Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 19, 2016
Document Release Date: 
October 24, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
October 5, 1971
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9.pdf3.82 MB
NCLAI d For 11/21: CIA-RDP73BL0, 9 b hJ 2-9 U SECRET ROUTh4G AND RECORD SHEET SUBJECT, (Optional) FROAAs EXTENSION NO. L i l ti C l eg s a ve ounse DATE 5 October 1971 TO, (Officer designation, room number, and building) DATE OFFICER'S COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom R RECEIVED FORWARDED INITIALS to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.) 1.' The Director Attached for your information is the Congressional Record 2. coverage of the debate on the Symington amendment. l i t f i t P eres assages o spec a n 3. are marked or underscored. There are no references to 4, an investigation of the Agency. Stennis in his closing state- ment refutes much of what ? Symington says about the unavailability of information on b. expenditures in Laos. He also maintains that the Symington amendment does not add any 7. power to the Congress' legisla- tive control, that what has been going on in Laos has not violated 8. any law, and that nothing wrong has been done. 9. John M. Maury 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 61 Q U` MTE C) SECRET [] CONFIDENTIAL ^ us ONLY ^ UHCLA.Ss1 FI Ern Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9 IS. 15762 Approved For fi lM R(a P7-3BHM` R0005000300Vt9ober 4, 1971 Mr. ALLOTT. Now, Mr. President, I am ready, if the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, the chairman of the committee, is ready, and I am perfectly willing to ask for a quorum call to be taken out of both sides. I want to be sure that we have a recorded vote on this matter, and when we have enough Senators in the Chamber, we can ask for yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have previously been ordered. Mr. ALLOTT. If they have been or- dered, Mr. President, I think we should have a short quorum call. I suggest the absenceof a quorum, The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk' will call the roll. The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll. Mr. ALLOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. Me PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. ALLOTT. If it is agreeable to the chairman of the committee, the man- ager of the bill, I am willing to yield back the remainder of my time, if he is willing to yield back his, and we can then proceed, the yeas and nays having been ordered, to vote on amendment No. 430. Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, if there is no one who wishes time, I am ready to yield back the remainder of my time. Mr. ALLOTT. I yield back the re- mainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENT- SEN). All remaining time having been yielded back, the question is on agree- ing to the amendment No. 430 of the Senator from Colorado, as modified. On this question, the yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll. The legislative clerk called the roll. Mr. MANSFIELD. I announce that the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Bull- DICK), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. BYRD), the Senator from Idaho (Mr. CHURCH), the Senator from Missouri (Mr. EAGLETON), the Senator from Mis- sissippi (Mr. EASTLAND), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. HART), the Senator from Indiana (Mr. HARTKE), the Sen- ator from South Carolina (Mr. HoL- LINGS), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senator from Louisiana (Mr. LONG), the Senator from Washing- ton (Mr. MAGNUSON), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), the Senator from Connecticut. (Mr. RISrcoFF), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Mc ? INTYRE) , the Senator from Alabama (Mr. SPARKMAN), and the Senator from Nevada (Mr. CANNON) are necessarily ab- sent. I also announce that the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE), the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. MONTOYA), and the Senator from Georgia (Mr. TAL- MADCE) are absent on official business. I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. BURDICK), the Senator from Alaska (Mr. GRAVEL), the Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNUSON), the Sen- ator from Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE), the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. RIBI- coFF), the Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. MCINTYRE), the Senator from In- diana (Mr. HARTKE), the Senator from Minnesota (Mr. HUMPHREY), and the Senator from New Mexico (Mr. MoN- xoYA) would each vote "yea." Mr. SCOTT. I announce that the Sen- ator from Utah (Mr. BENNETT) is absent on official business. The Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. BELLMON), the Senator from New Hamp- shire (Mr. COTTON), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE), the Senator from Michigan (Mr. GRIFFIN), the Senator from New York (Mr. JAVITS), the Sen- ator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER) are necessarily absent. The Senator from South Dakota (Mr. MUNDT) is absent because of illness. The Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BROOK), and the Senator from Con- necticut (Mr. WEICKER) are detained on official, business. If present and voting, the Senator from Tennessee (Mr. BROCK), the Sen- ator from Kansas (Mr. DOLE), the Sen- ator from New York (Mr. JAVITS), the Senator from Illinois (Mr. PERCY), and the Senator from Texas (Mr. TOWER) would each vote "yea." The result was announced-yeas 65, nays 4, as follows: [No. 247 Leg.] YEAS-66 Aiken