical requirements and to provide a responsive and progressive program. There has been a turn for the better in the fighting in Vietnam. The Saigon government shows more stability than at any time since the Diem regime. There is now recognition of the necessity to face up to the problem of winning over the people of the villages and hamlets- many of whom have been Communist- dominated for years. These things may well give rise to a feeling at home that the problem of Vietnam has essentially been solved- that victory is near. This would be dan- gerous thinking indeed. The biggest casualty lists of the war are coming in now. We have far to go. We must never forget we are in a war-a dirty, dangerous war which soon will involve 5557 nearly half a million American fighting men. They must have the solid backing of the American people and the Congress. It also is a time for soul searching efforts in the Pentagon to insure that the right decisions are being made. There is no time to hold back the forces or the methods which can help to insure an early victory. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- man, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The CHAIRMAN. Evidently, a quo- rum is not present. The Clerk will call the roll. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: [Roll No. 37] Adair Ellsworth Mosher Baring Everett Pool Bell Fraser Powell Bolling Fuqua Reinecke Brock Hagen, Calif. Roncallo Brown, Calif. Halleck Roudebush Clawson, Del Harvey, Ind. Sisk Collier Holifleld Steed Conyers Howard Teague, Tex. Davis, Ga. McCarthy Toll Derwinski Martin, Ala. Walker, Miss. Devine Martin, Nebr. Willis Dowdy Mathias Downing Matthews Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore, Mr. ALBERT, having assumed the Chair, Mr. WRIGHT, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, re- ported that that Committee having had under consideration the bill, H.R. 13546, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 391 Members responded to their names, a quorum, and he submitted herewith the names of the absentees to be spread upon the Journal. The Committee resumed its sitting. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON] has 54 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Bow] has 1 hour and 15 minutes remaining. Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 minutes to the gentleman from Wiscon- sin [Mr. LAIRD]. Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the defense appropriation subcommittee report on this supple- mental appropriation for the fiscal year 1966 in the amount of $13.1 billion. The support of those of us on the mi- nority side of ' the Committee on Appro- priations for this bill is predicated on the necessity and the awareness that these funds must be provided in order to back up our fighting men in Vietnam. I would like to point out to the Mem- bers of the House, Mr. Chairman, that this is not the last supplemental appro- priation that we will be considering for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 1966. Submitted to the Congress under a transmittal that came up here entitled District of Columbia supple- mental appropriations for 1966, just the other day, there is contained almost an- other billion dollars in appropriation requests for the Department of Defense for fiscal year 1966 to handle military pay alone. Those of us on the minority side of the House back when the defense appropria- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R0004000400 1 5558 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 15, 1966 tion bill for 1966 was before the Congress pointed out that no funds were included in the 1966 budget statement last Jan- uary to cover the cost of escalating the war in Vietnam. I would like to say today that although this supplemental is before us today, this coupled with the 1967 budget for the Department of Defense will not finance current plans and contingencies for the fighting in Vietnam through the remain- ing portion of the fiscal year 1966 and the fiscal year 1967. As the chairman of our committee so ably said, this supplemental has to be considered along with the 196'7 budget for the Department of Defense. It should be pointed out here on the floor of the House today that the 1967 budget was out of date 2 days after it was submitted to this Congress. It was out of date because the manpower ceiling so far as the Department of the Army is concerned was removed 2 days after the budget __was submitted to the Congress by the President of the United States. Those of us working with the Depart- ment of Defense budgets know full well that additional funds will be needed in 1966 as well as in 1967 in order to finance the commitment of the United States not only in Vietnam, but to maintain our present worldwide commitments sup- ported by this administration which were so ably set forth by the Secretary of State in his appearance before the For- eign Relations Committee of the U.S. Senate just 10 days ago. Mr. Chairman, on March 4, 196?, the Department of State issued through the office of its legal adviser an important document entitled, "The Legality of U.S. Participation in the Defense of Viet- nam." The document was prepared to com- bat the persistent criticism from certain Democratic Members of the Congress that this Nation is acting illegally in using American military power in Viet- nam. With the major thesis of this docu- ment, I have no quarrel. A compelling case for the right of the United States under international law to use its mili- tary forces to assist in the defense of South Vietnam against aggression can certainly be made. I am grieved, however, to find that the State Department chose to distort history in this publication when it came to explain the commitments which have resulted in the involvment of the United States in the war in Vietnam. The dis- tortion is of two kinds. First, the docu- ment ignores completely some highly relevant facts. Second, it misleads by failing to analyze fully the declarations which it cites, sometimes conveying thereby a false impression of their import. In summary, this document argues that the present military involvement of the Nation in Vietnam was made necessary by pledges made by President Eisenhower and President Kennedy. It does not cite a single utterance by Presi- dent Johnson. It suggests that the pre- sent administration had nothing at all to do with any commitment to Vietnam. This document contains a section of 6 pages headed, "The United States Has Undertaken Commitments To Assist South Vietnam in Defending Itself Against Communist Aggression from the North." The evidence which it then presents to prove the existence of the commitment of the Eisenhower admin- istration is the following: the statements of President Eisenhower at the end of the Geneva Conference of 1954, the SEATO treaty, the assistance given by the United States to South Vietnam after the Geneva Conference, and a joint com- munique issued by Eisenhower and Diem on May 11, 1957. This is followed by a citation of two statements made by President Kennedy on August 2, 1961, and December 14, 1961. Then, abruptly, the State Depart- ment's history of the commitment of the United States to South Vietnam ends. Equally strange is the section of this document captioned, "Actions by the United States and South Vietnam Are Justified Under the Geneva Accords of 1954." The actions of the United States which are described in this section are the supply of "considerable military equipment and supplies from the United States prior to late 1961" and the estab- lishment of an American Military Assist- ance Advisory Group of "slightly less than 900 men" in Saigon. Further the document relates: The United States found it necessary in late 1961 to increase substantially the num- bers of our military personnel and the amounts and kinds of equipment intro- duced * * * into South Vietnam. And there, abruptly, the State Depart- ment ends its account of the military action of the United States in South Vietnam. If some future catastrophe were to de- stroy every written record of the rela- tions of the United States and Vietnam during the 1950's and 1960's except the State Department's publication, "The Legality of United States Participation in the Defense of Vietnam," the historian who tried to reconstruct the facts from this document would write something like this: Two Presidents of the United States- Presidents Eisenhower and Kennedy-in- volved their Nation in a war to defend South Vietnam against aggression from North Viet- nam. Their pledges of support to South Vietnam led to the sending of military sup- plies, to the dispatch of 900 military advis- ers, and in 1961 to the commitment of sub- stantial numbers of American troops. This conflict may have been going on in Vietnam as late as 1966 under another Presi- dent of the United States whose name is not recorded. in that year the Department of State issued a document upholding the legality of the actions of Presidents Eisen- hower and Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, this manipulation of history should give us all deep concern. When our Department of State releases a report of this kind, I fear we are closer to 1984 than the calendar indicates. This is the kind of propaganda that makes it difficult for the administration to estab- lish its credibility. This is playing poli- tics with Vietnam. NO COMMITMENT OF COMBAT TROOPS UNDER EISENHOWER If the State Department document of March 4 were the only instance of dis- tortion of history on the part of the administration in explaining why Amer- ican troops are fighting in Vietnam, it might be forgotten. But time after time, administration spokesmen, including the President, have sought to make it appear- that the steps taken since November of 1963 were forced upon it by commitments of earlier administrations. President Johnson, for example, said on August 3, 1965: Today the most difficult problem that con- fronts your President is how to keep an agreement that I did not initiate-I Inherited it-but an agreement to help a small nation remain independent, free of aggression-the nation of South Vietnam. Earlier the President and others in his administration were in the habit of cit- ing a letter written by President Eisen- hower to Diem on October 1, 1954, as "the commitment." This letter was nothing more than an expression of willingness to discuss ways and means of aiding Viet- nam if the Diem regime made certain re- forms. More recently, the administration has been using the SEATO treaty of 1954 as the source of the commitment. This treaty was not a commitment to send American troops to fight in south- east Asia. It carefully avoided the kind of automatic response to aggression em- bodied in the NATO agreement, sum- marized in the principle, "An attack up, on one is an attack upon all." Section 1 of article IV of the SEATO agreement reads: 1. Each party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the parties or against any state or territory which the parties by unanimous agreement may hereafter desig- nate, would endanger its own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accord- ance with its constitutional processes. Meas- ures taken under this paragraph shall be immediately reported to the Security Coun- cil of the United Nations. Secretary Dulles, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the SEATO treaty, declared: The agreement of each of the parties to act to meet the common danger in accord- ance with its constitutional processes leaves to the judgment of each country the type of action to be taken in the event an armed attack occurs. Further, Mr. Dulles said: The treaty does not attempt to get into the difficult question as to precisely how we act. On the floor of the Senate in the de- bate on ratification of the SEATO agree- ment, on February 1, 1955, Senator Smith, of New Jersey, clearly explained the nature of the commitment in these words: Some of the participants came to Manila with the intention of establishing an orga- nization modeled on the lines of the North Atlantic Treaty arrangements. That would have been a compulsory arrangement for our military participation in case of any attack. Such an organization might have required Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 19 pproved for&lN b 9 j 67M 000400040012-1 the commitment of American ground forces to the Asian mainland, We carefully avoided any possible implication regarding an ar- rangement of that kind. We have no purpose of following any such policy as that of having our forces involved in a ground war. Under this treaty, each party recognizes that an armed attack on any country within the treaty area would endanger its own peace and safety. Each party, therefore, agrees to act to meet the common danger in accord- ance with its constitutional processes. That means, by implication, that if any such emergency as is contemplated by the treaty should arise in that area it will be brought before the Congress by the President and the administration, and will be considered under our constitutional processes. We are not committed to the principle of NATO, namely, that an attack on one is an attack on all, calling for immediate military action without further consideration by Congress. For ourselves, the arrangement means that we will have avoided the impracticable over- commitment which would have been in- volved if we attempted to place American ground forces around the perimeter of the area of potential Chinese ingress into south- east Asia. Nothing in this treaty calls for the use of American ground forces in that fashion. The speaker, Senator H. Alexander Smith, was a member of the U.S. delega- tion to the Manila Conference and a signer of the SEATO agreement, One academic authority, W. McMahon Ball, has written: The treaty does not oblige the United States either legally or morally to take any course in southeast Asia than the course it might be expected to take if the treaty did not exist. Article IV of the Southeast Asia Col- lective Defense Treaty clearly reserves to each signatory the right to determine the nature of its response to armed ag- gression and does not commit in advance any signatory to use its armed forces to deal with the aggressor. Recognizing this fact, the Kennedy ad- ministration did not use American forces to repel Communist aggression in Laos. The legal commitment of the United States to South Vietnam is the same as Its commitment to Laos. Both of these countries of southeast Asia were brought under the protection of SEATO. Lyndon Johnson as Vice President made it clear in 1961 that the United States had not up to that time com- mitted itself to an obligation that would require employment of its military forces. In a memorandum to President Kennedy dated May 23, 1961, right after his return from a tour of Asia, Johnson wrote: The fundamental decision required of the United States-and time is of the greatest importance-is whether we are to attempt to meet the challenge of Communist ex- pansion now in southeast Asia by a major effort in support of the forces of freedom in the area or throw in the towel. This deci- sion must be made in a fuil realization of the very heavy and continuing costs in- volved in terms of money, of effort, and of U.S. prestige. It must be made with the knowledge that at some point we may be faced with a further decision of whether we commit major U.S. forces to the area or cut our losses and withdraw should our efforts fail. We must remain master of this deci- Finally, Gen. Maxwell Taylor in testi- mony before the Senate Foreign Rela- tions Committee on February 17, 1966, demolished the argument that there was any commitment to employ American troops in combat under the Eisenhower administration in the following exchange with Senator BOURKE HICKENLOOPER Of Iowa: , Senator HICKENLOOPER. Now, up until the end of the Eisenhower administration, we had only about 750 military personnel in South Vietnam, did we not? General TAYLOR. It was very small, some- thing like that. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I think that is within 25 or 30 of the number, either way, and they were entirely devoted to giving tech- nical advice on training to the South Viet- namese troops. General TAYLOR. That is correct. Senator HICKENLOOPER. To your knowl- edge, did we have any commitment or agree- ment with the South Vietnamese up to that time that we would put in active field mill- tary forces to conduct a war along with them? General TAYLOR. No, sir. Very clearly we made no such commitment. We didn't want such a commitment. This was the last thing we had in mind. Senator HICKENLOOPER. When was the commitment made for us to actively partici- pate in the military operations of the war as American personnel? General TAYLOR. We, insofar as the use of our combat ground forces'are concerned, that took place, of course, only in the spring of 1965. In the air, we had been participating more actively over 2 or 3 years. When President Eisenhower left the White House, there were no American troops in South Vietnam. There were only approximately 700 military advisers. When President Eisenhower left the White House, there was no commitment to send American troops to South Vietnam. Under President Kennedy, the first American combat casualties occurred in December 1961. Although President Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military personnel in Vietnam to 17,000, the American forces were there pri- marily to advise, not to fight. The New York Times of August 19, 1965, correctly stated the case when it said: The shift from military assistance and combat advice to direct participation by American combat troops in the Vietnamese war has * * * been a unilateral American decision * * * by President Johnson. THE HONOLULU COMMITMENT I find it unbelievable that a State De- partment document dated March 4, 1966, purporting to explain the commitment of this Nation in South Vietnam could avoid mention of the Honolulu declaration of February 8, 1966. For part IV of that declaration is entitled "The Common Commitment." It reads: The President of the United States and the Chief of State and Prime Minister of the Republic of Vietnam are thus pledged again to defense against aggression, to the work of social revolution, to the goal of free self- government, to the attack on hunger, igno- rance, and disease, and to the unending quest 5559 These are important and weighty com- mitments. Yet they go unreported in the State Department's survey of the commitment of the Government of the United States to South Vietnam. Mr. Chairman, I do not mean here to be critical of the actions of the President with relation to Vietnam. I simply plead that, when the administration undertakes to defend itself against critics in the President's party, it present the facts and all the facts. Let the admin- istration acknowledge is decisions as its own and justify its actions on their merits. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes. Mr. Chairman, the able gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. LAIRD] has made reference to the historical background of the war in Vietnam. I believe that if a look backward re- veals anything it reveals our difficulties in South Vietnam have been nonparti- san in nature. The actions which this .country has taken have been actions taken in defense of the security of the United States and have not been moti- vated in my opinion by political con- siderations. The war by the Vietnamese against the French began in 1946. In 1950 we began to give some assistance to the French in an effort to try to conclude successfully this war. The French finally capitu- lated. We began to provide aid to the South Vietnamese against aggression in Vietnam in 1950. In 1954 or 1955 we began to provide foreign aid, direct mili- tary and economic, to the people in Viet- nam who were fighting for freedom. Mr. Chairman, during this time a num- ber of negotiations took place. Mr. Dul- les was very instrumental as Secretary of State in negotiating the SEATO treaty. In this treaty, to which we sub- scribe, the United States undertook an international obligation to help defend South Vietnam against aggression. The treaty said: Each party recognizes that aggression by means of armed attack in the treaty area against any of the parties or against any state or territory which the parties by unan- imous agreement might hereafter desig- nate, would endanger its own peace and safety, and agrees that it will in that event act to meet the common danger in accord- ance with constitutional processes- And so forth. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has expired. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 additional minutes. So, Mr. Chairman, we recognized early that the security and well-being of the United States was heavily involved in southeast Asia. Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield on that point in the treaty? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin. Mr. LAIRD. I would like to discuss that point. Mr. MAHON. I do not want to dis- cuss it in detail, but I want to briefly re- fer to the history of this situation in Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5560 Approved For FGgtES~rUN/~L :67B&gf0004000400dreh 15, 1966 which we found oursieves and in which This aid continued throughout the the action expected to be taken by the both our political parties and all admin- Eisenhower administration and then un- Defense Department in connection with istrations have stood out against aggres- der the Kennedy administration and con- Vietnam for which we are making funds sion, and properly so, in southeast Asia. tinues under the Johnson administratiom available in this bill. Mr. LAIRD. If my distinguished col- The problem finally culminated in this Again, it is not because there is no league, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. war which is being fought out of neces- money-it is because these projects, the MAHON] will yield to me, I would like to sity, growing out of the commitments acquisition of materiel and other actions, state that I am sure he agrees with me and the facts of life as they existed in will cost money, and we are providing that the State Department document is 1950 and 1954 and ever since that time the money to do this job as we go along. not correct in its interpretation of our under all administrations. There are many causes. I have served present commitment in Vietnam. This is not a partisan war. It is a war on this committee most of the time since I would like to quote from the testi- brought about by necessity to preserve 1943, or at least one segment Of it, and I mony of Secretary of State John Foster the Interests of the United States in think this matter of going into the Dulles when he discussed this particular southeast Asia. cause, while it is academic in some re- section to which the gentleman from We want to help the people in South spects, in many ways would be well in- Texas alludes at this point. Vietnam. That is true, but we also must sofar as deciding where we go from here. When Secretary Dulles testified before look out after our own self-interests. It is my personal view, and may I say the the Senate Fpreign Relations Commit- The purpose of this bill today is to safe- leaders on both sides of the aisle differed tee on this particular section he declared: guard our own self-interests, the best in- with me then and they differ with me The agreement. of each of the parties to terests of the United States. now-but if I were to look for the cause, act to meet the common danger in accord- (Mr. MAHON asked and was given I would go back to the period after World ance with its constitutional processes leaves permission to revise and extend his re- War II when we went around the world to the judgment of each country the type of marks.) telling practically every nation which action to be taken in the event an armed Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield would listen, "we will take care of you- attack occurs. 10 minutes to the gentleman from Mis- we have the atomic bomb." We made Now, Mr. Chairman, this is quite dif- sissippi [Mr. WHrTTENI. those commitments in many places ferent from the language which is in- (Mr. WHITTEN asked and was given where, subsequently, it has become ap- eluded in the NATO agreement, when the permission to revise and extend his re- parent we simply cannot carry out such NATO agreement comes out as an attack marks.) promises, especially since others now on one is an attack on all. Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Chairman, first have the atomic bomb. Mr. Chairman, I am placing in the may I say that it has been my privilege Yes, If I were to look for the cause, I RECORD a discussion of the definition that to serve under the chairman of the full would remember that we went through a Secretary Dulles made very clearly be- committee and of this subcommittee for period when the Congress and the Ameri- tween the SEATO and the NATO agree- many years. It has been my privilege to can public thought all we needed was the ments. serve with other members of the sub- atomic bomb. To a great degree we quit The point of my remarks is not to ques- committee both on the minority and on producing conventional weapons and we tion the SEATO agreement. It is to the majority side. It has been my ex- reduced our efforts for maintenance of question the interpretation used by our perience that never has there been a time our defenses to the point where one of State Department to justify military ac- throughout all these years when this the top people in our Air Force said we tion in Vietnam today, on the basis of country and this Congress could not look were giving little training to our flyers that treaty, because I believe that treaty to these gentlemen to see that finances in dropping ordinary bombs, because we is not the basis for justifying direct mili- are provided to enable this Nation to had been lured into feeling we could tary action by one country in the treaty meet its national defense needs In any drop a big bomb and that would be it. organization without consent of all military area, where we may have to Unfortunately, today we are in the midst countries, exercise our might. of a war; and we are using conventional The CHAIRMAN. The time of the Certainly if we have erred through the weapons. gentleman from Texas has again ex- years, it has been on the side of making If I were to look further as to the re- pired. absolutely certain that adequate funds sponsibility, I would see that the leaders Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield are available. May I say that our hear- of both parties have followed a common myself 2 additional minutes. ings have always been full and in great foreign policy through the years right up We, It Is true, were not specifically detail. So that there will be no mis- until this moment. committed by the treaty to send Ameri- understanding here, I would repeat If I looked at Cuba, I would realize can troops to war. We all know that as again. that you know and I know that all there is enough fault to be found, looking a result of Communist aggression the sit- of us. without exception, will be sup- backward, to include both parties and uation in Vietnam has continued to porting and defending our men in serv- their leaders. worsen. The SEATO agreement is, of ice whatever policy our Government de- If I looked at many other areas, I would course, available for all to Interpret. I cides upon in Vietnam. see somewhat the same situation. do not undertake at the moment to get I might say further, as I pointed out into the details of the treaty. last year in our report; the matter of full A STALEMATE IS NO VICTORY Now, in 1959 Mr. Eisenhower said-and funding of approved requests of the De- But what we have here, Mr. Chairman, correctly, in my judgment: fence Department has many weaknesses. is more serious than that. The question unassisted Vietnam cannot at this time But It has some advantages. Last year, is, Where are we and what are we going produce and support the military formations for instance, as our committee reported, to do about it? Here we are half way essential to It or, equally important, the and as it exists today substantially, we around the world, as my good friend, the morale-the hope, the confidence, the pride-- have $30 billion in unexpended funds to gentleman from Florida [Mr. SIKEs] necessary to meet the dual threat of aggres- the credit of the Department of Defense. said, with a 10,000-mile supply line and sion from without and subversion within its We had some $9 billion not even obli- engaged in battle in an area where hu- borders. gated a year ago. All of that money man life means very little to the enemy, Strategically, South Vietnam's capture by would be subject to the decision of the and where they can carry sufficient sup- the Communists would bring their power Congress to be reappropriated, or to be plies for guerrilla warfare on their backs. several hundred miles into a hitherto free simply transferred, by the Department. We are engaged in a deadly conflict at region. The remaining countries in south- east Asia would be menaced by a great flank- The point I make is that any planning the end of a 10,000-mile supply line. ing movement. ? * * The loss of South Viet- and any actions that may have been Both parties have followed policies which nam would set in motion a crumbling process taken by the Department of Defense have ended in this situation, though I that could, as it progressed, have grave con- have been for reasons other than that am sure no one intended it. sequences for us and for freedom. funds were not available, because they We find-and the record will support In the period 1953-57, during the have been and are now available. this-that Haiphong Harbor in North Eisenhower administration this Gov- There is a substantial need for the bill Vietnam is an open harbor. Through ernment provided $1,100 million in aid to that is before you, not because the money Haiphong Harbor 80 percent of the sup- Vietnam in an effort to stop aggression. is not available if handled through than- plies being used by our enemy in South But this was only partially successful. nels, but