PDF Version



                                                         S. Prt. 110-20
 
                       EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE
                   SENATE FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE
                 TOGETHER WITH JOINT SESSIONS WITH THE
                    SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE
                          (HISTORICAL SERIES)
=======================================================================

                               VOLUME XIX

                               __________

                           NINETIETH CONGRESS

                             first session

                                  1967


                            MADE PUBLIC 2007

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations




                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

31-436 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2007
------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing 
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax:  (202) 512-2250. Mail:  Stop SSOP, 
Washington, DC 20402-0001



                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                      90th Congress, First Session

                   J.W. FULBRIGHT, Arkansas, Chairman
JOHN SPARKMAN, Alabama               CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island
MIKE MANSFIELD, Montana              EUGENE J. McCARTHY, Minnesota
WAYNE MORSE, Oregon                  BOURKE HICKENLOOPER, Iowa
ALBERT GORE, Tennessee               GEORGE D. AIKEN, Vermont
FRANK J. LAUSCHE, Ohio               FRANK CARLSON, Kansas
FRANK CHURCH, Idaho                  JOHN J. WILLIAMS, Delaware
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri           KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut          CLIFFORD P. CASE, New Jersey
JOSEPH S. CLARK, Pennsylvania        JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky
                       Carl Marcy, Chief of Staff

                     COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
                     110th Congress, First Session

                JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut     RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts         CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin       NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
BARBARA BOXER, California            BOB CORKER, Tennessee
BILL NELSON, Florida                 GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois               JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey          LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JIM DeMINT, South Carolina
ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania   JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
JIM WEBB, Virginia                   DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
                   Antony J. Blinken, Staff Director
            Kenneth A. Meyers, Jr., Minority Staff Director

                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                      90th Congress, First Session

                 RICHARD B. RUSSELL, Georgia, Chairman
JOHN STENNIS, Mississippi            MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri           STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington         JACK MILLER, Iowa
SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina    JOHN G. TOWER, Texas
HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada             PETER H. DOMINICK, Colorado
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
STEPHEN M. YOUNG, Ohio
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii
THOMAS J. McINTYRE, New Hampshire
DANIEL B. BREWSTER, Maryland
HARRY F. BYRD, Jr., Virginia
                     Charles B. Kirbow, Chief Clerk
                      COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
                     110th Congress, First Session

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts     JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia        JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma
JACK REED, Rhode Island              PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BILL NELSON, Florida                 SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska         JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
EVAN BAYH, Indiana                   SAXBY M. CHAMBLISS, Georgia
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
MARK J. PRYOR, Arkansas              ELIZABETH DOLE, North Carolina
JIM WEBB, Virginia                   JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
                                     MEL MARTINEZ, Florida
                   Richard D. DeBobes, Staff Director
                  Mike Kostiw, Minority Staff Director

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                  Pages
Preface..........................................................    IX
Future Hearings, January 11......................................     1
The World Situation, January 16..................................    39
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Subcommittees and Hearings Procedures, January 24................   113
Minutes, January 24..............................................   129
Minutes, January 25..............................................   130
Minutes, January 26..............................................   131
The Situation in Indonesia, January 30...........................   133
    Testimony of Marshall Green, U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia
Background Briefing on Disarmament Problems, February 3..........   159
    Testimony of Richard Helms, Director of the Central 
      Intelligence Agency
Status of Development of Ballistic and Anti-Ballistic Systems in 
  U.S., and Briefing on Non-Proliferation Treaty, February 6.....   193
    Testimony of Dr. John S. Foster, Jr., Director of Defense 
      Research and Engineering; and Hon. William C. Foster, 
      Director, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency
Military Assistance to Latin America, February 6.................   217
    Testimony of Gen. Robert Porter, Southern Military Command
Strategic Implications of Antiballistic Missile Defense 
  Deployment/Limitations on Use of Chemical and Bacteriological 
  Agents in Warfare/Sales of Military Equipment by the United 
  States, February 7.............................................   245
    Testimony of Cyrus R. Vance, Deputy Secretary of Defense; and 
      John T. McNaughton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for 
      International Security Affairs
Minutes, February 27.............................................   274
Minutes, February 28.............................................   275
Minutes, February 28.............................................   276
Minutes, March 1.................................................   277
Sales of Military Equipment by United States, March 2............   279
    Testimony of John T. McNaughton, Assistant Secretary of 
      Defense for International Security Affairs
Policy Implications of Armament and Disarmament Problems, March 3   289
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State; and Adrian S. 
      Fisher, Deputy Director, Arms Control and Disarmament 
      Agency
Minutes, March 6.................................................   311
Minutes, March 13................................................   312
Arms Sales to Iran, March 14.....................................   313
    Testimony of Henry J. Kuss, Deputy Assistant Secretary of 
      Defense for International Logistics Negotiations
Minutes, March 16................................................   330
Minutes, March 20................................................   331
Briefing on Africa, March 28.....................................   333
    Testimony of John Palmer II, Assistant Secretary of State for 
      African Affairs
Minutes, March 30................................................   366
Minutes, April 3.................................................   367
Additional Military Assistance to Pakistan, April 5..............   369
    Testimony of William J. Handley, Acting Assistant Secretary 
      of State for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
Minutes, April 6.................................................   391
Minutes, April 13................................................   392
Minutes, April 13................................................   393
Minutes, April 14................................................   394
Minutes, April 18................................................   395
Minutes, April 19................................................   396
Minutes, April 20................................................   397
Minutes, April 21................................................   398
Minutes, April 24................................................   399
Minutes, April 25................................................   400
United States Troops in Europe, April 26.........................   401
    Testimony of Robert S. McNamara, Secretary of Defense; and 
      Nicholas DeB. Katzenbach, Acting Secretary of State
Minutes, April 26................................................   414
Briefing on Yemen and Greek Situations, April 28.................   415
    Testimony of Lucious D. Battle, Assistant Secretary of State 
      for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
Minutes, May 2...................................................   442
Minutes, May 2...................................................   443
United States Troops in Europe, May 3............................   445
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State; and Eugene V. 
      Rostow, Under Secretary for Political Affairs
Minutes, May 4...................................................   457
Discussion of Military Assistance to India and Pakistan, May 5...   459
    Testimony of Lt. General Joseph F. Carroll, Director, Defense 
      Intelligence Agency
The Situation in Poland, May 15..................................   471
    Testimony of John A. Gronouski, U.S. Ambassador to Poland
Discussion Regarding the Secretary of State's Testimony, May 16..   505
Minutes, May 16..................................................   520
Minutes, May 16..................................................   521
Briefing on Deployment of Antiballistic Missiles and Non-
  Proliferation Treaty, May 18...................................   523
    Testimony of Adrian S. Fisher, Deputy Director, Arms Control 
      and Disar- mament Agency
United States Foreign Policy With Respect to the Middle East and 
  Vietnam, May 23................................................   539
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Briefing on the Middle East Situation, June 1....................   587
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State; and Robert S. 
      McNamara, Secretary of Defense
Minutes, June 5..................................................   624
Minutes, June 5..................................................   625
Briefing on the Middle East Situation, June 7....................   627
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Minutes, June 8..................................................   657
Briefing on Vietnam, June 8......................................   659
    Testimony of William J. Porter, U.S. Ambassador to Korea
Briefing on the Middle East Situation, June 8....................   697
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Briefing on the Middle East Situation, June 9....................   705
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Minutes, June 20.................................................   729
Military Assistance to India and Pakistan, June 22...............   731
    Testimony of Jeffrey C. Kitchen, Deputy Secretary of State 
      for Politico- Military Affairs
Minutes, June 22.................................................   738
Minutes, June 27.................................................   739
Briefing on Glassboro Talks, June 28.............................   741
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Minutes, June 29.................................................   775
Minutes, July 10.................................................   776
Minutes, July 11.................................................   777
Briefing on the Congo Situation, July 11.........................   779
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Minutes, July 12.................................................   825
Minutes, July 13.................................................   826
Minutes, July 25.................................................   827
Foreign Assistance Act of 1967, July 26..........................   829
    Testimony of Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense
Minutes, July 27.................................................   854
Minutes, August 1................................................   855
Minutes, August 22...............................................   856
Minutes, September 12............................................   857
Minutes, September 22............................................   858
Minutes, October 2...............................................   859
Minutes, October 6...............................................   860
Minutes, October 10..............................................   861
Minutes, October 11..............................................   862
Minutes, October 23..............................................   863
Minutes, October 23..............................................   864
Minutes, October 31..............................................   865
Minutes, October 31..............................................   866
Minutes, November 1..............................................   867
Minutes, November 2..............................................   868
Need for Open Hearing with Secretary Rusk on U.S. Policy Toward 
  Southeast Asia, November 7.....................................   869
    Testimony of Dean Rusk, Secretary of State
Minutes, November 16.............................................   926
Briefing on the Vietnam Situation, November 16...................   927
    Testimony of Elsworth Bunker, U.S. Ambassador to South 
      Vietnam
Minutes, November 17.............................................   972
Motions Regarding Testimony by the Secretary of State, November 
  30.............................................................   973
Minutes, December 7..............................................   991
Minutes, December 8..............................................   992
Minutes, December 12.............................................   993
Briefing on Greece and the Middle East, December 14..............   995
    Testimony of Lucius D. Battle, Assistant Secretary of State 
      for Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs
Briefing on News Stories on the NLF in Saigon and the U.N., 
  December 14....................................................  1027
    Testimony of Nicholas DeB. Katzenbach, Acting Secretary of 
      State
Minutes, December 15.............................................  1065

                               APPENDICES

A. Committee on Foreign Relations Publication for 1967: Hearings, 
  Committee Prints, Senate Documents and Reports.................  1067
B. Volumes Published to Date in the Historical Series............  1071
                                PREFACE