Fannin Nelson Allen Fong Packwood Allott Gambrell Pastore Anderson Goldwater Pearson Baker Gurney Pell Bayh Hansen Proxmire Beall Harris Randolph Bentsen Hatfield Roth Bible Hruska Saxbo Boggs Hughes Schweiker Brooke Inouye Scott Buckley Jackson Spong Byrd, Va. Jordan, N.C. Stafford Case Jordan, Idaho Stennis Chiles Mansfield Stevens Cook Mathias Symington Cooper McClellan Taft Cranston McGovern Thurmond Curtis Metcalf Tunney Dominick Miller Williams Ellender Moss Young Ervin Muskie NAYS-4 Fuibright Kenned Smith Stevenson y NOT VOTING-31 Bellmon Gravel Mondale Bennett Griffin Montoya Brock Hart Mundt Burdick Hartke Percy Byrd, W. Va. Hollings Ribicofl Cannon Humphrey Sparkman Church Javits Talmadge Cotton Long Tower Dole Magnuson Weicker Eagleton McGee Eastland McIntyre So Mr. ALLOTT'S amendment (No. 430) was agreed to. Mr. DOLE subsequently said: Mr. President, this morning I was unavoid- ably detained in returning to Washington from Kansas and narrowly missed the rollcall on the amendment sponsored by the distinguished senior Senator from Colorado (Mr. ALLOTT). Had I been present it would have been my privilege to join with the overwhelming majority of my colleagues in approving the Senator from Colorado's proposal to provide sub- stantial pay increases to members of the armed services. Having voted in favor of the earlier, Senate-passed version of the pay increase, I was gratified that Senate approval of this measure was achieved today. It is important to keep in mind that raising military pay scales is a matter of high national priority for two very crucial reasons. First, by increasing the pay of our men and women in uniform we fulfill an obligation to recognize and reward the contributions they are making to the maintenance of our national defense, In many cases their pay is woefully inade- quate and totally unjustified in terms of the responsibilities they bear and the obligations they owe to themselves and their families. And second, by putting military pay in closer competition with civilian wages we take a significant step toward ending the draft and creating an all-volunteer military force. For, only by making a military career attractive and secure monetarily, can we hope to draw to it the type of individuals needed to fulfill the requirements of modern na- tional defense. I commend the Senator from Colorado for his leadership in seeking to upgrade the pay scales of the Armed Forces and for his longstanding concern and devo- tion to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United States so proudly and with such great distinction to themselves and their Natign. ORDER FOR STAR PRINT OF S. 2620 Mr. MOSS. Mr. President, I ask unani- mous consent that a star print be ordered for S. 2620, the East-West Trade Ex- change Act of 1971, introduced by the Senator from Washington (Mr. MAGNU- SON) on Thursday, September 30, 1971. Due to an inadvertence, -an incorrect text was attached when the bill was intro- duced for referral, The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. BENTSEN). Without objection, it is so ordered. MILITARY. PROCUREMENT AU- THORIZATIONS, 1972 The Senate continued with the con- sideration of the bill (H.R. 8687) to au- thorize' appropriations during the fiscal year 1972 for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes, and other weapons, and research, development, test, and evaluation for the Armed Forces, and to prescribe the authorized personnel strength of the Selected Reserve of each Reserve component of the Armed Forces, and for other purposes. AMENDMENT NO. 434 The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STEVENSON). Pursuant to the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of amendment No. 434 by the Senator from Missouri (Mr. SYMING- TON), which the clerk will report. The,assistant legislative clerk read as follows: The Senator from Missouri (Mr. SymiNc- ToN) proposes amendment No. 434 as fol- lows: At the end of the bill add a new section as follows: "SEc. 506. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds authorized to be Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9 Ap ed For Rele jAMLb'W N a DO2 i1405D0030032-9 0 Ito i vts October 4, fr ropriated by this or any other ace in ay, 1110 11,100"111111 a 6?N=w--?- - - vested. Those facts prove conclusively be bligated or expended in any amount in eded to call the roll. exce of ~20o,000 00a for the purpose df r M? ALLOTT. Mr. President,14 ask that there has been a continuing and carryi 1g out directly or indirectly any ecb- una fmous consent that the o - er for growing American involvement. nomic r military assistance, or any opera- the orum call be rescinded. The only conclusion that can be drawn tion, p ject, or program of any kind, orj"for The RESIDING OFFICEWithout would appear to be that if there is to be providin any goods, supplies, materials, any limit on the increasing cost and ObjeCti it is so ordered. personnel, or advisers in, r se vices _ _ ..r., r,.. ..:.;.,...