this represents a projection of Vietnam are passing and, with the excep- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 19b proved For W tigW R :lL~ 67Bqa46g 2000400040012-1 5561 tion of several small countries, along of the opposition, supplies which are with Communist nations our so-called being transported by people supposedly friends are continuing to ship to our on our side. To me the answer is, we enemies through Haiphong Harbor. must. Yes, if we carry the matter a little bit My friends, there is only one side to further, on the question of winning the this appropriation bill. As I have said, war I agree we must win; but we must the Defense Department has money that decide what it is to win. What does to could have been used. They have money win mean to us? To me it cannot be a maintenance of the status quo. Here is a )lttle 100th-rated power, North Viet- nam, pulling the biggest power in the world around by the nose day after day. It leads me, as an individual, to feel that the Vietcong may be winning as long as they can maintain the status quo and actually feel that they are. This we must stop and the first start, to me, appears to be to stop the inflow of materiel to our enemy. We will supply this money. We argue about financial budgets. We want to keep waste down. We want to be econ- omy minded in handling appropriations. But in World War II I well remember that when war materiel was sent to for- ward theaters, it was marked off then and there. That is not the major problem that we have. We are reconciled to the fact that these funds will be spent. We are in an engagement at the end of a 10,000-mile supply line, with our troops slugging it out, fighting in swamps, attacked by mosquitoes and suf- fering from malaria; fighting under the most trying conditions where it seems we do not know who our friends are, but where our leaders feel we must remain to show that we will be in southeast Asia. Speaking ,for myself alone, if we are to keep our young men there-and our leaders and our country feel not only a commitment but a present necessity to keep our forces there-we owe it to them to do those things that would cut off the supply line of their enemy, a supply line that to a great degree is fed by folks who are supposed to be our friends. financing the projection of contracts to supply material that it is apparent they are going to need. There are two or three other things we might say. If we need a base in southeast Asia, might not we have the courage to say so and supply a base as against saying that we are trying to let people follow the path of their own de- termination, with all the mixed-up in- formation that we can get on that subject? I wish to say again that I am for this country, and I know the Members of the Congress are, too. I do feel an obliga- tion, having questioned the Secretary of Defense and various others, and I shall put those questions and answers, where they exist, in the RECORD, to question present actions or lack of determination to put up. I feel we have an obligation to question a war in which we are engaged as the result of a foreign policy participated in by both parties. As we do that, we do not have to be hawks or doves. We are in a quagmire, and we need to get out of it. It is not for me to say or for you to say, but it is for all of us to insist that we take appropriate action, as long as we are in it, to back the men who are there, to determine what we must have for them and take action to see that an un- tenable situation does not simply go on and on, with resulting loss of life. If our friends In other parts of the world will not stand by us, it is better to find out such fact. To support my views I believe questions a d , n answers of FOREIGN POLICY DETERIORATES the Secretary, pages 51 through 91 of the I repeat, the record will show that the hearings would be of interest to you. I only countries which have out off ship- read them here: ping to North Vietnam are a relatively ADEQUACY OF MILITARY FUNDING few minor: ones. We are not stopping Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. Secretary, we all are that shipping because we think these interested in the overall aspects of this mat- other countries might not give us the sup- ter, but there are two or three things I think port we want In NATO or so I surmise, might well appear in the record, But look what has happened, already I know last year when you were before us France has virtually announced her with- and afterward there was quite a difference of drawal from NATO. If you want to opinion and a difference in statements as to second-guess our policy in the last num- whether the reduction the military funds for the Defense Department would result in ber of years, look at Africa. The men perhaps some injury to our defense capabili- who had some know-how and brains to ties. govern were forced out by us. It has The committee, in view of that, provided drifted back to where the men with or stated In its report and I read from last strength to run these little countries, the year's report on page 9: men we shoved out, have had to be re- "Appropriations to finance any such items turned for such order as they can effect. of urgent need continue available from prior We started on our present course a years in staggering totals. For example, the long time ago. If we look in every direC- budget in January 1965 indicated 9,- 379,000 00 total unexpended xpennde ded carryover into nto fis- tion we can see the mortar cracking. We cal 1966, of which a total of $9,624,627,000 can see the high hopes of many of our would be unobligated." people running out. We can see member I am certain this committee will back your nation's failing to put up their share in request here. I am not saying it critically the United Nations. in the least. But all of that is beside the point. We I think it is well you are here. The point have young men fighting in a war that is I make here is that the military effort has not as much'a war to them as World War II, if you suffered seen from fit the request he use of these lack of available funds and we are here wondering whether we funds to meet your problem ne ause o up to this should do anything to cutoff the supplies point. Secretary MCNAMARA. I fully support that conclusion, Mr. Whitten. Mr. WHITTEN. You were before us last year in connection with the regular defense bill and again on several supplementals, and De- fense Department witnesses have been before us numerous times when we have approved a reprograming request. If you had foreseen the need of the money you are asking for now, you would have asked for it, would you not? Secretary MCNAMARA. Yes. I stated to the committee in August that we foresaw the need for additional funds but for a number of reasons were not requesting them: (1) we could not predict our needs with cer- tainty, (2) we knew that it would be possible to return in January with a better estimate of those needs, and (3) we felt that the funds which would be available to us in the original fiscal year 1966 budget and the August amendment would carry us through the early part of this calendar year. Mr. WHITTEN. The point I make is that the defense effort has not suffered from lack of funds either on your part or on the part of Congress. Secretary McNAMARA. I fully support that conclusion. EFFECTS OF BOMBING ON NORTH VIETNAM Mr. WHITTEN. Now carrying it one step further, General Wheeler, I am trying to make clear in my mind, as I understood you in enumerating the targets in North Viet- nam, that in effect you indicated that insofar as the present military effort Is concerned, where we are having this guerrilla-type war- far, they were what might be termed sec- ondary targets, in that none of them are sufficiently vital as to cripple the Vietcong in their efforts against South Vietnam, is that correct? General WHEELER. That is essentially cor- rect, Mr. WHITTEN. I pointed out the other day when I ran over the entire target sys- tem-I believe in response to a question from Mr. SINES-that when we talk of industrial targets in North Vietnam, we are really talk- ing about something that essentially does not exist. Even so at the levels of conflict in South Vietnam, and with the number of Vietcong and PAVN troops that must be supported, we cannot completely cut off the introduc- tion of supplies. We can hurt them. We can make it cost them more. We cannot cut off the flow of supplies completely. Mr. WHITTEN. As I understood it either you or the Secretary said, that while there are some changes as a result of the lull in bombing, really it was not as significant as we might think. That, notwithstanding our bombing, due to the fact it is guerrilla war- fare they could supply the troops they had even by human beings on trails. As long as that was true the bombing was not-in line with what you just said-sufficient to strangle their supply system. In other words, their capability of supplying so far exceeds the actual need for the present operation that they would probably have that much if we had kept up bombing. Am I recalling it ap- proximately correct? General WHEELER. I think Mr. McNamara said the greater part of the statement you made, Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. WHITTEN. I am asking this to clarify it if my recollection is not correct. General WHEELER. (Off the record.) Mr. WHITTEN. Is the chief value of bomb- ing to prevent an enlargment of the Vietcong operation as of now? General WHEELER. (Off the record.) Mr. WHITTEN. I am not trying to play on words but if I could reduce it to this it Is very important to keep them from supply- ing a much larger force. General WHEELER. That is my judgment, Mr. Whitten. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 Approved For CONGRESSIONAL ~tE~OKll 67%8 0004000400 alch 15, 1966 5562 ABILITY TO PROTECT LOCAL POPULATIONS GOVERNMENT DESIRED BY PEOPLE OF VIETNAM Mr, WHITTEN. On Wednesday, I believe it Mr. WHITTEN. Carrying that one step fur- was stated that we had received some benefit ther, now, I keep hearing that our purpose from the bombing in that the North Viet- in Vietnam is to allow-and I believe I namese had become convinced that they were quote correctly-allow people to seek their not safe. own destiny. The testimony uncontroverted In other words, that the North Vietnamese insofar as I recall is that Vietnam has a series Government could not protect them from air of villages . We have been told that attacks. At that time, I could not help but the people in a village: do not know of any- have the thought that the South Vietnamese, thething, ususually, except their village and They that this time, should be equally convinced never have subjected themselves to a cen- th Yesw st terday's cannot protect Washington them. Post-and I am teal government, do not know what it is, and r it over do not want one. b I e remem quoting the testimony as a series of years--carried a story by Jack Now, when we insist that they subject Foists of the Los Angeles Times-and I would themselves to a central government, how can have to say that this story reflects the im- you say that is permitting people to seek pression I have gotten from witnesses on their own destiny? your ~ side of the table, and I read it here: Secretary McNAMARA. Mr. Whitten, a very "SAIGON, January 26.-A U.S. spokesman substantial percentage of the people do not today described the terrorism and sabotage live in villages. I would guess that at least that goes on In South Vietnam every night. 15 percent live in large metropolitan areas, He emphasized the havoc the VC inflict on perhaps more than that. innocent villagers in the belief that they are Mr. WHITTEN. I will limitmy question to pro-Government. But in most areas the vil- the other 85 percent. lagers would stay neutral if they could. The Secretary McNAMARA. I would say at least spokesman also wanted to show what dam- 15 percent. It maywell be more. age has been done by the Vietcong to com- Second, I do not think it accurately reflects munications that keep the Government-held the situation in Vietnam to say that the peo- areas in touch with one another. ple, generally, do not know of anything other .The spokesman in doing this also revealed than the affairs of their own village plus the the Vietnamese-American inability, despite affairs of the adjacent village. the substantial U.S. buildup that began 10 Mr. WHITTEN. I may have oversimplified months ago, to improve the situation in the my words. countryside for the uncommitted peasant. Secretary McNAMAR.A. I: am sure that is not Reading from a summary of reports by the situation there. American field representatives, the spokes- Mr. WHITTEN. I do not want to change the man estimated that no more than 10 per- meaning of witnesses who are supposed to cent of the entire Vietnam railroad system be equally well informed. is operative because of guerrilla cuts in the Secretary McNAMARA. I do not know which line. If true, this is worse than the previous witnesses you are speaking of, but I would low point of last July, when it was officially be happy to review their testimony. Based reported only 30 percent was so protected." on my own knowledge of the situation that Is that approximately correct? is not an accurate assessment of the breadth of concern and awareness of the people in the General WHEELER. Mr. WHITTEN, that anti- countryside. I have visited literally hun- cle is a series of generalized statements dreds of villages there, and I can testify from drown from (off the record). personal experience that some of the people - Mr. WHITTEN. General, that is all right. In the villages, at least those that I have I do not mean to appear to be abrupt. We talked to, are informed of and aware of af- have been briefed at the White House. We fairs far beyond the limits of their villages. are of the kind of th d ey are aw In particular, have been on this committee listening an we have had details. I have yet to hear an environment in which they would live that had beenpreventedor hindered by lack witnesses say that there is any place where were North Vietnam to come to dominate of supplies. people are perfectly safe. It may be that you their area, and they do not wish to live in It was stated, however, that the level of are willing to so state. I am asking these that kind of environment. We have other supplies in some areas or in some fields was questions after listening to a lot of people evidence to support that conclusion, not the dropping significantly because of the heavy and I have yet to hear anyone say that there least of which is the movement of people consumption of supplies and the difficulty Is any place there where we are safe from the out of these villages when the Vietcong come of resupplying. guerrilla warfare or from bombs or anything into the area. Has that situation been reversed? else. Are you willing to say it? There are hundreds of thousands of refu- General WHEELER. I would not say it is General WHEELER. I am not saying that, gees who have left Vietcong-controlled areas reversed yet, Mr. SIRES. I know that with sir. because they do not wish to live under that the improvements that we have obtained But what I am saying is that this article kind of control. over the last couple of months in unloadi}Yg is an overstatement, a generalization of Mr. WHrrTErr. I think it well to say right and in port clearance and so on, the situa- things that can happen anywhere, the same here that the specific witness I was quoting tion is being corrected and we should get up thing that can happen in Washington, D.C. was- to a very satisfactory operational level of When you go out here at night to get into I want to say again I am speaking from backup in the very near future. In fact, your car, you can get mugged. But generally recollection. I would not want to tie pre- I am thinking in terms now of March for speaking, Washington, I believe, is a rea- ceding witnesses to the impression or the some items and probably June for others. sonably safe area. understanding I have, but that is where my MILITARY BASE CLOSINGS Mr. WHITTEN. Lots of folks in my area understanding came from. I also would like kind of draw an analogy between Washing- to say to you, as secretary of Defense, I Mr. WHITTEN. We have been going to great am somewhat doubt that you saw too many villages in limits to let the world know that if the Viet- cong do not make peace we are prepared to go ton and Vietnam though I person. surprised at your drawing the same one. Secretary MCNAMARA. On the contrary, I all out for whatever is required to get them USE OF HUMAN TRANSPORT have seen a large number of villagers. I visit- to the peace table. I listened to Secretary There is no need of pursuing that further. ed Vietnam six times in the last 5 years, and Rusk Sunday afternoon. I have listened I was trying to get this quite clear. It is I have visited the countryside widely. I do here. Since it is very apparent that we are my understanding that this supply line not pretend to be an expert on Vietnamese putting on a show of force and a threat of which we were talking about to the north affairs, but I do say that based on my per- force and a willingness to use it, is there any is something like a thousand miles long. sonal knowledge it would not be correct to concern that when you announced a cutback Of course, one man could not carry 50 state that the typical villager's knowledge of of military bases, that it had any bad effect pounds a thousand miles. How many points his national government or its programs is upon our image in the world? of exchange would there be if the supply negligible or that his knowledge is limited At that time there were many people, In- lines are so much as a thousand miles long, to the affairs of his own and nearby villages. eluding me, who, whatever the merits and or do we know? ADEQUACY OF BOMB INVENTORIES however it might have been done, wondered General WHEELER. We have a feel of it, Mr. WHITTEN. I probably should have pref- if to announce this curtailment to the world let me say that. aced what I said by saying that I just want would indicate that we were weakening. (Discussion off the record.) to understand this. Did you see any sign of that result? I am trying to find out where we are and where we are going, and I think the Ameri- can people are, too. I have the utmost sym- pathy for you folks because it is your prime job. Is there any credence to the claim that we stopped this bombing because we were short of bombs? Secretary McNAMARA. Absolutely none. I will give you the bomb inventories. (The Information requested is classified and was furnished to the committee.) SUPPLY SHORTAGES Mr. WHITTEN. Or other supplies? Secretary MCNAMARA. Absolutely none. General WHEELER. May I add something to that? Mr. WHITTEN. I asked the question so you can get the answer in the record. Secretary MCNAMARA. I appreciate that. General WHEELER. I would like to make a comment, if I might, because,I think it is pertinent. - I spent 5 days during the Christmas sea- son visiting Vietnam. I visited Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine units both in Vietnam and in Thailand, and I also visited one of the carriers, staying overnight. I asked every responsible commander that I saw-and I saw a great many of them down to battalion level-if their operations had been hampered by shortages or defici- encies in consumables. I am talking about ammunition, POL, et cetera. The answer invariably was no, that they had been able to carry out their combat operations. Secretary MCNAMARA. May I make a fur- ther comment, Mr. WHITTEN, in order to throw light on this subject? I Issued an order to the commanders . So every bomb that we would have consumed had we continued to bomb North Vietnam has been consumed. It is our estimate or it was our plan, I should say, that during the month of January we would drop 150,000 bombs That plan was not limited in the slightest degree by bomb shortages. Mr. SIKES. May I ask one very brief ques- tion? I asked the same question of many field commanders and in each instance I was told that there was no essential operation Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 196,,~pproved Fot itIFSkele P67, 4 R000400040012-1 Secretary MCNAMARA. Mr. WHITTEN, I have seen no evidence of such a feeling on the part of any foreign power or in the foreign press. Mr. WHITTEN. I do not want to cut you off but let me ask you one thing that you might reply to. Is that possibly one of the reasons that they have refused to take advantage of our lull in bombing and come to the peace table. Could that be one of the reasons? Secretary MCNAMARA. No sir, it could not be one of the reasons. Mr. WHITTEN. Why do you say it so flatly? Secretary MCNAMARA. Because we do have indications of the kinds of information get- ting through to them and the kind of infor- mation that influences their actions. I have seen no evidence that the elimination of sur- plus and obsolete military bases-at a time when we are rapidly expanding our budget by announcing a supplemental of $12.3 bil- lion to the existing budget-has, in any way influenced them. Mr. WHITTEN. Couldn't they take it that we are now waking up and rectifying a mistake? Secretary MCNAMARA, Are you speaking about the base reduction program as rectify- ing a mistake? Mr. WHITTEN. And planes, et cetera. Secretary MCNAMARA. I do not see how it would be possible for them to interpret clos- ing obsolete bases as rectifying a mistake. In any event, I can tell you, Mr. WHITTEN, that no expert that I have talked to has ever even raised this point much less put any weight on it. As a matter of fact, I had one brought over here from London just last week to discuss with me the reaction of the North Vietnamese. PREVIOUS JUDGEMENTS ON VIETNAM Mr. WHITTEN. Let me ask two or three questions and then I shall pass the witness on, Mr. Chairman. Last spring we saw no need for this supplemental. I have in front of me your prior statements, Mr. Secretary. I would not want to read them to you. I would not want mine read to me. I know they were sincere and honest and based on the best information you had. This has not worked out like you folks hoped it would and we had hoped it would. Where have we miscalculated, in your opinion? Secretary MCNAMARA. There is an indirect reference, and I know you were very gentle even in the indirect reference. With respect to my prior statements- Mr. WHITTEN. Let me say this, that this committee has backed your judgment so we are in it, too. I am just asking now with hindsight, where can you point your finger and figure that we miscalculated as a group, not just you? Secretary MCNAMARA. Mr. Chairman, be- cause of the reference to prior statements and in anticipation of such a reference, I went through my prior statements a few weeks ago, and I have extracted all the per- tinent parts relating- Mr. WHITTEN. That is all right. Where would you say we miscalculated? That is my question. Don't get away from my ques- tion. Secretary MCNAMARA. I will come to the question. But the question carries an im- plied reference to prior statements, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, I would ask the per- mission of the committee to introduce into the record my previous statements on the war in Vietnam. There are 59 of them. Mr. WHITTEN. I have no objection to that. Mr. MAI ON. Yes. They will be included at this point. (NOTE.-This information appears in vol. I, pp. 57 to 87 of the hearings.) Mr. WHITTEN. I am making no condemna- tion for prior opinion. Secretary MCNAMARA. I understand. I ap- preciate that your reference was gentle. Mr. Chairman, the question was, Where was it that we miscalculated? Mr. WHITTEN. In your opinion. Secretary MCNAMARA. I do not know if you should call it a miscalculation. I think it is perfectly clear that the North Vietnamese have continued to increase their support of the Vietcong despite the increase in our effort and that of the South Vietnamese. I say that I do not know whether or not this was a miscalculation. If you go through these statements that I have just inserted in the record, or the statements of President Ken- nedy or those of President Johnson, you will find that they repeatedly refer to this point, namely, that the response required from us will depend to a considerable degree upon the action taken by the aggressor, in this case, the North Vietnamese. We simply cannot predict their actions accurately. We cannot, therefore, predict the amount of force that we will have to bring to bear in order to achieve our political objective. What has happened is that the North Vietnamese have continually increased the amount of re- sources, men, and material that they have been willing to devote to their objective of subverting and destroying the political insti- tutions of South Vietnam. Whether or not you describe the evolution of the situation in Vietnam as a miscalculation, I think is a question of semantics. Mr. WHITTEN. It has not turned out like we thought it would. That is a homely way of putting it, but it has not turned out like we thought it would. Where were we wrong in our thinking? That is bringing it down to a level where we all can understand it. Secretary MCNAMARA. I think it was hoped that the South Vietnamese by their own efforts could contain the insurgency that the North Vietnamese has initiated inside South Vietnam. Later, when it became very clear they couldn't, it became necessary for us to supply advisers and substantial amounts of equipment to improve their capability for containing the insurgency. Even with this assistance they couldn't contain the Viet- cong, because the North Vietnamese were continuing to expand their program of send- ing men and material into the south. Mr. WHITTEN. Let me ask one other ques- tion. (Off the record). Secretary MCNAMARA, Let me go back be- cause I did not finish- Mr. WHITTEN. What is the plan for winning? Secretary MCNAMARA. Let me go back to the previous question because I did not finish my statement with respect to the changes that have occurred during the past several years which in turn, affected the amount of effort that we have had to put into the struggle. Mr. WHITTEN. Don't let us forget my ques- tion. Secretary MCNAMARA. I won't. I want to answer one question at a time, however. I think that one event that significantly influenced the course of the conflict was the overthrow of Diem which was the result of many forces, most of them not within our control. But the Diem overthrow, as much as anything else, affected the course of the conflict in the following year or two. This factor, plus the continuing increase in the amount of effort that North Vietnam applied to their objective caused a Continu- ing increase in the amount of force which we have had to apply in South Vietnam. Now your second question, How do we hope to win? Mr. WHITTEN. How do we plan to win? Secretary MCNAMARA. I am answering the question as it was phrased. PLAN FOR WINNING THE WAR Mr. WHITTEN. Let me change my question, What is our plan to win? . Secretary MCNAMARA. All right, what is our plan to win? We plan with the help of the South Vietnamese to apply sufficient force against the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese military units in the south to 5563 prove to them that they cannot win in the south. While doing so, we have applied bombing to the north to increase the cost of their operations in the south and to re- duce their capability for expanding their operations in the south. Mr. WIzrrrEN. Have we not already tried that and failed, Mr. Secretary?. Secretary MCNAMARA, No. We have not failed, we have not lost. ECONOMIC COST OF THE WAR Mr. WHITTEN. We have not lost, but we certainly have not won. I think you are do- ing as well as you can with what you have to do in the situation we are in, so I am not being critical-I have yet to find anybody who has a plan to win. We cannot do it by bombing these targets in North Vietnam, I do not know what the relative cost of the war per day in money is to us as compared to them. I do know their standard of liv- ing. They carry supplies on their backs. Human beings are almost unlimited in that area of the world. I know it is way around the world from us. Let me interrupt to ask, Have you any comparative dollar cost? Secretary MCNAMARA. No. Mr. WHITTEN. You do not figure war in money, but I am talking about the drain on your economy. Could you give us any kind of comparison as to the relative per day cost to the United States as compared with them? Secretary MCNAMARA. There is no possible means of developing that financially. Mr. WHITTEN. It would be tremendously greater, would it not? Secretary MCNAMARA. The cost in economic terms is far greater to them than it is to us. One simple indication is that the intelli- gence estimators conclude that they have diverted from thousand men from other pursuits to rebuild the roads and the bridges which our bombing has destroyed. And that particular diversion of the work force is but a minor part of their cost of carrying on their operations against the south. Out of a society that has a total adult male population of perhaps 4 or 5 million, that is a tremendous drain for just one part of their war activity. So there is no question but what the relative economic cost to them is far greater than it is to us. PLAN FOR WINNING THE WAR General WHEELER. May I answer your question about what is our plan? You said you do not know of a plan. Mr. WHITTEN. I would be glad to have you do so. General WHEELER. Before I do, though, I Would like to put in one remark that is perhaps not completely germane to this. (Off the record.) Mr. WHITTEN. The closing of bases and cutting back of the military. General WHEELER. No, sir. That is my point. Now let me go to the other one if I might. We have actually had in South Vietnam substantial numbers of U.S. and free world combat forces for about 6 months. You should recognize that even then the weight of effort has been available only within about the last 2 months. The Republic of Korea division, for exam- ple, was only available to General Westmore- land in a combat configuration late in the month of November. General Westmoreland has achieved to date, precisely what we esti- mated he would have achieved with these accruals of force; namely, he has reversed an adverse trend of military events. While he has not yet achieved a momentum which will give him "victory," he actually has just begun his campaign. His concept, which is, I believe, a sound concept and one to which I subscribe, is this- Mr. MAHON. You mean the South Viet- namese? General WHEELER. Yes, sir. (Off the rec- ord.) It is not going to be a quick process, but it has been successful to date. Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00446R600400040012-1 5564 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67BOO446R00040004001 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE arch 15, 1966 Mr. WHITTEN. You use the word "win" the their actions that they are carrying out that war, and it Is natural. What do you mean pledge. The actions that we would like to by "win" the war? see are: the withdrawal of their military General WHEELER. I mean, sir, the political units from South Vietnam and the cessation objective set for us by the President; namely, of their direction and support of the Viet- a free and independent Vietnam which can cong and the guerrillas who are attempting pursue its own destiny unhampered and un- to subvert the political Institutions in the pressured by outside forces, has been met. south. EVENTS WHICH WOULD FOLLOW PEACE INDICATIONS OF NORTH VIETNAMESE STOPPING AGREEMENT AGGRESSION Mr. WRITTEN. This is the last question, Mr. WHITTEN. At this stage, having had Mr. Chairman. As you can imagine I could your experience and having at least been go on all day and we all could. What if thwarted in our high hopes-if you do not tomorrow Hanoi and the North Vietnamese like the word "miscalculate"-what evidence Government would say that we will agree is there in the actions of the Vietcong, that the South Vietnamese may go their own Hanoi, or the North 'Vietnamese Government, way and follow their destiny, whether it is in that leads you to have any hopes that they a local village or in a central government; we will change their attitude? will agree that each village that does not Secretary MCNAMARA. We see signs of dis- want to be subjected to any central govern- sension among the political leaders of the went be like it wants to be? If they send north. We see signs of strain on their econ- us that message through channels and it omy. We know that they see the buildup as reached you and it reached the White House, General Wheeler mentioned a moment ago, what would we do? Of our capability to inflict even higher levels Secretary MCNAMARA. I am not clear what of casualties on the Vietcong and the North you said about each village. Vietnamese. I think it is a reasonable con- Mr. WHITTEN. I said if they agree. clusion that at some point theserising casu- Secretary MCNAMARA. Pardon me? alties, and these higher costs, and these in- Mr. WHITTEN. You said you did not under- creasing strains are going to become so great stand. I want to make it clear, Mr. Secre- that they will conclude that they cannot win tary. If they agreed that they would do in the south. When they reach this con- what we claim we want them to do. elusion, they will be unwilling to continue to Secretary MCNAMARA. That is not the way bear the costs of a program that cannot it was phrased. achieve their objectives. Mr. WHITTEN. I will change it because I Mr. WHITTEN. I keep wanting to end my am not playing on words. This situation is questions because I tun taking too much serious and I think the American people are time. You say they cannot win and you say like me, I do not think they believe that we we can win because we have not lost. have a plan to win. Secretary MCNAMARA. Let me say this: If THE BUDGET-NOT THE MAJOR CONCERN tomorrow, North Vietnam says they will agree So far as arguments about budgets are to do what we want- concerned, I served in my State legisla- Mr. WHITTEN. What will we do? ture when I was 21. I learned then that Secretary MCNAMARA, Then, we would plan a budget represents the highest hopes of to withdraw our forces from South Vietnam the administration for income from as soon as the North Vietnamese demon- taxes and the greatest expectation for strated that they were sincere and had a real plan of action for the withdrawal of their holding down expenditures; and the subversive forces and would allow the South other side never accepts such estimates Vietnamese Government to develop, unham- and is usually right. I have not seen any pered, stable political institutions in areas difference here in Congress, either under .now controlled by the Vietcong. As soon as the Democratic Party or the Republican it was evident that the North Vietnamese Party. It works the same as State ad- were carrying out such a pledge, we would ministrations. withdraw our forces and allow the Govern- ment of South Vietnam to work with Its This argument has very little to do people as any other government does. with this bill before us now, where we -Mr. WHITTEN. Pending that time we would are in trouble up to the ears and where insist keeping our people there to enforce it. we are going to have to take firm steps Secretary MCNAMARA. To enforce what? to back the men in the service. This Mr. WHITTEN. To enforce the carrying out money will be gone when we appropriate of the agreement. Secretary MCNAMARA. We would stay only it, but it will be used for an absolutely .to protect the Government and the people of essential and necessary purpose. South Vietnam against a violation of the Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I yield 10 agreement. minutes to the gentleman from Ohio Mr. WHITTEN. At this stage, and this is my [Mr. MINSHALL]. - last question: Haven't they convinced you Mr. MINSHAhL. Mr. Chairman, I that there will never be any agreement as long as a part of it is that you insist that you rise to support the supplemental appro- keep your people there to enforce such priation of $13.1 billion to back up our agreement? commitment of men and material in Secretary MCNAMARA. No; I do not think South Vietnam. Secretary MCNAMARA. In the first place we do not insist that we keep Our forces there, as you put it. The enforcement of an agree- ment is not part of our proposal, nor have we ever made any public statement to that effect. Mr. WRITTEN. I thought you told me that is what you would do. Secretary MCNAMARA. No, I simply said- Mr. WHITTEN. Mr. McNamara, what would we do then? Secretary MCNAMARA. I said that if tomor- row the North Vietnamese pledge that they will do what we want them to do, we will withdraw our forces as we see evidence In panying the report on the bill before us. The debate thus far has not given these views the attention they deserve. In these additional views Congress- men LIPSCOMB and LAIRD and I point out the diminishing effectiveness of the ap- propriations system under the heavy- handed practices of the Department of Defense. - Within the last few years we have grown increasingly concerned as the De- fense Subcommittee and the Congress are relegated more and more to the role of rubberstamp in approving the dic- tates of the Department of Defense. The appearances of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, the Joint Chiefs of Staff and their backup witnesses, grow more perfunctory each year. The abuse of the "top secret" stamp to blank out politically sensitive portions of their testimony before the subcommittee is evermore in evidence. It has reached the point-where witnesses have in effect withheld their own views from the com- mittee unless pressed, and, when pressed, argue against their own position if it is contrary to top level Department of De- fense policy. We three minority members of the subcommittee feel that a blackout on much essential information was reached some time ago as far as the American public is concerned. It is approaching a critical point as far as the Defense Subcommittee is involved. I call to the attention of the House that there were only 2 days of hearings on the bill we will pass today. It is our strong conviction that insuffi- cient attention was paid tomaintaining sufficient forces to meet U.S. commit- ments in portions of the world other than Vietnam. We are convinced that de- fense needs have been underestimated in the 1967 budget now under considera- tion, just as they were underestimated last year, and that there will be supple- mental requests later this year similar to the one before us this afternoon. For those of you who have not had an opportunity to carefully read the addi- tional views in the report, let me quote from the summary: The growing frequency of reprograming actions Is of particular concern because it represents, in effect, a bypassing of Congress on matters that are often of critical concern. The financing of the war by supplemental demonstrates a growing lack of planning which could, if not altered, produce serious risks for the future security of the United States, and, indeed of the free world. The growing tendency on the part of com- mittees of Congress to consider grave mat- ters in perpetual haste can only insure a con- tinued and rapidly increasing loss of control by the Congress over executive decisions and that these funds would be required. I This committee has a vital role to play strongly urge unanimous and anticipate in insuring an adequate defense posture for quick approval by the House. Nearly the United States. That role cannot be dis- 300,000 of our American troops in the charged without full cooperation from the Far East are looking to us for prompt executive branch. support of their efforts to defeat Com- Nor will it be discharged properly and munist aggression. effectively until the Congress and its com- But, as a member of the Department mittees reassert their traditional powers. of Defense Appropriations Subcommit- I strongly subscribe to these senti- tee which took initial action on this sup- ments. plemental request, I would be remiss if Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield I did not call the attention of my col- to the gentleman from California [Mr. leagues to the additional views accom- CORMAN] such time as he may consume. - Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 19 66 Approved FR /~~MBDPgy@ 6R000400040012-1 5565 ~~~~~~/ ~ Mr. CORMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise In pursuance of that policy, massive Then there is the question of the con- In duct of t appropat of the supplemental defense n tions fromrCommunistconquess bWe blockade, qe war. uarantine, the bombing of appropriation for 1966. opportunity followed the same policy successfully in various targets. I am not a military Last November I had an a to visit Marine units in Vietnam. Much Lebanon. Soviet Russia eventually satis- strategist, but I do believe that the air than has of my time was spent with the 3d Marine fied itself that we would not permit fur- and sea power of the United States could ployed Division, S, the same division I served with ther expansion in beennthe mtoore i we can in the Second World War: East and turned its attentions elsewhere. Unfounded reports have been circu- The war in Korea was part of the same and should bring this conflict to a speedy lated concerning the adequacy of sup- pattern. Our resistance halted Commu- conclusion. Moreover, I believe that plies for our troops. I found that our nist expansion in that part of Asia. The great improvements can be made in the servicemen were well equipped with every Chinese have shown an appreciation of support of our troops. We can and necessary item for the conduct of their our firm intentions and our power with must make certain that they have every- operations. In fact, they are better respect to Formosa, and have refrained thing that is required for the success of equipped than we were in World War II. from attacking in that area even though their mission and for their personal The fact remains that the Marines are it must be the prize they desire above all safety and comfort insofar as either can responsible for the pacification and se- others. Now we are resisting the effort be provided under the conditions of war. curity of vast land areas in the vicinity to expand into southeast Asia. Many We have suffered many casualties in of Da Nang, Chu Lai, and Hue Phu Bel. people fear that we risk war with China South Vietnam. This heart-rending loss Their objectives cannot be achieved or that we are on a course that will lead can be justified only if we achieve the without more men and support. inevitably to such a war. In my opinion, objectives we have set. If aggression The funds we are asked to approve the lessons of history show that war with is rewarded in Vietnam the same tactic today will serve a vital function in sup- China would be far more likely if we will be tried elsewhere and the cost of plying more men, supplies and construc- permit them to succeed in their aggres- overcoming it may be far greater than tion in Vietnam. In addition, this ap- sion in Vietnam. If we stand firm in the price we are paying today. Nations .propriation will speed the activation of Vietnam, history leads me to believe that that seek peace at any price usually find the 5th Marine Division at Camp Pen- the Chinese in Asia, like the Russians in the price is a downpayment on a bigger dleton, Calif. This division, in turn, con- Europe, may turn from unrewarding ag- war. stitutes an essential support for our gression to more peaceful endeavors. i believe it is necessary that we pass Vietnamese efforts. Recent discussion has centered about this supplemental today. I would hope American and allied personnel in Viet- two questions. The first is: Who should that it would pass unanimously so that nam deserve our strongest backing. The participate in a peace conference? The we can demonstrate to the world the supplemental defense appropriation is second is: What should be the govern- solidarity of the representatives of the required if the United States is to main- ment of South Vietnam during and after people in the conflict in which we are tain our firm policy in resisting Corn- a conference? Related to these ques- now engaged. munist aggression. That firm policy is tions are various suggestions to submit There will be other supplementals in our best hope of achieving a negotiated the whole problem to the U.N. or to pro- the near future, not involving Vietnam, settlement. pose arbitration by the countries who support as I am support- Marine specific appropriations for the participated in the Geneva conferences. which ing this will one. not And it teems am m that Marine Corps are: $184,600,000 for per- In my opinion, these are artificial and tngs h a pAnd time to add a word sonnel, $102,600,000 for operation and academic questions. this is as proper the terrific burden we are maintenance and $516,600,000 for pro- The United States has made clear, time caution as the shoulders of. The in- to say that our Appropriations Commit- conference. We are ready to negotiate. terest on our national debt is costing tee has recommended the full amount We have asked the U.N. to help. We us almost $25,000 every minute. requested by the Department of Defense. have said that there will be no difficulty We cannot continue to build this great CORMAN asked and was given resented at a peace conference. This is public debt and avoid inflation, which permission to revise and extend his re- not an insurmountable problem. is not just threatening us, but which is marks.) The insurmountable problem is the actually here. It would seem to me self Ms. such BOWtime . as I may cons may cons I ume. yield my- fact that North Vietnam will not agree to that two courses lie ahead. Either we (Mr. BOW W asked and was given per- a peace conference. It will not agree cut down this excessive spending in many of the Great Society areas or we Mission to revise and extend his re- to arbitration. It will not agree to a may of the increase taxes. I shall not marks.) U.N. settlement of the dispute. North substantially spell out specific items time Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, many peo- Vietnam has said repeatedly that it will at ththis if not spell o eliminated tems pie ask why we are in South Vietnam. would recognize the Vietcong as the solwe whi e future consideration, should be delayed outh we agreed to fish help representative of South Vietnam and if at this period when we are engaged in the are people there o because Viet- the pn wof South Vietnam m establish we will withdraw our troops. These are a conflict such as the one in South Viet- until l North doingh conditions that North Vietnam insist nam. It is not difficult for my colleagues with new remaxrnation. kable kable This they h progress were with to know the areas where these cuts can Vietnam, in violation of the Geneva ac- upon before any conference, arbitration to made. National organized, ion armed, and directed Front-Vietcong- other discussion can begin. North Vietnam ithe un- It would also seem to me, Mr. Chair- come when a in a al Liberation r V and aggress ion campaign of terror a a thhe apeople io of and its allies including the United States. careful review eshtime ould be made as to the naWe communism are a t people It is fruitless for us to have a domestic extent of our commitments in Europe helping go South h South Vietnam. o impose Vietnam to resist that aggression. It is argument over this issue. Our Govern- and careful consideration should be fruitless to debate now whether or not ment has explored and continued to ex- given to the withdrawal from Europe of we should have undertaken this course. plore every possible avenue for settling many of our troops. If President de We did so. If we fail to honor our pres- the conflict. North Vietnam is not will- Gaulle seems so confident that NATO is ent commitments, we will encourage sim- ing? no longer necessary, then it would seem liar Communist aggression elsewhere. The second question, What shall be to me that it is time that we bring many Vietnam is the latest of many efforts the government of South Vietnam during of our forces and their dependents now by the Communist nations to expand and after a conference? is the central living abroad home. This not only would their territory, and it must be viewed in issue of the conflict. South Vietnam is reduce these great expenditures, but its proper historical perspective. a nation recognized by 70 other nations would also help solve our balance-of- In 1947 President Truman enunciated of the world. We cannot and do not payments problem. the Truman doctrine as follows: wish to impose a government on this na- We cannot and should not continue I believe that it must be the policy of the tion and we are fighting to prevent the down the road we have been traveling United States to support free peoples who Communists from doing so. We have these many months and years, but we are resisting attempted subjugation by said that we will abide by the results of fiscal again responsibility embark if upon ara e rotra dof armed minorities, or by outside pressure. a free election. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 Approved For Re /09 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5566 M~( SI6 2NAL RECORD - HOUSE March 15, 1966 stroy at home that which we are fighting have been. But be that as it may, with in the picture that it would be almost im- to preserve in southeast Asia. the problems getting more and more possible for anyone to prognosticate what Now, Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes critical in Vietnam and elsewhere, it is is going to happen 6 months, a year, or to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. my strong belief that the Commander in 2 years from now In that part of the GERALD R. FORD], our distinguished mi- Chief should to the maximum degree fol- world. nority leader. low the recommendations of the Joint I think the gentleman would agree (Mr. GERALD R. FORD asked and Chiefs under the leadership of our able with me that it would be the part of was given permission to revise and ex- Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General wisdom to base estimates of needed ex- tend his remarks.) Wheeler. penditures on facts that are known, or Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chair- Mr. Chairman, it seems at the present reasonably known and reasonably pro- man, at the outset I would like to com- that our Nation is following a course of jected, rather than simply upon un- pliment the Committee on Appropria- action of strength against Communist reviewed future possible requirements tions and its various subcommittees that aggression in southeast Asia. It appears that are-not within the reasonable knowl- have had jurisdiction over the consid- to me our Nation is meeting the chal- edge of those who are making the esti- eration of this bill. lenge of communism in South Vietnam. mates. I am sure the gentleman does not Mr. Chairman, I believe that the full This legislation we have before us today want the Congress to make available for committee and the subcommittee have will give substance to the ability of our military spending huge and unreviewed done a first-class job in responding to troops and our military leaders to meet sums of money. the request of the executive branch of this challenge. The gentleman will recall that during the Government. Also I wish to com- Mr. Chairman, the approval of this the Korean war defense appropriations pliment those three Members of the mi- legislation today will back up the policy, increased $35 billion in 1 year, durable nority who did write excellent minority the posture, and the position that I goods manufacturing industries' volume views setting forth the minority's view- think our Government is taking in Viet- of unfilled orders increased by $34 bil- point on certan aspects of defense policy nam today. It may not be enough and lion in 1 year, and wholesale prices sky- and the carrying out of the programs there may be more required in the rocketed by 11.4 percent between 1950 thereunder. months ahead. But this is a tangible and 1951. Mr. Chairman, I believe the record is way for every one of us to indicate our Mr. GERALD R. FORD. In response clear that the Department of Defense in support for what appears to be our Na- to the observations of my good friend, the past year has been uncertain as to tion's policy at the moment. the able majority leader, I do not believe what its, needs were. This uncertainty It is crystal clear to me that anyone that we can compare the circumstances has resulted in their underestimating who votes for this legislation is endors- of June 1950 with the circumstances of the expenditures which have developed Ing the policy currently being executed the last 6 or 12 months. In 1950, as I in the prosecution of the conflict in by the Commander in Chief. recall, we had had submitted to us a Vietnam. Let me add this postscript. When military budget for $13 billion, and all of This underestimating of expenditures, the roll is called today-and I trust there a sudden, in late June of 1950, we were Mr. Chairman, has to a substantial de- will be a unanimous vote for this legis- faced with a very grave and critical mili- gree created some of our economic prob- lation-I do hope there will not be quali- tary situation in Korea. Almost over leans which we are facing domestically fying statements made outside of the night the Congress, as I recall, went from today. The uncertainty as to the course Chamber. I hope there will not be peti- the budget that had been submitted by of the war and our policy and the under- tions signed which would, in effect, with- the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Johnson, estimation of expenditures by the De- draw the kind of support that an "aye" of $13 billion, to a military budget of fense Department has created to a very vote gives to the position, the posture, $70 to $80 billion. significant degree the inflationary pres- and the policy that I think our Nation Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will sures which we face in the United States has and ought to have in this crisis. the gentleman yield further? at the present time. I think the President, if he is to follow Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield. I believe that the Department of De- this course of action, must have our sup- Mr. ALBERT. I agree with what the fense could have done a better job in the port in its execution, in its Imple- gentleman is saying. The circum- last 12 months in forecasting what their mentation, and in the funding require- stances are certainly different. But the expenditures would be. It is my hope ments to carry out that policy. effects of overfunding and overappro- that their forecast of expenditures for People cannot vote "aye" today and priating are not different; and that is the next 12 months are more accurate. then issue a statement tomorrow with- the point I am trying to make. Requests If these estimates are not more accurate, drawing support. An "aye" vote means for appropriations should be based on we will be faced with an even more.seri- just one thing-that the elected Com- careful consideration of needs and re- ous inflationary problem than we have on mander in Chief of our country, whether sources. Appropriations should be re- our doorstep at the present time. we voted for him or not, will have $13 quested when needs are known and not Mr. Chairman, this' country has had billion to use for the purpose of support- when we do not know how much might during my time here in the Congress Ing a position of firmness against Com- be needed. It is not the part of wisdom outstanding men on the Joint Chiefs of munist aggression. to overappropriate and to permit exces- Staff. It has been my privilege over the If more is needed, this House and the sive funding. years to know many of them intimately. other Chamber will make it available. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Let me re- I was annually privileged from 1953 Mr. Chairman, I trust that the vote spond and then I will yield to my friend through 1964 to hear the testimony of today will be unanimous. from Wisconsin. It does not seem to me the able members of the Joint Chiefs Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the that the Congress, in light of the fact for a period of 12 years. I think this gentleman yield? that we have had three supplemental country is blessed that men of their Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I yield to the bills, and in light of the probability that caliber and their experience are giving the distinguished majority leader. we are going to have another supple- us the kind of military advice and leader- Mr. ALBERT. Mr. Chairman, of mental in the next month or so, has ship that is so essential in the crisis we course, with most of what the 'distin- overappropriated. It hardly seems fair face at the present time. It is my most guished minority leader has said I am to say that we have overappropriated. sincere hope that the Commander in certainly in agree-event, particularly with Mr. ALBERT. I am not saying that Chief, who was elected by the American respect to the last part of his fine speech. we have overappropriated. I am merely people, will follow the wise and sound I believe the gentleman has said that advising that it would not be the part of recommendations of these men who over the Defense Department has been uncer- wisdom to do so. I am trying to defend the years have dedicated their lives to tain as to what its requirements are. I the position which the administration giving this country the kind of military would like to comment briefly on that has taken. I think Its course under the strength and leadership that we need in one statement. Of course, there has facts known at the time requests were this crucial hour. been an element of uncertainty In what made has been sound. At times in past months I have felt the problem was going; to be in Vietnam, Mr. GERALD R. FORD. There Is that our military leaders' advice has not and there is still that element of uncer- quite a difference, as the gentleman been followed to the degree that it should tainty. There are so many possibilities knows, between making obligation au- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDPBg77g~pp4446R000400040012-1 March 15, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE 5567 thority available and actual expendi- ular and stable government in South my request to pay this money to the right tures. Vietnam. For at least 11 of those 12 men. Our current course of action will Mr. ALBERT: Yes, that is true. years they, and we, have failed. not produce the result we seek unless we Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I do not As a result, today our youth are slog- rebalance our efforts. believe that the Defense Department has ging through the mud in South Vietnam, Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield asked for an adequate amount of obliga- killing-and dying-in order to preserve myself 2 minutes. tion authority. for this Nation a longer time, the oppor- Mr. Chairman, there are certain lan- Mr. ALBERT. I think that is a ques- tunity, the possibility to try once again. guage provisions in the legislation be- tion of judgment. For that is all our soldiers can accom- fore us, and I would call your attention Mr. GERALD R. FORD. And for this plish. That is all this apropriation can specifically to section 102. The version reason, they have had to come back peri- accomplish-to gain time and to hold of the bill before us contains the lan- odically for their various supplementals. open an opportunity. guage proposed by the President in his But, leaving that aside, even with the We owe these brave and uncomplain- budget estimate. However, the confer- obligation authority they had available ing men and the Vietnamese people on ence version of the bill authorizing our and that which they anticipated the whose land they fight-the greatest pos- military procurement items, and so forth, Congress would give them, they have sible effort on our part to form, to build, provided language somewhat different not accurately forecast their expendi- to secure a government in South Viet- than that which had been proposed. tures. Military expenditures which have nam which is popular enough to quell the I shall offer an amendment to make been underestimated have created or conflict, and to build an economy there the language in this bill comport not to caused the serious inflation to a sub- which is productive enough to support the budget language, but to the language stantial degree in the circumstances its peoples. which has been agreed to and which, I of our economy today. Hundreds of American civilians have understand, has become the law. I shall Mr. ALBERT. Of course they have committed their energies, some even offer an amendment which will strength- not always accurately forecast what was their lives, in South Vietnam in the past en the position of the Congress insofar going to happen. Had they done that, months, to build the base and structure as the control of these funds is con- they undoubtedly would have asked for of social and economic and political life cerned. It will be submitted, of course, exactly what they needed, which would needed in that land in order that a gov- during the reading of the bill. be ideal. Again, however, I commend ernment, in those famous words, "of the Mr. Chairman, I now ask that the the gentleman on the balance of his people, by the people, and for the people" Clerk read. remarks. can be created and then prevail. Mr. SHRIVER. Mr. Chairman, I in- Mr. GERALD R. FORD. I appreciate Thousands of American troops are tend to support the Department of De- the kind comments made by the gentle- needed there now, to provide protection fense supplemental appropriation for man from Oklahoma on other portions for the harassed and fearful Vietnamese fiscal year 1966 in the amount of of my remarks. As he well knows, people villagers and farmers.' $13,135,719,000. probably far wiser than we and more But can only a few hundred civilians My support is based upon the neces- knowledgeable than we on these intri- complete this enormous task: the recon- sity and the awareness that these funds cate problems of the economy and in- struction of a society, in a reasonable must be provided to back up our Nation's flation have honorably disagreed. So time, so that the opportunity for which commitment of men and material in on this issue I do not mind disagreeing our 220,000 soldiers fight is not simply Vietnam. In recent days we have learned with my friend from Oklahoma. I am wasted? Are we not failing our troops that another 20,000 American military delighted that on the other areas there men have been committed to Vietnam tragically, by hoping that this small band which will bring our total forces there is a high degree of unanimity on the of only a few hundred can untangle the to approximately 235,000 in the near position of our country and the policy inheritance of centuries of misrule? future. we ought to follow. Our record for the past 12 years is not Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield There is included in this supplemental 1 minute to the gentleman from Alabama impressive. The reasons are many. But appropriations bill $375 million in for- [Mr. GEORGE W. ANDREWS]. one stands out. eign military assistance funds and $315 Mr. GEORGE W. ANDREWS. Mr. In earlier years it was difficult for us million for economic assistance to South Chairman, as a member of this subcom- to accept the necessity for military in- Vietnam, Thailand, Laos, and the mittee, I support this bill. tervention in South Vietnam. Today, It Dominican Republic. Another $100 mil- There has been a lot of argument about remains difficult for us to accept that we lion is allocated to the contingency fund. how we got into Vietnam and whether must participate and intervene far more The minority members of the Defense or not we should be there, and so on. aggressively, not only in the economic, Appropriations Subcommittee have ex- In my opinion such arguments are aca- but also In the social and political fields. pressed a deep concern, which I share, demic. The fact remains that our peo- If we are not prepared to do this, then about "the growing disregard evidenced ple are committed in South Vietnam to- we should get out of South Vietnam at on the part of the executive branch day, our men are being wounded and once. Yet, while many of our citizens toward the appropriations process." killed in South Vietnam, our flag is being strongly support the conscription of our They cited the fact that a massive $12.3 fired upon in South Vietnam. It be- young men to service with gun and flame- T on- bi The supplemental ited thfact request a con3 hooves Americans to support those men thrower, sadly enough we find very few billion e short span of 2 days c by In South Vietnam all the way, and that of those citizens willing to go to South the Defense Aor span Subcom- is all this bill does. It provides the tools Vietnam to serve in a civilian capacity: mittee. of war for our men in the hope-in the to rebuild and build anew. prayerful hope-Mr. Chairman, that this The Agency for International Develop- It Foreign should ld a also lso be be S pointed out ubcommittee, that the he war can soon be terminated. ment needs men in Vietnam. The Inter- Foreign pr day tt e, on ec held I hope that there Is not a single vote national Voluntary Services, a nongov- which I tserve, onomic but and 1 mditar hear- assist- against this bill, on a rollcall, so that we ernmental organization similar to the ings on requests contained in this byl. let the world know that this Congress Peace Corps, needs men for Vietnam. ante In the area o tained nit the admin~ is supporting our fighting men in South I ask that all of us here, and the lead- Vietnam. ers in our administration, urgently em- istration has promised new directions of Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I yield phasize the great and immediate need of this massive assistance program. Such 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michi- this Nation for courageous men and redirection and reevaluation of the pro- gan [Mr. VIVIAN]. women to serve in these absolutely essen- gram should be undertaken deliberately (Mr. VIVIAN asked and was given per- tial roles. I am certain that our citizens and not through deficiency fund requests. misson to revise and extend his remarks.) desire to live some day in peace, as In this supplemental request there are Mr. VIVIAN. Mr. Chairman, for the brothers, with the peoples in Asia. certain programs which are worthy of past 12 years this Nation has had the I will support this appropriation of our support. One of these is civil police opportunity to aid in establishing a pop- money, but I ask others here to support programs in Thailand and Vietnam. No. 45-5 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5568 Approved for Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 - CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 15, 1966 A substantial amount of the supple- mental request for Thailand will go for this police program including such equip- ment as radios and transmitters. It is my understanding that approximately $27 million will be allocated for public safety and police in Vietnam. On the recent trip which I made with the distinguished chairman of the For- eign Operations Appropriations Subcom- mittee [Mr. PASSMANl, I had the oppor- tunity of seeing firsthand the police training program in Thailand. I was impressed by the work of Mr. Jeter L. Williamson, the Chief of the Public Safe- ty Division of our U.S. Operations Mis- sion in Thailand and of other American experts assisting the Thais in this impor- tant.program. This is a practical kind of program conducted by the United States to help the Government of Thai- land increase the security of its border area and rapidly develop the counter- insurgency capability of the Thai civil police. This same kind of program is being conducted in Vietnam and I was advised that it will cover 72,000 men there. There are questions which await an- swers as we consider this further funding to support the American commitment in Vietnam. Why does not the administration more aggressively pursue necessary ef- forts to bring about a halt to free world shipping to North Vietnam? When I questioned the Administrator of the Agency for International Develop- ment last month regarding this problem, he advised me, and I quote from the hearings: Last November, the only ships that called at North Vietnam outside of the Communist bloc countries were several flying the British flag but actually based in Hong Kong. We are not, of course, providing any U.S. assist- ance to Britain. Mr. Chairman, the American people are disturbed, as am I, by the continuing trade by our allies with North Vietnam when American lives are being lost in far- off Vietnam. The American people are puzzled by administration policy which calls for in- stant cooperation with Great Britain in its difficulties with Rhodesia; but deals softly with the British regarding their trade with North Vietnam. Last year I made a motion at the time we had the conference report on foreign aid appropriations before the House to stop aid to the countries shipping mate- rials to North Vietnam. That motion was defeated, and the President retained authority to use his discretion in giving such aid. In recent months, there has been legislation introduced to bar coun- tries serving North Vietnam from send- ing their ships to U.S. ports. The admin- istration has blacklisted certain ships from carrying Government-financed cargoes; but this action does not go far enough. Another question which many Ameri- cans are asking: What is being done to secure the cooperation and participation of our allies in the Vietnam conflict? The American people have poured bil- lions of dollars into aiding our European allies, both militarily and economically, since World War II. Now that the United States has gone to the aid of South Vietnam, it is obvious that the re- sponse for meaningful assistance from our allies has not been deafening. We will, however, examine very care- fully and with interest the administra- tion's 1967 foreign aid budgets for respective countries around the world. We will keep in mind the 235,000 Ameri- cans who are on the frontlines fighting communism in southeast Asia, and in the political vernacular, we will ask the administration spokesmen: "What have these countries we are aiding done for us lately?" Mr. EDWARDS of California. Mr. Chairman, I believe my position is clear on our commitment in southeast Asia. I have been opposed to our military policy in Vietnam. I am strongly op- posed to escalation of the war, and I am distressed by the deterioration of our foreign and domestic policies which has been brought on by our Vietnam opera- tions. I will vote for H.R. 13546, the supple- mental southeast Asia appropriation measure before this House today. I will do so because I feel it is unwise to decide policy issues through the appropriations process. Itis the job of the authorizing committees to debate policy matters. It is the job of the Appropriations Com- mittees to oversee the administration of duly authorized funds. A year ago, I opposed the $700 million supplemental appropriation for Viet- nam. I oppose that appropriation be- cause it was used only as a ruse to obtain approval of administration policy in Vietnam. The $13.1 billion appropria- tion before us today-19 times as much money as we approved on May 5, 1965- has been duly authorized. My policy reservations have been stated earlier. Today I can but remind my colleagues of them. My vote for this appropriation means two things. It does not alone mean that I do not believe it is proper to express my policy preferences in an appropri- ations measure. It also means that an appropriations measure should not be used by anyone else to express their pol- icy preferences. My vote today is not an endorsement of our past policy in Vietnam. It is not an endorsement of our future policy in Vietnam. It is not an endorsement of miltiary escalation. It is not an endorsement of the mining of Haiphong Harbor. And, it is not an endorsement of any increase in troop commitments. It is merely a certifica- tion of prior House action on authoriza- tion measures. In supporting this measure and dis- cussing it with my colleagues in the House today, I am compelled to make certain observations about its contents. In voting $13.1 billion today, we are doing many things, and must be aware of them. We are appropriating $275 million for economic assistance programs within Vietnam. However, we are in this same bill appropriating $742.6 million for mil- itary construction within Vietnam alone. Thus we will spend in the com- ing fiscal year 270 percent more money for military construction than for socio- economic reconstruction. And, we are spending $3.2 billion for aircraft pro- curement and $2.1 billion for procure- ment of munitions and associated equip- ment. All of this money, as the report of our able Committee on Appropria- tions states, is "the amount of the budget estimates for the military, military as- sistance, and economic assistance pro- grams of the Government directly re- lated to operations in southeast Asia." Thus, in the coming fiscal year, our country will spend $1.1 billion to build in Vietnam, and $5.3 billion for the air- craft and munitions which will destroy the resources of Vietnam. As I told this House only 13 days ago, we will continue to see destruction outpacing develop- ment. We will continue to see our mili- tary commitment make a mockery of our calls for economic development; for a policy of millions for development and billions for destruction cannot succeed. My colleagues should also be aware that, despite the opening disclaimer of the Appropriations Committee report, not all the money in H.R. 13546 is going to programs related to southeast Asia. Twenty-five million dollars is going to the Dominican Republic in the form of economic aid. Finally, we should be aware that the $375 million appropriated for foreign military assistance will, according to the committee report, "be recorded on the books of the military assistance program and paid to the applicable procurement appropriation accounts of the military services, to reimburse those accounts for the value of goods already delivered to military assistance recipients." A minority of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee noted that this "was given scant attention by this committee." I would only note that in our debates over the misuse of foreign military aid, we should not allow such aid to be awarded through the military appropriation proper. Foreign military aid is a sepa- rate issue with distinct problems, and should be considered separately. Mr. CLEVELAND. Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for this massive, supplemental defense appropriation bill. The Nation is engaged in a critical war and our mili- tary efforts must be fully supported. Nevertheless, I am deeply concerned about the manner in which this legisla- tion is being handled. We are here act- ing on a bill appropriating $12,345,719,- 000 for the military functions of the Department of Defense, $375 million for the President to allot in military assist- ance, and $415 minion for him to allo- cate in economic assistance. This vast total is being handled in a supplemental appropriation bill on which the Appropriation Committee held only 2 days of hearings. In that time, of course, only the most cursory considera- tion could be given. In effect, Congress is unable to perform its constitutional task of carefully scrutinizing the admin- istration's requests and weighing them in detail. In view of this haste, one must ques- tion the wisdom and foresight of a gov- ernment which, Just a few months ago, did not conceive of these enormous extra Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 Approved. For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE expenses, reduced taxes and said we could afford them but now has to raise them and seek from Congress an addi- tional $13 plus billion. Either the Government has not been honest in telling us what the war in Viet- nam was going to cost or its planning has been extremely bad. One does not wish to think that the Government does not know what it is doing nor does one wish to think that it is deliberately concealing facts from the public. It is hard, however, to avoid reaching either one conclusion or the other or, indeed, both. Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, this is the first supplemental defense appropriation bill in this session for the prosecution of the war in Vietnam. It embodies the $4.8 billion which the House authorized on March 1. When the $4.8 billion authorization bill was before'the House, I pointed out that a basic issue of policy was involved. It was, I said, a bill to finance escalation, not to finance an existing policy. I spelled out in my speech on March 1 my reasons for opposing what I called a policy of mindful escalation and my view that a policy of stabilization should be pursued. What I said then applies today. Mr. Chairman, the heart of this ap- propriations bill is the $4.8 billion which was authorized on March 1. In effect, the appropriation contains an escalation rider. It is not simply an appropriation to support the present effort in Vietnam. The funds are intended to escalate the war. As the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON], said earlier this afternoon that "the war will escalate and grow in intensity." This is not simply an appropriation to provide supplies and equipment to the courageous American fighting men who are engaged in combat. If that were the purpose, there would be no argument. As long as they are committed to battle, our dedicated forces must be adequately equipped, supplied, and protected in carrying out assigned missions. The real issue is the policy question embedded in the authorization and now in the appropriation. In my speech on the supplemental de- fense authorization on March 1, I dis- cussed what I understood to be the im- plications of our vote. I said then that a debate was raging between those who believe that we should stabilize the war and those who believe that we should escalate it mindfully. That debate still continues. The only opportunity the House has to express its views on foreign policy is when we are asked to authorize or ap- propriate funds. If we are to participate in this debate on Vietnam policy, we must do so this afternoon. An affirmative vote, no mater how individual Members of the House may regard it, will be in- terpreted by the administration and the public as a full endorsement of adminis- tration policy. A vote for this bill is a vote for the escalation rider as well. My vote this afternoon is not an easy one to cast. My thoughts are very much with the gallant American fighting men in Vietnam. They should not be denied anything they need. I too fought in a jungle war in the Pacific some 20 years ago. However, the administration has asked us to appropriate funds to allow the President to escalate the war. Once again the crucial question is not whether we will support the men in the field, but whether we will give the President the funds to commit hundreds of thousands of additional young men to this war on the Asian mainland. As the Vietnam war stands today, this I am unwilling to do. Mr. Chairman, instead of pursuing a policy of extended escalation leading to an unlimited war in an "open-ended" military situation, as Senator MANS- FIELD's report described it, the adminis- tration in a stabilized situation should explore realistic alternatives to escala- tion. As I have said so often, the con- flict in Vietnam is not susceptible to a wholly military solution. It must be re- solved politically and diplomatically. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read the bill for amendment. The Clerk read as follows: ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE Supporting assistance For an additional amount for "Supporting assistance", $315,000,000. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. GROSS asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, I rise at this time to ask a question or two con- cerning the emergency fund of $200 mil- lion. Is this in the nature of a blank check to the Department of Defense or to the Executive, or what is it? Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, is the gentleman talking about the funds for military con- struction or the contingency fund? Mr. GROSS. I am talking about the language as shown in the report on page 12-Secretary of Defense, $200 million for an emergency fund. Mr.MAHON. This is military con- struction. As the gentleman knows, this bill contains $1 billion, plus, for military construction, most of which is in Viet- nam. The course of the war is rather unpredictable. This is the sum of money made available in order to meet the situ- ations as they may arise. Mr. GROSS. Then, this is for the spe- cific purpose of construction? Mr. MAHON. Yes. Mr. GROSS. Now, how about the $100 million for the contingency fund? This seems to be a blank check to the Presi- dent. I was disappointed in reading the hear- ings of the gentleman's committee on this bill in that there was no indication as to how this money is to be expended. Mr. MAHON. If the gentleman will yield further, it is a contingency fund. It is impossible to predict how a contin- gency fund will be used. It may all be used in Vietnam and some of it might be used in Africa. It might be used else- where. However, it is available to pro- tect the interest of the United States in this area of activity. 5569 I do not believe anyone can tell us how it might be used. I wish it would not be necessary to use it at all. Mr. GROSS. The gentleman from Texas suggested another question when he said "Africa." Does the gentleman have any idea as to how much money has been expended from the contingency fund for the pur- pose of joining with the British in the outrageous boycott of Rhodesia-in other words, using contingency funds to pay for the airlifting of oil and gasoline into Zambia, which has been cut off from its normal supply through Rho- desia? Can the gentleman from Texas bring us up to date on how many millions have been expended up to this point in financ- ing the British boycott? Mr. MAHON. If the gentleman will yield further, I am not able myself to give the gentleman the answer as to what funds may have been expended in connection with this problem. Mr. GROSS. Does the gentleman have any part of the fear that I have that through this action in which we are presently engaged-this boycott of a friendly government-we may be com- mitting ourselves to another war, this time on the continent of Africa? Mr. MAHON. I do not have any fear that we are committing ourselves to an- other war. It may be that not all of us fully support the actions with respect to Rhodesia, but this is one of the facets of our foreign policy, on which people may differ. However, the purpose of this fund is certainly not primarily for use in Africa, but to be available if necessary principally for activities associated with the war in Vietnam. Theoretically, of course, it could be used in other places. Mr. GROSS. Well, the contingency fund voted for the President is being used for this purpose. My question went to how much has been used and how deeply are we being committed. The Queen of England served notice as late as last week that if necessary the British would send troops to invade Rhodesia, and already we are hearing talk of the same tactics being applied to the Re- public of South Africa. Just how deeply we are being commit- ted is a grave question that should be of concern to every American. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield further, the gentle- man from Iowa is himself an important member of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and I assume he is familiar with this matter and could possibly give a better answer to his own question than I could. Mr. GROSS. I will say to the gentle- man that the Foreign Affairs Committee has just started hearings on the regular authorization bill today, and it will be my purpose to try to get full information. It is not always easy to obtain informa- tion, as the gentleman from Texas well knows, from certain individuals in this Government. I thought, perhaps, the gentleman from Texas and his committee had de- veloped information that I did not find in the hearings. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5570 Approved For R 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 WRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE March 15, 1966 Mr. MAHON. I know of no plan to use these funds for this purpose. Mr. GROSS. I thank the gentleman. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: SEc. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of Defense during the fiscal years 1966 and 1967 shall be available to support Vietnamese and other Free World Forces in Vietnam and for related costs on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Defense may determine: Provided, That unexpended balances, as determined by this Secretary of Defense, of funds heretofore allocated or transferred by the President to the Secretary of Defense for military assist- ance to support Vietnamese and other Free World Forces in Vietnam shall be trans- ferred to any appropriation available to the Department of Defense for military func- tions (including construction), to be merged with and to be available for the same pur- poses and for the same time period as the appropriation to which transferred. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I have several amendments to section 102 at the desk and I ask unanimous consent that they may be considered as one amend- ment. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MAHON Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. MAHON: On page 8, line 3, insert "(a)" immediately after Sec. 102.". On page 8 line 5 insert "for their stated purposes" immediately after "available". On page 8, after line 16, insert the follow- ing: "(b) Within thirty days after the end of each quarter, the Secretary of Defense shall render to the Committees on Armed Serv- ices and Appropriations of the House of Rep- resentatives and the Senate a report with respect to the estimated value by purpose, by country, of support furnished from such ap- propriations". The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON] is recognized. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, the pur- pose of this amendment is to make the language of the bill compatible with the language in the authorization bill which I understand was signed into law today. It undertakes to improve in a measure the actual wording of the authorization. It tightens up and make a little clearer the intent of the Congress with respect to this matter. The language in section 102 as reported reads: SEC. 102. Appropriations available to the Department of Defense during the fiscal years 1966 and 1967 shall be available to sup- port Vietnamese and other free world forces in Vietnam and for related costs on such terms and conditions as the Sec- retary of Defense may determine: Provided, That unexpended balances, as determined by the Secretary of Defense, of funds here- tofore allocated or transferred by the Presi- dent to the Secretary of Defense for mill- When the amendment is agreed to, it will read: SEc. 102. (a) Appropriations available to the Department of Defense during the fiscal years 1966 and 1967 shall be available for their stated purposes to support Vietnamese and other free world forces in Vietnam and for related costs on such terms and conditions as the Secretary of Defense may determine: Provided, That unexpended balances, as de- termined by the Secretary of Defense, of funds heretofore allocated or transferred by the President to the Secretary of Defense for military assistance to support Vietnamese and other free world forces in Vietnam shall be transferred to any appropriation available to the Department of Defense for military functions (including construction), to be merged with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriation to which transferred. (b) Within thirty days after the end of each quarter, the Secretary of Defense shall render to the Committee on Armed Serv- ices and Appropriations of the Senate and House of Representatives a report with re- spect to the estimated value by purpose, by country, of support furnished from ap- propriations authorized to be made under this subsection. The point is to require reports to the Congress, through the appropriate com- mittees, within 30 days after the end of each quarter, with respect to the esti- mated value by purpose and by country of support furnished from these appro- priations. The basic section 102 provides that funds which would otherwise be labeled "Military Assistance" may be spent as direct military funds. To some extent, in the future, comparability of funding levels will thus be distorted for both reg- ular military functions and military as- sistance. It is the purpose of this amend- ment to require that Congress be in- formed of the best estimates of the uti- lization of these funds. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle- man. Mr. GROSS. The purpose of section 102, and I wonder if the gentleman agrees to this, is to provide that these funds are to be expended for the purpose for which the bill and the Congress intends that they shall be spent; is that correct? Mr. MAHON. That is correct. Mr. GROSS. The gentleman used the words "stated purpose." Mr. MAHON. Yes, for stated purposes such as procurement-providing certain funds for procurement-or for person- nel-and otherwise to support our allies including the Vietnamese. The Viet- namese have'about 850,000 men, includ- ing local police forces, under arms. This language is designed to enable our Gov- ernment to support appropriately the efforts of those who :fight with us. Mr. GROSS. And that is, in Vietnam? Mr. MAHON. In Vietnam-yes, of course. tary assistance to support Vietnamese and Mr. GROSS. That is the intent? other free world forces in Vietnam shall Mr. MAHON. Yes, that is the intent. be transferred to any appropriation-available Mr. GROSS. The intent is to support functions the Department of Defense for military the forces-whatever they may be-there functions (including construction), to be merged with and to be available for the same are too few there--but to support the purposes and for the same time period as forces in Vietnam and not -somewhere the appropriation to which transferred, else in the world? Mr. MAHON. That is certainly the in- tent of this amendment. Mr. RUMSFELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle- man. Mr. RUMSFELD. Did the gentleman say that the reports were to come di- rectly to the Committees on Armed Serv- ices and Appropriations in the House and in the Senate? Mr. MAHON. That is with reference to the funds that are used for this pur- pose under the provisions of section 102. Mr. RUMSFELD. I do not intend to raise the point, but I believe this would be subject to a point of order and is a violation of rule 40 of the House of Rep- resentatives which requires reports to come to the Speaker and to the House as a whole rather than to a specific com- mittee. It seems to me the reports should come to the House of Representa- tives and to the Senate, and to the ex- tent that they go directly to a committee and bypass the membership as a whole that the prerogatives of the Speaker of the House and of the membership as a whole are set aside. I think it is. an important point although, as I say to the gentleman, I am not going to raise the point of order. But I would hope that the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Armed Services would bring their bills in, when they call for re- ports, with the reports to come to the Speaker and to the President pro tem- pore of the Senate rather than going di- rectly to a committee. Mr. MAHON. I think the gentleman has made a good point. But, of course, anything that is made available to the committees is made available to the Speaker and to the Congress. What we are doing here is to tie it in with the au- thorization language which has already been included in the law and which is the basis for the language in the amendment. Mr. -RUMSFELD. I do not quarrel with the intent of the amendment. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentle- man from California. Mr. LIPSCOMB. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas has talked this over at great length with the minority. We certainly agree as to the necessity for this amendment and heartily sup- port it. The language of section 102 as pres- ently contained in H.R. 13546 can readily be interpreted to give extremely wide latitude to the Secretary of Defense. The provision relates to military assist- ance type funds. But within the context of military assistance the present lan- guage could be interpreted to permit the merger of unexpended balances of fiscal year 1966 and prior year military assist- ance funds and future funds in fiscal year 1967 for South Vietnam with the accounts for military functions to be mingled between purposes. In other words the present wording of the bill was susceptible of being interpreted as unlimited transfer authority. This provision is required because there is now no authority to use funds Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 1966 Approved FCORlftyS?Iffly/2 EE&FP6 ff6R000400040012-1 appropriated to the Department of De- fense for any purpose other than support of U.S. forces. Military assistance funds are now appropriated to the President and allocated to the Department of De- fense. The proposed amendment does not re- ject the request for authority to merge military assistance for South Vietnam with military functions but adds limiting language to that authority in two re- spects. First. It limits the transfer of author- ity to the extent that Department of Defense appropriations for a particular purpose must be kept within that pur- pose. For example, personnel funds would be used for personnel, operation and maintenance for operation and maintenance, procurement for procure- ment, and so forth. This limitation is provided by the addition of the words, "for their stated purposes." Second. The amendment adds a new subsection intended to assure that the Congress be kept informed on a timely basis of the use of these funds that may be made available for the support of the South Vietnamese and other free world forces under the authority granted in section 102. The amendment also states that the information be broken down by purpose and country in order to insure that the intent now expressed in section (a) be adhered to, and in the form that Congress will have the capability to over- see that it is. There is no intent to create any con- dition that will prevent our troops and the troops of the free world that are assisting us, from acquiring the neces- sary equipment and funds in a timely manner. This amendment will not jeop- ardize this process in the least. Its pur- pose is to make sure that congressional control is not diluted. The conditions as proposed in the amendment are that these fiscal transactions not violate the under consideration the bill (H.R. 13546) making supplemental appropriations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1966, and for other purposes, had directed him to report the bill back to the House with an amendment with the recommendation that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, do pass. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous' question is or- dered. There was no objection. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the amendment. The amendment was agreed to. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was read the third time. The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays. The yeas and nays were ordered. The question was taken; and there were-yeas 389, nays 3, not voting 39, as follows : [Roll No. 381 YEAS-389 Abbitt Cleveland Fulton, Tenn. Abernethy Clevenger Garmatz Adams Cohelan Gathings Addabbo Colmer Gettys Albert Conable Giaimo Anderson, Ill. Conte Gibbons Anderson Cooley Gilbert Tenn. Corbett Gilligan Andrews, Lerman Gonzalez George W. Graley Grabowski Andrews, Cramer Gray Glenn Culver Green, Oreg. Andrews, Cunningham Green, Pa. N. Dak. Curtin Greigg Annunzio Curtis Grider Arends Griffin Ashbrook Dague Griffiths Ashley Daniels Gross Ashmore Davis, Wis. Grover Aspinall Dawson Gubser Ayres de ]a Garza Gurney Bandstra Delaney Hagan, Ga. Barrett Dent Haley Bates Denton Hall Battin Derwinski Halpern Bekworth Dikinson Hamilton Belcher Diggs Hanley Bennett Dingell Hanna Berry Dole Hansen, Idaho ' Betts Donohue Iowa Hansen, Bingham Dorn Hansen, Wash. Blatnik Dow Hardy Boggs Dulski Harsha Boland Duncan, Oreg. Harvey, Mich. Bolton Duncan, Tenn. Hathaway Bow Dwyer Hawkins Brademas Dyad Hays Bray Edmondson Hebert Brooks Edwards, Ala. Hechler Broomfield Edwards, Calif. Helstoski Ohio Brown Edwards, La. Henderson , Broyhill, N.C. Erlenborn Herlong Broyhill, Va. Evans, Colo. Hicks Buchanan Everett Holifleld Burke Evans, Tenn. Holland Burleson Fallon Horton Burton, Utah Farbstein Hosmer Byrne, Pa. Farnsley Howard Byrnes, Wis. Farnum Hull Cabell Fascell Hungate Cahill Felghan Huot Callan Findley Hutchinson Callaway Fino Ichord Cameron Flood Irwin Carey Flynt Jacobs Carter Fogarty Jarman Casey Foley Jennings Cederberg Foro: Gerald R. Joelson Celler Ford, Johnson, Calif. Chamberlain William D. Johnson, Okla. Cheif Fountain Johnson, Pa. Clancy Fraser Jonas Clark Frelinghuysen Jones, Ala. Clausen, Friedel Jones, Mo. Don H. Fulton, Pa. Jones, N.C. existing appropriations structure, it makes clear that this provision does not authorize any unlimited transfer au- thority, and that Congress be kept in- formed on a timely basis. Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the amendment. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it clear to my colleagues that the gentleman from California made the suggestion with respect to this amend- ment. I think it is a good amendment and I am pleased to offer it. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas [Mr. MAHON]. The amendment was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The Clem- will read. The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise and re- port the bill back to the House with an amendment and with the recommenda- tion that the amendment be agreed to and that the bill, as amended, be passed. The motion was agreed to. Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. ALBERT) having assumed the chair, Mr. WRIGHT, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, re- ported that that Committee, having had 5571 Karsten Hatcher Selden Karth Nedzi Benner Kastenmeier Nelsen Shipley Kee Nix Shriven Keith O'Brien Sickles Kelly O'Hara, Ill. Sikes Keogh O'Hara, Mich. Skubitz King, Calif. O'Konski Slack N.Y. King Olsen, Mont. Smith, Calif. , Utah King Olson, Minn. Smith, Iowa , Kirwan O'Neal, Ga. Smith, N.Y. Kluczynski O'Neill, Mass. Smith, Va. Kornegay Ottinger Springer Krebs Passman Stafford Kunkel Patman Staggers Kupferman Patten Stalbaum Laird Pelly Stanton Landrum Pepper Steed Langen Perkins Stephens Latta Philbin Stratton Leggett Pickle Stubblefield Lennon Pike Sullivan Lipscomb Pirnie Sweeney La. Long Poage Taloott , Md. Long Poff Taylor , Love Pool Teague, Calif. McCarthy Pucineki Tenzer McClory Purcell Thompson, N.J. McCulloch Quie Thompson, Tex. McDade Quillen Thomson, Wis. McDowell Race Todd McEwen Randall Trimble McFall Redlin Tuck McGrath Rees Tunney McMillan Reid, nl. Tupper Macdonald Reid, N.Y. Tuten MacGregor Reifel Udall Machen Reuss Ullman Mackie Rhodes, Ariz. Utt Madden Van Deerlin Mahon Rivers, S.C. Vandk Mailliard Rivers, Alaska Vigorito Marsh Roberts Vivian Martin, Nebr. Robison Waggonner Matsunaga Rodino Walker, N. Mex. May Rogers, Colo. Watkins Meeds Rogers, Fla. Watson Michel Rogers, Tex. Watts Miller Ronan Weltner Mills Rooney, N.Y. Whalley Minish Rooney, Pa. White, Idaho Mink Rosenthal White, Tex. Minshall Rostenkowski Whitener Mize Roush Whitten Moeller Roybal Widnall Monagan Rumsfeld Williams Moorhead Satterfield Wlson, Bob Morgan St Germain Wilson, Morris St. Onge Charles H. Morrison Saylor Wolff Morse Scheuer Wright Morton Schisler Wyatt Moss Schmidhauser Wydler Multer Schneebeli Yates Murphy, Dl. Schweiker Young Murphy, N.Y. Scott Younger Murray Secrest Zablocki NAYS-3 Burton, Calif. Conyers Ryan NOT VOTING-39 Adair Fisher Moore Baring Fuqua Mosher Bell Gallagher Powell Bolling Goodell Price Brock Hagen, Calif. Reinecke Brown, Calif. Halleck Resnick Clawson, Del Harvey, Ind. Roncalio Collier McVicker udebush Ro Davis, Ga. Mackay k Devine Martin, Ala. Teague, Tex. Dowdy Martin, Mass. Toll Downing Mathias Walker, Miss. Ellsworth Matthews Willis So the bill was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs: Mr. Toll with Mr. Mathias. Mr. Teague of Texas with Mr. Roudebush. Mr. Davis 'of Georgia with Mr. Adair. Mr. Downing with Mr. Harvey of Indiana. Mr. Brown of California with Mr. Reinecke. Mr. Gallagher with Mr. Ellsworth. Mr. Fisher with Mr. Halleck. Mr. Fuqua with Mr. Collier. Mr. Price with Mr. Martin of Massachu- setts. Mr. Sisk with Mr. Bell. Mr. Matthews with Mr. Walker of Missis- sippi. Mr. Mackay with Mr. Moore. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R006400040012-1 5572 Approved For Re ftivaM niz/ : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 S ,AI, RECORD - HOUSE March 15, 1966 Mr. Baring with Mr. GoodelL Mr. Willis with Mr. Devine. Mr. McVicker with Mr. Martin of Alabama. Mr. Hagen of California with Mr. Brook? Mr. Resnick with Mr. Mosher. Mr. Powell with Mr. Roncalio. Mr. Dowdy with Mr. Del Clawson. The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. PREMISSION TO REVISE AND EX- TEND REMARKS Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that Members speak- ing on the bill just passed may revise and extend their remarks and include perti- nent extraneous material. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND REMARKS Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to extend their remarks on the bill just passed. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered. There was no objection. ELECTION OF HON. CARL ALBERT, REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA, AS SPEAK- ER PRO TEMPORE Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, I offer a privileged resolution and ask for its im- mediate consideration. The Clerk read the resolution, as follows: H. RES. 779 Resolved, That Hon. CARL ALBERT, a Repre- sentative from the State of Oklahoma, be, and he is hereby, elected Speaker pro tempore during the absence of the Speaker. Resolved, That the President and the Sen.. ate be notified by the Clerk of the election of the Honorable CARL ALBERT as Speaker pro tempore during the absence of the Speaker. Mr. KEOGH. Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that this resolution is being offered at the request of the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives. The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. MILLS). The question is on the reso- lution. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. SWEARING IN OF SPEAKER PRO TEMPORE Mr. ALBERT assumed the Chair and from the State of New York. CONFERENCE REPORT ON SUPPLE- MENTAL FOREIGN ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZATION, FISCAL YEAR 1966 Mr. MORGAN submitted the follow- ing conference report and statement on the bill (H.R. 12169) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as House for 1 minute, and to revise and amended, and for other purposes. extend his remarks.) CONFERENCE REPORT (H. REPT. No. 1328) Mr. OLSEN of Montana. Mr. Speaker, The committee of conference on the dis- I have introduced a bill to provide for agreeing votes of the two Houses on the the Surgeon General, with the approval amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. of the Secretary of the Department of 12169) to amend further the Foreign Assist- Health, Education, and Welfare, to estab- ance, Act of 1961, as amended, and for other lish in the Public Health Service a Na- purposes, having met, after full and free con- tional Eye Institute for the conduct and ference, have agreed to recommend and do support of research and training relating recommend to their respective Houses that numbered 1 and 2. THOMAS E. MORGAN, CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, EDNA P. KELLY, WAYNE L. HAYS, FRANCES P. BOLTON, PETER H. B. FRELINGHUYSEN, WM. BROOMCFIELD, Managers on. the Part of the House. JOHN SPARKMAN, B. B. HICKENLOOPER, Managers on the Part of the Senate. STATEMENT The managers on the part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 12169) to amend further the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, ana for other purposes, report that the accompanying conference report recommends that the Senate recede from its amendments. The managers on the part of the House pointed out that the amendment before the committee of conference dealt with matters which had not received consideration by the Committee on Foreign Affairs during its consideration of the bill nor had there been any discussion during debate in the House, but they recognized that this question de- served careful consideration. Because there has not been adequate opportunity to review in detail the full impact of the Senate pro- vision, the managers on the part of the House were unwilling to accept the Senate language, but they agreed that the Commit- tee on Foreign Affairs should look into the whole question during the consideration of the pending foreign aid bill. In view of the general feeling that hearings should be held on this whole question, the managers on the part of the Senate receded. THOMAS E. MORGAN, CLEMENT J. ZABLOCKI, EDNA F. KELLY, WAYNE L. HAYS, FRANCES P. BOLTON, PETER H. B. FRELINGHUYSEN, WM. BROOMFIELD, Managers on the Part of the House. SENATE A further message from the Senate by Mr. Arrington, one of its clerks, an- nounced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Sen- ate to the bill (H.R. 12752) entitled "An act to provide for graduated withhold- ing of income tax from wages, to re- quire declarations of estimated tax with respect to self-employment income, to accelerate current payments of esti- mated income tax by corporations, to postpone certain excise tax rate reduc- tions, and for other purposes." orders, including research and training In special health problems relating to the mechanism of sight and visual func- tion. Surveys disclosed blindness ranks sec- ond to cancer as the affliction most feared by American people, more so than heart disease, polio, and tuberculosis or loss of limbs. More than 1 million Americans over 40 have glaucoma, these being prime tar- gets for eventual blindness. Most of them have never heard of the disease. More than 10 million throughout the world are totally blind. One million Americans cannot read ordinary newspaper type with the aid of glasses, while 11/2 million are blind in one eye. Ninety million Americans suffer from oculas malfunction. The National Health Education Com- mittee discloses that incidence of cat- aract among people age 60 is nearly 60 percent, at age 80 almost 100 percent. A Gallup survey disclosed that one out of five people have no idea what a cat- aract is, and even the most educated have only a vague conception of what is involved in this disease. OLSEN stated lack of public knowledge results from the fact so little has been done in the field of eye research. More than 80 percent of all loss of vision in the United States results from diseases whose causes are unknown to science. Five percent are the result of accidents. Visual disorders constitute one of the Nation's leading causes of disability. One-tenth of all patients seen in Ameri- can hospitals are eye patients. In 1963 the cost of caring for the blind was more han $1 billion. Moneys In- veste in eye research by both Govern- me t and private sources amounted to I IV Ilion that same year. SOUTH VIETNAMESE EXECUTION (Mrs. MINK asked and was given per- mission to address the House for 1 min- ute, and to revise and extend her re- marks.) Mrs. MINK. Mr. Speaker, a grave travesty on justice has been perpetrated by the Government of South Vietnam in the name of social and economic reform. The public justification for this execu- tion was, and I quote yesterday's Wash- ington Post; to fulfill Ky's pledge to President Johnson at the Honolulu Con- ference to put South Vietnam's social and economic house in order." For all the influence that we have on this re- gime, we did nothing to stop this sense- l bli t ess pu c execu ion which makes a NATIONAL EYE INSTITUTE mockery of our whole system of justice. (Mr. OLSEN of Montana asked and Out of the Honolulu Conference came was given permission to address the a display of unity of purpose of our two Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29: C111 - P6 R000400040012-1 PID RECO 1. CONGRESSIONAL 1966 March 15, Governments. There was renewed good Emerson called Kossuth, "Freedom's succeed in their own efforts to secure a better life, but this recent spectacular ex- hibit of totalitarian edict to secure cer- tain ends points to the vastly different worlds we truly live in. General Ky's goals and ours may be the same, but can we, in the eyes of the Asians whom we seek to influence and to save from communism, embrace his methods of the firing squad by our si- lence and our acquiesence? I urge the President and the Vice Pres- ident to quickly intercede to prevent these extreme measures from becoming the means by which all of his social and economic problems are solved. Lest we make a mockery of our valiant and tragic sacrifice of the lives of our American youth who need to have com- plete faith in the integrity of the South Vietnamese Government, we must force- fully insist that its leadership under- stand and apply to its own people the same moral and ethical code of conduct that has caused our American soldiers to give their lives for the sake of the ideals of a democratic society. This barbaric act must not be allowed to be repeated. To accept this kind of a solution to an economic phenomenon is to invite the easy road to ultimate ruin without treating the cause at all. A thousand executed profiteers will not buy a stable economy or a new social order. THE 118TH ANNIVERSARY OF HUN- GARIAN INDEPENDENCE (Mr. PATTEN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. PATTEN. Mr. Speaker, it is with special pride that I speak today-on the 118th anniversary of the Hungarian up- rising for liberty against the Hapsburg dynasty. It is special for several reasons. It is special because my dear friend of many years, Bishop Zoltan Beky, presi- dent of the Hungarian Reformed Federa- tion of America, delivered the beautiful and moving prayer heard this noon in the House of Representatives. It is special because people who love and cherish freedom throughout the world have a particular respect for the Hungarian people. They have always been champions of liberty. And it is also special because one of the greatest fighters and leaders that freedom ever had-Louis Kossuth-in- spired the Hungarian revolution for free- dom we are observing today. These revolutionaries for freedom were successful in their fight against tyranny and Louis Kossuth became head of the Government. But their freedom did not endure and the revolution was over- throw by the Hapsburg dynasty. After Kossuth fled to Turkey, he later visited the United States, where he re- ceived many honors is a hero of free- dom. Judging not only from his deeds, but from the words of praise that came from some of America's greatest men, Louis Kossuth was indeed great. Greeting him at Concord, Ralph Waldo Horace lxreeiey, u.iiv~iaci uui.=cc=,, mortal, said of Kossuth: Of the many popular leaders who were up- heaved by the great convulsions of 1848 into the full sunlight of European celebrity and American popular regard, the world has al- ready definitely assigned the first rank to Louis Kossuth, advocate, deputy, finance minister, and finally Governor of Hungary. Whittier lauded him as "the noblest guest." And as we near recent history, we note that Woodrow Wilson in 1918 praised Kossuth and said: I know the history of the gallant Magyar nation. Tribute was not restricted to Ameri- cans of renown. The famous English economist and statesman Cobden de- clared: Kossuth is certainly a phenomenon: he is not only the first orator of his age, but he unites the qualities of a great administrator with high morality and an indefatigable courage. Because he loved freedom so deeply, Kossuth recognized despotism and always fought it vigorously-with sword and pen. As far back as October 27, 1851, he ob- served: The principle of evil on the Continent is the despotic and encroaching spirit of the Russian power. Russia is the rock which breaks every sigh for freedom. 5573 And Daniel Webster delivered an ad- dress of welcome to Louis Kossuth on January 5, 1852. His words express the feelings I have for the Hungarian people on this day of remembrance-and I be- lieve the feelings of many of my col- leagues. Said Webster: Hungary stands out far above her neigh- bors in all that respects free institutions, constitutional government and a hereditary love of liberty. How true these words are even 114 years later. The free world will always remember and admire the courage of the Hun- garian people in 1956, when they rebelled against the tyranny of communism. Their courage was an inspiration to the entire world. I visited Hungary last November and I observed with my own eyes that the people there have no freedom under communism. Russian soldiers with ma- chine guns make the whole country a jail. The people seem lethargic-almost as if life is not worth living. Mr. Speaker, on the 118th anniversary of the Hungarian uprising for liberty, let us pray to God that once again-soon- Hungary will be free. OREGON COUNTY, MO., MOVES AHEAD WITH NEW CONSERVA- TION DISTRICT (Mr. JONES of Missouri asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. JONES of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, this month the Missouri State Soil and Water Conservation Districts Commis- sion authorized the people of Oregon County to move ahead in the protection and sound development of their soil and water resources by approving a soil and water conservation district for that county. This action resulted from a ref- erendum in which the people of Oregon County voted for a conservation district. Incidentally, this vote of approval was 382 to 20. I have been extremely pleased with the stepped-up interest in soil and water conservation districts in Missouri. Thirty-one have been formed in the last 6 years, accounting for nearly half of the 68 that have been formed since 1944. I believe that this indicates recognition of the benefits of sound conservation and development. I believe that it also in- dicates recognition of the value of the district mechanism through which the Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies can channel help to rural individuals and communities. It is a healthy trend and I hope will continue. Conservation districts have proved to be a sound way for communities to work together and plan for not just the pres- ent but for the long-term needs of the community. Their objectives to manage the land and water resources soundly .while developing them assures a commu- nity of resources that will remain an asset for future economic growth. The reasons for supporting this vital con- servation movement are valid-whether viewed from the point of the care of re- sources themselves, or whether from the point of the economic value these re- sources have in the community. Louis Kossuth knew the threat of Russia even then but he also knew the promise of America. For about 116 years ago, he warned a gathering in Massachu- setts that, "From Russia, no sun will ever rise." But he had faith in America's purpose and dream, for he also told that group: To find the sunlight where it most spreads and lightens the path of freedom, we must come to America. In 1852, Kossuth was presented to the United States Senate and also to the House of Representatives. He did not speak long, but, as always, spoke with eloquence. He said: It is remarkable that while in the history of mankind, through all the past, honors were bestowed upon glory, and glory was at- tached only to success, the legislative au- thorities of this great Republic bestow the highest honors upon a persecuted exile, not conspicuous by glory, nor favored by success, but engaged in a just cause. There is a triumph of republican principles in-this fact. Later, Louis Kossuth, in heavy demand as a brilliant speaker, gave almost 300 public addresses, all unforgettable. Mr. Speaker, on this day of tribute to the Hungarian people, it is hard to con- clude, because our hearts and thoughts are full of gratitude and love. Since Louis Kossuth will always be the symbol of the courageous and freedom- loving Hungarian people, I would like to quote from the poem written by James Russell Lowell, named "Kossuth." Land of the Magyars, though it be The tyrant may relink his chain, Already thine the victory, As just future measures gain. Thou hast succeeded, thou hast won The deathly travail's amplest worth, A nation's duty thou hast done, Giving a hero to our earth. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5574 Approved For RV8`1S JESSI~WAL CIE ORD7B00446RF 0040004001 - M_ 7, The congressional district which I represent-in which this new conserva- tion district is located-is a highly pro- ductive area and represents a large part of the agricultural income of the State. I have observed some of the conserva- tion work that local people have done to overcome water management and flood problems. Some of these problems the individual farmer can handle by him- self. Many require broader technical assistance such as is available through soil and water conservation districts. Many of the resource problems are of a community nature where a group ap- proach is required. Here again, the con- servation district provides coordinated action. Its farsighted and comprehen- sive resource inventories and programs are responsive to the needs and desires of the community because they are planned and carried out by local people, I commend soil and water conserva- tion districts for the vital role they have taken in community development and I am gratified that Oregon County has joined their ranks, and am hopeful that the few remaining counties in the 10th district which do not have soil conserva- tion districts will give serious considera- tion to the benefits which they might derive from the creation of such districts. OPPORTUNITY CRUSADE (Mr. GOODELL asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. GOODELL. Mr. Speaker, hear- ings are now underway on the poverty program. Congressman QUIE and I are pressing for consideration of our pro- posal to substitute an opportunity cru- sade for the misfiring war on poverty. Last week, Mr. Shriver testified rather superficially on a variety of issues. Among other things, In his prepared test- imony, he made the incredible statement: Since last summer fewer than 50 ineligibles have been discovered in the Neighborhood Youth Corps. The very next day, Secretary Wirtz contradicted Mr. Shriver by admitting that at least 5,090 to 6,000 enrollees in the Neighborhood Youth Corps have been found ineligible and dropped since last summer; 1,700 were dropped in Chicago alone since January 1. Now they are saying that these are welfare cases, barely exceeding the strict poverty stand- ards. Well, a quick spot check of widely 'dispersed records in Chicago gives quite a different picture. Although arbitrary handling of the hearings prevented me from questioning Mr. Shriver on these, here are some samples. I have removed the names of the enrollees to spare them embarrassment; however, they are avail- able to officials who may be interested: Male enrollee, 17, family of four, father head of household, income $11,000 a year. Male enrollee, 19, family of five, father head of household, income $10,200 a year. Female enrollee, 19, family of two- housewife with no children-husband head of household, income $5,000-plus a year. Female enrollee, 18, family of three- an only child-father and mother both work, earn jointly $150 per week. Female enrollee, 20, family of three- an only child-fatl: idr head of household, income $7,500 a year. Male enrollee, 17, family of six, father head of household, income $7,000-plus a year. Male enrollee, 19, family of five, grand- father head of household, income $7,000- plus a year. Male enrolee, 18, family of six, father and mother both work, earn jointly $500 a month. Male enrollee, 20, family of five, father head of household, income $5,400 a year. This is the program supposed to help poor youngsters who are school dropouts or likely dropouts for reasons of poverty. Obviously, a full investigation would re- veal many times more than Mr. Shriver's 50 ineligibles in Chicago alone. And no wonder. Last November the public rela- tions representative for the Chicago poverty program stated: We don't know what the families of kids make. No straight flat figure on what an applicant family should make has been set. We have no statistics on incomes of the fam- ilies of the kids in the Corps. We assume that, when we receive a name from the Illinois State Employment Service, the candi- date named is qualified. At that time, the executive director of the Chicago program was quoted as follows: It is absolutely correct that, until today, no means test was given in recruiting. Almost one-quarter of the total en- rollees in Neighborhood Youth Corps in Chicago had to be dropped because they exceeded the income requirement. At the same time, the poverty director in Chicago admits that there are at least 35,000, and others estimate up to 60,000, young people between, the ages of 16 and 22 in Chicago who fully meet the poverty standards for Neighborhood Youth Corps but weren't given a chance. Mr. Speaker, these are not isolated cases; they prevail all over the country. In addition to the 1,700 dropped in Chicago, Mr. Jack Howard, director of the Neighborhood Youth Corps, admitted that about 2,000 in New York City and at least 1,000 in Los Angeles were ineligible. That is close to 5,000 ineligibles from three cities alone. In the next few days, I will discuss other serious violations in the poverty program in Chicago. In the meanwhile, let me emphasize that the Quie-Goodell opportunity crusade would correct these deficiencies and put 50,000 youngsters into productive jobs in private enter- prise through a new Industry Youth Corps. DEFENDING FREEDOM WITH FREEDOM (Mr. SAYLOR asked and was given permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD, and to include ex- traneous matter.) Mr. SAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, last month Roger M. Blough, chairman of the board, United States Steel Corp., and a native of my hometown, delivered an ad- dress at the Founders Day Banquet of Washington University in St. Louis, Mo. Since a portion of it deals with the fiscal responsibilities of Congress, I commend Mr. Blough's presentation to my col- leagues. Without question, lack of restraint on the part of the administration in re- questing appropriations and lack of re- straint on the the part of Congress in making such funds available are the ma- jor provocations in an inflationary trend. They are the principal impediments to holding onto the value of our money. Providing the finest equipment and tools of war is the topmost consideration at this time. As Mr. Slough has estab- lished, however, this cost has not reached a point where it can be tagged as the sole reason for the growing excess of Federal expenditures over Federal income. The real culprit is bureaucratic waste, and it cannot be tolerated if Congress has any intention of holding the line against the destructive forces of inflation. Under unanimous consent, Mr. Blough's address appears herewith: Founders day in any university provides a welcome opportunity to indulge in recollec- tions of past achievements. It serves to re- call the humble beginnings of what, in this case, has proven to be a monumental educa- tional venture that was undertaken more than a century ago. Everyone associated with Washington University may well be proud of its history, its traditions, and of its past performance which weighs so heavily as a promise for the future. People have come to expect great things, of this university and of its graduates; and if I do not dwell, tonight, upon the com- mendable degree to which these expectations have been fulfilled, it is only because I am understandably reluctant to do anything which might contribute to, inflation-even of the ego. But founders day, as you observe it on this campus, has a current purpose which trans- cends the mere recognition of a fine and noble tradition. It provides a unique oc- casion to contemplate contemporary issues of mounting importance. Many of you will recall that last year, the Chief Justice of the United States discussed with you the "foundations of freedom" as those founda- tions are imbedded in the law, the Constitu- tion and the Bill of Rights. And in doing so, he shed much penetrating light upon an 4ssue of profound importance to the future of this Nation. Tonight, I should like to consider with you another aspect of freedom which seems to me to be of imminent importance and which certainly touches the lives of all of us. It concerns the preservation of economic free- dom in America while we seek to defend the political freedom of other peoples through- out the world. As we meet here, we, are confronted by the fact that despite prodigious efforts to reach a negotiated peace, our Nation is en- gaged in what might-if you wish-he called a negotiated war. Two hundred thousand American men are now fighting in Vietnam. Each month, some thousands of others are receiving their "greetings" from Uncle Sam. And present indications are that before the year is out the number of American troops engaged in this conflict will have more than doubled. So for the fourth time in this century, American youth has answered the call to repel aggression in foreign lands, to protect Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 Approved For Release 2005/06/29: CIA-RDP67B00 6R000400040012-1 March 15, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOU a foreign people against subjugation, infiltra- would have to mount to an astronomical $100 tion, and subversion, and to help them find billion In order to reach the 1311/2 percent a solution to their own problems. rate that prevailed at the height of the In this effort our men are heavily handi- Korean war. That Is far beyond any pro- capped by a jungle-type existence, by a cli- jetted requirement of the action In Vietnam. mate and terrain that is alien to anything As for manpower, it must be noted here they have known, by extended supply lines, also that the national labor force has sub- reaching halfway around the world, by in- stantially increased in numbers during the adequate help from most of the other free nations; and by extreme barriers to under- standing. Meanwhile, among our people here at home, there are some who question vehe- mently the necessity, the wisdom or even the morality of our involvement in this war. And this, too, is an exercise of freedom that few of us would seek to deny, I suppose, how- ever deeply we may disagree with such ex- pressions. But there is one basic point, I believe, upon which true Americans can never dis- agree: That everything needed to protect the lives of our soldiers in Vietnam shall be provided to the limit of our na- tional resources, both material and human. If the sacrifice of economic freedom will, in fact, hasten the winning of the peace in Vietnam and reduce our casualties there, there can hardly be any loyal opposition to such a sacrifice. But if, on the other hand, the economic freedoms which have made this Nation the most productive in the world are-as I believe them to be-a unique source of our military and economic strength, then we should, and must, defend and preserve them in the national interest. In short, the question before us is: To what degree may we assist in the fight for freedom by relying upon freedom-freedom in production, freedom to buy and sell, and freedom in occupation? Or must we revert to wartime types of wage controls, or price controls, materiel controls and even controls of movement among occupations in order, as a nation, to wage the defense of freedom? The question is a grave one; and it Is none too early to explore it now in the cool, un- emotional light of reason and fact; for the good sense and the patriotic endeavors of the American people will have much to do with determining its solution. What the people think, and what they say to their Rep- resentatives in Congress, is certain to Influ- ence the final decision since eventually- under our ' system of laws-Congress must make that decision. Let us consider, then, three aspects of this question. Do the pressures generated by the war in Vietnam, plus those created by. a rapidly growing economy, make controls nec- essary now or in the foreseeable future? Do the economic disruptions caused by controls themselves negate or outweigh the benefits to be expected from them? Are other, less disruptive means available for use in dealing with these pressures? Turning first to the question of necessity, we recall that in World War II and again during the Korean conflict controls were im- posed upon production, distribution, wages and prices in order to channel the necessary portion of our Gross National Product into the war effort. How then do conditions today compare with those that existed be- fore? At the end of World War IT, there were 11,500,000 men in our Armed Forces-or 171/2 percent of the total labor supply. Dur- ing Korea, there were 3,500,000 men In the military, representing over 5 percent of the labor force; and about 475,000 of these were actually engaged in Korea. Last year, some 2,800,000 men were in the armed forces and this accounted for only 3.6 percent of the labor supply. Future re- quirements, as presently projected, could call for an additional 300,000 men In the services; but even if that number were to rise to 500,- 000, the military drain on the national labor force would amount to only about 4 percent as compared to more than 5 percent during the Korean conflict. And as for Vietnam itself, the 200,000 men now stationed there constitute only one- fourth of 1 percent of our national labor sup- ply; and President Johnson reports that the total production of goods and services for the war "accounts for less than 11/a percent of our gross national product." So it is evident, I think, that Vietnam is not the primary source of the economic pres- sures we are experiencing. Vietnam may provide an excuse for the advocacy of con- trols. But it is not a reason for them; and if we seek out the major cause of these pres- sures, we must look to the unusually rapid rate of our economic growth In the non- military areas. Last year, the American economy grew at a greater rate than that of any other major industrial nation in the world. After cor- recting for rising prices, the real rate of growth was 51/2 percent; and all of this new activity increased the demand for manpower, and the upward pressure on wages and prices. During the 1960's, the expansion of the supply of money and credit has been at twice the rate prevailing in the late 1950's. Gov- ernment expenditures at all levels-Federal, State, and local-have increased 65 percent since Korea even though there has been no appreciable rise in military outlays. Thus virtually all of this increase has occurred on the nondefense side of the ledger. As a result, a head of economic steam is building up to a point which is beginning to cause national concern lest it break out in a burst of rising wages and prices. And this concern is understandable at a time when we are confronted by a stubbornly continuing imbalance of international pay- mets, a worrisome outflow of our dwindling gold supply, the need to widen the narrowing gap in our favorable balance of trade, and the necessity of preserving the integrity of the dollar as a medium of international ex- change. Trying to find out how long we can con- tain this mounting head of steam while con- tinuing to heat up the boiler is something like playing Russian roulette. Certainly we cannot continue indefinitely no matter how Well, aU U.~c NGan expenditures 'averaged about Y$81 billion a hard we try to hold back the hand on the year and exceeded 40 percent of the total pressure gage. For the present we are pin- GNP. At the height of the Korean war, they ning our faith upon the willingness and the were almost $49 billion and accounted for ability of both industry and labor to comply 131/3 percent of the GNP. Last year they voluntarily with the governmental guide- amounted to $50 billion; but they repre- posts established some years ago; and while sented only 71/2 percent of the GNP. That a considerable degree of price stability has is because the GNP itself has more than been achieved during this period-especially trebled since World War IT, and has nearly In the more visible industries where a certain doubled since the peak Korean year of 1953. amount of "persuasion" could be applied- During the present year it is estimated the boiler is clearly beginning to leak. that our total defense expenditures may rise For the entire nongovernmental sector of to $60 billion which would still be less than the economy, employee compensation per 8%2 percent of the anticipated GNP; and they man-hour has risen more than output per No. 45-6 5575 man-hour in each of the past 3 years; so unit labor costs have kept mounting. Across the economy generally, labor settlements last year exceeded the guidepost limits of 3.2 per- cent; and a recent release by the Department of Labor reports that in the construction In- dustry, for example, wages and benefits rose 4.8 percent during the past fiscal year, while their study of a limited number of these labor contracts negotiated in 1965 revealed increases averaging 6.1 percent and ranging up to 8.3 percent. Under the pressure of these rising costs and of the increased economic activity gen- erally, the Consumer Price Index has risen 11 percent since 1957-59, and the tempo has accelerated recently. In fact I might add, parenthetically, that during the 7 years since the end of 1958, the cost of living has gone up about six times as much as the price of finished steel. But I mention that only in passing. Further energizing this trend toward higher wages and consequent rising prices is the fact that we now have practically full employment, and there is an actual shortage of skilled workers. Only about 4 percent of the labor force is presently classified as un- employed, and the Council of Economic Ad- visers reports that this figure will drop to 33/4 percent for the current year and will be well below that level at year's end. Among married men, unemployment is now down to 2 percent and is still declining. Under all of these circumstances, it will clearly become increasingly difficult to main- tain an acceptaale degree of wage and price stability through the publication of guide- posts and the powers of Presidential persua- sion; and the question arises: "What next?" So the situation that confronts us today is much like that which prevailed at the end of 1960, when the United States had started down the road to wage and price controls. Then, as now, the road was paved with requests for a voluntary freeze; and standards for the freeze were being drawn up. Under the pressures of that day, the prices of many products were rising; and the prospect of price control, itself, added greatly to these pressures as producers and mer- chants sought to cover their rising costs before the freeze hit them. Production shifted from lower price lines to more ex- pensive, and more profitable goods; and re- tailers built their inventories to a record high, thus adding to demand in an already overheated economy. But before we travel that road again, let us stop, look, and listen, for it is one thing to talk of controls and quite another thing to survive them. There is no doubt that for a limited period they can and do hold down the lid on prices. There is also no doubt, however, that they create scarcity and thus add to the economic pressures that caused their adoption in the first place. Some of us whose memory goes back to the controls of 20 years ago will recall the butter that was sold from under the counter to favored customers, and the deterioration in the quality of merchandise that occurred as producers and merchants were often forced- at the peril of their own survival-to pay higher-than-ceiling prices on purchases in order to get the materials to keep their busi- nesses running. Then, too, there is a wasteful deployment of manpower at a time when a shortage of manpower already exists. Under the normal operation of a free market, the people them- selves-as buyers-determine what man- power will be allocated to what production. If they do not choose to buy a certain product, then that product will no longer be made and the manpower will go elsewhere to produce what is wanted and needed. Controls not only wipe out this self- adjusting, competitive mechanism, but-by their almost unbelievable complexity-they Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5576 .Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD - HOUSE March 15, 1966 create enormous new manpower demands in the administration and the application of the regulations. To illustrate, let me recall that during the Korean war, United States Steel's operations were under control by eight different Federal agencies, the most important of which were the National Production Author- ity and the Office of Price Stabilization. Regulations and directives of the National Production Authority aggregated about 300,- 000 words and underwent approximately 400 amendments, supplements, revocations, and directions. The Office of Price Stabilization issued 37 different regulations applying to our business. One ceiling price regulation alone consisted of almost 30,000 words and was amended 41 times with 20 supplemental regulations. So estimate if you can the number of account- ants, lawyers, engineers, and ohers required to keep up with these regulations; expand that to cover all the businesses in the coun- try, big and small; add the thousands em- ployed in the administration of these con- trols on the Government side, and you come up with some idea, at least, of the great wastage of manpower that is inherent in the mere application of controls themselves. But, you may ask, can the Defense Depart- ment-in the absence of controls-get what it needs to carry on its military efforts? The answer is that it can and it does. We already have a system of priorities under which De- fense has first claim on essential production. But will not the Government have to pay more than it should? And the answer to that is also s}mple; for the Government is the sole buyer of war material while there are many sellers competing for its business. Thus we have the opposite of a monopoly- a monopsony. And as a monopsony, the Government imposes conditions of purchase under which it exercises the right to rene- gotiate contracts and to reclaim an adjudi- cated part of the purchase price if the profits on the sale are deemed too large. But then, you may ask, how about the average fellow, the pensioner, or widow liv- ing on a fixed income. Without controls, is there any better way of keeping prices from skyrocketing? And here, I can only think of the ardent young suitor whose proposal of marriage had been firmly rejected by the girl of his dreams. "Tell me," he pleaded, "is there anyone else?" "Oh, Elmer," she replied, "there must be." So it is with controls. There must be bet- ter solutions; and I believe that there are. In the first place we must recognize that our productive capacity in America is ex. panding substantially every year; so there is an ever-increasing supply of goods and services to meet our Nation's demands, both military and civilian. The President has called upon business to exercise restraint in its pricing policies; and has asked labor unions to keep their demands within certain bounds. Here it must be said that the two problems are somewhat different, Among businesses there is a high degree of competition which tends to repress prices; but among unions there is also a high degree of competition-more in the nature of political competition-which tends conversely to escalate wages. For example, transit workers in New York recently won wage and benefit increases far in excess of guidepost limits; and now it is announced that the New York City Police will seek pay boosts that will also shatter the guideposts concept. It goes without saying that among labor unions you will find just as many patriotic and dedicated men as in any other segment of our society. These men, however, have a real problem. They feel compelled by force of circumstance to demand "more" in behalf of the individuals they represent. That is their function and their job; and it is asking much of them when they are called upon to exercise restraint. Similarly it is the inescapable obligation of business managers to keep their enter- prises healthy and to generate the profit necessary to keep America's industrial facili- ties modern and competitive-not only in the interest of the owners but in the national interest as well. So there must be some wage and price flexibility to accommodate the myriad changes that occur from day to day. Yet I believe that the wiser heads in the leadership of both labor and business will recognize that the exercise of restraint in the highest possible degree is imperative at a time when the probable alternatives are rising costs and runaway prices or disruptive controls. But restraint is not a, one-way street, and no matter how diligently and patriotically business and labor may try to plug the leaks in the economic boiler, they cannot succeed unless someone stops pouring on the coal. And that, I believe, is where Congress comes in. On the monetary side, the Federal Re- serve Board is authorized and equipped to retard the expansion of currency and credit; and I would not anticipate that Congress would seek to oppose the necessary exercise of these powers. On the fiscal side, Congress can ease the pressure by the judicious use of taxation; and the President has already recommended the reinstatement of certain excise taxes and a speed-up in the payments of personal and corporate income taxes. But it is in the area of restraint in appro- priations and other legislation that the hard- working men on this Hill face both their most difficult problems and their greatest opportunity to prevent a further heating up of the economy; for it is they who control the purse strings. Today we dream of an America where there will be no slums, no pockets of poverty, no illiterates, no unemployed, no discrimina- tion, no lack of medical facilities for all, and a minimum of crime. And, being Americans, we are impatient to reach those shining goals--which is as it should be. But exces- sive impatience at a time of great economic pressure can be disastrous and produce the wage and price explosion which neither guideposts nor controls can permanently pre- vent. And it is up to all of use to recognize that we cannot have what I call instant affluence. Certainly it should be possible to defer a number of programs which call for pouring of additional dollars into the economy from Government sources, however meritorious those programs might be under other cir- cumstances. Is it necessary, for example, to press for- ward with make-work types of projects at a time when manpower is already scarce and growing scarcer? Is this a time to undertake other large governmental expenditures which will divert manpower from more immediately necessary production? No one discounts the value of training the youth of this Nation and pro- viding jobs for them; but is it not better for them to be trained on the job while earning their own keep and doing useful work? And does not the growing shortage of skilled workers create new opportunities for the unskilled to acquire skills? Then, too, is this the year to enact, for example, a law increasing the minimum wage by 40 percent, and at the same time talk about a 3.2-percent limit on increases un- der the guideposts? Will this not tend to elevate the entire wage structure when the increased social security and medicare taxes that went into effect last month have already added at least two-thirds of a percent to em- ployment costs generally-an addition, in- cidentally, which the guideposts do not take into account? Is 1966 the year in which to federalize un- employment compensation by legislation that will add still further to the cost of em- ployment in hundreds of corporations all over the country? In short, is this the time to enact-in the name of social progress-far-reaching pro- grams that are costly, inadequately managed because of the lack of trained manpower, and in many instances designed to correct situations that the present economic buildup is already tending to correct without gov- ernmental intervention? The answer is up to the Members of Con- gress. It is their prerogative to authorize expenditures. It is their obligation to view the economic picture as a whole and act in their own best wisdom. Summing up, then, this is a plea for rec- ognizing where we are as a nation-a na- tion which necessarily must meet its com- mitments abroad and maintain its economic strength at home. It is a plea for practical restraint by both business and labor. It is equally a plea for restraint on the part of Congress which will finally determine the extent of the pressures unleashed in our economic system. It is even more a plea to recognize that the most effective way to help our Government achieve its purposes is not through the im- position of controls-and that even the sug- gestion of controls breeds apprehensions which induce scare buying and, in turn, in- crease the upward tendency of wages and prices. Above all, this is a plea to recognize the free market economy for what it is: the most ef- ficient, productive source of our material freedom; and to acknowledge that interfer- ence with the markets operation leads to inefficiency, inequity, and to shortages. In a word, it is a plea to defend freedom with freedom. ANNOUNCEMENT (Mr. FISHER asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute.) Mr. FISHER. Mr. Speaker, on the vote which was just concluded on the appropriation bill I was unavoidably de- tained and arrived in the Chamber im- mediately after the conclusion of the vote. I should like to announce that had I been present, I would have voted "yea." THE ARMY ARSENAL SYSTEM AND THE SPRINGFIELD ARMORY- NO. II (Mr. BOLAND asked and was given ;permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous matter.) Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, yesterday the gentleman from Massachusetts, Con- gressman CONTE, and I addressed the House for the purpose of bringing to the attention of Congress the extreme seri- ousness, to the security of this country, of current steps being taken by the De- partment of Defense and the Army to- ward closing out all operations and fa- cilities at the Springfield Armory. Today, we are providing more basic in- formation in opposition to this most in- advisable and fateful decision on the part of the Secretary of Defense. It is a decision which, in our opinion, gam- bles-first in the name of disproved cost reduction and now in the name of private enterprise-with the long-range security Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 X94 Approved For Releep #Wlei-gpe~6j 9OA4 00040012-1/March 15, 1966 Cleveland Trust; Arthur W, Steudel, chair- man of Sherwin-Williams Co. [From the Cleveland (Ohio) Press, Feb. 16, 1966] THE BANK EXAMINERS If the special bank investigating commit- tee created by the 1965 legislature has the best interest of all Ohio in mind, there will be no whitewash of any bank practice, nor of any particular bank or banks. Under its chairman, State Senator Charles W. Whalen, Jr., of Dayton, the committee has opened its hearings in Columbus. The legislator responsible for its creation-Sen- ator Oliver Ocasek-was not shown the courtesy of being named to the committee. But Ocasek has said he will be present. Certainly the committee can do no less than hear him explain in detail just why he be- lieved Ohio needed such a probe into its State-chartered banks at this time. If he suggests, as he has indicated he would, that there are dangerous signs of ex- treme concentration of power in State bank- ing circles, then let's see if such concern is justified. The banking community of Ohio Is in need of no whitewash. It is sound enough to take without a quiver a searchinsg examina- tion into its methods of operation-and its interlocking interests. We in Cleveland, home of the State's larg- est banking institution-the Cleveland Trust Co.-will be watching the work of this com- mittee with great interest. [From'the Cleveland Press, Feb. 17, 1966] BANK'S CHIEF SKIPS LEGISLATURE'S HEARING (By Gordon C. Raeburn) COLUMBUS.