INVESTIGATION BY THE PREPAREDNESS SUBCOMMITTEE OF OUR WORLDWIDE MILITARY COMMITMENTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82R00025R000700170011-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 10, 2005
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: August 31, 1966
• Content Type: OPEN

Zr lease 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP82R00025R000700170011-9
The Senate met at 10:30 o'clock a.m.,
and was called to order by Hon. MAURINE
B. NEUBERGER, a Senator from the State of
Oregon.
The Chaplain, Rev. Frederick Brown
Harris, D.D.,.. offered the following
prayer:
0 God, our Father: For this sacra-
mental moment, closing the doors to a
noisy world full of terror. and alarm, we
enter this pavilion of quietness and peace,
to acknowledge our utter dependence
upon Thee-Thou who hast made us in
Thy image and for Thyself.
Forgive us for smug satisfaction with
ourselves and fpr our cynical contempt
of others. Purge our minds of prejudices
out of which we make walls separating
us from our fellow man. Cleanse our
hearts of the uncleanness which blinds
ties-for we know that it is only
pure in heart who can see Thee.
So may we be more worthy to belong
to the one great family of Thy children
and to take our place at the "common
table of humanity where the bread of
fellowship is broken and the wine of sac-
rifice is shared.
And Thine shall be the kingdom, and
the power, and the glory. Amen.
DESIGNATION OF ACTING PRESI-
DENT PRO TEMPORE
The legislative clerk read the follow-
ing letter:
Senate,
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 31., 1966
On request of Mr. YOUNG of Ohio, the
Joint Committee on the Reorganization
of Congress was authorized to meet dur-
ing the session of the Senate today.
On request of Mr. LAUSCHr:, and by
unanimous consent, the Committee on
Foreign Relations was authorized to
meet during the session of the Senate
today.
LIMITATION ON STATEMENTS DUR-
ING THE TRANSACTION DF ROU-
TINE MORNING BUSINESS
On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by
unanimous consent, statements during
the transaction of routine morning busi-
ness were ordered limited to 3 minutes.
INVESTIGATION BY THE PREPARED-
NESS SUBCOMMITTEE OF OUR
WORLDWIDE MILITARY COMMIT-
MENTS
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam Presi-
dent, last week the Preparedness Investi-
gating Subcommittee, under the able
chairmanship of the distinguished Sen-
ator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS],
commenced its hearing into our world-
wide military commitments and our
ability to respond to them. The Hon-
orable Dean Rusk, Secretary of State,
was the leadoff witness.
To the Preparedness Subcommittee
a
ma
e
this is an extremely important and Sig- a hard and realistic appraisal of what level
nificant inquiry. It represents a care- of military effort and response would be re-
ful and determined effort by the legis- quired by us if two, three or more contin-
lative branch of the Government to re- gencies or outbreaks should occur simulta-
view and measure all of our formal and He n
He said the U.S. could not supply and
informal defense commitments and as- maintain all the conventional militar f
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE,
Washington, D.C., August 31, 1966.
To the Senate:
Being temporarily absent from the Senate,
I appoint Hon. MAURINE B. NEUBERGER, a
Senator from the State of Oregon, to per-
form, the duties of the Chair during my
absence.
CARL HAYDEN,
President pro tempare.
Mrs. NEUBERGER thereupon took the
chair as Acting President pro tempore.
TIE JOURNAL
On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by
unanimous consent, the reading of the
Journal of the proceedings of Tuesday,
August 30, 1966, was dispensed with.
COMMITTEE MEETINGS DURING
SENATE SESSION
On request of Mr. MANSFIELD, and by
unanimous consent, the following sub-
committees were authorized to meet dur-
ing the session of the Senate today:
The Subcommittee on Executive Re-
organization of the Committee on Gov-
ernment Operations.
The Subcommittee on Small Business
of the Committee on Banking and
Currency.