+ r move scope of our involvement in Laos, it will , Mr a hi b w-_ _ y =? ~- hat the w e year endin, June 30, 1972. titutional ? (b) In omputing the X200,000,000 1;m- was agree to be reconsl Bred. by means of its cons right to station on bligation and expenditur au- Mr. STEI~NIS. Mr, P1~ sident, I move appropriate, with understanding, the thority una r subsection (a) of this s ction to lay that otion on t 11e table, funds necessary to conduct war, in fiscal yea 1972, there shall be included Mr. PASTO E. Mr. president, I move It is now clear that for years the Con- in the comp ration the value of anyit/goods, to lay the mo 'on on :the table. gress has been appropriating money in supplies, ma Crisis, or equipment p ovi The PRESI NG FFICER. Another the blind to finance this Laotian war. We to, for, or o behalf of Laos in sugh fiscal al year by gift, Iloration, loan, lease, 2r other- amendment is n ng at the moment, have not had knowledge of how much spent; nor wise. For th purpose of this st bseotion, and it will take animous consent to haveywe was knowledge being of how any vises to, fan r on behalf of Laos, ut in no unanimous consent that I may move case less than 3 1/3 per centum of Mike amount reconsider the tote 11 which the amend- I offer today is to place the Congress in a position to exercise its constitutional the United Sates paid at the time such reed to a t . was g gen goods, supplies materials, or equipment were The PRES ING ICER. Is there responsibilities with regard to U.S. ac- acquired by th United States. I (c) No fun s may be obugated or ex- objection to the reque t of the Senator tivities in Laos; an objective which can pended for. any f the purposestdescribed in from Color do? The 'C air hears none, only be achieved provided the Congress subsection (a) if this section in, to, for, or and it is s ordered. places some overall ceiling on the amount tio to rahl 9 of money that can be spent in Laos and _ ar beginning e h ?--?, ye mo iS ther in any t o after June 30, 10t72, unless such funds have Mr. PASTORE. I so mov also takes steps been specifically authorized ~?y law enacted The Motion to lay on t e table was after the fact, the nature of ou>:acti es after the date of nactment,of this Act. In in Laos. . no case shall spp in any ainount in excess agMr ALLOTT. Mr, Preside\j_l. uggestUntil now, there has been no ceiling of the amount t spe be by ailthorized by law whatever on the amounts this Nation for any iscal year i i bligated or expended th0 Eybsence Of a quorum. for any such purpo a during such fiscal year. Tl1e PRESIDING OFFICEa clerk could spend in this war; indeed, there "(d) The o s oY s bsections (a) sea wiV call the roll. ?~^ has been little information available shout ,.. hat. our representatives have been obii -- d ditur o vase - spe Ceded LV call ulna. roll. g` '- ? funds to carry out co bat air operations Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. Presider I ask . declared Laotian, war to the American over the so-called 11o Chi Minh trails in us consent that the ordc?r for taxpayer have risen steadily as our in- i mo unan southern Laos, and vlr areas immediately" adjacent to such trail , pt' United states miii ~-~11d -----? - volvement in Laos-both our direct in- tart' forces. The PRESIDING OFFICER. With ut volvement and our indirect involvement "(e) After the dot of enactment of thi objection, it is so ordered. through the use of Thai troops-has Act, whenever any request is made to. th CONTROL OF THE COST OF THE SECRET WAR IN steadily deepened. Congress for the appigpriation of funds fo LAOS I believe that many in this chamber will be surprised, even now, to learn the use in, for, or on behhlt, of Laos for any fists Mr. SYIVlINQ. Mr. President, to- year, the President,sh' 11 furnish a written degree of the rise in the costs and our report to the Congress explaining the pur day auld propose for the Senate's activities, year s year. pose for which sue fu ds are to be used i consideration a revised version of an such fiscal year. p amendment to the military procurement The figures on the cost of the military (f) The President s -all ? submit to th authorization bill which I proposed erigi- assistance program that were obtained Congress within lrty d ys after the end o pally during consideration of the bill by by the staff of the Subcommittee on U.S. each quarter oft ch s al year ins the Armed Services Committee. Security Agreements and Commitments with the fiscal /year whi h begins July 1, This amendment, with one exception, Abroad from our officials in Laos do pro- 1971, a writte)}l report s sowing the total v,ould establish a ceiling of $200 million vide one index, a In 1963, the year in which the military half of amount La ,'osfuEi rlsuxing the the prepxeein, erring for, qurartton of eorbe- by on U.S. expenditures in Laos during the .. _ sag,...., 1972 for economic airl miii- ~;~+ar,ne nrnmram hpeon flip staff was clude in suo report a genes 1 breakdown of tart' assistance, and all other U.S. aCtivi- told that the cost-the amount actually the total amount expended describing the ties. That exception would be costs con- spent-was $11.9 million. different p1irposes for whi such funds nected with combat air operations by During the following year, 1964, the were expel ded , and the tot amount ex- U.S. forces over the Ho Chi Minh trail cost rose to $21.4 million. needed for/such purpose.a ? area in Southern Laos. The P ESIDING OFFICE . The time . We now know that for' at least 10 years In 1965, that cost reached $40.8 mil- on the amendment is' limited to 5 hours. ' the U.S. Government has been conduct- lion; in 1966, $59.7 million, and in 1967, Who yi lds time? ing a war in Laos. I might add, inasmuch $80.8 million. th ca1 ear 10171 the coat had fi e s y rulvli,r;u>; D. Mr. Mr. re"sent fore the Committee on Foreign Relations risen to $162.2 million. / NSFIELD. Mr. Pres, will la._x h.. .....n _,.+ c,,_ f;oan, 10172 ,x,h;lp MANSFIELD "gr. Preside t, I ask that the functioning 01 tfns war gas peen -million in new opllga> Ionai au>uor1 y, bile una)'iimous consent that James owen directed by the Central Intelligence Armed Services Committee has been told stein, Richard Moose, and, Ka erine Agency. We have been using funds pro- that the program cost-that is the .