-The first legislative study of Ohio's banking laws and regulations since 1933 is off to a slow start because of the State commerce department's division of banks. The six senators and nine representatives wanted to discuss the State's problems in regulating and examining Ohio's banks at yesterday's first hearing. Neither Banks Supt. Clarence C. Luft nor any of his employees appeared as requested. State Representative William L. Elliott, Democrat, of Malta, the committee's vice chairman, said "It is extremely relevant that we have someone here from the banking de- partment." State Senator, Anthony O. Calabrese, Demo- crat, of Cleveland, said the committee could not go ahead until the superintendent of banks appeared to discuss problems in the banking industry. Meantime, the legislative service commis- sion has been asked to gather information it can in two areas: Adequacy of the State division of banks to conduct regular examinations of banks as required by law. Advisability of changing the method by which the superintendent of banks is se- lected. Dave Johnson, acting head of the legisla- tive service commission, told the committee that present Ohio law makes no reference to experience requirements of the superin- tendent. He is appointed by the Governor. He suggested a look into the method of se- lecting the superintendent and scrutiny of the bank examination requirements and whether they are being met as part of a six-point study of the banking industry and laws. Other points on the Johnson recommenda- tion, which the committee temporarily ac- cepted, were: Legality and propriety of any bank voting its own shares of stock. Adverse effects of interlocking directorates and holding of stocks. ,Appropriateness of standards used in granting charters and branch bank permits. Enlarging the powers of the banking ad- visory board. State Senator Charles W. Whalen, Jr., Re- publican, of Dayton, chairman, asked the leg- islative research commission to obtain a transcript of all testimony concerning Ohio banking which has been given before the House Banking Committee, headed by Con- gressman WRIGHT PATMAN, Democrat, of Texas. The executive manager of the Ohio Bankers Association, O. E. Anderson, said his organi- zation welcomes the study. "We have complete confidence in your ability in not allowing this to become a witch hunt," Anderson said. He said the association is sure the com- mittee would "approach it [the study] on an industry basis and not be swayed by ex- traneous matters and personalities." Although the committee is primarily con- cerned with State banks, it will 'compare regulations affecting national banks with State laws. There are 548 banks in Ohio, of which 332 are State banks. "The largest bank in Ohio Is a State bank- the Cleveland Trust Co.," Anderson said. "The second largest is a national bank, the National City Bank of Cleveland." [From the Cleveland Press, Feb. 18, 1966] .UNJUSTIFIED ABSENTEEISM The leisurely probe of State-chartered banks by the legislature's bank investigat- ing committee got off to a sorry start. Nei- ther State Banks Superintendent Clarence Luft nor any of his employees appeared as re- quested. This uncooperative attitude gives added weight to those speculations that the probe will accomplish little. So does the date of the next public meeting, March 14. This investigation is important. Ohioans should know how much financial power is concentrated in State-chartered banks. Luft and his staff insult the legislature and the public by their uncooperative attitude. Governor Rhodes should be sure his em- ployees are present when the committee re- sumes March 14. FREE AIRMAIL SHIPMENT TO SERVICEMEN IN VIETNAM The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentle- man from New York [Mr. HALPERN] is recognized for 15 minutes. Mr. HALPERN. Mr. Speaker, today I Introduced legislation to provide free armall shipment of parcels to our serv- icemen in Vietnam. I have had the privilege of visiting our fighting men in Vietnam, and I can at- test to the fact that there is nothing like a gift from home, to boost the morale of our GI's at mail call. Whether it be knitted socks from a GI's girlfriend, a box of cookies from mother or an inter- esting book from father, it makes a GI feel more remembered. I firmly believe that this is the least we can do. The sending of gifts on a large scale will reflect to our fighting men, a gratified public; and the free use of the mail will reflect a grateful govern- ment. Campaigns urging the public to send books and other gifts of interest have been gaining considerable support, but they would be given a real impetus if we allowed these modest mailing privileges. The bill would, among other things, allow for the free airmail shipment of parcels weighing up to 10 pounds to our servicemen in Vietnam. In addition, the language is broad.enough to cover any similar future situations in which U.S. forces are engaged in hostilities with any foreign force. I believe that those who donate, col- lect and wrap these gifts, and carry them to their local post offices perform a truly laudable service, and the least the Fed- eral Government can do is absorb the three or four dollars it costs to ship one of these gifts. I invite my colleagues to join in spon- soring this legislation, and I urge the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service to accord full considdr6,tipk to FREE WORLD SHIPPING TO NORTH VIETNAM The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Michigan [Mr. CHAMBERLAIN], is recognized for 10 minutes. . (Mr. CHAMBERLAIN asked and was given permission to include lists.) Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. Mr. Speaker, from time to time during this past year, I have endeavored to keep my colleagues of the House informed about the serious problem of free' world shipping to North Vietnam. Just recently I received the report on this shipping for the month of February and take this occasion to make this information available to the Mem- bers of the House. The unclassified information for the month of January shows that seven free world ships called at North Vietnamese ports during that month as follows: NAME OF SHIP, FLAG, GROSS TONNAGE, AND DATE ARRIVED Agenor, Greece, 7,139 gross tons, January 25. Amon, Cyprus, 7,229 gross tons, January 28. Hellas, Greece, 7,176 gross tons, January 19. Kanaris, Greece, 7,240 gross tons, January 19. Milford, United Kingdom, 1,889 gross tons, January 4. Shienfoon, United Kingdom, 7,127 gross tons, January 9. Shirley Christine, United Kingdom, 6,724 gross tons, January 31. During the month of February, there were six such arrivals, all of United Kingdom registry, as follows: NAME OF SHIP, FLAG, GROSS TONNAGE, AND DATE ARRIVED Ardtara, United Kingdom, 5,975 gross tons, February 15. Greenford, United Kingdom, 2,961 gross tons, February 19. Milford, United Kingdom, 1,889 gross tons, February -. Shienfoon, United Kingdom, 7,127 gross tons, February 2. Shienfoon, United Kingdom, 7,127 gross tons, February -. Wakasa Bay, United Kingdom, 7,040 gross tons, February 7. While the volume of this trade has decreased substantially from what it was during the first 2 months of 1965, I hasten to point out that the secret re- ports show more than twice the number of vessels just mentioned. While it is regrettable that this traffic was permitted to flourish for so long, the administration officials responsible for finally acting to bring about a reduction of this trading with the enemy are cer- Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, YJ66 Approved CONGRe 1ONOALORECOJIllA-RDfi67f0446R000400040012-1 55Q State Senator Charles Whalen, Jr., of Day- of stock held in trust for widows and or- "This uncooperative attitude gives added ton, chairman of the Ohio Bank Study Com- phans. I would welcome an opportunity to weight to those speculations that the probe mittee, told the Journal: discuss this with your committee." will accomplish little. So does the date of "We start today * * ? and we must have The initial 21/4-hour session of the 15 the next public meeting, March 14. an outline of what we are going to investigate member committee proved somewhat of a "This investigation is important. Ohioans and study." "feeling out" period in which the scope of should know how much financial power is Asked whether the committee will explore the study was discussed. concentrated in State-chartered banks. Luft the Cleveland Trust situation, Whalen said: The committee agreed to take up three of and his staff insult the legislature and the "Yes, we will bring up the Cleveland Trust the less controversial areas first: public by their uncooperative attitude. Gov- situation and the adequacy of the present Adequacy of the State division of banks ernor Rhodes should be sure his employees law, especially in light of Federal laws deal- to conduct regular examinations. are present when the committee resumes ings with concentrations of power * * * and Standards and methods used in granting March 14." about banks voting their own stocks, and charter and branch permits. anything else." Advisability of changing the method of CLEVELAND TRUST RESOURCES Top $2 BILLION; Under a headline, "Predict Whitewash of selecting. the superintendent of banks. OHIO FIRST--EARNINGS GREATEST OF NA- Banks That Vote Their Own Stock," the (Now, he is appointed by Governor.) TION'S BANKS Cleveland Press said yesterday: The three hot items on the agenda will The Cleveland Trust Co., which is under "And the political betting in Columbus is be taken up last, later this year, and pos- fire for its immense concentration of eco- the committee will come up with little, if sibly not in time for the next session of nomic power, today reported that it had be- anything; to comply with the original intent the legislature in January. They are: come the first bank in Ohio to achieve $2 bil- of the legislative resolution." The legality and propriety of any bank lion in total resources. A large stockholder in the Cleveland voting its own shares of stock. The annual report also showed that 1965 Trust-but unfriendly to its management- The possible adverse affect upon competi- was the year in which net operating earnings told the Journal that the bank was hoping tion and other public interests of interlock- increased 19.8 percent-the greatest Improve- to be able to vote its stock at the March 23 ing holding of stocks among; various banks meat reported by any of America's top 25 meeting and then try for a change in the of the State. banks. Ohio law during the next session of the The possible need for enlarging the pow- Two Ohio legislators-State Senator Oliver legislature. ers and responsibilities of the State bank- Ocasek and State Representative Carl Chairman George Gund of Cleveland Trust ing advisory board. Stokes-want the new Ohio Bank Study was not available for comment since yester- Committee to challenge the property and day morning. CLEVELAND TRUST FLAYED FOR SECRETIVE ethics of the Cleveland Trust voting its own TRUST OPERATION stock and dominating major corporations CARL STOKES AND SENATOR OCASEK DEMAND The Cleveland Trust Co. came under new and banks. The next meeting of the legis- ACTION: CLEVELAND TRUST UNDER FIRE AT criticism today for operating a trust "secret- lative bank committee is March 14 at HEARING ON OHIO BANKS ly" and "restrictively" Columbus. (By John Saffell) While the bank was under attack, State In the Cleveland Trust's notice to stock- COLUMBUS.-The Cleveland Trust Co., big- Banks Superintendent Clarence Luft was holders Of the annual meeting March 23, gest bank in the State, has become a storm criticized for not cooperating with the State 1966, . at 1:30 p.m., at 916 Euclid Avenue, center at legislative hearings that could lead bank study committee, which is taking a Chairman George Gund and President George to changing Ohio's banking laws, hard look at the Cleveland Trust and other Karch pointed out that its dummy part- Several legislators are calling for a close financial institutions in t'ze State. nership, A. A. Welsh & Co., holds 602,329 look into what they describe as a Cleveland Cleveland Trust holds the purse strings shares (33.48 percent) of the outstanding Trust practice of voting its own stock and for Kingwood Center, a flower garden and stock of the bank. some it holds in trust, beauty spot which the late C. K. King left Stewart Anthony, secretary of the bank, Representative Carl Stokes, who just in trust for the benefit of the people of explained that A. A. Welsh & Co. Is a partner- narrowly lost the race for mayor of Cleve- Mansfield and Ohio. ship organized by the bank for the sole pur- land to Ralph Locher, sent this telegram to In an editorial, the News Journal of Mans- pose acting to as "nominee" anew rarities ndd hold registered State Senator Charles W. Whalen, Jr., chair- field said: man of the bank study committee. "As corporate trustee, the Cleveland bank the bank in various trust capacities. "The Lorain Journal has published this has never revealed publicly the amount of The bank officers vote this stock, along week a series of articles highly critical of the trust, nor has it revealed the amount of with another 25,278 shares held by the bank the policies and practices of the Cleveland annual earnings from which Mr. King desig- in other capacities, including F. J. Haffner & Trust Co., the largest financial institution nated that Kingwood Center be operated and Co. and Custo & Co. in Ohio. I urge you to bring these articles maintained. Much of the criticism leveled by legislators to the attention of all members of your corn- "The public has no way of knowing whether and others boils down to the charge that the mittee at the beginning of your investiga- the trust is being capably and wisely man- bank officers vote the stock to perpetuate tion of Ohio banks." aged. It appears to be the attitude of Cleve- themselves in office and to dominate and State Representative Stokes added: land Trust that this is none of the public's control other corporations. "I was deeply disturbed to read in the business even though Mr. King clearly in- Here's how the voting of 527,560 shares are Cleveland Press a story which predicts that tended that the center be operated for the held in the bank's trust capacity: your committee will whitewash the banks in benefit of the people of Mansfield and Ohio. One: 12,994 shares were registered in the their practice of voting their own stocks and "Recently when it was sought to deter- names of principals of agency or custodian in other acts that many consider to be il- mine if a theater could be built, as Mr. King accounts and the bank as fiduciary has no legal and improper. The common man has suggested for part of the center's develop- power to vote the shares. a deep interest in the ethical standards of ment, the answer came back from Cleveland Two: 61,309 shares were held in agency or our financial institutions and I am confident Trust: "No chance for at least 5 years. Plan- custodian accounts where the direction of that your committee will do a good job in ning requires knowledge of funds on hand the principal is required before voting. the important study which the senate and and reasonably anticipated. When the knowl- Three: 3,931 shares were held in trusts the house have instructed you to under- edge is withheld, so is the opportunity to where the direction of the donor, cotrustee, or take." outline future progress. other person is required before voting. State Senator Iliver Ocasek, of Nortfield, "Inasmuch as C. K. King began planning Four: 51,607 shares were held in trusts or was responsible for the resolution which for the establishment of Kingwood Center estates where the approval of the donor, started the probe in Columbus. He kept off for many years before his death, it appears cofiduciary, or other designated person or the study committee. unlikely that he ever envisioned such restric- persons is required before voting. Senator Ocasek, nevertheless, also sent a tions upon scheduling of future growth and Five: 152,351 shares were held in trusts telegram to the committee, saying: development as now exist. or agency where the bank as fiduciary may "The Cleveland Trust Co. stockholders "Legally and technically, the Cleveland determine the manner of voting only in the meeting to elect directors, for a year occurs Trust may be entirely correct. As a matter absence of instructions from one or more next month. It is reported that the bank of public relations It is dead. wrong." designated persons. again intends to vote some 35 percent of its State Banks Superintendent Luft was Six: $245,368 shares (16.36 percent of the own stock for a board of directors selected chastised by the Cleveland Press and Gov- total shares outstanding) were held in trusts, by its chairman. In my opinion, the laws ernor Rhodes urged to make sure his em- estates, or agency where the bank as fidu- of Ohio forbid an Ohio bank to vote stock ployees cooperate with the legislature. The ciary has sole voting power. Issued by it. editorial said: The bank management solicited proxies The senator also said: "The leisurely probe of State-chartered from stockholders to vote for new directors. "The public interest demands that your banks by the legislature's bank investigat- The Cleveland Trust appointed to handle and committee investigate and report prior to ing committee got off to a sorry start. Neither vote the proxies the following of its own their impending annual meeting on the le- State Banks Superintendent Clarence Luft directors: gality and ethics of insiders in banks per- nor any of his employees appeared as re- Herman L. Vail, president of the Cleveland petuating themselves in office by voting quested. - Plain Dealer; George Gund, chairman of the Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 1 _1966 Approved tffrMg,6(RRT6y9C RD ff3R~446R000400040012-1 5595 tainly to be commended for their efforts. That this trade has been reduced clearly shows that effective measures can be taken to discourage our friends from such shipping activities. In recent weeks there have been re- ports that Norwegian shipowners have privately agreed to stop plying the North Vietnamese trading lanes. In addition, King Constantine of Greece signed a de- cree effective as of March 10 forbidding the use of Greek-flag vessels in carrying cargoes to or from North Vietnamese ports, except for those already under charter before the decree was effective. These actions are most encouraging. Nevertheless., the attitude of our own Government remains decidedly less than fully satisfactory. The gap in our official efforts has invited, and perhaps required, the independent initiative of non-Gov- ernment organizations to bring full pres- sure to bear to dry up this trade such as the threatened boycott proposed by the Maritime Unions of the east and gulf coast ports. As I join those who com- mend the Maritime Unions for their concern I must at the same time express disappointment with the administra- tion's abdication of the conduct of for- eign policy in this field. Now, however, is not the time to relax our efforts. Our momentum must not be lost. It must be accelerated to elimi- nate entirely the possibility of even one free world ship going to North Vietnam. To accomplish this there must be fuller information provided to the American people and to the world about this trade. If free world ships are helping to supply the enemy, why should our people be told half the truth-why not the whole truth? A good measure of the success achieved in curbing this trade has been due to an aroused and informed public opinion both within and without the Congress. If we are to keep faith with the hun- dreds of thousands of boys we have sent to Vietnam, we must not fail in giving them our full support. I call upon the administration to be more forthright in reporting the true extent of this aid and comfort to the enemy. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I am happy to yield to my colleague from Iowa. Mr. GROSS. Again I commend the gentleman from Michigan for bringing this information to the Members of the House. I ask the gentleman if it is not also important that pressures be applied to these various countries, including Britain, which are shipping to Red China? By this devious route they can still provide the sinews of war to North Vietnam. This involves' not alone the question of shipping to Haiphong, but also the question' of shipping to Red China. Why should there, also, shipping to Communist Cuba, which has become the spawning ground and the training ground for subversion in the Western Hemisphere? It seems to me that the State Depart- ment and the officials of this Govern- ment ought to be applying pressure not only with respect to North Vietnam but also with: respect to trade with Red China and with Communist Cuba. Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I thank the gentleman for his contribution. I share those views completely. The administration certainly should be looking at these areas. I have called attention to North Viet- nam because this is such a flagrant case. Hundreds of thousands of our boys are there tonight, in combat with the enemy, while our friends are carrying material to keep the war going. This should not be tolerated. The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under ,a. previous order of the House, the gentle- man from Massachusetts [Mr. BOLAND] is recognized for 30 minutes. [Mr. BOLAND'S remarks will appear hereafter in the Appendix.] CHICAGO TRIBUNE'S SPECTACU- LAR REPORT ON CHICAGO The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gen- tleman from Illinois [Mr. PucINSHI] is recognized for 15 minutes. (Mr. PUCINSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks, and to include extraneous mat- ter.) Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Speaker, the Chicago Tribune has begun a spectacular series on the history, growth, and the present magnitude of Chicago as a world center of commerce, industry, .science; religion, education, sports, and culture. I am taking the liberty of putting this series in the RECORD as it unfolds be- cause I would like to share with my col- leagues and the distinguished readers who follow the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD the real story of how Chicago-once called the Crime capital of the world- today stands as a model city of the world. The Chicago Tribune deserves the highest commendation for its fair and impartial writing of one of the great stories of our time-the renaissance of America's second largest city. Mr. Dave Halvorsen has magnificently captured the spirit of Chicago, 1966. I hope those around the world who are so quick to criticize this thriving metropolis known as Chicago will read Mr. Halvorsen's penetrating series. Recently I said that the second half of the 20th century belongs to Chicago. This dynamic series in the Chicago Trib- une fortifies my contention; and it gives a new spirit of pride and dedication to 31/2 million people who live in Chicago. The Chicago Tribune is performing a most significant public service in bring- ing to all Americans-through its influ- ential and widespread national circula- tion-the real story of Chicago as it exists today. The first articles of the Chicago Trib- une series follow. It is my plan to in- clude the rest of the articles as this im- pressive series unfolds: [From the Chicago (Ill.) Tribune, Mar. 5, . 19661 CHICAGO SHAKES OFF OLD LABEL OF SECOND CITY-"PRAIRIE TowN" ADDING NEW FRONTIERS (By David Halvorsen) (NOTE.-Chicago has come alive in the last 10 years and is experiencing the greatest prosperity in its history. Its citizens see its municipal development not as problems but as challenges. The Tribune begins today a comprehensive and exhaustive series of arti- cles analyzing Metropolitan Chicago's resur- gence and what it will mean in years to come.) Chicago forged a giant structure of pros- perity in the last decade to place the city at the threshold of the greatest era in its his- tory. The midwestern metropolis is fulfilling the dreams of those who believe in it. Once called a prairie town because it was one, and later called a prairie town in spite, because it was not one, the city has come alive and is one of the most vibrant, pro- gressive cities in the world. Thomas H. Coulter, chief executive direc- tor of the Chicago Association of Commerce, has called it "the most enlightened city in the world today." HAS YET TO HIT PEAK The city has yet to reach the peak of its current resurgence, and chances are it will not for a long time, asserts Mayor Daley. Chicago is not advancing in the wake of a prosperous economy; it is leading the surge. It has shaken off the. inferiority complex of the crime-ridden prohibition era and the era's legacy of civic doldrums which set in after the depression and lasted for nearly 25 years. "For years we believed what everyone said about us," said a city hall official. "We kept comparing Chicago with perfection. Now we have changed. We are comparing it with other great cities, and we are coming out first. "Perfection is the ultimate goal. We are closer to it than anyone else." Civic leaders are calling this the "sensa- tional sixties," outstripping even the great rebuilding era following the Chicago fire of 1871 which burned out 2,124 acres of the central city and caused property damage of $200 million. PRODUCT IS HUGE Metropolitan Chicago's shame of the gross national product, the sum of all services and manufactured goods, is $34.4. This is six times more than the national output of Austria and greater than that of all the Scandinavian countries combined. The area's industrial development is twice that of its nearest competitor-&nd that in- cludes New York City. More than 4,000 new factories have been constructed here in the last 20 years, most in the last decade. "At one time the industrial center of the United States was just west of New York City," Coulter pointed out. "Now it is in Chicago and will be for a long time to come." Studies by Coulter's association show the average family income of metropolitan Chi- cago to be $11,400. This is 30 percent more than the national average and $1,000 more than New York City. T4 e association places the Indiana coun- ties of Lake and Porter and the Illinois coun- ties of Cook, Lake, McHenry, Du Page, Kane, and Will in the metropolitan area. LOOP IS FOCAL POINT The drama of the pity's prosperity is per- formed in the central business district with the Loop as a stage for all the world to see. Here are giant buildings, some with revo- lutionary forms of architecture. The erection of the Prudential Building in 1955 was the breakthrough. It was the first Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5596 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 CONGRESSIONAL, RECORD - HOUSE Marc.-151966 major structure built on the Loop since the Field Building in 1932. New York City experienced an extraordi- nary post-World War II construction boom while little was happening in Chicago. Now, New York is beset with major municipal problems while Chicago and its suburbs leap ahead. Daley, a Democrat, first was elected in 1955. Chicago's revival closely parallels the emer- gence of his leadership. Businessmen, industrialists, labor and civic leaders all give their respective professions much of the credit for this new vitality, but they point to Daley as the perso'h who brought all the forces together. BRINGS ABOUT RAPPORT "The mayor has brought about an amalga- mation of the best of labor, politics, religion, education, and business," said Edward Loge- lin, vice president of the United States Steel Corp. and chairman of the Chicago. plan com- mission. Logelin is a Republican. "When he gets us around the conference table, It is not to talk about differences but the common interests of Chicago." In pinpointing the reasons for Chicago's resurgence, 1959 is a vintage year. After 7 years of discussions, work com- menced on O'Hare International Airport. The St. Lawrence Seaway opened, making Chicago an international port. Chicago was host to the Pan-American games. The city's first international trade fair took place and the Queen of England came to visit. Her reception was quite different from that of the first royalty to visit the city. PRINCE WAS INVITED That was in 1860, when Long John Went- worth, the mayor, invited Albert Edward, Prince of Wales and later to become Edward VII, to visit Chicago. The prince accepted on the condition he could come incognito as Baron Renfrew. There was to be no fanfare. Edward underestimated Chicago's resource- fulness. When he started to tour the city, shiny fire engines fell in behind his carriage. Then came numerous floats representing the city's industries, and 50,000 persons lined his route along Wabash and Michigan Avenues. This sort of spirit always has been a char- acteristic of Chicago. It is with this same energy that Chicago is beating the drums for new business. The city's emissaries have been well received in New York City and other cities by business- mgn anxious to learn of the advantages of- fered here. COMPUTER TELLS STORY When Chrysler Corp. decided to build a new plant, it collected basic information from probable sites throughout the country. This data was put on 1,600 tabulating cards and fed to a computer. The answer came up Belvidere, east of Rockford, and only 75 miles northwest of Chicago. A key reason was Chicago's vast transpor- tation network. It is the center of the world's air, rail, and truck systems and is rapidly developing as a seaport. Businesses are finding that the prestige address of New York City may be costing them thousands of dollars in extra operating costs. An accountant association in New York City made a survey of operation costs in Chicago. The association found it could save $70,000 annually in air fares alone by locating here. A confectionery company discovered it's more economical to import cocoa beans, needed for chocolate, through Chicago and market the finished product from here than to import the beams through east and west coast ports. The company closed down its coast operations. FOUNDED AS TRADING POST Chicago Is only 129 years old. It was founded as a frontier trading post. It is now the greatest trading center in the world. Its image has been given a big boost be- cause of the misfortunes that have befallen New York City. New York has a per capita bonded debt of $446.07. Chicago's is $145.90. Further- more, Chicago's bonded debt is of short duration and represents 42 percent of the city's constitutional limit of indebtednes. New York's heralded World's Fair fell short of expectations. The city has experienced crippling newspaper strikes and the recent transit strike. It was the victim of a power surge which blacked out the New England States. The east coast metropolis faces another severe water shortage this summer unless New England gets above-normal snowfall the rest of this winter. Crime publicity, which had made Chicago a favorite whipping boy for three generations, has tapped a lucrative source in recent years in New York City. Chicago has not had a newspaper strike in. 17 years. It last had a mass transit strike in 1922. Commonwealth Edison has said that the massive blackout which hit New England is unlikely :here. WATER SUPPLY IS EXCELLENT The water supply in Chicago is excellent. A city resident can get unlimited water for approximately $30 a year. This includes garbage pickup. Chicago provides water to 61 suburbs. The city put into operation a year ago the world's largest and most modern water filtration plant. Jarred by the Surnmerdale