.Y orce
surances so as to ascertain the degree, that would be required to meet all our
world-
if any, that we are overcommitted and wide military commitments at the same time.
overextended all over the world, in the "Nevertheless," he said, "(we) need an
light of our present and potential over-all assessment of the extent of our mili-
re5oUPCes. tary commitments to enable us to reach a de-
cision t what level of
h
Inherent in this problem is the ques- w
hat levep' forces) Should bepro srovvide ided ( within n
tion of whether our free world allies, our resources."
whose stake in the cause of freedom is When that level of strength is determined
as great as ours, are bearing their fair and fixed by Congress, Sen. STENNIS said, "it
share of the common burden, should be supported in all aspects as quickly
as
Let me commend the distinguished possible."
chairman of the subcommittee, Senator A major significance of the investigation
STENNIS, for his wisdom and Sound judg- is that these other military commitments
exist in
st in
ment in undertaking this timely and im- i
soon may e may require more than 400,000
portent inquiry. It is one which will U.S. servicemen.
go far in providing the Congress and MANY YEARS
the public with those facts which are Sen. STENNIS often has said the war in Viet
essential to informed and intelligent Nam would last many years, and that even
judgment about a matter that involves after we win it, the U.S. would be required
in vital fashion the security of the to keep some of its military there-just as
United States. we have in Korea.
In this connection, Madam President, As do most senators, Sen. STENNIS believes
I ask unanimous consent to insert at this the costs of the Viet Nam war will continue
point an article by the able newspaper- ask to spira and he expeme the Pentagon will far man, Marshall McNeil, "STENNIS' Unit To possibly a a as nother much as s $10 $10 billion, supple ntolllion, b
appropriation,
next
y ea , by early next
-_ y
,,.
Pmha Militar
t
i+.,,
Com
y
en
s
m
an
tilde in the New York Times by the able Sen. STENNIS said Mr. Rusk will be expected
and respected Arthur Krock, "Issue of to give a broad view of our commitments and
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP82R00025R000700170011-9
U.S. Global Overcommitment"; an edi-
torial from the Columbia, S.C., Record
"Where Do We Stand?"; an editorial in
the Winston-Salem Journal "Senator
STENNIS' Warning"; and an editorial in
the Chicago Tribune entitled "Stretched
Thin."
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[From the Washington (D.C.) Daily News,
Aug. 24, 1966]
STENNIS UNIT To PROBE MILITARY
COMMITMENTS
(By Marshall McNeil)
The Senate investigation that starts to-
morrow into the extent of our world-wide
military commitments, and our ability to re-
spond to them, could have a major impact on
future Pentagon plans and budgets.
pafEdness Investigating Subcommittee head-
ed by Sen. JOHN STENNIS (D., Miss.).
This will be no spur-of-the-moment hear-
ing. The Subcommittee staff-the same
group President Johnson headed when he
was a senator-started preparing for it last
April,
RUSK
Secretary of State Dean Rusk, who last
February told the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee that we have formal commitments
with more than 40 countries to assist them
militarily if they are the victims of aggres-
sion, will be the first witness.
"These extensive commitments," Sen.
STENNIS said, "make it imperative that we
take a new and sober look at them
nd
k
 Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP82R00025R000700170011-9
August 31, 1966 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - HOUSE 20551
education and including certain travel; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. FULTON of Pennsylvania:
H.R.17462. A bill to amend the Internal
Security Act of 1950; to the Committee on
Un-American Activities.
By Mr. HAGEN of California:
H.R. 17463. A bill to amend the Agricul-
tural Adjustment Act, as reenacted and
amended by the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agri-
culture.
By Mr. OLSON of Minnesota:
H.R. 17464. A bill to amend the Agricul-
tural Adjustment Act, as reenacted and
amended by the Agricultural Marketing
Agreement Act of 1937, as amended, and for
other purposes; to the Committee on Agri-
culture.
By Mr. POWELL:
H.R. 17465. A bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 to authorize the deduc-
tion from gross income by teachers of the
expenses undertaken by them in pursuing
courses for academic credit and degrees at
institutions of higher education, including
certain travel; to the Committee on Ways
and Means.