                              ----------                              

    ``You certainly are getting more than your share of 
crises,'' one senator commiserated with Secretary of State Dean 
Rusk during an executive session of the Foreign Relations 
Committee in 1967. Although national attention necessarily 
focused on the war in Vietnam, where the United States had sent 
a half million troops and spent billions of dollars to fight a 
war that had come to seem endless, foreign policy crises were 
erupting around the world that year at an alarming rate.
    Members of the Foreign Relations Committee displayed 
mounting skepticism about Vietnam, discounting the overly 
optimistic reports they received from the State Department and 
from U.S. Ambassador to South Vietnam Elsworth Bunker. 
Increasingly, committee members looked toward a negotiated 
settlement as more likely than a military victory in Vietnam. 
Because of such attitudes, the administration of President 
Lyndon B. Johnson kept the committee at arm's length on 
anything related to the war. Secretary Rusk cancelled scheduled 
appearances to testify so often during the year that Senator 
Albert Gore, Sr., complained of seriously impaired 
communications between the committee and the State Department. 
Instead of Vietnam, therefore, the committee devoted its 
hearings to the state of the world, from a coup in Greece to a 
war in the Middle East and a rebellion in the Congo. However, 
members always kept in mind the potential connections between 
the Vietnam war and events occurring elsewhere.
    Committee members worried that America's preoccupation with 
Vietnam could serve as an invitation to troublemaking in Asia, 
Africa, the Middle East, and Europe. Committee chairman J. 
William Fulbright cited involvement in Southeast Asia as having 
hindered the United States' response to the ``Six-Day War'' 
between Israel and its Arab neighbors. ``I do not hesitate to 
make a decision that the Middle East is far more important to 
the security of this country than Vietnam,'' Senator Fulbright 
lectured Secretary Rusk--who earlier that year had assured the 
committee he did not foresee a war in the Middle East. In his 
own explanation of the world situation, Secretary Rusk insisted 
that the United States was fighting communist aggression where 
it existed, not communism as an ideology in the abstract. He 
wanted to assure the committee that despite the war, the 
Johnson administration sought detente with the Soviet Union, 
but committee members remained dubious. By the year's end, 
Senator Claiborne Pell chided an assistant secretary of state 
that the administration seemed to see everything that happened 
anywhere as ``one vast Communist plot, and that what went on in 
any part of the world had its effect in any other part of the 
world because the strings are all being pulled from one 
place.''
    Through its hearings, the committee also demonstrated 
concern over the ``militarization'' of U.S. foreign policy. 
Subcommittees devoted a great deal of time to examining arms 
sales in the Middle East and in the Indian-Pakistani 
territorial disputes, and followed closely the development of 
anti-ballistic missile systems and the negotiations for nuclear 
non-proliferation. Senator Eugene McCarthy complained that the 
Johnson administration had embraced an arms sales philosophy 
that unless the United States sold arms to other countries it 
would lose its influence over the policies of those countries.
    Vietnam and its larger implications caused committee 
members to ponder the Senate's constitutional responsibilities 
over foreign policy. When President Johnson sent planes to the 
Congo, Senator Fulbright raised the possibility of the 
president sending as many troops as he wanted without 
congressional authorization. ``I do not see that it would be 
entirely inconsistent with Vietnam or any other place,'' the 
chairman said to Secretary Rusk. ``How many did you send to the 
Dominican Republic? You sent 22,000. You could have sent 
100,000 if you wanted. I do not know why you could not sent 
100,000 or 200,000 into the Congo if you thought it 
desirable.'' He added, ``I do not know where you draw the line 
here.'' During another closed committee meeting, Senator 
Fulbright complained to his colleagues: ``I get fed up with 
being told we are committed to something all the time,'' simply 
because the president said the nation is committed. That was 
not what he meant by commitment, Fulbright asserted: ``I think 
the commitment is something that is taken by the Congress and 
the Executive, not just a unilateral action.''
    Committee members of both parties agreed that a Republican 
Policy Committee report had asked the single pertinent question 
of the year: what is our national interest in Southeast Asia? 
For all their efforts, the committee could never get a 
satisfactory response from the Johnson administration. 
Admitting his mistake in supporting the Gulf of Tonkin 
Resolution and his assumption that President Johnson had not 
intended to widen the war, Fulbright lamented that the war had 
``grown so gradually that we never have been able quite to get 
the full impact of where we are going.'' That sense of drift 
and helplessness pervades these hearings.
    The selection of transcripts for these volumes represents 
the editor's choice of the material possessing the most 
usefulness and interest for the widest audience. Subheads, 
editorial notes, and some documents discussed in the hearings, 
are added to bring the events into perspective. Any material 
deleted (other than ``off the record'' references for which no 
transcripts were made) has been noted in the appropriate 
places, and transcripts not included are represented by minutes 
of those sessions, in chronological sequences. Unpublished 
transcripts and other records of the committee for 1967 are 
deposited at the National Archives, where they are available to 
researchers under the access rules of that agency. Some 
transcripts may require further declassification procedures.
    In accordance with the general policy of the series, 
portions of the volumes were submitted to the Departments of 
State and Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency for 
review and comment.
    The Foreign Relations Committee extends its appreciation to 
the Senate Committee on Armed Services for its cooperation in 
approving the release of those sessions in which its members 
participated.
    This volume was prepared for publication by Donald A. 
Ritchie of the Senate Historical Office.
                                       JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr.


                            FUTURE HEARINGS

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, January 11, 1967

                                       U.S. Senate,
                            Committee on Foreign Relations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:20 a.m., in 
room S-116, the Capitol, Senator J.W. Fulbright (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Chairman Fulbright, and Senators Sparkman, Morse, 
Gore, Church, Symington, Dodd, Clark, Pell, Hickenlooper, 
Aiken, Carlson, and Mundt.
    Also present: Mr. Marcy, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Holt, and Mr. 
Henderson of the committee staff.
    The Chairman. I think the committee will come to order. We 
have a quorum here.
    Congratulations to everybody and the committee in 
particular. We have a quorum the first morning.


                   reduction of u.s. forces in europe


    Well, gentlemen, the main purpose of this is just to 
discuss a variety of things. One of the letters I suppose we 
ought to take up first is Senator Mansfield's. I have a letter 
here signed yesterday addressed to me about Senate Resolution 
300 which was introduced last summer regarding how a 
substantial reduction in U.S. forces permanently stationed in 
Europe can be made without adversely affecting either our 
resolve or agreement to meet our commitments under the North 
Atlantic Treaty.
    This letter was addressed to me personally, asking if I 
wished to join in its sponsorship, but the reason I bring it up 
here----
    Senator Mundt. Who wrote the letter?
    The Chairman. Mike Mansfield. He introduced the resolution 
last summer.
    The reason I am bringing it up here is not whether I should 
sign it or not but is about its procedure. He proposes, I 
think, to take this up on the floor without any committee 
dealing.
    Now, when this matter was considered before on increasing 
from two to six, we had extensive hearings. This committee and 
Armed Services.
    As a procedural matter it seems to me very bad not to send 
this kind of resolution to some committee because, well from 
your point of view, no Republicans participated. This came out 
of the Democratic Policy Committee. If we start the precedent 
of resolutions going direct to the floor from the Policy 
Committee, it seems to me it is very objectionable.
    What I thought, if the committee thought well of it, was 
for the committee to authorize me to write a letter requesting 
that it be submitted to this committee.
    Senator Morse. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a very 
brief comment that I have prepared on this matter. It is my 
hope that we can confirm the Mansfield resolution relative to 
troop assignment to NATO----
    The Chairman. Speak a little louder. I cannot hear you.
    Senator Morse. It is my hope that we can confirm the 
Mansfield resolution relative to troop assignments to NATO and 
that it will be referred to this committee. Since the committee 
held extensive hearings last year on NATO, additional hearings 
may not be necessary although there have been rather dramatic 
changes in Germany and in German attitudes toward Eastern 
Europe since our hearings. In any case, I think the resolution 
should be referred to this committee and reported out before it 
goes before the Senate.


                      role of the policy committee


    The Party Policy Committee should not become a substitute 
for a standing legislative committee, and I agree with the 
Chairman that I think that a resolution of this importance 
should be submitted to the committee first and not go to the 
floor of the Senate.
    As you know, that has been my position for many years in 
the Senate, that committees should not be by-passed. You always 
have the protection, if it becomes necessary, of sending a 
legislative matter to a committee under instructions and you 
always have the protection of discharging a committee if the 
committee seeks to bury the legislation.
    But I speak respectfully, I think if this is still the 
position of the majority leader, and I am surprised it is, 
because I thought I read in the paper some time ago a statement 
attributed to him that he was not insisting on the matter going 
directly to the floor.
    The Chairman. I make it clear this letter does not insist 
on it. But I thought it was his idea before that it do that, 
and I was anticipating this question and that is why I brought 
it here. He did expect it to be taken up, I think, last summer 
without going to the committee.
    Senator Morse. He did. He made this argument, but I only 
want to say, and I close, that I would support the suggestion 
of the chairman that the letter be sent to the majority leader 
advising that it go to the Foreign Relations Committee to hear 
it.
    In fairness to the Armed Services Committee, I want to say 
it may very well be that it should go to the Foreign Relations 
Committee and then to the Armed Services Committee or possibly 
that we have joint hearings on it, but I do not think that the 
Foreign Relations Committee should give up what I think is its 
right to pass on this resolution because of its clear foreign 
policy import.
    Senator Sparkman. Mr. Chairman, I fully agree with what has 
been said, with what you say and what Senator Morse says.


                      problems with joint hearings


    Personally, I would just like to see it referred to this 
committee with the idea that we could act on it and then refer 
it to the Armed Services Committee, if we felt proper, rather 
than having joint hearings. Those hearings were pretty painful 
proceedings.
    The Chairman. There are too many people.
    Senator Sparkman. Yes, and if it is authorized I will make 
a motion to the effect that the chairman be instructed to 
follow that course.
    The Chairman. Yes, that is in order.
    Is there any further discussion?
    Senator Hickenlooper?


                       military v. foreign policy


    Senator Hickenlooper. I have some reservations on this. 
First, I thoroughly agree that under no circumstances should 
this--if we can prevent it--resolution go directly to the floor 
from a strictly party committee such as the Republican Policy 
Committee or the Democrat Policy Committee, or anything else. I 
think it is a terrible practice.
    Number two, I would like to hear a little bit more 
justification why it should go to this committee rather than 
the Armed Services Committee. I think maybe it should, at least 
we should have something to say about it, but it seems to me 
that the question of the reduction in force in Europe under an 
alliance agreement, and that is what it is over there, that is 
primarily either a professional area or a top executive area 
discussion on national defense.
    Senator Morse. Would you yield, Bourke, on that point?
    Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, I just want to have some 
discussion, I am not committed.
    Senator Morse. I only make a one sentence comment. The 
original commitment came from this committee. The original NATO 
commitment was a Foreign Relations Committee matter.
    Senator Hickenlooper. We do not handle the military conduct 
of the war; we may sign a treaty.
    Senator Morse. But there is no question of military under 
this treaty because it is the relationship to foreign policy.
    Senator Sparkman. I think this is wrapped up in foreign 
policy implications.


