CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP77M00144R001100190008-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 19
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: April 14, 2005
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: May 19, 1975
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190008-5
ITEMS FOR MR. CARY FOR THE DCI 9:00 MEETING ON:
Senator Proxmire introduced S. 1762 on Monday, May 19th. His statement in
the -RECORD indicates he may submit the same proposal as an amendment to the
State Department Authorization i e ?b ill has three mayor provisions:
1. It prohibits he purchase of gifts for foreign citizens with
a ro riated funds in excess of 5 ._:, The same applies to the receipt of
gifts y -U o officials .i
2. The bill requires the President to report to Congress each year
describing any gifts provided with nonappropriated funds, or from private
sources passing through the government to any person of any foreign country.
3. GAO could audit the State Department account from which funds
are drawn to purchase gifts.
Attached is his statement-avmgy-of the6il1.
I
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190008-5
 May 19, 197Approved For RE T ) NAL:ETC IDH 01100190008-5 S 8565
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES
The following reports of committees
were submitted:
By Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, without
amendment:
H.R. 4109. An act to amend the Grand
Canyon National Park Enlargement Act
(88 Stat. 2089) - (Rept. No. 94-143).
By Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, with an
amendment to the title:
S. 1123. A bill to establish the Indian Na-
tions Scenic Trail (Rept. No. 94-144).
By Mr. JOHNSTON, from the Committee
on Interior and Insular Affairs, with an
amendment :
S. 288. A bill to amend the Land and Wa-
ter Conservation Fund Act of 1965 so as to
authorize the development of indoor recrea-
tion facilities in certain areas (Rept. No.
94-145).
By Mr. STENNIS, from the Committee on
Armed Services, with an amendment:
S. 920. A bill to authorize appropriations
during the fiscal year 1976, and the period of
July 1, 1976, through September 30, 1976,
for procurement of aircraft, missiles, naval
vessels, tracked combat vehicles, torpedoes,
and other weapons, and research, develop-
ment, test, and evaluation for the Armed
Forces, and to prescribe the authorized per-
sonnel strength for each active duty com-
ponent and the Selected Reserve of each
Reserve component of the Armed Forces and
of civilian personnel of the Department of
Defense, and to authorize the military train-
ing student loans, and for other purposes
(Rept. No. 94-146)
ENROLLED BILL PRESEN
The Secretary of the Senate re rted
that today, May 19, 1975, he pre ted
to the President of the United tes
the enrolled bill (S. 326) to amen ec-
tion 2 of the act of June 30, 195 as
amended, providing, for the cont.inu ce
of civil government for the Trust r-
INTRODUCTION OF BILLS
JOINT RESOLUTIONS
tions,were introduced, read the first tilde
and, by unanimous consent, the second
time, and referred as indicated:
By Mr.- PROXMIRE:
S. 1762. A bill to prohibit the giving of
appropriated funds or property purchased
therewith to any person of any foreign
country, to prohibit the acceptance of for-
eign gifts by Federal employees, and for other
purposes. Referred to the Committee on For-
eign Relations.
By Mr. ROTH:
S. 1763. A bill to limit certain fees which
may be charged or accepted by an attorney
for services performed in connection with
certain civil actions brought in Federal
courts. Referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. ROTH:
S. 1784. A bill to establish a national ceme-
tery in the State of Delaware. Referred to
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
By Mr. KENNEDY:
S. 1785. A bill to amend the Internal Reve-
nue Code by limiting tax shelters, and for
other purposes. Referred to the Committee
on Finance.
By Mr. TAFT:
S. 1766. A bill to authorize the establish-
ment of the Edison Birthplace National His-
toric Site. Referred to the Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs.
By Mr. ALLEN (for himself and Mr.
SPARKMAN) :
S. 1767. A bill to amend section 2004 of
title 10, United States Code, to provide that
in computing the 6-year maximum active
duty service of any member of the. Armed
Forces for purposes of qualifying for being
detailed as a student to a law school, any
period of time such member was, a prisoner
of war shall be disregarded. Referred to the
Committee on Armed Services.
By Mr. HOLLINGS (for himself and
Mr. MAGNUSON) :
S. 1768. A bill to amend the Act of Au-
gust 16, 1971, which established the National
Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmos=
phere, to provide that appointments thereto
be made, in part, by the President of the
Senate and the Speaker of the House of Rep-
resentatives, and for other purposes. Re-
ferred to the Committee on Commerce.
By Mr. GRAVEL:
S. 1769. A bill to authorize the Adminis-
-trator of General Services to provide space in
the Old Post. Office Building to tenants ap-
proved by the Chairman of the National En-
dowment for the Arts, and for other pur-
poses. Referred to the Committee on Public
Works.
By Mr. McGOVERN:
S. 1770. A bill to regulate commerce and
promote the general welfare, by providing In-
centives and assistance, based on detailed
data and information, that will increase the
amount of transportation by railroad rather
than by less energy-efficient modes in order
to conserve limited resources of energy and
will alleviate unemployment, and for other
purposes. Referred to the Committee on
Commerce.
BILLS AND JOINT RESOLUTIONS
By Mr. PROXMIR-E:
S. 1762. A bill to prohibit the giving of
appropriated funds or property pur-
chased therewith to any person of any
foreign country, to prohibit the accept-
ance of foreign gifts by Federal employ-
ees, and for other purposes. Referred to
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
FOREIGN GIFT-GIVING AMENDMENT TO THE
STATE, JUSTICE AUTHORIZATION DILI, .
Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, with
our economy in precarious condition, it
is up to the Congress to redouble our ef-
forts to monitor national spending pri-
orities. With unemployment looming
dangerously close to 9 percent-20 per-
cent in some industries--and talk of a
$70 billion deficit reverberating across
the country, it is essential that we assure
the American taxpayer that his dollars
are being spent only to address our most
pressing national needs. The giving and
receiving of expensive gifts as part of our
international diplomacy is not a priority
item and should be seriously curtailed-
now.
Today I am introducing an amend-
ment that would virtually eliminate ex-
travagant gift-giving and' gift-receiving
among U.S. Government officials and
foreign dignitaries. My amendment to
the State Department authorization bill
would provide three controls over the
giving and receiving of gifts among U.S.
and foreign officials.
First, the amendment prohibits the
purchase of gifts for persons- of foreign
countries with appropriated funds In ex-
cess of $50. The same applies to the re-
ceipt of gifts by U.S. officials.
Second, the amendment requires that
the President make a report to Congress
each year describing any gifts provided
with nonappropriated funds or from pri-
vate sources, passing through the Gov-
ernment to any person of any foreign
country. The report would be submitted
to the Speaker of the House of Repre-
sentatives and the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee.
Third, the foreign gift-giving amend-
ment would grant authority to the Gen-
eral Accounting Office to audit annually
the Diplomatic and Consular Service
Fund at the State Department-a catch-
all slush fund that has been used for
everything from jewelry to disaster re-
lief emergencies. -
Mr. President, on October 2, 1974, I
presented amendment 1873 to the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1961, requiring the
President to report all properties of $50
or more purchased with appropriated
funds which were given -by him or any
officer in the Federal Government to any
person of any foreign country. That
amendment passed but died when the
foreign aid bill was subsequently recom-
mitted to the 'Senate Appropriations
Committee for further consideration,
On , December 3, 1974, I introduced
another amendment to S. 3394, the For-
eign Assistance Act, that would have pro-
hibited the expenditure of taxpayer
funds for the giving of gifts costing more
than $50 to foreign heads of state or other
foreign dignitaries. Also contained in
that amendment was the understanding
that the receipt of gifts from these for-
eign officials would also be eliminated.