~.,~ ,,... n........:.. r-a pa ers and aggro- ,high. actually ,trill be spent a x y - i (M Mi r. sled ADVL1at1VL 1LV111 ssour MINGTON) be granted the privil ge of thorization of the Congress; and largely In other words, the cost of military as- a. hout - -- 41 11VV1 dUllllg Ulle deVa~e Vll Ya1G -"-"""'-'-- - a endment. Ously without the consent-of either the' cal year 1963 and fiscal year 1965; dou; uggest the absence-of a quorum w - -' behind a screen of official secrecy. as large as it was in the fiscal year 1967; W ill call- the roll. . regarding the participation of this Na- when it all began in secrecy 9 years ago. Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9 i irk Approved For Release 20094 4/22VJ IG c- ~0296R0005a0030032-9 Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield so that I may ask a question? Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Rhode Island. Mr. PASTORE. I would like to ask the distinguished Senator from Missouri whether this limitation would in any way impede or contribute to the danger of our troops that are being Withdrawn from Vietnam. The argument would be made and I wonder what the Senator's reaction would be to that question. Mr sYMTN rO . I would say to my able friend from Rhode Island that we have been careful to exclude the bomb- ing of the Ho Chi Minh Trail in order that we would not be justifiably criticized for doing anything to affect the. with- drawal of our troops from Vietnam. The position taken by the administration in this matter is that any limitation of any kind on what we are doing over there is wrong. I worry about this a great deal. The Prime Minister of Laos, who is currently in town, asked the People's Republic of China to build roads in northern Laos for him, and they are now doing so. Therefore, in areas adjacent to where our bombers and fighters are operating in northern Laos, we are running the danger of hitting some' of those thou- sands of Red Chinese in northern Laos. Our operations in northeren Laos have little to do with the operations going on in southern Laos, hundreds of miles away and, therefore, are separate from our operations in South Vietnam. Few, if any, Members of this body could have been aware of the steadily mounting cost of our military program in Laos, because before this year the actual costs of the total program had never been assembled and presented to the Congress; or even to the Armed Services Committee. Armed Services Committee in terms of a new authorization of $125.8 million. At roughly the same time, two members of the staff of the Subcommittee on U.S. Security Agreements and Commitments Abroad of the Foreign Relations Com- mittee were in Vientiane; and there learned that the estimate of the 1972 military assistance program actually be- ing planned for Laos was nothing like the $125.8 million, but actually was $252.1 million, just twice the amount de- scribed to the Armed Services Commit tee. Prior to ,this year, the only figures available to Senators, even on a classi- fied basis, for the cost of the U.S. Lao- tian operations were the amounts of the classified requests for new obligational military assistance authority and the public figure for the AID program. The total of these two figures revealed a cost much greater than anything the public could have known, but this amount was still only a portion of what was actually being spent in Laos. In the fiscal year 1971, for example, as noted above, $117 million in new ob- ligational authority was requested for military aid and $52 million for eco- nomic aid, for a total of $169 million. Fol- lowing the secret session of the Senate, in which I discussed the report of-our subcommittee staff,' the Secretary of State acknowledged in a press confer- ence on June 15 that the total of U.S. expenditures in Laos, excluding U.S. Air orce operations in both northern Laos and the Ho Chi Minh Trail area, was not in the realm of $169 million, but was ac- tually more than double that, "in the neighborhood of $350 million."W twice the amount reviousl iven on a classified basis to the few em ers the Senate. Although, as mentioned, the Secretary did not give figures for the cost of air operations in either northern Laos or the Ho Chi Minh Trial area, in testi- mony before the Armed Services 'Com- mittee on this year's defense authoriza- tion bill, it was revealed that U.S. expenditures in Laos will actually total $490.2 million in this fiscal year. That figure includes $143.4 million for U.S. air support excluding the Ho Chi Minh Trail area. It is clear, therefore, that the Senate has been kept in the shadows as far as actually knowing how much we are spending in Laos is concerned. It is clear also that the public has been kept com- pletely in the dark. Prior to this year the only figure the public knew was the annual cost of the economic assistance program, which has been running at about $52 million a year since the fiscal year 1969. Think of that, Mr. President, We live in a democracy where the people have the right to know. Actually, we have spent over $1.5 billion in Laos, if we count the bombings of the Ho Chi Minh Trails; yet the only figure the American people knew about was $52 million. Those few members of the press and public who have followed this subject closely might have learned from reading the published hearings of the Subcom- mittee on U.S. Security Agreements and The actual costs were, of course, read- - ily available to the executive branch had they chosen to share them with the Con- gress. Instead they presented only esti- mates of obligations against single year authorizations. Each year for the past few years the Senate Armed Services Committee has been asked to recommend to the Sen- ate the authorization of specific amounts for