                           a political matter


    The Chairman. I think so, too. To me this is not a war. 
This is political judgment as to the relationship between 
Western Europe, ourselves, and Russia. The reason for NATO 
really was fear of invasion of Western Europe by Russia and 
this entails, in my view, essentially a political judgment as 
to what those relations are now and whether or not there is 
justification for the continuation of, well, NATO as such, and 
certainly how much you do in pursuance of NATO.
    I would think as between the two this is far more a 
political matter at this stage than it is military.
    Frank was the NATO man last year. What do you say?
    Senator Church. Well, I would agree with that, Mr. 
Chairman, particularly inasmuch as the level of troops to be 
maintained there turns on political considerations fully as 
much as military considerations. In fact, the major arguments 
for retaining so large a force had been based in recent years 
not upon a military assessment, but rather upon the political 
consequences of reductions, particularly West Germany, and of 
course the whole Gaullist attitude toward the disposition of 
American forces is a political one.
    It seems to me that it is all inextricably bound into 
foreign policy considerations.
    Senator Clark. Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

                        INTERNAL SENATE POLITICS

    Senator Clark. I would certainly support this motion, but I 
am a little bit concerned about the internal Senate politics of 
this and wondering whether we cannot get off on perhaps a 
little better foot in this session than we have sometimes in 
the past. Whether it would be desirable for the chairman before 
he writes a letter to sit down with Dick Russell and Senator 
Mansfield and see if some amicable arrangement agreeable to all 
three could be worked out.
    Now, Stuart is not here; he wants to come. Maybe I am not 
as good a mind reader as I think I am, but he is on both Armed 
Services and this committee, and I suspect that he would be a 
little bit upset if we were to assert sole jurisdiction.
    John Sparkman will remember that at that meeting of the 
NATO Parliamentarians in Paris in November, which he and I both 
attended, there were a couple of pretty belligerent fellows 
from the House of Representatives who really kind of took the 
point of view that NATO is primarily a military alliance. They 
were not much in favor of any efforts to get a better 
relationship either with de Gaulle--you remember at that 
briefing, John, those fellows gave Chip Bohlen and Cleveland 
such a bad time, and I know that the NATO Parliamentarian group 
is kind of split on the political committee which would rather 
switch than fight and the military committee which wanted to 
relieve tensions. I believe it might be worthwhile to see if we 
cannot work out an arrangement with the Armed Services.
    I agree that joint hearings are kind of rough. There are 
too many people. But maybe some sort of genius can come along 
which would work out a friendly relationship, either refer it 
here first and there second, or get some kind of an agreement 
that a committee of the two committees should sit, just in the 
interests of hoping that the 90th Congress will not get off on 
yackety yack between the Armed Services and the Foreign 
Relations Committees which we are going to have on Vietnam 
anyway.
    The Chairman. That is a good suggestion. I would like to 
work it out, and I do not think you meant to be exclusive.
    Senator Morse. Not at all. I made the point maybe we ought 
to have joint meetings.
    The Chairman. I would object because they are unwieldy and 
difficult to conduct when you have got that many people. And I 
would think it would be better to have it here and then Armed 
Services.
    What do you think about that? I think Joe has a point.
    Senator Sparkman. I think it is a good idea.
    The Chairman. I do not want to have a row and have a 
contest right off the bat. Do you think it would just be better 
I talk to Mike Mansfield about it? But I would like to be able 
to say the committee feels it ought to come here.
    Is there anybody who does not feel that way?

                         ADVISE THE LEADERSHIP

    Senator Morse. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you ought to 
talk to Mike and also talk to Everett Dirksen and probably the 
two of them together. I am sure they do not agree but 
nevertheless I think that it is important that the minority 
leader be advised, too.
    Senator Clark. Do you not think you ought to talk to Dick, 
too?
    Senator Morse. I think that was agreed.
    The Chairman. How do you feel about that? I do not want to 
say. Do you feel they ought to come here?

                    USURPATION OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES

    Senator Hickenlooper. I feel we have an interest in it, but 
I feel that probably 60 percent of the interest is in the Armed 
Services Committee or should be, and I go a step further. We 
have noticed in the last year or two or three the usurpation of 
certain fields of activity that ought to be in the Foreign 
Relations Committee taken up by other committees, and we get 
our tail over the dashboard a little bit on that. I guess there 
is not much we can do about that. But we can, of course--this 
may be the committee's area of responsibility, but we are 
getting into other fields, I suppose. I just feel that 40 
percent of it is probably here and 60 percent belongs to Armed 
Services Committee. I think both committees ought to take a 
look at it, but not with a joint meeting. I agree it is almost 
impossible to get any satisfactory results.

                        CREATE TWO SUBCOMMITTEES

    Senator Morse. It is possible, Mr. Chairman, to have one of 
Joe's suggestions where you can have two subcommittees or a 
subcommittee of each of the two committees hold the hearings 
and report to their full committee.
    The Chairman. That is a possibility. What does the 
committee think about that?
    Senator Clark. Why do you not explore it with Mike and 
Dick?
    The Chairman. I will be glad to explore it. I wanted an 
expression of how you feel about it. Do you all, Karl, do you 
think we have an interest?
    Senator Mundt. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think in this 
particular instance we have a better claim to jurisdiction than 
the Armed Services Committee.
    The Chairman. That is what I wondered.
    Senator Mundt. What Frank says is exactly right. It is the 
political implications we are going to listen to mostly. They 
are not going to talk about the fear of an immediate invasion 
from Russia. If there have been any military affairs 
implications it must be connected with the war in Vietnam in 
some way, about the deployment of troops. But I do not want to 
get into a quarrel with the other group either.
    I would think we could pass some kind of a resolution 
saying that the Foreign Relations Committee feels that there 
should be hearings, whether we want to have participation or 
something, and I do not know how far we have to go in 
nursemaiding the Armed Services Committee on these matters.
    It is perfectly all right to consult, but I think you would 
be fortified if you went there and said, ``We are going to have 
them. We didn't want to have a quarrel. Do you want to have 
subcommittees, joint committees?''
    Do you want them to come in tandem or how, but I definitely 
feel we ought to have a hearing.
    Senator Carlson. I agree with the chairman on it.
    Senator Aiken. We ought to look it over. The military 
aspect, as Karl says, will probably relate to deployment of 
troops that might be taken out there.
    The Chairman. It is just more what you do with the troops, 
whether or not you go here or over to Vietnam. That is a matter 
which is military.
    Senator Aiken. We have a political and economic situation 
involved.
    Senator Sparkman. Mr. Chairman, I think this idea of having 
two subcommittees could work, but I think it would be 
preferable to have it before the full Foreign Relations 
Committee, although that could be explored.
    The Chairman. Well, then, if I understand it correctly I 
will take it up and talk to the majority leader about it, and I 
assume we will probably then talk either with him or separately 
with Dick Russell and the Republican leader.
    Well, that disposes of that.

                      TESTIMONY OF SECRETARY RUSK

    I think you have already had notice that the Secretary, 
Secretary Rusk, has agreed to come in executive session on 
January 16 and in open session on January 23. He called me and 
asked, requested, that our hearings not go longer than a full 
morning, that is when it is in open, because of the strain and 
the lights and so on. He is assuming there will be television--
I do not know whether there will or not. I guess there will; 
there usually is when he appears. And I said that I thought 
that was a reasonable request. He said he would rather, because 
of the strain and the lights. So I said we would agree to have 
it run one day up until 1 o'clock, say.
    Mr. Marcy brings up a question that is always a difficult 
one. He says that Senator Symington cannot come on the 16th. He 
wishes it to go on the 17th, and this creates a problem that if 
we wanted to run over in executive session--what I said about 
going in the afternoon applies only to open session with lights 
and all that. It does not apply to executive session. He would 
not be free on the afternoon of the 17th.
    Senator Pell. Excuse me, I would like to bring up a point 
here, too, if I can.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Pell. And that is I realize it is a good idea for a 
few people questioning because it goes through with greater 
ease, but when meetings are scheduled for Monday morning at 10, 
it is very difficult sometimes for those of us who, if we have 
a speaking engagement--I may be in the minority on this, I do 
not know if anybody else shares the same view, and as a matter 
of routine when we have the choice and initiative, could not 
meetings be scheduled for Tuesday mornings and not Monday 
mornings?
    The Chairman. Well, Tuesdays are our regular meetings for 
the conduct of our regular business such as I have got--I have 
got several other items I am coming to; for example, the 
consular agreement mentioned last night. Katzenbach came and 
said he wanted us to take it up, and we have hearings. If you 
mean we will not just utilize Monday, it is going to make it 
very difficult. That means Friday, too.
    Senator Pell. Fridays it does not mean because people do 
shove off, they shove off in the afternoon but maybe I am the 
only one, in which case I withdraw my point, but----
    The Chairman. I would like to accommodate the members. How 
do you members, all of you, feel about Monday? We are going to 
have an awful heavy schedule because there are a number of 
things I am going to mention in a minute.
    Senator Mundt. I would rather have Monday than Friday.
    Senator Hickenlooper. We have other meetings and it could 
be Tuesday.
    Senator Aiken. Get it over with.
    Senator Pell. I am in a minority so I withdraw.
    The Chairman. You do not live far away so you cannot get 
back on Monday.
    Senator Pell. I made two speaking engagements that day.
    The Chairman. You do not speak on Sunday, do you?
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Pell. So I am in the same condition on the 23rd 
where I probably will not be able to be here.
    The Chairman. Well, you know, as big a committee as this 
is, there is going to be somebody, I think, nearly every day, 
and we just almost have to proceed in some way.
    Senator Pell. Yes.
    The Chairman. With that understanding, the executive is on 
the 16th and open on the 23rd.

                         SIZE OF THE COMMITTEE

    By the way, did the Steering Committee take action on the 
size of the committee?
    Senator Clark. Yes; this has to still be off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]

                    APPEARANCE BY SECRETARY MCNAMARA

    The Chairman. McNamara, we have contacted McNamara. His 
position is simply that he would like to appear before Armed 
Services before this committee, and I wrote to Russell and he 
feels that way. So he will appear there first and the date has 
not been set, has it, Marcy, you have not heard any further 
about it?
    Mr. Marcy. No, sir.
    The Chairman. It is not that he does not want to come, but 
simply he would like to appear in public before that committee 
and then we will have him as it is agreeable after that.
    I mentioned the consular agreement. The President, as you 
know, mentioned it last night. Katzenbach has already----
    Senator Hickenlooper. He mentioned so much last night I 
must have missed that.
    The Chairman. It was buried down----
    Senator Sparkman. With east and west trade.
    The Chairman. But Katzenbach came up and said they are 
anxious to proceed with it.
    The question is what do you think about hearings? We have 
had some hearings. It is my understanding that--in fact, I have 
some letters here, limited to official use, from Douglas 
MacArthur referring to Mr. Hoover's attitude toward this, and I 
understand Mr. Hoover feels that his former testimony may have 
been--I do not know whether you would say distorted a bit. He 
is not adamant against this at all. If I understand it 
correctly he simply made the observation that it would entail 
additional surveillance, I guess you would say. But he is not 
of the view that it should not be done is the way I understand 
it. You can look at it if you like.

                   MISINFORMATION ON CONSULAR TREATY

    Senator Carlson. I want to say on this consular treaty, our 
people may be getting misinformed. I am getting a lot of mail 
and we ought to have some additional hearings.
    The Chairman. The Liberty Lobby has mounted a strong 
campaign against it, relying I think primarily on the former 
testimony of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover.
    Senator Carlson. If we have a hearing, it may clear up some 
of this.
    The Chairman. I think we should, too. Does everybody 
believe that?
    Senator Sparkman. I do.
    The Chairman. Any objection?
    Senator Clark. If I may make one very brief comment, when I 
was in Russia in November and before I went, when I talked with 
Dobrynin\1\ in a briefing, the Russians really could not care 
less about this consular treaty because they think it is so 
much more to our advantage than it is to theirs, with which I 
agree, that they are not pushing particularly hard. I think it 
is very much to our advantage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Soviet Ambassador to the U.S. Anatoly Dobrynin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman. I do, too. I think it is to our advantage.
    Senator Sparkman. I think it would ease a lot of pain if 
you could get a modification of Hoover's statement because it 
has been----
    Senator Dodd. Is this on the troop commitment to Western 
Europe?
    The Chairman. We have discussed that. We wanted to bring it 
up after you got here. We discussed that at some length.