With assurances from my distinguished
colleague, Senator McGEE of the Foreign
Relations Committee, I withdrew my
amendment with the understanding that
subsequent comprehensive, corrective
legislation on gift-giving would receive
careful committee consideration. Sena-
tor McGEE has been most cooperative and
.has been of great assistance to me in
gathering information from the Depart-
ment of State. In the meantime, I have
continued my own investigation of the
magnitude of this activity in the Federal
Government.
Let us briefly review some of the gift-
giving activities of our Federal officials
over the past few years.
Gift-giving by American diplomatic
officials has grown way out of proportion.
In fact the State Department, which
spends nearly $1,000,000 annually to ad-
minister Federal gift-giving, admits that
gift-giving has quadrupled over the last
25 years. -
One slap in the face of the American
taxpayer came in the form of the unprec-
edented gift of a $3 million VH3A Si-
korsky helicopter to Egyptian President
Sadat by former President Nixon. The
State Department defended this lavish
expenditure of tax dollars as being "es-
sential to the national interest of the
United States." The General Accounting
Office had a different point of view and
said that "although not strictly illegal,
the gift of a $3 million helicopter to
President Anwar Sadat of Egypt was
contrary to the intent of Congress,"-
GAO Report No. B-181244, October 31,
1974.
On President Nixon's journey to the
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190008-5
 S 8566 Approved For F&f4M4RMAq RZV#PM#R001100190000I?y 19, 1975 *
'Near East, 76 other personal gifts-rang-
ing from expensive crystal to gold
jewelry---were presented to various for-
eign dignitaries at taxpayers' expense.
In looking over the 76 gifts-from six
Winslow Homer plates in a velvet-lined
mahogany case to Steuben crystal-it is
evident that this extravagant give-away
program is costing the American tax-
payer a Rundle. The funds for these gifts
came out of the $2.1 million slush fund
called emergencies in the diplomatic and
consular services account at the State
Department.
And who can forget the $10 million
in Egyptian pounds donated to Mrs.
Sadat's favorite charity-the Loyalty
and Hole Society-an organization that
helps gi'ie medical treatment to several
Arab nations' civilian and military per-
sonnel? ro make this example of waste-
ful spending all the more ludicrous, the
United States received no guarantees as
to how this money would be spent?
I asked the GAO to gather cost in-
formation on these and other gifts, but
the State Department has refused to
fully disclose the purpose of the expendi-
tures and the names of foreign diplo-
mats receiving gifts courtesy of the
American taxpayer. My investigation
and those of the General Account-
ing Office were met with strong re-
sistance. The State Department con-
tinues to secretly operate its Federal ver-
sion of the "Spiegel catalogue."
Mr. President, it is time to stop this
waste of tax dollars. What did the $3
million Helicopter buy us? What good
did the ;910 million charity donation do
for the United States? And why do we
need to give out hundreds of personal
gifts, wasting thousands of dollars
annually?
Loyalty and diplomatic support can-
not be bought. We should stop trying.
Mr. P -esident, I hope my colleagues
will see fit to support this amendment,
thus laying to rest this extravagant prac-
tice and injecting a small but significant
breath of confidence into our fiscal re-
sponsibility to the beleaguered American
taxpayer.
I ask unanimous consent that the full
text of tie bill be printed in the RECORD
at this point.
There being no objection, the bill was
ordered ':o be printed in the RECORD, as
follows :
S. 1762
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Represematives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That (a)
the Act entitled "An Act to provide certain
basic authority for the Department of State",
approved August 1, 1956, as amended, is
amended by adding at the end thereof the
following new section:
SEc. 17 (a) No property purchased with
appropriated funds in excess of fifty dollars
($50) and no appropriated funds in excess
of fifty dollars ($50) may be given to any
person of any foreign country.
"(b) Not later than 30 days following the
end of each fiscal year, the President shall
transmit it report to the Speaker of the House
of Representatives and Committee on For-
eign Rela'aons of the Senate describing fully
and completely-
"(1) any gift given on behalf of any per-
son, by, or with the assistance of, any of-
ficer or employee of the United States to.any
person of any foreign country; and
"(2) the activities of such officer or em-
ployee with respect to the giving of such
gift.
"(c) Any financial transaction involving
any funds made available to meet unforeseen
emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and
Consular Service shall be audited by tho
Comptroller General and reports hereon:
made to the Congress to such extent and at,
such times as he may determine necessary.
The representatives of the General Account-
ing Office shall have access to all .books,
accounts, records, reports, files, and all othe-
papers, things, or property pertaining to such
financial transaction and necessary to facili-
tate the audit."
(b) (1) Section 7342 of title 5, United
States Code, is amended-
(A) by striking out the section caption
and inserting in lieu thereof the following
? 7342. Foreign gifts and decorations"; and
(B) by striking out subsection (c) and in -
serting in lieu thereof the following:
"(c) Congress does not consent to the ac-
cepting or retaining by an employee of any
gilt in excess of fifty dollars ($50). No gift
may be accepted by an employee."
(2) Item 7342 in the analysis of sub-
chapter IV of chapter 73 of such title 5 1s
amended to read as follows:
"7342. Foreign gifts and decorations."
(c) The amendments made by this sec
tion shall apply only with respect to gift:
tendered onor after the date of enaotmen:
of this Act.
S. 1763. A bill to limMOMMM fee:;
which may be charged or accepted by
an attorney for services performed in
connection with certain civil action.;
brought in Federal courts. Referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary.
Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, as I am
sure most of my colleagues are aware, on
May 1 physicians in northern California
refused to perform all but emergency op-
erations in protest to the high cost of
malpractice insurance premiums. They
Washington Post reported on May 12,
that the strike has spread from the Sax-
Francisco Bay area to Sacramento any;
San Jose, and that doctors in Los Ange-
les and San Diego are also considerin?
walkouts. The strike has emptied halt
of the hospital beds in the San Fran-
cisco Bay area, hospitals have laid off
30 percent of the nonmedical staff, ane,
losses are estimated at about $200,000 a
day. The Department of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare expects the crisis to
hit the States of Florida, Louisiana,
Maryland, Michigan, New York, and New
Jersey soon.
Today, I am introducing legislation
that I hope will provide the States with
a good model and will encourage them to
adopt similar legislation to deal with the
malpractice problem. This legislation will
limit the fee that an attorney may
charge or collect for his services in the
prosecution of any medical malpractice
case filed in any Federal court or brought
before any Federal agency.
The malpractice crisis is a result of the
rapidly increasing cost to the few insur-
ance companies which carry medical
liability insurance. This increased cost
to the insurance companies has led to
increased insurance premiums for physi-
cians and hospitals, and the threat of
the unavailability of medical liability in-
surance at any price.
Several factors are responsible for the
current medical malpractice insurance
crisis, including the increasing number
of medical malpractice claims that are
filed, the very large awards given to the
claimants, the high test of expert wit-
nesses, prolonged deliberations, and
above all, the somewhat exorbitant con-
tingency fees many attorneys receive for
malpractice cases. The Secretary's Com-
mission on Medical Malpractice found
that almost all plaintiff attorneys use a
contingent fee in medical malpractice
cases. The most common fee rate is 331/3
percent of the recovery, and there are
reports of attorneys charging 50 percent
and more of the award to the injured
person.
In the past 10 years the amount of
medical malpractice claims has increased
significantly. Ten years ago 6,000 claims
were filed for negligence against a health
professional or health care institution
which in 1974, 12,500 claims were filed.
