Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 12, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 11, 2001
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
October 26, 1971
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3.pdf9.47 MB
Approved For Release 2001/11/15 CIA-RDP 3B00296R000400120011-3 Journal - Office of Legislative Counsel Page 3 Tuesday - 26 October 1971 10. (Confidential - JMM) Met with Bill Woodruff, Counsel, Senate Appropriations Committee, who said that he saw little chance of defeating the amendments to the Foreign Aid bill which concerned us on the floor of the Senate, and felt the best bet would be to amend them in conference with the House. 11. (Confidential - JMM) Called Ed Braswell, Chief Counsel, Senate Armed Services Committee, to say there was confusion over whether the Chairman wanted to see the Director tomorrow afternoon to discuss amend- ments to the Foreign Aid bill. We agreed that we would bring over to Braswell our suggestions for Senator Stennis' use in this connection by around noon tomorrow, at which time Braswell might be able to clarify the Senator's wishes regarding a meeting with the Director. 12. (Confidential - JGO) Talked to Mr. Ralph Preston, House Appropriations Committee staff, who told me that he will be engaged full time in the next several days in the mark-up of the Defense Appro- priation bill and requested that delivery of the safe be delayed for a week or so. 13. (Internal Use Only - JGO) Talked to Lynn Harris, in the office of Representative William Minshall (R. , Ohio), who told me that the Speaker's office was unable to confirm the Speaker's dining room for Thursday but that they should know in the morning. As a backup, House Appropriations Committee room will be available in the event the Speaker's dining room should cancel out. 14.. (Confidential- GLC) Dorothy Fosdick, Staff Director, Subcom- mittee on National Security and International Operations, called to say Senator Jackson had asked that she and Charles E. Horner (a recent addition to the Subcommittee staff) get a briefing on the India/Pakistan situation. I checked with OCI, and made arrangements for us to meet with the staff on Thursday, 28 October, at 3:00 p.m. Miss Fosdick said Horner has DOD top secret clearance (which I confirmed) and we agreed the briefing would not go higher than that level. r9 1; Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11162 Approved For Relea( r 1 1w1QL44jM 02"8Q 0012001 vember 17, 1971 Kuykendall Mikva Stanton, Landgrebe O'Hara James V. Lent Pelly Steed Link Roberts Steele McClure Rosenthal Teague, Calif. McDade Runnel& Thompson, N.J. McKevitt Scheuer Widnall Mathias, Calif. Schwengel The SPEAKER. On this rolleall 369 Members have answered to their names, a quorum. By unanimous consent, further pro- ceedings under the call were dispensed with. CORRECTION OF THE RECORD Mr. HARRINGTON. Mr. Speaker, I herewith ask unanimous consent that my remarks appearing on page El 0688 of the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of October 12, 1971, be deleted from the permanent RECORD. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mass- achusetts? There was no objection. REFUSAL OF UNITED STATES TO SELL PHANTOM JETS TO ISRAEL (Mr. GUDE asked and was given per- mission to address the House for 1 minute, to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous matter.) Mr. GUDE. Mr. Speaker, the recent statement by Secretary Rogers that the United States will not sell Israel any more Phantom jets at this time is most disturbing. The assertion by the Secre- tary that Soviet shipments of arms to Egypt have been moderate, does not square with the bellicose language that has been coming out of Cario lately. The intend of the administration should not be to pressure Israel into ac- cepting the interim settlement laid down by the Department of State last month. Instead the United States should con- tinue to encourage a negotiated settle- ment between the Arabs and Israel. No agreement that has been imposed by the big powers will be respected. No peace that has come about through pres- sure rather than the voluntary settle- ment of differences will ever last. The United States has a commitment to Israel-a -commitment that has the full support of both the House and the Senate. Our military assistance to Israel should be designed to guarantee them security so that both -Israel and the Egyptians will realize that a voluntary agreement is the only possible answer to the Middle East dilemma. We should stop using our assistance to force Israel into concessions that we feel are appro- priate, but which could hurt one of our very best friends in the community of nations. REQUEST FOR PERMISSION TO FILE CONFERENCE REPORT ON HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION 946, FURTHER CONTINUING APPROPRIATIONS, 1972 Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that the managers may have until midnight tomorrow to file a conference report on House Joint Resolution 946, making further continu- ing appropriations for the fiscal year 1972, and for other purposes. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I understand this is the continuing resolution? Mr. MAHON. This is the continuing resolution which was sent to conference last night. Mr. GROSS. Has there been any agree- ment reached by the conferees? Mr. MAHON. There have been infor- mal discussions but no formal meeting of the conferees. Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, under those circumstances, I object. The SPEAKER. Objection is heard. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1972 Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House resolve itself into the Com- mittee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further considera- tion of the bill (H.R. 11731) making ap- propriations for the Department of De- fense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for other purposes. The SPEAKER. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas. The motion was agreed to. The SPEAKER. The Chair requests that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. PICKLE) temporarily assume the chair. IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE Accordingly the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 11731), with Mr. PICKLE (Chairman pro em- pore) in the chair. The Clerk read the title of the bill. The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the committee rose on yesterday the Clerk had read through line 9, page 22 of the bill. If there are no amendments to be proposed, the Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows : RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION, NAVY For expenses necessary for basic and ap- plied scientific research, development, test, and evaluation, including maintenance, re- habilitation, lease, and operation of facilities and equipment, as authorized by law; $2,358,- 319,000, and in addition, $20,000,000 to be derived by transfer from "Research, Develop- ment, Test, and Evaluation, Navy, 1971/ 1972", to remain available for obligation until June 30, 1973. Mr. GIAIMO. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. I wish to take exception to the dele- tion of $2.1 million pertaining to the im- proved CH-53 for the U.S. Navy and U.S. Marine Corps. There is, I presume, some misunder- standing on this matter because of previ- ous communications from the chairman of this committee and the Under Secre- tary of Defense, as set forth in the hear- ings on page 81. I have researched this matter and it is clear to me that the triservice heavy lift helicopter still is the program sup- ported by all the services, including the U.S. Navy. The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps amphibious operations. For their land operations when this helicop- ter becomes available in 1980. This heli- copter will be too large for operation from most of the vessels used to support Marine Corps amphibious operations. For this reason, the Navy and Marine Corps require increased helicopter capa- bility for tactical use in amphibious war- fare. This is the purpose of their request for the improved CH-53. The improved CH-53 is to be an ad- vanced version of the present CH-53 now in the Navy/Marine Corps inventory. If developed it would be the largest helicop- ter, with a payload of 16 tons, that could be operated from ships utilized for am- phibious landings. The improved CH-53 does not repre- sent a technological risk, since most of the components are derivatives of the CH-53 now in operation with the U.S. Marine Corps. May I add that the CH-53 has an excellent record in Vietnam and is used by the U.S. Navy, Marine Corps., and U.S. Air Force. There should be no question about de- veloping a three-engine version of the CH-53 since the aircraft was originally designed for growth in this manner. Si- korsky helped develop the three-engine Super Frelon built in France and this three-engined aircraft has held the world's speed record for 8 years. Mr. Chairman, on page 111 of the re- port the committee deletes the prior year funds available for this program. I quote from the language of the committee : The committee feels that it was misled in this affair and wants to very carefully review any Other heavy lift helicopter efforts be- fore placing funds in this area. I would hope that the committee would keep an open mind on this problem, which in my opinion can still be re- solved. The fact is I do not believe the Department of Defense misled the com- mittee. It came in here some years ago saying it could develop one heavy lift helicopter to do all the. functions. It sub- sequently developed that the heavy lift helicopter, to be designed and built some time around 1980, can do all the func- tions for all the services, including many of the functions which the Navy will need, but it cannot be operated from assault ships for Navy and Marine as- sault-type operations. It cannot be operated from assault ships for Navy or Marine assault opera- tions. I think it is to the credit of the services that they wrote to the commit- tee in time and explained the problem to the committee and informed it that for these limited assault-shipboard services the Navy needs a smaller helicopter which can be stored on board. By doing this, in my opinion, the services have avoided the pitfalls of a promise such as was made some years ago which led to the great fight over the TFX or the F- 111. A promise of a weapons system which was originally designed to per- form services for all of the branches of the Armed Forces and was, subsequently, not capable of performing them at all. I submit that the Navy feels very strong about this program, and I be- lieve it can make an excellent case. I would ask the subcommittee and the chairman of the committee, the gentle- man from Texas (Mr. MAHON) if they Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, 197ApprovedCON Release UDNAL1146(('6 RDflppR296R000400120011-3 H 11161 others who might find themselves in the same position. To Mrs. Pickett, nothing could better demonstrate democracy in action than the passage of this bill. I insert in the RECORD the last letter which Mrs. Picket received from her son: DEAR MOM: I joined the army because I believed in America. The Army tried to put me in Clerk school, but I told them I wanted to be in the infantry. Then I volunteered for jump school. They asked me to join the pathfinders but at the same time, they told me it meant Vietnam. Knowing this, I again volunteered because I thought I was really doing something for my country. I figured it was better than burning down my school. I will tell you, this being with your friend alive one minute and dead the next takes all the gung-ho-ness out of a person. I've seen some of the guys get sick. and throw up when they hear that they have to go out. I know and they know the war is still on. The tax payers worry about being sure that we only shoot so many rounds per month. Let's fight this war or get the hell out. We're tired of fighting a war with rules, no weapons and a limit in ammo. I feel like the war is something people talk about but never get off their behinds to do anything about it. I think it is time for the silent majority to make some noise. I'm sure if you were crawling through the brush and you couldn't see 5 feet in front of you and you were being shot at, you would make noise in a hurry. I volunteered to go into the middle of two battalions of NVA along with five other guys to get a body from a crashed helicopter. I'm no hero but all the guys here are the same way, we have a job to do. Mom, my new job, if you want to know, I did volunteer for it. Someone has to do it. I am the hunter of a hunter killer team and I ride in or pilot a very small helicopter at tree top level until the enemy fires at us then the larger gunships behind us come in to wipe out the enemy. I feel I am doing something for the war effort and maybe hurting some of those people that have hurt my friends. JANUARY 22 My luck ended on Jan. 22 when my ship was badly shot up. I saw the VC's rifle leaning against a tree and he got to it before I could get to my machine gun but we made it back to base. FEBRUARY 10 This was another bad day-my luck was pretty good though. We were shot down by mistake by the South Vietnamese and not a scratch. FEBRUARY 18 DEAR MOM: I feel that I will make it home. I only have 97 days of flying left. Mom, if the army ever comes to tell you I'm missing in action, it only means one thing, I'm-dead- they can't find my body. Mom, please don't worry about me because I'm not worried about me. I'll do my best to stay alive but I'm not afraid to die. If I die, I'll be doing it for my country, friends and family so that my brother or friends never have to come over here to see what I've seen-I've seen so much dying. Right now I have a feeling of emptiness like I've never had before without purpose and feel I need something but I don't know what that somthing Is. In other words, I'm a very mixed up kid. Your loving son, MARCH 1. DEAR Mom: I have 135 days left before you see me walk through the door. My time is getting short. I haven't much to say. I love you all and miss you very much. Love, BOB. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ar- kansas? There was no objection. The Clerk read the bill, as follows: H.R. 10604 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the second sentence of section 202(1) Of the So- cial Security Act Is amended (a) by striking out "or" at the end of clause (2), renumber- ing clause (3) as clause (4), and adding after clause (2) the following new clause (3) : "(3) if the body of such insured individ- ual is not available for burial, to any person or persons. equitably entitled thereto, to the extent and in the proportions that he or they shall have paid expenses of a burial or me- morial service or both and related expenses for such individual (and the Secretary shall by regulations prescribe the criteria for de- termining when and whether an insured in- dividual has died if, at the time such indi- vidual is alleged to have died, such individ- ual was serving as a member of the Armed Forces of the United States and if the body of such Individual has not been recovered or"; and (b) By striking out in the renumbered clause (4) "clauses (1) and (2)" and insert- ing in lieu thereof "clauses (1), (2), and (3) ". SEC. 2. The amendments made by the first section of this Act shall be effective only in the case of lump-sum death payments under title II of the Social Security Act made with respect to deaths which occur after Decem- ber 31, 1970. With the following committee amend- ment: Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu thereof the following: That (a) the second sentence of section 202(i) of the Social Security Act is amended by striking out "or" at the end of clause (2), by renumbering clause (3) as clause (4), and .by inserting after clause (2) the following new clause: "(3) if the body of such Insured individual is not available for burial but expenses were incurred with respect to such individual in connection with a memorial service, a me- morial marker, a site for the marker, or any other item of a kind for which expenses are customarily incurred in connection with a death and such expenses have been paid, to any person Or persons, equitably entitled thereto to the extent and in the proportions that he or they shall have paid such ex- penses; - or". (b) The second sentence of section 202(i) of such Act is further amended by striking out "clauses (1) and (2)" in the clause re- numbered as clause?(4) by subsection (a) and inserting in lieu thereof "clauses (1), (2), and (3)". SEc. 2. The amendments made by the first section of this Act shall be effective only in the case of lump-sum death payments under title II of the Social Security Act made with respect to deaths which occur after Decem- ber 31, 1970. Mr. MILLS of Arkansas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to dispense with further reading of the committee amendment and that it be printed in the RECORD. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. The committee amendment was agreed to. The bill, was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to recon- sider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. MILLS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my own remarks in connection with the bills just passed, and I ask unanimous consent that the authors of the bills may be permitted to extend their remarks. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas? There was no objection. PERMISSION FOR CLERK TO COR- RECT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 6065 Mr. MILLS of Arkansas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the Clerk may correct a typographical error, in the engrossment of H.R. 6065, just passed. The SPEAKER. Is -there objection to the request of the gentleman from Arkansas'.) There was no objection. CORRECTION OF ENGROSSMENT OF H.R. 10729, TO AMEND THE FEDERAL INSECTICIDE, FUNGI- CIDE, AND ' RODENTICIDE ACT Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a resolution (H. Res. 709) and ask unani- mous consent for its immediate consid- eration. The Clerk read the resolution as follows: - H. REs. 709 Resolved, That the Senate be requested to return to the House the bill (H.R. 10729). To amend the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, and for other purposes, and that the Clerk be authorized to reengross said bill with the following correction: On page 58, of the engrossed bill, following line 19, insert the text of Sections 3 and 4 as they were passed by the House as part of the bill on November 9, 1971. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? There was no objection. The resolution was agreed to. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. CALL OF THE HOUSE Mr. SCHERLE. Mr. Speaker, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present. The SPEAKER. Evidently a quorum is not present. Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I move a call of the House. A call of the House was ordered. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names : Abbitt Alexander Anderson, Tenn. Ashley Badillo Betts Blackburn Blatnik Boggs Celler Chappell Chisholm Clark [Roll No. 396] Clausen, Fish Don H. Fisher Clay Foley Conyers Ford, Cotter William D. Dellums Forsythe Derwinski Fraser Diggs Gallagher Dowdy Goodling Downing Griffiths Dulski Halpern Edmondson Hillis Edwards, Calif. Hosmer Edwards, La. Kee Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, roved Fob'WaUtWN4 5RWJ P9`9Qb 6R000400120011-3 H 11163 would keep an open mind in this area and allow the Navy to present their case in a convincing fashion, If so, we could pro- ceed with this program. Mr. MAHON. Will the gentleman yield? Mr. GIAIMO. I am happy to yield to my chairman. Mr. MAHON. The Defense Depart- ment came before the committee last fall and convinced the committee that a single heavy-lift helicopter for all of the services would be in order. This seemed like a very attractive idea and funds were appropriated based on this understand- ing. Subsequently, they had a competi- tion for an all-purpose heavy-lift heli- copter. A contractor was selected for that job and only then was the committee told that that helicopter was not suit- able for all uses. The gentleman has demonstrated a very deep understanding of the problem confronting the commit- tee. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, it is suggested that we ought to have an open mind with regard to the Navy requirements, and I think the position of the gentleman from Con- necticut is valid. I think we must keep an open mind in regard to this matter. No one I know of is set in concrete in connection with what decision should eventually be made in this matter. We recognize that conditions and concepts change. I know the gentleman from Connecti- cut, a member of the Committee on Ap- propriations himself, is quite aware of the various problems involved here, and I am sure there will be some solution to the problem. I thank the gentleman for raising the issue here. Mr. GIAIMO. I thank the gentleman. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. MOORHEAD Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. MOORHEAD: Page 23, line 20 immediately after '12,358,- 319,000" strike out the comma, and insert in lieu thereof the following: "(of which $10,- 000,000 shall be available only for initiating the development of two prototype, light air superiority aircraft, one of which shall not be procured from contractors engaged sub- stantially in either the F-14 or F-15 pro- grams) ,". .(Mr. MOORHEAD asked and was giv- en permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering is a promili- tary, pro-Navy amendment. If adopted it means that the Congress is -telling the Navy to plan to consider buying a light air - superiority aircraft-some- thing which they do not have and some- thing better than they now have. The amendment at the same time, however, is critical of the miltary. Quite frankly, it does not stop the F-14 but it questions the advisability of proceeding much further with the acquisiton of the F-14 airplane. I am not an aerospace engineer nor a cost accountant but I have a keen sense of smell. The F-14 has a C-5A odor-the smell of cost overruns and performance under- runs. When I smelled this in the C-5A pro- gram I tried to defeat that wasteful pro- gram by a direct frontal attack, but I relearned the truth of the political axiom that you can not beat something with nothing. I think the overly costly and potential- ly under performing F-14 program should be terminated before more of the taxpayers' valuable dollars are spent on this new military boondoggle. However, Mr. Chairman, we do not now have. an alternative to the Navy's undoubted need for an up-to-date light- air superiority aircraft. My amendment would set aside $10 million of the amount appropriated for two prototypes of a light-air superiority aircraft from a very hungry aerospace in- dustry, as an alternative to the very questionable F-14-an alternative which the Armed Services Committees, the Ap- propriations Committees, and the Con- gress can consider before we irrevocably commit ourselves to this dubious $2:5 bil- lion F-14 venture. Why the necessity for an alternative? Because even if-and that is a very big if-even if the F-14 should come close to meeting its specifications, it still will be no match for the Soviet's current Mig-23 in either speed, altitude, or maneuverability. Mig-23's are now flying over Israel with impunity because they can not be reached by our F-4's. Our F-14's or F- 15's which have not even been deployed yet, are slower, lower altitude airplanes even if they meet specifications. To those of my friends, who as I do, support the best for the military, I ask you to vote for the amendment so that we may have an alternative to buying an airplane already inferior in many re- spects to those the Soviets have already deployed. To those of my friends, who as I do, op- pose waste in military spending, I ask you to vote for this amendment so that next year we can have a reasonable and responsible alternative to this overly- costly and definitely inferior aircraft. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. MAHON asked and was given permisison to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The gentleman raises a good point, of course, in that we do need to try to de- velop some lightweight fighter, aircraft, less expensive aircraft, and it is for that reason that we have in this bill funds for the development of such a plane. That task has been assigned to the Air Force. Mr. Chairman, the amount contained in the bill for the prototype development of a lightweight fighter is $6 million. There has been no request from the Department of the Navyor the Depart- ment of Defense or from the Office of Budget and Management for funds for the development by the Navy of an ad- ditional lightweight aircraft. As we proceed a little further along with the Air Force, prototype effort, we would hope that the aircraft develop- ment will be successful as to performance and low cost, and that the plane could be made compatible for both the services at minimal additional cost. Of course, it is too early to know that. It seems to me that a single prototype development ef- fort for a lightweight fighter which is proposed in this bill is enough for us to do at this time. This should also be a more economical approach than initiat- ing two separate and competing Navy and Air Force programs for the develop- ment of lightweight fighters. So, I would respectfully request that the amendment be defeated. I realize the intent of the amendment is in recog- nition of the fact that we do need lighter weight, less expensive fighters. We believe we have taken the neces- sary steps to achieve this goal. It does not seem to me that the inclusion of ad- ditional funds, as proposed here, to initi- ate another lightweight fighter proto- type development program is warranted. Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, will the gen- tleman yield? Mr. MAHON, I yield to the gentleman from New York. . Mr. PIKE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The thing that concerns me about this is the language in the amendment which says that they shall not be procured from contractors engaged substantially in either the F-14 or F-15 programs. Frankly, almost every major contrac- tor engaged in building planes in America today is engaged in these programs to some degree, and if we are going to get planes built by somebody else who is not in the aircraft building business I cannot think of it more wasteful way to proceed. I just do not understand what "substan- tially engaged" means. It seems to me that the language as set up in this amendment would say that you have to go, if you are going to get a plane devel- oped, to a company that has not been in- volved in the manufacturing of planes, and I think this would be a very wasteful way to proceed. Mr. MAHON. I too believe we should not proscribe any contractor. Language to prohibit any contractor from partici- pating in a program would be contrary to usual practice and very dangerous. I would think that the Navy itself, if it had the funds and desired to go forward with this kind of a program, would select con- tractors who were objective and who did not have conflicting interests. But re- gardless of that, I think it would be a very bad policy indeed to have this sort of amendment adopted by the House. I oppose the amendment under all the circumstances, irrespective of the fact that I share the views of the gentleman from New York that a prohibition against certain contractors who might be con- sidered for the contract is not good legis- lation. Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to my distin- guished friend, the gentleman from Pennsylvania. Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. My objective was not to proscribe the contractors for the F-14 and F-15, but the desire to carry on with the prototype because a major part of their work would Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11164 Approved For Jk&F3B99a00040012ffloldefi2ber 17. 1971 of course be with those planes. However, if I could secure the support of the dis- tinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, I would certainly ac- cept an amendment deleting that part of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word, and I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, I certainly agree with everything the chairman of the full Com- mittee on Appropriations has said in op- position to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennnsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD) and I hope that the House will see fit to reject the amendment.. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. MOORHEAD). The amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: SEC. 713. (a) During the current fiscal year, the President may exempt appropriations, funds, and contract authorizations, available for military functions under the Department of Defense, from the provisions of subsection (c) of section 3679 of the Revised Statutes,, as amended, whenever he deems such action to be necessary in the interests of national de- fense. (b) Upon determination by the President that such action is necessary, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to provide for the cost of an airborne alert as an expected ex- pense in accordance with the provisions of Revised Statutes 3732 (41 U.S.C. 11). (c) Upon determination by the President that it is necessary to increase the number of military personnel on active duty beyond the number for which funds are provided in this Act, the Secretary of Defense is author- ized to provide for the cost of such increased military personnel, as an excepted expense in accordance with the provisions of Revised Statutes 3732 (41 U.S.C. 11). (d) The Secretary of Defense shall immedi- ately advise Congress of the exercise of any authority granted in this section, and shall report monthly on the estimated obligations incurred pursuant to subsections (b) and (c). AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. YATES Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. Mr. CRANE. Mr. Chairman, I make the point of order that a quorum is not pres- ent. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will count. Eighty-seven Members are present, not a quorum. The Clerk will call the roll. The Clerk called the roll, and the fol- lowing Members failed to answer to their names: [Roll No. 3971 Abbitt Derwinski Kee Alexander Diggs Kuykendall Archer Dingell Landgrebe Ashley Dowdy Link Bell Downing McClure Betts Dulski McDade Blackburn Edmondson McKevitt Blatnik Edwards, Ala. Mathias, Calif. Boggs Edwards, La. Mikva Brasco Erlenborn Murphy, N.Y. Carey, N.Y. Fish Purcell Celler Ford, Gerald R. Rallsback Chappell Forsythe Rangel Clark Frey Rees Clausen, Goodling Roberts Don H. Gray Rooney, Pa. Clay Halpern Rosenthal Corman Harsha Runnels Cotter HSbert Ruth Daniel, Va. Hosmer Scheuer Danielson Hungate Steed Steele Tiernan Wolff Stokes Wilson, Teague, Tex. Charles H. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee, having had under considera- tion the bill, H.R. 11731, and finding itself without a quorum, he had directed the roll to be called, when 362 Members re- sponded 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. When the Commit- tee rose, the Clerk was about to read the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. YATES). The Clerk will report the amendment. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, a parlia- mentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, had not the Clerk read the amendment, and had I not been recognized when the Committee rose? The CHAIRMAN (Mr. RosTENKOw- sKI). The Chair will state, in response to the inquiry c,f the gentleman from Illi- nois, that the Clerk had not read the amendment. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. YATES The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. YATES: On page 34, line 16, strike the comma and insert, the following words: "for a period of 60 days" and reinsert the comma. And on line 18, change the period to a comma and insert the following words: "and there shall be no further expenditures for said purpose beyond said period without first obtaining the approval of the Congress" and reinsert the period. POINT OF ORDER Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment. Mr. Chairman, this bill came to the House under a rule for several reasons, particularly because the authorization bill had not been signed by the President. The section involved here relates to the emergency powers of the President to call up reserve forces and to pay them, and for the Defense Department to provide support. This has been the law in this bill for 10 or 12 years. This provision has been used by the President on one occasion, and that was in connection with the Berlin crisis in 1961, and that is the only time this pro- vision of law has been utilized. The gentleman from Illinois says that in the case of a special emergency action which is supported by the Defense De- partment, that within 60 days after the special action is taken, then Congress would have to meet and approve the ac- tion of the executive, or else the privi- lege of the Department of Defense to support the men called up would be with- drawn. So, Mr. Chairman, this amendment is very legislative in character and involves a major policy issue relating to our mili- tary forces and our foreign policy and it certainly should not be modified under these circumstances. It is, of course, legislation on an ac'-'- propriation bill and for that reason is subject to a point of order, as I see it. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. YATES) on the point of order. Mr. YATES. My amendment is purely a limitation. The purpose of this section of the appropriation bill is to eliminate the need for appropriations for the action that may be taken by the President in calling for troops over and above the amounts that are authorized to be funded under legislation passed by the Armed Services Committees of both the House and Senate and appropriations approved by the Appropriations Committees of both the House and Senate. This section says that the President need not have to come to the Congress for appropriations for the troops that he calls up. My amendment is a limitation on that waiver and, therefore, as a limi- tation on the waiver of appropriations, it is in order. The CHAIRMAN (Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI). The Chair is ready to rule on the point of order. The Chair first points out that the rule under which this bill is being considered waives points of order against the lan- guage in the bill. It is well established that where legislation in a general appro- priation bill is permitted to remain, as here, under a waiver of points of order, it may be perfected by germane amend- ments provided they do not add further legislation. The question, Does this add further legislation? In the opinion of the Chair, the amendment is germane and does not add additional legislation since it restricts or narrows the legislative impact of the legislation already in the bill. The Chair, therefore, overrules the point of order made by the gentleman from Texas. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, am I rec- ognized? The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, a fur- ther point of order. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I under- stand the point of order has been over- ruled. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has over- ruled the point of order of the gentleman from Texas, but the gentleman from Illinois has not yet begun his remarks. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, a parlia- mentary inquiry, is not a further point of order in order? The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the gentleman from Arizona on the par- liamentary inquiry. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thought I had been recognized. . Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, a parlia- mentary inquiry is whether or not a fur- ther point of order can be made at this time? POINT OF ORDER The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will hear the point of order. Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, the point of order refers to the fact that this is legislation on an appropriation and not Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, 1 Approved Fc~r~I~BQ?1~1EG1f$f3R7~1GIQSH6R000400120011-3 ;111165 as to whether it is germane to the bill. Obviously, it is legislation on an appro- priation because I asked the Chair to consider the fact that on page 34 of the bill which is before the committee, there is a referral to an act of Congress; to wit, the Revised Statutes 3732 (41 U.S.C. 11), Mr. Chairman, the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois would amend this act of Congress in that it would pro- vide a provision, or would add a provi- sion, to a law which is not now in existence. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will state, in the opinion of the Chair, the amend- ment offered by the gentleman from Illinois perfects, in a germane manner, legislation which is already in the bill and, therefore, overrules the point of order. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. YATES) to speak on his amendment. Mr. YATES. I thank the Chair. Mr. Chairman, frankly I am very much sur- prised that the Committee on Appropria- tions should have approved this section and inserted it in the bill because it sur- renders to the President the power of Congress to establish troop levels of our armed services and to pay for them. The Armed Services Committees of the House and Senate go through hearings for months and establish troop levels for the Army, Navy, the Marine Corps, and for the Air Force. The Appropriation Committees of the House sit for months and decide what amount of money should be appropriated to support the troop levels that have been established. This section gives the President the right to supersede their action by his own. In this section of the bill, the Presi- dent is given authority without any fur- ther action of the Congress to increase the number of military personnel on ac- tive duty beyond the numbers for which funds are appropriated in the act, and the Secretary of Defense is authorized to waive the requirement for appropriations in support of the President's actions. Un- der this section the President's action must be upheld by the Congress. The Congress waives its oversight role over the purse strings. If that is not the delivery of awesome power to the President I do not know what is. No president, be he Republican or Democrat, should have the power, free from' congressional check, that this lan- guage gives him. It is argued, yes, that the President needs flexibility; he needs the authority to act in a hurry. This may be true. But my amendment does not restrict that power. It asserts the congressional power to participate as well. The President ought not to have such power. It asserts the congressional power not to have that power indefinitely. If he believes that he needs the extra troops he has activated beyond 60 days, he should be required to come to the Con- gress and justify the need for the addi- tional troops. He can act to meet a situa- tion that requires extraordinary action. Under my amendment he must justify continuation of his action to Congress. What is wrong with that? Why should not the Congress be a partner, and be called upon to pass upon these awesome questions of war and peace? The Con- gress has a concurrent responsibility in this field. Much too frequently in the past the Congress has deferred in its judgment to that of the executive branch. Unfortunately, the President has come to believe that the Congress has no powers in the field of foreign policy. Look what happened-how many of those, who voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolution would like to have their votes back? Almost all of them. Under this provision the President would not even be required to come to the Congress for a resolution like the Gulf of Tonkin resolution. He could just act arbitrarily. He could just act un- reasonably. He could do this without any power in the Congress to check him, ex- cept perhaps, by legislation that was initiated by one of the legislative com- mittees of the House. The purpose of my amendment is to bring the Congress into the picture be- fore we are so overcommitted by the President that it is impossible to extri- cate ourselves. In this day and age when wars can break out anywhere on the face of the globe, in this day and age when the Armed Forces of the United States may be sent to any part of the globe because the President decides that this should be done in the exercise of our foreign policy, I say that Congress should be given a part in that decision, and at the end of 60 days the President should come in here and ask for the approval of Congress for that kind of action, Mr. EVANS of Colorado. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. YATES. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado. Mr. EVANS of Colorado. I want to as= sociate myself with the gentleman's amendment and state my approval of what the gentleman has said in support of it. I do not think we in the Congress can defer our responsibilities, and I do not think we should even if we could. If the President deems it necessary to in- crease the levels of our manpower beyond those fixed by law, for any reason what- soever, I think he has that responsibil- ity and he must exercise it as he sees fit. But I think we have the responsibil- ity, and we should exercise it, not to simply defer to the President without our having passed our judgment on such a decision. So I associate myself with the remarks of the gentleman and I hope the Com- mittee will adopt this very reasonable amendment. Mr. YATES. I thank the gentleman for his remarks. As Senator Vandenburg said, "it is fine that Congress was in at the launching of an initiative instead of the crash land- ing." There will be an amendment offered later today in an effort to change the course of this Nation's action in Viet- nam. My amendment proposes to see that Congress is in at the beginning. Let Congress be consulted at the beginning. I urge approval of my amendment. Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California is recognized. Mr. GUBSER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and com- mend the gentleman from Illinois for offering it. I do not profess to be a par- liamentarian, but it strikes me that the entire section (c) is legislation on an appropriation bill and is subject to a point of order. I presume that the gentle- man from Illinois did not make the point of order because he wanted to make it possible for the President to augment forces and to have those forces paid for for a period of 60 days so that Congress, which has the responsibility of setting the force level, could reconvene, if we were out of session, and act In the na- tional interest. This appropriation bill has a line item limitation of expenditures for payments to military personnel. But section (c) makes what should be a limitation an open ended appropriation. This negates the function of an appropriation bill. If the President calls Reserves and in order to pay them he must exceed the spending limitations contained in the bill, then Congress should change the limitation by positive action through a supplemental or deficiency appropria- tions bill. The gentleman has wisely put in a 60- day provision here to provide for a na- tional emergency. We will probably be here anyway, and if we are not, it is certainly feasible that within 60 days Congress can be called back into session. I voted for the Gulf of Tonkin resolu- tion, and if I had the benefit of 20-20 hindsight and were asked again to vote on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which conveyed authority to the executive branch that I did not contemplate, I would not vote for it today. I think it is about time that we took a good look at the powers which we transfer down to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue-and I do not care whether it is Richard. Nixon or a Democratic President. Mr. Chairman, I ask for an aye vote for the gentleman's amendment. Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. Mr. Chairman, I have discussed this amendment at some length with the dis- tinguished gentleman from Illinois, be- cause of my interest in our troop ceil- ings as a member of the Committee on Armed Services. The basic question that I think was in the gentleman's mind was whether this section (c) on page 34 con- fers any new authority on the President to call up additional troops beyond the established ceilings in present law. Of course all that the section specifically says is that it authorizes the President to pay any additional troops that may be called up. But in order to clarify my own mind, I went to the basic law, which is con- tained in title III on page 14 of the con- ference report on the draft. We voted that into law in September. It says in the basic law that it establishes the troop ceilings for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1971, but, first of all, it makes it clear that these figures are "average" active duty straight personnel ceilings. That means the Army can go above Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11166 Approved For CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 3BHOUSE00040012vember 17, 1971 974,309 men at one point during the fiscal year provided they bring the number down below that figure later on, so that it averages out at the specific ceiling fig- ure. This is, of course, what we gave in the basic law to the President so that he would have some necessary flexibility. A sizable majority of the House voted for that measure. Second, the basic law provides in ad- dition to these established ceilings- which can be exceeded temporarily, and somebody is authorized to find money to pay the extra troops on those particu- lar dates-the law specifically exempts from these specified ceilings "members of the Ready Reserve of any armed force ordered into active duty under provision of section 673, title 10, United States Code, members of the Army National Guard or Air National Guard called into active duty," and so on. It also provides that the President shall, beginning with the second quarter of the fiscal year "immediately following the quarter in which the first units are ordered to active duty," the filing of re- ports to the Congress regarding the necessity for such unit or units being or- dered into active duty. So the only legal authority that exists is this authority which allows the services to go above the ceiling temporarily if they will also go below the ceiling later on, plus the flexibility we also gave the Com- mander in Chief in the authority to call up our Reserves. Many Members have been fautling the Department of Defense for not having called up the Reserves. Well this is the only authority the President has to call up the Reserves, and he must report to the Congress in 60 days as to what units he has called up and where they are to be used. But I do not think we ought to add any additional language here that would re- quire that he has got to come back to Congress for a new resolution when only last September this Congress told the President he could call up the Reserves if he felt an emergency required it. As I read the appropriation bill, it sim- ply provides the money for paying these additional Reserves who might have been called up by the President in some emer- gency pursuant to the legislation we passed earlier this year in this Congress. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, the gentle- man's argument totally ignores the lan- guage on page 34 to which my amend- ment was directed. For the gentleman's information, I re- viewed with the staff of the committee the language to determine its scope. We con- cluded this language permits the Presi- dent to go above the limits that were es- tablished in the basic law to which the gentleman refers. And the troop levels established for the Reserves are not the limitations under this amendment. Mr. STRATTON. These staff experts could not repeal a law Congress enacted last September, and this legislation could hardly imply that the President had such authority. Mr. YATES. Why not? Mr. STRATTON. Because all that the legislation provides for, as the gentleman well knows, is a means of paying, when statutory levels are temporarily exceeded, for those who are called up pursuant to the authority contained in the language of the Draft Act of 1971, in excess of the statutory limits contained in that bill. Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. STRATTON. I yield to the gentle- man from Arizona. Mir. RHODES. Does not this point up the folly of trying to rewrite a provision of law which is so important and so vital to the welfare of the country and the conduct of foreign relations on the floor? If it is to be rewritten, it should be done after the committee on which the gentle- man serves has had ample opportunity to study it. Mr. STRATTON. I agree with the gentleman and believe it also shows that our committee has done a good job in setting current troop ceilings. I thank the gentleman for his con- tribution. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? .Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. The gentleman from New York indicated that this language does not change the basic law. If this section is enacted into law it will change the basic law which establishes mandatory troop ceilings. Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mn OBEY. I should like to make my statement first, and then if I have time remaining I will be happy to yield. Mr. STRATTON. The gentleman yielded his time to let the gentleman from Illinois reply to me. M:r. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I decline to yield[ at this time. I believe this amendment is more im- portant than the Boland amendment, which we will be voting on today. The Boland amendment attempts to correct a mistake after the fact. I am very grate- ful to the gentleman from Massachusetts for giving us that opportunity. But this amendment before us now is to prevent future evasions of congres- sional policy and future erosions of con- gressional power. It says, really, that the President can do anything he wants re- lating to the number of men under arms so long as he comes back to the Congress within 60 days and gets approval for it. This is an attempt to keep to ourselves the power which our forefathers gave to the Congress, which unfortunately we have seemed to be hellbent on throwing away over the past 5 years. It also relates to something else which I believe anyone interested in a volun- teer army ought to consider. I have heard a great many people on this floor talk about the necessity of establishing a volunteer army because of their belief that if we had a volunteer army it would be more difficult in the future to get this country involved in conflicts in which we have no business being involved. I do not feel that will work at all un- less it is tied to the idea suggested by the gentleman from Illinois in this amend- ment; namely, the idea of very strict congressional controls over military manpower. That is all the gentleman from Illinois is trying to do. That is the key, in my judgment, to the eventual success, at least in my mind, of the volunteer army concept. Whether or not we will be able to maintain in congressional hands strict control over manpower levels is the key. If we do not do that we might as well give the President full authority to do anything he wants to do in international affairs. The argument is going to be made, against this amendment I suppose that we are really putting ourselves in a very dangerous situation if an emergency comes up internationally. I believe every- one in this House knows full well that 90 times out of 100 the President is going to get exactly what he wants from the Con- gress. I do not believe there is an inclina- tion in either the Senate or the House, despite all the noise being made right now about Vietnam, to deny the Presi- dent what he wants in the area of f or- eign affairs. But it will give us that one chance in ten, in that one case in ten that requires it for Congress to stand on its own feet. It will give us that chance to exercise some degree of control over the use of our men internationally. We ought at least do that. We can by adopting this amendment. Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. STRATTON. I appreciate the gen- tleman's yielding. I do not mind arguing substantial is- sues here on the House floor. Some of us support the military and some of us do not. But this amendment presents a phantom issue. The Congress has already established clear-cut ceilings for the armed services, just last September. The President is not allowed to go over those ceilings except under the conditions which the House itself spelled out clearly only 6 weeks ago. That is the law. This wording in sec- tion C does not repeal that. I defy any- body to come in here with any kind of reliable legal opinion and say that the language beginning on line 12, page 34, of the bill repeals Public Law 92-129. It does not. Obviously it does not. So to talk here today about how we have to have the Congress set ceilings and not allow the President to go over them is nonsense. We have already set those ceilings. We have told him under what conditions he may exceed them. Let us not do it twice. Mr. OBEY. Let me respond to the gen- tleman. I do not agree with him that this has anything whatsoever to do with whether you support the military or not. I happen to represent the district form- erly represented by the present Secretary of Defense. I think my people support the military. But I think they also want this amendment. Mr. YATES. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman. Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, 19Approved F( ?iRoOIZOMAL1LUC@9R2BPV?996R000400120011-3 H 11167 Mr. YATES. The gentleman from New priations pointed out, it was under this York completely overlooks the language section that the President went above of this bill. Let me read it. This bill would the ceilings established by the Congress be enacted subsequent to the act estab- in 1961. According to the staff of the lishing the troop ceilings. Committee on Appropriations this bill The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- funds the armed services up to the levels tleman has expired. that have been authorized under the en t th - of Mr. YATES, Mr. OBEY was allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.) Mr. YATES. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. YATES. Let me just read this section-I ask the House to note how blanket it is: Upon determination by the President that it is necessary to increase the number of military personnel on active duty beyond the number for which funds are provided in this Act. Beyond the number for which funds are provided in this act-the Secretary of Defense, and so forth. This is blanket authority to the President to bring into the services on active duty any number that he wants. There is no restriction; there is no limitation. I do not know what could give him that authority if this language did not do that. I say it would change the law. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. I yield to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. STRATTON). Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out to the com- mittee and also to the gentleman from Illinois that he has not read this lan- guage of the bill, very carefully. It reads : Upon determination by the President that it is necessary to increase the number of military personnel on active duty beyond the number for which funds are provided in this Act. So the funds in this act are being pro- vided for the ceilings already established by law, the numerical ceilings estab- lished, as I have said, by the draft act passed in September. If the President were for a couple of months to go over these average ceilings, in July and Au- gust, let us say, then additional funds would be required. This language simply provides the manner for paying the addi- tional people. And when the President then drops the troop totals down in October and November, below that ceil- ing, the DOD picks up some additional money. Moreover, if the President decides in an emergency to call up the Reserves, which we gave him just last Sep- tember, the explicit authority to do un- der the law and within the limitations of this law, then this language today pro- vides the money to pay those extra Reserves. Do we want the reservists from our home districts, whom we made vulnerable to call in September, to serve without pay? This section certainly does not repeal the draft act, and it is ridiculous to sug- gest that it does, it seems to me. Mr. YATES. Will the gentleman yield to me? Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman frorn Illinois. Mr. YATES As the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appro- military authorization bill Lai a g tleman from New York spoke about. If this section becomes operative at all, the number of troops will be above the levels established, and I refer to the average levels. Therefore, the President will be exceeding the levels that the gentleman speaks of. Mr. STRATTON. If the gentleman from Florida will yield to me, the gen- tleman from Illinois still does not seem to understand that these are average figures. Mr. YATES. I said average levels. Mr. STRATTON. You can go above those averages temporarily. But how can the Committee on Appropriations deter- mine today exactly how many men will be on active duty in May, June, and July? I know this is a distinguished and very capable committee, but they do not have a crystal ball. If they are going to pay 974,000 men in the Army, why, we may find ourselves over that figure for a few weeks, and that is all this section provides. Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SIKES. I yield to the distinguished ranking minority member on the com- mittee. Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend my friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. STRAT- TON), for the comments which he has made. My friend, the gentleman} from Illinois (Mr. YATES), confuses what the basic law, Public Law 92-129, does and what the appropriation does under the basic law. This gives the President the au- thority to call up the troops. Mr. YATES. That is right. Mr. MINSHALL. All this does, at page 34 of the bill, is to give him authority to pay those troops. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. SIKES. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. I read the language of the bill, Mr. Chairman. The bill is subse- quent to the act to which the gentleman from New York referred. It reads as follows : Upon determination by the President that it is necessary to increase the number of military personnel on active duty beyond the number for which funds are provided in this Act, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to provide for the cost of such increased mili- tary personnel, as an accepted expense in accordance with the provisions of Revised Statutes 372. This can only refer to exceeding those troop levels under the military authoriza- tion bill and, under this language the President can go as high as he wants to go. The sky is the limit, and under the provisions of this bill the Congress would lose its constitutional authority to set the funds for the services. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. MAHON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, there seems to be considerable misunderstand- ing as to, the amendment which is pend- ing. This provision on page 34 has been the law for 10 years or more. It enables the President to pay the people who are called into service as the result of an emergency. And, why should they not be paid. Why should they not be paid as long as they are serving? We just provide here that they shall be paid. The language is easy to under- stand if you read it with care- Upon determination by the President that it is necessary- This does not say he has the author- ity. It just says: Upon determination by the President that it is necessary to increase the number of military personnel on active duty beyond the number for which funds are provided in this Act, the Secretary of Defense is au- thorized to provide for the cost of such in- creased military personnel- In other words, if the Congress has authorized the Department of Defense to have 2 million men in the service, and the President calls up some additional men, then they can be paid. That is what this provides for here. We have talked about the Berlin crisis. The President did not have to have any authority with respect to calling up the number of men. The callup was not the problem. The men were called up under existing authority. The language in the appropriation bill simply provided that the Secretary of Defense could pay those people even though the appropriation for that year was not sufficient to pay them. The language of the bill makes it pos- sible for him to do that today. If the President calls men up, this lan- guage provides that they can be paid. Mr. Chairman, I regret to see a basic change of our law made upon such short notice. It has been said that if someone had known what the implications were on the Tonkin Gulf resolution, he would not have voted for it, because it was not thor- oughly explored and examined. This is exactly what is happening here now. The amendment offered provides that if the President has the authority and does call up people, he can pay them, but he cannot pay them beyond 60 days. 'Mr. Chairman, this is not the way to decide the great policy question as to the power of the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States. If we want to settle that issue, we ought to have extensive hearings. The Committee on Armed Services should bring forward legislation and let us debate it in detail, if we are going to try to restrict the President. What this bill provides is that if men are called up-and they cannot be called up unless it is according to law- they can be paid. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? . Mr. MAHON. I will yield in a moment if I have the time. So, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11168 Approved For Relate( A(~I~Rf5 Q04q@ p4001200 o ember 17, 1971 this is a condition that should be thor- Too many people in this country have . coequal reponsibility on these very vital'. oughly explored by the legislative com- the idea that Congress is an adjunct of and important issues. mitees and then, if need be, legislation the executive branch of the Government. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I could be brought up. There is reason for that belief. We in move to strike out the last word. If Congress wants to deny the Presi- Congress pass bills that are completely Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate my- dent the authority to call up additional rewritten when the executive branch gets self with the remarks of the gentleman men in an emergency, let them do it in through with them with their guidelines from Illinois. the proper way. That is not the issue and their interpretation. You are seeing If you go back to the origin of modern here. this happen now in th i e r d Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Florida. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, the portion of this amendment which particularly disturbs me is the 60-day limitation. It is only in rare instances that Congress works that fast. We might not even be in session. I think it would be difficult and it might be impossible to operate under a 60-day limitation during an emergency situation. Mr. MAHON. If Congress were in ses- sion we still could not deny paying peo- ple who have been called into service. The Congress might deny the President cer- tain emergency powers, but it certainly could not deny the pay for the people who have been called up, And that is what we are dealing with here. This is an appropriation bill. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the amend- ment be voted down. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from Texas has expired. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words, and I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. YATES). Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. YATES) that contra- dicts anything that has been said by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on .Appropriations. The chairman says that the President ought to have a free hand to increase the authorized strength of - our troops and if such increase is made, the bill provides funds to pay these extra troops. Of course the extra troops have to be paid and this amendment does not prohibit this. It merely provides that if the President decides to keep these extra troops on active duty for more than 60 days, he must seek approval from Congress. The gentleman from New York would have you believe that the problems of ex- tra troops is one of these little bookkeep- ing things that happens every now and then because you cannot precisely pre- dict how many men you will have in the service at any given time, and when they go over the limitation those men ought to be paid. Nobody quarrels with that, nor does this amendment quarrel with that in any way. p ce an rent parliamentary institutions in the 17th freeze. If you look at the Price Stabiliza- century, the power of parliament was es- tion Act, there is no authority for many tablished because of its power over the of the things that are being ordered by purse. I think the gentleman from Illinois this administration. The order of ignor- has put his finger on the key to this ing legislative intent has become a hall- whole problem of stopping the erosion of mark of the administration and that congressional power toward the ex when I believe we must write limitations ecutive. into this bill or suffer the prospect of If we do not preserve the power of more Vietnams. Congress to control the executive in the I agree with the gentleman from Wis- expenditure of money, we have given up consin that this is an extremely impor- the substance of our power. tant amendment. I have listened to distinguished law- Mr. Chairman, I remember when our yers, the gentleman from Texas and the distinguished Speaker made his inau- gentleman from New York, make some gural speech when he took office as the very persuasive arguments that all this Speaker. He called upon Members to help does is to give money in case the Presi- him restore to the Congress its rightful dent decides to go above the limits set role as a coequal branch of the Govern- by law on the size of the armed forces. ment; not a rubber stamp or an adjunct But that is the very point, gentleman of the executive branch of the Govern- every time we give up any of Congress ment, but its constitutional role as a co- power to control the expenditure of equal branch of Government. I think that money, we give up some more of the basic a vote for this amendment will give us an power of Congress. opportunity to reassert the coequal status I did not come to this House to aban- of the Congress of the United States on don more of Congress power to the these vital issues. executive, but to try to help bring back Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the power to this institution. I think the gentleman yield? people of this country want us to do that. Mr. PUCINSKI. I yield to the gentle- We have an obligation to do so if we are man from Illinois. going to discharge our responsibility un- Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I agree der the Constitution. I am happy to as- with the statement by the distinguished sociate myself with what I consider to chairman of the Committee on Appro- be one of the most important amend- priations when he said the President does ments that has been offered since I have have the power to call up these troops, been a Member of this House. Point; what the Committee on Appro- Mr. Chairman, I will not take the 5 priations is doing in this situation is minutes, but I want to make one point is the constitutional role of Congress and First. This provision of the law refers ought not be surrendered. only to the calling up of Reserves and According to the argument made by uayment of the Reserves who are called tile gentleman from Texas, if the Presi- Second. When you look at the record- dent calls up the troops under this see- no war, no police action ever started with tion, he would be authorized to call them the calling up of Reserves. There has not for this fiscal year, without having to been any such occurrence in the his- come to Congress on payment for them. tory of the United States. If the gentle- Mr. amendment says if the President man from Illinois is looking for a pan- does it that the troops are going to be acea to stop wars, and I wish him luck, paid for 60 days. If the President wants he has zeroed in on the wrong target. the troops to be paid beyond that time, Third. The President of the United he must come to Congress and tell the States, whoever he may be, should have Congress why he thinks the troops should the authority to call the Reserves in the be kept on beyond that date, let the Con- event war threatens. Sometimes just gress decide whether or not they ought having this authority allows a President to be paid beyond that point. to deter war. What this amendment says is that if Mr. - PUCINSKI. May I remind the I take you back to the days of 1961 the President decides to keep these extra House that the last strength we have as when President Kennedy had the au- men more than 60 days he will have to a coequal branch of Government is the thority and did call up the Reserves in come before the Congress and ask for power of pursestrings. Do not deal that the Berlin situation. I do not have much that permission. power away. I believe the amendment doubt in my mind that the ability of the There is nothing in this amendment the gentleman offered here in no way President at that -time to do what he did that in any way disturbs the President's disturbs the executive branch's power. had more to do with stopping the possi- constitutional rights as Commander in Mr. Chairman, I would make the same bility of war in Germany than anything Chief. All it says, if you are going to keep argument if there were a Democrat in else. - these men in for a period beyond 60 days the White House. This has nothing to do Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to you have to come to the Congress to get with partisan politics. What this does is tamper with legislation that has had as the authority. to try to establish in the Congress its important a history as has this proviso, Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, 19 Proved Fe ggs$MI4I1/ A-BDPTM=296R000400120011-3 H 11169 which has been, in the law for 10 years. The time to change this legislation, if it is to be changed, is when the Com- mittee on Armed Services of the House which has the legislative authority has had a chance to have hearings and then to act intelligently in this matter. I certainly hope we will not play games with the defense of our country by vot- ing for this kind of amendment. I ask that the amendment be voted down. Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment, Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentle- man from Illinois (Mr. YATES). Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, as the gen- tleman from Arizona said, I have taken a great deal of time on this amendment, rightly so, I believe because I am con- vinced of its importance. The gentleman is entirely wrong when he says that this amendment applies only to the Reserves. The gentleman has ob- viously failed to look at the language of this section. It could not be more clear. Section (c) states: Upon determination by the President that it is necessary to increase the number of military personnel on active duty .. . The President could take them from the Reserves, yes, but he also can take them from the drafted men just as well. He can increase the size of the draft and take draftees. He does not have to go to the Reserves in this kind of situa- tion any more than the President did when he went into Vietnam. At that time he did not caul the Reserves. If there is a trouble spot somewhere in the world to which the President thinks the Armed Forces should be sent in an emergency situation, he can increase the number of draftees or call up the Re- serves or do both. Under this section the power of Congress to supervise the num- ber of military personnel would be waived indefinitely. My amendment says, Mr. Chairman, "Mr. President, you can do it for 60 days, but beyond that you have got to come to Congress and have your action re- viewed if you want your funds." Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman, does the gentleman from Texas wish me to yield? Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield to me for a unanimous- consent request? Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Texas. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on the pending amendment and all amend- ments thereto close at the conclusion of the address of the gentleman who is now addressing the House. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Arizona. Mr. RHODES. The words "active duty" on line 14 of page 34 are controlling. You do not recall draftees to active duty. They are either on active duty or they are out of the service. Obviously this provision does not refer to draftees. It refers only to members of the armed services, either in the Reserves or the Regular Forces. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. I have the impression that there are many draftees who are on ac- tive duty, having been drafted into the Army of the United States. They are on active duty and they can be used. Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the gen- tleman from Maryland. Mr. LONG of Maryland. I rise in sup- port of the amendment and would like to make the point that if there is a really important emergency, there is no reason the Congress cannot act to appropriate the necessary money within 60 days. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. HATHAWAY. I yield to the Chair- man of the committee. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I propose to offer a motion that all debate close, but I do not want to take the gentleman off his feet. When he has concluded, I shall address the Chair. Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment and en- dorse the many cogent arguments that have been made in support of it. I do not think we are fulfilling our constitutional responsibility unless we do follow the gentleman from Illinois, and I urge the committee to support, his amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. YATES). The question was taken; and the Chair- man announced that the noes appeared to have it. TELLER VOTE WITH CLERKS Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers with Clerks. Tellers with Clerks were ordered; and the Chairman appointed as tellers Messrs. YATES, MINSHALL, MAHON, and GUBSER. The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 183, noes 210, not voting 38, as follows: [Roll No. 398] [Recorded Teller Vote] AYES-183 Abourezk Brasco Dllums e Abzug Broomfield D enholm Adams Brown, Idich. Dennis Addabbo Brown, Ohio Dingell Anderson, Broyhill, N.C. Donohue Calif. Burke, Mass. Dow Anderson, Burton Drinan Tenn. Carey, N.Y. du Pont Aspin Carney Dwyer Badillo Chisholm Eckhardt Baring Clay Edwards, Calif. Barrett Collier Eilberg Begich Collins, Ill. Each Bennett Conte Evans, Colo. Bergland Corman Foley Biaggi Crane Ford, Bieater Culver William D. Bingham Daniels, N.J. Forsythe Blanton Danielson Fraser Boland Davis, S.C. Fulton, Tenn. Brademas de la Garza Fuqua Galiflanakis McCloskey Rosenthal Gaydos McCormack Rostenkowski Gibbons McDonald, Roush Gonzalez Mich. Rousselot Grasso McKay Roy Gray McKinney Roybal Green, Oreg. Macdonald, Ruppe Green, Pa. Mass. Ryan Gross Matsunaga St Germain Gubser Mazzola Sarbanes Gude Melcher Schauer Haley Metcalfe Schmitz Hall Miller, Ohio Schwengel Hamilton Minish Scott Hammer- Mink Seiberling schmidt Mitchell Shipley Hanna Moorhead Smith, N.Y. Harrington Moss Snyder Hathaway Murphy, Ill. Stanton, Hawkins Nedzi J. William Hechler, W. Va. Obey Stanton, Heckler, Mass. O'Hara James V. Helstoski O'Konskl Steele Hicks, Mass. O'Neill Steiger, Wis. Hicks, Wash. Patten Stokes Horton Pepper Symington Howard Pike Thompson, N.J. Hungate Podell Tiernan Hutchinson Preyer, N.C. Udall Ichord Pryor, Ark. Ullman Jacobs Pucinski Van Deerlin Jones, N.C. Quie Vander Jagt Karth Randall Vanik Kastenmeler Rangel Waldie Kazen Rees Whalen Keith Reid, N.Y. Wilson, Kemp Reuss Charles H. Kluczynski Riegle Wolff Koch Robison, N.Y. Wydler Kyl Rodino Wyman Kyros Roe Yates Leggett Roncalio Yatron Long, Md. Rooney, Pa. Zwach NOES-210 Abernethy Fisher Mathis, Ga. Albert Flood Meeds Anderson, Ill. Flowers Michel Andrews, Ala. Flynt Miller, Calif. Andrews, Ford, Gerald R. Mills, Ark. N. Dak. Fountain Mills, Md. Annunzio Frelinghuysen Minshall Archer Frenzel Mizell Arends Frey Mollohan Ashbrook Gallagher Monagan Aspinall Garmatz Montgomery Baker Gettys Morgan Bell - Giaimo Morse Bevill Goldwater Murphy, N.Y. Bolling Griffin Myers Bow Griffiths Natcher Bray Grover Nelsefi Brinkley Hagan Nichols Brooks Hanley Nix Brotzman Hansen, Idaho Pasaman Broyhill, Va. Hansen, Wash. Patman Buchanan Harsha Pelly Burke, Fla. Harvey Perkins Burleson, Tex. Hastings Pettis Burleson, Mo. Hays Peyser Byrne, Pa. Heinz Pickle Byrnes, Wis. Henderson Pirnie Byron Hillis Poage Cabell Hogan Poff Caffery Hollfleld Powell Camp Hosmer Price, Ill. Carter Hull Price, Tex. Casey, Tex. Hunt Purcell Cederberg Jarman Quillen Chamberlain Johnson, Calif. Railsback Clancy Johnson, Pa. ilarick Clark Jonas Rhodes Clawson, Del Jones, Ala. Robinson, Va. Cleveland Jones, Tenn. Rogers Collins, Tex. Keating Rooney, N.Y. Colmer King Ruth Conable Kuykendall Sandman Coughlin Landrum Satterfield Daniel, Va. Latta Saylor Davis, Ga. Lennon Scherle Davis, Wis. Lent Schneebelt Delaney Lloyd Sebelius Dellenback Long, La. Shoup Dent Lujan Shriver Devine McClory Sikes Dickinson McCollister Sisk Dorn McCulloch Skubitz Duncan McEwen Slack Edwards, Ala. McFall Smith, Calif. Erlenborn McMillan Smith, Iowa Eshleman Mahon Spence Evins, Tenn. Mailliard Springer Fasten Mann Staggers Findley Martin Steiger, Ariz. Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11170 Approved For Rec ~~ES~16NlT. AECQRD3BO af?JO0400120November 17, 1971 Stephens Thone Williams Stratton Veysey Wilson, Bob Stubblefield Vigorito Winn Stuckey Waggonner Wright Sullivan Wampler Wyatt Talcott Ware Wylie Taylor Whalley Young, Fla. Teague, Calif. White Young, Tex. Teague, Tex. Whitehurst Zablocki Terry Whitten Zion Thompson, Ga. Widnall Thomson, Wis. Wiggins NOT VOTING-38 Abbitt Cotter Landgrebe Alexander Derwinski Link Ashley Diggs McClure Belcher Dowdy McDade Betts Downing McKevitt Blackburn Dulski Madden Blatnik Edmondson Mathias, Calif. Boggs Edwards, La. Mayne Celler Fish Mikva Chappell Goodling Mosher Clausen, Halpern Roberts Don H. Hebert Runnels Conyers Kee Steed So the amendment was rejected. (By unanimous consent, Mr. BARING changed his vote from "not" to "aye".) Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. WRIGHT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this appropriation bill. The committee is to be congratulated for having brought to us a well-balanced program for the necessary level of na- tional defense. Particularly do I wish to congratulate the committee for having included suffi- cient funds for continued production of the F-iii fighter-bomber. The amounts included in the bill will permit the con- tinued acquisition of this vitally im- portant arcraft at the rate of 12 per year and keep the production line open. Since certain comments were made on the floor yesterday which reflect an un- informed view of this extremely im- portant program, I take this time primarily to set the record straight with respect to cetain significant facts. First, of course, is the question of the safety record of the F-111. Contrary to misconception shared by some of the press and incredibly, by even some few in this body, the F-111 is the safest mili- tary aircraft we have built in this country since the early 1950's. Let me repeat that statement: The F-111 is not only one of the safest, but is the very safest military aircraft we There were 25 F-4's destroyed. '.There were 28 F-102's destroyed. There were 31 F-101's destroyed. There were 40 F-105's destroyed, There were 40 A-7's destroyed. There were 18 F-106's destroyed, There were 18 F-ill's destroyed. We are talking here of equal opera- tions, noncombatant in character, and it can be seen clearly that the F-111 on balance is as safe or safer than any other military aircraft we have developed in the recent past. Something was said yesterday-per- haps of a facetious intent-to the effect that these planes do not fly. The state- ment was made, though I cannot believe that it was seriously made, that most of them are grounded. This is absolutely untrue. The Air Force has accepted 375 of these aircraft and of that number at least 350 are operational and in flight today. These include some in the 20th Tactical Fighter Wing at Upper Heyford, England. The pilots and commanders of that wing are high in their praise of the per- formance of the F-111. There is certainly a continued requirement for this air- craft, since it is the only long-range, high-speed, penetrator in production in the free world. The Soviets are increasingly improving their position vis-a-vis the United States in. strike force capability. Of course, we hope to have the B-1 in production and operational numbers perhaps by 1980. But what about the in- terim? The F-111 is the only hedge against technical, political, or cost prob- lems that might cause an unforeseeable delay in getting the B-1 in operational numbers. For all of these reasons, the commit- tee is to be thoroughly congratulated for having demonstrated the vision to insist upon continued production of the F-111, and it is clear that the Congress supports this decision. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk read as follows: SEc. 744. None of the funds in this Act shall be available for the induction or enlist- ment of any individual into the military services under a mandatory quota based on n iital categories. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. BOLAND We~ ? BOLAND M Ch i I ff . r. a rman, er an o have built in the past 20 years. ,' Let me give you this comparison oil, amendment. the number of major accidents suffered The Clerk read as follows: by each of the following aircraft at Amendment offered by Mr. BOLAND' On 125,000 hours of actual flight. page 48, immediately following line 7, add the following new section under title VII: The F 100 had 108 majo a id t - r cc s. en The F-104 had 90 major accidents. The F-4 had 60 major accidents. The F-102 had 59 major accidents. The F-101 had 59 major accidents. The F-105 had 58 major accidents. The A-7 had 42 major accidents. The F-106 had 39 major accidents. The F-111 had 22 major accidents at 125,000 hours of flight-the safest of al. In the number of aircraft destroy flight, the story is very much the as There were 52 F-100's destroyed. There were 62 F-104's destroyed. SEc. 745. In line with Title VI of the 1971. Military Procurement Act calling for termination of all U.S. military operations in Indochina at the earliest practicable date and for the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. military forces at a date certain, subject to the release of all American pris- oners and an accounting for all Americans missing in action, and notwithstanding any other provisions in this Act, one of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to finance any military combat or military sup- port operations by U.S. forces in or over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia, after June 1, 1972. lip {:' of (Mr. BOLAND aske and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 5 addi- tional minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts? Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, I suggest that the gentleman make that request at the end of his first 5 minutes. Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I with- draw the unanimous-consent request. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 min- utes in support of his amendment. Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, there are many in the Chamber who will say that "We have been here before." Not quite. This is a totally different amend- ment than has been offered to any bill in the years that I have been here since we have been engaged in Vietnam. It is the toughest and the hardest amend- ment and probably one of the most diffi- cult ones to vote for on the part of all Members in this body. But, this is a hard and a tough war and it requires some hard and some tough answers and some hard and some tough action. Mr. Chairman, in opening the debate on this bill yesterday, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, my beloved chairman of the full Committee on Ap- propriations, stated: It seems that we are in somewhat of a frenzy to withdraw. The simple fact, Mr. Chairman, is that the majority of the American people want us to withdraw and want a termi- nal date. There is nothing frenetic about their desires. Mr. Chairman, for most of the past decade they have believed our leaders to the effect that the end was in sight; that just a little bit more pressure and a lot more bombing would bring about an end to this tragic war. It has not happened and the support and the patience of the American people continues to erode un- til now today 75 percent of the Amer- ican people are opposed to the war in Vietnam and want a termination date. The Chairman yesterday compared the war in Vietnam to World War I, World War IT, and the Korean war. He said that we did not withdraw in these wars, and he contended that a pre- cipitous withdrawal from Vietnam could create a vacuum. I simply respond, Mr. Chairman, by paraphrasing a favorite line of our be- loved colleague, the gentleman from New York (Mr. CELLER) that World War I, World War II, and even the Korean war, are as different from the Vietnam war as a horse chestnut is from a chestnut horse, and as night is from day, and as water is from fire. With regard to Korea, he said, "We kept our fighting forces at their posts so that we would not lose the fruits of victory." That is what he said. Well, if he really believes that there are or will be any fruits of victory in Vietnam he surely must stand almost alone in this opinion. 11' Approved For Release 2001/11/15~`'~IIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, 14broved Foo~tN&A W I 1 6 P7 ?96R000400120011-3 H 11171 Mr. Chairman, the amendment I have introduced provides that funds shall not be used to finance any military or sup- port operations by U.S. forces in or over Indochina after June 1 of 1972. Its pur- pose is twofold. First, it offers a real chance, the first real chance, to bring this conflict to a close after almost a decade, after almost 10 years of U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia. Second, it seeks to obtain within the next 6 months the release of all Ameri- can prisoners, and an accounting for those men missing in action. My amendment is designed to imple- merit and to carry forward the provisions of the compromise Mansfield amendment now found in title VI of the Military Procurement Act, which was passed just a short while ago. That amendment sets forth as national policy-and let me em- phasize, that amendment, the Mansfield amendment to the Military Procurement Act, which was passed, and I think signed by the President just a couple of hours ago, establishes as national policy the termination of all U.S. military opera- tions in Indochina at the earliest prac- tical date, and the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. military forces at a date certain, subject-subject-to the release of all American prisoners and an accounting for the Americans missing in action. As we all know, the most critical as- pect of the Mansfield amendment, the 6 -months withdrawal deadline, was dropped in conference. My amendment serves to restore this vital termination date to provide the basic means for-im- plementing that provision. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. (On request of Mr. YATES, and by unanimous consent, Mr. BOLAND was al- lowed to proceed for 5 additional min- utes.) Mr. BOLAND. I thank my friend from Illinois. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is subject to the legislative limitations set forth in title VI of the Military Pro- curement Act which conditions our total military withdrawal on the result of the prisoners and the missing in action issues. Some people will argue that Congress has no business legislating a mandate to terminate our military role in the Indo- china war. I cannot agree. Throughout the history of this conflict, Congress has fully shared with the President the re- sponsibility for the U.S. conduct in Indo- china. This fact is made all the more clear by the recent court rulings such as the Federal Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts in the case of Laird against Massachusetts, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in which it found that Congress in annually ap- propriating funds. to carry out the war has repeatedly provided the war with legislative sanction. We have clearly shared the responsibility for the exist- ence of this war, this body has, this Congress has. And as elected Representa- tives of a Nation that today overwhelm- ingly supports an end to our military participation in Indochina, we have the duty and the obligation to share the re- sponsibility for bringing this war to a close. Last week President Nixon announced the projected troop withdrawals totaling 45,000 men for the next 2 months. With these reductions, the President will have brought the number of U.S. ground troops in Indochina from 540,000 men down to 139,000 during his term of office. No one-no one can deny that President Nixon has significantly altered our posture in Indochina. He deserves great credit from all of the American people and from those who are in this House for that substantial reduction of troops and the corresponding substantial reduction in U.S. casualties. Nevertheless, certain hard facts still face us. Our military involvement in In- dochina remains open ended with no foreseeable termination date in sight. Our prisoners continue to remain in the hands of North Vietnam and its allies and our citizens, reduced as the casual- ties may be, are still dying in the war every week. Our air missions constituting the greatest bombing effort in the history of warfare continue at extremely high levels. The President last week offered no en- couragement on the prisoner-of-war issue. The President offered no encourage- ment about ending U.S. troop involve- ment in Indochina and offered no encour- agement about ending our bombing role. Our military rple in Indochina must be brought to a close and our prisoners' re- lease must be obtained. The way to accomplish all of these roles, I submit, is to set a deadline for U.S. military involvement in this war. I would like to quote from a part of a letter I received from the Prisoners of War and Missing in Action Families for immediate release. This is an organiza- tion of prisoners of war and missing in action families who believe that positive steps must be taken to resolve these issues. I quote : We want our sons and our husbands and our fathers and our brothers returned now. We want our missing in action accounted for now. We are not prepared to see them play second fiddle one day longer to an un- democratic Saigon regime. Many talk about the great sacrifices that our men have made. We have lived those sacrifices. We fully recognize that prisoners are not going to be released nor our missing in action accounted for until a termination date has been established for our role in Indo China. We therefore would like to offer our sup- port for your eff orts which we believe will carry out this goal. ' Failure to commit ourselves, Mr. Chair- man, to a dateline for total withdrawal and to talk instead of residual forces and not only prolongs our role in a war that we should conclude but also endan- gers the troops remaining in Indochina and, moreover, endangers the prospects of obtaining the release of prisoners. We have sacrificed 55,000 American lives and $150 billion of American re- sources in this war. We have endowed the South Vietnam- ese with one of the largest and best equipped armed forces in the world. We have done enough. We have gone too far. The time has come to get out and this amendment takes us out. Mr. Chairman, I include with my re- marks title VI-termination of hostilities in Indochina-of the Military Procure- ment Act and a letter from prisoners of war and missing in action families for immediate release. TITLE VI-TERMINATION OF HOSTILITIES IN INDOCHINA SEC. 601. (a) It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to terminate at the earliest practicable date all military op- erations of the United States in Indochina, and to provide for the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all United States military forces at a date certain, subject to the release of all American prisoners of war held by the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such Government and an ac- counting for all Americans missing in action who have been held by or known to such Government or such forces. The Congress hereby urges and requests the President to implement the above-expressed policy by ini- tiating immediately the following actions: (1) Establishing a final date for the with- drawal from Indochina of all military forces of the United States contingent upon the re- lease of all American prisoners of war held ley the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such Government and an accounting for all Americans missing in ac- tion who have been held by or known to such Government or such forces. (2) Negotiate with the Government of North Vietnam for an immediate cease-fire by all parties to the hostilities in Indochina. (3) Negotiate with the Government of North Vietnam for an agreement which would provide for a series of phased and rapid withdrawals of United States military forces from Indochina in exchange for a corre- sponding series of phased releases of Ameri- can prisoners of war, and for the release of any remaining American prisoners of war concurrently with the withdrawal of all re= maining military forces of the United States by not later than the date established by the President pursuant to paragraph (1) hereof or by such earlier date as may be agreed upon by the negotiating parties. POW/MIA FAMILIES FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE, November 14, 1971. DEAR REPRESENTATIVE BOLAND: It is our un- derstanding you will offer an amendment to the Defense Appropriations Bill to establish June 1, 1972 as a termination date for all U.S. military operations in Indochina. It is also our understanding that the June 1, 1972 deadline is subject to the provision of the Mansfield Amendment to the Military Pro- curement Act which -conditions our with- drawal of forces from Indochina on the re- turn of all American prisoners and an ac- counting of missing in action. In our Statement of Purpose established in July, 1971, we state the following: We feel our government's obligation to the American prisoners now should take prece- dence over its obligation to the government of South Vietnam. We shall work, therefore, toward the formulation and implementation of policy which will bring about the most rapid release and repatriation of our prison- ers of war and for the return of our armed forces currently serving in Southeast Asia. In accordance with this, we have been working for the establishment of a termina- tion date for U.S. military operations in In- dochina in conjunction with the return of Approved For Release 2001/11115 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11172 Approved For Re M28&A(IMALC MB0.Q 0400120W3t4mber 17, 1971 all prisoners and an accounting of the miss- ing in action by that date. We believe that it is only in this manner that the POW/MIA issue can be satisfactorily resolved. We want our sons and our husbands and our fathers and our brothers returned, now. We want our missing in action accounted for, rune. We are not prepared to see them play sec- ond choice one day longer to an undemo- cratic, corrupt Saigon regime. Many have talked about the great sacri- fices our men have made. We have lived those sacrifices. We' fully recognize that the prisoners are not going to be released nor our missing in action accounted for until a termination date has been established for our role in Indochina. We therefore would like to offer our support to your efforts which we believe will carry out this goal. POW/MIA FAMILIES FOR IMMEDIATE RE- LEASE, SHIRLEY CULBERTSON, JANE DUDLEY, Washington Coordinators. Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. (Mr. WYMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. WYMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the gentleman from Massa- chusetts a couple of questions about the gentleman's amendment. I ask the gentleman from Massachu- setts: Does your amendment regiiire prior release, of all of our prisoners? Mr. BOLAND. In my judgment, it does indeed. If the prisoners of war are not released and if the missing in action are not accounted for, then - the effect of this amendment is null and void. Mr. WYMAN. I would respectfully dif- fer with the gentleman as to the word- ing of the amendment because as I look at his amendment I find these words: "subject to the release of all American prisoners and an accounting for all Americans missing in action." But the phrase "subject to the release of all American prisoners" in the gentleman's amendment are not a condition prece- dent, they are merely connected with the declaration of the U.S. policy set forth in title VI of the 1971 military procure- ment act. And I read further: That notwithstanding any other provision of this Act- This is from the gentleman's amend- ment- none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used- And so forth- to finance any of these operations after June 1, 1972. I would ask the gentleman from Massa- chusetts, how can the adoption of an amendment such as this by the Congress and the enactment of it into law get our prisoners back? Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WYMAN. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. BOLAND. That part of the amend- ment that states "no funds appropriated" and cuts off the appropriation as of June 1, 1972, is tied directly into the Military Procurement Act, specifically title VI, which is the watered-down Mansfield amendment. Specifically, it calls for the release of the American prisoners of -war and for an accounting of those missing in action. My amendment is tied directly to that and, so far as I am concerned arid you may differ with it-but so far as I am concerned, if there has not been any resolution of the matter of the re- lease of the prisoners of war and an ac- counting of those missing in action, then the cutoff would not occur. Mr. WYMAN. I simply observe to the gentleman, and the gentleman will ac- knowledge, that his amendment does not say "subject to the prior release of Ameri- can prisoners" as a condition to the tak- ing effect of the cutoff date of June 1, 1972. Does the gentleman contend that a contemporaneous or prior release of American prisoners is required? Then we are going to stop all our sup- port, we are going to stop all pay for our men, for their supplies, their arms, all our money, all our air cover-we are going to stop fighting over there on June 1, 1972, whether or not we have the prisoners back? Mr. BOLAND. That is not so at all. Mr. WYMAN. Your amendment does not provide otherwise. Mr. BOLAND. It is not the intent of the amendment at all. In my judgment, the amendment provides for a move on the part of the North Vietnamese, to re- lease the prisoners of war and to account for those missing in action. I have said that a dozen times. That is my conten- tion. The gentleman from New Hamp- shire apparently does not agree with that, but that is my intention and that is my interpretation of the language of the amendment. Mr. WYMAN. I submit, despite the gentleman's protestations as to what the amendment means, it does not call for what he claims it calls for, and I think it should be debated and considered in the light of what it actually provides. I submit that the amendment does not re- quire the prior release of American pris- oners. This amendment, if adopted, would be dangerous to the lives of the American troops remaining in Vietnam for it prohibits not only their arms and ammunition but it cuts off provision for arms for the South Vietnamese to-cover them in withdrawal. - It is absolutely ridiculous for Congress to call off all support for Americans over there when the President of the United States is disengaging our troops just as fast as the protective defense forces can be trained in Vietnam to take over their own defense. The pending amendment would even stop the training of the South Vietnamese to use the equipment we have provided them for their own defense. The amendment would deny all sup- Port-arms, food, and air cover-to sup- port our troops and those of our allies in Vietnam, even as they defend them- selves in withdrawal. The pending amendment would im- peril the lives of Americans in Vietnam., be they advisers, troops or otherwise. By its author's own admission it would mean that we would cut off everything even if the enemy should continue to attack and kill Americans. 1[ want no part of such a proposal. 11 am confident a majority of this House will not vote to endanger our troops and deny our President the lever- age to continue to negotiate for the re- lease of our prisoners. Mr. Chairman, this amendment should be rejected out of hand. Mr. ROUSSELOT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. WYMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California. Mr. ROUSSELOT. I thank the gentle- man for yielding. I think the gentleman from New Hampshire has raised an im- portant point. Unfortunately, I do, not believe, that the gentleman from Massa- chusetts was responsive to his question. The whole issue of the American prison- ers of war and the point the gentleman has made about clear priority of action must be debated on this floor. I think it would be tremendously damaging to our American prisoners now held by the enemy if we should adopt this improperly drawn amendment. Mr. WYMAN. I would say in response to the gentleman that whatever the gen- tleman from Massachusetts claims to be the intent of his amendment, of course, is interesting in the sense of what he intends. But it does not control the plain language of the amendment. The amend- ment speaks for itself. An examination of the amendment by Members of the House, particularly its attorneys-and there are many distinguished attorneys in the House-will show that there is no condition precedent in the amendment before us requiring either the prior re- lease of our prisoners or even their con- temporaneous release. Had the gentle- man from Massachusetts wished to spe- cifically establish the requirement of prior release his amendment could easily have been so worded. He has neither done this nor does he offer a perfecting amendment to do this at this time. In- stead he allows his reference to prison- ers to remain in a general introductory clause referring to title VI of the Mili- tary Procurement Act of 1971 that itself contains no cutoff date nor any date whatever. The pending amendment is fatally de- fective as to prisoner release and this should be understood by all Members be- fore they vote. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. SIKES asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, the Presi- dent has today signed H.R. 8687, the Military Procurement Authorization Act, into law, notwithstanding the Mansfield amendment. But here is what he said in the conclusion of his statement about that action: I would add regretfully that legislative actions such as this hinder rather than assist in the sarch for a negotiated settlement. That was in reference to the Mans- field amendment, a much milder version than the Boland amendment now be- fore us. Aside from the President's comment, there is not the slightest reason to believe that the act of specifying a date for U.S. Approved For Release 2001/11/15 :-CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, 19A6proved F6A WYA]t/fW1 tBP U6 96R000400120011-3 H 11173 withdrawal would influence North Viet- namese policies toward the prisoners of war or toward the conduct of the war itself. The chances are that having gained a date for the end of U.S. par- ticipation, they would simply demand further concessions-like handing over the Saigon government to the Com- munists. There is not a scintilla, of evi- dence from any reliable source to show any positive commitment by any North Vietnamese official that we can rely upon. No, Mr. Chairman, this amendment can serve no usful purpose for the United States or the prisoners of war. It can only tie the hands of a President who has done a remarkably good job in extricat- ing U.S. Forces from the difficult and complicated controversy in Southeast Asia. The American military has all but ceased ground combat, but we cannot instantaneously write off Vietnam and Southeast Asia and forget them. It is still a very important part of the world to the United States and to the free world. Of course, America wants the war ended, but we cannot stop a war on a fixed date by congressional resolution. If we adopt the amendment that is pro- posed? we tie the President's hands, we free the Communists to take advantage of many alternatives which are now closed to them. The President must have flexibility to carry on to a successful and a responsible conclusion our objec- tives in Vietnam. Remember-remember this-the North Vietnamese. negotiators in Paris can end all of the uncertainty, they can bring about assurance of peace and the return of the prisoners of war on any day they wish by a simple statement of in- tent. And yet, in all the years of wasted effort by our negotiators in Paris, the North Vietnamese have not in a single instance showed good faith or good in- tentions. Everything has been unilateral on our part, and this action, now ex- emplified by the amendment before us, can produce no certainty, can offer no hope of any positive result. Let us not play the game of the North Vietnamese here today in the U.S. House of Representatives. Mr. ADDABBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boland amendment. It is important to note that this amendment is consistent with previous legislation adopted by the House of Representatives. Title VI of the Military Procurement Act passed by this body and which I sup- ported calls for withdrawal conditoned upon the release of U.S. prisoners of war. The amednment now before the House also ties the termination of U.S. military activities in Indochina to the release of prisoners by North Vietnam. This very point was recently recog- nized by the POW/MIA Families for Immediate Release. In a letter addressed to our colleague from Massachusetts, Mr. BOLAND, that organization said: We feel our government's obligation to the American prisoners now should take prec- edence over its obligation to the government of South. Vietnam. That committee also emphasized the realities of the situation by stating that: We fully recognize that the prisoners are not going to be released nor our missing in action accounted for until a termination date has been established for our role in Indo- china. As I stated in this Chamber a few weeks ago, and during general debate on this bill, I believe the time has finally come when all the frustrations and all the rhetoric about the pursuit of peace must end. By the House approval of this amendment we must stand up and say once and for all "end the War." Mr. Chairman, my position on the Vietnam war and our involvement in Indochina has been known for some time. As a member of the House Appropria- tion Committee, I have voiced concern over the expansion of the war, and the extent of our role in Southeast Asia. It has been said that to set a specific date to end all operations in that area gives solace to the enemy. This cannot give any more aid or comfort than the President's Vietnamization policy or the President's announcement of further pullouts. After 10 years, after all our dead and wounded, after dropping over 4 million tons of bombs, twice as much as we dropped during World War II, in- cluding Korea, after 40 percent of our troops starting to use drugs, it is time to put a stop to this carnage and let the South Vietnamese know that they must take over the responsibilities in the field. I believe we must give them an ulti- matum, a definite date beyond which the United States will not continue to provide further military assistance. The President has pledged to end the war. Let us lend our support to his com- mittee by passage of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, for purposes of clari- fication, I wish to read again the amend- ment which was offered by the gentle- man from Massachusetts: On page 48, immediately following line 7, add the following new Section under Title VII: SEC 745. In line with Title VI of the 1971 Military Procurement Act calling for termination of all U.S. military operations in Indochina at the earliest practicable date and for the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. military forces at a date certain, subject to the release of all American prison- ers and an accounting for all Americans missing in action, and notwithstanding any other provisions in this Act, none of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used to finance any military combat or military support operations by U.S. forces in or over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, after June 1, 1972. Mr. Chairman, this is in accordance with the bill passed by the House almost unanimously and signed by the Presi- dent. (Mr. ADDABBO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ADDABBO. I yield to the gentle- man from Massachusetts. Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman from New Fork has indicated, and as the amendment clearly indi- cates, this is tied in with the national policy as delineated in title VI of the 1971 Military Procurement Act. Let me read the pertinent paragraph in that title. , Establish a final date for withdrawal from Indochina of all military forces of the United States contingent upon release of all Amer- Scan prisoners of war held by the Govern- ment of North Vietnam and forces under such control and accounting for all Ameri- cans missing in action who have been held by or known to such government or such forces .. . Now, the national policy as established under the Military Procurement Act is this described policy. I am disturbed that upon the signing of the Military Procurement Act today by the President, sometime around noon, that he did say that he would ignore one of the provi- sions of that act. He would ignore the Mansfield amend- ment. I believe it is indefensible for the President of the United States to ignore the national policy that has been passed upon by the Members of this body, by the Members of the other body, and signed byhimself. That is one of the reasons why we have this amendment. I believe it is high time we do establish policy in this body. We have been traveling along too easily, too much, too often. I have been here now for a few years, and I have heard constantly and con- sistently the argument that we should not tie the hands of the Executive, whether it be President Nixon, President Johnson, or President Kennedy. I have heard it now over the past three ad- ministrations. And I have seldom, if ever, done it. But it appears to me we have to do it now. This is the only way we are going to stop this war. Say what you want, the President's press conference last week clearly in- dicated we are going to have 'a residual force there of 30,000 to 55,000 men. I do not know how we are going to protect a residual force without some sort of mili- tary establishment to back it up. That is my concern. I am sure it is the concern of all Members here, as it is the concern of the vast majority of the American people. Mr. ROUSH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. For months I have heard many persuasive men argue against this amendment, but I have heard very few well reasoned persuasive arguments against it. I become impatient with headlines such as we saw in this morning's Post, "Beat Amendment Selling Viet Pullout, Nixon Urges 'Congress." I grow weary of the argument that we must continue this war because the President needs a free hand in the conduct of our foreign af- fairs. For'almost a decade we have given our Presidents a free hand and for almost a decade we have seen the war continue. It is a national tragedy to know that the leadership of this great deliberating body is willing to abdicate its power and authority to the executive branch. They are asking this. Congress to be the Presi- dent's puppet, jumping when he says jump, to tuck ourselves away in the closet when he says he does not want to hear from us. I suggest that on this great issue that we speak out, that we correct the course the Nation is taking and in so doing reestablish the Congress as an equal branch of this Government. - Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11174 Approved For Redg ?,Q f A]L C 3B EM0040012a t? nber 17, 1971 I cannot believe it is enough to say that we are withdrawing 45,000 troops by the end of November or that we have reduced troop strength in Vietnam to less than 200,000 men when, in fact, it is our inten- tion to keep a residual force of perhaps 50,000 men there. Nor can we believe the statement that the American combat role is over when we continue to drop thou- sands of tons of bombs each week in Viet- nam. How can the nations of the world or how can the citizens of this country believe our combat role is over when this is happening? There are compelling reasons why this amendment should be adopted. Let us remind ourselves of the economic havoc it has brought. Over a hundred billion dollars have been wasted. One of our most grievous economic problems-and I refer to inflation-has been nurtured and fed by the expenditure of funds to carry on the war in Vietnam. Each time I have heard the President speak of infla- tion he stresses the cutting of Govern- ment expenditures as part of the solu- tion and yet he refused to call an end to our activities in that far place. Then there is another consideration of which we do not often speak but which is very real. Each day this involvement continues we contribute to the weakening of our general defenses. By pouring our military strength into Vietnam we weak- en our overall military strength. We neglect our research and development, the building of our fleet, the moderniza- tion of our Air Force, and the defenses here in this country. We deprive military men of decent housing and necessary equipment. And can anyone deny that we are, slowly permitting the deteriora- tion of that most important ingredient of all to a strong military force, the mo- rale of our men in uniform. The political problems which this war has created are horrendous. We have lost friends throughout the world. Our cred- ibility as a peace-loving nation is doubted. Our motives have been suspect. Our actions and interference condemned. And the result? At a critical time in the history of the United Nations we could not even muster a simple majority to keep Taiwan in the United Nations. And then there are the humane and human reasons for us to stop this war and to get out of Vietnam. Killing, maim- ing, and destroying at that place can no longer withstand the forces of reason which say that they must stop. Are we pot mindful of the millions of lives which have been affected by the misery and tragedy of that war? When I consider my own experience as the father of a son who fought in Vietnam, I know that my fear, my apprehension, my sleepless nights could be no less than that of countless others, including the parents of sons who fought on both sides of this conflict. Have you ever put your arias around a son-who is suddenly a man- said goodbye and then watch him get onto a plane knowing that in a short span of time he will be in the jungles fighting a war which none of us under- stand? Each day for that year you pray for his safety, dreading every telegram you receive and watch for his letters. Mr. WYMAN. Will the gentleman yield And in these letters read his inquiries as to me? to why we are fighting there. You cannot Mr. OBEY. I yield to the gentleman. answer those inquiries. You cannot an- Mr. WYMAN. I would like to inquire of swer the question "Why?" the gentleman in the well whether or My infantry sergeant son came home. not he maintains after that colloquy with He had done his bit and how proud I am the gentleman from Massachusetts that of him. He earned the hard way as only after June 1, 1972, the moneys will con- an infantry man can understand, his tinue to be available for financing either decorations, citations, and commenda- combat or support operations if the pris- tions. But something was lacking that oners are not returned? da;y when he stepped off that plane. No Mr. ECKHARDT. The money would be one, no one could explain why he had available as I understand the provisions gone in the first place. of the act. Mr. OBEY. Mr. Chairman, I move to Mr. WYMAN. Not the provisions of the strike the requisite number of words. act, if I may say, but the provisions of Mr. Chairman, I think the American the Boland amendment. People. charge the Congress with its full Mr. ECKHARDT. I would say this, share of responsibility for involving us that the limitation itself contains a limi- in this war. They expect the Congress to tation. The limitation provides that no exercise its full responsibility in at last funds shall be expended, but that itself extricating us from that war. The Boland is conditioned upon the conditions of amendment will do just that. title VI going into effect. Therefore a If for no other reason, I urge it be limit on the expenditure of funds after adopted. that date is itself conditioned upon the Mr. ECKHARDT. Will the gentleman release of the prisoners as contained in yield? positive law passed by this Congress and Mr. OBEY. I am glad to yield to the signed a few hours ago by the President gentleman from Texas. of the United States. Mr. ECKHARDT. I would like to rise Mr. WYMAN. There is no date in title to point out why, as a legal proposition, VI. Where is a date in title VI? Is there the statement of the gentleman from any June 1, 1972 in title VI? New Hampshire (Mr. WYMAN) is not cor- Mr. ECKHARDT. I believe the gentle- rect. That is, the amendment is in truth man from New Hampshire does not un- limited to the withdrawal of troops. - derstand the point I am making here. I think we need to establish a little Perhaps, I have not made it clear. The legislative history on that point. As I un- only thing that can be done in an appro- derstand it-and I would like to address priation bill is to limit the appropriation this question, of course, through the and that is done. The limitation in the Member who has the floor, to the author appropriation bill may not establish of the amendment-the amendment is a other conditions, but it may be subject limitation on the appropriation bill to other conditions of existing law. Fur- which provides for a cutoff of funds at ther, the author of the amendment has a specific time, but expressly states that pointed out that he intends not to affect such condition is itself conditioned on positive policy provisions of title VI of established policy contained in title VI the existing law, and it seems to me that of the 1971 Military Procurement Act. this provision is clearly limited to those Is that correct? conditions set out in title VI of he Mili- Mr. BOLAND. The gentleman states it tary Procurement Act and this takes no exactly as I intended it .and exactly as effect unless those conditions are put into it is. effect., Mr. ECKHARDT. Now, since this is a Mr. WYMAN. If the gentleman will limitation on an appropriation bill, it yield further for one further observation, may not itself establish general legisla- the Boland amendment certainly has tive policy and it does not purport to do limited it. It has limited the Appropria- se, but it may be limited to and be con- tions Committee when it states that none fined within policy established under ex- of the funds appropriated by this act isting law. That existing policy is con- shall be used to finance any military tamed under title VI of the 1971 Military combat or military support operations by Procurement Act, as I understand it. U.S. Forces in or over South Vietnam, Mr. BOLAND. The gentleman is cor- North Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia, after rect. June 1, 1972. Mr. ECKHARDT. And in that provi- The words "subject to release of all sion it is stated as clearly as language American prisoners" are not a condition can be written that it is a policy of the precedent in Mr. Boland's amendment as United States to withdraw but only in the it is worded and the gentleman's re- event that the prisoners are released and marks are entirely beside the point. the other conditions provided in that act Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, I move take place. Is that correct? Mr. BOLAND. That is correct. to strike the requisite number of words. . Mr. ECKHARDT. And is it not the pur- (Mr. RHODES asked and was given pose of the author in stating it is in line permission to revise and extend his re- with title VI, to make it absolutely clear marks.) that this provision in no wise reduces Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, I am that commitment as a prerequisite to sure that the House is tired of the law- withdrawal? yers arguing over this, but I think it is Mr. BOLAND. The gentleman is cor- such an important point that we need to rect, spell out exactly what is meant by the Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17,A?p '4ved For Igg1i/AE: ,t B7iQM?F000400120011-3 H 11175 amendment which has been offered by To adopt this amendment would be States from the very beginning and I the gentleman from Massachusetts. disastrous, and ask that it be voted stand here again today and repeat that As one lawyer, I will tell you how it down. commitment-I am not going to cut his looks to me. Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, I move legs from under him when he is doing The first proviso of section 745, as it is to strike the requisite number of words. the best job anybody can do. He should offered by the gentleman, is merely the be applauded instead of condemned for explanation of the contents of the 1971 (Mr. HEBERT asked and was given what he is doing. This is not a partisan Military Procurement Act, title VI there- permission to revise and extend his re- issue with me. There is not an individual of. There is no language in the part which marks.) in this House who wants those men carries that explanation-as to any pro- Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman and brought back home any more quickly vino which effects that which comes lat- Members of the House, it is with great than I do, but who is so simple as to think er. This explanation is not a condition hesitation that I again take the well of that we can accomplish something by precedent because there are no condi- this House to explore this matter. One declaring to the world that we do not tioning words or limiting words which of our Members has said he has become back our Commander in Chief and Pres- definitely refer to the last clause. Neither weary of hearing this argument con- ident. Are we going to tell the world we is there anything in, the last clause which tinuously. I want to say to him-and I have no confidence in him-that we pro- incorporates by reference any of the as- am sure many Members of this House claim to those who are willing to hear, sertions made earlier. share his same feeling-that I too am and there ate many, that we are a polar- Mr. Chairman, the fact remains that weary. I am downright tired of having ized nation going in many directions. the limitation proposed by the gentle- to debate something that we have de- This is no time to dilly dally with the nian from Massachusetts has only one bated and debated and debated and re- lives of individuals. effect, and that is to cut off all funds for debated and redebated, from the begin- I was very moved by the gentleman Americans in Southeast Asia after June ning of this Congress: the so-called talking about his son. I can understand 1, 1972, unconditionally, without regard Mansfield amendment, which of course what he means-not having a son-but to whether or not the prisoners of war this is, in albeit a different form. I am certainly having a family and a daughter. are released. weary of, after sitting for weeks on end I know the torture and the anguish that If the gentleman from Massachu- in discussions with the other body, to these parents must go through. But each setts-and he is a good lawyer-wanted bring out a compromise on a particular one of those who suffer this anguish and to make it very clear that we intended amendment in the draft bill, this House this agony must realize that there are this cutoff to be subject to the provisions reacted and did accept a modified amend- others who went before them and whose of the Military Procurement Act of 1971, ment of the so-called Mansfield amend- sons did not come back-whose sons died tible VI, he could have done so ending ment in which it discussed it as being in other wars in order that we may con- his amendment like this: "After June 1, the consensus of the Congress. We go tinue the type of government and the 1972, subject to the terms, the conditions back again. We again are confronted kind of freedom that we have here. and limitations, including the return of with the same thing. We are at logger- This is not time for emotionalism. This prisoners as set forth, in title VI of the heads, and have long discussions again, is a time for looking at the facts and Military Procurement Act of 1971." and in order to bring forward a bill that looking the individuals in the eye. This That is the way to limit a limitation. you could act upon in some confidence, is the time not to divide America, my The gentleman from Massachusetts we reluctantly agreed to language mak- God-no-let us stand together-let us knows this, and had he really wanted to ing this "the policy of the United States." unite-let us present a solid front and limit his limitation, he would have known Your House conferees made this con- let us support the President ofthe United how to do so. cession so as to bring back something States. With all due respect to my dear friend that this House could act upon. The Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Chairman, I move to from Massachusetts, for whom I have House did act and approved the action strike out the last word. the, highest regard, he is not doing what of its conferees on H.R. 8687. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the he says he intends to do. This makes it The criticism has been leveled at those boland amendment. I have supported this obvious in my opinion that we should not of us, who have been fighting this fight position for almost a year, since Decem- try to write legislation like this on the for so long and one that we are all weary ber of 1970 when I arrived at a decision floor of the House. Any limitation on of, that we never allowed a direct vote to which I should have reached 7 years be- the power of the President to negotiate come on the Mansfield amendment. Un- fore-that the Vietnam war is the most peace and the release of prisoners should der a rule which was brought out to the tragic mistake, in my judgment, that this be made only after prayerful considera- House under the Military Procurement country has ever made. It has caused the tion, not in an atmosphere of passion and Conference Report, a direct vote was per- downgrading of every single element of debate. mitted. And when the Speaker put the our defense establishment because we This is really tampering with the wel- question not one voice in this body was have been denying to the Navy and the fare of the people of the United States raised to ask for that direct vote. Under Army and the Air Force and the Marines in general, and of the prisoners of war the rule, any individual Member could any Coast Guard needed funds and in particular. have gotten a direct vote at that time on needed new and modern equipment in- The President of the United States has the so-called Mansfield amendment. eluding naval vessels which we do not said time after time he cannot negotiate However, none was demanded. have and we cannot buy because of the with the Government of North which unless he has something with which to The conference report then had hardly billions upon billions and billions of dol- negotiate. If this l mendment is adopted been adopted by the House, and we Lars that are being poured down the rat and willy-nilly the troops of the United again hear the winds blowing from the hole of Southeast Asia today. States of America must withdraw from other body that the Mansfield amend- Mr. Chairman, I will yield to the gen- Vietnam on June 1, 1972, then you have ment has been tied in to the foreign aid tleman from Louisiana in just a moment, cut the ground out from under the Presi- bill. We come here today, and it is pro- if I have any time. dent of the United States completely. posed that the Mansfield amendment be Yesterday morning while driving to You have in my opinion condemned the tacked on to an appropriations bill. work, I heard a radio news statement prisoners of war and the people who are When are we going to stop this tactic attributes: to the President: missing in action to be released at some in dilution of a responsible and estab- General Abrams will have to get along with possible time in the future, but only lished House position arrived at on two less than 90,000 troops, perhaps as few as when North Vietnam decides that it separate occasions? 65,000 troops by next July. might want to release them. I join in the statement made by the I assume that means July 1972. That is I have not noticed any indication on gentleman from Arizona-we can have the end of the quotation I heard. the part of North Vietnam which indi- only one President--one Commander- Since the President is reported to have ?cates that they possess any of the milk whether you like him or not and announced by that date General Abrams of human kindness whatsoever for any- whether you agree with him or not. I, for will be reduced in troop strength to 90,- body, and certainly not for the prisoners one, have insisted I shall not tie the '000 or perhaps as few as 65,000, in my of war of the United States of America. hands of the President of the United judgment he has destroyed any basis Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11176 Approved For : j Z M?F0004001 t "er 17, 1971 which he might have to negotiate for the man from Georgia would answer the Vietnamese. I am not a bit impressed by release of our prisoners of war and an question: As I understand, the gentleman the public pronouncements on the other accounting for our men who are missing made the statement that because of the side in Paris. One presidential aspirant in action. money being poured down the rathole of already has learned how quickly they While this may be an oversimplification our military effort in Vietnam, our mill- shift positions when they undercut him of a long and complex subject, as far as tary people are not getting the hardware completely on assurance he said they had the issue of the release of American pris- necessary to carry on their responsibil- given him regarding the return of our oners of war is concerned, in my judg- ities. I would like the gentleman to name prisoners of war. ment the President already has a reliable one penny that has not been devoted to If adopted, the Boland amendment agreement that they will be released or the acquisition of military hardware in might well spell failure for the delicate else.he is denigrating any chance he has of the military of this country and negotiations the President plans on a to negotiate for their release. In either in the protection of the security of this personal level with leaders in Peking and event, I feel that he might as well stop country because of the Vietnam situation. Moscow. the war as soon as he possibly can and Just name one. And, I ask this committee, are the bring the United States troops home. Mr. FLYNT. Mr. Chairman, will the sponsors and supporters of the Boland We hear a great deal about this resid- gentleman-yield tone? amendment prepared to take the conse- ual force. Mr. MINSHALL. I yield to the gentle- quences of their action, a complete cut- Mr. Chairman, what would be the pur- man from Georgia. off next June 1 of the fewer than 50,000 pose of such a residual force? Would it be Mr. FLYNT. If the gentleman from troops we will have in Vietnam at that for the purpose of maintaining the dic- Louisiana, the able and distinguished timesupport troops, not combat troops? tator, Thieu, as the United States- chairman of the Committee on Armed Do' the supporters of this amendment appointed "President" of South Vietnam? Services, would go to some of the bases seriously mean to cut off from these men If this be the case, I will never again vote and take a look at what is actually going the means to defend themselves from for an authorization or an appropriation on, look at the equipment, look at our enemy attack, to cut off even their food bill which has funds to be used to main- naval vessels, 80 percent of which are 20 and maintenance supplies? tain or to perpetuate in office in a foreign years old or older, at a time when 80 per- Adoption of the Boland amendment country a dictator who will not permit cent of Russian naval vessels are 10 years could well mark the first time the Con- the name of an opposing candidate on old or younger, then I think the gentle- gress of the United States deliberately the ballot. In 1971 there were two major man from Louisiana might say that the set out to create an Alamo. potential candidates for the presidency American Armed Forces are deteriorat- There is a great deal of infighting go- in South Vietnam, General Minh and ing, and they are deteriorating because ing on, showing a complete disregard for General Ky, each of whom had and has of useless expenditures in Vietnam. Presidential leadership and authority in a substantial following among the people Mir. HEBERT. The age of naval ves- foreign affairs. It is an ugly picture. of South Vietnam, possibly as great or sels increased long before our action in The CHAIRMAN. The time of the greater than President Thieu would have Vietnam. This has nothing to do with gentleman from Ohio has expired. had without the military support of the Vietnam. The gentleman has not answer- - (By unanimous consent, Mr. MINSHALL United States. If either of them had re- ed my question. He has not told me where was allowed to proceed for 5 additional mained a candidate and dared to go one penny has been denied our military minutes.) down to the wire in a campaign for forces in the protection of the security of Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, as president against Thieu, he or they prob- this country. I say, it is an ugly pcture. Opponents of ably would have suffered the same fate Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, as the the President's policies need. only look at as the last candidate who made a bona his record since he has been in office, and fide effort to run against Thieu in a tee on distinguished Armed Services ervices has the Commit- out, they must-they must acknowledge the presidential election. So far as I know, he tee pointed out, we have covered this route before. This success he is having in fulfilling his is still in prison like a common criminal. is another in what has been it series of promises to withdraw from Southeast A great deal has been said to the effect amendments to come before the House Asia. He has kept every one of them since that we are in Vietnam at the request of he took office two and a half years ago. our allies. Mr. Chairman, I think that and/or the Senate demanding in effect that we get out of Southeast Asia on a Richard Nixon is not the villian in torians that may as one of come o the known most to futa damnable fichis- - date certain. Each time Congress has the tragedy of Vietnam. He has saved one wrestled with its conscience over the and is saving American lives. He has bons of all time. The reason are in taken American men out of the jungles, Vietnam today is in support of our self- issue. Each time prudence and support of out of combat, and he has returned there a, unpopular, puppet rulers of our President have won over whatever to their homes. He is continuing to do that Southeastern Southeastern Asiann country, and I transient political popularity might be this. He will bring our men home, and think, Mr. Chairman, the time has come given it. this includes our prisoners of` war. for us to face up to the mistake that we I do not question the sincerity of any and time again the President has have made and try to correct the mistake Member of this house or of the other Time itim his policy regarding d with- year-out ainstead of compounding it year-in and body or. of the public sector in desiring reiterated his It co uld for God knows how long we peace. I do think, however, that there are drawal heade from mis pouthe t a uld no- t may be there. some who cannot stand the success of be ated made more o settlement, clear, The Asia. eThe g withdrawal ll It as foreign Mr. Chairman, the time is now and the the Nixon administration in its successful forces, release of all prisoners of war, and forum is here for those who think that phasing out of the Vietnam conflict. that if Indochiochinaa. s He stated such e the war in Vietnam ought to be termi- What I am about to say I want to be a a has cease-fire repeatedly throughout nated and to do so by the adoption of very clearly understood and not to be tlement cannot be reached, withdrawal the Boland amendment. misconstrued as impugning the patriot- ism of anyone who supports the end of of our forces will be determined by the Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise war amendments, but it is al3parent that level of enemy activity, progress of Viet- in opposition to the amendment. there are some who not only want to be- namization, and our success in obtaining (Mr. MINSHALL asked and was given latedly climb on the Nixon bandwagon as the release of prisoners of war. permission to revise and extend his re- it heads toward peace, but who are also I appeal to this House not to, tie the marks.) frantically for what could be politically hands of the President. Just remember Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Chairman, will the motivated trying to run ahead of it. No that he has brought home 80 percent of gentleman yield? matter how well intentioned, their ef- our troops, or will have in the next 2 or Mr. MINSHALL. I am glad to yield to forts could completely derail our drive 3 months, committed by the previous ad- the distinguished chairman of the House toward that objective. ministration at the peak of its escalation Committee on Armed Services. The Boland amendment is a chimera. of the war. Mr. HEBERT. I had hoped the gentle- We have every reason to believe that This is a time for cheering the Nixon man from Georgia would give me an op- similar proposals have been made by the administration, not to be undercutting it safe return of drive toward all American men. ton.. I rwould appreciate it if the gentle- they haves been l refused bys the North the its Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, ~_ppjoved Fort & ggAyl5Ri&?BP73 ?fR000400120011-3 H 11177 I urge the Members to reject the Bo- nam. Well, my son went to Vietnam. He tion Families for Immediate Release sup- land amendment as a threat and a detri- fought for a solid year in the 101st Air- porting the Boland amendment. I have a ment to the continuing and growing suc- borne. He was wounded twice. In the last letter written to the chairman of the cess of our President's efforts, battle only two men in his platoon were Committee on Appropriations (Mr. MA- Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. not killed or wounded. I very nearly lost HON). This letter came to him yesterday. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? my son in Vietnam. I have a copy of the letter. It is from Mr. MINSHALL. I yield to the gentle- How many hours I have asked myself. the National League of Families of Amer- man from Alabama. "Why did you encourage your son to go ican Prisoners and Missing in Southeast Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I want to Vietnam? Why did you give him the Asia. It says: to commend the gentleman for the state- impression that the people up there, all NOVEMBER 16, 1971. ment he has made and to associate my- the generals and Defense Secretaries and Congressman GEORGE H. MAHON, self with his remarks, and I should like admirals and so on, knew best." When Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, to ask the gentleman a question, you read the Pentagon papers and ex- Rayburn House Office Building, Wash- Mr. MINSHALL. I am glad to yield to amine the rest of the record, the very -DEAR ingt CO D.C. the gentleman. SSMo meri The National kindest conclusion you can come to is our League of f Families of American Prisoners and Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. What President and generals and advisers Missing In Southeast Asia, the first organiza- would be the situation if the first of did not know what they were talking tion formed by family members, has a mem- July 1972, arrived and the prisoners of about, did not have the foggiest idea of bership far greater than any other group, war had not been returned? what was going on or what we should do. including the POW/MIA Families for Im- Mr..MINSHALL. Does the gentleman If they did know, then you have to credit mediate Release. The League of Families is mean the first of June? them with evil intentions, and I hate to not in agreement with Congressman Boland Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama.. Whatever do that, although the Pentagon papers Yes nor we ntaouri pri the amendment says, if it is the first of possible ant our priswant home cn make it look as though our leaders were ly as poand we want an accounting g June 1972. Let us assume we reach a pretty byzantine crowd. I think it is of our missing men but when we leave the June 1, 1972, and the prisoners-have not pretty clear that the President does not entire process of negotiations rest with the been returned? know best. He has no monopoly on infor- North Vietnamese, which in essence this Mr. MINSHALL. It would be a tragic mation or wisdom. People around him amendment permits, we sincerely doubt that situation, as has been repeatedly tell him what he wants to hear, and they we will gain any satisfactory conclusion to painted out. Our hands would be tied. have been doing that for years and years. the MIA/POW dilemma. We would not be able to do a darned It is time for the Congress to reassert strongly we, the maturity r flly co memthis thing about it, urge you to carefully consider this its responsibility. You are asked to au- amendment for we have faith in our govern- Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Does the thorize these appropriations, you are ment that our men, missing and prisoners gentleman thick the. Vietcong and the asked to appropriate the money, you are are not and will not become second rate North Vietnamese will ever return those asked to draft the thousands of boys who issues. prisoners unless we make them do it? did not have the foggiest idea,, of what Sincerely, Mr. MINSHALL. I certainly hope they this was all about. You have had to com- National oo rrdinn, will .. I only hope they will keep future fort the mothers and fathers who came (Similar letter written onal to Cooator. promises better than they have kept past nongressan to you. Now you are told, having done all G. V. MONTGOMERY who has been very close- ones' that and having gone along and having ly associated with the POW-MIA situation.) Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair- been good children, that you should not man, I move to strike the requisite num- have anything to do with getting those Mr ahmr orit this letter lies ofete bar of words. boys back out of Vietnam. the great majority of the not like the the ethey do not like the Bo- Bo- Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the A lot of this opposition to the Boland 1 d amendment. Boland amendment. Much has been amendment comes from those who land made of the prisoners of war in Vietnam, want the President to get the full credit Mr. Chairman, the North eal Vietnamese the ot and those of us who know the families for getting us out of Vietnam. i-along and the Vietcong are veriy fought, most of those prisoners have some sense of with you-have had to take my share of shou ld enemy a have ever n andWhy what agony they are going through and the responsibility and the blame. Now I should we set a date certain and hope desperately they want to get their want to be able to take some of the credit. that the yne that act in good byith the sons and husbands back. I want to be able to tell my constituents- an enemy that never abided by the But men are now today dying in Viet- and my own son-that I had something Geneva Accords, an enemy that has shot down Americans over Laos, and where ream. If this war keeps on for another to do with getting us out of Vietnam. 6 months or a year, as many additional I yield back the balance of my time. those never we did not rescue we have men will die in Vietnam as there are now Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Chairman, never heard from. prisoners in Vietnam, and those men who I move to strike the requisite number of I might say that the State Department are still on the battlefield and who may words. reports that in the 6 months period of yet die deserve as much consideration as Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to March to October 1970, 1,300 letters were the men who are there prisoners. the Boland amendment. received from POW's by American fami- I believe the opposition to this amend- I am no expert on Vietnam or South- lies in the States. In the same period now, ment comes from those who want us to east Asia, but, Mr. Chairman, I have 1971, only 170 letters have been received believe that "Poppa knows best" and that been in Vietnam a number of times. I from the POW's. Can anyone explain children should not interfere. Congress was over there only last August. I believe this? has too long proceeded on this theory I have some knowledge of the situation. What are you going to do in the Boland that the President knows best, that he I am opposed to the Boland amend- amendment is take away the negotiating knows what he is doing and can be ment because, in the first place, it is not power of our Government and give all of counted on to do the right thing and necessary. The President is withdrawing the trump cards to the North Vietnamese. that we should give him the money and Americans from Indochina in large num- Mr. Chairman, as Admiral Moorer, the manpower he wants. bers and the withdrawal is going on in an Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, For 9 years that we have been in Viet- orderly fashion. I saw it with my own said: nam I have served in the Congress. How eyes only last August. It takes time to If you take the route of the Mansfield and many hours I have sat and listened in withdraw men and equipment, and a time Boland amendments, there is a possibility we committee to generals, Secretaries of De- certain will not accomplish anything. will not get all of the Americans back. fense, and Secretaries of State. I have Mr. Chairman, I guess what concerns Mr. Chairman, the amendment is based been. to the White House and I have me most about the Boland amendment on the release of American prisoners of listened to the President and all his glam- is the weakening of our position as to war and does not consider-and this is a orous advisers who claim to have all the the prisoners of war and as to the miss- point that has not been mentioned to- inside information. And I, just as you, ing in action. I know my colleague, Mr. day-does not consider the release of have voted for the money, BOLAND-and I hope he is here on the Australian prisoners of war, New Zealand The gentleman from Indiana has floor-sent each Member a letter from prisoners of war, and the South Korean pointed out how his son went to Viet- the Prisoners of War, Missing in Ac- prisoners of war who had been our Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 Approved ForCONGRESSIONAL? k~I -W73W 9 0004001i ,1 er 17, 1971 friends for many years fighting in South ignores the request of this Nation and the turn of our prisoners, I believe we can end Vietnam as well as our other allies. This national policy of this Nation as set by the war in 30 days. amendment leaves our Allies to get their the Congress, he flouts the language of The Boland amendment merely imple- prisoners back the best way they can; I the law he himself has signed. Let me ments the request we have already made ask, Is this fair? read in part that law which was signed and makes mandatory of the President Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, will the by the President himself when we passed that which we have already requested gentleman yield? the amendments to the Selective Service that he do, that we change our negoti- Mr. MONTGOMERY.. I yield to the Act of 1967: ating posture at Paris. gentleman from Arizona. The Congress hereby urges and requests Mr. Chairman, I hope the House will M. RHODES. I want congratulate the policy bn implement immediately the adopt DOW. Mr. Chairman, I move to the gentleman on the statement t he he has pressed P Y Y i made and particularly upon the activi- following actions: strike the requisite number of words. a for the establishing of a final date (Mr. DOW asked and was given per- ties of the gentleman in furtherance of Vietnam Negotiate the welfare of our fighting men in Viet- for the withdrawal from Indochina of all mission to revise and extend his re- nam, not only the men who are now military forces of the United states con- marks.) fighting, but the prisoners of war and tingent upon the release at a date certain of Mr. DOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in sup- the missing in action. The gentleman's all American prisoners of war held by the port of the Boland amendment. The hour activities have been Over a longer period Government of North Vietnam and forces is late, but there is still a chance that of time more fruitful than those of any allied with such government. Congress can assert itself finally on the other Member of the House and I con- Mr. Chairman, that was a single condi- Indochina issue, and assume the leader- gratulate the gentleman. tion passed by the Congress and enacted ship necessary to bring us out of that Mr. DOW. Mr. Chairman, will the gen- into ]law, a request only, but still a request entanglement. Clearly the executive is tleman yield? by the Congress of the United States that not-in the foreseeable future-going to Mr. MONTGOMERY. I yield to the makes the laws of this Nation. do it. gentleman from New York. Mir. Chairman, there is a clear consti- At present there is no writ, declara- Mr. DOW. At one time the United tutional issue here. The Congress makes tion or pronouncement to warrant U.S. States had 550,000 men in Vietnam. I the law and the President is charged with intervention in Indochina. That irres- think the gentleman will have to agree faithfully executing those laws. Even as olute document, the Gulf of Tonkin res- that the presence of those men was of Commander in Chief, his powers are de- olution, was nullified by this Congress at no effect in securing the release of our fined and limited by the Congress under the end of 1970. The appeal in that paper to the SEATO treaty was consequently prsoners of war. the is westablished by the Supreme abandoned. No authority remains. How does the gentleman suppose, This was a We are in Indochina for no declared when we have reduced our forces down Court of the United States over 160 there because declared possibly to a figure of less than 100,000 years ago, about the same time that Mar- purpareose ose. in We are just a f there. It is clear, tthat, after we shortly, that with that small number of bury v. Madison established the right of have gone, the clear, too, and the after we men we will have any leverage to get the Court to review the acts of the Con- American and all. conclu- those prisoners out by force or threat of gress. sion will a not the week after we go, or a month, force? As the chairman of the Armed Services it takes a decade, the solution will h Mr. MONTGOMERY. I will say to the Committee has said, "We have only one or a solution. And that they gentleman from New York that we will President." But that President is bound be a year a Vietnaormeg ago, if the that hey have a holding force in Vietnam which to execute the laws we enact. could have had se lonca e, t ceto interfere. U will be around 50,000 men plus a strong We have told the President in clear and States The had commitment Eat chosen of ere- them striking force. We will not be leaving unmistakable language: sources, the lt of so much h of o blood them by themselves over there. and we Mr. President, there is only one condition in Vietnam, must are not turning the negotiations over to we ask for our withdrawal: the return of our for laid notndefined undefined s p pturposes the door of the ust the North t does. Vietnamese, which the Boland prisoners. ecutive, but also at the door of this Con- Mr. R E does. That power does the President have to gress which stood listlessly by, all the strikMr. the requisite of wordsI move to decide that he will impose a second con- time that the executive went busily strike the requisite e and was dition? The survival of a government about his futile work. (Mo. RIEGLE asked and wegiven per- which is clearly a police state-which Through 7 years of warfare in Indo- mission to revise and extend his re- pursues denial of due process, torture, china, the Congress and the leaders of marks.) repression of dissent on a daily basis? the responsible committees have culti- Mr. Mr. RIEGLE. Boland Chmr dm I rise in And when the President imposes that vated legislative inaction like a flower. support d the the from fro and I condition, what does it do for our prison- They have accepted a policy of congres- now yield to the gentleman Cal- ers of war? We continue to withdraw our sional abdication and constitutional tor-MCCLOSKEY) ifornia (Mr. OSICE . M. troops. Obviously the people have over- por. Mr. Mto speak to Mr. Chairman, e whelmingly demanded this withdrawal. They have not even required from the Bo like to speak tthe one aspect of the What possible help does it give to our Executive an accounting of the cost of Bollan and amendment, the question ion of the prisoners to continue to withdraw and yet this adventure. For a time in the previous prPrev o l war. demand that the war be won? Does not administration we received a total figure Previously, the Congress a the earliest has requested our negotiating posture diminish as time in the budget that was the annual cost the practicable to on osingle goes by? of Vietnam. Yet the present administra- If we continue to insist on winning the tion has discontinued any such figure. and d be accounted for a condition, that prisoners s one e prisoners returned. war through Vietnarnization, how can we The fault is no more his than ours, con- The President, however, has insisted ask for our prisoners back? Clearly the sidering our woeful failure to insist upon upon a second condition-that the North North Vietnamese know and understand it. Vietnamese and the Vietcong cease their that this holding of our pirsoners of war Two years- ago the record showed ex- attempts to overthrow the government of is their most important bargaining penditure of $5 million in Cambodia. Now South Vietnam. He has said that we will weapon. They have no reason to return Congress is settling for figures in the continue the bombing in Laos, Cambodia the prisoners if we insist on remaining in hundreds of millions of dollars. When I and Vietnam until there is a reasonable Vietnam until the South Vietnamese went to Laos in 1967, our Ambassador chance that the Thieu-Ky government Government is secure. showed me a cost estimate of our annual survives. The President's policy, in my judg- costs there that was approximating $55 Secretary of Defense Laird has said ment, condemns our prisoners to indefi- million. Today, truer figures have come that this bombing may be required for nice captivity. If the President would to light showing totals for Laos, like 10 years. comply with the suggestion Congress has. Cambodia, running to hundreds of mil- Mr. Chairman, when the President already made, that our negotiators be lions of dollars. adds this second condition for our with- instructed to reduce our demand to the To the stupefying recital of our mis- drawal from Southeast Asia, he not only single demand, the condition of the re- takes, losses, and wastes in Indochina, we Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, A" roved Fot ' "%S2MYAi tt 6fB 7 R6R000400120011-3 H 11179 must add the dismal failure of this Con- concurrent demands that are being made gress to assume responsibility. Chloro- and that have been made and it certainly formed by the slogan that the President does not provide us with any assurance is Commander in Chief, we have been that if a deadline is established, the pris- willing to allow that this permits him to oners will be returned. invade any land, expend our sons and I certainly must challenge the credi- drain our resources, without a warrant or bility of anyone who asserts that once a leave from this Congress-and without deadline has been set, then the prisoners any accounting of the cost. will be returned. When will there be a reassertion of So here we have the inconsistency of the congressional prerogative as a co- the sponsors of this amendment on the ordinate branch of this Government? one hand telling us that a deadline is When will we become legislators again contingent upon a prior release. In other on foreign issues? words-no release-no deadline. The time is now. Let us end not only the On the other hand, we are told that monstrous calamities that we have visited this nonexistent deadline will assure the upon Indochina, but also the executive release of the prisoners. I believe this department's heedlessness of Congress amendment will condemn our prisoners which has been tolerated in this sleep- and not help them. I strongly oppose it, ing body for nearly 7 years. and I hope we will not mislead those Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, will who yearn for the return of the Ameri- the gentleman yield? can prisoners of war by giving them a Mr. DOW. I yield to the gentleman. guarantee which is no guarantee at all. Mr. PUCINSKI. The gentleman from Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, will the Mississippi mentioned prisoners of war gentleman yield? from other.countries such as Australia Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I am happy and the Philippines. - to yield to the gentleman from New York. I 'am under the impression that those Mr. KEMP. I would like to commend countries have long ago withdrawn all the gentleman for his remarks. I would of their troops from Vietnam. like to address the attention of the House I wish some member of the Committee to point 1 of the seven-point demands on Armed Services would inform us if made by Hanoi which sheds light on what that is correct. they really want. The quotation is this: Mr. DOW. I cannot answer the gentle- The United States Government must put man whether the Australian or Korean an end to its war of aggression in Vietnam, forces have been withdrawn or not, but stop the policy of "Vietnamization" of the I do say this prisoner of war issue is being war, withdraw from South Vietnam all blown up and exploded into an immense troops, military personnel, weapons, and war issue which is offered to fog the main materiels of the United States and of other question-and that is the direction of our mantle foreign countries in the U.S. camp, and dis- n Vietnam, national policy overall in Vietnam. without posing U.S. g any y condition os iwhatsoever. Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- man, I move to strike out the last word Mr. Chairman, it is clear that this is and rise in opposition to the amendment. a call for the unconditional and uni- (Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin asked and lateral surrender of the United States. was given permission to revise and ex- This amendment should be defeated and tend his remarks.) I commend the gentleman for his re- Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. Mr. Chair- marks and his leadership on this issue. man, as I read this amendment, within Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. It certainly the four corners of the paragraph, I must puts the lie to any intended assurance interpret it as an unconditional deadline that once we set a deadline, that that is for the use of any funds for the support all that is required to assure the return of Americans in Vietnam. of our prisoners. Mr. Chairman, I do not believe there is Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, will the any ambiguity which would permit any- gentleman yield further? one to read that amendment and come Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin. I yield to the to a different conclusion. If that is so, it gentleman from New York. strikes a cruel blow at those who have Mr. KEMP. I thank the gentleman for fought and who are fighting, and to those yielding. It is a great disservice I think who are prisoners of war in that part of to the people of this country and, to those the world. who are watching and listening to this But, if we say there is ambiguity which debate, to mislead them into thinking negates it as being unconditional, as the that this is a way to end war. The House author of the amendment said when of Representatives, by voting for this pressed and when he said, "Oh, no, this Boland-Mansfield. amendment, is not condition does not apply at all unless going to end war. It has been said that there has been a prior release of our you can elect who you want to be your prisoners." leader but you cannot elect not to have Then, I submit this represents a cruel a leader. We have an elected leader and hoax upon our prisoners, upon their fam- he is bringing about more progress to- ilies and upon the American people. ward ending this war and given more We are told in the statement of the hope for the kind of peace we want, than additional views that it has been stated all of this rhetoric and I might add our by the negotiators in Paris that the pris- desire is not just for peace now but peace oners are not going to be returned until for the future, and I suggest that we a deadline for our military involvement give our serious consideration to voting has been established. down this pernicious amendment. The If we accept that at face value, it still way to help end this war is to shout loud Reaves open the question about other and clear to Hanoi by this vote that we want an honorable end to this war and an immediate return of our POW's and MIA's. Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word. (Mr. KOCH asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. KOCH. Mr. Chairman, I have lis- tened to the debate and I was struck by the remarks of the distinguished Chair- man of the Armed Services Committee (Mr. HtsERT) who opened his remarks by saying, "I am weary." My thought at that moment was, this country is weary. This country wants the war ended. Then Chairman HESERT said: When are we going to stop debating the Mansfield amendment? My thought at that moment was that we are going to stop debating the Mans- field amendment when we adopt that amendment, and not before. Three gentlemen, at least three, took the floor in opposition to the Boland amendment, advancing as their argu- ments, that it does not do what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BOLAND) says it will. They say they find the language imprecise and that it does not specifically insure the prior or simul- taneous release of our prisoners of war on the setting of the withdrawal date. The gentleman from Massachusetts tried to assure them that that was the intent. He felt that the language was adequate. The legislative history of the debate here would show that, but I ask those three men who took the floor if the language were all that you wanted with respect to insuring the return of our prisoners of war, which we all want, would you vote for it? Would you vote for it? Mr. RHODES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KOCH. I am delighted to yield to the gentleman from Arizona. Mr. RHODES. The Military Procure- ment Act of 1971 contained language which indicated very strongly that it is the policy of the Congress that we want to get out of the war in Vietnam. I voted for it, but I do not have to do so every day to prove that I mean it. Mr. KOCH. Let me respond to that by saying this: I believe it is important that this Congress-if it has the authority, the - power, the desire, and the will to do so- debate this issue every day until those men are brought home and the war is ended. Members have risen to commend the President because he is, they say, "wind- ing down the war." Who will say to the fathers and the mothers of the 5 or 8 young American men who last week were killed in Vietnam that the war has been wound down? Or to those who may yet die before, in fact, the war is ended? To them it is not a question of winding down. It is a question of the deaths of their sons. That is why I say we should use every opportunity and amendment offered in this House to debate this war until it is concluded, not tomorrow, but today; not 6 months from now, but today. - And if the best vehicle presented to us today is that amendment offered by Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R00040012(11-3 H 11180 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 17, 1971 the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BOLAND) whom I applaud for leading us today and for having spoken so elo- quently, I am going to support it. And if it is offered tomorrow on some other bill, I am going to speak and vote for it, as I will on every occasion when I can rise in opposition to that dirty and immoral war. Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. KOCH. I yield to the gentleman from New York. Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I was very much impressed with the gentleman from Indiana and the gentleman from Maryland, who told of their sons in the war. I, too, have had a boy in Vietnam, a "grunt," a marine platoon leader, and he spent 13 months on the DMZ and won the Bronze Star in action. I rise in support of the Boland amend ment. I wonder whether or not any of those who have riser} in opposition to the amendment have also suffered the anguish of a family who had a boy in Vietnam. Mr. O'KONSKI. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the necessary number of words. Mr. Chairman, by way of background, I would like to go into a little personal history.- I have always been a man of peace. I have been opposed to war when it was unpopular to be so. I was opposed, along with old Bob LaFollette, to our en- try into World War I for which we were called traitors. It is different now. The biggest racket we have in the country today is the peace racket. There is more money collected in the name of peace and unaccounted for than any other racket in the country. But I am talking about a time when it was unpopular to be for peace and against war. In the middle of World War II, in 1944, I was here and I introduced a resolution that we withdraw our troops from Eu- rope then, because we could have had a separate peace with Germany, and we could have saved a great many people who were burned in gas chambers. We could have saved many of the people whose lives were lost at Anzio Beach and Omaha Beach and other places. We did not need to kill 135,000 women and children in Dresden, Germany, with bombs. We could have had peace before then. The war in Vietnam, the Members will remember, had the first $2 billion ap- propriation in 1954. I opposed it, and warned against our involvement there. I think we have had no business in Viet - nam in the first place, and I think the sooner we get out of there, the better. We cannot get out of there too soon as far as I am concerned. In 1957, 1961, 1963, 1964, 1965-67 I opposed the war in Viet- nam. Please heed my advice. The worst thing we could do in my judgment is to pass the Mansfield-Boland amendment. I will tell the Members why. Suppose the Mansfield-Boland amendment were in existence in 1954 when the French got defeated in Dienbienphu. Suppose the French had it tied withdrawal to the prisoners of war and an accounting for all the missing in action? The French would still be in Vietnam now, 17 years later. Suppose we had tied the condition of have now grown to adulthood. They have the ending of World War II in Europe reached the age of 18, and we are still in- to the accounting for every single pris- v ved in Vietnam. one:r of war and missing in action? I T recall years ago when I took the floor know of 10,000 allied officers still unac- many times in favor of the war. It was counted for in World War II in Europe. with feeling that I rose in support of the We would still have 5 million troops in war. And it is with feeling I rise at this Europe if we had tied it down to the ac- time. I know how the distinguished gen- counting of missing-in-actions and the tleman from New Orleans feels. So many release of prisoners of war. times I had gone to the area schools of Suppose the Mansfield amendment my district supporting the administra- were in existence in 1969 when President tion's policy in Vietnam, until it occurred Nixon took office. We would still have 550,000 troops in Vietnam, because it would have been tied to the releasing of the prisoners of war and the accounting for all of the missing in action. How can you be so naive? If we are going to tie withdrawal to the prisoners of war and those missing in action we will be in Vietnam for another 10 years. One gentleman said it very bluntly when he said we had 550,000 men in Vietnam, and we could not negotiate on the pris- oners of war, so how in the world are we going to do it when we have only a resid- ual force of 45,000 men and have served notice that we are going to be out of there completely as soon as possible. If Members want to continue the war for the next 5 or 10 years-vote for the Mansfield-Boland ~ amendment. Who is so naive as not to know the Communists use the prisoners of war in a completely, different fashion from all civilized na- tions in the past. The Communists use prisoners for propaganda ptlrposes. They are not concerned with our getting back our prisoners of war and getting them out of Vietnam. Mark you and mark you well we are going to have to pay a heavy ransom for the prisoners of war we have in Vietnam, and it is going to amount to billions of dollars, and it is going to take us 3 or 4 or 5 or maybe 10 years to negotiate it. Under the Mansfield-Boland amendment we will be compelled to keep troops in Vietnam during all that time. I want out now-not 5 or 10 years from now. If you pass the Boland-Mansfield amendment conditioning our withdrawal of troops from Vietnam on the release of prisoners of war and the accounting for all MIA's you are voting to prolong the war in Vietnam for another 5, 10, or 15 years, and it is on your heads that you are prolonging the war. Stripped of all its niceties the, Mans- field-Boland amendment. is another Tonkin Bay resolution in disguise. Do we want a repetition of that catas- trophe? Think, listen, and learn; is not one Tonkin Bay resolution enough in our time? I think one is too much. Let us get out of Vietnam now-not 5 or 10 years from now, which is the real meaning of direct and indirect negotiations. These the Mansfield-Boland amendment. negotiations will continue regardless of Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment, just as the troops will to strike the requisite number of words. continue to be withdrawn regardless of (Mr. O'NEILL asked and was given this amendment. permission to revise and extend his re- What is the question that we are argu- marks.) ing? We have come to a divided line in Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Chairman, as the American history, and this is the ques- gentleman from Wisconsin just said, it tion: Should we continue to live with the has been 18 years since we authorized war in Vietnam as we have for the past and appropriated $2 billion and sent it 18 years? Do you want a continuing over to Bao Dai and the French. It has presence in Vietnam of American troops been 18 years now that we have been in- for many years to come a reality? Or do velved in Indochina. you want the troops home by June 1 of Children, who were babies at that time, 1972? to me to check the other side of the issue. Could we justify our involvement in Vietnam? As I stand here in this well to- day, I cannot justify morally, politically, or strategically in terms of the defense of this Nation any reason for being in Vietnam. I truly have been moved by some of the speeches made in this House today, espe- cially that one by my good friend ED RovsH, when he told about his son's experience in Vietnam. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts. I live with EDDIE BOLAND. I know his thoughts and feelings and the work he has put into this amendment. Under the Constitution the Congress has the right to declare war. Under the powers of the Constitution, the Congress has control over the purse, and has the power to appropriate and authorize funds for the conduct of this war. Under the powers of the Constitution, the Congress has the right to terminate the authorization and appropriation of funds for the conduct of this war. Through this constitutional power of the purse, the end product is that the Congress has the right to terminate a war by setting a deadline for funding for the conduct of a war. I am not standing here to criticize President Nixon's feelings and actions with regard to the war. This amendment is not designed to tie the hands of President Nixon on the withdrawal of troops; nor does it tie his hands on negotiations over the release of prisoners of war. The amendment says nothing,about the withdrawal of troops at the continued pace which the Presi- dent has set forth. It does not affect his withdrawal program. It does not affect negotiations, because the amendment is contingent on the re- lease of prisoners of war. If the prison- ers of war are not released by June 1, 1972, the amendment as offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts, (Mr. BOLAND) is not valid. The release of pris- Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, -oved Fore (t /J5R - P73IYa( 6R000400120011-3 H 11181 I, for one, want the troops home by card that he could use in the negotiations The decision in Massachusetts against June 1, 1972. I would have them home for the release of the prisoners of war Laird by the highest Federal court yet tomorrow if it were possible. and for the recovery of the missing in to rule on the war's constitutionality, I believe the Boland amendment is an action and for the total termination of removes any question of the appropriate- excellent amendment, and I urge Mem- our military conflict in Vietnam. ness of the Boland amendment. It can bers to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I say to the Members no longer be argued that the appropri- Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Mr. Chairman, of this body as strongly as I can that any ation process can be separated from the I move to strike the requisite number of amendment with restraints of this kind legitimacy of the war. If we fail today words. will jeopardize the opportunities for the to pass this amendment we will ex- Mr. Chairman, those of us who have President to get our prisoners of war out plicitly be ratifying the continuation of known our friend from Massachusetts, and end this military conflict. a policy which we know to be a catas- EDDIE BOLAND, for a long time know that I say in conclusion we have on the trophe. among his many fine characteristics and statute books now not one but two statu- This amendment would not improp- attributes he is always ;frank, he is al- tory provisions that say we must get our erly restrict the President with respect ways candid; and, typical of those char- prisoners of war back and withdraw all of to any attempts which he may be mak- acteristics, today he was frank and can- our forces. I just do not know how many ing to secure the release of prisoners of did with us in making two comments, times you have to pile on the statute war. The amendment would not take ef- among others, in support of his amend- books another piece of legislation of the feet unless our prisoners of war were re- ment. same kind. turned. Moreover, based on the sum total First he said that this is the toughest, I say to you this is bad legislation and of evidence from all sides on this ques- hardest amendment of this kind that this it ought to be defeated. If you want the tion, I do not believe that we can real- Congress has had on its doorstep. Sec- prisoners of war back, beat the Boland istically expect to obtain the return of ond, the gentleman from Massachusetts amendment. our prisoners of war in the forseeable gave credit to President Nixon for the Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in future unless we pass this amendment program of Vietnamization which has re- support of the amendment by my col- today. The official organization of the sulted in a reduction of our manpower in league from Massachusetts, Congress- families of our prisoners of war and Vietnam from 540,000 plus down to man BOLAND, to the Department of De- missing in action has endorsed the Bo- roughly 180,000 at the present time and fense appropriations bill for fiscal year land amendment. the prospect of a further reduction to 1972. The amendment would prohibit the I will not insult the intelligence and 139,000 come January 31, 1972. use of funds "to finance any military concern of my colleagues by again re- These are honest, frank statements combat or military support operations by citing the tragic consequences of the which all of us ought to appreciate and U.S. forces in or over South Vietnam, Vietnam debacle. Now that every theo- understand, and I, for one, especially ap- North Vietnam, Laos, or Cambodia after retical underpinning of this holocaust preciate the gentleman from Massachu- June 1, 1972," subject to the release of have been proved wrong-including the setts candid comments. American prisoners of war. so-called domino theory and the ridicu- Let me ask this question, recognizing This amendment, the latest and most lous charade which resulted in the ascen- that those were honest and frank state- promising in a series of attempts to as- sion to power of Thieu-we must act. mernts by the gentleman from Massa- sert the will of the overwhelming ma- Every day we sanction the sacrifice of an- chusetts: At a time when the war is being jority of the American people with re- other life of another Asian or another ended, is it wise to approve the toughest, spect to our Indochina policy, rises in an American on the altar of the South Viet- hardest amendment that the House of unparalleled political, constitutional, and namese dictatorship we are perpetuating Representatives has faced on this issue? historical context. an injustice of ghastly proportions. In my judgment, the reverse should Politically, this amendment represents Mr. Chairman, I have recently com- be true. If the ? President were not suc- the last clear chance for the Members pleted a comprehensive review of the nine ceeding, if he had not accomplished a of this House to vote their consciences volumes of hearings of our Appropria- great deal, then I could understand some- on the Vietnam war. Some of our col- tions Committee on this bill. If any one body saying in frustration that the House leagues have previously declined to sup- theme emerged from those hearings, it of Representatives and the Congress of Port such an amendment on the ground was, I regret to state, that we have not the United States ought to take tough that the President would soon declare a learned the lesson which the excruciat- action. But here is the President, with- definite withdrawal date. Those well- ing evidence of our policies in Southeast out the help of any such amendment fix- intentioned expectations have, trag- Asia should have taught us. Even as the Ing a date for withdrawal or imposing ically, not been realized. In the absence committee today recommends a defense other arbitrary conditions, who has re- of Executive willingness to establish a appropriation of $71.05 billion-an in- duced America's manpower commitment deadline, Congress has a greater respon- crease of $1.47 billion above the amount from 540,000 plus to 180,000. That sibility to do so in light of the over- appropriated last year-we continue to achievement has been done without such whelming expressed desire on the part be mired in the rhetoric of the 1950's and an amendment. Why under these cir- of the citizens of our country for such a 1960's. I deplore this increase in appro- cumstances should we seek to impose deadline. priations, and I believe the military upon the President the hardest, the In a constitutional sense, this amend- budget is grossly disproportionate to our toughest amendment that has come be- ment is historic because it arises in the national security needs. fore the Congress? wake of the recent decision by the U.S. Buried in the ninth volume of the Ap- It is my honest opinion that if the Con- Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in propriations Committee's hearings, in gress approves this amendment with a the case of Massachusetts against Laird. small print, is a statement-by the distin- deadline, it will destroy the potential for In that case, the Commonwealth of Mas- guished former Senator from Pennsyl- any further withdrawals. As a matter of sachusetts had challenged the legitimacy vania, Joseph S. Clark. I associate myself fact, I think approval of this amendment of the war in Vietnam on the ground with Senator Clark's statement and would in effect stop withdrawals under that -Congress has never voted a declara- commend it to the attention of my col- the plan of Vietnamization that the Pres- tion of war. The court rejected the claim, leagues. ideni; has implemented . ' It is my judg- stating that Congress has constitu- Among other things, Senator Clark ment that if this amendment is approved, tionally sanctioned the war by voting states : it will in effect end any negotiations that appropriations for it. In its opinion, the That we could safely cut the President's would be meaningful. It would take away court stated: $76 billion budget to no more than $60 bil- from the President, regardless of some In a situation of prolonged but undeclared lion. In coming to this conclusion we be- of the comments made earlier, a trump hostilities where the Executive continues to lieve: card of the President for his negotiations, act not only in the absence of any conglct- Our military policy is obsolete in the light whether they are in Paris, whether they ing claim of authority but with steady Con- of our overall foreign relations today. The are in Peking, or whether they are in gressionai support, the Constitution has not administration has proposed a bill for of- Moscow. If the Boland amendment is been breached. The war in Vietnam is a fence rather than defense. It is not isolation- approved. The President would product of the President's supportive action ism to suggest that we pull in all over the go to of the two branches to whom the congeries world our conventional forces, eliminate those negotiations with one less trump of the war powers have been committed, many of our bases and confine our strategic Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 Approved For Release 2001/11/15: CIA-RDP73B00296R0004001 o01I - er 17, 1971 1111182 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE power to eliminating overkill and assuring (f) The 22 tactical air wings are far too to abandon our position of leadership in that no enemy would dare stage a first strike many. We could eliminate at least five and the world, and if we are to serve notice against our country. still have plenty for conventional warfare that we will not help anyone who fights These excessive military expenditures are purposes. Communist aggression. teasing the country apartr-both our ecan- Mr. Chairman, I hope that for all we have solemn treaty obligations. I omy and our relationships with each other. Our needs home to feed the foregoing reasons, a majority of am not saying that they are right or to to to clear the Members of this House will support wrong, but we have them. In my judg- clear our air r and water o of fd pollution, the hungry, build our'cities, should have a higher prior- the Boland amendment and will also sup- ment, we should either honor'those ob- Ity than the ever-increasing demands of the port prudent and essential reductions in ligations, or we should abandon them- military. our military budget, including the reduc- all of them, not just the one affecting These excessive military expenditures are tions which our distinguished colleagues South Vietnam. g the principal reason for the ng infix- from Wisconsin and Michigan, Congress- I have been amused to hear on the floor tion from which we have been suffering, for man AsPIN and Congressman RIEGLE, that one reason for the Boland amend- deficit we the ra budget for this nd he facing in the ment is that there were no free elections Federal budget for the and deficit the in our next inne fiscal propose. year, for the incredible ter- I, for one, shall continue to seize every in South Vietnam this year. I would ask national balance of payments which goes on opportunity to reassert the proper social those who hold to that position, how and on without check. In short, we are run- role of those who design and execute many free elections are there in Africa, ning out of money. our military policy. in South America, in other Asian coun- Mr. Chairman, I also specifically en- Mr. COTTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in tries? The advocates of that position do dorse the following recommendations support of the amendment offered by my not suggest that we abandon our obliga- for defense budget cuts made by Sena- good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. tions to those nations-they single out tor Clark in the course of his testimony: BOLP,ND). This amendment, as is well only South Vietnam. (1) Stop appropriating money for the de- known, will cut off funds for Indochina I have also heard it said on the floor velopment and deployment of. the ABM. It pending only the release of prisoners of that we sthe hould get out of there has C Asia won't work. In view of the President's state- war. meat of May 20, we should certainly freeze This amendment restores the critically ruption in it. What about the New York ABM deployment and R. & D. appropriations important specific end date that was re- City Police Department? Should we pending the results of the SALT talks. moved in the conference versions of the abandon every aid to New York City? (2) Abandon development and production Department of Defense authorization Mr. Chairman, we have to put first of the B-1 strategic bomber. It is obsolete bills. I believe, as I have stated in the things first. The honor and glory of my before it gets off the drawing boards. The past, that the Congress continues to have country comes first with me. B-52 m any st a is coombin adequate for n the future sub- the responsibility for legislating an end Mr. ANDERSON of California. Mr. marine ic u nuclear mbingn threatda. Between tsub- me threat and intercontinental to this war. I know there are many Mem- Chairman, I rise in support of the ballistic missiles we do not need a third of- bers who believe that total discretion in Boland amendment to H.R. 11731, which fensive nuclear system. The Russians have this matter should be vested in the Pres- would establish June 1, 1972, as the ter- stopped spending money on their intercon- ident. I cannot disagree more strongly. mination date for all U.S. military oper- tinentai strategic bomber. The time factor All of my actions on Vietnam during. ations in Indochina, subject to a return alone makes nuclear bombers obsolete. this, my first term, have been to place of all American prisoners and an ac- (s) Freeze all strategic weapons over kill their more responsibility on the Congress in counting of those missing in action. en- Chin, or this area of foreign policy. For example, Why should a person support this ogh, an ty tim m. es our over, to present deter Russian Rusissian or a Chinese attack. one of my first legislative actions was to amendment? There are many reasons: (4) Deploy no more MIRV's and encourage cosponsor the Vietnam Disengagement First, to stop the death and destruc- our negotiators at SALT to work to eliminate Act. A short time later, I signed a letter tion. I have heard people say, "Why, only multiple warheads as part of an arms con- of intent-the O'Neill letter-to vote for five Americans were killed last week." trol agreement. all amendments which would end the Mr. Chairman, that is five too many. (5) Cut back the authorization for mill- war' by congressional action. I voted for One more life, one more amputee, one tart' manpower to 2 million or less. As we from Indochina to the Nedzi-Whalen and the Mansfield more prisoner of war is far too large a withdraw have no more purpose no Vietnams, , general eral purpose amendments in their original form which price to continue to prop up the Thieu forces of 2 million are quite adequate to specified a specific time to end the war. regime. defend U.S. territory against attack and to Mr. Chairman, I submit that we have Second, to return our American pris- participate on an appropriate basis with honored our obligations in Indochina. oners of war and to account for those other states through the United Nations Fifty thousand U.S. casualties, innum- missing in action. Mr. Chairman, as each or otherwise in peacekeeping and peace- erable deaths of Southeast Asian peoples, day passes, as more and more service (making efforts in the Middle East, Europe, and over $250 billion in U.S. military men return from Indochina, our power to Asia, and elsewhere. supplies dictate that the Congress act bargain with the North Vietnamese and (6) There are a number of obsolete and obsolescent weapons systems on which no responsibly and effectively in legislating the Vietcong is gradually eroded. As each more money should be spent. Among these an end to this tragic war. day passes, we have less and less to offer are: I urge all Members to cast their totes the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong (a) SAGE and AWACS. Air defense 7 in favor of this amendment. in order to gain the release of our men. ridiculous in the modern strategic military Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise The President has announced plans world. in opposition to the Boland amendment. to withdraw, but he insists upon a re- (b) Another nuclear aircraft carrier. It Just at every other Member of this body, sidual force remaining in South Viet- must be remembered that the surface navy and every citizen in our country, I hope nam. Next year, when we have this re- of all nations is vulnerable to destruction and pray for an early conclusion of the sidual force in South Vietnam, will this in the event of war. Either torpedo boats or conflict in Southeast Asia. I know of no release our men? submarines can destroy not only aircraft one who wants war, except Communists I believe that, today, when we have the e guns rat(A in that area. the most power, is the best time to nego- tacks ers launched out nched out of surface range of vessels tac the surface navy. Similarly, an aircraft can I do not think this amendment is the tiate a release of our prisoners. Tomor- wreak the same havoc. proper way to end the conflict there. If row, or next month, or next year, may be (c) Further purchase of C-5A troop car- we are going to pull out of Southeast too late-our power may have weakened rier airplanes. We have enough now to sup- Asia, and turn our back on a long and to the extent that we have nothing to port legitimate foreign policy objectives. rich history of honor and integrity, we offer the North Vietnamese, and Viet- (d) Antisubmarine warfare expenditures. should do it in the proper way. The cong in exchange for our prisoners of As in other areas of modern warfare the proper way would be for Us to renege on war. offense is so far ahead of any conceivable every treaty obligation we have around In addition, Mr. Chairman, on July 1, defense that ASW is obsolete. the world. _ 1971, the Vietcong presented a new (e) Chemical and biological warfare ex- We should cancel treaty arrangements "seven-point peace plan" to the talks in services es. This be phased department of ethe xcept armed should be phasout xc for tr tries, and all others, NATO, we are determined an offer to release U.S.t prisoners defensive ers of war measures. Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, lAoroved FoCONORE AtlMl A P-7-3 QO R000400120011-3 H 11183 in return for a withdrawal deadline. Prior to this commitment, they had merely offered to "discuss" release of prisoners. Mr. Chairman, the POW/MIA Fami- lies for Immediate Release, a nonpartisan organization composed of parents, sisters, wives, and children of prisoners of war and missing. in action, stated in July: We fell our government's obligation to the American prisoners now should take precedence over its obligation to the gov- ernment of South Vietnam. And they go on- In accordance with this, we have been working ilor the establishment of a termina- tion date for U.S. military operations in Indochina In conjunction with the return of all prisoners and an accounting of the missing in action by the date. Mr. Chairman, I agree. Third, U.S. prestige. _How can we con- tinue to advocate freedom and liberty on the one-hand, while, with the other, we prop up the regime of a man who, by hook or by crook, kept all other con- tenders off the ballot in the recent elec- tion? Fourth, to heal our divided country and put our resources to work in this country. The alienation, the hate, the divisiveness, that we have seen-we must, once more, direct our efforts, in a united campaign, to accomplish the goals that we seek here at home: Better housing, improved education, pollution control, social jus- tice, a stable economy. Mr. Chairman, this Nation is great, our people are good-we want to work for a purpose, but surely not for those pur- poses which have led to over 360,000 American deaths and causalties in Viet- nam, surely not for an uncontested, one- man referendum, that is paraded under the label of democracy. Mr. Chairman, I feel that we must end the war, bring out troops and prisoners home, and account for the missing in action. Mr. Chairman, I vote for the Boland amendment. Mr. DORN. Mr. Chairman, I rise In op- position to the Boland amendment to arbitrarily set a date of June 1, 1972, for the termination of all American air, ground, and sea power in Southeast Asia. It is not in the interest of peace and a final settlement with honor of this un- fortunate conflict. I know of nothing which would please the Communist ag- gressor more than to have a definite date this far in advance toward which they could make their sinister and diabolical plans. This amendment would tie the President's hands and place him in an impossible position to negotiate success- fully in Peking. We must maintain some bargaining power and room for discussion and maneuver. Complete abandonment of our every single endeavor on a given date could contribute to aggression and war in some other theater. The Red China delegation at the United Nations is already demanding total and abrupt U.S. withdrawal from South Korea and Taiwan, as well as Thailand, Cambodia, Laos, and South Vietnam. President Nixon is withdrawing our troops from South Vietnam ahead of schedule. He is becoming disentangled from this conflict as rapidly as possible. I urge the House to take no action today which would threaten the President's Vietnamization program and endanger the lives not only of American prisoners but of our men as they withdraw. Mr. Chairman, I respect and admire the distinguished gentleman from Mas- sachusetts (Mr. BOLAND). I know that he is sincere and feels very deeply about this war and I know of his concern for the prisoners. But I urge this House, in the interest of long-range peace plans and long-range security, to reject the gen- tleman's amendment. I will vote against the Boland amendment and urge my col- leagues to reject this amendment. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. MAHON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I am in complete opposition to the Boland amendment because I am in complete support of effective efforts to bring the war to an early and honorable end and to secure the release of Americans held as prisoners of war. In my opinion the Boland amendment will not serve the best interests of peace or the prisoners of war. I have the great- est respect for the author, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BOLAND) but I feel the proposal represents an unsound approach to the problem. Mr. Chairman, some are speaking' as though there had been no change in the situation in Southeast Asia. But by the end of January about 80 percent of our Forces will have been withdrawn. Yet some talk as though there has been no change. This does not square with the facts of the situation. To impose an arbitrary withdrawal date on the President and assume the fright- ful responsibility of failure or disaster when it is clear from the President's statements and actions that American involvement in the war is moving toward termination, could have disastrous con- sequences, and I think we all know it. To cut off funds arbitrarily when the objec- tives we have established-South Viet- namese capability to handle its own se- curity-appears to be possible of reali- zation would be to risk grave conse- quences. The American people have indeed made a massive investment in lives and in our efforts in Southeast Asia. There are those who are willing to throw that aside and seek to receive no benefit on the part of the greatest Nation on earth from this tremendous sacrifice. This is difficult to understand. Mr. Chairman, the cost in lives to the South Vietnamese, of course, has been much greater. This is not the time to ask whether the effort should have been undertaken. The war has proceeded with the sup- port of the Congress and now is not the time to argue about whether we should have gone into Vietnam. The war is ending. It will be ended. The only question is how and when we com- plete our American military involvement. Will we seek to follow through toward a reasonably acceptable conclusion-at least a semisuccessful conclusion-or do we wish to court disaster. Our objective in this conflict is a South Vietnam that can stand alone, and this cannot be accomplished in 6 months. And no one can guarantee that this objec- tive will, be fully achieved. But we are virtually certain to lose that objective if we end all American involvement at a fixed date 6 months from now. Are we going to accept the proposition that our losses and our sacrifices have been in vain? I do not think so. To adopt the Boland proposal would involve trading a very good chance of success for almost certain failure. We have stayed together In this Congress over a long and arduous course. We should not, in one final moment of dis- appointment near the end, forego all prospects for a favorable. outcome. It is unthinkable that any Member would want an unfavorable outcome. We did not do it in Korea. We pro- tected our investment. We made sure that we capitalized on the sacrifices we had made. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are near the end. American combat deaths, as high as 500 per week 3 years ago, have been less than 10 in each of the past 5 weeks. None of us will be content so long as there is even one. Let us not lose sight of how far we have come. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I ask unan- imous consent that the gentleman from Texas may proceed for an additional 5 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Flor- a . Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words. (Mr. YATES asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAsIoN). Mr. MAHON. I thank the gentleman for yielding. The Boland amendment would tie the President's hands at an extremely criti- cal time, and would-undoubtedly-tend to cripple and undermine the efforts of the South Vietnamese. Mr. Chairman, the Vietnamization pro- gram has gained momentum and we hope it will succeed. It can succeed if the prob- lem is handled wisely by this country and South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese, with our help, are rapidly improving their armed forces. Their readiness to successfully defend themselves without U.S. support or assistance cannot be made to coincide with a predetermined and arbitrary timetable. Vietnamization is designed to permit our total withdrawal from direct mili- tary operations without jeopardizing the departing U.S. troops. The President must have sufficient flexibility to continue support for the South Vietnamese forces. We should not abrogate our responsibility to continue to provide materiel and maintenance sup Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11184 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 17, 1971 port through a military advisory mis- Mr. YATES. I was under the impres- sion of some sort. sion that the gentleman said that the We must make sure that we have a war is being won, however, I will accept shield to protect our withdrawing forces. the gentleman's statement that the war Continuing U.S. air support is critical is being wound down. while the Vietnamese increasingly as- That winding down process has taken sume responsibility for their own defense. The safe withdrawal of U.S. forces de- pends upon the availability of adequate air support. The readiness and capability of South Vietnamese Armed Forces is dependent upon the phased transfer of equipment, ground operations, and air support in terms of South Vietnamese capability to increase their forces and readiness. While impressive progress has been made, it would be impossible to accomplish all aspects of Vietnamization by June 1, 1972, in a manner that would give maxi- mum assurance of the integrity of the South Vietnamese forces. In short, Mr. Chairman, what does an arbitrary deadline at this moment gain us? It could result chaos in South Viet- nam with the North Vietnamese coming on strong against off-balanced South Vietnamese forces with the Americans in the process of pulling out precipitously caught in between. Why should we voluntarily relinquish a prime position of power which we now possess in our determination to regain our prisoners? Why should we relinquish a position of power in dealing with the Communists which could permit us to end the conflict in Indochina under con- ditions reasonable men would call hon- orable? The President is planning to visit China and Russia in 1972. Obviously he has a negotiating plan. We should not deprive him of negotiating power and options by fixing a total unilateral with- drawal date from South Vietnam. It would be cruel indeed to pull the rug out from under the President of the United States when he as President of this great country. meets officials in Pe- king and Moscow. The efforts which we will yet be re- quired to make in connection with the conflict in Southeast Asia are small in- deed compared to what we have done in the recent past. Yet this last small in- crement of effort-this exercise of pru- dence-is crucial to a maximum chance of realizing the objectives we sought. This amendment would minimize if not eliminate our chances. This is not the way to make foreign policy. The amend- ment should be soundly defeated in the interest of the prisoners of war and in the interest of peace. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I should now like to speak in my own right, if I may. Mr. Chairman, I yielded to the gentle- man from Texas because I consider him to be one of the most respected and dis- tinguished Members of the House. When he speaks the House must listen. As it happens, I do not agree with his views on this subject, but GEORGE MAixON is entitled to be heard. The gentleman has said that the war an enormously long time, and will go on and on unless the Congress acts. That point was assured by the Presi- dent's statement today on the Mansfield amendment. He said when he signed the military authorization bill that even though the Mansfield amendment is the law he does not agree with it and will not follow it. Yes, troops have been withdrawn from time to time. There have been reductions in the number of troops in Vietnam. Yet, the Secretary of Defense said the other day to the press that he envisioned that there would be a residual force in Viet- nam for some time to come-that the Air Force would continue to stay in Vietnam. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. (/ff. YATES asked and was given per- mission to proceed for 2 additional min- utes.) Mr. ments clear. YATES. The President's state- and his goals are certainly not The distinguished gentleman from. Ohio (Mr. MrNSHALL)' used the phrase, in describing President Nixon's goals that we have heard over the last 10 years. I remember President Johnson saying the same thing-that our goal in Vietnam is to make sure that all foreign troops get out. This was the goal, too, of President Eisenhower and of the Kennedy admin- istration as well. The thing I am very concerned about is that this might be the goal of the next administration, also as the distinguished whip mentioned-we, have come to a fork in the road. We must make our choice. The issue is clear. We must decide whether we shall say the war must end on June 1, 1972, or whether we shall continue on the same path indefinitely we have followed for years in the vague hope that some day we will get out of Vietnam. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. The CHAIRMAN. For what purpose does the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. ANDREWS) a member of the committee rise? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that the gentleman from Illinois graciously yielded most of his time to our chairman, I yield to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the point I wanted to make was it is essential that we, in the Congress, take action today. This is the first real opportunity that we have had for a vote on the question of cutting off funds. Is being won; that the war- The gentleman from Michigan, the Mr. MAHON. I said that the war is distinguished minority leader, talks of being wound down. I did not say the war voting for the Mansfield amendment time was being won but I hope it is being and again. That may be true, but this is brought to an honorable conclusion. the first opportunity we have had to im- plement the Mansfield amendment by using the recognized congressional power. The Congress has the authority to end this war by its control over the funds. Mr. Chairman, I shall vote for the Bo- land amendment and urge my colleagues to do so. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentle- man from Alabama for yielding. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Chairman, the statement has been made, I believe, by my good friend, the gentleman from Illinois, that we do not know the goals of the President in South- east Asia. Well, let me help to clarify that picture-here 'are the goals of the President set forth in his own words in the statement he made today at the time he signed the Military Procurement Au- thorization Act. Here are the goals of the President, and I quote: Our goal and my hope is a negotiated set- tlement providing for the total withdrawal of all foreign forces including our own and for the release of all prisoners and for a cease fire throughout Indo China. In the absence of such a settlement or until such a settlement is reached, the rate of withdrawal of United States forces will be determined by three fac- tors-by the level of enemy activity, by the progress of our program of Vietnamization and by the progress toward obtaining the release of all of our prisoners wherever they are in Southeast Asia and toward obtaining a cease fire for all of Southeast Asia. It could not be stated any more clearly and I hope that answers all questions about the President's goals in Southeast Asia. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman. Mr. PUCINSKI. I wonder if the gen- tleman from Florida would not care to tell us if those same goals were not the identical goals of President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, and President John- son ever since we have been there. So what is changed in this manifesto that the gentleman just read? Mr. SIKES. If the gentleman from Alabama will yield further, I think per- haps the fact that 80 percent of the troops have been brought home or will be at a specified time, should answer the gentleman's question about the new and positive efforts being made by President Nixon to bring the conflict to an end at the earliest possible date. Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. Mr. Chairman, I am supporting the Presi- dent in his effort in this program of Vietnamization. I am concerned about the future and the fate of our unfortunate prisoners of war. I would like to hear from some person who is near the President as to what the President has in mind and what he plans to do. We cannot negotiate. They will not negotiate with us. Mr. GERALD R. FORD, Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. ANDREWS of Alabama. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan. Mr. GERALD R. FORD. Let me re- spond by simply saying that I know the President is personally doing all he can Approved For Release 2001/11/15 :=CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, Qppfoved Fore e8 9?&RL5 f&&gP73fiNRJR000400120011-3 through every avenue and through all sources to achieve a negotiated settle- ment. I do not think it would be wise for him to tell me or anyone in similar cir- cumstances the precise places and peo- ple. I do not think it would be wise for him to tell that to others in comparable positions or otherwise in the Congress. But knowing the President, as I think I do-I have for 23 years-and having asked him much the same question the gentleman has asked me, and getting him to respond, I say, to the greatest possible degree, both as to time and as to place, he is seeking to end the war by negotiation. I believe him, and ,1 think in the meantime, as we negotiate, we are accomplishing the end of the war in a way that will achieve to a degree the ends which we desire. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 30 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 45 minutes. Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I ob- j ect. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close in 45 minutes. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas. The motion was agreed to. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair- man, a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair- man, I was not standing at the time so my name should not be included in the list, and I also want to ask a question. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's name will be stricken from the list. Mr. LONG of Maryland. Mr. Chair- man, I want to ask this question. Are those who have already had 5 minutes under the 5-minute rule entitled to speak again? The CHAIRMAN. They are. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. MONAGAN). (Mr. MONAGAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. MONAGAN. Mr. Chairman, I have supported the Nedzi-Whalen amend- ment and the various modifications of the Mansfield amendment which have placed the Congress on record as favor- ing a definite end to the war in Vietnam and I yield to no one in the firmness of my belief that such a prompt termination is one of the essentials for bringing about the necessary reconciliation of various elements in our society. At the same time, I feel that the Bo- land amendment goes too far. It would make impossible the spending of one penny by the President after June 1, 1972, in Laos, Cambodia, or-Vietnam re- gardless of how meritorious the expendi- ture might be and in my judgment with- out regard to whether or not it related to the withdrawal of troops or the carry- ing on of other defensive and protective measures. It seems to me important to note that the general situation has changed re- markably over the period of the last year. The President has not only announced but he has carried out a program of withdrawal of combat troops from Viet- nam. This program has gone so far that it is beyond the point of no return and with each withdrawal the credibility of the President's statements is increased. At the same time, whether a specific date has been announced, an approximate date is being established by implication from the facts of the situation. The Presi- dent has also stated that another an- nouncement would be forthcoming Feb- ruary 1, 1972. The question is whether the Congress should undertake at this point when fu- ture developments and problems are nec- essarily unpredictable that not one dollar shall be available to the President after the first of June next year. I do not wish to take the position that the President might find himself needing money for a desirable and necessary activity general- ly related to withdrawal and reduction of force but be unable to find the necessary funds because of a vote of the Congress. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, (Mr. - ZABLOCKI). (Mr. ZABLOCKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) (By unanimous consent, Mr. DAVIS of Wisconsin yielded his time to Mr. ZABLOCKI.) Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. DAVIS), for yielding his time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Mansfield-Boland amendment, but before speaking on that subject, I desire to share with the Chairman and the Committee Members a matter of consid- erable importance involving Government printed documents, a development which has recently been brought to my atten- tion. It is, I believe, a question which should be of concern to the Members of the Con- gress as a whole, and especially to the Joint Committee on Printing. As the Members know, the Subcommit- tee on National Security Policy and Scientific Development of the House For- eign Affairs Committee has been con- ducting hearings for some time on the issue of POW's and MIA's in Southeast Asia. Throughout the course of those hear- ings, the subcommittee has conscien- tiously abided by the principle of fair- ness and balance. Recognizing the broad range of views on the issue, the subcom- mittee invited and heard witnesses ex- pounding all sides of the U.S. POW-MIA question and problem. $ 11185 The published proceedings of those hearings amply reflect the impartial and balanced nature of the hearings. Therefore, I was shocked and dismayed when a bastardized and deceptive version of one set of hearings published by the subcommittee was called to my attention. Photographically reproduced by a New York organization known as Clergy and Laymen Concerned, the hybrid version to which I refer has selectively culled only those statements and portions of the original document which generally expound an anti-Vietnam position. It is, in short, slanted, biased, and unbalanced, and yet purports to be an official repro- duction. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman from Wisconsin has expired. (By unanimous consent, Mr. RHODES yielded his time to Mr. ZABLOCKI.) Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. RHODES) for yielding his time. Since Government documents are printed with appropriated funds-the tax dollars of the American public- there is much to commend the policy of allowing Government materials such as hearings and reports to fall within the public domain. They belong to the people, all the people. To allow wider distribu- tion, the reproduction of Government documents is laudable. However, I do feel that this recent ex- perience suggests the desirability of amending the rules and regulations re- garding Government printing so that slanted reprints of congressional hear- ings and reports will be prevented. I would therefore recommend to my distinguished colleagues on the joint Committee on Printing a review of this entire question. More specifically, the committee may consider, for example, a revision in the rules and regulations requiring reprinting of documents in full, except with the specific written author- ization of the chairman whose committee print may be involved. My purpose is certainly not to stifle or in any other way impair the dissemi- nation of valuable information frequent- ly found in Government documents. Rather-and most emphatically-it is a matter of assuring the very fairness and balance the American people have come to expect and deserve. Further, I would of course be pleased to discuss the question in greater detail with the Joint Committee on Printing and share with them the material in question. Mr. Chairman, this biased and ex- cerpted reproduction is available for 95 cents per copy from Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam located at 475 Riverside Drive, New York, N.Y. It is my understanding the organization sent their perverted version to families of POW's/MIA's. Obviously to misinform the recipients. Rev. Richard R. Fer- nandez, director of Clergy and Laymen Concerned About Vietnam was listed as a member of the steering committee- the committee of liaison. Other mem- bers of the steering committee include Mrs. Cora Weiss of Women Strike for Peace; Mr. David Dellinger of Libera- tion magazine; Mr. Richard Barnet, co- Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11186 Approved For :Rqfflg731n9f0004001YoTe!rriber 17, 1971 director of the Institute for Policy Study; Mr. Richard Falk, professor of interna- tional law at Princeton University; Mrs. Anne Bennett, Women Strike for Peace; Mr. Rennie Davis, peace activist; Mrs. Ethel Taylor, Women's Strike for Peace of Philadelphia; and Mr. Stuart Mee- cliam, peace education secretary of the American Friends Service Committee. All are reported in support of setting a deadline date thereby insisting on the early release of our prisoners of war. Mr. Chairman, during the debate on the Defense appropriation bill and in re- cent months repeatedly it is stated that if the United States would only withdraw the troops from South Vietnam the POW's would be released and the MIA accounted for. The truth of the matter is that Mme, Nguyen Thi Binh, Minister of the provisional government of South Vietnam and other spokesmen for Hanoi have reported: In case the U.S. Govern- ment declares it will withdraw from South Vietnam and those of its allies- the people's liberation armed forces will refrain from attacking the with- drawing troops; and the parties will en- gage at once in discussions on, first, insuring safety for the total withdrawal and second, the question of releasing cap- tured military men. Mr. Chairman, it is clear if the United States will announce the unilateral with- drawal of U.S. troops the Viet Cong and Hanoi will then begin to dis- cuss the POW/MIA issue. Certainly field-Boland amendment to name a date should our country, our President be compelled by the provisions of the Mans- field-Boland amendment to name a date certain, June 1, 1972, as the date all U.S. troops will be withdrawn would negate every effort to stabilize the situation in South Vietnam and-what is more im- portant-such action will seal the doom of our POW's/MIA's. The veracity and trustworthiness of the harbingers of solutions from Hanoi and Paris must indeed be questioned, particularly if these same characters have demonstrated their sensitivity for truth and fact as evidenced by the POW's/MIA's hearing reprints they disseminated. Mr. Chairman, in behalf of national security and interest, the safe return of our servicemen in Vietnam, the early release of our prisoners of war, the ac- counting for our servicemen missing in action, and for the-interest of continued stability in South Vietnam, I urge that the Boland amendment be defeated. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair rec- ognizes the gentleman from Massachu- setts (Mr. BURKE). (Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague and good friend from Mas- sachusetts, Congressman EDWARD P. BOLAND. The amendment would only ac- complish what we have been trying to do in the House for the past year now and that is to establish a date certain. Having established a commitment to a date certain as a matter of record, with the inclusion of the modified Mansfield amendment in the recent conference report on the military procurement bill accepted by both Houses of Congress, it is now time that we go on record with a specific date. The newspapers have been filled with reports the past few days that U.S. mili- tary operations will have been termi- nated in Indochina by the end of June next year. This only confirms what many of us have been saying for some time, that in view of the strong feelings in this country against the war, in view of every poll taken on the subject, the adminis- tration could not possibly go into the next election without having terminated U.S. involvement in southeast Asia. If this is the case and all we are doing here is recognizing reality then why the op- position to this amendment? Before the opponents reply by asking me the question if these reports are true, why is this amendment necessary?", let me reply by saying that I think it is necessary to show we mean business through the historical means at our dis- posal; namely, through the exercise of Congress' control of the pursestrings. The amendment would also assure that we would not still be involved in hos- tilities in Vietnam through the device of residual forces which all of the press reports just referred to seem to indicate is part of the administration's thinking at this moment. The amendment also would serve notice to the North Vietnamese that they have a chance to perform and honor their promises to release all American prisoners and give an accounting of Americans missing in action, once this Government announces its intention to terminate action in Vietnam by a date certain. In other words, in voting for this amendment, I find no difficulty in reconciling this vote with my long stand- ing position that we have a moral re- sponsibility to see to it that we gain the release of all American prisoners of war. It is time in fact, that we lived up to our promises to the distraught relatives of these men by honestly exploring every avenue to secure their release. This is the one avenue that, as yet, is unexplored.. I can think of no better reason for vot- ing for this amendment than the re- moval of the prisoners of war and miss- ing in action issue from the controversy surrounding the war. This could extricate these men not only from their prisons but from their involvement in all the controversy over the war. Hopefully, the issue would no longer be the political football it has been until now. In short,- the amendment will be evi- dence that Congress is no longer sup- porting a war which has gone on far too long--as the courts claim we have until now. This date certain still gives the administration plenty of time to prepare for an orderly withdrawal-far too long when you come right down - to it. Each day any more lives are lost in this war is a tragic - indictment of a bankrupt policy. It is time to start saving lives instead of saving face. My only regret is that the date certain is June 1, 1972, in- stead of June 30, 1971, as provided in House Resolution 1013, of which I was one of the original cosponsors back in May of 1970. (By unanimous consent, Mr. BINGIiAM yielded his time to Mr. BURKE of Massa- chusetts.) Mr. CAREY of New York: Mr. Chair- man, will the gentleman yield? Mr. BURKE of Massachusetts. I yield to the gentleman from New York (Mr. CAREY). (Mr. CAREY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks.) Mr. CAREY of New York. Mr. Chair- man, I rise in support of the Boland amendment to the defense appropria- tions bill. The Boland amendment would pro- hibit the use of funds to finance any military combat or military support op- erations by U.S. forces in or over South Vietnam, North Vietnam. Laos, or Cam- bodia, after June 1, 1971, subject to the release of all American prisoners of war. The Boland amendment is in complete accord with U.S. policy as provided in title VI-the compromised Mansfield amendment-of the Military Procure- ment Act of 1971 since it terminates our participation in the war contingent only upon the return of our POW's. Of course the most significant section of the Mans- field amendment-the 6 months with- drawal deadline-was dropped in con- ference. The Boland amendment will re- establish this critical termination date and furnish the basic means for the im- plementation of that provision. We in Congress can no longer main- tain that the appropriations process should be separated from the legitimacy of the war. In a recent first circuit court decision, Laird against Massachusetts, the court found that the Congress has a clear responsibility for the Vietnam war by virtue of the annual appropria- tions of funds to implement the Presi- dent's policy. The court opinion states, in part: All we hold here is that in a situation of prolonged but undeclared hostilities, where the Executive continues to act not only in the absence of any conflicting Congressional claim of authority, but with steady Con- gressional support, the Constitution has not been breached. The War in Vietnam is a product of jointly supportive actions of the two branches to whom the congeries of war powers have ben committed. In view of the overwhelming desire of the people of this Nation to terminate the fighting in Southeast Asia, Congress has an urgent duty to approve the Boland amendment. I strongly urge all Members to support this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Aezue). (Mrs. ABZUG asked and was given permission to revise and extend her re- marks.) - Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, in the time I have been in this Congress, I have grown to have great sympathy for the Members of this House who were forced to support this war under false assump- tions. I want to congratulate the Mem- bers of this House for' taking one step, and that is to state their policy directing the President to negotiate a withdrawal Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, 19 ?roved Fo&I S Q(7NAL1 EftWP7 26R000400120011-3 H 11187 upon the condition of the release 'of our executive to cut off this war we will cut are going to lose 111,000 men. There is prisoners. That is what we did in the off the funds. Support for the Boland no possibility that we are going to nego- Military Selective Act and in the Military amendment asserts that we have the tiate peace with this much war going on Procurement Act. power to do so. around us. I think we have to recog- The gentleman from Massachusetts The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes nize- (Mr. BOLAND), whom I especially wish to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- congratulate today, comes here to say, DENNIS). tleman has expired. "Now that we have taken that one step, Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman, when (By unanimous consent, Mr. WOLFF let us really use the power of this House. Abraham Lincoln of Illinois was a Mem- was allowed to yield his time to Mr. Let us really do what we are required to ber of this body he was an outspoken LEGGETT.) do under the Constitution, and are man- opponent of the Mexican War, but he (Mr. WOLFF asked and was given per- dated to do by three-fourths of the never at any time voted to cut off the mission to revise and extend his re- American people, all of our constituents. appropriations for the ongoing opera- marks.) Let us set a date to cut off funds for this tions of our troops in the field. Mr. WOLFF. Mr. Chairman, I would war-after June 1 if the President does We lack Mr. Lincoln's stature and wis- like to express my wholehearted support not. " dom but, Mr. Chairman, I trust we retain for the Boland amendment which would Many of you who do not vote against enough wisdom and responsibility to vote prohibit funds for the war after June 1, the war do so in defiance of the wishes of against this ill-considered amendment. 1972, subject to release of all U.S. POW's the majority of your own constituents. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- and full disclosure of information with The statistics and the polls have proved nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. respect to MIA's, and I strongly encour- that. WALDIE). age my colleagues to join me in support The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, it has of this important and necessary meas- tlewoman from New York has expired. been suggested today that there Is no ure. (By unanimous consent, Mr. BADILLO answer to give those veterans who re- The war in Vietnam has been pro- yielded his time to Mrs. ABZUG). turn from Vietnam and ask "why are we longed for months and years now, partly Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chairman, we are there". as a result of the failure of both sides being asked by the gentleman from Mas- There is an answer. We are there be- to resolve the prisoner of war question. I sachusetts (Mr. BOLAND) to use the power cause of Presidents who lacked wisdom vehemently objected to shallow attempts we have, the power of appropriations, to and Congresses that lacked courage. last year to turn this issue into a political cut off the funds by a date certain if we We can change both defleiences. volleyball, to be batted back and forth to do not withdraw our troops from Viet- (By unanimous consent, Mr. YATES no avail. When the North Vietnamese nam. yielded his time to Mr. BOLAND.) . delegation to the Paris peace talks set The fact is the President will go to The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- forth their proposal early this summer, Moscow and Peking, but not to Paris, nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. offerfng to settle this question, I again to negotiate the Vietnamese proposal to DELLVMS). urged that the POW issue be resolved release all prisoners if we would but set Mr. DELLUMS. Mr. Chairman, I rise with haste. a date certain to withdraw our troops. in support of the Boland amendment, but Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with the The fact is the President tells us that the question I would raise is, how can lives of human beings, who have every there will be a residual force of at least one engage in meaningful debate on such right to expect that the United States 45,000 or 50,000 remaining in Vietnam. an important issue in 45 seconds? I think will act in their best interests to secure We must assert our congressional that is a travesty. We stayed here until their release. We have before us, in the power to prevent that residual force from 2:30 in the morning debating racist anti- Boland amendment to the Defense Ap- continuing that war in Indochina, as we busing amendment to the higher educa- propriations bill an excellent opportunity now intend to do. tion bill. Yet, on a matter of life and to assert our intent to act in their behalf. What the President and the Secretary death to the young-the ones required In essence, this amendment would do of Defense are going to do is to continue to fight and die in this absurd war-of no more than implement what Presi- in the air the war we have had on the this country, we see fit to parade people dent Nixon has declared our policy to ground. There is a recent study, the down in front of this microphone and be-that U.S. participation in the war Cornell study, which proves that what allow them 45 seconds to debate. I hope would terminate upon release of all is intended is to continue an automated that the young of this country remember American POW's. Enactment of the Bol- war instead of a ground war, for which the mockery of how we dealt with the and measure would assert the will of the we need only 45,000 or 50,000 troops. serious question of life and death in Congress, which I might add, has for too I support the Boland amendment. We Southeast Asia. In these remaining few long been dormant on this issue, declar- must cut off the funds if this Congress is seconds, I urge my colleagues to assume ing our intention to withdraw from active to assert its rightful power. some responsibility for ending this ad- participation in the war, contingent upon The CHAIRMAN. The time of the venturism-support the Boland amend- the would, I our men. serve Stwo uch va declprr- pur- Airedpentlewoman from New York has ex- ment, The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- poses. pired. (By unanimous consent, Mrs. CHIS- nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. First, we would be serving notice to HOLM yielded her time to Mrs. ABZUG.) LEGGETT). President Thieu and the South Vietnam- Mrs. ABZUG. Gentlemen, I am asking (Mr. LEGGETT asked and was given ese Government that they must prepare you to vote to reflect the will of the permission to revise and extend his re- to assume the full burden of the war American people but, more than that, to marks.) without further delay. I can see nothing reflect our obligation in this House. Not Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, the harmful in providing this impetus to the once since I have been here have we used chairman of the full committee, Mr. South Vietnamese, who, I am afraid, have our power over appropriations to make MAHON, indicated that he is still working learned to become far too dependent on it clear that there is a separation of toward a semisuccessful conclusion for this country. power between the executive branch and the war in Southeast Asia. Second, passage of this amendment the legislative branch of our Govern- I think we are behind that. I think the would serve to assert the responsibility ment. American people want to get out of this that the Congress bears, not only for . I do not think it is in any way a reflec- war, and I think we are suffering from a waging this tragic, ill-conceived conflict, tion upon our loyalty or our respect for false delusion if we think that we are but more important, for bringing the war the executive branch. Quite to the con- really ending the war. If you think cas- to a speedy end. trary, we are saying to the President ualties running at the rate of five, two, Rather than to tie the hands of the that we, as an independent branch which and three a week are representative of President, as some have mistakenly con- represents the people-we, as the House what is going on over there, you have to tended, the intent of this amendment of the people-have an obligation to keep in mind that the South Vietnamese would be to join President Nixon in as- make sure that what the President is say- this year will lose 23,0000 men. Last year serting our support for a policy of with- ing comes true and, if the President does they lost 23,000 men also. The enemy last drawal. For surely we have nothing to not act in exercising the power of the year lost 103,000 men. This year they lose in making this peace initiative, for Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11188 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 17, 1971 should Hanoi decline to return our POW's or. provide information on our MIA's we would then simply delay our troop withdrawal until such time as our terms were met. And, we have everything to gain should they respond to our over- ture for peace. Mr. Chairman, if we are going to make our POW's an issue in this war, then let us make them an issue for them to end the war, and bring them home. If we fail to extend this vital initiative toward end- ing America's role in Vietnam, then we in the Congress will be just guilty of pro- longing the war. With the lives of Ameri- can citizens at stake, we cannot afford to let political expediency get in our way. Again, I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this vital measure. They have nothing to lose by doing so, except the lives of countless American soldiers who suffer the agonies of hell being held captive even one day longer in. North Vietnam. Mr. LEGGETT. Mr. Chairman, I think we have to recognize the great secret solution of Richard Nixon to end this war cost us 19,000 lives and innumerable wounded. What was the great secret solution to end the war: Apparently to deescalate more or less as we escalated. That means every 6 months to tell the American people about where you are going. I say this: We were confused in get- ting into this war by my administration and by previous administrations, and we will be confused in geting out of it un- less we give some direction to the Pres- ident of the United States and to the people of the United States. I yield to the gentleman York (Mr. BIACCI). (Mr. BIAGGI asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bo- LAND) that will help bring all American troops and prisoners of war back to the United States by June 30, 1972. Over the past 4 years, I have sup- ported the President's withdrawal pro- gram, his negotiating efforts in Paris, and his private diplomacy aimed at a release of our prisoners of war. However, I do not feel his withdrawals have been fast enough. I would remind him that he promised an end to the war in the cam- paign of 1968 and point out that events in South Vietnam indicate that the country is in a good position to defend themselves and to determine their own future. Let it be clear that the amendment before us today is closely tied to the prisoner of war issue. Under no circum- stances will I support any withdrawal amendment unless it means the return of all American soldiers, both those in the field and those in prison camps. Col- loquy has established that this amend- ment will be null and void If the prison- ers are not released. On the other hand, if they are, all troops and prisoners would be returned home by next sum- mer. This'plan is very close to the Presi- dent's own plan. Speculatitn has set the troop levels for next summer at less than 50,01)0. The difference in terms of de- fense of South Vietnam is negligible. Thus the real issue is the return of the prisoners. Moreover, our efforts in that country over the last decade have helped build the 'South Vietnamese army into the best trained and equipped army in that region. Our mastery of the air war has been. transferred to a strong and efficient Vietnamese Air Force. Additionally, our objectives of self- dete:rmination for the people of South Vietnam has been realized now that two general presidential elections have taken place. Further efforts could be con- sidered questionable involvement in the internal affairs of another nation.. However, as I have pointed out, while these goals have been accomplished and the war is over for all practical purposes, our involvement there cannot be con- sidered ended until every soldier in the field and every prisoner is returned home. The North Vietnamese and the Viet- cong have indicated that once a date is set for total withdrawal they will be- gin to release the prisoners. The families of the POW's and MIA's have urged pas sage of such set withdrawal date legisla- tion in an effort to bring their sons or husbands or brothers home. If the North Vietnamese and the Viet- cong are not true to their word, then we can stop the withdrawal and re- escalate if necessary to assure the free- dom of American prisoners. This amend- ment provides for that. If we are com- mitted to exploring every possibility to end the war and free our prisoners of war then this amendment deserves pas- sage. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from South Caro- lina (Mr. SPENCE). (Mr. SPENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. SPENCE. Mr. Chairman, there may be some of you sitting in this body who are thinking of voting for this amendment, in an effort to gain favor with those who want to set a deadline for withdrawal from Vietnam. At the same time, you may be thinking that the amendment will not pass, in any event, and therefore you won't have to stand trial for being guilty of prolonging the war and complicating the release of our of the elements in the latest Communist peace proposal, the seven-point demands of July 1, 1971, I think demonstrates that it is a complete illusion to believe only some single unilateral U.S. act of re- nunciation stands in the way of peace. Instead it can-be seen that the Commu- nists are continuing to present a series of demands which, though sugar coated, represent nothing less than a demand for total allied surrender to all of the other side's conditions and acquiescence to their desire to take over South Viet- nam as well as a demand that the United States be held responsible for the com- plete rebuilding of North Vietnam after we quit. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to the question of Hanoi's position on the negotiations which heretofore has not been discussed in this debate. I think it will shed some perspective on the question of whether or not the Boland-Mansfield amendment will accomplish our goals by simply set- ting a date. THE VIETNAM NEGOTIATIONS AND THE NLF'S SEVEN POINTS The seven points announced by the national liberation front-NLF--on July 1, 1971, while at first glance appearing to show some signs of flexibility, in fact constitute a set of preconditions and ex- ceptionally hardline unilateral demands. In sum, the seven points do not soften the previous Communist demands, do not permit any Allied assistance to the South. Vietnamese Government, do not pledge the release of American POW's, do not propose a general cease- fire, do not accept the Government of Vietnam as a party to negotiations, and do not accept the principle of effective international verification. They reflect no reciprocity by the Communist side in exchange for Allied submission to these demands or for the extensive proposals and steps toward peace already taken by the Allies. 1. THE SEVEN POINTS IN THE CONTEXT OF ALLIED PEACE PROPOSALS AND THE NEGOTIATIONS The NLF's seven point demands of July 1, 1971 must be viewed in the con- text of the negotiation record of the last 2 to 3 years. This record includes com- prehensive U.S. and South Vietnamese peace offers, unilateral Allied conces- sions, and a series of broken promises by Hanoi: POW's. Just remember, with your help, U.S. PEACE PROPOSALS the amendment may pass, then where Building upon his earlier peace pro- will you be when the deadline arrives, we posal of May 14, 1969, President Nixon have lost our bargaining position, we have on October 7, 1970, offered a compre- weakened our forces too much, the en- hensive proposal for a just peace in In- emy attacks in force and takes over dochina calling for: South Vietnam. I think now of your an- An immediate, and internationally swer, to the families of the POW/MIA supervised cease-fire in place throughout people who oppose this amendment. Indochina; What will your answer be to those who The establishment of an Indochina thought you wanted to end the war, af- Peace Conference; feet the release of our POW's, and assure Negotiation of an agreed timetable for that those who died to help a small na- complete withdrawal of all non-South tion remain free, did not die in vain? Vietnamese forces from south Vietnam; The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes A fair political settlement reflecting the gentleman from New York (Mr. the will of the South Vietnamese people KEMP). and involving all of the political forces in (Mr. KEMP asked and was given per- South Vietnam; mission to revise and extend; his re- The immediate and unconditional re- rnarks.) lease of all prisoners of war by all sides. Mr. KEMP. Mr. Chairman, an analysis In addition to the above proposals, the Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17,40ed for R@4PI9MY6Ki[: p00400120011-3 H 11189 United States has supported the Govern- on the DRV's.-Nortlh Vietnam-"four tary bases, an agreement could follow ment of South Vietnam's proposals of point statement of April 1965. among various-unspecified-parties, July 11, 1969, and October 8, 1970, calling The "seven points" are thus directly concerning the modalities of a partial for free elections in which all people and linked to the NLF's anal Hanoi's earlier cease-fire and a POW release. parties of South Vietnam, including the preconditions and demands. In some re- Specifically, point 1 says about the NLF can participate, and for mixed elec- spects the "7 Points" take an even POW's that if all of the Communist de- toral and supervisory commissions in harder position than earlier demands. mands are met: which all parties, including the NLF, UNILATERAL DEADLINE DEMANDS 'The parties will at the same time could be represented. Point 1 the Communists' agree on the modalities-of the release of V.S. STEPS TOWARD PEACE repeats set, of far-reaching demands, the totality of military men and of the The U.S. Government has done vir- These demands are unilateral and un- civilians captured in the war-including tually everything that various parties, conditional. Specifically: American pilots captured in North Viet- including Hanoi's leaders and many The U.S. Government must put an end to nam". American critics, said would kindle ne- its war of aggression in Vietnam, stop the In effect, this is a variation of previous gotiations. These steps include: policy of Vietnamizatipn of the war, with- Communist proposals to "discuss" the A halt, in 1968, to the bombing of North draw from South Vietnam all troops, military POW question if the United States met Vietnam. This was done though North personnel, weapons, and war materiel of the the demands for a unilateral deadline Vietnam supplies all of the weapons and United states and of other foreign countries for troop presence, assistance, and so war materiel and almost all of the troops in the U.S. camp, and dismantle all U.S. bases forth. Obviously, discussions must pre- in South Vietnam, without posing any condi- cede any agreement on modalities. But and cadres for the wars it is directing tion whatsoever. across its borders against South Vietnam, there are a number of uncertainties and Laos and Cambodia; The deadline is set at December 31, far-reaching demands in the "seven Agreement to let the NLF participate 1971. Points" statement which would make at the Paris talks; Subsequent elaborating statements by such discussions extremely difficult and Agreement on the principle of total official NLF and DRV spokesmen, have not likely to be productive of an agree- U.S. troop withdrawals on the basis of made clear that these demands extend ment. reciprocal North Vietnamese withdraw- to all fog of Allied military and eco- It is unclear which parties would be fin- als; nomic assistance, specialists, funds, and volved or bound by any POW agreement. Appointment of a new senior negotia- so forth. Point 2 indicates that the Government tor in Paris; Since the Communists talked of a of Vietnam would not be a party accept- Unilateral troop withdrawals totalling U.S. "wear of aggression" long before able to the NLF and could play no role 360,000 men by December 1971, or more U.S. combat troops were sent to Vietnam in the negotiations. Furthermore, point than two-thirds of the,total of U.S. forces in 1965 in response to the prior inter- 2 does not mention North Vietnam as a in Vietnam in January 1969 when Presi- vention of North Vietnam's regular party to the POW negotiations and thus dent Nixon took office. army, this reference could mean that the Hanoi would not be bound by the NLF's COMMUNIST INTRANSIGENCE South Vietnamese forces must unilat- "seven points" or by any resulting agree- erally stop fighting. However, the "seven ment on POW's. The above Allied proposals and steps points" stipulate the formation of a pro- Also left unclear is the fate of men were made not only to reduce U.S. in- NLF coalition government as a precon- held prisoner or missing in Laos, Cam- volvement but also to open the door to dition for a cease-fire with the South bodia, and South Vietnam. In contrast serious negotiations. But although each Vietnamese forces. with the South Vietnamese and in viola- of these actions was urged by the Com- It should be noted that the "seven tion of the internationally accepted niunist side or by responsible third par- point" demands are unabashedly unila- Geneva Convention on POW's signed by ties, all have been rejected and none have teral and are notably silent on the criti- North Vietnam, the North Vietnamese generated any reciprocal movement by cal question of North Vietnam's role in and their Communist allies in South Hanoi or the Front. leading and supporting the Communist Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos, have re- Regrettably the Communist leaders forces in South Vietnam. fused complete POW lists or to permit have remained intransigent and have The "seven points" include no mention inspections by neutral observers for areas continued to press their attacks on their or pledge concerning reciprocal troop under their control. neighbors in violation of Accords signed withdrawals or termination of assistance The United States, third countries, by the Hanoi regime. by North Vietnamese aimed forces fight- and media representatives have repeat- They continued to demand a deadline ing in South Vietnam-90,000 troops- edly sought to obtain clarification on the for total unilateral U.S. withdrawal, dis- and are silent on the related issues of above questions from NLF and DRV mantling of bases, termination of all as- large North Vietnamese military forces spokesmen. The Communist side, how- sistance, payment of reparations, prior in Cambodia-50,000 troops-and in ever, has refused to give any clarification. removal of the Government of South Laos-90,000 troops. Furthermore, the Communist spokesmen Vietnam and the imposition of a pro-NLF NO PLEDGE ON PRISONER OF WAR RELEASE have repudiated the speculations of a government as preconditions for substan- The "seven points" do not pledge a re- ibility for the Communist pos t and flex- tive discussions. lease of the prisoners of war held by the At the same time the Communist side Communist side. In sum, after the United States had has rejected a general cease-fire, com- Point 1 indicates that after the United publicly committed itself to a total, un- monly accepted international standards States has committed itself to a December conditional, and unilateral withdrawal of POW treatment, and any type of in- 31, 1971, terminal date for any form of date, terminating its troop. presence and ternational verification. U.S. and allied troop presence and assist- any assistance, and so forth, it might well It. THE "SEVEN POINTS" ante and to the dismantling of their mils- prove to be the case that no agreement on POW release or the other vital issues THE PREAMBLE *NOTE: Hanoi's 'four points" of April 1965 would in fact be reached during the dis- The preamble to the "sevent points" included as point three the demand that: cussion of modalities. In that case, the states that the NLF is "basing itself" on "The internal affairs of south Vietnam must Communists would have conceded abso- its previous 110 point" statement of be settled ... in accordance with the pro- lutely nothing, but the United States May 8, 1969, its "eight point" statement gin of the NFr V without any foreign would have fallen for a ransom demand of September 17, 1970 and its "three interference." Further, the "Four Points" and would have unilaterally surrendered point" statement of December 10, 1970. declared that: "any approach contrary to its major bargaining chip. The-NLF's "ten point" statement in turn the above-mentioned stand is inappropriate, any approach ch tending to secure a United CEASE-FIRE explicitly bases itself on the NLF's "five Nations intervention is also inappropri- The Communist side has totally re- point" statement of March 1965 and ate...." jetted the October 7, 1970, proposals of Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11190 Approved Foe (Mt ]QliI5 8 fBP7 R000400 UAr 17, .1971 ' the Governments of the United States drawal.s, cease-fires, POW releases, elec- and South Vietnam calling for an imme- tions, reparations, and guarantees. diate and internationally verified cease- It should be noted that the NLF has fire in place throughout Indochina. described the chief element and "van- The NLF's "seven points" provide-in guard core" of. its "front," as being the point 1-not for a cease-fire, but only Peoples' Revolutionary Party-PRP- for discussion of modalities. Further- a self-proclaimed hardline Marxist- more, the NLF proposes to discuss only Leninist party formed in Hanoi in 1962. a limited two-stage cease-fire in South The PRP forms the southern wing of Vietnam, one not involving North Viet- North Vietnam's only political party, the namese forces or International verifica- Lao Dong-Communist-Party. tion. Interestingly, Hanoi describes its Point 1 mentions as parties to a first- "peoples' dictatorship" In North Viet- stage cease-fire-following a U.S. pledge nam as a "Lien Hiep" or "coalition" of for unilateral withdrawal of its troops "national concord." and assistance-only the troops of the To the Vietnamese nationalists, both NLF and the United States, not those of Southern and Northern, the formation either North or South Vietnam. of a "coalition" with the Communists is Point 2 indicates that a cease-fire be- particularly odious. They well remem- tween the NLF's forces and the South her how Ho Chi Minh's Communist Par- Vietnamese forces would occur only after ty liquidated Vietnam's short-lived sev- a new pro-NLF government was formed Nen-party orth Vietnam coalition in the 1946 of dohow, es- The in South Vietnam. The "seven points" fails to mention tablished a Stalinist regime and killed the presence or future role of the North and imprisoned the nationalists and Vietnamese forces-90,000 troops-in neutralists in the Viet Minh "Front." South Vietnam. They thus purposely CIVILIAN PRISONERS-CHOICE OF RESIDENCE omit a factor of major importance to Unlike previous proposals, the "seven Vietnam's future and to any negotiations. points"-in point 1-call for the Gov- This relieves the North Vietnamese of ernment of Vietnam unilaterally to re- any binding obligations vis-a-vis a cease- lease all civilian prisoners captured dur- fire, troop withdrawals, guarantees, and ing the war. so Vforth. By iet- Via the preamble's link to Hanoi's cong politicalncadres treleasing ern or st all deso "four points," the NLF's "seven points" forth,, the South Vietnamese would thus firmly reject the notion of United Na- be required to provide massive reinforce- tions' or similar verification of any case- ment to the Communist apparatus dur- fire as "foreign interference." ing a critical period. "PARTIES" TO THE AGREEMENT-A NEW The NLF's demand is unilateral. It GOVERNMENT does not require any pledge to be given The NLF continues to reject the July by those released and it is silent on urg- 11, 1969 proposals of the Government of ing releases from North Vietnam's ex- Vietnam to enter negotiations for joint tensive prison system which, according electoral commissions and general elec- to official North Vietnamese media, is tions in South Vietnam to include the filled with "counterrevolutionaries," NLF, with modalities and verification "defeatists," and "romantics." procedures to be worked out between In another new demand, the "seven representatives of the NLF and the Gov- points"-in point 4-call for "a free ernment of Vietnam. choice of residence" and for "free move- Instead, the "seven point"-in point ment" vis-a-vis North and South Viet- two-set as a precondition for discus- nam. sions the prior overthrow of the leader- This demand appears aimed at pre- ship of the Government of Vietnam- venting the forced repatriation to North described as the "group headed by Ngu- Vietnam of the 8,000 North Vietnamese yen Van Thieu-and demand the imposi- POW's held in South Vietnam. If re- tion of a "three-segment" provisional leased and maintained in South Viet- government of "national concord." nam, these troops would provide the These "three-segments" have been of- equivalent of a division of readily avail- ficially defined in the NLF's "eight point" able troop reinforcements for the Com- proposal of September 17, 1970, and sub- munIsts. sequently, as a "coalition" government Earlier this year the Government of consisting of : First, members of the Vietnam and the International Red NLF's own "Provisional Revolutionary Cross sought to return sick and wounded Government," second, members of the North Vietnamese POW's to North Viet- current Government of Vietnam "genu- nam on a voluntary basis. The POW's, inely," standing for peace, neutrality, in- however, were threatened by their cadres dependence and democracy" (as defined in the camps to resist and reject repa- by the NLF), and third, other elements triation in part, no doubt, from fear of meeting the NLF's criteria. retaliation on their families in North in effect, the NLF proposes to nominate Vietnam. one-third and to veto two-thirds of a Past experience indicates that the new government. This new government Communists would under no ciroum- would thus by definition be pro-NLF. stances actually tolerate the free move- At the same time, the new, pro-NLF ment of civilians away from areas under government would apparently constitute their control. According to thetestimony the NLF-approved "party" mentioned in of members of the International Control the other points. It is this new govern- Commission and other neutral observers, ment which would represent South Viet- for example, the Hanoi regime in 1954 nam in any discussions and negotiations sought to block the southward flow of on such critical Issues as troops with- refugees-800,000 escaped-and to cir- cumscribe the access and activities of the ICC. Furthermore, the Hanoi regime tightly controls all travel In North Viet- nam, via a system of internal passports and cadre checkpoints. The "free movement" provision is probably aimed at legitimizing the move- ment of additional Communist political cadres and troops from North to South Vietnam. 'REPARATIONS Point 6 demands that the United States assume the full and sole respon- sibility for war damage in North Vietnam and in South Vietnam. This is tantamount to unilaterally placing total responsibility for the war on the United States. This demand totally neglects the rec- ord of North Vietnam's massive and il- legal troop presence and terror attacks across its internationally recognized borders in the sovereign states of South Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. FUTURE INTERNATIONAL STATUS AND GUARANTEES The "seven points" state-in points 3 to 7-that the "question of North Viet- namese armed forces in South Vietnam" and the issues of future reunification and international status will be settled in a spirit of "national concord" by "qualified representatives of the Vietnamese people in the two zones" on the basisof "mutual interests and mutual assistance," and "without foreign interference." These carefully selected formulations in prac- tice would clearly preclude any non- Communist elements, options, or guar- antees. All references to agreements between the two Vietnamese "zones" or "parties" concerning cease-fires, troop dispositions, prisoner releases, free movement, foreign aid, reparations, and international guar- antees are vitiated by such formulations in the context of the full range of de- mands in the "seven points" and the past performance record of the Hanoi regime. As indicated in point two, the pros- pective South Vietnamese government foreseen in the "seven points" is the pro-NLF "three-segment" government. In the presence of the North Vietnamese cadres and army and via the Front's "Peoples' Revolutionary Party," this new government could readily be absorbed in- to the regime of North Vietnam's Com- munist Party. The "seven points" vigorous rejection of any "foreign interference" and the preamble's connection with Hanoi's "four points" formulation, specifically excludes any United Nations or similar international verification machinery and in effect guarantees that the South Viet- namese will be governed "in accordance with the program" of the NLF as de- manded in point 3 of Hanoi's "four points." III. CONCLUSION It is apparent if one looks at the record of what both sides have done to bring about a responsible settlement, that the comprehensive Allied proposals and the important unilateral Allied steps toward peace remain unmatched by the Commu- nist side, which instead continues its at- tacks and its unliteral demands. An analysis of elements in the latest Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17,A.PPY10ved For F M 1d1WAj: f p1B73B V000400120011-3 H 11191' Communist "seven point" demands of If the V.S. Government sets a terminal A. The reunification of Vietnam will be July 1, 1971, demonstrates that it is an date for the withdrawal from South Vietnam achieved step by step by peaceful means, on illusion to believe that only some single in 1971 of the totality of V.S. forces and the basis of discussions and agreements be- unilateral U S. act of renunciation stands those of the other foreign countries in the tween the two zones, without constraint and 111 the way of peace, Instead it can be U.S. camp, the parties will at the same time annexation from either party, without for- seenthat the C peace. Communists are it rani agree on the modalities: eign Interference. continuing A. Of the withdrawal in safety from South Pending the reunification of the country, to present a series of demands which, Vietnam of the totality of U.S. forces and the North and the South zones will reestab- though sometimes sugar coated, repre- those of the other foreign countries in the lish normal relations, guarantee free move- sent nothing less than a demand for to- U.S. camp. ment, free correspondence, free choice of tal Allied surrender to all of the other B. Of the release of the totality of military residence, and maintain economic and cul- side's conditions and acquiesence in men of all parties and the civilians captured tural relations on the principle of mutual Hanoi's takeover of South Vietnam, as in the war (including American pilots interests and mutual assistance. well as a demand that the United States captured in North Vietnam), so that they All questions concerning the two zones- may all rapidly return to their homes. will be settled by qualified representatives of be held responsible for rebuilding North Those two operations will begin on the the Vietnamese people in the two zones on Vietnam. same date and will end on the same date, the basis of negotiations, without foreign Acceptance of the Communists' de- A cease-fire will be observed between the interference. nand for a unilateral and unconditional South Vietnam People's Liberation Armed B. In keeping with the provisions of the date terminating U.S. troop presence and Forces and the armed forces of the United 1954 Geneva agreements on Vietnam, in the U.S. asisbance in South Vietnam-and States and of the other foreign countries in present temporary partition of the country Southe Asia-is .S. ss t anc in clearly not an -appro- arid the United States camp, as soon as the parties into two zones, the North and the South U reach agreement on the withdrawal from zones of Vietnam will refrain from joining priate means to speed an end to the war south Vietnam of the totality of United any military alliance with foreign countries, and is prejudicial to the delicate diplo- States forces and those of the other foreign from allowing any foreign country to have matic situation resulting from the con- countries in the United States camp. military bases, troops, and military person- tinuing U.S. reduction of its military role. 2. Regarding the question of power in nel on their soil, and from recognizing the In this situation, no legislative solu- South Vietnam. protection of any country, of any military tion can be sufficiently flexible to accom- The United States Government must really alliance or bloc. modae range of diplomatic and mill- respect the South Vietnam people's right 5. Regarding the foreign policy of peace m tary od ate o the and contingencies. diplomatic It would to self-determination, put an end to Its and neutrality of south Vietnam. interference in the internal affairs of South South Vietnam will pursue a foreign reward Communist intransigence and would remove any inducement to the other side to negotiate seriously. More- over, such legislation poses serious prac- tical and constitutional problems. The United States continues to hope that the Communist leaders will take meaningful steps toward peace and will recognize the desirability of concluding the war through serious negotiations based on reciprocity rather than pro- longed combat. The United States continues to believe that the allied policy of seeking a re- sponsible negotiated settlement and of withdrawing U.S. forces as the South Vi- etnamese become more capable of assum- ing the burden of their own defense, to- gether with the President's statement that all U.S. forces will not be withdrawn until all U.S. prisoners of war are .re- leased, provides the best prospect of bringing all our men, in prison or in the field, out of Vietnam and in a way that gives the South Vietnamese a reasonable chance to defend themselves. At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct the attention of my col- leagues to an article in the New York Times including the text of the so-callers Vietcong peace proposal. [From the New York Times, July 2, 1971] THE "SEVEN POINTS"-TEXT OF THE VIETCONG PEACE PROPOSAL PARIS, July 1 (Reuters) -Following is the text of the Vietcong's seven-point peace pro- posal presented at today's session of the Viet- nam peace talks: 1. Regarding the deadline for the total withdrawal of U.S. forces. The U.S. Government must put an end to its war of aggression in Vietnam, stop the policy of "Vietnamization" of the war, with- draw from South Vietnam all troops, military personnel, weapons, and- war materials of the United States and of the other foreign coun- tries in the U.S. camp, and dismantle all U.S. bases in South. Vietnam, without posing any condition whatsoever. The U.S. Government must set a terminal date for the withdrawal from South Viet- J*n of the totality of U.S. forces and those of the other foreign countries in the U.S. headed by Nguyen Van Theiu, at present in lations with all countries regardless of their office in Saigon, and stop all maneuvers, in- political and social regime, in accordance cluding tricks on elections, aimed at main- with the five principles of peaceful coexist- taining the puppet Nguyen Van Thieu. ence, maintain economic and cultural rela- The political, social and religious forces in tions with all countries, accept the coopera- South Vietnam aspiring to peace and na- tion and economic and cultural relations tional concord will use various means to form with all countries, accept the cooperation of in Saigon a new administration favoring foreigts countries in the exportation of the peace, independence, neutrality and democ- resources of South Vietnam, accept from racy. any country economic and technical aid The Provisional Revolutionary Govern- without any political conditions attached, ment of the Republic of South Vietnam will and participate in regional plans of eco- immediately enter into talks with that ad- notate cooperation. ministration in order to settle the following On the basis of these principles, after the questions: end of the war, South Vietnam and the A. To form a broad three-segment gov- United States will establish relations in the ernment of national concord that will assume political, economic and cultural fields. its functions during the period between the 6. Regarding the damages caused by the restoration of peace and the holding of gen- United States to the Vietnamese people in eral elections and organize general elections the two zones. in South Vietnam. The U.S. Government must bear full re- A cease-fire will be observed between the sponsibility for the losses and the destruc- South Vietnam People's Liberation Armed tions it has caused to the Vietnamese peo- Forces and the armed forces of the Saigon ple in the two zones. administration as soon as the government 7. Regarding the respect and the Interns- of national concord is formed. tional guarantee of the accords that will be B. To take concrete measures with the concluded. - required guarantees so as to prohibit all The parties will find agreement on the acts of terror, reprisal and discrimination forms of respect and international guaran- against persons having collaborated with tee of the accords that will be concluded. one or the other party, to ensure every demo- The CHAIRMAN. The Chair Tecog- cratic liberty to the South Vietnam people, nizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. to release all persons jailed for political rea- sons, to dissolve all concentration camps and, PUCINSKi). to liquidate all forms of constraint and co- (Mr. PUCINSKI asked and was given ercion so as to permit the people to return to permission to revise and extend his re- their native places in complete freedom and marks.) to freely engage in their occupations. Mr. PUCINSKI. Mr. Chairman, this To see that the people's conditions of amendment ought to be known as the living are stabilized and gradually improved, "put up or shut up amendment." Hanoi to create conditions allowing everyone to con- tribute his talents and efforts to heal the has said that if we fix a date certain for war wounds and rebuild the country. our troop withdrawal they are willing to D. To agree on measures to be taken to release our prisoners of war and agree ensure the holding of genuinely free, demo- to a cease-fire. cratic, and fair general elections In South This amendment does set that time Vietnam. and if, indeed, our prisoners are not re- 3. Regarding the question of Vietnamese leased by June 1, all bets are off.. armed forces in South Vietnam. The Vietnamese parties will together settle This amendment does give us for the the question of Vietnamese armed forces in first time an opportunity to say to Hanoi: South Vietnam in a spirit of national concord "put up or shut up." If our prisoners equality, and mutual respect, without for- are not released by June 1, then we will eign interference, in accordance with the take another course of action after June postwar situation and- with a view to making lighter the people's contributions. 4. Regarding the peaceful reunification of Mr. Chairman, I have listened to those Vietnam and the relations between the North who have opposed this amendment in the and South zones. past. This time let us do it our way Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11192 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R0004001 0011-3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE ovember 17, 1971 and if we cannot bring this tragic war to an end, we have nothing to lose in trying to force Hanoi into a release of our prisoners by adopting this amend- ment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. RYAN). (Mr. RYAN asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. RYAN. Mr. Chairman, during the 7 years since President Johnson's first supplemental appropriation bill to fi- nance the war in Vietnam came to the House on May 5, 1965, I have time and again taken the floor of the House to urge that the Congress assume its re- sponsibilities and use the appropriation process, by exercising its power over the purse, to bring the death and destruction in Southeast Asia to an end. Through two administrations the Congress has acquiesced in, and sanctioned, this un- declared, dead end war by voting the ap- propriations necessary to conduct it. The American people have now re- Jected the war and are looking to the Congress to assume its responsibility and set a final termination date since it is obvious that the President has no inten- tion of doing so. The Boland amendment offers an op- portunity for the House to set a fixed date-June 1, 1972-by prohibiting use of any funds in this defense appropria- tion bill for fiscal year 1972, "to finance any military combat or military support operations by U.S. forces in or over South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, after June 1, 1972," subject to the release of all American prisoners of war and an accounting of all Ameri- cans missing in action. As the Members of the House well know, I do not believe the war should continue for 1 minute more, and I would prefer an immediate cutoff of funds-an action which I have urged the Congress to take for 7 long years. How- ever, the least the House can do, if it is to pay a modicum of respect to public -opinion in this country, is to accept the Mansfield amendment which the Senate adopted as an amendment to the Mili- tary Procurement Act but which was modified in conference. Title VI of the Military Procurement Act signed into law today by President Nixon establishes as national policy the termination{ of all U.S. military opera- tions in Indochina at the earliest prac- ticable date, and the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. military forces at a date certain, subject to the release of all American prisoners and an account- ing for the Americans missing in action. The Boland amendment would restore the critically important specific dead- line, which was deleted from the original Mansfield amendment in conference. It would provide the vehicle for implement- ing what is now national policy by set- ting the date certain as June 1, 1972. It is essential that a termination date be set by Congress, especially in view of the reported declaration by the President today that he will ignore the Mansfield language in the Military Procurement Act. All the illusions of Vietnam have been shattered. All that now remains are the stark realities of a brutal and senseless war. For a decade this Nation has sent her young men to die in Asia. The price from this tragic venture has been incalcula- bly high: in terms of lives lost and blood- shed, in terms of opportunities missed and treasure squandered, in terms of the disaffection of our young, and the polarization of our society. The administration's vaunted Viet- namiza:tion policy has not brought peace, but continued death and destruction. It contemplates South Vietnamese armed forces pursuing a military victory sus- tained by American air and logistical support. The President's announcement last week that 45,000 troops would be with- drawn during January and February did not change anything. The distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appro- priations has stated that the President obviously has a negotiating plan which he should be free to follow. That is remi- niscent of candidate Nixon's 1968 cam- paign statement that he had a secret plan to end the war. The President has had 3 years to reveal- it, but the only known element in it is the plan to main- tain a U.S. residual force in Vietnam as long as necessary to prop up the present Saigon regime. It has been argued that adoption of the Boland amendment would force us to "relinquish our prime position of power," making it impossible to leave Vietnam with honor. That refrain has been heard too often over the past 7 years. How many more American and Vietnamese lives are to be lost-how many :more villages are to be destroyed- how many more billions of dollars are to be dissipated-while the administration wages war in the name of peace with honor? The answer rests with the House of Representatives today, for the Boland amendment offers the Congress of the United States the opportunity to live up to its responsibility by exercising the only power it has to end the war. It offers us the opportunity to give peace a chance. Let us seize it now. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. DEVINE). (Mr. DEVINE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) (By unanimous consent, Mr. MYERS yielded his time to Mr. DEViNE.) Mr. DEVINE. Mr. Chairman, one gets sick and aired of hearing the same old political speeches, the same old retread speeches and accusations about who is responsible for the war in Vietnam. How- ever, :( will say to the members of the committee that President Nixon is the only President of the last four to turns this thing around. During Eisenhower's administration there were some 750 ad- visers, then during the administration of the late President Kennedy he started a multi-thousand-man buildup of Ameri- can combat troops in Vietnam which reached a crest when Mr. Johnson was President. The number of U.S. troops in Vietnam rose to over 540,000 during L. B. J.'s administration. Yet, today, under the Nixon plan and direction of President Nixon, 80 percent or over 400,000 of our troops are out of there. Casualties have been reduced from 300 a week to less than 10 a week. Mr. Chairman, the Vietnamization pol- icies are working, the Nixon doctrine is working and now all of these people whom we have heard speak in support of this amendment are scrambling to get on the bandwagon in order to say that they did it and that the war is over be- cause they belatedly set a date of cut- off. Ridiculous. I . predict that in the 1972 campaign Vietnam will not be an issue, because Vietnamization is working and U.S. troops are being withdrawn at a faster rate than anticipated. Mr. Chairman, I talked to the Presi- dent as late as yesterday about the pris- oners of war. He cannot reveal to every- one-all negotiations that are being made, through a number of avenues, but he is making every effort to secure the release of our prisoners of war, and that is one of the crucial areas involved here. He is constantly working on it and the Vietnamization policy; and let us give that policy an opportunity to work, with- out tieing the hands of the President. If it wasn't so serious, it would be laughable to record the gyrations and re- verse gymnastics of some of our col- leagues who manage to place themselves on both sides of an issue. Now that Presi- dent Nixon has established the success of his Vietnamization and is truly wind- ing up the war, the boys are not only scurrying to get on the bandwagon, but are even trying to twist history around in an effort to claim credit. If they estab- lished a date certain, they would then claim they forced the President to end the war, which he already accomplished. It is high time to forget politics and demagogery and act responsibly in the interest of our country and ultimately a generation of peace. Let us defeat the Boland amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. RANDALL). Mr. RANDALL. Mr. Chairman, I op- pose the Boland amendment for good and sufficient-reasons. This amendment is so far reaching that every Member should provide a clear explanation for his vote, whether it be in support or opposition. The first thing that must be made clear beyond any doubt is that a vote against the Boland amendment is not a vote for the war, or a vote to prolong the war. Twice, the House has approved the so-called Mansfield amendment to end the war in Southeast Asia at the earliest practicable date. That amend- ment permitted an orderly withdrawal. The adoption of this amendment today could even slow the rate of withdrawal. Even worse than slowing orderly with- drawal, this action could even stop the present rate of withdrawal until our military leadership could develop ade- quate alternatives to the present schedule in the knowledge there will no longer be a shield for orderly withdrawal but an ir- revocable and arbitrary date certain on June 1, 1972. Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17,A?9r,jved For CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 3BHOUSE000400120011-3 Nearly all of us have come to realize that either the war was wrong, or at least we have fought this war in the wrong way. But at this point in time what should we do? What is the best course left to take? In the debate someone de- scribed this amendment as, the roughest and hardest way of imposing the will of the Congress on our President. If we rec- ognize that the President is the Com- mander in Chief of our military forces and if he insists it is a wise course to maintain a residual force, then this amendment would not only cut off the pay of our men in such residual forces, it would cut off their logistics, including food, and even -take away the transpor- tation to bring them home after June 1, 1972. Abraham Lincoln, as a Member of the House in the 30th Congress in 1847, was an outspoken opponent of the Mexi- can war but he refused to vote to cut off money for our troops in the field. The true facts are that the President has reduced the troop level through the process of Vietnamization from 540,000 to 180,000. As I read the amendment it would become an obstacle to the success of Vietnamization because the words, "military support operations by the United States forces in South Vietnam" would include the training of South Viet- namese forces in Vietnam. Does the au- thor of this amendment propose that we stop training the South Vietnamese to take over the war and thus protect their country against the forces of the North? If the amendment prevails, the only way we could train the South Vietnamese allies would be to transport them to some placeother than South Vietnam, such as Laos or Cambodia for training. Does the author suggest we go through the expen- sive process of transporting our South Vietnamese allies to Hawaii or the main- land for training and then bear the ex- pense of retuning them to their home- land? Anything that the Congress does at this time should serve the best interest of peace or to end the war. If we expect to be fair we must agree that 90 percent of our troops will have been out of Viet- nan9 before the date imposed by the amendment. But to cut off all funds at an arbitrary date risks some grave con- sequences. No doubt the time is long past when we can achieve a military victory, but somehow, some way, we must still try for an honorable conclusion to the war. At the very least we should not agree to an amendment that will disregard all the sacrifices of all those who have given their lives or been wounded and agree to a course that would completely aban- don any effort for some kind of benefit from all the sacrifices. If we indulge in this precipitous ac- tion today then all of our losses and sac- rifices will have been in vain. It means we are completely throwing away any chance for an honorable settlement. If this amendment should be adopted we tie the President's hands at a most criti- cal time. It means not only that his power to negotiate with Hanoi is gone. It means that hereafter he cannot speak with any authority on his visit to either Peking or Moscow. We have been pur- suing a phased withdrawal. The war is near an end. Casualties are down to a minimum. Of couse, even four or five a week are too many. But the hard fact is if withdrawal is to continue there must be some kind of a shield to permit that withdrawal. The Boland amendment would undercut the entire withdrawal process. If the word goes out to the world that this body joined by the other body acts to cut off all funds on June 1, 1972, it would mean immediate chaos in South Vietnam. There no longer would be any shield for withdrawal. All the past efforts toward negotiations would be torpedoed and sunk. But if we defeat this amendment then we retain our options. We do have some alternatives left. There remains the chance for the success of the visits to Peking and Moscow. We should not fore- close these chances by our action today. If we proceed to approve this amendment we tie the hands of our President. For the Congress to try to stop the war by this arbitrary precipitous action is just not the way to handle foreign policy. There are those who would say the rate of withdrawal is too slow. By recent pronouncement the President says with- drawal will be determined by four fac- tors: first, the level of enemy action; second, the progress of Vietnamization; third, the progress of release of our prisoners of war and fourth, agreement by the enemy to a cease fire in all of Southeast Asia. Mr. Chairman, I have read the word- ing of the Boland amendment very care- fully. The effective portion of the amendment starts out with the words, "subject to release of all American prisoners and an accounting of all Amer- icans missing in action." Iii other words that portion of the amendment which says none of the funds appropriated in this act should be used after June 1, 1972, is all subject to release of our Amer- ican prisoners and our Americans miss- ing in action. In my judgment to say these two categories will ever be accom- plished is optimism that is not justified. To the enemy our prisoners of war are not regarded as we regard their prison- ers. Our men are regarded as criminals. In my opinion, if they are ever returned it will be by ransom. But as I read it, for this amendment to have any mean- ing the enemy must account for all of our missing in action. In my judgment such a requirement makes the amend- ment meaningless. We must either rely upon their word-which up to now has been worthless-or else insist upon a really strict accounting for all the miss- ing. If we demand this strict accounting before the cut-off date can be effective then a cut off date might never arrive. For those who refuse to rely on the word of the enemy, or for those who believe the cut-off date is subject to a strict ac- counting, there is only one course to take and that is to vote against this amend- ment as meaningless. No, a vote against the Boland amend- ment is not a vote to continue the war. It is not a vote to prolong the war. All of us want this war ended. Equally impor- tant, we want to be sure that there can- not be another Vietnam. We all want to make it impossible to drift into such a war again, step by step, as we did in Southeast Asia. Mr. Chairman, that is why a little while ago I supported the so-called Yates amendment which, under H.R. 11731, would not permit the President to sub- stantially increase troop levels or troop strength. I supported the amendment of the gentleman from Illinois because it provides that after 60 days following an acceleration of total troop strength, there would be no further expenditures of ap- propriations for such troop increases without obtaining the approval of the Congress. In different words, this means that if there is any indication of any kind that we are drifting into another Viet- nam war, we will be able to face the issue very early. This amendment would re- quire the President to come. before the Congress and explain his reasons for in- creasing troop levels before any appro- priations would be available. I supported this amendment because it could prevent an easy drift into another Vietnam. Al- though it failed by a small margin on our side of the Congress, I hope it may be added to this defense appropriation bill by the other body. I hope there may not be any who vote for this amendment but hope it will not pass. That kind of thinking is a danger- ous course because with a recorded teller count it is most difficult to know the course of a vote until the final tally is - announced by the tellers. Someone said this amendment should probably be tag- ged the "put up or shut up" amendment. Others have been less complimentary and described it as the "bug out" amend- ment. Without passing judgment on which is more accurate, certainly this amendment would-change the course of orderly or phased withdrawal or a "walkout" to the precipitous, arbitrary, and shieldless kind of withdrawal that could become a "run out." I cannot subscribe to the argument of those who say the withdrawal schedule announced by the President is nothing more than a holding action to get him through the Peking visit. On the other hand the passage of this amendment would leave him with no bargaining power at Peking. But if the President should fail at Peking and if we defeat this amendment our Chief Executive has the remaining negotiating course to open our own bilateral or private negotiations with Hanoi in Paris. All the foregoing or options are thrown away if we pass the proposed amend- ment today. In just a few words, the ap- proval of this amendment means that we hand to the enemy a victory that they were never able to achieve on the battle- field. (By unanimous consent, Mr. RANDALL yielded his remaining time to Mr. WAG- GONNaR.) (Mr. WAGGONNER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. WAGGONNER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the House, I think we are all agreed on one point. That is, that we want to get out of Vietnam as quick- ly as we possibly can. Further, I think we agree that in ret- rospect especially in view of the fact that Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73QO0296R000400120011-3 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 17, 1971 we have never tried to win, that it was a mistake to get involved in Vietnam as we have. However, where we differ is how do we get out and over the long-period of time serve the best interests of the United States? This is the crux of the matter we are discussing here today. The gentleman from Georgia (Mr. FLYNT) earlier said to you when he ad- dressed the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union-and I think I remember what he said-that he believed that the President had al- ready reached an agreement with regard to the release of the prisoners of war. My friends of the House, I do not believe this is so. I do not believe that he has any rea- son to even speculate as to that whim, because I do not believe that the Pres- ident of the United States would per- petrate such a hoax upon the people of this country so as to withhold that in- formation from those who have relatives who are prisoners of war or on those who have relatives who are missing in- action. Further, there .is something else that we ought to consider that the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. FLYNT) said. He said that he would not support again any appropriations for the military under certain conditions, and he said he would not support appropriations for the mili- tary as long as we supported a regime which allowed only one name on the ballot. Who ever heard of a Communist nation having two names an the ballot? Big Minh and Ky could have run if'they had chosen to, but they were afraid they would get beaten. They insisted they would only run in a three man race. To my knowledge I cannot recall even a ballot in Red China. But I agree it would have been better if others had run from an ideal point of view. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from California (Mr. TALCOTT). (Mr. TALCOTT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the very appealing and emo- tional speeches of the gentleman from Indiana, the gentleman from New York, and the gentleman from Maryland, about their sons who once served in Vietnam. I think the sons should be permitted to speak for themselves; their views may be different from their father's. I would not presume to speak for my son, but I am willing to support any son in Viet- nam, as I, and we, have supported their sons while they were in Vietnam, so I would hope that they would vote with me to support my son, who is serving in Viet- nam now along with 139,000 other sons in Vietnam now. This is not a "hard and tough" deci- sion for us now. It would have been hard and tough" in 1968 or 1969-when other sons were in Vietnam-some involun- tarily-but it is easy now if our objec- tive is to get one-up on the President who is systematically ending the war. It is easy if our objective is to garner some of the credit to which the President is en- titled. It is "hard and tough"-even in- credible-if our objective is to achieve peace as soon as practicable and to se- cure the release of all our POW's and ob- tain an accounting of our MIA's. We owe them and their families a great respon- sibility. We must keep our commitments to them. We should vote "no" on this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Maine (Mr. HATHAWAY). (Mr. HATHAWAY asked and was giv- en permission to revise and extend his remarks.) Mr. HATHAWAY. Mr. Chairman, there has been a lot of talk here this afternoon about whose responsibility the termination of this war is, the execu- tive's responsibility or the responsibility of the Congress. I think it is crystal clear under the Constitution it is our responsi- bility, and I hope that this afternoon we exercise that responsibility by adopt- ing the Boland amendment. The overconcentration of power in the single office of the President has resulted in a constitutional imbalance, with one man holding nearly absolute power- in matters of war and peace, life and death. The time to reassert congressional pre- rogatives and restore balanced constitu- tional government is now. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the stated power to de- clare war, to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for the Government and regulation of the Armed Forces, to provide for call- ing forth the militia, and to make all laws necessary and proper for executing the foregoing powers. In contrast, article 7I, section 2 of the Constitution states that the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. In addi- tion, the President may, with the advice and consent of the Senate, make treaties and appoint ambassadors. It is clear from the language of the Constitution that the war power is vested almost entirely in the Congress. That this was the intention of the framers is quite clear from reading the proceed- ings of the Constitutional Convention and the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers. In a letter to James Madison in 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote: We have already given in example one ef- fectual check to the Dog of War by trans- ferxdng the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay. It is - important to note that the Framers wrote with the benefit of con- siderable hindsight regarding contests between English kings and the Parlia- ment over war powers. It is most rele- vant that Parliament had successfully employed its power of the purse to pre- vent and halt royal adventures abroad. In fact, a legislative forerunner of the amendment before us today was passed in 1678, when Parliament specified that the Army of Charles in Flanders be disband- ed by a certain date. The Framers clearly intended that the Congress should have at least that much power, and they be- stowed more power on this body by re- quiring congressional action to initiate war as well as providing for congressional action to stop it. Another manifestation of the Framers' intention .that Congress exercise the power of the purse with special care on matters relating to military operations can be seen in the constitutional provi- sion-article I, section 8, item 12-bind- ing us to review all funds for military operations every 2 years. Although it is our practice to appropriate every year for all Government activities and programs, there is nothing in the Constitution that requires such a procedure except in the case of funding for the Armed Forces, in which case the requirement is for a bien- nial review. Theoretically, we could ap- propriate for all other programs every 10 or every 100 years, but the Framers sin- gled out military appropriations for a special 2-year limitation. Alexander Hamilton described the meaning of that limitation in Federalist No. 26: The legislature of the United States will be obliged, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the pro- priety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense on the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constit- uencies. The provision protects-and I think was intended to protect-the Nation against the indefinite commitment of American Forces or American military operations without systematic congres- sional review at least once every 2 years. We in the Congress have an express duty to provide review and control, and there is no way we can surrender that power to the President or anyone else without violating the Constitution. It is time for the Congress to reassert our constitutional authority and not al- low the President to be chief of police, district attorney, judge, and jury in for- eign affairs. It is the purpose of our sys- tem of separation of powers to bring -a balanced judgement to the issues we face. The American people deserve that; our Constitution requires it. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. HALL). (By unanimous consent, Mr. HALL yielded his time to Mr. MINSHALL.) The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. SEIBERLING). (Mr. SEIBERLING asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.) (By unanimous consent, Mr. SEIBER- LING yielded his remaining time to Mr. BOLAND.) . Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, we like to call ourselves "the People's House." Accordingly, I think it behooves us to consider the people's wishes on this is- sue. The Harris survey published in the Washington Post on November 8 reported: By nearly 3 to 1, the American people favor "getting completely out" of Vietnam by next May. Asked if they favored or opposed the United States "getting completely out of Vietnam by May. Including all combat and noncom- Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, ~~ lroved For t g46.1~J5Rfft1BP73 9?JR000400120011-3 H 11195 bat troops," the vote was 62 percent in favor and 21 percent opposed. Between October 26 and October 31, a cross section of 2,004 households was asked: If it meant keeping the Communists from taking over Vietnam, would you favor or oppose the following? [io percent] Leaving 50,000 non-combat U.S.troops there --------- 32 55 13 Continuing to use U.S. bombers and helicopters to support the South Vietnamese army --------- 29 57 14 Continuing to send over $1,000,000,000 a year in military aid to the South Vietnamese -------------- 16 70 14 Even at the risk of a Communist take- over, sizable majorities of the public want the United States out completely from Viet- nam. Obviously the American people do not favor a Communist takeover in Vietnam. They are merely recognizing the bank- ruptcy of the Government's policy in Vietnam and -that we have given the South Vietnamese Government more than enough chance to, stand on its own feet. And they are recognizing something else, as revealed by the Harris poll pub- lished in the Post on November 11, as follows : The Vietnam issue simply will not go away as a major concern for the public in this country. A survey taken during the last week of October shows that a record high 65 percent now believe that it is "morally wrong" for the United States to be fighting in Vietnam. How can the Congress continue to ignore the overwhelming and clearly manifested desire of the American peo- ple on an issue as basic as this? No issue has been, more thoroughly debated and argued in the country and in the Halls of Congress. Unless we take prompt and decisive action to carry out the people's considered desires on this subject, how can we continue to call ourselves "the People's House?" In the 2 years during which the Con- gress has been wrestling with the ques- tion of placing a specific cutoff date on further American military operations in Indochina, the President has indeed reduced our presence in Vietnam. The number of American troops remain- ing in Vietnam is now so small that they could all be evacuated in a few weeks if it were decided to do so. Certainly a deadline of June 1, 1972 imposes no serious risk to the protection of our re- maining troops in Vietnam. The Boland amendment, providing for such a deadline, is entirely reasonable, completely within the policy already adopted by the Congress, and creates no obstacle to the withdrawal of American POW's. In fact, since the withdrawal would be contingent on the return of all POW's, it gives the administration a further bargaining lever for the POW's. For all these reasons, I find it hard to imagine why the House should not adopt the Boland amendment by an over- whelming majority. If the House does not adopt the Boland amendment, then I will vote against the defense appropriations bill, in accord- ance with my pledge not to vote for funds to continue the war in Vietnam so long as the Government has not adopted a specific date for American withdrawal. I do not oppose national defense and will support any reasonable defense ap- propriation bill that does not provide for the indefinite continuation of our mili- tary involvement in Vietnam. That in- volvement has added nothing to our na- tional security. It has taken over $100 bil- lion away from other defense needs and civilian needs. It has divided the country. The people are demanding a complete and early end to this misadventure. It is time we heeded their demand. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. CAR- TER). (By unanimous consent, Mr. CARTER yielded his time to Mr. MINSHALL.) The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. MICHEL). Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Chairman, the gen- tleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Bo- LAND), the author of the pending amend- ment, has said he is tired of the argu- ment that we are tying the President's hands by passage of his amendment. I would just like to say that a few years ago I felt somewhat that way when Nas- ser of Egypt was telling the United States to go drink from the sea and ?I offered an amendment to an agricultural appropriation bill to prohibit the further sale of surplus commodities to Egypt. I was supported unanimously on our Re- publican side of the aisle and joined by 71 Democrat Members. The amendment carried but 10 days later on a motion to instruct conferees on the very same sub- ject 40 Democrats switched their votes after President Johnson twisted some arms and said he could not live with that kind of restriction. Let me jog your memory of two more very relevant Presidential incidents. Re- member when in October of 1962 Presi- dent Kennedy issued the ultimatum to the Russians to get their missiles out of Cuba? Why do you suppose the Soviets responded affirmatively? Certainly not because of the President's good looks or his persuasive oratory, but because of the great military might of the United States that backed up what he said. Remember when President Eisenhow- er was about to meet with Khrushchev in Paris for some very delicate negotiations and the whole conference blew up over the U-2 incident? Why do I mention these three inci- dents? Because our President has said he is going to Peking to try and break the ice and open up a dialog with Chou En- lai and possibly get some agreements to guarantee us at least a generation of peace. Can you imagine the President sitting down with the Chinese or Russians hob- bled with this and other similar amend- ments? It would be catastrophic. If per- chance this amendment w_ere adopted by the Congress I would think the President would be justified in ooming before a joint session of Congress and saying "Gentlemen, as I understand the Con- stitution we all have sworn to uphold, I do have the power and authority to conduct the foreign policy of this Gov- ernment and negotiate agreements and treaties subject to the confirmation of the Senate. Unless I can negotiate from a position of strength-unfettered and without an albatross around my neck, I feel constrained to cancel my proposed trip to Peking." Do you want that on your consciences? I will tell you as a father of four teen- agers, three of whom could very well be serving in the Armed Forces within the next few years that I do not want it on mine. Our President deserves our whole- hearted support at this time not only for the selfish interests of our Government, but for all men who seek a peaceful world. This amendment should be defeated. (Mr. MICHEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) (By unanimous consent, Mr. MICHEL yielded his remaining time to- Mr. Mix- SHALL.) The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. YOUNG). (Mr. YOUNG of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and ex- tend his remarks.) Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, for the past 52 years Americans have celebrated November 11 as Armistice Day and Veterans Day in honor of the men and women who gave so much that America might survive as a free na- tion. If we pass the Boland amendment today, the Communist nations will cele- brate November 17 for the next 52 years for on this day they will have won the victory on the floor of this Congress that they were unable to win on the battle- fields of Southeast Asia. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Montana (Mr. SHOUP). (By unanimous consent, Mr. SHOUP yielded his time to Mr. MINSHALL.) The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. HUNGATE). (Mr. HUNGATE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr.-HUNGATE. Mr. Chairman, some- one said the President has turned this war around. I think that is true. I think he deserves credit for it. I am glad to have the troops withdrawn. But I think he has turned the world around. We have Red China in the U.N. and Taiwan has been kicked out. May I say to those who argue that we have been winning this war since 1965, they pur- suaded me then that we should defeat things like the Boland amendment and support this proposition. We have been winning this war since 1965, but every year we have more casualties, more MIA's, and more POW's. Our winning in Vietnam is like the man who won first prize-1 week in Philadelphia, while sec- ond prize was 2 weeks in Philadelphia. Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 1111196 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE November 17, 1971 This is said to be one of the toughest resolutions we have ever had. I think it is the toughest toasted marshmallow on a plate of toasted marshmallows. We do not declare war outright any more. We just declare war on the install- ment plan. Let us just skip this payment and let them repossess this war. I urge support the Boland amendment. [Mr. KEITH addressed the Committee. His remarks will appear hereafter in the Extensions of Remarks.] The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. WRIGHT). Mr. WRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I must oppose this amendment because it would simply say to the enemy that they do not have to negotiate with us on any matter whatever except release of pris- oners. It would tell them in effect that if they will just simply hold on a little while longer, we will get out completely and let them settle the substantive issues of the future of Vietnam on their own terms. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. TEAGUE). Mr. TEAGUE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I understand the question has been asked whether anyone with sons serving in Vietnam is against this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I have two sons and a son-in-law. My two sons each served two tours of duty over there. The last tour was voluntary. One was wounded twice and one received the Silver Star and one received the Bronze Star. My son-in-law just came back, and he is a captain in the Marine Corps, and they all tell me that an amendment of this kind is good for nobody except Hanoi. The first four young ladies who went to Paris, widows and wives of our serv- icemen-those girls are not for this kind of an amendment. Two of them have sons-one a 7-year-old, who have never seen their fathers and the other two have never heard from their husbands. Mr. Chairman, I am very much op- posed to this amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. BOLAND). Mr. BOLAND-. Mr. Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the dis- tinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON) and the ranking mi- nority member, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. MINSHALL) for their patience and their courtesy all during this de- bate. It would seem to me that a simple explanation of this bill amendment is indeed a put-up or shut-up proposition to Hanoi. Hanoi has been telling the world that it is willing to negotiate provided we have a terminal date. The terminal date is here. If it refuses to negotiate and if there is no movement on the prisoners of war and no movement on the missing in action, then the amendment limita- tion and the cutoff of funds in my judg- ment does not prevail. The President of the United States in April[ of this year, I believe, attached two conditions to the ending of the war in Vietnam. No. 1, the return of the prisoners of war. No. 2, the reasonable chance for South Vietnam to survive. If I heard the Secretary of Defense last Sunday correctly, he indicated now that South Vietnam has a reasonable chance to survive-and he said that in Saigon a week ago. So one of the conditions has already been met. The President's press conference last week presents a . problem. ] think the position is changed from a reasonable chance of survival to the assurance that the '.Chieu regime will not be overcome by the Communists. This is a deep and serious change of position. I would think that if the war is ended within the next few months the possibil- ity is that the Government of South Viet- nam would survive. Nobody can say. Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity this Congress has had to limit funds for the Vietnam war. We have a terminal date. The funds would not be cut off un- less we have some response from the Government of North Vietnam with re- spect to our prisoners of war and men missing in action. That is precisely what the amendment would accomplish. It would call Hanoi's hand and in my judgment, would get negotiations in Paris that have been stalled for so long to get into some meaningful and signif- icant talks. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. MINSHALL). Mr. MINSHALL. Mr. Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the other mem- bers of this committee who have so gra- ciously yielded to me their allocated few seconds. I would like to say that we have been around the barn. We have plowed the ground. We have been down the road numerous times on this question, and I do not think anything that I can say as we conclude this debate is going to change one vote one way or the other. But ][ do completely agree with my col- leagues on the need for a national com- mitment to end rapidly our military in- volvement in Indochina. But of what use would the amendment under considera- tion be? It essentially reiterates a com- mitment that has already been made, not only by the President, but also by this Congress. Not only are the objectives of this amendment rapidly being realized, but the means for achieving our objectives might be seriously impaired if the amend- ment were to be adopted. We could fail to do what we are earnestly hoping he will be able to do. As I said under the 5-minute rule, at the conclusion of my remarks, this is a time to be cheering the Nixon adminis- tration. At the same time I do not want you to forget the important part that Mel Laird has played in this adminis- tration. Our former colleague has dis- tinguished himself with his advice and counsel to our Chief Executive. With- out question he is the best Secretary of Defense in recent history. As has been frequently mentioned here this afternoon, he appeared last Sunday on the "Meet the Press" television pro- gram. I think that any American who saw his appearance cannot doubt for one minute his great ability, his sincerity, his devotion to duty, and his hopes that the Vietnamization program is coming to a good and honest conclusion. We all know the program is succeeding. So I say again that this is a time for cheering the Nixon administration, not undercutting it, and a time for encour- aging it to continue its drive toward peace and the safe return of all Amer- ican men. I hope that all of you in your good conscience will vote against the Boland amendment. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recog- nizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. MAHON) to close the debate. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I think all has been said that needs to be said in opposition to the pending amendment. I have opposed this amendment because I believe it would undercut the efforts of our Nation to achieve peace and the return of our prisoners of war. I am afraid that this amendment would tend to foreclose our chance of bringing this conflict to an end that will reflect credit on the men who gave their lives and those who give their devotion and effort in the service to this country. I earnestly hope and I certainly believe that this House will reject the amendment. I ask for a vote. The CHAIRMAN. All time has expired. The question is on the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Massachu- setts (Mr. BOLAND). TELLER VOTE WITH CLERKS Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were ordered. Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers with clerks. Tellers with clerks were ordered; and the Chairman appointed as tellers Messrs. BOLAND, RHODES, MAHON, and RIEGLE. The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 163, noes 238, not voting 30, as follows: [Roll No. 399] [Recorded Teller Vote] AYES-163 Abourezk Burton Ellberg Abzug Carey, N.Y. Each Adams Carney Evans, Colo. Addabbo Chisholm Fascell Anderson, Clay Flynt Calif. Collins, Ill. Ford, Anderson, Conte William D. Tenn. Conyers Fraser Annunzio Corman Frenzel Aspin Coughlin Fulton, Tenn. Badillo Culver Galifanakis Baring Daniels, N.J. Garmatz Barrett Danielson Gaydos Begich Dellums Glaimo Bergland Denholm Gibbons Biaggi Dent Grasso Biester Dingell Gray Bingham Donohue Green, Oreg. Boland Dow Green, Pa. Brademas Drinan Gude Brasco Dwyer Hamilton Burke, Mass. Eckhardt Hansen, Wash. Burlison, Mo. Edwards, Calif. Harrington Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, P roved Fir Harvey Mink Ryan Hathaway Mitchell St Germain Hawkins Moorhead Sarbanes Hechler, W. Va. Morse Scheuer Heckler, Mass. Mosher Schwengel Heinz Moss Seiberling Helstoski Murphy, Ill. Shipley Hicks, Mass. Nedzi Slack Hicks, Wash. Nix Smith, Iowa Howard Obey Stanton, Hungate O'Hara James V. Jacobs O'Neill Steele Jones, N.C. Patten Stokes Karth Pepper Sullivan Kastenmeier Podell Symington Kluczynski Preyer, N.C. Taylor Koch Pryor, Ark. Thompson, N.J. Kyros Pucinski Tiernan Landrum Rangel Udall Leggett Rees Ullman Long, Md. Reid, N.Y. Van Deerlin McCloskey Reuss Vanik McCormack Riegle Vigorito McDade Rodino Waldie McKinney Roe Whalen Macdonald, Rogers W idnail Mass. Roncalio Wilson, Madden Rooney, Pa. Charles H. Matsunaga Rosenthal Wolff Mazzoli Rostenkowski Yates Meeds Roush Yatron Metcalfe Roy Zwach Miller, Ohio Z-~ Minish Ru e NOES-238 Abernethy Mahon Albert Flood Mailliard Anderson, Ill. Flowers Mann Andrews,- Ala. Foley Martin Andrews, Ford, Gerald R. Mathis, Ga. N. Dak. Forsythe Mayne Archer Fountain Melcher Arends Frelinghuysen Michel Ashbrook Frey Miller, Calif. Ashley Fuqua Mills, Md. Aspinall Gallagher Minshall Baker Gettys Mizell Belcher Goldwater Mollohan Bell Gonzalez Monagan Bennett Goodling Montgomery BevilL Griffin Morgan Blanton Gross Murphy, N.Y. Bolling Grover Myers Bow Hagan Natcher Bray Haley Nelsen Brinkley Hall Nichols Brooks Hammer- O'Konski Broomfield schmidt Passman Brotzman Hanley Patman Brown, Mich. Hanna Pelly Brown, Ohio Hansen, Idaho Perkins Broyhill, N.C. Harsha Pettis Broyhill, Va. Hastings Peyser Buchanan Hays Pickle Burke, Fla. Hebert Pike Burleson, Tex. Henderson Pirnie Byrne, Pa. Hillis Poage Byrnes, Wis. Hogan Poff Byron Holifield Powell Cabell Horton Price, Ill. Caffery Hosmer Price, Tex. Camp Hull Purcell Carter Hunt Quie Casey, Tex. Hutchinson Quillen Cederberg Ichord Railsback Chamberlain Jarman Randall Clancy Johnson, Calif. Rarick Clark Johnson, Pa. Rhodes Clawson, Del Jonas Robinson, Va. Cleveland Jones, Ala. Robison, N.Y. Collier Jones, Tenn. Rooney, N.Y. Collins, Tex. Kazen Rousselot Colmer Keating Ruth Conable Keith Sandman Crane Kemp Satterfield Daniel, Va. King Saylor Davis, Ga. Kuykendall Scherle Davis, S.C. .Kyl Schmitz Davis, Wis. Landgrebe Schneebeli de la Garza Latta Scott Delaney Lennon Sebelius Dellenback Lent Shoup Dennis Lloyd Shriver Devine' Long, La. Sikes Dickinson Lujan Sisk Dorn McClory Skubitz Duncan McCollister Smith, Calif. du Pont McCulloch Smith, N.Y. Edwards, Ala. McDonald, Snyder Erlenborn Mich. Spence Eshleman McEwen Springer Evins, Tenn, McFall Staggers Findley McKay Stanton, Fish McMillan J. William , Mj4,1X11/1 fL]EQ{ p M6R000400120011-3 H 11197. ~, Steiger, Ariz. Thone Wilson, Bob Steiger, Wis. Vander Jagt Winn Stephens Veysey Wright Stratton Waggonner Wyatt Stubblefield Wampler Wydler Stuckey Ware Wylie Talcott Whalley Wyman Teague, Calif. White Young, Fla. Teague, Tex. Whitehurst Young, Tex. Terry Whitten Zablocki Thompson, Ga. Wiggins Zion Thomson, Wis. Williams NOT VOTING-30 Abbitt Derwinski Link Alexander Diggs McClure Betts Dowdy McKevitt Blackburn Downing Mathias, Calif. Blatnik Dulski Mikva Boggs Edmondson Mills, Ark. Celler Edwards, La. Roberts Chappell Griffiths Runnels Clausen, Gubser Steed Don H. Halpern Cotter Kee So the amendment was rejected. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any fur- ther amendments to this section? AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. RIEGLE Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. RIEGLE: on page 48, between lines 7 and 8, insert the follow- ing: SEC. 745. Money. appropriated in this Act shall be available for expenditure in the fis- cal year ending June 30, 1972, only to the extent that expenditure thereof shall not re- sult in total aggregate net expenditures of all agencies provided for herein beyond ninety-five percent of the total aggregate net expenditures estimated therefor in the budg- et for 1972 (H. Doc. 15). (Mr. RIEGLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman and col- leagues, I am very much indebted to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow) for this amendment, because this amendment has historically been known as the "Bow ex- penditure limitation amendment." How- ever, it is the first time it has been of- fered, to my knowledge, to a defense ap- propriation bill. Mr. Chairman, this amendment applies directly to .the actual spending contem- plated by the Department of Defense for this fiscal year and, as such, in a signifi- cant way, goes beyond the amount of money contained in the appropriation bill that is before the Committee today. You will be interested to know, for ex- ample, that nearly $18 billion of new obligational authority in the appropria- tion bill before us represents funds which will not be spent this year but, in fact, will be spent in some future year. Mr. Chairman, what I am concerned about, and what this specific amendment goes to, is the actual amount of spending by the Department of Defense this year. If the members of the committee will refer to the committee report before us, they will find that there is budgeted $76 billion of fiscal year 1972 expenditures- approximately $50 billion being new money in this appropriation bill and something like $20 billion being carry- over authority from previous appropria- tion bills of previous years. Mr, Chairman, my amendment would require the Department of Defense to restrict its spending to only 95 percent of that amount-95 percent of the $76 billion it anticipates spending this year- which means it would have to absorb within the Department of Defense, a. 5-percent reduction in its spending plans. This would create a dollar savings-an actual dollar savings, this fiscal year, of some $3.8 billion. I think this is a significant money sav- ings that the Department of Defense could be asked to absorb this year. My friend, the gentleman from Wis- consin (Mr. AsPIN) will later offer an amendment that is very different. His amendment would seek to reduce the amount of new obligational authority for the Defense Department. A reduction of that kind might apply to this year or might apply to some future year, and while I may support the amendment of- fered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. AsPIN) it does not make sure that actual defense spending for this year will be reduced by even $1. My amendment will absolutely assure that the actual de- fense spending will be reduced by some 5 percent. Since 1964, including the planned expenditures for this fiscal year, we will have spent on defense in this country just since 1964, over $600 billion-over $600 billion. To anyone who wants to suggest that 'we have been stingy with the Defense Department, I would respond that the facts just do not back up that assertion. Now, some people have objected to the Bow amendment because it is not an amendment that cuts the budget line item by line item. I too have the same ob- jection, and I would much prefer to make a line item by line item reduction to this bill, but that is almost impossible in a bill that is the size of this one; one that is in the $70 billion range. The full Committee on Appropriations, for your information, meets to consider this bill in full committee for approxi- mately 21/2 hours, and there is no way we can carefully go through line item by line item a bill of this size. This is no criticism of the committee. It is just a fact of the life we live with, and thus we must resort to this type amendment as it is the only way we can have a chance to effect any kind of spending reduction in this fiscal year. The bill before us, which comes from the Committee on Appropriations, re- duces planned expenditures by just about $1 billion. That is the figure they esti- mate as the reduction of the spending request that came in from the Defense Department. My amendment would go further than that; it would incorporate the $1 billion reduction, and then go beyond that to $3.8 billion. With all due regard to the Secretary of Defense; who is our friend, and a former colleague of the Committee on Appropriations, I do submit that there is no Federal agency that can be run today in the United States without considerable bureaucracy, overlapping and waste. And I think the Defense Department is in this position, whether you want to talk about airplanes that do not fly, or cost over- runs, or any one of a number of other things. We are in an emergency condition. You may not know it, but the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations told the Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11198 Approved For Re ft ( y16f4;jiQ A W 3B~R00400120frAnber 17, 1971 Committee on Appropriations the other day that his best estimate for the deficit for this fiscal year is $40 billion-and that comes on top of the deficit of last year of $30 billion. If we are going to reduce this deficit, then the Defense De- partment, which is the biggest single operation of this Government, certainly can absorb a 5-percent reduction in light of the emergency condition this country is in. Otherwise, where are you going to save any money? I think they can do, it. I think it is a reasonable amount. I hope that my colleagues in the House will sup- port my amendment. I will say that I will ask for a recorded teller vote on this because this is the only chance we can have to make a necessary reduction in the Defense Department spending. In my experience in other organiza- tions outside of the Federal Government, when they have been asked to absorb a 5-percent cut, it actually has helped them, because it gives them the tool to go inside the organization and to clean up some of the sloppy operations and wasteful methods. So, Mr. Chairman, again I would ask my colleagues to give support to my amendment, which will be the only chance they have to actually save money in the Defense Department this year. Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I rise in op- position to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE). I am glad to see that my friends on the other side are interested, and still in- terested in the Bow amendment, because we may have it again before long, and I appreciate the support it has had in the past. However, as the gentleman from Michigan has said, this is the first time that the so-called Bow amendment has ever been offered on a defense bill. I never did offer it on a defense bill, and on the overall amendments we used to have I always excepted the Defense Department. I do not believe we can afford to put a limitation of this kind on the defense bill, where the funds may be necessary for the security of our country. Now, there are other areas where we should--- and, as I say, it may come again, and I will support it-but I never would sup- port it on a defense bill. I think it would be wrong to do it. I sincerely hope that the committee will reject this amendment. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike out the last word, Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Michigan indicated an inadequate con- sideration of the pending measure. The 11-member Subcommittee on De- fense Appropriations had months of hearings and there are nine printed vol- umes of testimony here on this table. It was well considered. There has been no expenditure limita- tion on any appropriation bill this year. I do not know why this bill was singled out for this purpose. Congress basically controls spending by controlling appropriations and other obligational authority, not by controlling expenditures. The amendment proposes a meat-ax cut. The bill before you provides a reduc- tion in expenditures of about $1 billion for the current fiscal year, and the gen- tleman would increase that by about $2.5 billion, and would leave it completely to the Executive as to where those reduc- tions are to be made. The appropriation cuts in this bill were specified particularly, and they are well described in the report. The gentleman has not pointed out where he wants to make a reduction. This amendment proposes an abdica- tion by the Congress of its money powers. Mr. Chairman, I join the gentleman from Ohio in asking that the amendment be voted down. Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield? Mr. MAHON. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts. Mr. CONTE. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my chairman. is opposed this amendment in full com- mittee. I said at that time, I opposed the Bow amendments because I did not agree with them. I do not believe an across-the- board cut is the way to control expendi- tures. We should have selective reduc- tions. If there-are weaknesses in this bill, let us go after the weak spots. ]: think the amendment is ill planned and ill conceived and ill timed. After all, we have gone through 6 months of this fiscal year already and to have a 5-per- cent across-the-board cut will certainly be to the detriment of the whole defense bill. Therefore, I oppose the amendment and hope that it is defeated. MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on the pending amend- ment and all amendments thereto do now close. The "CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. RIEGLE). The question was taken; and the Chair- man announced that the noes appeared to have it. TELLER VOTE WITH CLERKS Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman, I de- mand tellers. Tellers were ordered. Mr. RIEGLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers with clerks. Tellers with clerks were ordered; and the Chairman appointed as tellers Messrs. RIEGLE, BOW, MAHON, and ASPIN.. The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 74, noes 307, not voting 50, as follows: - [Roll No. 400] [Recorded Teller Vote] AYES-74 Abourezk Conyers Hall Abzug Delaney Hanley Aspin Dellums Harrington Badillo Denholm Hathaway Bergland Dow Hechler, W. Va. Bingham Drinan Helstoski Brademas du Pont Hungate Brasco Edwards, Calif. Ichord Bu^ton Eilberg Kastenmeler Carey, N.Y. Each Koch Carney Fraser Kyros Chisholm Gaydos Lujan Clay Green, Pa. McClory Collins, Ill. Gross McCloskey McDonald, Pucinski- Stokes Mich. Rangel Thompson, N.J. Macdonald. Reid, N.Y. Udall Mass. Riegle Vanile Melchor Rosenthal Waldie Metcalfe Roybal Whalen Mink Ryan Wolff Mitchell Sarbanes Yates Moorhead Scheuer Yatron Mosher Schwengel Zwach Nix Seiberling Pryor, Ark. Snyder NOES-307 Abernethy Flood Mazzoli Adams Flowers Meeds Addabbo Flynt Michel Albert Foley Miller, Calif. Anderson, Ford, Gerald R. Miller, Ohio Calif. Ford, Mills, Md. Anderson, Ill. William D. Minish Andrews, Ala. Forsythe Minshall Andrews, Fountain Mizell N. Dak. Frelinghuysen Mollohan Annunzio Frenzel Monagan Archer Frey Montgomery Arends Fulton, Tenn. Morgan Ashbrook Fuqua Moss Ashley Galiiianakis Murphy, Ill. Aspinall Gallagher Murphy, N.Y. Baker Garmatz Myers Baring Gettys Natcher Begich Giaimo Nedzi Belcher Goldwater Nelsen Bell Gonzalez Nichols Bennett Goodling Obey Bevill Grasso O'Hara Biaggi Gray O'Konski Biester Green, Oreg. O'Neill Blanton: Griffin Passman Boland Grover Patman Bolling Gubser Patten Bow Gude Pelly Bray Hagan Pepper Brinkley Haley Perkins Brooks Hamilton Pettis Broomfield Hammer- Peyser Brotzman schmidt Pickle Brown, Mich. Hansen, Idaho Pike Brown, Ohio Hansen, Wash. Pirnie Broyhill, N.C. Harsha Poage Broyhill, Va. Harvey Poff Buchanan Hastings Powell Burke, Fla. Hays Preyer, N.C. Burleson, Tex. Hebert Price, 111. Burlison, Mo. Heinz Price, Tex. Byrne, Pa. Henderson Purcell Byrnes, Wis. Hicks, Mass. Quie Byron Hicks, Wash. Quillen Cabell Hillis Railsback Caffery Hogan Randall Camp Holifield Rarick Carter Horton Rees Casey, Tex. Hosmer Rhodes Cederberg Howard Robinson, Va. Chamberlain Hull Robison, N.Y. Clancy Hunt Rodino Clark Hutchinson Roe Clawson, Del Jacobs Rogers Cleveland Jarman Roncalio Collier Johnson, Calif. Rooney, N.Y. Collins, Tex. Johnson, Pa. Rooney, Pa. Colmer Jonas Rostenkowski Conable Jones, N.C. Roush Conte Jones, Tenn. Rousselot Carman Karth Roy Coughlin Kazen Ruppe Crane Kemp Ruth Culver King St Germain Daniel, Va. Kluczynski Sandman Daniels, N.J. Kuykendall Satterfield Danielson Kyl Saylor Davis, Ga. Landgrebe Scherle Davis, S.C. Latta Schmitz Davis, Wis. Lennon Schneebell Dellenback Lent Scott Dennis Lloyd Sebelius Dent Long, La. Shipley Devine Long, Md. .Shoup Dickinson McCollister Shriver Dingell McCormack Sikes Donohue McCulloch Skubitz Dorn McDade Slack Duncan McEwen Smith, Calif. Dwyer McKay Smith, Iowa Eckhardt McKinney Smith, N.Y. Edwards, Ala. McMillan Spence Erlenborn Madden Springer Eshleman Mahon Staggers Evans, Colo. Mailliard Stanton, Evins, Tenn. Mann J. William Fascell Martin Stanton, Findley Mathis, Ga. James V. Fish Matsunaga Steele Fisher Mayne Steiger, Aria Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, proved For ( (tgof4l/X15RRF tBP13 ? j6 R000400120011-3 H 11199 Stephens Tiernan Wiggins Stratton Ullman Williams Stubblefield Van Deerlin Wilson, Bob St lckey Vander Jagt Wilson, Sullivan Veysey Charles H. Symington Vigorito Wright Talcott Waggonner Wyatt Taylor Wampler Wylie Teague, Calif. Ware Wyman Teague, Tex. Whalley Young, Fla. Terry White Young,. Tex. Thompson, Ga. Whitehurst Zablocki Thomson, Wis. Whitten Zion Thone Widnall NOT VOTING-50 Abbitt Dowdy McClure Alexander Downing McFall Anderson, Dulski McKevitt Tenn. Edmondson Mathias, Calif. Barrett Edwards, La. Mikva Betts Gibbons Mills, Ark. Blackburn Griffiths Morse Blatnik Halpern Podell Boggs Hanna Reuss Burke, Mass. Hawkins Roberts Celler Heckler, Mass. Runnels Chappell Jones, Ala. Sisk Clausen, 'Keating Steed Don H. Kee Steiger, Wis. Cotter Keith Winn de Is Garza Landrum Wydler Derwinski Leggett Diggs Link So the amendment was rejected. ~S AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. ASPIN Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. AsriN: Page 48, immediately after line 7, insfrt the follow- ing: TITLE IX APPROPRIATION LIMITATION SEC. 745. Notwithstanding any other pro- vision of this Act, the total sums appro- priated by this Act for the fiscal year end- ing June 30, 1972, for the military functions administered by the Department of Defense, and for other purposes, shall not exceed the total sums appropriated to that Department for such functions and purposes in Public Law 91-668, approved January 11, 1971. Mr. ASPIN. _Mr. Chairman, I do not plan to take very long because this amendment is simple to explain. What the amendment does is to hold defense spending to last year's level. Last year we appropriated $69.5 bil- lion. This year the bill we are talking about is $71 billion. So that would mean a cut of $1.5 billion. Mr. Chairman, I am presenting this amendment and raising the question here because it has not been adequately explained to me why this defense budget is higher than the one we had last year. It seems to me that is a very, very difficult thing to explain. The cornmitte'e report itself has trouble explaining it. After all, we have a war which is be- ing wound down. We have less defense in the general purpose forces this year than last year. Why is the defense budget higher? One reason given by the committee re- port for this year's budget being higher is inflation, and indeed inflation is a factor. To buy last year's budget at this year's prices will cost in money $2.4 bil- lion more according to Mr. Moot, the Comptroller. So that is one factor. But, on the other hand, the war is costing us less. According to the Secre- tary of Defense the war this year is cost- ing us $4 billion less than the war cost us last year. So on balance, the inflation and the war, we end up ahead, and the budget overall should not be higher. A second reason the committee gives for the budget being higher this year is because of unemployment in some places. But this amendment, contrary to the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan, does nothing about spending. All of it might be spent next year, some of it this year, or some, some other time. Even if this amendment is passed, the amount of outlay we spend this year might not change at all. Another reason why this year's budget is higher, offered by the chail'man of the committee yesterday, is the volun- teer army. We are spending more money on pay for a volunteer army; therefore, the budget is higher. But, as the discus- sion yesterday revealed, there is no money or very little money for the vol- unteer army in this appropriation bill. Some $250 million out of $1.5 billion is in this bill. In fact, the amount of money that Is going to be appropriated this year for personnel is less than the amount last year, so that cannot be the reason. Perhaps it is because we are buying more defense, but certainly not in gen- eral purpose forces are we buying more defense. This budget this year has one-third of an Army division less than the budget last year. It has one Navy air wing less than the budget last year. It has two Navy carriers less than the budget last year. So, Mr. Chairman, why is this budget higher? Why are we appropriating $1.5 billion more this year for defense than we did last year? I wound like to offer several reasons for it, none of which I am very happy about, which are all reasons why we are getting a higher budget and why we are spending more for defense and getting less from it. No. 1 is cost overruns. A .recent GAO report pointed out that of 45 selected programs, the cost overruns totaled $35.4 billion. Last year alone there were $8 bil- lion in cost overruns. The second reason why our budgets are going up is too much support. We now have in the Army more three- and four- star generals and admirals than we had at the peak of World War II. At the peak of World War II there were 12 million men under arms. Today there are 2.7 mil- lion men under arms and we have more generals and admirals than we had then. It just does not make any sense. The third reason is we have too much overhead. We have too many bases and too many civilians. For example, this year's, budget cuts our military man- power. It is cutting our military man- power over last year by 7.5 percent. But what are we doing about civilian man- power? We are cutting it by less than 1 percent. A fourth reason for the budget going up is too much gold- plating. The F-4 cost less than $4 million apiece. The F-14 will cost $16 million apiece. There is no indication whatever that the F-14 is worth four times more or is four times more effective than the F-4. That is where our money is going and that is why our defense costs are going up. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gen- tleman has expired. Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unan- imous consent to be allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Wisconsin? Mr. CHAMBERLAIN. I object. Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentle- man from Wisconsin. Mr. ASPIN. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that with the budgets going higher and the amount of money we are getting for the budgets less, it is appropriate for this Congress and its Members to express their un- happiness with this situation. This amendment does not tell the Pentagon what to cut, or where to cut or how to cut, but it does put the House on record as being opposed to buying less defense and spending more for it. I urge the adoption of the amendment. (Mr. SIKES asked and was given per- mission to revise and extend his re- marks.) Mr. SIKES. Mr. Chairman, there is within the reach of each Member a re- port of 139 pages which tells clearly and specifically why defense costs more now than it has in previous years. I hope you have read it. I urge that you keep it for reference. May I point this out to you, and please listen to me. The Aspin amendment would tie defense spending for fiscal year 1972 to the 1971 appropriations. That figure was $66.6 billion. The Aspin amendment does not call for an amount of $1.5 billion below the 1971 appropria- tion, but it calls for that much below the 1972 bill. Supplelnentals were approved subsequent to the passing of the 1971 bill in the amount of $66.6 billion. The sup- plementals were $3 billion, almost alto- gether for wages and salaries. The effect of the amendment has not been thought through. Are you prepared to abolish the pay raises? How would you specify the areas of cuts, or is this a shotgun blast at all defense? Under the terms of the Aspin amendment, the total cut would be $4.5 billion below the committee's 1972 bill or $7 billion below the administration's 1972 budget. This is not a 2-percent cut, my friends. It would cut more deeply than the amendment just proposed for a 5- percent reduction and decisively de- feated. Now, this, of course, is wild blue yon- der thinking. The House already has had a good look at the defense picture, we have spent 2 long days on the bill be- fore us. Let me recapitulate. In constant dollars defense spending is not higher. Inflation and wages are running away with all costs, including defense. The pro- posed defense spending level means we will have smaller forces, we will have too little modernization, less total defense than in previous years even though the spending level is higher. Mr. Chairman, it is a dangerous thing Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11200 Approved For C V&$.iSSI6Nli : $738 M9g 200040012 ovember 17, 1971 to have less defense in the face of grow- ing Russian strength. Modernization is the key to national security. We need new weapons in greater number. The So- viets are ahead in size of forces, in num- bers of modern weapons. They are build- ing more nuclear-powered submarines and major surface ships than we are. The Russian Foxbat-listen to this--the Russian Foxbat which is flying around Israel is the most advanced aircraft of its class in the world. We do not have any. We need more tanks. -The Commu- nists have three times as many tanks as we and their tanks are newer than ours. The soldier who fights on the ground suffers most of the casualties. In a European-type war the tank is es- sential if our troops are to be success- ful. Mr. Chairman, I do not think. the House wants to embark into an uncer- tain prospect for national security by adopting a 5-percent cut-not a 2-per- cent cut-in appropriations for fiscal year 1972 defense spending. The amend- ment is an invitation to trouble-an in- vitation to Communist aggression. It can cripple our Nation's defenses and endan- ger America's security. This is a type of economy we cannot afford. I ask for a vote in opposition to the amendment. Mr. YATES, Mr. Chairman, the com- mittee report on the fiscal year 1972 De- partment of Defense appropriations bill is a document which is extraordinary for its candor. It is, I believe, a document which argues convincingly for a cut in military appropriations substantially be- low the levels recommended in the bill. Page 6 of the report states: It has been the pattern of the United States to sharply reduce our military forces after the end of a major conflict, We did so after World War II and again after the Korean War. The war in Southeast Asia is not yet over but active participation by United States forces has greatly decreased. Even so, the fiscal year 1972 budget, and the appro- priations recommended in the accompanying bill, represent increases over the previous year, not decreases. The decreases in military personnel in the past year would lead the Congress to antici- pate a budget decrease, not an increase. The increase of $1.5 'billion is supported by a number of factors. High costs due to eco- nomic inflation have caused defense costs to rise. The desire to continue ongoing pro- grams and installations in order to provide jobs and in order to avoid a further increase in unemployment is probably a factor. Also, the military services, as is not uncharacter- istic of Government agencies generally, have sought the opportunity to keep their budgets at a high level and have included favored programs in the Budget which could not be funded when the war made heavier demands on appropriations. The Committee believes that this is an area which calls for close Congressional scrutiny during this transition period and has tried to screen new proposals carefully. The important element of that ex- planation of the increases in defense spending is that it makes almost no reference to any military requirement for a budget of more than $71 billion. Rather it admits that "favored programs" and the desire "to provide jobs" were in large part responsible for the failure to reflect the savings In the budget which we should expect from the winding down of the war in Southeast Asia. The military establishment whose bill we are being asked to approve today is roundly crit- icized even by the committee-one has only to read the report. Though the Vietnam war will cost us some $4 billion less this year than last, and though military personnel costs are nearly $5.5 billion less than last year, the appropriations for defense have in- creased by $1i/2 billion over fiscal year 1971. Rather than saving $5 billion, we are spending more than last year. Why? Inflation accounts for about one-half of the increase, or about $2.75 billion, but what about the other half? What has happened to the "peace dividend"? A large part of the increase over last year comes in the procurement category, which is $2,156,000,000 higher than last year. There are "favored programs" men- tioned in the report funded this year regardless of their merit or the status of their research and development. We are asked to provide the money not because the systems are good or even necessary, but rather because the Penta- gon bureaucracy is incapable of making necessary changes, even when an ac- cepted weapons system is almost with- out question a turkey. The Pentagon would rather have a C5-A with its wings or engines falling off than have no plane at all. This inflated budget reflects nothing so much as the fact that the Pentagon, despite all the new procure- ment practices Mr. Packard speaks of so often, still is the victim of the huge cost overruns of the last few years. For example, as is indicated in the committee report, the F-14 Navy fighter program can only be called a procure- ment fiasco. After the Appropriations Committee wisely suggested a slowdown in the F-14 program in December 1969, the Navy, "prevailed upon the commit- tee to reverse its decision." Congressional skepticism about the F-14 has given way to Navy optimism ever since, and this year there is more than $800 mil- lion in the budget for procurement of the F-14, which is admittedly obsolete even before it is fully tested. According to the committee report, the F-14 is being procured because it would be able to cope with the new Soviet Mig-23 better than anything we now have in the inventory. There is no hard evidence, however, that the F-14 is even marginally better than the F-4 would be if it were modified to accommodate the Phoenix missile, and the F-4 costs only one-fourth as much as the F-14. It is difficult to say anything with cer- tainty about the performance of the F-14, since it is still in the early stages of its testing program. However, we do know it will not compete with the Mig- 23. The bill includes $229 million for research and testing of the F-14, a fig- ure which must give pause to anyone familiar with the waste which concur- rent testing and procurement has pro- duced in the past. The program has been concurrent for 2 years now and the com- mittee's continued support for the pro- duction of such an untested plane is in direct contradiction to its goal, stated In the fiscal year 1970 report, of a "fly- before-you-buy" policy. The contract is a weird one. The report indicates a desire by the committee to get out of the F-14 contract but has decided not to do so because it points out it is cheaper to buy the planes, however unwanted, than to continue the contract. The F-14, however, is only one of sev- eral weapons systems that is being funded this year in contradiction to les- sons we should have learned during the last few years of Pentagon weapons fail- ures. The DD-963 destroyer program is funded to the tune of nearly $600 mil- lion, even though it is so heavily laden with electronic gear that it may well become a floating C-5A. The Senate Armed Services Committee report on this years procurement authorization bill offers some sensible observations weap- ons systems which become so technolog- ically musclebound that they are unable to perform their mission: In a surprisingly large number of cases. DOD policies over the last several years have emphasized the development of platforms for weapons without sufficient emphasis on the weapons themselves. This is perhaps partially a result of attempts to make a single weapon system serve an inordinately large number of missions. Whatever the cause, it is striking that in many cases we have developed and produced aircraft of extraordinary capabili- ties without demonstrably reliable and effec- tive air-to-air munitions, bombers without long range air-to-surface missiles, subma- rines without reliable and effective torpedoes or antiship missiles, and surface escorts without any surface-to-surface missiles of any kind. Moreover, simple and reliable mod- ern weapons have often been neglected in the pursuit of weapons of great technological' complexity. I strongly support the "efficiency amendment" offered by Mr. ASPIN as a moderate, sensible step toward enforcing some restraint on Pentagon spending policy. Its passage would be an unmis- takable message to the Defense Depart- ment that some major changes are re- quired in the methods we use to develop and procure military weapons systems. Until those changes occur the Pentagon will continue to drain the Treasury and to make adequate funding of domestic legislation an impossibility. The Con- gress has been issuing polite reprimands for too long. It is time now to put some teeth In those reprimands by putting a lid on the defense budget through the Aspin amendment. MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto close immedi- ately. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. AspIN). TELLER VOTE WITH CLERKS Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers. Tellers were ordered. Mr. ASPIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand tellers with clerks. Tellers with clerks were ordered; and the Chairman appointed as -tellers Messrs. AslIN, RHODES, RIEGLE, and SixES. Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 Nczie`mber 17, ~97Tved For RC~ 'Wigg I /1~5 : ~- 73 ffl3000400120011-3 The Committee divided, and the tellers reported that there were-ayes 114, noes 278, not voting 39, as follows: [Roll No. 401 ] [Recorded Teller Vote] AYES-114 Abourezk Abzug Anderson, Calif. Ashley Aspin Badillo Barrett Begich Bergland Biaggi Biester Bingham Brademas Brasco Broyhill, N.C. Burke, Mass. Burton Carey, N.Y. Carney Chisholm Clay Collins, Ill. Conyers Culver Danielson Dellenback Dellums Penholm Donohue Dow Drinan du Pont Eckhardt Edwards, Calif. Eilberg Esch Ford, William D. Forsythe Abernethy Adams Addabbo Albert Anderson, Ill. Andrews, Ala. Andrews, N. Dak. Annunzio Archer Arends Ashbrook Aspinall Baker Baring Belcher Bell Bennett Bevill Blanton Boland Bolling Bow Bray Brinkley Brooks Broomfield Brotzman Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, Va. Buchanan Burke, Fla. Burleson, Tex. Burlison, Mo. Byrne, Pa. Byrnes, Wis. Byron Cabell Caffery Camp Carter Casey, Tex. Cederberg Chamberlain Clancy Clark Clawson, Del Cleveland Collier Collins, Tex. Colmer Conable Conte Gorman Fraser Frenzel Gaydos Gibbons Green, Pa. Gross Gude Hall Hamilton Hanley Harrington Hathaway Hawkins Hechler, W. Va. Heckler, Mass. Heinz Helstoski Hungate Jacobs Karth Kastenmeier Koch Kyros Leggett Lujan McClory McCloskey McDonald, Mich. McKinney Madden Mazzola Melcher Metcalfe Mink Mitchell Moorhead Morse Mosher Nedzi NOES-278 Coughlin -Crane Daniel, Va. Daniels, N.J. Davis, Ga. Davis, S.C. Davis, Wis. de la Garza Delaney Dennis Dent Devine Dickinson Dingell Dorn Duncan Dwyer Edwards, Ala. Erlenborn Eshleman Evans, Colo. Evans, Tenn. Fascell Findley Fish Fisher Flood Flowers Flynt Foley Ford, Gerald R. Fountain Frelinghuysen Frey Fulton, Tenn. Fuqua Galifianakis Gallagher Garmatz Gettys Giaimo Goldwater Gonzalez Goodling Grasso Gray Green, Oreg. Griffin Grover Gubser Haley Hammer- schmidt Hansen, Idaho Hansen, Wash. Obey O'Konskt Pryor, Ark. Pucinski Railsback Rangel Reid, N.Y. Reuss Riegle Robison, N.Y. .Roe Roncalio Rosenthal Rousselot Roy Roybal Ryan Sarbanes Scheuer Schneebell Schwengel Sebelius Seiberling Snyder Stanton, James V. Stokes Thompson, N.J. Udall Vanik Vigorito Waldie Whalen Winn Wolff Yates Yatron Zwach Harsha Harvey Hastings Hays Hebert Henderson Hicks, Mass. Hicks, Wash. Hillis Hogan Holifleld Horton Hosmer Howard Hull Hunt Hutchinson Jarman Johnson, Calif. Johnson, Pa. Jonas Jones, Ala. Jones, N.C. Jones, Tenn, Kazen Keith King ` L !1 Kluczygkl f 11 Kuykendall Kyl Landgrebe Landrum Latta Lennon Lent L16yd Long, La. Long, Md. McCollister McCormack McCulloch McDade McEwen McFall McKay McMillan Macdonald, Mass. Mahon Mailliard Mann Martin Mathis, Ga. Matsunaga Mayne Quie Stratton Meeds Quillen, Stubblefield Michel Randall Stuckey Miller, Calif. Rarick Sullivan Miller, Ohio Rees Symington Mills, Md. Rhodes Talcott Minish Robinson, Va. Taylor Minshall Rodino Teague, Calif. Mizell Rogers Terry Mollohan Rooney, N.Y. Thompson, Ga. Monagan Rooney, Pa. Thomson, Wis. Montgomery Rostenkowski Thone Morgan Roush Tiernan Moss Ruppe Ullman Murphy, Ill. Ruth Van Deerlin Myers St Germain Vander Jagt Natcher . Sandman Veysey Nelsen Satterfield Waggoner Nichols Saylor Wampler Nix Scherle Ware O'Hara Schmitz Whalley O'Neill Scott White Passman Shipley Whitehurst Patman Shoup Whitten Patten Shriver Widnall Pelly Sikes Wiggins Pepper Skubitz Williams Perkins Slack Wilson, Bob Pettis Smith, Calif. Wilson, Peyser Smith, Iowa Charles H. Pickle Smith, N.Y. Wright Pike Spence Wyatt Pirnie Springer Wylie Poage Staggers Wyman Poll Stanton, Young, Fla. Powell J. William Young, Tex. Preyer, N.C. Steele Zablocki Price, Ill. Steiger, Ariz. Zion Price, Tex. Steiger, Wis. Purcell Stephens NOT VOTING-39 Abbitt Diggs McClure Alexander Dowdy McKevitt Anderson, Downing Mathias, Calif. Tenn. Dulski Mikva Betts Edmondson Mills, Ark. Blackburn Edwards, La. Murphy, N.Y. Blatnik Griffiths Podell Boggs Hagan Roberts Celler Halpern Runnels Chappell Hanna Sisk Clausen, Ichord Steed Don H. Keating Teague, Tex. Cotter Kee Wydler Derwinski Link (By unanimous consent, Mr. CULVER changed his vote from "no" to "aye.") So the amendment was rejected. AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. JACOBS Mr. JACOBS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. JACOBS: On page 48, immediately following line 7, add the SEC. 746. In line with Title VI of the 1971 Military Procurement Act calling for termi- ina at the earliest practicable date and for e prompt and orderly withdrawal of all U.S: military forces at a date certain, subject to the release of all American prisoners and an accounting for all Americans missing in ac- tion, and notwithstanding any other provi- sions in this Act, none of the funds appro- priated by this Act shall be used to finance any military combat or military support op- erations by U.S. forces in or over South Viet- nam, North Vietnam, Laos or Cambodia, after November 7, 1972, if all American prisoners shall have first been released and all Ameri- cans missing in action shall have been ac- counted for. Mr. BOW. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order against the amendment on two grounds: First, very simply, the November 7, 1972, date goes beyond the fiscal year for which this appropriation is being made; Second, and I think most important, is the final paragraph, which was also writ- ten into the Boland amendment: "if all American prisoners shall have first been H 11201 released and all Americans missing in action shall have been accounted for." This provision places an additional responsibility and duty upon someone, but there is nothing in the amendment as to who would have that responsibility and duty. The amendment provides that all prisoners must have been released or accounted for. I repeat that this is an additional responsibility in legislation in this amendment. Therefore I urge my point of order. The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Indiana wish to be heard on the point of order? Mr. JACOBS. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would say, first of all, if the funds appro- priated in this vehicle will end prior to the time mentioned in the amendment, then it would conform to the amendment in any case. So far as the responsibility is concerned, this is only a provision that the amendment will take effect on the happening of an event. That event may or may not happen. It places no respon- sibility on anyone. If the prisoners are released before the event has taken place, it places no responsibility on anybody. Mr. YATES. Mr. Chairman, further on the point of order I should like to point out, in response to the remarks of the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow), that there are funds pro- vided in the bill for programs that go beyond the end of the fiscal year. The CHAIRMAN (Mr. ROSTENKOW- sKI). The Chair is ready to rule. The Chair will point out, first, that there are funds in the bill that do go beyond this fiscal year, and therefore holds that the termination date included in the amend- ment of the gentleman from Indiana does not render the amendment not ger- mane. Second, as to the point raised by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Bow), there are no additional duties required by the last clause of the amendment. Those duties referred to by the gentleman from Ohio, if any, are already anticipated by title VI of the Military Procurement Act, which is referred to in the amendment and which was signed into law by the President today. For these reasons, the Chair over- rules the point of order. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. JACOBS) for 5 minutes in support of his amendment. Mr. JACOBS. I have spoken to very few Americans who do not believe that American military intervention in South- east Asia will end by next election day. I offer this amendment just Ito make sure. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. MOTION OFFERED BY MR. MAHON Mr. Chairman, I move that all debate on this amendment and all amendments thereto do now close. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas. The motion was agreed to. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. JACOas). The question was taken; and on a divi- Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 H 11202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 17191 ~,,.4n .hn#~pp,ex~~cted. Mrs. ABZUG. Mr. Chalitnan, I rise in opposition to H.R. 11731, the Defense Ap- propriations bill for 1972. In the context in which we are functioning in the House of Representatives, a vote for this bill would be irrational. First, I cannot with any shred of con- science, vote $1; to say nothing of $71.05 billion, until we have set a date to end the most hated and most expensive war in American history. The $23 billion a year that this war in Indochina has cost us has been the least of the prices we have paid. I count the suffering, the deaths and the injuries, among the peo- ple of Indochina as well as among our own young, the deepening cynicism, the alienation of our young people as part of the increasingly intolerable costs of this war. The President announces in an offhand way, the reduction of Amer- ican troops in South Vietnam. He ne- glects to mention the increasing number of bombs and air attacks, the increas- ing number of refugees and civilian casualties. South Vietnam, thanks to moneys like those here before us today, U.S. defense moneys, has the fourth larg- est army in the world to "secure" a coun- try the size of Texas with a population of 20 million. Thanks to moneys like these here before us today, Indochina has the most heavily bomb saturated terrain of any area ever in the world. And our constituents cry out for an end: According to recent surveys more than 75 percent of Americans want us out of Vietnam now; some 55 percent do not want even a residual force left behind; and in the districts of the leaders of this House the expressed views of a majority of their constituents are not being repre- sented by their Congressmen's continu- ing support for this unending war. We in the House of Representatives do not reflect this agony. We act here to ap- propriate $71.05 billion, an estimated minimum of $10 billion of which will go for men and materiel in Indochina. I sub- mit that the only rational act, the only representative act, we will do today is vote "yes" on the amendment offered by Mr. BOLAND to title VII to cut off funds for this war after June 1, 1972. We now have an opportunity to vote clearly on this war-not merely as an expressed wish of Congress, but in a most practical way by cutting off funds. We have a chance to undo the damage done by this body's unquestioning support of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution which resulted in the enormous U.S. involvement in Indo- china. The House voted to repeal the resolution; we can vote today to termi- nate its implications. Mr. HARRINGTON suggests-and I wholeheartedly agree with him-that to continue to support the executive in. its undeclared war by financing it amounts to a declaration of war. I appeal to you to vote "yes" on Mr. BOLAND's amendment. Secondly, we act here, as the commit- tee report accompanying this legislation reminds us, in the name of "national se- curity." Yet we refuse to do what is nec- essary to make our country secure, to bring home the thousands of young peo- ple who have fled their country, the countless who are dying and suffering in- jury in a corner of the world whose im- pact on our national security is at best minimal and the prisoners of war who have endured long enough. We act here, with only 3 hours of de- bate and a couple of amendments, to ap- propriate an amount just under that we have already appropriated this session for a total of 14 other fiscal year 1972 programs: In other words, this single ap- propriation is equal to the sum total of every other program our country has in- vested in for this period. In title I of this bill, personnel, we vote on a figure to pay the employees of the defense establishment which, even with its cut from last year's figure at $21 billion, is still more than the big- gest appropriation bill to come before us this session-the total $20.8 billion budget for the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare with its myriad of programs for the benefit of the Ameri- can people. In title III, operations and maintenance, the committee recommends $20.4 billion, a sum only slightly less than the HEW appropriations and more than the entire $18 billion appropriations for HUD, the source of all Federal pro- grams which attempt to ensure a "decent home in a suitable living environment for every American family." In title IV procurement, we will vote on the com- mittee recommendation of $18 billion while the administration threatens to veto the Comprehensive Child Develop- ment Act which would authorize $100,000 for fiscal year 1972 to plan a program which would cost $2 billion in fiscal year 1973. To say nothing of title VIII which provides $93 million for ABM develop- inent and construction-four times the $17 million we appropriated over Mr. Nixon.'s objections, for summer food pro- grams for our children. In light of our defense spending, the $1 billion we appro- priated for the Emergency Employment Act can be seen in its proper perspective, and shows us for what we are-a country that places military needs above human needs. The sum total sought in this legislation which we may well dispose of in short order, falls only slightly short of these 14 other bills on which we have spent at least 50 hours of floor debate and fought out countless amendments. And this in the name of "national security." I. sub- mit that it is precisely our national se- curity we are jeopardizing by operating. under the set of priorities that are re- flected in our work this session of Con- gress on appropriations measures. The national security that we enjoy as a re- sult of our frantic competitiveness in arms races, in nuclear testings, in the de- velopment of supersophisticated material is beyond the point of surfeit; it is over- kill, to use the military jargon. It is our other national security, that of a loyal citizenry, employed, decently housed, fed, and educated, that we must turn our- selves to protecting. Until our perspective has righted itself, starting at the most elemental-getting the U.S. troops out of Vietnam-I cannot cast my vote for this bill. Mr. COTTER. Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the gentleman from Texas and his committee for their oustanding work on this most complicated bill. I note with satisfaction that the com- mittee report focuses on the so-called "fly before you buy" procurement con- cept that was heralded by DOD just a few months ago. This new policy seems to be mired in public relations with little or no substantive action. I want to point out to the distinguished chairman that I have requested a "fly- off" between the trouble-plagued Chey- enne AH 56 helicopter and the Sikorsky 57 Blackhawk, because I am confident that the Sikorsky helicopter is a superior aircraft. I have not received a reply to this request and I was wondering if the gentleman could assure me that his com- mittee will follow through on this and other procurement programs which could benefit from the "fly before you buy" policy. Mr. VANIK. Mr. Chairman, in view of the action of the House in defeating the Boland amendment, I must vote against the defense appropriation bill. The Bo- land amendment was a very reasonable proposal to terminate our involvement jr. Southeast Asia on June 1, 1972, contin- gent on the release of our prisoners of war. In view of the recent decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals in Massachu- setts, a continuation of unrestrained defense spending in Southeast Asia con- stitutes ratification by Congress of the continuation of this tragic war. For over 4 years I have stated by oppo-? sition and cast my votes for proposals to end this war. At the Democratic Conven- tion of 1968, I supported the peace plank. In this Congress I filed a discharge peti- tion on legislation to end the war. Until peace is achieved in Southeast Asia, I fear that this legislation will be used one way or another to continue the conflict and our involvement. In good conscience I cannot support the con- tinuation of the slaughter and destruc- tion in Southeast Asia which continues to take a tremendous toll in human life. Mr. MAHON. Mr. Chairman, has the Clerk concluded the reading of the bill? The CHAIRMAN. Na. The Clerk has not. The Clerk will read. The Clerk concluded the reading of the bill. The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises. Accordingly the Committee rose; and the Speaker having resumed the chair, Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that that Committee having had under consider- ation the bill (H.R. 11731) making ap- propriations for the Department of De- fense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 704, he reported the bill back to the House. The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the previous question is ordered. 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. Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 17, 1971 roved Fo&J s9?8 4k~15WEft ~P7 ?26R000400120011-3 The SPEAKER. The question is on the passage of the bill. . The question was taken; and the Speaker announced that the ayes ap- peared to have it. 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 342, nays 51, answered "present" 2, not voting 35, as follows: Abernethy Adams Addabbo Anderson, Calif. Anderson, 111. Andrews, Ala, Andrews, N. Dak. Annunzio Archer Arends Ashbrook Ashley Aspinall Baker Baring Begich Belcher Bell Bennett Bergland Bevill Biaggi Biester Blanton Boland Bolling Bow Brademas Brasco Bray Brinkley Brooks Broomfleld Brotzinan Brown, Mich. Brown, Ohio Broyhill, N.C. Broyhill, Va. Buchanan Burke, Fla. Burke, Mass. Burleson, Tex. Burlison,"Mo. Byrne, Pa. Byrnes, Wis. Byron Cabell Caffery Camp Carney Carter Casey, Tex. Cederberg Chamberlain Clancy Clark Clawson, Del Cleveland Collier Collins, Tex. CoLmer Conable Conte Corman Coughlin Crane Culver Daniel, Va. Daniels, N.J. Danielson Davis, Ga. Davis, S.C. Davis, Wis. de la Garza Delaney Dellenback Denholm Dennis Dent Devine Dickinson Dingell Donohue Dorn Duncan [Roll No. 402] YEAS-342 du Pont Kuykendall Dwyer Kyl Edwards, Ala. Kyros Erlenborn Landgrebe Esch Landrum Eshleman Latta Evans, Colo. Leggett Evins, Tenn. Lennon Fascell Lent Findley Lloyd Fish Long, La. Fisher Long, Md. Flood McClory Flowers McCollister Flynt McCormack Foley McCulloch Ford, Gerald R. McDade Forsythe McDonald, Fountain Mich. Frelinghuysen McEwen Frenzel McFall Frey McKay Fulton, Tenn. McKinney Fuqua Galiflanakis Gallagher Garmatz Gaydos Gettys Glaimo Gibbons Goldwater Gonzalez Goodling Grasso Gray Green, Oreg. Griffin Gross Grover Gubser Gude Hagan Haley Hall Hamilton Hammer- schmidt McMillan Macdonald, Mass. Madden Mahon Mailliard Mann Martin Mathis, Ga. Mateunaga Mayne Mazzoli Meeds Melcher Michel Miller, Calif. Miller, Ohio Mills, Md. Minish Mink Minshall Mizell Mollohan Monagan Montgomery Hanley Moorhead Hanna Morgan Hansen, Idaho Morse Hansen, Wash. Moss Harsha Murphy, Ill. Harvey Murphy, N.Y. Hastings Myers Hathaway Natcher Hays Nelsen Hebert Nichols Heckler, Mass. O'Hara Heinz O'Konski Henderson O'Neill Hicks, Mass. Passman ` Hicks, Wash. Patman Hillis Patten Hogan Pelly Holifleld Pepper Horton Perkins Hosmer Pettis Howard Peyser Hull Pickle Hunt Pike Hutchinson Pirnie Ichord Poage Jacobs Poff Jarman Powell Johnson, Calif. Preyer. N.C. Johnson, Pa. Price, Ill. Jonas Price, Tex. Jones, Ala. Pryor, Ark. Jones, N.C. Pucinski Jones, Tenn. Purcell Karth Quie Kazen Quillen Keith Railsback Kemp Randall King Rarick Kluczynskl Reid, N.Y. Rhodes Skubitz Udall Robinson, Va. Black Ullman Robison, N.Y. Smith, Calif. Van Deerlin Rodin Smith, Iowa Veysey Roe Smith, N.Y. Vigorito Rogers Snyder Waggonner Roncalio Spence Wampler Rooney, N.Y. Springer Ware Rooney, Pa. Staggers Whalley Rostenkowski Stanton, White Roush J. William Whitehurst Rousselot Stanton, Whitten Roy James V. Widnall Ruppe Steele Wiggins Ruth Steiger, Ariz. Williams St Germain Steiger, Wis. Wilson, Bob Sandman Stephens Wilson, Satterfield Stratton Charles H. Saylor Stubblefield Winn Scherle Stuckey Wright Schmitz Sullivan Wyatt Schneebeli Symington Wylie Schwengel Talcott Wyman Scott Taylor Yatron Sebelius Teague, Calif. Young, Fla. Shipley Teague, Tex. Young, Tex. Shoup Terry Zablocki Shriver Thomson, Wis. Zion Sikes Thone Zwach Sisk Tiernan NAYS-51 Abourezk Abzug Aspin Badillo Barrett Bingham Burton Carey, N.Y. Chisholm Clay Collins, Ill. Conyers Dellums Dow Ford, Obey William D. Rangel Fraser Rees Green, Pa. Reuss Harrington Rosenthal Hawkins Roybal Hechler, W. Va. Ryan Helatoski Scheuer Hungate Seiberling Kastenmeier Stokes Koch Thompson, N.J. Lujan Vanik McCloskey Waldie Metcalfe Whalen Drinan Mitchell Eckhardt Mosher Edwards, Calif. Nedzi Eilberg Nix Wolff Yates Thompson, Ga. NOT VOTING-35 Abbitt Derwinskl McKevitt Alexander Diggs Mathias, Calif. Anderson, Dowdy Mikva . Tenn. Downing Mills, Ark. Betts Dulski Podell Blackburn Edmondson Roberts Blatnik Edwards, La. Runnels Boggs Griffiths Sarbanes Celler Halpern Steed Chappell Keating Vander Jagt Clausen, Kee Wydler Don H. Link Cotter McClure So the bill was passed. The Clerk announced the following pairs : On this vote: Mr. Thompson of Georgia for, with Mr. Podell against. Mrs. Griffiths for, with Mr. Mikva against. Mr. Boggs for, with Mr. Diggs against. Until further notice: Mr. Steed with Mr. Betts. Mr. Link with Mr. Keating. Mr. Roberts with Mr. Blackburn. Mr. Runnels with Mr. Don H.. Clausen. Mr. Chappell with Mr. Derwinaki. Mr. Celler with Mr. Halpern. Mr. Alexander with Mr. McClure. Mr. Downing with Mr. Vander Jagt. Mr. Kee with Mr. McKevitt. Mr. Dulaki with Mr. Wydler. Mr. Edmondson with Mr. Mathias of Cali- fornia. Mr. Abbitt with Mr. Cotter. Mr. Blatnik with Mr. Anderson of Ten- nessee. Mr. Mills of Arkansas with Mr. Dowdy. Mr. THOMPSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I have a live pair with the gen- tleman from New York (Mr. PODELL). If 1111203 he had been present he would have voted "nay." I voted "yea." I withdraw my vote and vote "present." The result of the vote was announced as above recorded. A motion to reconsider was laid on the table. GENERAL LEAVE Mr. MAHON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- mous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the Defense ap- propriation bill just passed. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Texas? There was no objection. REQUEST TO ADJOURN TO 11 A.M. TOMORROW Mr. O'NEILL. Mr. Speaker, I ask unan- imous consent that when the House ad- journs today that it adjourn to meet at 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Mas- sachusetts? Mr. CRANE. I object, Mr. Speaker. FOREIGN AID AUTHORIZATION, 1972 Mr. COLMER, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following privileged resolution (H. Res. 710, Rept. No. 92- 674), which was referred to the House Calendar and o be printed: H. R..71 Resolved, That immediately upon the adop- tion of this resolution and without the in- tervention of any point of order the bills of the Senate S. 2819 and S. 2820 are hereby taken from the Speaker's table; that said Senate bills are hereby amended by striking out all after the enacting clause of each such Senate bill and inserting in lieu thereof the text of the bill H.R. 9910 as passed by the House on August 3, 1971; that the said Sen- ate bills as so amended shall be considered as read a third time and passed; that the title of each such Senate bill shall be amended by striking out such title and inserting in lieu thereof the title of H.R. 9910; that the House insists upon its amendments to each such Senate bill and requests conferences with the Senate, and that the Speaker appoint man- agers on the part of the House to attend each such conference. AMENDMENTS BY MR. THOMPSON OF NEW JERSEY TO AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 11060, A BILL TO LIMIT CANF-AIGN EXPENDITURES Mr. THOMPSON of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, at the appropriate time during consideration of H.R. 11060, a bill to limit campaign expenditures, I intend to offer an amendment to the text of H.R. 11280 if the text of that bill is offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute for H.R. 11060. I ask unanimous consent to have the amendment printed in the RECORD. The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? There was no objection. The text is as follows: Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 10 11111204 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE November 17, 19;-1 AMENDMENTS OFFERED DY MR. THOMFSON or "quired under the provisions of this title. the Senate. Of the members (other than the NEW JERSEY TO AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE ' (b) It shall be the duty of the Board- Comptroller General) who first take office-- OF A SUBSTITUTE OFFERED TO H.R. 11060 (1) to direct the activities of the Registry "(1) one shall be appointed for a term of (Page and line references to H.R. 11280.) to assure that it carries out the duties re- two years, beginning from the date of en- Page 23, strikeout lines 19 and 20 and In- quiired of it under subsection (a) of this actment of this Act, sert in lieu, thereof the following: section; "(2) one for a term of four years, begin- (g) "Registry" means the Registry of Elec- "(2) to report apparent violations of law to ping from such date, time Finance, established by section 310(a); the appropriate law enforcement authorities "(3) one for a term of six years, beginning (h) "Board" means the Federal Elections and take appropriate action under subset- from such date, Board, established under section 310 (b) ; tion (c) ; and "(4) one for a term of eight years, begin- Page 23, line 21, strike out "(h) " and insert "(3) to prescribe such rules and regula- ning from such date, In lieu thereof "(i) ". tions, and to take such other actions, as it "(5) one for a term of ten years, begin- Page 23, line 24, strike out " (1) " and insert determines are necessary or appropriate to ping from such date, and in lieu thereof " (j) ". carry out the provisions of this title. " (6) one for a term of twelve years, begin- Page 25, line 21, strike out "Commission" "(c) (1) Any person who believes a viola- ping from such date, and Insert in lieu thereof "Board". tion of this Act has occurred may file a as designated by the Comptroller General at Page 26, beginning on line 9, strike out complaint with the Registry. If the Board the time such members take office; but their "Federal Elections Commission" and insert determines there is substantial reason to be- successors shall be 'appointed for terms of In lieu thereof "Registry of Election Fl- lieve such a violation has occurred, It shall twelve years each, except that a person chosen nance". direct the Registry to expeditiously make an to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for Page 26, line 13, strike out "Commission" investigation of the matter complained of, the unexpired term of the member whom he and insert in lieu thereof "Registry". Whenever in the judgment of two-thirds of succeeds. No appointive member of the Board Page 26, line 16, strike out "him" and in- the members of the Board, after affording may be a Member of Congress or an officer or serf "the Registry", due notice and an Opportunity for a hearing, employee of the House or Senate. The Board Page 27, line 6, strike out "Commission" any person has engaged or is about to engage shall designate one member to serve as and insert in lieu thereof "Board". - in any acts or practices Whicb constitute or Chairman of the Board and one member to Page 27, line 11, strike out "Commission" will constitute a violation of any provision serve as Vice Chairman, The Vice Chairman and insert in lieu thereof "Registry", of this Act or any regulation or order issued shall act as Chairman in the absence or dis- Page 27, beginning an line 17, strike out thereunder, the Board shall institute a civil ability of the Chairman or in the event of a "Commission at such time as It prescribes" action for appropriate relief in the district vacancy in that office, and insert in lieu thereof "Registry at such court of the United States for the district in "(c) A vacany on the Board shall not time as the Board prescribes". which the person is found, resides, or trans- impair the right of the remaining members Page 28, line 23, strike out "Commission" acts. business. Upon a proper showing that to exercise all the powers of the Board; ex- and insert In lieu thereof "Board". such person has engaged or Is about to en- cept that four members thereof shall con- Page 29, beginning on line 1, strike out gage in such acts or practices, a permanent stitute a quorum. Commission" and insert in lieu thereof or preliminary injunction or temporary re- "(d) The Registry shall have an official "Registry"? straining order may be granted without bond seal which shall be judicially noticed. Page 29, line 7, strike out "Commission" by such court, but no temporary restraining "(e) The Board shall at the close of each and insert in lieu thereof "Registry". order may be granted without hearing, fiscal year report to the Congress and to the Page 29, line 12, strike out "Commission" "(2) In any action brought under Para- President concerning the actions it has and insert in lieu thereof "Registry", graph (1) of this subsection, subpenas for taken; the names, salaries, and duties of Page 29, line 13, strike out "it" and insert witnesses who are required to attend a all individuals in the Registry's employ and in lieu thereof "the Board". United States district court may run into the money the Registry has disbursed; and Page 29, line 18, strike out "C'ommission' any other district, shall make such further reports on the and insert in lieu thereof "Board". "(3) The courts of appeals shall have juris- matters within the Board's- jurisdiction and Page 32, line 7, strike out "Commission" diction of appeals from orders issued under such recommendations for further legis- and insert in lieu thereof "Board". paragraph (1) in accordance with chapter 83 lation as may appear desirable. Page 32, line 9, strike out "Commission" of title 28, United States Cbde." "(f) (1) Subject to paragraph (2), mem- and insert in lieu thereof "Board". Page 39, line 11, strike out "Commission" bers of the Board shall, while serving on the Page 32, line 12, strike out "Commission" and insert in lieu thereof "Registry", business of the Board, be entitled to receive and insert in lieu thereof "Board"' Page 39, l16, strike out "Commission" compensation at a rate fixed by the Director Page 33, line 1, strike out Commission" and insert line lieu thereof "Board". of the Office of Management and Budget, but and insert in lieu thereof "Registry". not in excess of the daily equivalent of the Page 33, line 15, strike out "Commission" Page 40, line 11, insert before the semi- annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade and insert In lieu thereof "Board". colon the following: GS-18 of the General Schedule, for each day Page 33, line 16, strike out "Commission" ": Provided that any information copied from (including travel time) during which they and insert in lieu thereof "Board", such reports and statements shall not be are engaged in the actual performance of Page 33, line 23, strike out "Commission" sold or utilized by any person for the purpose duties vested In the Board. and insert in lieu thereof "Board", of soliciting contributions or for any com- "(2) Members of the Board who are full- Page 34, line 23, strike out "Commission' mercial purpose" time officers or employees of the United and insert in lieu thereof "Registry". Page 40, strike out line 15 and all that States shall receive no additional pay on ac- Page 34, line 34, strike out "it" and insert follows down through line 20 on page 43 and count of their service on the Board. in lieu thereof "the Board". - insert in lieu thereof the following: "(3) While away from their homes or reg- Page 35, strike out lines 8 through 8 and g.istry of Election Finance and Federal ul'ar places of business in the performance "Re insert in lieu thereof the following: of services for the Board, members of the "Duties of the Registry and Board Elections Board Board shall be allowed travel expenses, in- "SEc. 310. (a) There is-hereby created in eluding per diem in lieu of subsistence, in "Sac. 208. (a) It shall be the duty of the the General Accounting Office a Registry of the same manner as persons employed inter- Registry- - Election Finance. mitteenltl in the Government service are al- (1) to furnish such forms as the Board "`(b) In carrying out the duties prescribed lowed expenses under section 5703 b of title may prescribe for the making of reports and ( ) statements required to be filed with the Reg- the hi Act the Registry shb be subject to 5, United States Code, istry under this title to the person required thdirection of a Boa, to be c known as the "(g) (g) The principal office of the Columbia, under this title to file such reports and state- Federal Elections Board, which shall be fame shall be or x near the District r Columbia, rents," posed of f seven en members consisting of the but ut the Board may meet or exercise any of Page 36, beginning on line 15, strike out it Comptroller General of the United States, its powers at any other place, shall Page and oroken down into" and and six appointive members who shall be ""(h) All officers, agents, attorneys, and insert a lr thereof "then do shall deter- chosen from persons who, by reason of ma- employees of the Registry or the Board shall mine for". turity experience, and public service have be subject to the provisions of sections 7323 Page r", line 21, strike out "it shall deter- attained a nationwide reputation for integ- and 7324 of title 5, United States Code (rela- (rela- mine and broken dtwn tout"and insert et deter- rity, impartiality, and good judgment, are ing to political activities - of Federal em- lieu thereof "the Bdow shall determine t n qualified to carry out the duties of the Board, ployees), notwithstanding any exemption Page of such appointive members (who may contained in either such section. age 37, line 1, insert "as the Board directs" not both be members of the same political before ""special "(i) The Board shall appoint an Eegard Page 37, line 5, strike out "it" and insert peaty) shall be appointed by the President. tive Director of the Registry without regard in lieu thereof "the Board". Two of such appointive members (who may to the provisions of title 5, United States Page t line "insert "and" after the semi- not both be members of the same political Code, governing appointments in the com- oolon party) shall be appointed by the Speaker of petitive service, to serve at the pleasure of the House of Representatives. Two of such the Board. The Executive Director shall be Page 37, strike out line 13 and all that appointive members (who may not both be responsible for the administrative opera- follows down through line 23 on page 38, and members of the same political party) shall tions of the Registry and shall perform such insert in lieu thereof the following: be appointed by the President pro tempore of other duties as may be delegated or assigned Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 2 ,,App79ved For 2 IMAEi :IGAG 7af Ig 00400120011-3 S 9617 gas if we will only take advantage of the opportunity open to us. The President called for a cooperative program involving Government and in- dustry to speed the development of an economically acceptable gasification process. Industry, through the American Gas Association, responded by agreeing to put up $10 million, or one-third of the first-year cost of an accelerated program. It is now up to the Congress to demon- strate its good faith by putting up its two-thirds share, or $10 million on top of the $10 million appropriated earlier this year for gasification research. Within the last few weeks the Depart- ment of the Interior, anticipating con- gressional approval of the accelerated gasification effort, signed a $24.8 million contract with Bituminous Coal Research, Inc., for the development of one promis- ing commercial coal gasification process. This, incidentally, was the largest con- .tract ever awarded by Interior's Office of Coal Research. The contract calls for BCR, the re- search affiliate of the National Coal As- sociation, to build and operate a coal gas- ification pilot plant at Homer City, Pa., near a plentiful source of bituminous coal. The plant will use the BI-GAS process of conversion which BCR, under the spon- sorship of OCR, has been investigating at a smaller scale level for the past 7 years. This pilot plant will be in addi- tion to coal gasification pilot plants in or near operation by other organiza- tions which have Interior Department funding. I am informed, Mr. President, that the reason for this multiplant effort is that there are a number of potential ap- proaches to gasifying coal, each with its own technology, cost, and suitability for various coal resources. All of these are still to be proven in the critical pilot plant stage. Gasification research and development along a number of lines in- creases the chances for the much needed successful development of one or more commercially viable coal gasification processes. As OCR Director George Fumich has said, "we do not have all our eggs in one basket in an effort that is vital to our future domestic gas supply." The acceleration of Government-in- dustry support of coal gasification rep- resented by the OCR-BCR contract is definitely needed despite plans an- nounced by individual fuel companies to build gasification plants using existing technology. Of course, the basic technol- ogy for coal gasification has been well established for years. I am told that be- fore BCR elected to develop its BI-GAS process, it evaluated 65 different gasifi- cation processes that have been conceived or used here or abroad. The Nation's urgent need now, how- ever, is for a coal gasification process that will be economically viable in our future fuel economy. The day will will probably come when the Nation will need a supplement for natural gas at any -cost, but the principal objective of cur- rent U.S. research and development is to bring the cost of synthetic gas within the competitive range of rising prices for imports of such substitutes as liquefied natural gas and gas made from imported hydrocarbon liquids such as naphtha. In any case, current coal gasification processes to be tested in Government- industry sponsored pilot plants offer promise without technological duplica- tion. In announcing the contract award to- Bituminous Coal Research, Secretary Morton said: A key feature of the BI-GAS process is its inherent straightforward simplicity. The experts say that the advantages of the BI-GAS process certainly qualify it for accelerated development as a meth- od of converting all ranks of coal-from lignite to bituminous coal-to pipeline- quality gas, which means the process gas is pure enough and has the high heat value necessary or interchangeability with natural gas in the Nation's pipelines. The yield from the BI-GAS process is a clean-burning gas rich in methane-the principal ingredient in natural gas itself. But the other processes being pursued by Government and industry also have potential advantages. It is likely, I un- derstand, that the final commercial process may well be a combination of several of the research processes. I understand that the BI-GAS process and others being researched also meet the demand- for a nonpolluting fuel, eliminating from the final gas product such unwanted elements as sulfur com- pounds. Selective purification systems re- move the pollutant and pass it to a sepa- rate unit for recovery of sulfur. Under favorable market conditions, the re- covered sulfur could be sold as a by- product, giving the process an operating credit against the cost of producing gas. Although the BI-GAS pilot plant is designed to consume only 120 tons of coal per day and to produce a relatively small amount of pipeline gas-about 2 to 3 mil- lion cubic feet a day-it will provide the necessary data to design a plant capable of using 12,000 tons of coal and pro- ducing 250 million cubic feet of gas a day-the gas output considered neces- sary for commercial success. The capital investment in a coal gasi- fication plant of that size has been esti- mated at about $250 million-a far greater sum than that called for in pilot plant development and one that will be borne by industry, not by Government. Federal spending on coal gasification re- search and development is now helping to pay merely for the technological base of the huge synthetic fuel structure that industry will build to assure the Na- tion's energy future. Mr. President, we hear much these days about the possibility of fuel short- ages which could lead to brownouts or blackouts. I do not want to be an alarm- ist, but it seems to me that prudence and commonsense tell us we must get along with the program the President has rec- ommended. I trust Congress will see fit to act very soon on the supplemental money requests he has made for the purpose of assuring the Nation a plentiful supply of clean energy. For if it does not, the program envisioned by President Nixon for accelerated research and for the emergence of a synthetic fuel industry in this decade will be jeopardized. CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there further morning business? If not, morn- ing business is concluded. A UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREE- MENT-TIME FOR ROLLCALL VOTES ON TREATIES AND PROTO- COL ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1971 Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that this time not be charged against either side. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order pro- viding for the three rollcalls on the two treaties and one protocol to begin at 11 o'clock Monday next be changed to 1 o'clock Monday next. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, it can be anticipated, then, that the debate on phase 2 will begin at the conclusion of the morning business on Monday next. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE ~-- APPROPRIATIONS, 1972 Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, yester- day, when the defense bill was passed, I asked unanimous consent that certain technical corrections be made in the bill. We find this morning that there was a mistake made in addition of figures. I therefore ask unanimous consent that the Secretary of the Senate be author- ized in the engrossment of Senate amendments to H.R. 11731 to correct the figure beginning on line 26 on page 23 and line 1 on page 24 to $2,352,319,000 and correct the figure in the amendment by the Senator from Colorado from $2,293,619,000 to $2,352,319,000. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. ALLEN). Without objection, it is so ordered CREDIT UNION SHARE INSURANCE AMENDMENTS The PRESIDENT pro tempore. In ac- cordance with the previous order, the Chair lays before the Senate the unfin- ished business, which the clerk will re- port. - The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: Calendar No. 438, H.R. 9961, a bill to pro- vide Federal credit unions with 2 addi- tional years to meet the requirements for insurance, and for other purposes. The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Debate on the bill is controlled. Who yields time? - Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes on the bill. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, just 13, Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 S 19618 Approved For Ai11,%MAMP-Z MAM000400 may. 24, 1971 months ago on October 19, 1970, a pro- gram of Federal share insurance was established. The law required that all Federal credit unions apply for the in- surance and authorized State-chartered credit unions to apply. The law provided that, -The Administrator shall reject the appli- cation of any credit union for insurance of its member accounts if he finds that its reserves are inadequate, that its financial condition and policies are unsafe or un- sound, that its management is unfit, that insurance of its member accounts would otherwise involve undue risk to the fund, or that its powers and purposes are incon- sistent with the promotion of thrift among its members and the creation of a source of credit for provident or productive purposes. If the application of a Federal credit union was rejected by the Administrator, because it failed to meet the require- ments for insurance, the credit union was allowed a 1-year period in which to correct any deficiencies and obtain in- surance. If it was not insurable within the year, the law required the Adminis- trator to either suspend or revoke its charter. At the present time, there are just under 1,300 active credit unions whose shares have not been insured. Unless the requirement of the present Credit Union Act that the Administrator suspend or revoke the charter of Federal credit unions which do not become insured within 1 year from the initial rejection is amended, the liquidation of Federal credit unions could begin in January of 1972. Section 1 of H.R. 9961 would extend the time period during which Federal credit unions may qualify for share in- surance for an additional 2 years, or a total of 3 years. The Administrator of the National Credit Union Administra- tion has estimated that about half of the initially rejected credit unions will be qualified for insurance within the year from the date of their initial rejection and that, given additional time, all but about 365 credit unions would become insurable. This is an estimate looking forward for a 2-year period. Section 2 of the bill provides that Fed- eral share insurance may not be denied to State credit unions which may accept demand deposits under State law, if the credit union otherwise meets the require- ments for insurance established under the act, provided however, that the de- mand deposits are not covered by the Federal share insurance and that the demand deposit accounts are subordinate to. share accounts in the event of the liquidation of such an insured State credit union. This provision was approved by the committee in response to a situ- ation existing in the State of Rhode Is- land where the legislature enacted legis- lation which permitted credit unions chartered by the State to offer demand deposits subject to certain conditions. Section 2 of the committee bill does not provide demand deposit authority for federally chartered credit unions nor is it intended in any way to either en- courage or discourage demand deposit Authority for credit unions which are under State jurisdiction. Section 3 of the bill provides the Ad- ministrator of the National Credit Union Administration with additional author- ity in the liquidation of a credit union or in assisting a credit union which may be in financial difficulty. Under present law, the Administrator is authorized to merge a credit union under his jurisdic- tion only with another insured credit union. He is authorized to guarantee the obligations of a credit union only to a third party insured credit union. The committee bill would authorize the Ad- ministrator to make such appropriate arrangements with any credit union, in- dividual, partnership, corporation, trust, estate, cooperative, association, govern- ment or governmental subdivision or agency, or other agency, for the purpose of merger or for the purpose of improv- ing the financial status of the Federal Credit Union. - Mr. President, the bill before us bears the number H.R. 9961 and is, in effect, identical with the bill passed by the House.. During discussion in committee, an amendment was presented which was rejected, but I understand it will be pre- sented on the Senator floor today. With this brief explanation of the pur- pose of the bill, I will yield the floor. I expect to claim more time to discuss the amendment if it is offered. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time? Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Alabama is recognized. Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I cer- tainly support and concur in prompt leg- islation that will prevent some Federal credit unions from being forced into liquidation. The Senator from Utah is the Senator who is entitled to the credit for bringing share insurance into being. He advo- cated it in the beginning, and this year introduced the legislation we are con- sidering today. So far as I know, there is no controversy on the bill. We all agree that the legislation should be enacted. As has already been noted, last year we enacted legislation providing Federal credit unions with share insurance pro- gram. In addition, we provided that State chartered credit unions could ob- tain share insurance if they wished to do so and if they could meet the quali- fication for share insurance contained in the legislation. The law establishing the share insur- ance program provided that Federal credit unions would have 1 year after an application for share insurance had been rejected to correct deficiencies-to get their houses in order-to obtain in- surance. The law further required that if a Federal credit union did not meet the standard within that year, the Adlninis- trator of the National Credit Union Ad- ministration could either suspend or re- voke the union's charter. Since enactment of last year's law, some 111,400 or about 88 percent of all Federal credit unions have been insured. About 1,200 have not. It is estimated that three-fourths of those that have not been insured can and will qualify for insur- ance. Certainly, Mr. President, I do not and I dare say that no one in this body wishes to cause any credit union to be suspended from operation or have its charter revoked because it cannot pres- ently qualify for insurance. Last year's legislation was an attempt to provide security and insurance for those who place their hard earned sav- ings in credit unions. The legislation was for the very purpose of protecting the credit union saver. Failure now to enact legislation extending the time to allow credit union to qualify for insurance would seem to me to nullify exactly what we were trying to accomplish by provid- ing the insurance program initially. PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Dudley L. O'Neal, staff director of our committee, and Mr. Reginald Barnes, may be per- mitted on the Senate floor during the debate on the bill. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. With- out objection, it is so ordered. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, will the Senator from Alabama yield me for 3 minutes on the bill? Mr. SPARKMAN. I yield to the Sena- tor from Wisconsin. Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, my remarks on H.R. 9961 will be necessarily brief because I believe the main contro- versy is on my amendment to the bill, and we will discuss that on separate time. I believe it is safe to say that all members of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs agreed that some immediate legislation is needed to prevent the forced liquidation of over 1,300 Federal credit unions. H.R. 9961 as reported by the committee provides a limited solution to the problem. I believe my amendment provides a far better solution; however, if my amendment should fail, I intend to support H.R. 9961 as reported. In order to understand the need for legislation, it is necessary to review the legislative history of the credit union share insurance program enacted last year. Under this legislation, credit unions were given the same type of deposit in- surance available to commercial banks and savings and loan associations. Each account was insured for a maximum of $20,000. The entire program operates on insurance premiums collected from the credit unions themselves, hence, there is no involvement of the taxpayers' money. I think that is very important, and I will bring it up again when my amend- ment is before the Senate. Under the law, share insurance was made optional for State-chartered credit unions, but mandatory for federally chartered credit unions. The adminis- tration of the program was assigned to the National Credit Union Administra- tion. The Administrator of that agency is directed to apply certain standards to those credit unions applying for insur- ance. Federal credit unions which fail to meet these standards are given one ad- ditional year from the time of their ini- tial application to qualify. If at the end of the 1-year period they still fail to qualify, their Federal charter must be revoked or suspended. Unless such a credit union were able to obtain a State Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 23, 197Vproved tff1fd*pg 1 . RDgl 96R000400120011-3 S 19521 nay The RESIDING OFFICER. Is there a suf le nt second? There is a sufficient second. The ye and nays were ordered. The PR IDING OFFICER. The ques- tion is on a eeing to the amendment as modified of a Senator from Colorado. The, yeas a nays have been ordered, The legislate clerk called the roll. Mr. BYRD o West Virginia. I an- nounce that the %enator from Indiana Dakota (Mr. McGo RN), and the Sen- a;or from Maine (Mr. usKIE) are nec- essarily absent. I further announce t t the Senator f ,m Idaho (Mr. CHURCH is absent on official business. Mr. GRIFFIN. I announ that the Senator from Maryland (Mr. LL), the Senator from New Hampsh (Mr. COTTON), the Senator from Ne York (Mr. JAVITS), and the Senator rom Maine (Mrs. SMITH) are necess ly absent. The Senator from South Dakota MUNDT) is absent because of illness. The Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) is detained on official business. The Senator from Ohio (Mr. SAXBE) is absent on official business. If present and voting, the Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY) and the Senator from Maine (Mrs. SMITH) would each vote "nay." The result was announced-yeas 59, nays 30, as follows: [No. 393 Leg.] YEAS-59 Aiken Fannin Nelson Allen Fong Packwood Allott Gambrell Pearson Baker Goldwater Pell Bayh Griffin Ribicoff Bennett Gurney Schweiker Bentsen Hansen Scott Bible Hollings Sparkman Boggs Hruska Spong Brock Hughes Stafford Brooke Humphrey Stevens Buckley Inouye Stevenson Case Jackson Taft Cook Jordan, Idaho, Talmadge Cooper Kennedy Thurmond Cranston Magnuson Tower Curtis Mathias Tunney Dole McGee Weicker Dominick McIntyre Williams Ervin Miller NAYS-30 Anderson Fulbright Mondale Bellmore Gravel Montoya Burdick Harris Moss /Byrd, Va. Hart Pastore Byrd, W. Va. Hatfield Proxmire Cannon Jordan,N.C. Randolph Chiles Long Roth Eagleton Mansfield Stennis Eastland McClellan Symington Ellender Metcalf Young NOT VOTING-11 Beall Javits Percy Church McGovern Saxbe Cotton Mundt Smith Hartke Muskie So Mr. DOMINICK'S amendment, as modified, was agreed to. Mr. DOMINICK. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. Mr. GOLDWATER. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. GRAVEL). The Chair recognizes the Sen- ator from Missouri. Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SYMINGTON. I yield to the Sen- ator from Montana. EXECUTIVE SESSION Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go into executive session, to consider cer- tain nominations at the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. U.S. COURTS The assistant legislative clerk read the following nominations, which were fa- vorably reported earlier today by the Committee on the Judiciary: James S. Holden, of Vermont, to be a U.S. district judge for the district of Vermont. Ralph F. Scalera, of Pennsylvania, to be a U.S. district judge for the western district of Pennsylvania. Clarence C. Newcomer, of Pennsyl- nia, to be a U.S. district judge for the e tern district of Pennsylvania. arles M. Allen, of Kentucky, to be a US. district judge for the western dist t of Kentucky. Alf d T. Goodwin, of Oregon, to be a U.S. 'rcuit judge for the ninth circuit. Levin . Campbell, of Massachusetts, to be a NS. district judge for the dis- Mr. M FIELD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous onsent that the nomina- tions be con 'dered en bloc. The PRES ING OFFICER. Without objection, the nominations are consid- Mr. MANS LD. Mr. President, I ask that the Preside t be immediately noti- fied of the confl ation of these nom- inations. The PRESID IN OFFICER. Without objection, it is so rdered. this evening Judge arles M. Allen of Louisville, Ky., to b a U.S. district judge for the western istrict of Ken- tucky. The nomination of J dge Allen by President Nixon has rece ved wide ap- proval in Kentucky. By rea on of educa- tion, experience as a prat cing lawyer and as an elected circuit urt judge, a court of general jurisdic on in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, dge Allen has superior qualifications. He a man of fine and respected family ba ground, of the highest integrity, and he a held in high regard by the bar, his co eagues of the judiciary and by the pe ple of Louisville and Jefferson County. I am sure that Judge Allen will his important office with great abilit and honor. LEGISLATIVE SESSION turn to the consideration of legislatio: business. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS, 1972 The Senate resumed the consideration of the bill (H.R. 11731) making appro- priations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972, and for other purposes. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, may we have order? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Senators will take their seats, and attaches will leave the Chamber. Mr. SYMING'I Mr. President, a premise to these observations, and the amendment which I thereupon plan to offer to this military appropriation bill, mnnh In{:ArPstp(i in the anp .i n of the overall structure and functionin 'of our intelhQence apparatus as is s Ouse of Representatives. IFS. IDING OFFICER. Will the Senator send his amendment to the desk, so that it may be reported? Mr. SYMINGTON. The amendment is at the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be stated. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows: On page 49, between lines 2 and 3, insert the following: SEC. 745. None of the funds appropriated in this Act in excess of $4,000,000,000 may be available for expenses by the Central Intel- ligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, and for intelligence work performed by or on behalf of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, one notes that earlier this month, in its re- port to the House, the House Committee on Appropriations ma a the o owing o serve ons; and inasmuch as those ob- servations confirm both our own think- ing and our findings over recent years, I will read them into the RECORD at this point: The Committee feels that the intelligence operations of the Department of Defense have grown beyond the actual needs of the Department and are now receiving an inor- irate share of the fiscal resources of the epartment. Redundancy is the watchword in many in- elligence operations. The same information sought and obtained by various means and y various organizations. Coordination is less effective than it should e. Material is collected which cannot be eval- ated in a reasonable length of time and is New intelligence means have become avail- program without offsetting reductions in old procedures. As noted in this House report, their conclusions were based on extensive hearings-let us note also that last year this House o=Fee help . e hearings on intelh'genne annuities in the Department of Defense, the bulk of wh proce ings were included in the public recor. Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 S 19522 Approved For Rele se af0 S 161N , 1JPQ&&00?R" 4001200 ovember 23, 1971 During these hearings, the then As- sistant Secretary of Defense, now Secre- tary of the Army, Secretary Froehike, who had been directed by the Secretary of Defense to review the intelligence pro- grams, also testified that he was sur- prised to find that there w hensi inventory of DO intelligence assets. He thereupon sae a he concurred with the committee's expressed concern about duplication in the intelli- gence community. In addition, this report states that the committee expects to review the in- telligence program in total during the hearings on the fiscal year 1973 budget request. In reviewing the he 7-ingc arid renrsrts of i>_tPrrPStar Rena.tpenmmj . 's_ we ca,n fin no nom ark, lie interest on their part with respect the b lions appropriated annually for intelligence. Back in 1966, as a member of both the CIA Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee and also the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I became tor, was told by a staff member-who obviously does know about it-that he could not tell the Senator even the amount or anything else about this, seems to me a shocking and unprece- dented situation. I have never heard of this before, except from the executive branch. I have never heard of a member of a Senate staff telling a Senator that he could not tell him what he knew about the relevant business of any committee. . Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the Sena- tor for his contribution. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Does the Senator know of any precedent for this? Mr. SYMINGTON. I do not. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Did the Senator ever have this experience before? Mr. SYMINGTON. No; I did not. Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is what I mean. This is the only time I have ever heard of it. Mr. SYMINGTON. This means that these billions of dollars of the taxpayers' money are being authorized and appro- priated by the Senate with the knowledge and later that day-Saturday-a mem- ber of that organizatio elivered the White House press release to my home, stat> th6t the press. release was al .the t gency . knew a . it a _ h . time. It is clear to anyone familiar with the executive branch that this reorganiza- tion: First, could be turning over the intelligence operation to the military exactly what the National Defense Act. of 1947 took careful steps to prevent- and second, places policy control of intel- ligence in a new committee in the White House, headed by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, Mr. Kissinger, on this committee sit both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ss well as the Deputy Secretaries of State and Defense. This gives Executive privilege to the final policymakers, and therefore, except for the power of the purse, enables said policymakers to, in effect, take the entire question of intelligence out of the hands of Congress. The fact that I do not think such a. development is right or proper, Mr. President, is the basic thrust of the amendment that I am offering this eve- ning. I thereupon made a short talk on the floor of the Senate delineating this ex- traordinary development, and protesting that such a major change incident to our overall security should not be made without the knowledge let alone the ap- proval, of anybody in the Senate; and I ask unanimous consent that this talk be inserted at the end of these remarks. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 1.) Mr. SYMINGTON. The Chairman of the newly formed White House Intel- ligence Committee, Dr. Kissinger, there- upon called me and said I was right, that the change should have been discussed with the proper committees of Congress, that the reorganization details had been handled by Mr. George Shultz, and that the, Kissinger, would arrange for Mr. hultz to come down and talk to me about it. I thanked him for his call, but said I felt any such a briefing should be given to the committees, not to an individual Member. That is the last I have heard of it. In a recent article in the U.S. News & World Report, written by the former Ex- ecutive Assistan . to t:F P p t~'~71? i,ctor 01 , a very serious charge was made-namely, that the present setup gives "the military considerable power: to shape intelligence estimates." The ar- ticle went on: Whenever you're working on a problem that the military is deeply interested In-be- cause it's affecting one of their programs, or their war in Vietnam, or something-and you're not saying what they want you to say, the browbeating starts: the delaying tactics, the pressure to get the report to read more like they want it to read, in other words, in- fluencing intelligence for the benefit of their own operation or activity. A former member of the CIA establish- ment, in a reply to these statements pub- lished in the same issue of that magazine, stated: concerned that, because of their lack of ,,,,and approval of just five of its Members. knowledge of certain intelligence mat- i result. of their gslga= ters bearing on foreign policy, members of the Foreign Relations Committee were not in a position to make intelligent judgment of certain U.S. policies over- seas. Accordingly, I presented this situ- ation as I saw it to the then chairman of Armed Services, the late Senator Russell. January 1967, Chairman Russell in $ three members or t tion-1969-71-of our worldwide trea- ties and commitment, both staff teams of the Senate Subcommittee on U.S. Se- c' ens and Commitments j~pIT~Ll rn e r'or lgn r?piatinnc rQm_ inittee found heavy lication-there- i: r wa- s--#e--off a taxpayer s' money, in the intelligence fiel an ,per aps a en ' ore important, they found many con- ~113n 11ditlons which were not known by those on the Senate committees designated to review our military and political policies and position with other countries. The cover story in a recent issue of Newsweek magazine confirms this confu- ' on nad waste, and details general dis- satisfaction with much of it. The arti- cle states that President Nixon's "major complaints are faulty intelligence, run- rations Committee 'IA Su ommi ee o rmed Services, which committee also included members of the Senate Appropriations Committee. This arrangement presumably continues, but the members of the Foreign Relations Committee participate as a matter of grace, not of right. I,say presumably be- cause i an case said CIA Subcommittee has not me o ice site year, antic lro3n what un ers an oes no pan to meet. During a markup lnst week of military appropriations b7 the Senate Defense 4pproriat ons Subcommittee, "no .-n- lar~ aprop a it on requests contained in this1ll for momO le someenn "ili- gence operating or/and adviso groups in the executive liranc o~ this overn- As an ex officio member of Appropria- tions because of being the ranking mem- ber of the Armed Services Committee, after the subcommittee meeting I called .the staff of Appropriations to ask ingcn- aro, , l a`ni,f "15ga 2 PP -' i'- a- tions? but I was told that, except for the ~fteR members en - billionodollar intelligence appropriations, even the other members o the Ap- pr rations Committee Mr. T. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? That is such a shocking statement that I thought some attention should be called to it. Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield to the able Senator. Mr. FULBRIGHT. The statement the Senator just made, that he, as a Sena- away budgets, and a disparity between it glut of facts and a poverty of anal- ysis." Mr. President, several times today on the floor, people have justified their posi- tion on the grounds the President felt this way, or felt that way. Now let me repeat how the President feels about this smatter, according to this article: President Nixon's "major complaints are faulty intelligence, runaway budgets and a disparity between a glut of facts and a poverty of analysis." This article also asserts: Bureaucracy has transformed what began as an amateurish happy few into a sprawling intelligence conglomerate encompassing more than a dozen government agencies, 200,000 employees and a budget of some $6 billion a year. As one Member of the Senate, despite my committee assignments, I do not know whether those figures are accurate or inaccurate, too large or too small. Earlier this month the news media began calling me one evening about a :major reorganization in the intelligence field that had just been announced by this Government. I told them the truth- that Iknew notlu&aa IT_ Ee press carried a story about this Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 23, 197pproved 1A1 ~ PjaDR? MJ96R000400120011-3 S 19523 in both the Senate and the House there are itional and often unnecessary dollars111ed-if pressures, combined subcommittees of both Appropriations and ,ad will be a ud et be- warren s ac7 fiat been char c- Armed Services. In the Senate, members of cause bud e on lntelh rice to tic of au ntelliva^^? k"^ax'U~rlae and the Foreign Relations Committee are invited . e ma es of the lans rogranis. andAhat-votmtry~- because our to join briefings of the other subcommittees. pro uc on o t e 2ON[ le enemy and political and military actions were ap- And then states: fnv estimates, rY proved by the Congress on the basis of `'`I submit that there is no federal agency of I hay been higher than o the misinformation and a lack of informa- our government whose activities receive civilians. tion. closer scrutiny and "control" than the CIA. now edge-intelligence-about the in summary, therefore, I do not be- Based on the facts presented above, the plans and programs of the possible lieve the Senate can meet its responsibili- reverse of that statement is true in my enemy is generally considered to be at ties, or exercise its "constitutional pre- opinion, and it is shameful for the Amer- least as important as any other factor rogative" if this bill is approved under scan people to be so misled. There is no in the formulation of the defense budget. these circumstances; therefore, I offer Federal agency of our Government whose As but one example of that importance, this amendment which has been read at activities receive less scrutiny and control there follows a colloquy between the dis- the desk and which provides that the than the CIA; and the same is true of tinguished present chairman of the Sen- Senate impose a ceiling on the amount of ter intelligence agencies of the govern- ate Appropriations Committee and funds in this bill that can be expended ent who reportedly receive billions of former Secretary of Defense McNamara, for intelligence activities during the fiscal dollars more each year than does the CIA. during the defense appropriations hear- year in question. I have the greatest respect for the five ings of 1967: Responsible news media continue to members of the Senate Appropriations Senator ELLENDER. What part does the State assert to the American people that the Committee who alone of all Senators Department take in making decisions that cost of intelligence to the American tax- know the details of this multibillion-dol- have resulted in the programs you are pre- payer now runs to between $5 billion and lar authorization and appropriation. But senting to us now? $6 billion. I do not believe that figure is I do not believe that they, and they alone, Secretary MCNAMARA. That State Depart- necessarily correct, but if it is correct, it should render final decision on both said ment is informed of, but does not affect my but confirms the many informed reports recommendations as to what ought to be we have had about duplication and waste. authorizations and appropriations with done. out the knowledge, let alone the approval, Senator ELLENDEII. Are your recommenda- I now ask for the yeas and nays. of any other Senators, including those on tions founded solely on what you get from The yeas and nays were ordered. the Armed Services Committee who are the JCS? EXHIBIT 1 G~cretary MCNAMARA. No, sir; they are not. not on this five-member Subcommittee of The JCS are, of course, the principal military CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT OF INTELLIGENCE Appropriations, and all members of the advisers to the President by law, and of much ACTIVITIES Senate Foreign Relations Committee. more importance they are actually his mill- ( Statement by Senator Stuart Symington) The latter committees have fully as tary advisers because of their experience. But I that Friday the White House announced much. interest in our military and polit- the national Intelligence estimates are t = n t that the President had ordered a reorganiza- ical activities in foreign lands a s do mem- in m y rPnnmmen fins w e l l tion of the intelligence community. I ask bers of this Appropriations Subcommit- as o er information. unanimous consent that their press release tee; in fact, the heads of the CIA in for- Aga n, in that this year the CIA Sub- to this end be placed in the Record at the eign countries operate under the super- conclusion these remarks. vision of the Ambassador; and those Am- committee of the Armed Services Com- As raon eporta ed b by by the press, the Aaministra- v bassadors report to the Secretary of mittee has not met once, it would appear tion's plan creates an "enhanced leadership there is now even more secrecy in the role" for the Director of the Central Intelli- State. handling of intelligence funds; and this Bence Agency, turns more of the operating As a matter of fact, and as anybody at a time when there is a steadily rising responsibility for that Agency over to the knows who has traveled around in these chorus among the people of this country Deputy Director, and creates or reconstitutes foreign countries where we are at war of a variety of boards, committees and groups in what might be called partial peace, the for less secrecy. who are charged with important responsi- heads of the CIA in these countries oiler- Apparently some people believe that bilities within the intelligence community. ate under the direct supervision of the the very word "intelligence," in itself, The reported aim of the reorganization is ambassador, and those ambassadors re- requires that all these billions should to improve the "efficiency and effectiveness" only be authorized and appropriated in of United States intelligence activities; and port to the Secretary of State. such great secrecy. cress comments on this move inclfide ref- Today we all know this Nation faces To me, this does not wash. We author- erences to alleged concern over the size and serious fiscal and monetary problems. ize and appropriate, through the proper cost of intelligence operations; also to gen- Our economy is in grave trouble and one congressional committees, tens of bil- eral unhappiness about various specific in- of the chief reasons for this condition lions of dollars annually for the other telligence estimates. Such reports have been has to do with our vast military expendi- parts of the military. officially denied, but it is acknowledged that tures at home and abroad. component this reorganization is the result of "an ex- There that premise, apprehension about There is nothing secret, for example, haustive study" of the United States intel- With t be increased about about the constantly referred to cost of ligence activities. this situation reorganization emi an only announced a nuclear aircraft carrier, or the cost of It could be that the reorganization an- the s the be the C-5A, or the cost of the main battle nounced last week by the White House is a earlier this month by the White House tank; but knowledge of these costs does constructive move. in recent years there in turn increases the influence of the not mean that either the Congress or has been a growing belief that there was military in e formulation o In a i- the American public have been informed, heavy duplication and therefore waste the overall intelligence community. ithi n P a was a ecre ar in in case of a war, how, along with our w Tie$ art.- eri the --a- Unfortunately, however, it has been impos- the Defense military personnel, it is planned to utilize sable for the public, or even concerned In act I monl re a passage of at into war plans, something which should information onV thisV subject for informed aitfor-Se are Patterson-and there- he studiously avoided. judgment, the-, as unammous consent that aDDur now Lne varluua ul~cni c., ur- or to determine what will be their prac- tniis wording be printed in the RECORD f on, or p an tical effect. at the conclusion of my remarks. y should there be greater danger to one thing is clear, based on the manner The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. national security in making public overall in which the reorganization was handled SPONG). Without objection, it is so or- intelligence costs than in making public and announced; namely, the Executive other overall security costs? Branch does not consider either the orga- tiered. nization, or the operation, of the intelli- (See exhibit 2.) I am certain in my own mind that we gence community to be matters of concern Mr, SYMINGTON. Mr. President, if wow iQ ne to the Congress. To my knowledge there was this analysis is correct, many billlongo ' war-killing people and having our own no advance consultation whatever with the Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 Approved For Rel 2001 S`11I CIV8S73B00296R0004001200 -3 S 19524 GRES~ AL RECi3RD - SENATE 1Vovember 23, 1971 Congress regarding this reorganization, or even any advance notice of what had been decided. In 1947 the Central Intelligence Agency was established by act of Congress. Its powers and duties are specified by law. Its Director and Deputy Director are subject to con- firmation by the Senate. Last year the Congress appropriated an amount estimated by the press to be be- tween five and six billion dollars for the activities of this agency and the other com- ponent parts of the intelligence community. As one member of the Senate, I will not accept the proposition that the Congress' role in organizing the intelligence commu- nity ended twenty-four years ago with the passage of the National Security Act, or that our only current and continuing respon- sibility Is to appropriate whatever number of billions of dollars the Executive Branch requests so as to handle this work. Last Saturday, when I learned from the press about this Intelligence reorganization, as ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee I wrote the Chairman of that Committee, requesting hearings either by the full Committee or by the CIA Sub- committee, of which I have been a memt-,er for some fifteen years. In that letter I pre- sented the fact that this Subcommittee has not met once this year. This latest reorganization on the face of it raises questions about past, present and future performance of our multi-billion dol- lar annually intelligence community; ques- tions such as If it has been inefficient, what and where were its deficiencies? In what sense does it need to be more "responsive?" What is implied about the past by the reference in the press release to the objec- tive of insuring "strengthened leadership" in the future? The White House announcement offers neither answers to these questions, nor ex- planations of the remedies which have now been unilaterally decreed. In order to understand properly said action by the Executive Branch, Congress should know the answers to such questions as the following: How is the leadership role of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency "en- hanced" by the creation of a new and obvi- ously more powerful supervisory committee chaired by the Advisor to the President for National Security Affairs, on which new Board not only sits the Attorney General but also the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Has this new White House committee been given authority or/and responsibility which heretofore was the responsibility of the CIA; and which the Congress, under the Na- tional Security Act, vested in the Agency? How can the integrity of the intelligence product be assured when responsibility for the most critical aspects of intelligence analysis Is taken out of the hands of career professionals and vested in a combination of military professionals and the White House staff? ExmBrr 2 CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY SEC. I02. (a) There is established under the National Security Council a Central In- telligence Agency with a Director of Central Intelligence who shall be the head thereof, and with a Deputy Director of Central In- telligence who shall act for, and exercise the powers of, the Director during his absence or disability. The Director and the Deputy Director shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, from among the commissioned of- ficers of the armed services, whether in an active or retired status, or from among in- dividuals in civilian life: Provided, however, That at no time shall the two positions, of the Director and Deputy Director be occupied simultaneously by commissioned oWoers of the armed services, whether in an active or retired status. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, if the Senator from Missouri will yield I do not have a copy of the Senator's amend- ment but I made a note as it was read. It states: The Central Intelligence Agency, the Na- tional Security Agency, and the Defense In- telligence Agency, and for intelligence work performed by or on behalf of the Army, Navy, and the Air Force. Now would the Senator break that down into, say, the intelligence that is acquired by a photorecon flight, one, or the intelligence- Mr. SYMINGTON. May I ask the Sen- ator if he is speaking on my time or on the time of the opposition? Mr. GOLDWATER. I am not sure that I oppose it. I want merely to find out how deep the Senator wants to go. Mr. ELLENDER. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Arizona is recognized for 5 minutes. Mr. GOLDWATER. I thank the Sena- tor from Louisiana for yielding me this time. What disturbs me, as the Senator knows as well as anyone else in this Chamber, the Army and Navy, the Air Force and the Marine Corps are always, constantly, engaged in obtaining battle- field intelligence and information, some of which applies to the kind of intelli- gence we are discussing here and some of which applies to intelligence needed to conduct a battle. But the thing that disturbs me is, is there any way to allo- cate or to determine the cost of that kind of intelligence? Mr. SYMINGTON. I say to the Sena- tor I do not know. No doubt millions of Americans have seen the chart in News- week magazine, however, a chart called "The United States Intelligence Com- rnunity." It does not give figures for that agency which, to the best of my knowl- edge, spent by far the most money, but it does say in the chart that the Army has 38,500 intelligence staffers and a budget of $775 million; that the Navy has 10,000. It does not give the Navy money; that the Air Force has 60,000 staffers with a budget of $2.8 billion. It says the Central Intelligence's budget is $750 million. It says the Defense Intelli- gence Agency has a budget of $100 mil- lion and spends an added $700 million through Armed Forces. Then it goes into additional agencies-six of them, no fig- ures. I am a member-of Armed Services, an ad hoc member of Appropriations, a member of the CIA Subcommittee, and a member of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee, and I would like to know what is going on in this vital field. When we read that $6 billion is being spent on intelligence, that may be bil- lions of dollars too high, but I would like to know something about it. Mr. GOLDWATER. The thing ,I am trying to satisfy in my own mind is how we would go about the bookkeeping of the very elementary type of intelligence- gathering that involves a patrol sent out for intelligence purposes? Mr. SYMINGTON. The figure I state in the amendment is too high, according to some-$4 billion. Mr. GOLDWATER. I am not arguing with the Senator about that. I am in- clined to agree with him, but I think the amendment would be better-and better understood-if we did not get down to the nitty-gritty of 1 and 1 is 2, at the sergeant or the private level, who is sent out to undertake a photo recon- flight. I am speaking here to their problems and their costs. The question I had is: How far down the hole do we go before we stop? Mr. SYMINGTON. Let me answer my able friend in this way. We had staff men go in certain areas of the world and they found great duplication. They found the intelligence units of the CIA, the De- partment of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force all directed to particular intelligence, tremendous duplication, therefore waste. If it is clarification that the able Sen- ator wants, that is what I want-namely, what we are doing month after month with these gigantic sums of money being expended in the intelligence field. If we are going to have a Congress that means anything, prerogatives, the proper Senate committees ought to be informed. Mr. GOLDWATER. I am not arguing with the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield the Senator. from Arizona 1 additional minute. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- ator from Arizona is recognized. for 1 additional minute. Mr. GOLDWATER. Mr. President, lack of redundancy is the secret of what to my opinion is the best intelligence of the world, the British Intelligency Agency. We have three separate groups that keep piling in an input of redundancy, and each of them becomes a problem of de- termining which are the most valid. I thank the Senator from Missouri. Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, again the House Appropriations Com- mittee, this month, said: The committee feels that the intelligence operation of the Defense Department is grow- ing beyond the actual needs of the depart- ment and are now costing an Inordinate share of the fiscal resources of the department. Redundancy is the watchword of any intelli- gence operation. The same information sought to be obtained by various members and various organizations Is naturally lees effective than it should be. Naturally that stimulated my interest in trying to get at the facts. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I want to speak after the Senator from Louisi- ana. However, will the Senator yield me 2 minutes for the purpose of asking a question on that point? Mr. ELLENDER. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I refer to the same sentence that the Senator referred to with respect to the intelli- gence of the Army, the Navy, and the Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 November 23,A .ved For ~@II IONA 74l3R SA00400120011-3 S 195,25 Air Force. The Senator does not mean to Agency. Everyone knows what the this new reorganization, should it not b that is done at the level of a battalion? newspapers. Why is it necessary? What Mr. SYMINGTON. That is what we are fli +i ve 1l,v and patrol for the purpose of seeking example, on March 31, 1971, in the in the Committee on Armed Services out and getting prisoners to try to get ~,,For enate Armed Services Committee hear- that the Senator knows of? intelligence about the enemy. g, I asked the question: Mr. SYMINGTON. No. Mr. SYMINGTON. I would not want to On page 2 of the congressional data sheet Mr. FULBRIGHT. And the Commit- Include the battlefield, but I do want to e lest item on the table of aircraft procure- tee on Armed Services does not author- include all military operations of the ent program is "classified projects" $7- ize anything specifically for intelligence? Central Intelligence Agency. The Sec- 0,000, requested for 72. This is almost one- Mr. SYMINGTON. There is no auretary of efense stated, in open session: th of the total aircraft procurement thorization in any way to pass upon in- . _ est. Would you please tell us briefly what. . __. in h aj l .w u s _'-Y. in Laos. Armed Services. The able chairman of I believe that is true because he said it. "I'his means the Central Intelligence Agency is running the war in Laos, and if so, the Foreign Relations Committee anc1 the Armed Services Committee ought to know at least something about it. Mr. STENNIS. W. President, for one illustration, the Senator's amendment refers to whist are in the budget items here for the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Defense Intelligence Agency. That is the primary references and inclusions that are in the Senator's amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator from Mississippi. Mr. SYMINGTON. No intelligence unit should evade the purposes of my amend- ment by delegating some of the work they would normally do to the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force. Mr. STENNIS. I agree. Mr. SYMINGTON. I feel that with- out reservation because in this article they state: Bureaucracy has transformed what began as an amateurish happy few into a sprawl- ing intelligence conglomerate encompassing more than a dozen government agencies, 200,000 employees and a budget of some $6 billion a year. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. We will come back to that point later. I know that the Senator from Louisiana wants to speak now. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? Mr. SYMINGTON. I will be glad to yield on my own time to the Senator from Arkansas. Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, I would like to say that the distinguished Senator from Missouri has opened the rovided in oral briefing. Mr. FULBRIGHT. How long has the That exchange was declassified and Senator been a member of that commit- then made a matter of public record. tee? r, SYMINGTON. It will be standing In the published hearings last year of 20 years next January. the House Appropriations Committee, Mr. FULBRIGHT. Would not the Sen- ProeWkg now Assistant Secretary Secretary of of the Army, ator have heard of such hearings if they , as plenty critical of the intelligence took place? se Mr. SYMINGTON. I would think so. He He said the cost of all military intelli- Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator hears of all hearings that take place in the gence activities c - Committee on Foreign Relations. Is that fig" teTfigenc e, was $2.8 billion; and that correct? was pu s Mr. SYMINGTON. Yes. I an se 1 Mr. FULBRIGHT. What is the motive nut are lye s trying r to do o do ameetT counter what , or reason for keeping secret the amount ry uin r' of money being spent, for example, by a p- the National Security Agency, which I DroDr & on Comes a ong_ we are told tha..t the Russians are out-distancing us every- b''''i'eei, is inc largess operation? Why is where. We are told this by the same Sen- the amount of money secret? I am not ators. It is like the swallows coming back talking about who their spy is, if they to Capistrano. And I wonder how that can have one. Why do they insist on secrecy b t h ou t e amounts? be because a psssic ~Pn lot more money Mr. SYMINGTON. I do not know. than the Ruians seen _ We aV,p arvad may be that we devote so much of the uu 11VL xuuw we nave the Na- money in this bill to nonmilitary items tional Security Agency? such as intelligence. That may be an ex- ever discovered SYMred was . The worst spy we o Na- Agency, cy, a be probably in the wh planation. It has always been a puzzle to anal Security was me why we get so little in hardware for was our money. We are told that we are a h w leading a gay and double life, a spy who, O' when caught, io. second-class power, that we do not have The point of f my amendment himself as many airplanes or ships as the Rus- em- on sians. We hear this all the time. Armed Services we en the Committee on Committee on Either we are, or we are not, as strong F oreign Relations and the not have ve anything las we say. Certainly we spend plenty of like the the necessary facts to money. Are hearings held in the Commit- cats the increasingly limited resources eslof tee on Armed Services on this issue? Has this country y between l internaatitiona a al l and d the Senator ever attended any hearings owee domestic programs. on the question of the activities of the Mr. FULBRIGHT. In this overall ques- National Security Agency? tion the Senator spoke about secrets, and .. Mr Q-m'TTTT/ 'iYThT We wer b i f a b e r e e y h D e irect .L '1 the g - The Senator talks about battlefield Agpnrv wise, e vel committee, la secrets. Nobody is asking how many men January: and then this mnrninv b .__ _. . e are out country and for the Congress. much as spent by the National~Secu- amou ry. we are t goes in the The Senator is quite aware that he rity Agwency? for mou intelligence because money tha t it goes into this rte has touched on a very sensitive nerve Mr. SYMINGTON. I asked but he did amount a very because billions of dollars of intelligence not know. . I have not t heard any any legitimate reason, why that suggestion, amount mount funds are contained in this appropria- Mr. FULBRIGHT. He does not know? should be secret, other than one last sug- tion. No one can tell where in this bill Mr. SYMINGTON. He does not know gestion. Is this just a way to cover up those funds are. When they read a line about the others, only his own in any expenditures so there can be no account- item and find that there is so much for detail. ing to the public or Congress? aircraft, or for a carrier, those may or Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is he not the head Mr. SYMINGTON. There are no five may not be the real amounts. of what is referred to as the intelligence gentlemen anywhere- This practice gives rise to questions community? Mr. FULBRIGHT. That is not the about every item in the appropriation. Mr. SYMINGTON. He is the chairman question. I want to ask the Senator why he thinks of the National Security Council Intelli- Mr. SYMINGTON. Let finish my it is necessary to keep secret the amount gence Committee. sentence. of money to be allocated from this ap- Mr. FULBRIGHT. Then his role is that There are no five gentlemen, in the propriation to the National Security f a coordinator. If anyone knows about Senate or anywhere else I respect more Approved For Release 2001/11/15 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000400120011-3 S 19526 Approved Fort-fit ftity415R {,F& P.1 ")LW0004001VO094t$er 23, 1971 +hn , these four and one lady. But this executive session about the authoriza- funded from many different appropria- pruuee4 Vl 1111Lic iJ cos-- -..v _ not the people involved. thi 1i a Bence ca ory. Mr. President, as I said, this is a rath- Mr. FULBRIGHT. I hope that the Sen- 2C3T"C