                     SENSE OF THE POLICY COMMITTEE

    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I almost mentioned in the 
caucus yesterday but I did not, the Democratic caucus, that I 
am fairly certain that it was the sense of the majority, if not 
all of the members of the Policy Committee, that this should be 
referred to a joint committee of the Armed Services and Foreign 
Relations Committee, and when the majority leader did not bring 
it up, I mentioned it to somebody who was sitting there, who 
was on the Policy Committee, and he said he understood 
Mansfield was going to take it up with you as to what would be 
the preference. But I know that my feeling, as the only member 
of both committees, was that it should go before a joint 
committee of Armed Services and Foreign Relations.
    It is clear that it involves both committees very 
fundamentally and very definitely, and in their mission, you 
might say, so I hope it would be agreeable to this committee.
    The Chairman. We have just discussed it. It is agreeable, I 
mean in the sense of jurisdiction. There was quite a strong 
sentiment if you got both full committees together it is 
unwieldy. We suggested that it either go to the committees 
successively, one and then the other, or a joint subcommittee 
so you do not have so many people at one time where it is 
unsatisfactory.
    Senator Symington. I only wanted to report to you the way 
it was left in the Policy Committee.
    The Chairman. What would you think of it going to this 
committee first and then that committee?
    Senator Symington. I think that would be wrong. I would 
rather see a joint subcommittee.
    The Chairman. You would rather have a joint subcommittee.
    Senator Symington. Yes, because there is so much work 
involved.
    The Chairman. Take eight or ten of this committee and join 
with them together.
    Senator Symington. That is right; this committee has a 
tremendous amount of work and we have this draft law, as well 
as appropriations and authorizations. There was some 
resistance, I think it is fair to say, to doing it at all 
because of the amount of work involved. This time I think we 
ought to either fish or cut bait, because of these tremendous 
expenses abroad. They are absolutely incredible under the 
circumstances in the amount of money they are asking for in the 
Far East and the amount of bodies they are asking for.

                        A PSYCHOLOGICAL BARRIER

    Senator Morse. Mr. Chairman, may I say--Tom and Stu were 
not here--I would much prefer the joint subcommittee to going 
to one committee or the other first because, let us face it, 
there is a psychological barrier there, people being what they 
are, and if it comes here first, people on the Armed Services 
Committee, some, will psychologically be disturbed. If it is 
the other way, there will be some here. I think a joint 
subcommittee would be much better than going to one committee 
first and then the other. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that 
having a joint hearing of the two full committees is very 
unwieldy. I do not think it is necessary
    After all, each full committee will take it up on the basis 
of the report of their subcommittee.
    Senator Clark. Mr. Chairman, can I put in a plug, in 
passing, for a more frequent use of subcommittees, either ad 
hoc or the standing subcommittees, in order to expedite our 
work?
    The Chairman. Mr. Marcy and I have been talking about that 
and we will talk about it further, I mean with the committee. I 
think you are right, we ought to use that more. If I understand 
it and everybody is agreeable to the Senator from Missouri's 
suggestion preferring the joint subcommittee meeting.
    Senator Morse. On Joe's subcommittee comment, I would like 
to say that later in the morning I have on my agenda to raise 
with the committee a subcommittee matter. I will cover it then, 
and I quite agree with Joe.

                RESCHEDULING SECRETARY RUSK'S TESTIMONY

    Senator Symington. Can I bring up something you passed on? 
I have a very important engagement next Sunday, almost as 
important as the U.N. organization in 1945, when the Kansas 
City Chiefs are going to show the National Football League they 
have got the thing sewed up as much as they think they have. 
With that premise, I was hoping that perhaps Secretary Rusk 
could come on Tuesday. I talked to Carl about it and I talked 
to the Secretary about it, because it is impossible for me to 
get back here in time in the morning. I just thought, I would 
hope, that you could because there is no way I can get back at 
10 o'clock on Monday morning. I could get back in the 
afternoon, but I would hope--the Secretary said it would be all 
right with him if it would be all right with you. He did on the 
17th. I spoke to him and he spoke to Carl, and I asked Carl to 
speak to you.
    Senator Pell. I subscribe, for the reason I already said, 
to what Stuart said. Monday morning at 10 is very difficult. 
Friday mornings at 10 we are around. But Monday morning is very 
difficult.
    Senator Symington. I am going to try to hold all my 
engagements to weekends the way this thing happened last year, 
but this makes Monday morning difficult.
    Senator Aiken. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me any member of 
this committee who cannot be here Monday morning can afford to 
buy a Sunday paper and learn everything that we will be told 
Monday morning.
    Senator Sparkman. Did you see Bart Starr's picture, you 
know, big color?
    Senator Symington. I would like to ask this question. If it 
is going to be a question that he could come back in the 
afternoon on Monday but he could not do it on Tuesday, then if 
I can get here in time for Monday afternoon, could we have an 
agreement that he will be back Monday afternoon?
    The Chairman. Oh, sure.
    Senator Symington. I withdraw my objections.
    The Chairman. That was one of the main reasons we preferred 
Monday was the fact he could be here in the afternoon because 
it is likely we would not get through with him in any case.
    Senator Morse. Mr. Chairman, could I be the devil's 
advocate for just a moment?
    The Chairman. Yes.

        SENATORS ACCOMMODATING THEMSELVES TO COMMITTEE SCHEDULE

    Senator Morse. I am very fond of the Senator from Missouri, 
as he knows. I am talking now of any relationships to any 
requests that have been made. It is my opinion that the 
efficiency of this committee was greatly interfered with last 
year because of the generosity of our chairman in trying to 
accommodate the personal requests of members of the committee. 
I think this is the time for us to adopt a procedure policy at 
the beginning of the session as follows: Namely, that although 
we would like to have people at our meetings that cannot be 
there, we have just got to accommodate ourselves to the 
committee schedule, and, if we cannot be there, we cannot be 
there. But I do not see, Mr. Chairman, how you can run this 
committee if you never knew whether or not a date you have set 
is one that you are going to be able to carry out.
    I would like to suggest that as a matter of policy, we 
decide this morning that if we cannot be at the meetings, that 
if just too bad, but we are going to have to accommodate 
ourselves to the schedule.
    Senator Symington. There is one point about that if the 
Senator will bear with me, because a great many of this 
committee are members of the Finance Committee on both sides of 
the aisle, which I am not, and I find there is a great deal of 
adjustment of the dates on the Finance and Foreign Relations 
Committees. Inasmuch as I am the sole member on Armed Services, 
I hope my beloved friend from the State of Oregon will not 
object to working it out. Even when I am here, I get badly 
stuck between two----
    Senator Morse. You missed my point. My point is that the 
chairman has got to work out what should be our schedule of 
hearings. He has to do it with other committees and find out 
what our membership and conflict is with other committees. But 
my point is he has to work out a schedule and we have to follow 
the schedule.
    Every time you get an exception, may I say, for X or Y on 
this committee, you inconvenience A and B. They may not say 
anything, but every time you change it A and B are discommoded 
and I think we have to have a schedule to follow.

                    CONFLICTS WITH OTHER COMMITTEES

    The Chairman. May I say I talked to Marcy at length about 
this. One reason for Monday is that it is one of the days where 
practically no other committees meet and we thought--Tuesday is 
a favorite day for all committees, and you run these conflicts 
you are talking about, membership in other meetings.
    Take Senator Gore. He is a very high ranking man on 
Finance. He likes to be there, and I like to have him there 
because I cannot go to it. They always meet on Tuesday, is that 
not correct, practically always, on other days. Mondays was one 
of the reasons why it looks inconvenient from your point of 
view. It is free from those other conflicts more than most days 
of the week.
    Senator Pell. The only question that comes to my mind is 
the planning ahead. Sometimes you want to make one day in your 
home area; should it be a weekday, should it be a Monday, or 
should it be a Friday? We have to weigh these things. As a rule 
I thought--I have always got the feeling that Monday was 
probably the better day to choose as opposed to Friday. Monday 
morning, as happens in Senator Symington's case, is the 
earliest to get back.
    The Chairman. He is only going to be out there once. He 
will be very disillusioned about that.
    Senator Pell. Friday, on the other hand, people may leave 
but they always leave in the afternoon.
    Senator Morse. We have to cancel some meetings. I canceled 
a meeting up in George Aiken's state. I was supposed to lecture 
up there in the university. I notified them I could not do it 
and I canceled it.
    The Chairman. I would like to do the best I can with the 
committee. I need guidance. We thought this was an idea. I will 
do anything that the consensus believes in.
    Senator Carlson. I just want to say this. I want the 
chairman to set the meetings. I am going to have to miss some. 
But I do not want anything to interfere with this meeting next 
Sunday in San Francisco. I want the Senator from Missouri to be 
there and bring back the bacon.

                     PROBLEMS TRAVELING TO THE WEST

    Senator Mundt. I think what Wayne said makes a lot of 
sense. I would like to add one little codicil. If you will 
follow the practice of what you have done here of giving us a 
little advance notice, like a week, we can adjust to your 
schedule. I agree you cannot change your schedule for an 
individual member without interfering with some other member. 
We have an altogether different problem out West from what Clay 
has. He cannot be back Monday morning. I cannot get back home 
unless I leave Friday morning, so it varies. Set it and give us 
a week or so notice and we will adjust, like Wayne canceled a 
meeting.
    The Chairman. I am certainly open to suggestions, and Mr. 
Marcy has been around here a long time. He sort of thought 
Mondays and Tuesdays--Tuesdays are our regular days and Monday 
would fit in as well as any day with anybody. But I do not want 
to be arbitrary about it. As far as I am concerned, it is about 
half dozen of one and six of the other.
    Senator Symington. One more point I have following Karl's 
point, too. If we do try to go out on weekends, which is what I 
am going to do this year, then I respectfully say because of 
the problem of getting back from your state and my state that 
Tuesday and Wednesday would be better than Monday and Tuesday. 
If you come back Sunday, you fly all day Sunday night which 
cripples you a little bit and you can get back sometime Monday, 
and then Tuesday and Wednesday it gives you a chance to get out 
Friday. It takes you a little longer than it does me.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Are you establishing a Tuesday to 
Thursday club?
    Senator Symington. Thursday is Armed Services.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. I will talk to Mr. Marcy further. Personally, 
it does not make much difference to me. I am perfectly 
agreeable to any way. I would just like to accommodate as many 
as possible and get as many people here. We did pretty well 
last year.

                            THE SPACE TREATY

    Let me go over a few other things. The space treaty is one 
which we anticipate will be signed this month and they will, I 
know, they have already mentioned it, want it acted on quickly 
because of their--they think it is psychologically important. 
Katzenbach has mentioned it, and so that is another matter 
which I am sure we will have hearings on. This is what I meant 
a moment ago. We are going to have to utilize more than Monday 
and Tuesday. This is just starting with Rusk. I think we are 
going to be Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday very likely when you 
get into these other matters that I mentioned.
    [Discussion off the record.]