Juries are currently making awards for
individual claims for hundreds of thou-
sands and even million;; of dollars.
I my own State of Delaware, the
Del are Medical Society has a 5-year
gu nteed medical malpractice insur-
an policy with Aetna, Life & Casualty
C Aetna has guaranteed to insure the
are reviewed annually. In 1971, the class
I physician who performed no surgery,
paid an annual premium of $395; last
year the same physician paid a premium
of $710. The increase in premiums for
specialists during the same period was
even greater. In 1971, a thorastic or
vascular surgeon In Delaware paid a lia-
bility premium of $1,843, and last year
the premium was increased to $6,213 for
the year. Although rates have not been
determined for 1976, the Delaware Medi-
cal Society anticipates an increase of
100 percent.
I do not believe that the number of
claims made against the medical pro-
fession represents a deterioration of the
quality of medical care in the United
States. Our country has the finest and
best qualified physicians and allied
health professionals in the world, and it
is our most competent, most highly
skilled specialists who are experiencing
the greatest number of suits against
them, who are paying the highest Insur-
ance premiums, and who are threatened
most by the increasing unavailability of
liability insurance.
Many experts state that the contin-
gent fee is an incentive for plaintiff's at-
torney, and contributes to the large num-
ber of claims and the high awards that
are made.'It is stated that juries who are
aware of the costs of a law suit, and who
consider the contingent fee that the at-
torney is charging the injured claimant,
tend to increase the amount of the award
to compensate for these legal fees.
According to studies of the medical
malpractice system, the victim receives
between 17 and 38 percent of the total
malpractice insurance premium dollar as
benefits. By contrast, social security
beneficiaries receive 97 percent and tort
automobile liability claimants receive 44
percent of the premium dollar.
The bill that I am introducing today
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190008-5
 STAT Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190008-5
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190008-5
 'S 8638
Approved For Release 20g%. /~ ~R~pZC01~GREOI~TA~~CUR 7MSN 1100190008 -5May 19, 1975
aid to Turkey, including defense cash
sales and licensing of commercial trans-
actions. A 6-week grace period was pro-
vided to encourage further negotiations,
but on December 10, 1974, the cutoff
took effect and remained in effect until
December 31.
On that date the amended terms of the
Foreign Assistance Act reinstated the
cutoff but suspended its effect until Feb-
ruary 5, 1975. It took effect on that date
and no military deliveries have been
made to Turkey since then.
Specifically, under the existing law no
military assistance, including sales, may.
be provided to Turkey unless the Presi-
dent first certifies that two conditions
exist, these being first, Turkey must be
in compliance with all agreements en-
tered into under the requirements of
U.S. military aid legislation, and second,
substantial progress must have been
made toward an agreement regarding
military forces in Cyprus.
I believe that this restriction is far too
rigid and ironclad and deprives the
President of the flexibility that he needs
and must have in order to enter into
meaningful negotiations in an effort to
solve the vexing and troublesome Cyprus
problem. I believe we made a mistake
when we tied the President's hands in
this fashion. I believe that this mistake
should be corrected as soon as possible
and that is why I sponsored and support
S. 846.
S. 846 provides that the President is
authorized to suspend the mandatory
cutoff provisions of the Foreign Assist-
ance Act of 1961, as amended, and the
Foreign Military Sales Act:
If he determines that such suspension will
further negotiations for a peaceful solution
of the Cyprus conflict.
It also provides that any suspension
shall be effective only:
If during such suspension Turkey shall
observe the cease-fire and shall neither in-
crease its forces on Cyprus nor transfer to
Cyprus any U.S.-supplied implements of war
Identical power is given to the Presi-
dent to suspend the cutoff provisions of
Public Law 93-570 which provided the
continuing appropriations for fiscal year
1975.
The bill also provides that the Presi-
dent shall submit to the Congress within
30 days after the.passage of the bill, and
at the end of each 30-day period, a re-
port on progress made during such pe-
riods toward the conclusion of a ne-
gotiated solution of the Cyprus conflict.
Mr. President, I think this is a reason-
able bill and one which will give needed
elbow room for the President to make
a real effort to solve the critical prob-
lems which have arisen. The President
needs and must have the freedom to ne-
gotiate, particularly when two members
of NATO are in conflict. We should not
place such restrictions on the President
that force him to sit idly by and see con-
ditions. deteriorate to the extent that
NATO itself may come apart at the
seams.
There are some lessons we should have
learned-the hard way-about how for=
eign policy matters should be handled.
Under our Constitution, the President
and the Congress have a shared and mu-
tual responsibility in this field. However,
of necessity, it is the President who is
the center and hub of action in foreign
affairs. In this area crises follow crises in
rapid succession, and it is often neces-
sary to plan for developments and to
act to meet crises even before they occur.
The President should be allowed to
speak for and personify the force of this
Nation without undue restrictions. Of
course, there are exceptions to this in
matters involving treaties, acts or dec-
larations of war, or other like matters
of grave importance. However, if the
President is not allowed to act, and act
promptly, in the day-to-day handling of
foreign affairs, then the Nation cannot
move ahead and give the image of vital-
ity, forcefulness, and strength to the
other nations of the world.
We have just had this vividly illus-
trated in the instance of the act of
piracy by the Cambodians in capturing
r__b- sminutes remaining.
Ake a position a ma ea to the os-
n o certain a van ages that we have
t, , n ls nod a personal
Mr. Presl
de
matter when I refer to the fact that it
happens that I am one of the few Mem-
bers of the Senate who was here when
this NATO alliance was adopted.
I remember how, in the beginning of
its consideration, it was almost unthink-
able to a very large segment of this body
that we go into this alliance. There were
many obstacles to overcome. It was rec-
ognized then, and it has been recognized
since, that there would come up situa-
tions between fellow members of the alli-
ance where there would be a conflict of
interest between those two members,
considering them as two nations, and a
conflict also between them and NATO
itself or the alliance, but each in a dif-
ferent way.
It was understood then and it has been
understood ever since then, and I hope it
is understood now, that there has to be
some tendency on the part of all members
to give a little, give a little here, give a
little there, for the sake of the alliance
itself.
Now, when these conferences are
coming up which President Ford is going
to be attending in a few days-my point
is that in the face of these conferences
that are coming up at which we have so
much at stake, the SALT talks, the suc-
cess of the SALT agreements, the pros-
pect of greater agreements, other mat-
ters are pending in the Middle East,
matters pending with reference to the
mutual reduction of armaments, and a
great number of other highly important
and related questions. It is almost im-
posing self-inflicting wound on us to
have the one who is chosen to represent
us operating under these restrictions.
By way of closing, Mr. President, it
makes no difference what we may think
of the alliances we have had in the Pa-
cific, which certainly have not been suc-
cessful, but NATO, as a whole, has been
highly successful, I think, and it has
been of tremendous advantage to the
United States.
I hope now that in a sober moment
we can see fit to pass this legislation
so that it becomes law and will make
'better the chances for a continuation of
the effective operation of the NATO
alliance.
So it is on this ground that I urge the
passage of/this proposal.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I yield
10 minutes of my_ time to the distin-
guished Senator from Illinois (Mr.
STEVENSON).
the U.S. merchant ship on the high seas.'
The President had the freedom to act
and to use diplomacy and our military
power, or both, as he saw fit and circum-
stances required. This crisis forcefully
illustrates the imprudence of not allow-
ing the President sufficient elbow room
and flexibility in foreign policy matters.