military assistance to Laos; and the committee has regularly complied, ap- parently in the belief that the amounts of new obligational authority requested constituted at least a rough index of the size of the program involved. We now know just how wrong that assumption was. In presenting its justi- fication for authorizations to support free world forces: in' Vietnam, Laos, and Thailand in the fiscal year 1970, the De- fense Department told the Armed Serv- ives Committee that it needed $74.2 mil- lion for military assistance to Laos; but the recently declassified figure for the actual cost of the Laos military assist- ance program was $146.4 million. For the fiscal year 1971, $117.3 mil- lion was sought; but the actual costs that year were $162.2 million. On May 6 of this year Defense Depart- ment witnesses discussed the Lao mili- tary assistance ? program. before the Commitments Abroad that military as- sistance costs in Laos for fiscal year 1970 were estimated by Defense officials at about $90 million. It subsequently de- veloped that they were $146.4 million; and there were no official figures gen- erally available to the `Congress or the public for total U.S. expenditures in any previous fiscal year prior to the Secre- tary of State's admission, which he made last June 15, that costs for the last fiscal year in that little country, and exclusive of any air operations, were "in the neigh- borhood of $350 million." Not only was the cost of our Lao oper- ations concealed before this spring, but the scope and character of the war--and the details of our participation in it- were not . acknowledged until recently. In a statement on March 6, 1970, President Nixon provided the American people with what he described as a "pre- cise description of our current activities in Laos." According to the President, the pertinent facts were: First. The United States was providing regular and irregular Lao forces with equipment, training, and logistics support. Second. The United States was con- ducting air operations to interdict the Ho Chi Minh Trail, reconnaissance flights in northern Laos; and, on request from the Lao Government, combat sup- port missions for Lao forces. While this description of our activities in Laos went beyond previous acknowl- edgments of such activities, it glossed over the following details which subse- quently came to light through the work of our Commitments Subcommittee: First. Most of the war in Laos is co- ordinated through and by the American Embassy in Vientiane. Second. The United States trains, arms, and feeds the Lao Army and Air Force. - Third. The United States, through the Central Intelligence Agency, trains, ad- vises, pays, supports, -and coordinates an irregular army, elements of which are deployed in four of the five military re- gions in Laos. Fourth. The United States, through the Central Intelligence Agency, and in coop- eration with the Thai Government, trains, pays, supports, and coordinates a growing force of Thai soldiers in Laos. Fifth. In addition to interdiction oper- ations over the Ho Chi Minh Trail, the U.S. Air Force flies hundreds of combat air missions throughout Laos in close support of Lao regular and irregular ground combat forces. These missions are also coordinated by the American Em- bassy in Vientiane. Included in this American air effort are strikes by B-52 bombers in northern Laos, far from the Ho Chi Minh Trail area. There is considerable doubt in my own mind whether the Congress, if presented with a straightforward proposal to spend half a billion dollars to carry on such ac- tivities, would have agreed to do so; but insofar as we can determine, no congres- sional.committee, before this year, was ever given any comprehensive picture of our operations in Laos. The two commit- tees of the Senate most directly involved, the Armed Services and Foreign Rela- tions Committees, have been given only Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9 oproved For Reieas M/*112*?ACIA-LR{ nBDa296Rfl00500030032-9 0' 1k-, w October .4., a partial and, therefore, misleading, pic- peoted dry season offensive by. the North if members of the staff of the commit- ture of what has been going on in that Vietnamese early next month. ments subcommittee had not made an country. Mr. Arbuckle notes that- extended actual visit to the area in ques- The history of Thai forces in Laos pro- This will more than double the current tion. Following a report of their findings vides an excellent example. It is a history force of between 5,000 and 6,000 That army to a secret session of the Senate on June replete with missing pages-written in troops deployed in Laos. 6, with subsequent inquiries by Armed large part in invisible ink. President, I am a member of the Services and Foreign Relations for addi- During the last session of the Congress, Mr. tional details of expenditures in Laos, a law was passed prohibiting U.S. sup- Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, executive branch witnesses again ap- and I heard the debate in that commit- eared before the Armed Services r Viep tnamesto provide military support and that committee, which was ultimately the true dimensions of the Laos program assistance to the Government of Cam- made. law, passed by both Houses and began to emerge for the first time. signed by the President, and I know that The justification then presented for dia or s bo s this l." The intent the qspon- what we were doing there was an effort an expenditure of $490.2 million was es- tion. of this heir specifiisc beyond d purposes ques- ue to prevent such activities as Thai troops sentially the same as that offered in May. fop. One of their specific