                          HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUES

    The Chairman. Then we have a few other things. These things 
bother me, no end. I wonder what you all think or should we 
just forget about them. I get these letters all the time. They 
come here you know, there are--I mean on the human rights 
things, what do you all think about those? Should we forget 
them or should we act on them? You have been to the U.N.--by 
the way, I think we ought to have a time set aside--I want to 
hear what the Senator from Idaho has to say about his 
experience in the U.N. But this is a matter particularly 
relating to the U.N. What do you think about it?
    Senator Church. Of course there is a good deal of feeling 
up there that is adverse to the United States on this matter 
because although we have voted finally for the approval of 
these conventions, we have never ratified any of them. As time 
has passed, more and more comment, adverse comment, has 
developed against us on the ground that we are not really for 
these conventions and the proof of it is that, although we go 
through the motions in the U.N. where they have been approved 
by very large majorities, we have failed to ratify these 
conventions and make them a part--make them binding treaties.
    I have not studied the conventions very carefully, but I 
think with the possibility of certain reservations that may be 
necessary, we could proceed with hearings, obviously secure the 
ratification of some of the conventions without any difficulty.
    Senator Dodd. Is the Genocide Convention one of those?
    Senator Church. Yes, it is one of those. But I think if we 
were to move on any one, perhaps the one that would encounter 
the least difficulty, it would be helpful to us with the U.N. 
We really do not care about these and we know the African and 
Asian countries are quite--they put a lot of store in these 
conventions.
    Senator Sparkman. When you refer to the human rights 
convention, is that an old one or was it passed in the U.N. 
either this or last year?
    Senator Church. This relates, it relates back several 
years.
    The Chairman. It is an old one, the one I had in mind.
    Mr. Marcy. There are three of those that have been up here 
since, in the Kennedy regime--yes, they came July of '63. There 
is one on the convention of political rights for women. There 
is another one, the convention concerning the abolition of 
forced labor. There is a third, a supplementary convention on 
the abolition of slavery, the slave trade, an institution of 
practices similar to slavery, and then there is the genocide 
convention, which has been with us since 1949.
    Senator Sparkman. Those three that you mentioned 
specifically though, they are relatively new.
    Mr. Marcy. They are, yes.
    Senator Sparkman. I think they were adopted in that 
preceding session of the General Assembly. The genocide is old, 
and I think there is a human rights with it also, adopted way 
back in '57.

        DIFFICULT FOR OTHER NATIONS TO UNDERSTAND U.S. POSITION

    Senator Church. Just a reading of these, particularly 
reference to slavery and women's rights and that kind of thing, 
it is very difficult for many of these countries to understand 
why the United States with all our talk of democratic rights 
and individual liberties and equality and so forth cannot find 
it possible to ratify conventions against slavery.
    Senator Hickenlooper. One reason they do not understand 
some of those things, they do not understand the American 
system of government. They do not understand these treaties can 
abrogate or replace under certain conditions some of the 
provisions of our Constitution.
    Senator Church. I know.
    Senator Hickenlooper. For one I am not for letting the 
African countries run this country through emotion or 
otherwise. They have been doing it for a little while, and I 
think it is time we stopped letting them be influential on 
these things.
    May I say most of these conventions, I think, can be worked 
out, as Frank said, and made satisfactory.
    Senator Sparkman. I was going to ask if we should act 
favorably on these last three, and I understand or from what I 
have heard about them, they are more or less--they are more or 
less unobjectionable. Would that ease your situation?
    Senator Church. John, I think anything that would break the 
ice to show that we are prepared to follow through, and we will 
hold hearings, and I think ratification of one or two of these 
would be extremely helpful to the United States.
    Senator Sparkman. I think a couple of them could be done, 
maybe three of them if I heard correctly about them. But so far 
as the old human rights and the genocide, those old ones, there 
are about three of them are there not, two or three, I just do 
not believe there is any chance.
    Senator Church. Forget the old ones and take the three most 
recent ones.
    Senator Church. We have some constitutional problems, as 
Bourke said, and we have to look at them. But there is a 
possibility of ratification of some of them.

           THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION AND THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

    Senator Pell. I would like to also, Mr. Chairman, having 
had some contact with the U.N., put in a strong plug of support 
for Frank's view, and I would like to particularly hope we 
would not put out a hand on considering the genocide convention 
because I think it is the most important one in the whole 
crowd. I think the genocide convention is as important as it 
was when it was considered in the late forties, and I would 
hope very much indeed we would consider it.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Have you studied what it will do to 
the Federal Constitution?
    Senator Pell. I studied it, I read it, and I realize the 
problems.
    Senator Hickenlooper. That is what has been holding it up 
all these years.
    Senator Pell. I am well aware of it.

                         SUBCOMMITTEE SITUATION

    Senator Morse. I think here is the place where you could 
assign to a subcommittee the consideration of this matter to 
report to the full committee, for example, under the direction 
of Senator Church. Let us face it, you cannot begin to handle 
all the things that are going to come before this full 
committee, if the full committee retains jurisdiction over all 
of them. I think this is as good a place as any for me to renew 
my proposal of last year that the full committee should approve 
and authorize a program of activity for its subcommittees. The 
Mansfield resolution, the Vietnam hearings, the outer space 
treaty are items that will occupy the full committee, along 
with others. The final report of the Committee on the 
Reorganization of Congress shows this committee held far more 
full committee hearings in the 88th Congress than any other 
Senate committee. We held 196. The next high number was the 
Commerce Committee with 127. But Foreign Relations had only 33 
subcommittee meetings in the 88th Congress whereas Commerce had 
116.
    The full committee will have a heavy schedule of major 
business in 1967. But I do not think our activity should be 
limited to what the full committee can handle.
    The arms races in Latin America and the Middle East are 
possibilities for such a subcommittee. So is a full review of 
the Alliance for Progress and many other items that could be 
handled either under existing subcommittees, or special ad hoc 
committees.
    Mr. Chairman, let us face it with the kind of a setup we 
have in this committee for your subcommittees, they are going 
to be appendages, in my judgment, with very little 
effectiveness. I speak most respectfully because of my high 
regard for our staff, but this staff cannot handle full 
committee business and subcommittee business.
    This committee has, in my judgment, unlike most committees 
in the Senate, never sought to get the financial support, the 
staff support, that a Foreign Relations Committee ought to 
have. I renew my suggestion that you take these subcommittees, 
you recognize that their staffs be enlarged, that they be given 
staff, under the supervision of the chairman and the 
professional director of the staff, Mr. Marcy.

                      LATIN AMERICAN SUBCOMMITTEE

    But let me as a special pleader tell you about my problem 
in the Latin American subcommittee. I cannot possibly carry on 
what needs to be done on the Latin American subcommittee if I 
am going to have to rely on the existing staff. Carl Marcy and 
Pat Holt and Lowenstein and the rest of them cannot possibly 
give to me the professional assistance that I need to conduct 
the kind of hearings that ought to be conducted on Latin 
America. Alliance for Progress ought to be gone into.
    I want to say that I have already had two conferences with 
Assistant Secretary Sol Linowitz, who by the way, has made a 
tremendously favorable impression on me. He talked to me before 
the President sent him to Latin America. He talked to me after 
he came back. I want to have an early meeting of the 
subcommittee in the late afternoon in which I would invite the 
full committee, to which I would always invite the full 
committee if I am given jurisdiction to conduct some of these 
things, and have him brief us. I think he is terrific in his 
understanding already of Latin American policy.
    But I want to say, Mr. Chairman, we are just kidding 
ourselves if you think that these subcommittees of this 
committee are more than facades. We have no real jurisdiction. 
We have no staff, we have no financial resources, and I would 
propose a complete reorganization of the subcommittee setup, 
under the control of the Chairman, but with authority for us to 
go ahead and conduct the studies that the full committee will 
never get around to conducting.
    I think what is needed, Mr. Chairman, we cannot do it this 
morning, but you ought to get Carl Marcy and his staff to work 
with some of us on various plans for a reorganization of 
subcommittees. I would like to see not only my committee, but I 
would like to see the NATO committee, I would like to see the 
other subcommittees, start subcommittee hearings this year that 
amount to something.
    Senator Clark. Would you yield for just a second?
    Senator Morse. I am all through. I yield.

                     COMPARISON TO LABOR COMMITTEE

    Senator Clark. I would like you to comment to the chairman 
about the experience you and I both had with the Labor 
Committee where we could not possibly get through the workload.
    Senator Morse. That is probably why it makes me a biased 
witness. We have on the Labor Committee real jurisdiction given 
to the subcommittees. We have our staff, and I think, for 
example, you check them for security, you approve of them on 
this committee, but you give these subcommittees the needed 
staff they need to do this job.
    Let us face it. Marcy and his associates just cannot be of 
service to these subcommittees and be of service to the full 
committee to the degree that we are going to need their service 
unless you are willing to make the fight to enlarge the 
subcommittee staffs with some jurisdiction given to the 
chairman of each subcommittee under your direction, Mr. 
Chairman.
    The Chairman. Senator Sparkman asked to comment. He has to 
go. Did you want to comment on it?
    Senator Sparkman. Well, I merely say this. I have always 
inclined toward as many meetings by the full committee as 
possible for the consideration of matters. But I realize there 
is a lot of truth in what the senator says, particularly with 
reference to the time element and also with this problem that 
we have of getting a quorum present because of conflict with 
other committees.
    But any way we go at it we are going to have our hands 
full.
    Senator Morse. Sure.
    Senator Sparkman. That is all I care to say.
    The Chairman. Senator Gore?

                      THE DISARMAMENT SUBCOMMITTEE

    Senator Gore. I wanted to raise a question about a 
subcommittee, the Disarmament Subcommittee, of which I happen 
to be the chairman. The most interesting and entreating 
paragraph in the president's speech last night was the one 
which seemed to me to be addressed directly to the Soviet Union 
rather than to us, and that is on the antimissile program. Here 
is a disarmament question per se, and if it would be agreeable 
with the subcommittee, with the full committee, I would propose 
to have some hearings on this. However, it is matter of such 
overweening importance, I would not wish to go into it if the 
full committee wishes to do so. If the full committee can find 
time to do so, fine. But it seems to me here is something of 
mutual interest to the United States and to the Soviet Union, 
the two countries being the only ones with the technological 
competency to create such systems, and yet this has been a 
decision that has been procrastinating now for many, many 
months. How long it can safely be postponed without reaching 
some agreement is a matter, I think, of urgency.
    Of course in my view it would be far preferable that the 
United States and the Soviet Union mutually agree to abstain 
from such a costly and wasteful expenditure, but it is very 
dangerous to this country, in my view, to procrastinate until 
the Soviet Union may suddenly have a fait accompli and we are 
left second.
    So it seems to me this is a subject which either the full 
committee or the subcommittee should examine. I am willing to 
see either done, and I want to submit it to you.
    Senator Clark. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support Albert 
as a member of this subcommittee. I think this is probably the 
most important single foreign policy matter that confronts us 
today, a good deal more important than things that are 
considered to be vital.