By Mr. RONCALIO:
H.R. 17466. A bill to amend the Internal
Revenue Code of 1954 to allow teachers to
deduct from gross income the expenses in-
curred in pursuing courses for academic
credit and degrees at institutions of higher
education and including certain travel; to
the Committee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. ST GERMAIN:
H.J. Res. 1291. Joint resolution proposing
an amendment to the Constitution of the
United States relative to equal rights for men
and women; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. MARTIN of Massachusetts:
H. Con. Res. 996. Concurrent resolution to
urge negotiation under the General Agree-
ment on Tariffs and Trade, article 28, for
relief of tariff on machines used in making
pulp, paper, and paperboard; to the Com-
mittee on Ways and Means.
By Mr. FIND:
H. Res. 994. Resolution to express the sense
of the House that the Federal Aviation Agen-
cy shall prohibit such aircraft landings as
may be found dangerous to the health and
safety of residents of surrounding neighbor-
hoods; to the Committee on Interstate and
Foreign Commerce.
By Mr. KORNEGAY:
H. Res. 995. Resolution to create a perma-
nent Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. PEPPER:
H. Res. 996. Resolution to create a perma-
nent Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. FASCELL:
H. Res. 997. Resolution to create a perma-
nent Select Committee on Standards and
Conduct; to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. MILLER:
H. Res. 998. Resolution providing for the
consideration of the bill S. 774, to authorize
the Secretary of Commerce to make a study
to determine the advantages and disadvan-
tages of increased use of the metric system
in the United States, and for other purposes.
to the Committee on Rules.
By Mr. RONCALIO:
H. Res. 999. Resolution to include drum
and bugle corps under the Mutual Educa-
tional and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961
and for other purposes; to the Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private
bills and resolutions were introduced and
severally referred as follows:
By Mr. ADDABBO:
H.R. 17467. A bill for the relief of Fran-
cesco Fidilio; to the Committee on the Judi-
ciary.
By Mr. CONTE:
H.R. 17468. A bill for the relief of Guiseppe
Mfchienzi; to the Committee on the Judi-
ciary.
By Mr. DELANEY:
H.R. 17469. A bill for the relief of Alvaro
Carlos Carreras; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. DUNCAN of Oregon:
H.R. 17470. A bill for the relief of Veselin
Vucinic; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. GIAIMO:
H.R. 17471. A bill for the relief of Mrs.
Taeko (Natale Anthony) Lauritano; to the
Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. JOHNSON of Pennsylvania:
MR. 17472. A bill for the relief of SpSc.
Joseph H. Barkley; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. ROONEY of Pennsylvania:
H.R. 17473. A bill for the relief of Khalil
Elias Barchini; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
By Mr. SCHMIDHAUSER:
H.R. 17474. A bill for the relief of Sung-
Won-No; to the Committee on the Judiciary.
By Mr. STALBAUM:
H.R. 17475. A bill for the relief of Hermine
Grigorian, nee Minassian; to the Committee
on the Judiciary.
By Mr. CHARLES H. WILSON:
H.R. 17476. A bill for the relief of Miss
Corazon Chu Cea; to the Committee on the
Judiciary.
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP82R00025R000700170011-9
 August 31, 1966 ' ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
to "address himself specifically to NATO and
its status and problems."
Subsequently, the chairman added Mr.
Rusk will be recalled to testify in a secret
session of the Sub-Committee.
The Senator hopes to hold more public
hearings, but he warned that because of
"security considerations" most of the testi-
mony would have to be taken in executive
session.
[From the New York Times, Aug. 28, 19661
IN THE NATION: ISSUE OF U.S. GLOBAL OVER-
COMMITMENT
(By Arthur Krock)
WASHINGTON, August 27.-The purpose of a
current Senate subcommittee inquiry is to
measure against the Administration's policy
of going to the. aid of all peoples under the
threat or presence of external aggression, its
capacity to do this and simulataneously care
for the economic and military defense re-
quirements of the United States. And it was
evident during the questioning of the first
witness, Secretary of State Rusk, that no
subcommittee member was satisfied with his
answers.
Nor was this dissatisfaction allayed by the
staged news conference, after a Cabinet meet-
ing later that day, in which Secretary of
Defense McNamara let loose a torrent of stat-
istics designed to show that United States
military capability is sufficient to meet any
foreseeable strain in carrying out the Ad-
ministration's global anti-aggression policy.