in Laos. No different explanation was offered to to preclude U.S. financing of Thai forces ces In addition to the highly dubious to fight in Laos. legality of our paying for these Thai sol- justify an increase in the military as- Despite. the passage of this law, it has sistance program to $221.2 million than. diers in the face of the legislation passed that presented in May when the program now become public, information fthat in last year, there are the policy risks en- there are thousands of Thai fighting ght was being described in terms of $125.8 tailed by drawing the Thais, to whom we million. Laos. The executive branch now forces, acknowl- have ?a defense commitment under year after year the Defense Depart- edges though the claiming presence they are all these "volunteers" al-" SEATO, into more direct conflict with ment has had enough excess ma oney and serving under Lao military command. the North Vietnamese. would also seem to be something material available to support program The Department of State has also There much larger than that authorized-some- recently acknowledged, in a letter which grossly out of line about the costs to the times twice as large. Similarly, there was I will ask be printed in the Record at American taxpayer of these Thai merce- no explanation, whatever, offered as to the conclusion of these remarks, that naries. While I am not at liberty to make how the anticipated costs of the Thai most of these Trai have served in - public the exact figures involved, I can mercenaries-a category of expenditure the Thai Army; that the units in ques- tell the Senate, on the basis of testimony not even mentioned in the earlier ses- tion are formed in Thailand and include by the U.S. Ambassador in Laos before sion had been computed. volunteer officers and NCO's who have the Foreign Relations Committee, that It was acknowledged that the per mail severed their connections with the Thai the proposed expenditures for supplying cost of the Thai was somewhat higher armed forces; that there are Thai of- Thai soldiers to fight -in Laos in fiscal than that of the Lao irregulars, but there fivers, including a general, stationed in year 1972 are 25 percent higher than the was no emphasis of the fact the real Thailand who perform liaison functions proposed military assistance program for ratio is 33 percent more money for less with the Lao government; and that the . the Royal Lao Army itself-30 percent than half as many Thai troops as Lao ir- Thai units in Laos Include an "artillery higher than the cost of the Lao irregu- regular troops, both of which groups we capability composed of individuals with lars-and this despite the fact that the finance and train. This fact did not be- previous artillery experience." number of Thai soldiers involved is far come clear until administration witnesses At no point in the State Department less than a quarter and less than half the. testified before the Foreign Relations letter is the claim made that the Thai in strength of the total strength of the Lao Committee Rater on the same day. it ex- Army the Lao irregulars. There are many other gaps in this i N s or question are ethnic Lao. plained why some of these Thai have This brief review of the major facts effort to justify. a half a billion dollars said, in various interviews with journal- which underlie current U.S. operations for Laos, exclusive of the trails. To the ists-where we get most of our new in- in Laos should be sufficient to demon- best of my knowledge, at no point have i strafe why the time has come for the the costs of the CIA operations in Laos Th a formation-that they are regular army troops who were asked to accept Congress to place at least some restraints been explained as a separate item to any special assignment in Laos for extra pay. - upon the conduct of this undeclared and congressional committee. Neither has the The administration has now acknowl- uncontrolled war. nature of U.S. air operations in northern edged publicly that the cost of this extra The amendment which I offer, there- Laos ever been fully described to any pay, as is true of the other expenses in- fore, would place a limit of $200 million committee. volved in this program of Thai forces on all U.S. expenditures in Laos, ex- As noted earlier, the President has re- being sent to Laos, are borne by the elusive, I emphasize, of the air opera- ferred to combat support missions which United States. tions over the Ho Chi Minh Trails area. have been flown at the request of the Up to now, however, the administration This amount is sufficient to cover all Royal Lao Government, The fact is that has refused to make public any additional amounts which the executive branch re- the U.S. Air Force is engaged in an details as to the specific numbers of Thais quested and justified at the outset of the around-the-clock campaign of intensive now involved, or the number it is planned Armed Services Committee's considera- combat operations of all sorts through- to have involved in the future, Nor has tion of this bill this year. out Laos, ranging from the stationing of it said any more about the arrangements Since the time when the committee forward air controllers and aircraft to for recruiting, organizing, directing and initially considered the Southeast Asia B-52 strikes in the northern portion of financing these forces. portion of the military procurement au- Laos, hundreds of miles from the Ho Chi Nevertheless, the executive branch is thorization bill, for this fiscal year, the Minh Trails, and far closer to the bound- now asking the Congress, in this bill to administration has agreed that the cost ary of the People's Republic of