                     ANTIBALLISTIC MISSILE SYSTEMS

    If we get ourselves into another escalation of this arms 
race by the placement of antiballistic missiles around Moscow, 
Leningrad, and Washington, and New York, the total cost is 
going to be well over 20 billions of dollars.
    Senator Symington. Eight months of the Vietnamese war.
    Senator Clark. It is absolutely and fully for either 
country to do it, and I think a skillful agreement pushed by 
this committee could get us off the hook because it is not 
outside of the Soviet's interests either.
    The Chairman. That is one thing that pleased me last night 
because he decided two things. From the intelligence community 
it is my best information they do not believe that the Soviets 
are very far along on this ABM at all. The only one that is 
being currently pushed is around Moscow. It has very limited 
possibilities and it is the only one, and I think he is quite 
right in taking a further look. It is my impression that is 
what he has in mind in the meantime, to do the best he can 
diplomatically to try to----
    Senator Gore. I raise no critical comment. I say this is 
just a matter of such overweening importance that either this 
committee or the subcommittee should go into it.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I say a word?

                           THE AMOUNT OF WORK

    First I agree without any reservation of any kind with the 
position taken by the Senator from Oregon. In fact, the Chair 
will remember I presented this to him sometime back.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Symington. Because in my opinion this is the most 
important committee, so long as it does not get subordinated to 
the executive branch, in the Congress of the United States.
    Now knowing Senator Gore, I think it would be a wonderful 
thing if he could really get his teeth into this disarmament 
thing.
    You can do it as well as anybody around, but you have so 
doggone much else to do.
    The Armed Services Committee is a very important committee, 
especially because it authorizes well over 60 percent, I think, 
now of the budget, the United States budget. We could not do 
anything that really meant anything if we did not have some 
major subcommittee like Stennis's Military Preparedness 
Subcommittee and Jackson's Military Construction Committee. The 
Military Preparedness Subcommittee has a complete staff, with a 
great many members, and they are all excellent people.
    Now, everything is done just like when we testified. I used 
to testify from the executive branch to committees. The 
chairman of the committee is always the chairman of any 
subcommittee, if he wants to be there. At times the chairman 
would come in. If Mahon has a meeting and Cannon would come in, 
he immediately would chair the meeting.
    But from your standpoint, your health, the amount of work, 
the way the world is today, I just do not think you can take it 
and at the same time do a good job without impairment to your 
health. I just could not be more serious about this.
    One other point; just before I left, Doug MacArthur came 
down to see me, and he was very upset about the Middle East. 
That is the little subcommittee I happen to be the chairman of, 
and he told me all about it and he said he felt that the 
Israelis made a very serious mistake.

                        VISIT TO THE MIDDLE EAST

    Well, I came back from the Far East last week through the 
Middle East, and putting it mildly, in my opinion, they sure 
did make a serious mistake. I spent a couple of days with Luke 
Battle in Cairo, who is a very bright fellow and seemed to be 
fully up on it, and has an excellent staff and then I went up 
and had a long talk with Hussein in Jordan, who in my opinion 
fully expects to be assassinated. He is our one great friend we 
have out there.
    I talked to Levi Eshkol and I did not pull any punches, and 
I said, ``This is going to hurt you a lot more than anything 
you have done since the state was formed in 1948.''
    I talked to Abba Eban, I talked to General Moshe Dayan who 
is out, the military hero.
    I then stopped to talk in Athens--I spent a good many hours 
with Walworth Barbour, the ambassador to Israel.
    I went to Athens, and I had another break. In Athens is an 
ambassador, a seasoned fellow who was formerly an assistant 
secretary of state. Phil Talbot, our ambassador, and I spent a 
good many hours with him, and he said, ``You see, the story 
going around the Middle East and based on my experience is just 
plain murder,'' he said. ``The Israelis attacked Jordan because 
they knew Jordan was a friend of the U.S., but they did not 
attack Syria or UAR, especially Syria, because they felt they 
were friends of the Soviets,'' and also my impression was very 
definitely that the UAR is moving quietly but definitely into, 
further into, the Soviet bloc.
    Well, these things are the kind of things, just thinking 
out loud, if you could have some hearings on and just to get 
information, because I noticed since I have got back that 
everything that I did in Israel was very well covered by the 
press, pictures in my own home town paper and that kind of 
stuff, whereas there was none of it, you might say, on the Arab 
side.
    I am not choosing up sides. I do think they made a bad 
mistake on this and their arguments are very specious as to why 
they did it. I do think if we have any friend in the Arab 
world, it is Hussein, and I do think he is in very serious 
trouble.
    So these are the kinds of things that if you held some 
hearings, I think you could bring out and get a better grasp 
of.
    Just like I would sure like to see Albert get into this 
disarmament thing and have some hearings about this situation, 
because actually, without violating any security or anything, 
the hearing that you, Bourke, and I went to the other day, I 
was impressed with the fact that the information we got was not 
coordinated or was not the same as the information released 
recently by the Secretary of Defense to the American people on 
that particular subject.
    So you just have a lot of information floating around, and 
if you do not fragment this committee into subcommittees with 
some authority and some staff, always subject to the approval 
of you and the full committee, I just do not think you can do 
the job the way the world is today. End of statement.

                    COMMITTEE'S USE OF SUBCOMMITTEES

    Senator Morse. I would like to have further discussion of 
it at our meetings after the evidence is brought in. I want to 
stress what Stu said in his last statement. My proposal does 
not involve any independence of the subcommittees. My proposal 
involves your approval in your capacity as chairman, and it 
involves the approval of the full committee with regard to the 
subject matters taken up. But once assigned to the 
subcommittee, then the subcommittee will do what it does in 
other committees, it acts for the full committee and reports 
back to the full committee.
    You know I never have hearings without sending each one of 
you a letter inviting you to come to the hearings. I have not 
talked to the staff. I have my information from other sources, 
so I do not think it would be proper for me to involve the 
staff in the inquiries that I have made. But I would like to 
get all sides of it and all the facts.
    I think you will find that of the major committees of the 
Senate, the Foreign Relations Committee is the most 
understaffed. The Foreign Relations Committee in a sense has 
sort of a closed staff, a very small number of people, highly 
qualified. There is no reason why a subcommittee should not be 
authorized to select a subcommittee staff of two or three 
people representing--serving both the majority and the minority 
of the subcommittee as qualified as the people on the full 
committee staff, with an expertise on the work of that 
subcommittee, in the jurisdiction of that subcommittee.

                      SIZE OF THE COMMITTEE STAFF

    My question to you is: Why is it that the Foreign Relations 
Committee maintains as small a staff as we maintain when we are 
up against the State Department and the Pentagon building with 
almost unlimited staff to draw on? Why have we kept this staff 
as small as we have kept it in comparison with other staffs? 
Take the Labor Committee. We far exceed this committee, Armed 
Services Committee, Stu has already stated.
    I just want to say part of our problem is we do not have 
the assistance that we need as members of this committee to do 
our job, and I think we ought to change the staff policy of the 
committee.
    The Chairman. Well, I am very glad to hear this discussion. 
What do you think over here on this side about it, Bourke and 
George?
    Senator Hickenlooper. I think you run a tremendous danger 
just like other committees have run. I think a lot of these 
committees have run just clear out of the reservation on their 
subcommittees, vast staffs that they have set up, and they 
become autonomous subcommittees practically. I think it is hard 
to justify it except to give a lot of jobs to a lot of people 
and a lot of autonomy to a lot of folks.
    That is just the practical answer. You have asked me and I 
tell you.
    The Chairman. I want to know----
    Senator Symington. Would you feel that way about it if you 
had a Republican President and were chairman of this committee?
    Senator Hickenlooper. I had thought about it during eight 
years of the Eisenhower Administration.
    The Chairman. George, what do you think?
    Senator Aiken. Mr. Chairman, I try to practice what I 
preach. I find in my own office that if they pushed up a little 
bit to get their work done, they do a whale of a lot better 
work than they do if there are too many people in the office. 
Nobody wants to do it if they have one too many. But if they 
are pushed up they take it and go and do it.

               REPORTS OF THE LATIN AMERICAN SUBCOMMITTEE

    Senator Hickenlooper. What Senator Morse said about his 
Latin American Subcommittee, I have been on that subcommittee. 
I have been on it ever since it was set up. I read every report 
Pat Holt has put in about the investigations of these countries 
in Latin America. I think they are more profound and more 
penetrating than any subcommittee hearing that we could have 
here on that subject.
    Now, I don't mean to say we should not----
    Senator Morse. But those very reports ought to be the basis 
for a thorough and intensive study and investigation of the 
subcommittee.
    Senator Hickenlooper. He is very thorough and his 
observations over the years have been very accurate.
    Senator Morse. With all due respect to Pat Holt, he is no 
substitute for the Senatorial responsibilities of the members.
    Senator Hickenlooper. No.
    Senator Morse. That is what you are going to make it if you 
are going to turn the investigation over to the staff members.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Not until there is reason to think 
the staff member is inaccurate.
    Senator Morse. But the point is he doesn't begin, his 
reports don't begin to cover the type of study I am talking 
about.

                 BACKGROUND ON STAFF AND SUBCOMMITTEES

    Mr. Marcy. Senator, I might just remind the committee on a 
little background on this.
    In 1958, a subcommittee was created, of which Senator 
Sparkman was chairman, to look into the whole staff problem. At 
that time the committee, that is the subcommittee, recommended 
to the full committee, that the present structure continue to 
exist. At that time, it pointed out that the staff had six 
professionals and eight clerical employees. The final 
conclusion, except insofar as the subcommittee recommended the 
addition of one employee to assist in the coordinating 
functions in connection with the visits of distinguished 
foreign visitors, that is Miss [Milrae] Jensen, it did not 
believe that there should be any additions to the staff at the 
present time.
    Now, that was in 1958.
    Senator Clark. Nine years ago. The world has sure changed 
since then.
    The Chairman. May I say, last year we utilized, I thought 
very effectively, five ad hoc subcommittees, assigning certain 
jobs to them, and they did a lot of work and reported a lot of 
bills. The tax conventions, in particular, and claims 
convention, legislation under Senator Sparkman.
    I think we have got to move in some degree in this 
connection. It is a question of how much, in my opinion, and 
also it is not easy to get good qualified staff people. You 
look around here and it is hard to get them, the ones that are 
really qualified for this kind of work like our professional 
staff.
    Senator Pell?