The questions of the Senate group implied
no doubt that this country has the military
and economic strength to wage the war in
Vietnam without sacrificing any essential re-
quirement of national defense. And there
was no suggestion of dissent from what ap-
pears to be the position of the large major-
ity of the American people-that the Gov-
ernment is Involved in the war in Vietnam to
the degree that either withdrawing our
forces entirely, or confining them to defen-
sible enclaves, is wholly out of the question.
SENATORS DISTURBED BY RUSK
But Rusk's interpretation of the anti-ag-
gression commitment as a global obligation
from which the use of American armed forces
anywhere was not excluded, even in "the ab-
sence of a defense treaty, Congressional dec-
laration or United States military presence,"
clearly disturbed the subcommittee. Also,
though the Secretary made a passing refer-
ence to Congress as a participating partner
with the President in determining whether to
use force in each instance of external ag-
gression that might arise elsewhere and care-
fully qualified "force" with the adjective
"collective," committeemen were not im-
pressed, for reasons clear in the record of the
wars in Korea and Vietnam. Among these
are the following:
(1) President Truman engaged the armed
forces of the United States in Korea with-
out seeking the constitutional association of
Congress. He based his authority on the
commitment assumed by the United States
as a signatory. of the United Nations Charter,
before the U.N., by resolution and at the
President's request, imposed the same com-
initment on its other members. But, though
this made the war officially a U.N. "police
action," its other members contributed only
5 per cent to the cost and military manpower
of the war.
(2) President- Kennedy expanded United
States involvement in South Vietnam from
the handful of military advisers dispatched
by President Eisenhower to a strong Ameri-
can military presence In the country. He did
this without Congressional affirmation on
the basis of actions by Presidents Eisenhower
and Truman, which Congress had either
directly or indirectly endorsed in going to
the aid of nations threatened by Communist
agression.
(3) President Johnson inherited what,
once it had been ordered by his predecessor,
became a direct and evermounting military
involvement of the United States in Vietnam.
Mn. Johnson initially did not rely on the
SEATO treaty as the source of his authority
for whatever expansion of our combat force
he would deem necessary. That was a later
invention of the Department of State. Mr.
Johnson found Congressional authority, for
any military decisions he might make, in a
resolution passed after an attack by small
war-vessels of North Vietnam on two United
States destroyers in the Gulf of Tonkin.
SUPPORT SOUGHT IN TREATY
It was only when review of the assurances
given by Administration spokesmen in the
Senate debate showed the resolution had
been approved on a much more limited un-
derstanding of its scope that the State De-
partment fell back on the SEATO treaty as
a blank-cheque commitment.
But other signatories of the compact have
In part accounted for their failure to pro-
vide any assistance-military or economic-
to the United States in Vietnam by pointing
out that there is no such commitment in
SEATO, a fact confirmed by the text.
On the basis of this record, it was to be
expected that the Senate subcommittee's
concern over the nation's global commit-
ments would not be removed by Rusk's cere-
monial references to the role of Congress, or
by his implication that a sine qua non of
the use of United States armed force in re-
deeming these commitments was that it be
a "collective" (allied) undertaking.
The Secretary's exposition of the policy
under examination by the subcommittee was
actually a literal, militant interpretation of
the Truman Doctrine far beyond that made
in practice by its author. Though Mr.
Truman described the Doctrine as stating an
unqualified obligation by the United States
to go to the aid of "any peoples threatened by
external aggression or internal subversion,"
he invoked it on the limited basis of economic
and technical assistance until the attack on
South Korea from the Communist North.
And even then he gave the United States
military intervention the semblance (as it
proved) of "collective" action by enveloping-
it with the Charter and the flag of the U.N.
U.N. IMPOSED RESTRAINTS
In the final analysis this tactic of President
Truman provided the U.N. with the authority
to impose the restraints on the U.S. armed
forces that prevented this nation for the first
time in its history to carry a war to a con-
clusion. And Important sources of the re-
straint were our allies In the Security Coun-
cil, despite their small contribution in Korea.