We cannot, of course, continuously en-
force and carry out our foreign policy in
all cases with guns and military forces
alone. The President must have the power
and the freedom to make the necessary
diplomatic moves as well without being
hamstrung. I am strongly in favor of the
constitutional power of the Congress in
foreign affairs. It must be upheld. That
is why I cosponsored the War Powers
Act of 1973. I strongly supported that
act and followed it all the way through
for 21/2 years.
On the other hand, I support just as
strongly the power and freedom of the
President to act on foreign policy mat-
ters which do not impinge on the consti-
tutional prerogatives of the Congress.
I say, therefore, that in matters such
as a suspension of military assistance to
Turkey--and other countries as well, for
that matter-we should give the Presi-
dent sufficient leeway so that he can act
and move ahead without undue obstacles
or hindrances. The necessity for this has
became more and more obvious each
decade since we became a world power
and it is perhaps more important today
than ever before. I feel certain that if the
Congress keeps imposing airtight -re-
strictions such as this which deny the
President freedom to negotiate in world
affairs, then the effectiveness of the
NATO Alliance will be undermined and
our position as the leader of the free
world will gradually deteriorate.
I firmly believe, Mr. President, that we
should view this matter in its proper
perspective. The Cyprus problem cries
for a solution, and I believe that our best
hope in finding a solution is to remove
the handcuffs from the President and
give him the ability to maneuver as cir-
cumstances dictate. S, 846 will do this,
and accordingly I urge its passage by the
Mr. President, may I inquire how much
time I have remaining?
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190008-5
 Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190008-5
May 1 9, 1975 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
phases ci the invasion. But far more
damagini*, to its position was its reco$d
for supp ying illegal armaments to e
aggressor.
Mr. President, there are certain facts
that the American People and Congress
have to f t cc " ?
We cannot close our eyes to the fact
that Turkey was using military equip
anent supplied by the United States tj
bomb and invade the sovereign; Inds-
pendent i oration of Cyprus. `
We cannot close our eyes to the fact
that our own -Government continued fo
ship. military supplies-and in shaiPly
increased volume--after the Turkish iri-
vasion a::paraded, and after cease-flee
agreemer is were repeatedly ignored.
We cannot close our eyes to the fact
that our Government was deliberately
breaking the law.
The sh cement of arms to an aggressor
nation is specifically prohibited under
the U.S. Foreign Assistance and Military
Sales Act It was the clear obligation of
the U.S. Government to cease all mili-
tary aid to Turkey the moment we re-
ceived news of the invasion. But what
was the administration's response? Its
response was to accelerate shipments,
claiming--incredibly-that such ship-
ments were within the law.
The administration's failure to cut off
military w id from an aggressor nation was
a final failure in our foreign policy in
the Mediterranean. It was a betrayal of
the trust of the American people, who
are not w::llingly paying taxes to support
a foreign war of aggression, and who ex-
pect their Government to obey the laws
of the land.
Mr. President, in my opinion, Congress
had no choice but to vote the cutoff of
military a: d to Turkey, under the circum-
stances. It is regrettable that this action
had to be taken to force the administra-
tion to ac; within the law. But I believe
the action of Congress was in tune with
the will of the American people, who are
sometimes ahead of the administration
in perceiving the rights and wrongs of
our foreigi policy. And I hope that this
body will reaffirm its insistence on the
rule of laxr by resisting administration
efforts to invalidate Congress, withhold-
ing military shipments from Turkey
until it corrzplies with our bilateral agree-
ments of 1147 and 1960.
Many of us have been shockedto learn
that, even When Congress was voting for
the cutoff ~)f aid, the administration was
giving Turkey private assurances that
the arms flow would soon be resumed.
And it w,s shocking to learn, in the
course of cur deliberations on the meas-
ure, that curing the most critical phase
of the Cyprus negotiations, our State
I)epartmer.t and the Department of De-
fense were negotiating with Turkey a
$229 million deal to modernize Turkish
tank forces. Only after others in Con-
gIress joined me in Protesting this pro-
posed sale as defying the spirit if not the
letter of the law did the administration
back off,
Mr. President, we have had enough of
private assurances and secret deals.
The Amrican people are entitled to
know what and whom they are support-
ing with their tax dollars. And Congress
has ? the obligation to assert its constitu-
tional authority in determining the di-
rection of foreign policy.
It would be a grave error-after a long
succession of errors-to remove the bar
on arms shipments to Turkey, especial13
at this particular time, when such a move
could undermine the new round of nego-
tiations on Cyprus in June. Those nego-
tiations should continue unhampered
until a reasonable, humane solution it
effected. And this country should attempt
once more to correct its course in the
Mediterranean.
We have contributed to the anguish
of hundreds of thousands of Cypriots and
their relatives in other lands, including
the United States.
We have alienated the Greeks who are
friends of democracy.
We have given encouragement to ag-
gression.
We have jeopardized the NATO alli-
ance and weakened the security of the
Eastern Mediterranean, which is one of
the keys to world peace and stability.
Mr. President, we are at a crossroads
in international affairs. It is time for a
thorough reassessment of our entire for-
eign policy. Nothing demonstrates this
move vividly than our tragic errors in
the Cyprus situation.
History does not always offer second
chances. We have before us another op-
portunity to redeem the blunders our
Government has committed in thename
of the American people, and to reassert
our moral and political leadership in that
corner of the world.
Let us not miss that opportunity.
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President, I
yield myself such time as I may con-
sume.
I thank my distinguished colleague
from Texas for his eloquent and ac-
curate remarks. The Senator made two
statements in his presentation, two in
particular that I wish to emphasize by
repeating: No. 1, that any sound foreign
policy of the United States has to be
predicated on the rule of law. There has
to be a moral fiber, recognizing the rule
of law, if we are to have a rational
foreign policy.
The second point I think he made very
tellingly is that our Secretary of State,
Dr. Kissinger, very much tends to over-
personalize foreign policy. The word
going around the Senate Office Build-
ings, Mr. President, sounds very much
like the story of Knute Rockne and
George Gipp. They have to "win this
one for the Gipper." They have to win
this one for Secretary Kissinger. Henry
has had some bad times, Mr. President.
Henry may have to give back his Nobel
Peace Prize and he has had some dif-
ficulty with his shuttle flights. It Is al-
most as if it were more important to
turn Congress around for Henry Kis-
singer than to have a peaceful settle-
ment on Cyprus and a resolution to this
problem.
I thank the Senator from Texas for
pointing out that morality is important
in foreign policy and that our policies
have been tremendously overpersonal-
ized by the Secretary of State.
Mr. BENTSEN. I thank the distin-
guished Senator.
.
S 8637
Mr. EAGLETON. Mr. President. I
reserve the remainder cf my time. I sug-
gest the absence of a quorum, the time to
be charged equally to both sides.
The PRESIDING OF74'ICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk Pro-
ceeded to call the roll.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I ask unani-
mous consent that the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, on behalf of
the Senator from Misso irl, I yield to the
Senator from Mississippi 16 minutes.
Mr. STENNIS. Mr. President, I thank
the Senator from New Jersey. As I under-
stood, my time was yielded by the pro-
ponents of the bill.
Mr. CASE. -Then I shall do it in behalf
of the Senator from Alabama i Mr.
SPARKMAN).
'ruE QUESTION OF THE SURVIVAL OF THE FULL
OPERATION OF NATO
Mr. STENNIS, I thank: the Senator.
Mr. President, I have given as a title
to my remarks here: "The Question of
the Survival of the Full Operations of
NATO." This, to me, is not a contest be-
tween Turkey and the United States and
not a contest between Greece and the
United States, nor between Cyprus and
any of these members of NATO-Greece,
Turkey, or the United States. It has a
very practical application, particularly
under present conditions for the opera-
tion of NATO.