                  BRINGING STAFF TO COMMITTEE MEETINGS

    Senator Pell. There is another problem here along the line 
of what Wayne said, which is that this is the only--it maybe a 
very good idea, I haven't made up my own mind--but this is the 
only committee, I believe, in the Congress where you can't 
bring your own staff people in with you, and so when you have a 
continuing responsibility on a specific subject that you are 
following it leaves you a little scattered, because there is no 
staff man you can talk to.
    The Chairman. Harry Byrd never allowed one of my staff to 
go to the Finance Committee. I don't think they do under any 
circumstances.
    Isn't that right?
    Senator Dodd. We don't in Judiciary.
    The Chairman. It is the custom.
    Senator Dodd. We don't do it in Judiciary.
    The Chairman You do not?
    Senator Dodd. No.
    The Chairman. I don't think it is peculiar at all.
    Senator Pell. I am sorry.
    The Chairman. Senator Dodd?

                  FOCUS ON BIG PROBLEMS AS A TOTALITY

    Senator Dodd. I don't know whether it is improper or not 
but I would like to hear from the staff, what they think about 
this.
    The Chairman. Sure, it is not improper. We have talked 
about this before.
    Go ahead.
    Mr. Marcy. Well, Senator, this, as the members know, comes 
up about every two or three years and it seems always to boil 
itself down to a very fundamental question as to whether the 
committee wants to focus on fairly big kinds of problems as a 
totality, which is the way the committee has generally done, or 
whether it wants to break up into sort of a series of 
subcommittees, each going in sort of a different direction.
    Senator Symington. That is not so.
    Mr. Marcy. I might say that the staff has for some time 
thought that it might be advisable to set up one or two, we 
thought mostly in terms of one, one subcommittee which would be 
kind of a continuing thing with a separate staff. It would be 
assigned to specific kinds of things.
    I think, for example, the problem would be illustrated if 
we tried to hold hearings during the next two months on, say, 
the subject of the Middle East, disarmament and the Alliance 
for Progress. I think they need to be approached in sort of 
separate way.

               AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEES HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL

    Senator Church. Mr. Chairman, I am generally in sympathy 
with the position of the Senator form Oregon and the Senator 
from Missouri. I think the experiment of the ad hoc committees 
has been a rather successful one.
    Furthermore, I don't think this committee is getting its 
work done functioning as it has been functioning over the 
years. I think that is quite evident in terms of the things we 
haven't taken up, and in terms of the extravagant amount of 
time we have had to spend on foreign aid and that sort of 
thing.
    So that we are not really penetrating many of these 
questions as thoroughly as we should.
    I think that in light, and this is no reflection on the 
staff, I think this is the finest professional staff that I 
know anything about, but in light of our experience with the ad 
hoc committees, I don't see why we couldn't retain for the full 
committee the most important things that we want to look at as 
a whole committee, and give some of these subcommittees 
assignments of a substantive character. Let them conduct 
hearings; let them bring in their recommendations, and print 
hearings for the full committee to review.
    Senator Morse. Certainly.
    Senator Church. And the full committee has the final say. 
Set it up in such a way that we won't proliferate all over the 
place. Establish the limits and give the chairman of the full 
committee the final say concerning the work of the 
subcommittees which they would take up.
    Senator Morse. That is all I have asked for.
    Senator Church. I mean this is a perfectly reasonable 
request.
    Senator Gore. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
    The Chairman. Yes.

                    COMMITTEE HAS GAINED IMPORTANCE

    Senator Gore. I think we are picking ourselves to pieces 
here. I think introspection is good, but I would like to call 
attention to one thing. We had a quorum this morning. Two years 
ago the Chairman was complaining nobody ever attended meetings. 
This committee has attained an importance in the last year that 
it hasn't had in a long time. I think hearings before the 
American people not only rehabilitated this committee in its 
importance, but did more than anyone thing has done in a decade 
to restore the co-equal status of the Legislative Branch with 
the Executive. The public hearings we had, whether you agree 
with what was said here or there or disagree, had an impact on 
the American people no other committee of either house of 
Congress has done since I have been a member of the body, which 
has been 28 years now.
    So I think that while we are finding fault with ourselves, 
let us recall that what the committee as a whole did last year 
was the single most important thing that this or any other 
committee, in my opinion, has done in a long time.
    So let us improve through ad hoc, through subcommittees, 
through staff, but let us not forget that the most important 
thing is this committee as a whole, playing its constitutional 
function in the open before the American people.
    Senator Church. I agree with that.

                HAVE A SUBCOMMITTEE HANDLE NATO MATTERS

    The Chairman. Let me say one thing. Last year I was more 
than willing to have a subcommittee handle NATO and we got to 
talking about it and it looked like we were downgrading NATO if 
we don't have a full committee.
    Remember that?
    Should it be a full or subcommittee? I was for it and I 
intended it for it. You went over there and when we got down 
there they put it up to me, ``If you do that, it will look as 
though you are not really interested in NATO,'' so they put the 
pressure on me. I had to do it. That is what happened. I was 
all for it.
    Senator Church. That may have been a subject----
    The Chairman. I mean this is what you often run into. On 
these other things, the things I mentioned, there were five 
subcommittees. No one thought those were so important that it 
had to be full, and they went off very well and you did the 
work well.
    We can do that more. I am perfectly willing to do it. We 
have already talked about this morning a subcommittee to meet 
with Armed Services on these troops in Europe. I am all for it. 
I think it would be a good idea.
    Senator Church. I just wanted to say one thing. I should 
think some of these U.N. conventions, for example, could be 
taken up by a subcommittee.
    The Chairman. I do, too.
    Senator Church. And hearings held and printed hearings 
distributed.
    The Chairman. I do, too. I am all for this.
    I do think if we move in this direction--last year I said 
we will try these ad hoc and see how they work and if they work 
well, we will do more of it.
    I am all for it. I think we do have a couple of more staff 
men, but they are hard to get. The committee did look over a 
lot of them and you would be surprised how difficult it is to 
get good ones.
    Senator Clark. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make two 
points.

                      EXERCISE OVERSIGHT FUNCTION

    First, I would thoroughly agree the committee is not 
getting its work done as expeditiously as it could and I think 
the ad hoc device is an excellent thing, two or three members 
well-informed and then report to the full committee for action. 
So, as Senator Mansfield pointed out to all committee chairmen 
including you, he believes this is a session where we ought to 
exercise our oversight function, and a large part of this 
committee is not legislative but oversight--Vietnam. NATO 
hearings are an example.
    The Chairman. That is an example.
    Senator Clark. You cannot carry on more than one or two of 
those things a year if you are going to have the full committee 
do it, if you, Mr. Chairman, have to be the fellow out there in 
the front all the time.
    Now, it is true, the argument is made and to some extent it 
is downgraded. But I call on my colleague from Oregon to point 
out whenever they have a problem involving education they go to 
the Senator from Oregon and not to the chairman of the 
committee, Senator Hill, who is a wonderful magnificent 
committee chairman I serve under. When they went to go to the 
man on manpower problems, they come to me. But in the course of 
a not too long period of time, you get the press oriented to 
the fact the committee is organized so that most of the 
committee work is done at a subcommittee level.
    When you come to the full committee you have the most 
gracious and able man in the Senate, of course present company 
excepted, but we have to break down so the subcommittees can 
have more status than they have now. It won't be done 
overnight.

                         INACTIVE SUBCOMMITTEES

    I have one more point. I serve on three subcommittees--
Disarmament, Economic Institutions and Tom Dodd's economic aid 
problem. Those subcommittees have been pretty darned inactive 
during the last two years I have been on the committees and why 
have they been inactive--to some extent because the chairmen 
have been too busy, but to a very large extent they have no 
staff to organize witnesses, to handle it.
    I think if you take those three subcommittees, 
International Institutions, Disarmament, and Financial and 
Economic Interests Overseas, one good staff man could start off 
serving those three subcommittees as a start.
    Now, Mr. William Bader has competence in that particular 
area, and if we find that he can't do it by himself with those 
three subcommittees maybe we ought to get more staff.
    I don't have a shadow of a doubt that Wayne Morse has got 
to have at least one man and maybe more to handle this Latin 
American problem because Pat Holt can't do it.

                GIVE FOREIGN AID BILL TO A SUBCOMMITTEE

    The Chairman. Let me make one observation. You know the 
Foreign Aid bill is long with this committee. What percentage 
of those hearings were on foreign aid, you mentioned a great 
number. About 30 or 40 percent. And it has disrupted this 
committee for years. You know how much time it takes.
    Senator Dodd. Couldn't you give that to a subcommittee?
    The Chairman. Well, it has always been considered so 
controversial and so difficult that the full committee handles 
it. I would be perfectly willing to try a subcommittee.
    Does everybody think that could be done with a 
subcommittee?
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, 
first, my remark to Bourke was pretty fresh and I didn't mean 
it that way and I regret saying it that way. I think he knows 
how I feel.
    I want to apologize for that crack. It really wasn't a 
crack.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Then there is no need to apologize 
for it.
    Senator Symington. Well, bless your heart.
    The thing that worries me is, I am not a lawyer and nearly 
everybody else here is, but I used to have a lot of experience 
in management. For a good many years of my life, I went into 
sick businesses and tried to work them out and they are still 
going, if I may make that immodest remark.

                         ORGANIZATIONAL GROWTH

    There comes a time when anything you do grows to a point 
where you have to make major basic changes in organization, and 
I say organizational structure along with it, functional 
structure. You have to have an organization, reorganization of 
your chart, and then you have to have a functional 
reorganization. I know that they put a book out, the 
Metropolitan Club had its 100th Anniversary and it said all the 
members of the State Department were founders of it, and I 
think 37 was the total members of the State Department in 
Washington.
    When my wife's grandfather was Secretary of State, John 
Hay, at the turn of the century, there were just over a hundred 
people in the State Department at that time.
    The Chairman. The whole department?
    Senator Symington. The whole department.
    Senator Hickenlooper. They did pretty well.
    Senator Aiken. That is good.
    Senator Symington. We had the two greatest allies the world 
has known, the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, too.
    But to me it just seems as we watch the growth by hundreds 
and hundreds of thousands, I think millions would be fair, of 
the administrative branch and nobody has more respect for this 
staff than I do and I always get a good rapid answer from Carl 
Marcy or anybody else on the staff. It isn't that at all to me. 
It is just a case of getting organized to handle the workload 
which is infinitely more today, plus what Albert said about the 
interests of the people.

         THE COMMITTEE GOT PEOPLE INTERESTED IN FOREIGN POLICY

    The one great thing that this committee did last year, it 
got the people interested in the foreign policy of the United 
States to an extent that they never even dreamed about, in my 
opinion, that is when I get back to the hustings. It is going 
to be much more, it is not going to be less, because now the 
people are really interested in it and there is a lot of doubt 
about this tremendous ground war in Asia, and a lot of 
nervousness about this situation in the Middle East, and a lot 
of work which has been done incidental to our occupation in 
Europe and so on.
    I know it is hard to get staff people, but I would say it 
is a lot easier to get staff people into this problem today 
than three or four years ago because there is a lot of interest 
in it and good people follow where the interest goes. And I 
hope this could be considered not as a criticism of the staff 
and not as a criticism of the committee and, above all, not 
criticism of you because you are the one more than anyone else 
in the United States who has gotten the American people 
interested in foreign policy.