China. authorize additional funds so as to con- of U.S. operations in Laos in the coming In short, none of the above activities tinue, even expand, this program of Thai year-again exclusive of air operations has as yet been described to Congress in forces in Laos; in fact, based on what over the Ho Chi Minh Trails area-is sufficient detail-nor has the derivation we can learn, three times as many addi- nearly $500 million-$490.2 million to be' of the costs of these activities yet been tional Thais are to be financed for fight- exact-of which $221.2 million will be ex- explained in a manner which would sup- ing in Laos, which will require three pended for the military assistance pro- ,port any such appropriation. In effect, times as much U.S. money in the fiscal gram. Note that in May the estimated all that Congress has been told is that year 1972 as was used for this purpose amount of new money need for the fiscal. the United States is conducting many in the fiscal year 1971. year 1972 military assistance program in more programs in Laos than were known In an article in the September 23 issue Laos, as presented to the Armed Services before; therefore, twice as much money of the Washington Evening Star, written and Foreign Relations Committees, was is required. from Vientiane by Tammy Arbuckle, he $125.8 million. This new information which has come reports that- I believe it entirely fair to assume that to light, coupled with the now universal- American official sources confirmed that' this new figure for the cost of our Lao op- ly admitted serious economic problems 12,0.00 Thais will be available to meet the ex- erations would not have come to light we face here at home, makes me even Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9 1 ,166Approved For Releas 2 y fi R[ QQ FJP ,?QQA30032-9 October 4, 1971 less willing than before to continue ex- penditures in Laos at this steadily high- er level. I believe that any American pol- icy in Laos which costs more than $200 million to support is too expensive, or, too dangerous, or both. This belief is reinforced by the ac- knowledgement of administration wit- nesses before Armed Services that, not- withstanding all we are currently doing in Laos-there could not be a more im- portant point-the North Vietnamese and the Pathet Lao presently have the capability, if they so chose, at any time to complete their takeover of Laos. In the face of this admitted fact, the Laste and futility of this effort becomes 11 too apparent. Surely, Congress has the right to re- ceive from the executive branch justi- fication for specific additional authori- zation requests, plus an explanation of the reasons why such additional author- ity is needed. Section (e) of my amend- ment would establish a requirement for a written explanation of the purposes for which any future funds for Laos are re- quested. Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- sent to have printed at this point in the RECORD the text of the amendment. There being no objection, the amend- ment was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows: SEC. Gob. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no funds authorized to. be appropriated by this or any other Act may be obligated or expended in any amount in excess of $200,000,000 for the purpose of carrying out directly or Indirectly any eco- nomic or military assistance, or any opera- tion, project, or program of any kind, or for providing any goods, supplies, materials, equipment,, services, personnel, or advisers in, to, for, or on behalf of Laos during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1972. (b) In computing the $200,000,000 limita- tion on obligation and expenditure authority under subsection (a) of this section in fiscal year 1972, there shall be included in the com- putation the value of any goods, supplies, materials, or equipment provided to, for, or on behalf of Laos in such fiscal year by gift, donation, loan, lease, or otherwise. For the purpose of this subsection, "value" means the fair market value of any goods, supplies, materials, or equipment provided to, for, or on behalf of Laos, but in no case less than 331ya per centum of the amount the United States paid at the time such goods, supplies, materials, or equipment were acquired by the United States. (c) No funds may be obligated or expended for any of the purposes described in subsec- tion (a) of this section in, to, for, or on behalf of Laos in any fiscal year beginning after June 30, 1972, unless such funds have been specifically authorized by law enacted after the date of enactment of this Act. In no case shall funds in any amount in excess of the amount specifically authorized by law for any fiscal year be obligated or ex- pended for any such purpose during such fiscal year. (d) The provisions of subsection (a) and (c) of this section shall not apply with re- spect to the obligation or expenditure of funds to carry out combat air operations over the so-called Ilo Chi Minh trails in southern Laos, and over areas immediately adjacent to such trails, by United States military forces. (e) After the date of enactment of this Act, whenever any request is made to the Congress for the appropriation of funds for use in, for, or on behalf of Laos for any fiscal' year, the President shall furnish a written report to the Congress explaining the pur- pose for which such funds are to be used in such fiscal year. (f) The President shall submit to the Congress within thirty days after the end of each. quarter of each fiscal year, begin-, ping with the fiscal year which begins July 1, 1971, a written report showing the total amount of funds expended in, for, or