In view of this background, of the 40 mili-
tary commitments of the United States
abroad and of the hollow ring which expe-
rience has given to the word "collective," the
subcommittee merely Indicated a wide public
uneasiness about the Administration's global
anti-aggression: concept. Particularly since
its choice of a testing-ground has proved so
fallible that, as Chairman STENNIS remarked:
"A relatively small and undeveloped country
such as North Vietnam has been able to tie
[From the Columbia (S.C.) Record,
Aug. 28, 1966]
WHERE Do WE STAND?
The question of how well the United States
is prepared for war which would be super-
imposed upon that in which we are already
engaged in Southeast Asia is indeed a vital
one, ' and one which has been forcefully
raised in the Senate Preparedness Investi-
gating Subcommittee.
Perhaps the nuclear power of our country
and of Rusisa Is a sufficient deterrent to
general war, and perhaps for other reasons
20553
no such war is in prospect. And perhaps no
more smaller conflicts are in the cards.
The people of America so hope.
But it is right that Congress propound the
question to the State and Defense Depart-
ments, as Senator STENNIS, chairman of the
subcommittee, has done. It is the kind of
watchfulness for which this committee was
created.
There was a response from the Administra-
tion so immediate as to suggest a feeling of
urgency on the part of the White House.
Secretary McNamara sought to show that
despite the extent of our current commit-
ments around the globe we are fully able
to meet them.
But the basis of Senator STENNIS' question
remained unanswered. He has said his com-
mittee wanted to know "whether or not we
are, or may be, over-extended either now or
in the future." He had posed the question
of what would be our capacity if two or
three other Viet Nams should develop.
What, espeically, would be our resource in
manpower?
It would be comforting to conclude that
the only task before us is that of prevailing
in Viet Nam, but the subcommittee properly
asks if we are sufficiently secure in Europe
and what are the "realistic assissements" of
the future with respect to our whole current
obligation and possible additional demands.
These are indeed hard and searching ques-
tions, including difficult looks ahead, but
lest there be a slumbering along the line
and an over-emphasis of the goal in South-
east Asia, they should be asked recurrently
and firmly.
[From the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal,
Aug. 27, 19661
SENATOR STENNIS' WARNING
Of all the anxieties that the war in Viet
Nam has generated, none is more persistent
or more critical than that raised again this
week by Senator JOHN STENNIS Of MiSSiS-
sippi; Has the war distorted our commit-
ment and left us in a weakened condition
elsewhere?
Secretary Rusk insisted that the war has
had no such effect. And Secretary Mc-
Namara made what was the only reasonable
comment a Secretary of Defense could make
in a public hearing. "We are," he said,
"better prepared today to fulfill our world-
wide commitments than at any time in
recent years."
But Senator STENNIS' question is serious,
and It cannot be laid to rest, as he said by
"rosy generalizations." As he said, "the hard
fact Is that a relatively small and undevel-
oped country such as North Viet Nam has
been able to tie us down and require a very
substantial commitment of our military
manpower and resources over many months."
It is no more than realism to insist that this
danger exists and that we aught to be con-
cerned, as Senator STENNIS is, about It.
The news of the day is not reassuring
either. The American contingent in Viet
Nam has now risen to more than 300,000
men. Congress has closed the door on a
selective tapping of the manpower pool that
the Reserves provide. Draftees are finding
their way to Viet Nam in very short order
these days. The dollar cost of the war is
rising and is having a distressing effect on
the nation's economy.
The defense of South Viet Nam and the
attempt to stabilize Southeast Asia have
seemed to us logical and reasonable and
honorable things for the United States to
undertake. And certainly our intervention
has denied the Communists almost sure suc-
cess in Viet Nam.
The war, however, must be kept in some
overall perspective. If the American com-
mitment does rise, as many people have pre-
dicted it will, to 600,000 or 750,000 men, what
will happen to our national commitments
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA=RDP82R00025R000700170011-9
 20554
Approved For Release 2005/03/24: CIA-RDP82R00025R000700170011-9
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD = SENATE August 31, +-1966
elsewhere then? Are there enough men to
supply the needs? Is the Administration
facing up to the tough political decisions
that would keep our military strength at
-adequate levels? And most fundamentally,
is it really In the national interest to expand
-the war to such dimensions and to devote
so large a share of our resources to this war?