Mr. President, I think there is a
principle involved here, too, with refer-
ence to conditions that we might impose
upon our military aid. But at the same
time, surveillance has already been had
considerably in that field and in view of
the forthcoming conferences, which
could be quite serious indeed, I think it is
highly important that we at least lift
this prohibition but, at the same time.
keep a string, so to speak, on the situa-
tion with reference to the continuation
of military assistance to Turkey.
I strongly stfpport the pending meas-
ure, S. 846. In fact, I am one of the spon-
sors. The primary purpose of this bill is
to make possible, on a contingent basis,
the resumption of military asistance to
Turkey and to provide that the President
shall make monthly reports to Congress
on progress toward the conclusion of a
negotiated settlement of -,he Cyprus con-
flict.
It will be recalled, Mr. President, that
after the Geneva talks on the Cyprus
situation by Greece, Turkey, and the
United Kingdom broke down last August,
Turkey immediately thereafter rein-
forced its troops and expanded its hold-
ings on the island. Many Members of
Congress viewed this second round of
armed intervention by Turkey as viola-
tion of the terms of the law set forth in
the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 relat-
.ng to the use of defense: arms and de-
'ense services furnished Lnder the rto-
Asions of that act.
Therefore, in October of 1974, the Con-
rress, in adopting the continuing resolu-
Aon for foreign aid appropriations, in-
Auded a provision cutting off all :military
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190008-5
 May 19, 1975Approved For eJ itiUS N144 : 8 ZZM.QN14 001100190008-5 S 8649
people; but, after careful consideration,
that interest leads me to oppose the cut-
off, not to favor it.
If we continue to ban defense ship-
ments to Turkey, we risk, first of all,
severe and lasting damage to NATO, par-
ticularly in south Europe. Now, I would
point out that Greece rightly believes
NATO to be vital to her own security.
NATO ws key ian rescuing Greece from
Communist attack, not too many years
ago. Greece is a member of NATO not as
a favor to the United States, but because
the Greek people know that NATO is
absolutely vital to the survival and free-
dom of Greece. Therefore, any action
which would damage, or conceivably even
destroy, NATO in south Europe, is an im-
mediate threat to Greece. My interest in
the well-being of Greece forces me to
recognize this fact.
I would point out that responsible per-
sons in the present Greek Government
are very much aware of the truth of this.
The Greek Government knows that
NATO is vital to Greece, and that a
NATO without Turkey is no NATO at
all, as far as south Europe is concerned.
Accordingly, the Greek Government is
by no means violently opposed to our re-
suming defense shipments to Turkey,
subject to the conditions in this bill:
That is, that American-supplied equip-
ment not be transferred to Cyprus, and
that Turkey continue to observe the
cease-fire on Cyprus.
I would note, Mr. President, that it is
only under these conditions-which I ex-
pect to be strictly applied-that I sup-
port resuming defense aid to Turkey.
These conditions insure that the aid will
be related only to the needs of NATO.
There are other important reasons also
why my concern for the people of Greece
and of Cyprus leads me to oppose the
continuation of the aid cutoff. If the
United States is perceived by Turkey as
being totally alined in this dispute, we
will no longer be able to work as a media-
tor. In turn, the absence of effective
mediator. In turn, the absence of effec-
tive mediation would create a real danger
of full-scale war between Greece and
Turkey.
The Greeks are a valiant people, and
I know and respect their military abili-
ties. But weight of numbers of men make
it virtually certain that Turkey would
win such a war. I do not want to see
this happen. I do not want to see Greece
defeated by Turkey. I do not want to
see the Greek Government fall.. I do not
want to see the tragedy and suffering
that such a war and defeat would bring
to the people, of Greece and of Cyprus.
I thus think it is of critical importance
to the Greek people that we be able to
continue our mediation efforts. Again, I
have been assured that the Greek Gov-
ernment understands this fact.
We must also ask-those of us who
are longtime friends of the' people of
Greece-what instability in the region
would mean to Greece internally. Either
a collapse of NATO in South Europe or
a defeat of Greece by Turkey in war
-would gravely endanger the, present
Greek Government. Personally, I fear
that the current Government in Greece-
a Government which has brought de-
mocracy and progress to Greece-would
fall, and that it would be replaced by a
government of the extreme left. I think
that would be a tragedy for Greece.
Greece could become another Portugal,
and the Greek people could suffer a lef t-
ist dictatorship-the very thing they
fought hard to avoid in the 1940's. This
is, to me, something any friend of Greece
and the Greek people must work to
avoid; and working to avoid it means
ending the cutoff of aid to Turkey, so
as not to destroy NATO or bring about
a war between Greece and Turkey.
Mr. President, I thus believe that true
friends of Greece and Cyprus-and true
friends of peace-must act to choose a
course of moderation, a course which will
preserve NATO, enable the United States
to continue to mediate the Cyprus dis-
pute, and prevent a leftist dictatorship
in Greece. That means ending the aid
cutoff. Again, responsibile leaders in the
Government of Greece understand the
truth of this position. I think we must
understand it also.
Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, I will
vote for S. 846 which suspends the pro-
hibitions now in effect against military
assistance to Turkey. I have decided to
vote for this bill after long and careful
thought, and I do so with some continued
misgivings. This is not an easy issue, and
my support of this legislation is based
only on the hope that a resumption of
military assistance to Turkey will be a
constructive step toward a satisfactory
resolution of the Cyprus problem. -
I am aware that such a hope may ulti-
mately prove unjustified. But if the im-
pact of restored military assistance is not
constructive, I am prepared to support a
future move once again to end military
assistance to Turkey in accordance with
the provisions of the Foreign Assistance
Act. I believe the Congress would in fact
act once again to terminate such aid if
progress toward a peaceful settlement on
Cyprus is not satisfactory.
The bill before us today allows the
President to suspend the prohibition
against military aid to Turkey if he de-
termines that such suspension will fur-
ther negotiations for a peaceful solution
of the Cyprus conflict. Turkey, however,
must observe the cease-fire on Cyprus
and neither increase its forces there nor
transfer to Cyprus any American-sup-
plied military hardware. Moreover, the
President is required by the bill to report
to Congress after each 30-day interval
concerning progress made toward a
negotiated settlement on Cyprus. Clearly,
the Congress will have an opportunity to
review its action, under this bill, in light
of the President's periodic reports.
Mr. President, I was among those who
originally supported a suspension of mili-
tary assistance to Turkey. The invasion
of Cyprus by Turkish forces seemed to me
to be a clear-cut violation of The Foreign
Military Sales Act, the Foreign Assist-
ance Act, and the agreement under
which Turkey accepted the Arms. When
Turkey invaded Cyprus, the suspension
of military aid should have been auto-
matic. Congress acted simply to enforce
the law. In this sense, the action of Con-
gress was justified and understandable.
In another sense, however, I have had
serious doubts about the limits of our
ability to conduct our nation's foreign
policy through the legislative process.
The Cyprus problem is enormously com-
plex, and the action of the Congress most
certainly had the effect of reducing the
adiministration's flexibility in dealing
with the crisis. We have no way of know-
ing for sure whether continued Ameri-
can military assistance to Turkey would
have strengthened our influence over
Turkish policy on Cyprus. What is clear,
however, is that the termination of aid
to Turkey was followed by further uni-
lateral Turkish actions which were most
detrimental to a constructive interna-
tional solution. The timing of the con-
gressional action, therefore, may have
contributed to a worsening of the diplo-
matic situation.