on behalf of Laos, during the preceding quarter by the United States Government, and shall include in such report a general breakdown of the total amount expended, describing the different purposes for which such funds were expended and the total amount expended for such purpose. Mr. SYMINGTON. In addition to es- tablishing a requirement for written explanations in connection with any fu- ture fund requests for Laos, section (c) of the amendment would prohibit the obligation or expenditure of funds for any purpose 'after the date of enactment of the amendment unless such funds have been specifically authorized by law. As noted earlier, in the past the . amounts of money specifically identified in requests to Congress as being for use in Laos have constituted only a portion of the total cost of U.S: opera- tions in that country. The purpose of section (c) of the amendment is to Insure that Congress knows when it is author- izing or appropriating money for this country; and, conversely, to prevent the diversion to Laos of funds appropriated for other purposes. Mr. President, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with our being told as to what they did with the money re- quested, particularly if they did not do with it what was asked for when It was authorized and appropriated? In my opinion, that could well be the basic thrust of my remarks. Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, so that I may ask three or four questions to clarify the amend- ment somewhat? Mr. SYMINGTON. I am happy to yield. Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator's amend- ent affect the expenditures now being arried out by the CIA in Laos? Mr. SYMINGTON, That would be cov- ered by the amendment, Mr. AIKEN. Does the Senator think that would affect the operations of the IA? Mr. SYMINGTON. In Laos? Mr. AIKEN. Yes. Mr. SYMINGTON Inasmuch as the ecretary o l en`se-testifled that he was ' conducting no military operations in aos, the only conclusion I can draw from that, based on my experience, is that the Centro Intelli_genee Agency is ondQatm their operations under #1 i'rection of the State I)epartiiieii aii'c unds or such, o ei atioi a1 a In Ii ti d , l aer ever. AIKEN. I understand that a great many more Laotians now live in Thai- land than remain in their home country and than considerable recruiting is done in Thailand for the purpose of strength- ening the comparatively weak forces they have at home. Would this amend- ment also apply to the recruiting now done in Thailand if such recruits were paid by the United States? Mr. SYMINGTON. The word "ethnic" is the only way, I say to my able friend, that the administration can justify what it is doing on any basis. Otherwise, it is clearly breaking the law. I would say if there were people who had lived in Thailand for a period of years and the United States claimed that, because their grandfather or their great-grandfather originally came from Laos, we could, therefore, under the law, pay, train, and finance them to fight in Laos, that interpretation of the -law is certainly in violation of the interest of the Congress. Mr. AIKEN. I understand that about three or four times more Laotians are now living in Thailand than the number living in Laos, and the Laotian Army depends on them for the Laotian forces to maintain their numbers--I do not know for sure though. Mr. SYMINGTON. I believe that the figures the Senator presents are correct, Mr. AIKEN. How would this amend- ment affect the air cover which is now provided for the Laotians in the Plain of Jarres, which I believe is considered a crucial area in that country? Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President, be- fore answering that, I would like to men- tion that at no time has the executive branch ever contended to me or to the subcommittee that the so-called volun- teers are ethnic Lao; and, based on other testimony we have received, I think that might be difficult for them. Mr. AIKEN. They are Laotian in the same sense that a third or fourth gen- eration European living in America now is loyal to the old country, their great- grandfather's country. Is that correct? Mr. SYMINGTON. I believe so. In the statements by the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, before the Armed Serv- ices Committee, there was considerable discussion of the Thai forces in Laos, about how they are all volunteers-that was the big word-and how they have severed their connection with the That Armed Forces. But there was no mention whatever of the fact that they are ethnic Lao. I think if the Senator looks at the record, he will see that because what they have done Is pretty clear, they have constantly raised new justification for it. Mr. AIKEN. Frankly, I do not know, and that is why I raised the question. I also asked about the air cover for the Plaine of Jarres, which is considered a crucial area in defense of the whole country, Mr. SYMI ,QIQN. I think that any suppolha# yang Pao can get he will welcome. Therefore, any support we give-including in the Plaine of Jarres- would be better for him. I do not think it would have much to do with the ques- tion of whether the country will exist as a country under the present government, because, as mentioned, we have had testi- mony that any time the North Vietnam- ese and the Pathet.Lao under Souvanna Phong, want to take the country over, they can do so. Mr. AIKEx_ N~,The reason I asked is that there`reems to be some apprehension that they would take the country over quickly if Laos lost the protection of our Air Force over the Plaine of Jarres. Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500030032-9 Apploved For Release-WO5M9-121