police scandal in 1961, Chicago :reacted positively to reform. Police Superintendent O. W. Wilson stream- lined the police communications system, in- creased the number of squads on the street, boosted the prestige of the policeman, and instituted Operation Crimestop, a program encouraging citizens to report crimes and suspicious activities. Last year. crime on Chicago streets de- clined 12 percent although every other metro- politan city and the Nation as a whole re- ported substantial increases. Chicago's police administration has become a proto- type for other municipalities, both foreign and national. The summer before the great fire of 1871, Chicagoans were paying more in fire insur- ance rates than they were contributing in municipal, county, and State taxes combined. By contrast, Chicago today has a class II rating from the National Board of Under- writers for fire insurance. What makes this remarkable is that no city has a class I rating and only :11 cities have class II. Chi- cago is the only city of more than 1 million population among the 11. HAS LOW DEATH RATE The city had the lowest metropolitan traffic death rate in 1960, 1962, and 1964, and earned the honor again in 1965. Chicago has received the cleanest city award in 5 of the last 6 years. The resurgence reaches far beyond the boundaries of the city or the 7.5 million persons living in the eight-county metro- politan area. Chicago's influence on the en- tire Midwest is probably greater than is actually realized, civic leaders point out. For example, a truck pulling out of a Chi- cago terminal tonight with a cargo of manu- factured goods will be unloading at a ware- house in Charles City, Iowa, 360 miles distant, tomorrow morning. Many producers have found it more eco- nomical to export overseas from the port of Chicago than through the coastal cities of New Orleans and Baltimore. A canning factory in Madison, Tenn., which exports canned corn to northwestern Europe, has found it cheaper to ship through Chicago than New Orleans. GET FAVORABLE RATES Minnesota, Nebraska, and Kansas pro- ducers are discovering more favorable ship- ping rates through the Chicago port. Businessmen are continually revising the boundaries of the Chicago trade area. Now they think in terms of a 500-mile radius which includes a population of 63 million. The revitalization of the railroads, the completion of the Interstate Highway Sys- tems and city expressways, and the expan- sion of the seaport make all of this realistic. Historians have called Chicago the most American of all cities. Some have been critical of the premium put on the dollar by Chicagoans. MANY BECOME WEALTHY The society of other great cities was based on heritage. Chicago's society was deter- mined by bank accounts. Great personal fortunes have been made here, and in many different ways. The Palmers, Armours, Fields and others became some of the world's wealthiest families. In assessing the drive behind Chicago's current prosperity, history may offer a lesson. At the very beginning, Chicago's wealthy leaders found private gain and public in- terest were compatible. A healthy city meant a prosperous busi- ness. The formula is still working today. [From the Chicago (Ill.) Tribune, Mar. 6, 1966] CHICAGO GROWTH TO GREATNESS IS ONLY BEGINNING (By David Halvorsen) The wagon trains trundled regularly into the dirt streets of Chicago in the 1830's. They set up temporary camp south of Fort Dearborn along what is now Michigan Ave- nue. Most were fortune seekers heading west- ward, but some assessed, quite accurately, that the frontier town had a future and therefore was a place to make a lot of money and make it fast. Indian trails had led to the confluence of the Chicago and Des Plaines Rivers, and for much the same reason the pioneers fol- lowed these routes. It was a logical way to get across the country. GEOGRAPHY TRUMP CARD Soon followed the steam locomotive. Chi- cago became the terminal between the East- ern and Western railroads. Later came the highways bearing motorcars, the waterways to the Mississippi River and the sea, and the airlines. Geography has been Chicago's trump card since the city went after the high stakes of becoming one of the world's great urban centers. In the last decade the city has been dealt a handful of aces. 1. Metropolitan Chicago is the industrial center of the world. The area, with 3.8 per- cent of the national population, produces 5.1 percent of the gross national product. NEAR POPULATION CENTER 2. The population center of the United States is on a 160-acre farm, 6.5 miles north- west of Centralia and about 1 mile south- southwest of the community of Shattuc in Clinton County. 3. - Illinois is the leading agricultural prod- ucing State in the union. 4. Chicago is the center of the world's greatest transportation network. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 Q proved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 March 15, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE FOUR PREVIOUS POINTS The North Vietnamese National Assembly on April 10, 1965, had posed these four points as conditions for negotiations: 1, All U.S. troops must withdraw from South Vietnam. (It was not stipulated that withdrawal would have to take place before a negotiated settlement rather than after, so this point was apparently left open for bargaining.) 2. Pending peaceful reunification of Viet- nam, the 1954 military agreement must be respected and both North and South remain neutral. 3. Internal affairs must be settled by South Vietnamese themselves, "in accordance with the program of the National Liberation Front," without any foreign interference. 4. Peaceful reunification of Vietnam to be settled by Vietnamese people in both zones without foreign interference. These conditions are subject to long and tortured interpretation, but they are not a complete bar to discussions. They are not irreconcilable with the 14 points set forth by President Johnson on January 3, 1966. The President's offer of negotiation terms, however, quickly drew the new and impos- sible fifth point from Ho Chi Minh. He ,knows of course that we could not refuse a place at the conference table to the govern- ment we have supported in Saigon. To do so would be to surrender the people we have Made our allies to the Communists, fully and finally. It would be to seal the fate of South Vietnam without an expression of the will of the people. It is a familiar technique in a dispute for one side to offer to talk, but set conditions it knows its opponent cannot conceivably accept. The Soviet Union has played that game in the long struggle for disarmament. Now Hanoi makes negotiation unattainable, while loudly accusing America of bad faith in its efforts toward peace. The Intransigence of Hanoi does not mean that America should abandon all efforts to negotiate. If anything, it increases our duty to maintain and strengthen our peaceful intentions. But in the meanwhile there is no use blinding ourselves to what is happening in Hanoi and Peipig. The Communist leaders believe they are going to win, and they will at present accept no compromise short of total victory. The House voted approval of the additional to extend his remarks at this point in the $4.8 billion by 392 to 4, the Senate by 93 RECORD and to include extraneous mat- to 2. ter.) Approval of the money was inevitable, for Congress could hardly vote in effect to aban- Mr. KING of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the don the more than 200,000 American troops Washington Evening Star editorially now engaged with the Communists on the praises the President's recommendations ground in South Vietnam. made in his message on pollution and But the vote might not have been so over- conservation. whelming, and it need not have been pre- His recommendations included trans- Senator by such a smashing Senate defeat of Senator WAYNE MoRsE's effort to repudiate fer of the Water Pollution Control Ad- the 1064 resolution pledging congressional ministration from the Public Health support for "all necessary measures" to resist Service to the Interior Department, and Communist agression in southeast Asia. establishing a National Water Commis- on a motion to table (kill) Senator sion "to review and advise on the entire MORSE'S motion, only 4 Senators joined MoasE, with 92 in effect voting to reconfirm range of water resources problems." the resolution. The Star concludes that: NO ESCALATION MANDATE Perhaps the great conservation task that A minority of House and Senate liberals- so badly needs doing is at last about to shift put at 77 in the House and 17 in the Senate- into high gear. deny the vote for more Vietnam funds was a The timely appraisal will interest my mandate for unrestrained escalation of the colleagues, and I therefore make the edi- war. tonal a Of course it wasn't. And only a small part of the RECORD: minority of Americans advocate such escala- `Too MANY CooKs tion, just as only a small minority advocate Two things emerge from President John- American retreat. son's message on pollution and conservation Even Senator FuLBRICmT, chairman of the that may have more long-range significance Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who that the specific requests he has made. voted with Moasx on the 1964 resolution These are his recommendations to transfer repudiation, did not advocate withdrawal in the Water Pollution Control Administration explaining his vote. He rather simply from the Public Health Service to the In- pointed to the need for seeking a "general terior Department, which controls most accommodation" in southeast Asia for "neu- water programs, and to establish a National tralization of the entire region as between Water Commission "to review and advise on China and the United States." the entire range of water resources prob- But as Peter Lisagor, of the Chicao Daily lems." News Service, points out, administration At the moment there are far too many spokesmen have supported a neutral Laos cooks at the Federal level involved in the and Cambodia, and have agreed to a non- field of conservation. For example, in our aligned South Vietnam If the Communists own Potomac Basin a White House-backed will call off their aggression. It is Commu- than the specific requests he has made. nist China, not the United States, which has for the Nation is confronted with coordinat- consistently rejected neutralization. ing antipollution planning among four Despite the continued negative attitude of agencies. The President's recommendation both Communist China and North Vietnam, would at least narrow this to three. President Johnson again extended the olive What is really needed, of course, is a much branch. While the Senate was debating the greater concentration than this. The Hoover increased aid bill, he called again on Hanoi Commission recommended that total con- to "negotiate peace" and renewed his offer servation responsibility be concentrated in a for a "massive effort of reconstruction" after Department of Natural Resources. And a a settlement in both North and South Viet- bill sponsored by Senator Moss, of Utah, nam. UNDER C REFUL CONTROL aimed at this desirable goal even now is be- fore Congress. While this was balanced by a promise to The political complexities in any such re- SUPPORT OF POLICY continue the measured use of force," the organization are great and there can be no White House said the President would "con- quick and easy solution. But the proposals (Mr. KING of Utah (at the request of tinue to act responsibly" and it reiterated to transfer antipollution responsibility and Mr. Pucriss :I) was granted permission his New York pledge to use "prudent firm- coordinate water resource planning look like to extend his remarks at this point in the ness under careful control." steps in the right direction: Perhaps the It seems to us that this is all anyone can great conservation task that so badly needs RECORD and to include extraneous mat- ask, and that Congress acted responsibly- doing is at last about to shift into high gear. and in accordance with the views of most Mr. KING of Utah, Mr. Speaker, the Americans. They desire, no more than the VV_ Salt Lake Tribune states editorially that President, unrestrained escalation of this VIETNAM In voting additional funds to conduct the war. They want a peace settlement which war in Vietnam "Congress acted respon- will permit the orderly and honorable with- (Mr, KING of Utah (at the request of sibly-and in accordance with the views drawal of American troops. They are ready Mr. PucleisKi) was granted permission to of most Americans." for unconditional negotiations toward that extend his remarks at this point in the end anywhere, under any auspices. RECORD and to include extraneous mat- The paper believes that most Ameri- It is not new American policy to support ter.) cans do not want an "unrestrained es- people resisting Communist aggression, nor calation," but that they do want an hon- to uphold the basic principle of self-deter- Mr. KING of Utah. Mr. Speaker, the orable peace and that they are ready, for urination of people. American policy in Viet- congressional dialog on Vietnam con- "unconditional negotiations toward that nam is simply a continuance of a firm U.S. tinues apace, and few there are, by now, end anywhere, under any auspices." stand against Communist aggression which who have not spoken out. My own posi- Because the summation made by this this country has followed for nearly 20 years tion is that we must continue to resist newspaper will be of interest to many, at a dozen points along the vast periphery of Communist aggression and terrorism. I the Russian and Chinese Communist em- have affirmed, and reaffirmed this pro- I am making the editorial available by pires. And we believe that fundamental offering it now for publication in the policy has the same basic American support position on occasions too numerous to RECORD: today that it had when it first took form mention. .There seems little doubt that the over- whelming approval in Congress of additional funds to finance the war in Vietnam is a vic- I willingly concede that we have made mistakes. If it were possible to unravel the tangled fabric of the past, no doubt a better fabric could then be rewoven, But that is not our present option. It was Adlal Stevenson, I believe, who said: Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 5622 Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE IarcrC 15, 1966 "If the present persists in setting in judgment on the past, the future is lost.,, The time is now for action. The sig- nals have already been called, and the ball is in motion. America has no other choice than to execute the play, and to smash forward to a touchdown. This does not mean that our policy or methods are no longer open to discussion, or even to criticism. Far from it. On several oc- casions I myself have raised my voice against sloppy and inefficient practices which I felt were militating against our success in the field. I shall continue to do so. It is one thing, however, to offer con- structive criticism, in order to improve the war effort. It Is another thing to embarrass, or obstruct, or to deliberately weaken our national will to fight. With an? such effort I have no sympathy. There has been so much said about what we are doing wrong, and so little, comparatively speaking, about what we are doing right. It is with a view to strengthening our will, and putting our present posture into a truer perspective that I am taking this time to review, briefly, the splendid work of our JUSPAO organization, and the success it has had In the field of psychological warfare. We hear so much about the conventional battles that are raging in Vietnam, and about the statistics on casualties suf- fered, lives lost, and planes and materiel destroyed. The real war however, is being fought, not for the bodies but for the minds of the Vietcong. The work of JUSPAO is no less significant because It receives so little recognition. In my opinion It is our ultimate weapon. SELECTIVE ACHIEVEMENTS OF JUSPAO GENERAL Just as crucial as, and in the long run more important than, the current mili- tary effort in Vietnam is the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese. At the heart of this psychological task is communication-particularly communi- cation between the populace and their government. In the U.S. mission, the agency with primary responsibility for counseling and assisting the Government of Vietnam--GVN-in the field of psychological action is the Joint United States Public Affairs Office-JUSPAO. JUSAPO was created In May 1965 as a result of President Johnson's decision giving the Director of USIA authority over all U.S. psychological operations in Vietnam. The majority of the American staff are USIA officers, but others come from the Department of State, AID, and the U.S. military. Headed by a senior USIA official-who is also Minister Coun- selor of Embassy for Information- JUSPAO Is a U.S. mission organization which provides unified direction for all U.S. psychological action in Vietnam. Having directly integrated the com- munication media functions of USAID Vietnam, JUSPAO Is the U.S. civilian channel for providing communication equipment and technical advice to the GVN. Through policy direction given to the psywar operations of MACV's Politi- cal Warfare Directorate, JUSPAO helps assure close coordination between U.S. civilian and military psywar personnel in provincial operations. JUSPAO has three main psychological objectives: First, to strengthen the Viet- namese will to support GVN/US mutual objectives; second, to strengthen the gov- ernment's communication media and programs to increase popular support of its overall objectives; and third, to strengthen free world support for Viet- nam and of Vietnamese support for U.S. worldwide policy objectives. In pursuit of these objectives, JUSPAO has over 150 American officers and nearly 400 Vietnamese employees. Ideas, per- sonal contact, media materials, and com- munication equipment are tools and channels in this war for men's minds. The impact of various JUSPAO programs very often is localized. The successes may not lend themselves to newspaper headlines. They are the backside of news, and some of these are capsulized below. RADIO In a country like South Vietnam where literacy rate is low,, particularly in the rural area, radio is a vital link between the Government and the people. In the past, the Radio Vietnam-VTVN-with a station in Saigon and several regional transmitters was not fully utilized or co- ordinated because of poor organization, lack of trained personnel and program- ing skills. As a first step toward helping the GVN develop a more truly national radio network, JUSPAO convinced and assisted the GVN in December 1965 to restructure Radio Vietnam into a semi- autonomous broadcasting corporation. Steps are now being taken to link the existing stations into a national network. Two JUSPAO radio advisory teams are actively engaged In training Vietnamese in program production, station and net- work management and administration, and central and regional programing. One of the teams is assigned to the VTVN while the other is assisting the Vietna- mese Defense Ministry's Voice of Free- dom Station which broadcasts to North Vietnam. JUSPAO also produces locally between 60 and 75 hours of radio programs every week for placement with Vietnamese stations. From Washington, the Voice of America broadcasts to South and North Vietnam 61/2 hours daily in Viet- namese. The Voice maintains a trans- mitting and relay complex in Hue, South Vietnam, just south of the 17th parallel. The 50,000 watt, medium-wave relay transmitter has directional antennas capable of providing strong signals to both North and South Vietnam. Over the past year and a half, incidentally, the site has been shelled by the Vietcong several times. OTHER MEDIA JUSPAO effort Is not confined to radio. A publication adviser is working with the Vietnamese Ministry of Psywar in the production of pamphets, leaflets and posters. In the GVN's National Motion Picture Center, a JUSPAO adviser helps in all aspects of the conception and pro- duction of newsreels, documentaries and feature films. To help the GVN improve its press output and thus to facilitate coverage of Vietnam developments by foreign newsmen, a JUSPAO press ad- viser is assigned to the Vietnam Press, the Government's national news agency, to provide on-the-job training and class- room Instructions on journalism. PSYCHOLOGICAL OPERATIONS IN THE PROVINCES JUSPAO operates extensively in rural South Vietnam, and some 40 American JUSPAO field representatives are sta- tioned in the provinces to give assistance and support to cadres of the Vietnamese Information Service-VIS-in psy- chological operations. The tasks of JUSPAO field representatives cover a wide spectrum; namely, stimulating action by provincial psychological oper- ations committees in every province; as- sisting in the publication of 24 provincial newspapers and programing of re- gional radio stations; showing GVN and JUSPAO films made for provincial audiences; developing posters, pamph- lets, leaflets and other publications de- signed for audiences in a particular pro- vince or even district; employing air- borne loudspeakers and leaflet drops for fast exploitation of local issues; and deploying VIS and JUSPAO cultural troups which present a government mes- sage via entertainment. A considerable part of the JUSPAO effort in the Provinces has gone into supporting the Government's Chieu Hoi-Open Arms-program which en- courages Vietcong and their followers to return to government-controlled areas. Where local Chieu Hoi programs are imaginatively and vigorously pursued and where especially effective leaflets and othe. ? messages are employed, the psychological tasks of persuasion has yielded results. The following incidents show this by the extent of Vietcong re- action and counteraction. In August, 1965, 150,000 copies of a JUSPAO-originated leaflet were air- dropped into parts of Vinh Binh Prov- ince in the Delta. According to re- turnees who defected on the basis of it as well as captured Vietcong documents, within 3 days every Vietcong found picking up or holding this leaflet was immediately transferred to another re- gion so that he would not "contaminate" others. Also around this time, in Vinh Long Province nearby, the Vietcong were driven to holding public meetings to counter the Chieu Hoi appeal. The villagers in these public meetings were warned that anyone found with a leaflet was liable to be shot. They were also told that anyone going over to the gov- ernment side in response to the appeal would be tortured. That Vietcong threats and intimida- tion have not been fully effective can be seen in the number of individuals who have responded to the Chieu Hot appeal since the program was launched in Feb- ruary 1963. From that time to date, some 30,000 Vietcong and their followers had returned to the government side; 11,000 of them came back during 1965 alone. The monthly returnee rate last year is particularly notable for its sharp upward trend. In January 1965, there were 406 returnees; by December the number had climbed to 1,482. In Janu- ary 1966, the 1,672 Chieu Hot returnees who came back set an alltime record. These statistics reflect the impact of U.S. Approved For Release 2005/06/29 : CIA-RDP67B00446R000400040012-1 -. o proved For Mgq?J 9RfiMBP67 March 15, ftR000400040012-1 military buildup, upswing of Vietnamese morale and the series of GVN-US mili- tary successes. Since JUSPAO psycho- logical operations were aimed at rein- forcing and exploiting these favorable trends, the Chieu Hoi statistics are in part a measure of JUSPAO accomplish- ment. Statistical profile aside, there have also been instances of specific reaction to the GVN/US psychological operations aimed specifically at the Vietcong. On October 24, 1965, copies of eight different leaflets were airdropped in a coordinated psywar campaign into Viet- cong strongholds in the IV Corps area. In the next week, a check of Vietcong defectors indicated that of the 86 coming in from the areas covered, 62 carried copies of the leaflets dropped on October 24. Reacting to other media used, the Vietcong in one instance moved into a village and removed all anti-Vietcong slogans and banners and warned the peo- ple not to take part in any demonstra- tion being organized as part of the psy- war campaign. Yet in another village, as a result of demonstrations held, the villagers drew up a letter stressing their determination to resist Vietcong pressure. The letter was signed by 65 villagers- an act of considerable courage since it could easily turn into a Vietcong death warrant. A complete unit defection, that of a 22-man Vietcong guerrilla platoon oc- curred in mid-December 1965, in Binh Tuy Province, as a result of a coordi- nated military-psychological warfare operation. JUSPAO played an active role assisting the Vietnamese in carrying out the psychological phase which in- cluded ground and air loudspeaker oper- ations and leaflets. Wives of. known Vietcong were permitted and encouraged to cross the frontline positions to con- tact their husbands and assure them that they would be well treated and that they should surrender. The surrender appeals specified that the Vietcong should come via roads, with their shirts ,il', hands over their heads and' with their rifles slung, muzzles pointed down- ward. Within a week of the operation, Vietcong defectors began to come in, .isually in two's and three's. The 22- nan platoon, however, brought with ;hem 9 rifles and, as a group, followed the Ixplicit instructions mentioned above. JUSPAO SUPPORT TO SOCIAL REFORM Compared to the immediate impact of 3sywar efforts, the JUSPAO role in sup- aort of social improvement and reform programs In South Vietnam is, of a onger range nature. To assist the Gov- ~rnment to win and maintain the loyal- ~ies of its people, particularly in rural areas, JUSPAO exploits the economic and social progress which the GVN with AID support has been able to achieve in the countryside. There, military secu- rity must precede economic and social developmental efforts, but such develop- ment is directly related to a favorable psychological climate which JUSPAO activities aim to create. This involves more than publicizing GVN projects car- ried out with AID assistance; it involves No. 45--i2 instilling confidence in the benefits of self-help on the part of the villagers as well as confidence that the Government is sincerely interested in helping the peo- ple and in fact is doing so in various fields; and of great importance, In help- ing the GVN communicate to its people its plans for a social revolution. Media products on AID activities are produced by JUSPAO for use not only in Vietnam but-through USIS posts- in many third countries as well. A series of photos packets are periodically sent to some 78 USIS posts worldwide for place- ment in the indigenous press and period- icals; these contain a substantial num- ber of AID stories. Two USIA officers are assigned full time to maintain liaison with USAID in Saigon; they help develop media materials on AID projects and facilitate third-country coverage of these projects. In motion pictures, the JUSPAO biweekly series of news maga- zines deals with U.S. aid to South Viet- nam, among other topics. And between one-third and one-half of the regular radio series-produced by JUSPAO in the field or USIA in Washington-are frequently on AID topics; such as, round- table discussion on economic develop- ment programs, documentary coverage of AID projects, interviews with "un- common people," among whom are AID technicians and experts. AID stories and articles on agricul- tural hints and self-help projects are featured prominently in the JUSPAO mass-circulating magazine, Rural Spirit. A monthly magazine written in simple language designed principally for a peas- ant audience in support of the GVN rural construction program, Rural Spirit is distributed in 350,000 copies per issue. The Vietnamese edition of Free World magazine also carries the story of eco- nomic development and nation building to a more sophisticated audience of school teachers and students. Its monthly circulation is 235,000 copies. POSTSCRIPT . As James Reston wrote in the New York Times of February 18, 1966: Vietnam is the first American war ? + fought with the television cameras right on the battlefield. The advantages are obvious. These * * * scenes of our men under fire are taking some of the silly romance out of war, but inevitably they portray only one side of the story. The Vietnam struggle is indeed many sided. The material herein represents a quick review of some aspects of the U.S. nonmilitary effort in South Vietnam, in which USIA is directly and intimately involved. INCREASE DAIRY PRICE SUPPORTS (Mr. KASTENMEIER (at the request of Mr. PucINsxx) was granted permission to extend his remarks at this point in the RECORD and to include extraneous mat- ter.) Mr. KASTENMEIER. Mr. Speaker, I have introduced a bill today to amend the Agricultural Act of 1949 to give the Department of Agriculture the addi- tional authority it needs to increase dairy support levels. 5623 The falloff in milk output, which be- gan last year, has hastened the disap- pearance of a national surplus that al- ready was dwindling. The total milk production for 1965 fell to some 125 bil- lion pounds, a drop of 11/2 percentage points from the 1964 level. The January 1966 figures indicate an even more drastic decline. The reports for that month show that the total U.S. milk pro- duction fell 5.3 percent below the year ago level. The decline was far more alarming in the top two milk producing States-a 7-percent drop in Wisconsin, the No. 1 producing State, and a 14-per- cent decline in the No. 2 producer, Min- nesota. The Department of Agriculture's count of the Nation's dairy herd reported a January total of 16.6 million. This is 5.6 percent less than the previous year and the largest year-to-year percentage decline on record. The current dairy price support is 75 percent of parity-some $3.24 a hundred for 3.7 milk. This price has been in effect since April 1, 1965. A new support level will be announced for the new mar- kei