The law which the Congress demanded
be enforced is a sound one : Nations which
receive our military aid should under-
stand that such aid will be revoked when
it is used contrary to American interests
MTt1 for purposes which have nothing to
de5With legitimate self-defense. The law"
Wthe law-and it should be 'revised only
vdlleri warranted by our most vital na
ttbnal interests.
The administration believes that our?
most vital national interests are at staked
1%W on the issue of Turkish military aid. 't
The administration has requested this*
MR,* and they are supporting it in the'
strongest possible terms. What is involved
here is a matter of judgment: will an aid
resumption in fact be constructive? Will
the Turks become more flexible, or will
they instead feel that a resumption of aid
reduces the pressure on them to negotiate
constructively over Cyprus? Will it con-
tribute to a solution of the Cyprus prob-
lem-which depends upon Turkish con-
cessions?
On balance, however, I believe that the
President and the Secretary of State
should be given the flexibility to deal with
these questions. The responsibility for
conducting the day-to-day business of
foreign policy is theirs. They will be nego-
tiating with the Turkish government in
the near future. They believe this bill is
of critical importance.
So I will vote for S. 846 in the hope
that it will provide the added flexibility
which the administration so strongly
feels is necessary. If our hopes are mis-
placed, Congress will have to face this
issue again in the months ahead.
Mr. BUCKLEY. Mr. President, the sub-
ject of Turkish aid has been one of the
most difficult issues this Congress has
had to resolve. It is difficult particularly
because restoring aid to Turkey involves
a breach of the strong support which the
United States has always given for the
rule of law. In this case, military assist-
ance to Turkey has been used for pur-
poses other than those which the Con-
gress intended under the terms of the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, and res-
toration of aid would involve, in effect,
a breach of the spirit if not the letter of
this act.
In Cyprus, however, we are dealing
with an immense human tragedy; dis-
placed as a consequence of the attack by
Turkish troops and consequent occupa-
tion of a substantial portion of Cyprus.
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190008-5
 S8650
Approved Fo ~ A4,14 6 EZt QQJ' R00110019000?4y 19, 19 5
The ove -whelming military presence of
Turkey mn the soil of Cyprus, and the
reality o the fact that the United States
will not intervene militarily to end his
occupati.rn, makes negotiation the only
feasible ?oute to mitigate further suffer-
ing of tl.e people of Cyprus. I have had
an opportunity to discuss this subject
with the President who has made it clear
that his information supports the view
that it is highly unlikely that the present
a change in the situation in Cyprus when
they are "under the gun" of a cutoff of
U.S. mil tars assistance. The President
will be meeting with the Turkish Gov-
ernment in the near future, and he be-
lieves st. ongly that he can work most
effective .y for the opening of serious
negotiations in Cyprus if this obstacle is
removed As the President has the re-
sponsibility for the conduct of foreign
policy, I am reluctant to deny him the
It is aia)so significant to note that th
is of the greases
urtty_ not own
M-Me-na-ffo-ns
Br
__ e gene-ga
ing #'acr i res a rr
eat sacrifice to their e;, ~ iv .n sc.
t I.s, therefore, with reluctance that I
am casti.ig my vote to restore aid to Tur-
key in tae hopes that negotiations can
begin in earnest. Should these negotia-
tions fai. to produce results in a reason-
able per od of time, I will give serious
consideration to reimposition of the em-
bargo.
Mr. B1.YH. Mr. President, today we will
vote on ra. 846, a very important piece of
legislatic n, which will have serious
short- aad long-term ramifications for
the concoct of American foreign policy.
The issues this bill raises are complex
and havf, caused me to review and recon-
sider the events which led to the cutoff
of milita ry assistance to Turkey as well
as subsequent developments. After
thorough study. I have concluded that
passage would be a mistake and that we
must co:itinue to withhold military as-
sistance from Turkey.
In rea thing this decision, I have been
mindful of the strategic importance of
our ailis rice with Turkey and the close
relationship this country has had with
Turkey ~n the past. I have not forgotten
that brave Turkish soldiers fought and
died with American troops in Korea.
't'hus, ti a vote I cast today is not cast
lightly. 'ievertheless, I believe that the
principli s we can clearly establish in re-
jecting this bill are controlling.
Mr. P esident, foreign aid has become
,an important element of modern Ameri-
can foreign policy, and a large portion of
foreign :kid has consisted of military as-
lstance to a multitude of countries. A
consequnce of our liberal practice in
giving arms-a practice which has, in
my opinion, been far too liberal-Is that
a large portion of the world's nations are
armed with American weapons, and that
an outbreak In hostilities between na-
tions s' armed indirectly, but very
clearly, involves the United States in the:
conflict.
To its credit, Congress enacted restric-
tions on the use of arms supplied by the
United States and provided that aid tc-
a country which employed American
weapons to further aggression should br
immediately terminated. It is this prin-
ciple which we will vote on today, Mi
President, and I do not believe that th,-
exigencies of the present situation
should lead us to violate. it.
It is extremely important that w?:
demonstrate our determination to up-
hold a sound principle designed to fur
ther peace. It would be tragic if throug::
our military assistance program and our
failure to place proper limitations upo:
it, America became identified with ag-
gressive and repressive forces now ant:
in the future. We must stand up, and le:
the world know exactly what our posi-
tion is, painful though it may be.
Mr. President, I am sympathetic wit;
the desire of the Turkish Governmer
to protect the Turkish minority o..*.
Cyprus. The abuses this minority ha
suffered are part of history and canna
be ignored. Yet, Mr. President, in lookin
at the Cyprus situation, I am forced t
ask if refusal to negotiate, violations of
cease-fire, occupation of 40 percent c:
the island, and forcing 180,000 Greel_
Cypriots from their homes, is consistent
with the objective of protecting thrt
Turkish minority. Clearly it is not.
When Turkish representatives walke
out of peace talks in Geneva and Turke;
resumed military action last Augus*
Turkish actions became lar more than
protective reaction and can be classifle-,
only as aggression. At present, Turkis'
forces occupy the bulk of the most habi.
table land on Cyprus. Turkish Cypriot,
have declared this territory a separat
state for those of Turkish heritage, onl
18 percent of the population, and Greea.
Cypriots have been forced to flee. Nego-
tiations to date have brought no reir
progress toward a fair solution of Cypric .
problems.
Mr. President, I do not believe that thr
United States should condone Turkis'
conduct by resuming military assistance
We must stand by the sound principiii-
that military supplies provided by thi
country shall not be used for -aggression
Further, I believe that our deternii-
nation will provide an incentive for Tur,
key to resolve Cypriot problems In a,,-,
equitable manner. Until such a settle-
meat is reached on Cyprus, Mr. Presi
dent, there will be no stability on thr
southern flank of NATO, no matter ho"a
much we try to appease our Turkis:
allies. Those who believe this bill wit
heal all wounds are fooling themselve_y
Its passage would indicate approval c
the status quo and serve only to encour
age further Turkish inflexibility.
I hope that a majority of my colleague
will join with me in rejecting this weli
intentioned but misguided legislatooi..
Our vote today will have an impact oi.
this country for years to come.
Mr. MATHIAS. Mr. President, befor?>
closing I would like to seek clarification
for the record of one final aspect of th ..;
legislation which might be subject to
some confusion or ambiguity. To this end,
I would like to engage the managers of
S. 846 in a brief colloquy on the question
of the effect of this bill on existing re-
strictions under the Foreign Assistance
Act of 1961 or the Foreign Military Sales
Act with respect to actions by the Gov-
ernment of Turkey not directly related to
the Cyprus conflict.