Such questions have emerged at each stage
of the war, as it increased in intensity, but
they will become more acute now. The
strain of the war on the national economy
is becoming heavier now. And it is easy to
see that the strain on our capacity to meet
our responsiblities elsewhere is growing com-
mensurately.
Senator STENNis has been an accurate
prophet thus far of the costs and risks of this
war. His warning now deserves a more spe-
CiSc and more convincing answer from the
national administration.
[From the Chicago (211.) Tribune,
1966]
STRETCHED THIN
The Senate preparedness subcommittee
yesterday provided the useful reminder to
the American people that our global commit-
`Itieritr, pledging us to the defense of more
than 40 Countries, have stretched our mili-
tary strength very thin. Sen. STENNis, the
chairman, said the hearings were intended to
explore "whether or not we may be over-
extended either now or In the future."
Secretary of State Rusk, the lead-off wit-
ness, said, yes, we are committed by treaty
to more than 46 countries on five continents,
but that we weren't posing as the "world's
policeman" and that we weren't seeking t
impose a "pax Americana" on the globe.
"These commitments," he said, "do not in-
crease the likelihood that we will have to
fight. Rather, by making clear in advance
our estimation of the requirements of na-
tional security, they reduce that likelihood."
Re added that no prospective troublemaker
should jump to the conclusion that in the
absence of a defense treaty or other commit-
ment the United States would not neces-
sarily come to the defense of a country
which had come under attack. On that
basis, we apparently have taken every non-
Communist country in the world under our
wing; yet Mr. Rusk says we aren't to be con-
sidered a global policeman.
Sen. STENNIS did not sound persuaded. He
pointed out that a relatively small and un-
developed country such as North Viet Nam
has been able to tie us down and require
a very substantial commitment of our mili-
tary manpower and resources over many
months.
With so many military commitments, he
said, the United States could not afford to
become overly preoccupied with one area
of the world. The question in his mind, he
said, was how we could expect to respond
if brush fire wars broke out at a number of
places at once. That, as we mention else-
where oat this page, is the strategy outlined
by Red China's defense minister, Lin Piao,
who sees the United States nibbled to death
in "People's wars."
We do not expect that the Senate com-
mittee can arrive at a definitive answer to its
questions. The fact, however, ' is that the
United ' states , has entered so many defense
treaties that probably few citizens can keep
track. of them. There are NATO, SEATO,
C1"NPO, ANZUS, and the Rio pact with 19
Latin American countries. There are sepa-
rate' arrangements with countries ranging
from Nationalist China, Japan, and Korea
to Liberia.
All of these commitments have been as-
sumed withot}t consideration of the factor
of uality,Of risk and sacrifice. now many
of ,ese so-called allies could give us real
help in a showdown? Most of them refuse
;to.respect our trade embargo on communist
Cuba. A large number of them trade with
our enemy, communist North Viet Nam.
Some of them sell wheat to communist China,
or arrange to build steel mills for the Red
Chinese. In Korea, for what In theory was
a United Nations war, the United States pro-
vided about 95 percent of the fighting power,
aside from the troops of South Korea, and it
also paid almost all of the cost. In Viet Nam,
with the exception of some Koreans and Aus-
tralians, we fight alone.
The questions voiced by the Stennis com-
mittee are very real ones. We are stretched
very thin.
Mr. SALTONSTALL. Madam Presi-
dent, as a member of the subcommittee
from this side of the aisle, I want to join
the Senator from Missouri. [ believe
the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STEN-
Nis] has endeavored to have the commit-
tee really understand and be advised
of the preparedness conditions of our
military strength throughout the world.
Certainly, discussion of our overall com-
mitments will be very helpful to every
Member of the Senate.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I thank the dis-
tinguished Senator from Massachusetts
for his approval. He Is the ranking
Republican member of the subcommit-
tee in question.