It is my understanding that under the
terms of S. 846, the President is author-
ized,*to resume military assistance and
sales to Turkey as long as Turkey meets
three conditions: First, observes. the
ceasg-fire; second, refrains from increas-
ing its forces on Cyprus; and third, re-
frains from transferring to Cyprus any
U.S. supplied implements of war.
My concern springs from the problem
of %hat would happen should the Gov-
ernment of Turkey meet these three con-
ditions regarding Cyprus, but at the same
time undertake some other kind of ag-
gressive military activity against Greece,
or any other nation, in violation of the
agreements entered into under the For-
eign Assistance Act of 1.961 or the Foreign
Military Sales Act.
Therefore, my question is this: Is it the
intention of the manager and principal
sponsors of S. 846 that the enactment of
this bill should in no way be construed
as a derogation of the provisions of either
the Foreign Assistance: or Military Sales
Acts which would require the President
to suspend arms shipments to any na-
tion which uses U.S. su ?plied weapons for
other than defensive purposes?
Mr. SPARKMAN. The Senator from
Maryland is absolutely correct.
Mr. MATHIAS. In other words. the
enactment of this bill would not only re-
quire the Government of Turkey to re-
spect the three Cyprus-related condi-
tions contained therein In order to avoid
another arms cutoff, but would also
leave intact the existing statutory re-
quirement that U.S. arms shipments be
halted if Turkey or any other nation
undertakes offensive military activity of
any kind with U.S. su:?plied weapons. Is
that the floor manager's understanding?
Mr. SPARKMAN. It most certainly is.
Mr. MATHIAS. I thank the Senator
from Alabama. I hope that this brief ex-
change will be helpful in establishing
clear legislative history to the effect that
passage of the bill before us today, S.846,
will In no way increase the incentives of
any nation in that troubled part of the
world to pursue a course of military ac-
tion without regard to the consequences
in terms of U.S. policy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour
of 4 o'clock having arrived, under the
previous order the Senate will now pro-
ceed to vote on the bill.
The bill having been read. the third
time, the question is, Shall it pass? On
this question the yeas and nays have been
ordered, and the clerk. will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. I announce
that the Senator from Iowa (Mr. CLARK).
the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. EAST-
LAND), the Senator from Colorado (Mr.
HASKELL), the Senator from Maine (Mr.
HATHAWAY), the Senator from Minnesota
(Mr. HUMPHREY), the Senator from
Hawaii (Mr. INOUYE), the Senator from
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77MOOl 44RO01 100190008-5
 May 19, 1975 Approved Forq4L4k~P77J001100190008-5
Vermont (Mr. LEAHY), the Senator from
Louisiana (Mr. LONG) the Senator from
Wyoming (Mr. MCGEE), the Senator
from Montana (Mr. METCALF), the Sena-
tor from Minnesota (Mr. MONDALE), the
Senator from North Carolina (Mr. MOR-
GAN), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss),
the Senator from West Virginia (Mr.
RANDOLPH), and the Senator from Geor-
gia (Mr. TALMADGE) are necessarily ab-
sent.
I also announce that the Senator from
New Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS) is absent
on official business.
On this vote, the Senator from Wyo-
ming (Mr. McGEE) is paired with the
Senator from Utah (Mr. Moss). If pres-
ent and voting, the Senator from Wyo-
ming would vote "yea" and the Senator
from Utah would vote "nay."
I further announce that, if present and
voting, the Senator from Iowa (Mr.
CLARK), the Senator from West Virginia
(Mr. RANDOLPH), the Senator from New
Jersey (Mr. WILLIAMS), and the Senator
from Colorado (Mr. HASKELL) would
each vote "nay."
Mr. GRIFFIN. I announce that the
Senator from Alaska (Mr. STEVENS) is-
necessarily absent.
I also announce that the Senator from
Tennessee (Mr. BAKER) is absent on ofl3=
elal business.
The result was announced-yeas 41,
nays 40, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 190 Leg.]
YEAS-41
Bartlett Muskie
Bellmon T7-ateg Nunn
n
Brock Packwood
Buckley Hansen Pearson
Bumpers Hart, Philip A. Scott, Hugh
bert C. Hatfield Sparkman
ann Helms Stafford
Hruska Stennis
Chiles Huddleston Symington
Curtis Johnston Taft
Domenici Mansfield Thurmond
Fannin Mathias Tower
Fong McClellan Young
Ford McClure
NAYS-40
Abourezk
Eagleton
Nelson
Allen,
Glenn
Pastore
Bayh
Gravel
Pell
Beall
Hart, Gary W.
Percy
Bentsen
Hartke
Proxmire
Biden
Hollings
Ribicof
Brooke
Jackson
Roth
Burdick
Javits
Schweiker
Byrd,
Kennedy
Scott,
Harry F., Jr.
Laxalt
William 1,.
Church
Magnuson
Stevenson
Cranston
McGovern
Stone
Culver
McIntyre
Tunney
Dole
Montoya
Weicker
NOT VOTING-18
Baker
Inouye
Morgan
Clark
Leahy
Moss
Eastland
Long
Randolph
Haskell
McGee
Stevens
Hathaway
Metcalf
Talmadge
Humphrey
Mondale
Williams
So the bill (S. 846) was passed, as fol-
lows :
S. 646
An act to authorize the further suspension
of prohibitions against military assistance
to Turkey, and for other purposes
Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That section
620(x) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961
and section 6 of the joint resolution of Octo-
ber 17, 1974 (Public Law 93-448, as amended
by Public Law 93-570) are each amended by
striking out "until February 5, 1975, and
only if, during that time," and inserting in
lieu thereof '91 during such suspension".
Ssc. 2. Section 620(x) of the Foreign As-
sistance Act of 1961 is further amended by
designating the present subsection as para-
graph (1) and. by adding at the end thereof
the following new paragraph:
"(2) The President shall submit to the,
Congress within thirty days after the enact-
ment of this paragraph, and at the end of
each succeeding thirty-day period, a report
on progress made during such period toward.
the conclusion of a negotiated solution of
the Cyprus conflict.".
Mr. TOWER. Mr. President, I move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed,
Mr. CASE. Mr. President, I move to lay
that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was
agreed to.
Mr. TUNNI'Y. Mr. President, today I
was regrettably forced to cast my vote
against the bill to renew American arms
assistance to Turkey. I say regrettably
because Turkey has been an old and re-
liable ally, whose friendship and mutual-
ity of interest with the United States
have been demonstrated many times over
the past three decades.
Turkish forces have participated
proudly alongside the forces of the United
States, Great Britain, France, and Ger-
many, and other alliance partners in
preserving the security of Western Eu-
rope and the Mediterranean. With ap-
proximately half a million men in arms,
Turkey has NATO's second largest land
force. In addition, it occupies the strate-
gically vital position between the Middle
East and the Soviet Union. There is no
doubt that any withdrawal of Turkey
from the NATO would seriously damage
its effectiveness.
Nevertheless, I feel compelled to ob-
ject to the restoration of American arms
assistance because I feel the require-
ments set forth when the embargo was
first passed that there be "substantial
progress" in the negotiations and a par-
tial withdrawal of Turkish troops from
Cyprus have not been met. The mandate
of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 is.
clear-American arms are not to-be used
by allies in aggressive actions. The rea-
son for that law was equally obvious-
it was meant to encourage self-defense,
not the imposition of foreign policy views
by military flat. That reasoning is as
vital today as it was 14 years ago. No al-
liance can long endure if one ally is free
to use indiscriminate force to settle its
disputes with another ally.
I had hoped that progress on the Cy-
prus problem would have come more
quickly. However, while it is true that.
today negotiations are again underway,
it seems as though we are no closer to a
resolution to the problem than we were
6 months ago. The U.S. Government has
not even received private assurances
that Turkish withdrawal would proceed
once aid was renewed. This situation can
hardly be described as representing sub-
stantial progress.
Under the circumstances, I feel that
the arms embargo must be continued un-
til the talks on Cyprus progress or 'un-
til, as a minimum, we have received as-
surances from the Turkish Government
S 8651
that if arms assistance is renewed there
will be a new flexibility on the part of
Turkey.
Mr. ROBERT C. BYRD. Mr. President,
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk
will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I seek
recognition.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair
recognizes the Senator from Montana.
Mr. STENNI,S. Mr. President, may the
Senate be in order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ators will keep order in the Chamber.
LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, there
will be no further votes this evening. We
will, of course, take up the supplemental
appropriation bill, which will be laid
down this evening for tomorrow, plus
the Butterfield nomination tomorrow.
SENATE RESOLUTION 160--RESOLU-
TION DISAPPROVING CONSTRUC-
TION PROJECTS ON THE ISLAND
OF DIEGO GARCIA
(Referred to the Committee on Armed
Services.)
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
May 12, 1975, the President of the United
States, by letter, certified to the Con-
gress that the construction of naval fa-
cilities on the island of Diego Garcia in
the Indian Ocean is vital to the national
interests of the Government of the
United States. The text of the President's
letter to the Congress reads as follows:
To the Congress of the United States:
In accordance with section 613(a) (1) (A)
of the Military Construction Authorization
Act, 1975 (Public Law 93-552), I have eval-
uated all the military and foreign policy im-
plications regarding the need for United
States facilities at Diego Garcia. On the basis
of this evaluation and in accordance with
section 613(a) (1) (B), I hereby certify that
the construction of such facilities is essential
to the national interest of the United States.
GERALD R. Foan.
Tam WHrrE Houss, May 12, 19; 5.
Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, may we
have order? I cannot hear the Senator's
remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen-
ate will be in order.
The Senate may proceed.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Under the provi-
sions of Public Law 93-552, 93d Congress,
2d session, section 613, I am laying before
the Senate a resolution of disapproval in
accordance with ,the provisions of section
613. I ask unanimous consent that at the
conclusion of my remarks section 613
from the public law be printed in order
that Senators may have an opportunity
to read this section of law and know ex-
actly how this resolution of disapproval
will be handled in the Committee of the
Armed Services and on the floor of the
Senate.
Approved For Release 2005/12/14: CIA-RDP77M00144RO01100190008-5
 S 8652 Approved For E6yilL4 77 0 VfF001100190008,ray, 19. 1975
A "RESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.
iVtr. U4ANWT ~p
was Mr. President, wlve ,y ri ed that the President I
gf We U stinitedr i States would send this
resolution to the Congress at this time
t.13 vies that we have been told by the
admini tration that the President is in
Lhe tnicst of a reappraisal of our foreign
policy jecause of the debacle of Viet-
nam, C _t,mbodia, and Southeast Asia.
I Lhi ik in the debate of this resolu-
tion. w. ten it is returned from the Armed
Service : Committee, a number of very
Important questions should be examined
during he debate.
Why in the face of the fact that all
the nations bordering on the Indian
Ocean save asked the United States and
the Scaiet Union not to escalate the
arms race in the Indian Ocean area,
has the administration forwarded this
letter of certification? At a meeting
in New Delhi on November 17, 1974, 30
nation: issued a policy statement op-
posing the United States building a
naval facility on the island of Diego
Garcia
Why does this administration persist
in the face of a staggering deficit in
our budget insist on building a naval
facility that will cost approximately
$175 million? I contend that the money
that tie administration is requesting
to stari building naval facilities on Diego
Garcia amounting to $14 million for the
Navy and $3.3 millionfor theAir Force,
is only a downpayment. Already in the
ii-.cal year 1976 budget, the Navy Is ask-
ing fol? an additional $13 million fbr
operational facilities on Diego Garcia.
Mr. President, are we going to engage
In an adventure of Southeast Asia and
Vietnie n all over again? Is there an ex-
Lensior of a policy of the United States
trying to be policeman for the world
in the face of our bitter experience in
Vietna:n?
Are :se not scattered throughout the
world a slough by having military person-
nel on all five continents-perhaps, if
Antar : tica Is considered a continent,
on all six continents---and naval ships on
all the xceans of the world and on a good
many seas?
In vc,ting the naval base on the island
of Diet -o Garcia, are we going to vote a
three-ocean Navy? The Navy contends
that they will be able to operate car-
riers i11 the Indian Ocean with only a
12-airs: Lane carrier force. However, will
it real] v have to be 15 carriers to fulfill
our commitment in the Atlantic, Pacific,
and the, Indian Ocean?
I lie.,eve that the role of the carrier
In sea warfare should be a part of the
debate on the island of Diego Garcia. I
submit that the aircraft carrier is now
obsolete with the technical advancement
of the new cruise missiles. I submit that
in the Mediterranean Sea, the Soviets
in ways know exactly within a few hun-
deed 3 ards where our carriers are op-
eratin?.., Can a carrier task force ade-
quatel,- protect itself in Its operations
in the Indian Ocean?
What are our so-called vital inter-
ests Ir. the Indian Ocean? Certainly,
having a task force in the Indian Ocean
had no effect on the oil situation duri:: g
the Yom Kippur war in October 19'13,
In fact, our naval vessels were complet--
ly cut off from Arab oil and the Unit, d
States could do nothing about the Arb
action.
Incidentally, I understand that tht e
Is an interesting article in this weep: 's
U.S. News & Wol?ld Report. which or. e
again raises the specter of war Ih ci. e
of another oil embargo. 1 hope that ti' t
does not come to pass.
Mr. President, the question of Die o
Garcia and allowing the Navy to bu_..d
a naval operating facility on this isla:_d
some 1,200 miles south of the tip of I:-
dia is a vital policy question. I urge up,- n
my colleagues to take due notice of this
action and to study all of the facts tl ,t
are available. I urge my colleagues .o
give serious consideration as to whets. ?r
this Nation should support a naval be e
thousands of miles from our shoi .ts
which will amount to nothing more th.n
"showing the flag" in an area of t:e
world where the nations have request,:d
that we not have our Navy there in for
For the information of my colleagu'::s,
on December 5, 1974, CONGRESSIONAL Ri. --
ORn, 820742. I delivered a speech setti,L9
forth reasons for my opposition to tie
building of naval operating facilities n
the island of Diego Garcia:
I ask unanimous consent that ti tt
speech be printed in the RECORD at al
appropriate point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Witho i
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. MANSFIELD. Finally, I point c it
that the Senate has 60 legislative days to
act upon this resolution and the Am-.,.d
Services Committee should report it ba? k
to the floor of the Senate within 20 di>'is
with its recommendation. I urge tie
Armed Services Committee to report t'.-.is
resolution of disapproval favorably n
order that the United States will not a:ti-
bark upon another adventure in tae
southern part of Asia.
Mr. President, I send to the desk tae
resolution of disapproval and ask that it
be read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The-res?a-
lution will be stated.
The legislative clerk read as follov
S. Res. 160
Resolved, That the Senate does not appr~.'e
the proposed construction project on Lire
island of Diego Garcia, the need for whf,h
was certified to by the President and '