DEATH OF ANDREW EDMISTON,
FORMER MEMBER OF THE HOUSE
OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM
WEST VIRGINIA-LEAVE OF
ABSENCE
Mr. RANDOLPH. Madam President,
the Honorable Andrew Edmiston, former
Member of the House of Representatives
from West Virginia, has died at his home
in Weston in our State of West Virginia.
My wife joins me in expressing condo-
lences to his widow, Beth, and his daugh-
ter, Ann.
He had a very distinguished record of
service for the people of the congres-
sional district which he represented for
four terms and also for the citizenry of
the country he loved.
Andrew Edmiston was the manager of
my campaign when I ran in my first
primary for office in the Senate, in 1958.
I ask unanimous consent that I be
granted leave of absence for t;ais after-
noon to attend funeral service.5 in West
Virginia for my cherished friend.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam ;President,
I ask unanimous consent that I may be
recognized for 10 minutes.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem-
pore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
REDUCTION OF U.S. 'FORCES IN
WESTERN EUROPE
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam :President,
I have a resolution at the desk, which I
ask to have read.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem.-
pore. The resolution will be read by the
clerk.
The legislative clerk read the resolu-
tion (S. Res. 300), as follows:
Whereas the foreign policy and military
strength of the United States are dedicated
to the protection of our national security,
the preservation of the liberties of the Amer-
ican people, and the maintenance of world
peace; and
Whereas the United States in implement-
ing these principles has maintained large
contingents of American Armed Forces in
Europe, together with air and naval units for
twenty years; and 11
Whereas the security of the United States
and its citizens remains interwoven with the
security of other nations signatory to the
North Atlatnic Treaty as it was when the
treaty was signed but the condition of our
European allies, both economically and mili-
tarily, have appreciably improved since large
contingents of forces were deployed; and
Whereas the means and capacity of all
members of the North Atlantic Treaty Or-
ganization to provide forces to resist aggres-
sion has significantly improved since the
original United States deployment; and
Whereas the commitment by all members
of the North Atlantic Treaty is based upon
the full cooperation of all treaty partners in
contributing materials and men on a fair
and equitable basis but such contributions
have not been forthcoming from all other
members of the organization; and
Whereas relations between Eastern Europe
and Western Europe were tense when the
large contingents of U.S. forces were deployed
in Europe but this situation has now under-
gone substantial change and relations be-
tween the two parts of Europe are now char-
acterized by an increasing two-way flow of
trade, people and other peaceful exchange;
and
Whereas the present policy of maintaining
large contingents of U.S. forces and their
dependents on the European Continent also
contributes further to the fiscal and mone-
tary problems of the United States: Now,
therefore, be it
Resolved by the Senate, That-
1. It is the sense of the Senate that, with
changes and improvements in the tech-
niques of modern warfare and because of
the vast increase in capacity of the United
States to wage war and to move military
forces and equipment by air, a substantial
reduction of U.S. forces permanently sta-
tioned in Europe can be made without ad-
versely affecting either our resolve or ability
to meet our commitment under the North
Atlantic Treaty;
2. Senate Resolution 99, adopted in the
Senate April 4, 1951, is amended to contain
the provisions of this resolution and, where
the resolution may conflict, the present reso-
lution is controlling as to the sense of the
Senate.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
the resolution just read is cosponsored by
the entire membership of the majority
policy committee-Senators LONG of
Louisiana, SMATHERS, HILL, RICHARD
RUSSELL, HAYDEN, MAGNUSON, PASTORE,
SYMINGTON, MUSKIE, HART, BREWSTER,
and INOUYE. It is intended to express to
the President the sentiment of the Sen-
ate that there be a substantial reduction
in the U.S. forces stationed in Western
Europe. The Senate will recall that re-
cent unofficial counts put these forces
somewhere between 400,000 and 450,000
and, together with dependents, the total
is between 900,000 and 1 million Ameri-
cans-military personnel and families-
stationed and supported in Europe.
The Senate should be cognizant of the
circumstances which have led to the in-
troduction of the proposed resolution.
Consideration of the question began in a
wholly spontaneous fashion at the July
Approved For Release'200513f?4; CIA-RDP82R00025R000700170011-9