                          A MANAGEMENT PROBLEM

    I would hope it would be recognized on a management basis. 
There is nobody I respect more than Bourke. He is your ranking 
member, people like George Aiken next to him, nearly all over 
there feel the way you do about most of these problems, the 
senior members of the committee. We just have a management 
problem on our hands and it was the kind of thing I was deep 
in, it was my life's work 20 years ago, and I think we have got 
to face up to the management problem.
    The staff situation, a lot of things that could be done, 
you could approve, have people, final approval, you could have 
the top of your own staff consulted with your own final 
decision on members of the subcommittee staff. Just thinking 
off the top of my head it might be an excellent idea not to put 
the subcommittees on television. God knows I wouldn't like to 
try to get some real facts and dig in on the Arab-Israeli 
problem on television and so forth and so on.
    The Chairman. That would be explosive.
    Senator Symington. There are a lot of ways that you could 
bind this thing and the way the thing ran. This isn't the 
committee with the least staff by any means, with all due 
respect to my friend from Oregon.
    The Agriculture Committee is a committee that has got for 
my money much the least staff as against the money involved and 
so forth and so on.
    The Chairman. Finance has had no staff until this year.
    Senator Symington. My experience on the Agriculture 
Committee, I mean on the steering committee, and I know, Joe, 
they spend their time up there, instead of fighting to get on 
the committee, they spend their time fighting not to get on the 
Agriculture Committee.
    The Chairman. George wanted to say something. He has been 
waiting here.
    Senator Symington. I am all through now. But I think it is 
a management problem here we are discussing today at least as 
much as anything else.
    The Chairman. George?

                       AD HOC VERSUS AD INFINITUM

    Senator Aiken. I have been listening very attentively to 
the discussion relative to ad hoc committees and the staffing 
of ad hoc committees, and I am sure if they were well staffed 
they would have some very interesting staff meetings.
    But I also have a great regard for the intelligence and 
education of my chairman and I wanted to ask him what is the 
distance between ad hoc and ad infinitum.
    Senator Gore. Mr. Chairman, getting back to the overall 
thing----
    The Chairman. I don't know.
    Senator Gore. I guess you assigned me more ad hoc duties 
last year than anyone.
    The Chairman. I think more individual bills you handled 
than any of them.
    Senator Gore. Well, some of them we reported and the 
committee acted upon in the Senate and some of them we reported 
on unfavorably, and I think events have sustained us. I am 
willing to do whatever you want me to do in that regard.

                      PROVOKING PUBLIC DISCUSSION

    But, again, I repeat, the overall function of this 
committee, as Stu Symington said, touched the American people. 
It stimulated an awareness and a study. It provoked study and 
discussion groups all over the United States.
    I would like to see us conduct another hearing of a level 
that would challenge the intelligent and public spirited people 
of the country.
    For instance, what are the valid indices of the great 
decisions today of a preeminent world power. Are we stuck with 
shibboleths, are there abstractions that have emotional and 
political appeal on which we should not base decisions? Where 
are we? What is our position in the world, and why?
    It seems to me if you could get some of the eminent 
scholars of the country once again, not to examine whether we 
should or should not be in Vietnam, that is past, but to 
examine the position of this country in the world of today's 
technology, that we could once again play an important role in 
public education and once again assert the constitutional 
importance of the Senate.

         STATE DEPARTMENT OPPOSITION TO AN EFFECTIVE COMMITTEE

    Senator Morse. I want to say the Senator from Oregon is not 
going to take the rap that he gets from certain quarters 
because the subcommittee on Latin America is not conducting the 
hearings it ought to be conducting. They should be conducted 
and conducted under your jurisdiction. I am not asking the 
subcommittee appoint staff but asking that you and the full 
committee appoint them. I am pointing out that nothing I have 
heard this morning justifies keeping the staff at its small 
number. We can get people. Sure it is hard to get them. Sure we 
can enlarge the staff by getting qualified people and we should 
do it.
    I want to say no member of this staff in my judgment can 
serve as a substitute for the responsibilities of the 
committee. Pat Holt makes very fine reports, but those reports 
ought to be conducted under the direction of the subcommittee 
and they ought to be subject to review by the subcommittee, and 
we ought to be able to call people in and determine whether or 
not they stand up.
    I think they will stand up. But the State Department would 
love to have some of these subcommittees continue to be 
ineffective.
    The last thing Rusk and Rostow and Gordon want is a vital 
working effective subcommittee on Latin America, but you had 
better keep your eyes on Latin America, may I say to this 
committee, because you have got great problems and trouble 
stirring themselves up in Latin America, and the subcommittee 
should do the job on the subject and not Pat Holt, in effect 
operating somewhat independent of the subcommittee. All I am 
asking for is that you enlarge your staff, that you can take 
complete jurisdiction over the subjects that will be taken up 
by your subcommittee and that we get on with the job of doing 
what--let's face it, this full committee is never going to do 
in regard to the Latin American problem because you haven't got 
time to do it, but the subcommittee can.
    You would know when we would have our meeting, we wouldn't 
be interfering with your jurisdiction. I would have them at 
night, if necessary, but we would do the work.
    But I only want to say as chairman of this subcommittee 
that the full committee is letting down the subcommittee, in my 
judgment, speaking as its chairman. I don't care how many 
members on the subcommittee want to let the present 
arrangements continue. It is not a good arrangement, and you 
are not going to do the job on Latin America and you either get 
a new subcommittee, if you want to get a new chairman, go ahead 
and get him, but I want to say I am going to continue to 
express why this subcommittee is not doing its job. It is not 
doing the job because it isn't properly staffed.

               AMERICAN RESPONSIBILITIES AS A GREAT POWER

    The Chairman. Well, I certainly am glad to have this 
discussion, and I will talk with the staff and see if we can 
come up with some concrete suggestion and maybe look into the 
matter of getting some more.
    I don't want to go too far, but I certainly think we ought 
to move in this direction and we will do it better.
    I want to make a comment here, Senator Gore brought up a 
question which was the last item on my agenda and the time is 
almost running out.
    The staff and I have been discussing this during this 
interim and I think you are quite right. We had a general 
subject that we are talking about called American 
responsibilities as a great power, a general subject to survey 
in some open hearings--of course we expect to start out in the 
usual way with whatever the administration wishes to say on 
this with Secretary Rusk and McNamara and others, that is the 
foreign policy prospects for '67. In that anything may be 
discussed, and this subject, general subject would be involved.
    I wanted to raise this question with you, a subject, for 
example, of this which we kicked around here at some length, 
the nature of our commitments, this nature of our being 
committed all the time.
    A number of these treaties, the President last night 
referred to them, and he is going to live up to all of them. We 
made a great many treaties during the 50's, a review of this as 
a part of this overall review of our relations as the greatest 
power in the world today and what that means.
    Another one was this man Edwin Reischauer is back. I have 
been thinking about, I would certainly personally like very 
much to have him. He ought to be as well qualified as anybody, 
for example, to discuss our relations with the whole Pacific 
area, not just Vietnam but he is especially qualified, it seems 
to me, to testify about our relations with Japan, China, the 
whole area of which Vietnam is simply one part.
    Senator Symington. I couldn't agree with you more.

                  AN EXAMINATION FOR OUR OWN EDUCATION

    The Chairman. This is the way we have been thinking about 
it and it is what I wanted to bring up.
    What does the committee think about it?
    I think it is on all fours with what the Senator from 
Tennessee stated. I completely agree with that. This is an area 
in which the full committee----
    Senator Gore. But an examination----
    The Chairman. That is correct. My own view is not at all we 
are attacking anybody. This is an examination for our own 
education, our own benefit as well as the public as to what 
kind of a role should the United States play under these 
present circumstances, and this is a complicated matter. It 
sounds vague but it is very real.
    Senator Clark. Mr. Chairman, could I make one brief 
comment?
    The Chairman. Does this appeal to you?
    Senator Symington. Yes.
    Senator Clark. It appeals to me very much.
    I would like to make one brief comment to my very good 
friend Carl Marcy for whom I have the most profound admiration 
as a magnificent chief of this committee, but I hope when he 
starts to look around for a new staff man, Carl, we won't have 
as one of the criteria a timid little Ph.D. who is prepared to 
wipe the dandruff off the shoulders of members of this 
committee. I think that is what you mean.
    The Chairman. I don't know what you mean. Maybe Mr. Marcy 
does.
    [Discussion off the record.]

                  A COMBINATION OF ACTUAL EXPERIENCES

    Senator Symington. I think it would be a wonderful thing to 
get Reischauer. I stayed twice with him in Tokyo.
    The Chairman. He is an example. I hope we can get other 
people.
    You necessarily, when you get outside of the government, 
are going to be confronted with the difficulty of getting 
people who have a combination of actual experiences, as he has, 
plus a sufficient historical, political, social background and 
so on, and that he can relate it to us. This is difficult to 
get those people.
    Senator Clark. We have no finer fellow on the staff than 
Jim Lowenstein, with whom I spent a month with in Europe who is 
absolutely terrific. He came to this committee from a good spot 
in the State Department because he thought he could be more 
useful here.
    The Chairman. We have a new one we haven't used much who 
will turn out the same way, and he is Bader. He was in the 
State Department and it was partly because of Jim Lowenstein 
and everyone seemed to agree.
    Senator Pell. I came in and became a Senator. [Laughter.]

                  TESTIMONY FROM LOWER LEVEL OFFICIALS

    Senator Morse. Bill, I don't know whether you can get--
whether protocol stops you or other restrictions do, but I wish 
we could get in Edward E. Rice, who is our consul general in 
Hong Kong, if our State Department will come and let him 
testify in executive session.
    The Chairman. It is a great problem.
    I would like to have some of these lower level people. The 
State Department seems to take the view the Secretary ought to 
talk for them. They don't want their underlings to testify. I 
hate to embarrass the underlings because they might fire them. 
I would like to do it, personally. I agree with you.
    Senator Morse. Carl Marcy can tell you if you get a 
briefing that we got in Hong Kong from Rice, it is far 
different from what the Secretary tells you when he comes in 
here.
    The Chairman. Well, I have the same feeling.
    What can we do about it, as a practical matter?
    Senator Symington. I can tell you what we can do about it. 
We ran into exactly the same thing in the Armed Services 
Committee, and I think I was the one who suggested first that 
we put the witnesses under oath. Then we had the Preparedness 
Subcommittee, under John Stennis, an able, fair, efficient 
fellow, and these fellows come in and we tell him who we want 
as witnesses. We don't let them tell us who we want as 
witnesses, and we pull in two or three fliers in Vietnam and 
they are under oath so they can go right back and say, ``You 
don't want me to perjure myself, do you?'' And they come up 
there and they give us more information in less time as against 
all this stuff that we get from the Joint Chiefs, you see.
    We really begin to cut the mustard as to what the facts 
are.

                            DOVES AND HAWKS

    One thing I don't know and that worries me a very great 
deal, based on my relationship with this government, is whether 
there is any accuracy in the fact that essentially McNamara is 
a dove and essentially Rusk is a hawk and the degree of it. I 
do know that when I talk to Walt Rostow who is now in a 
protective position as part of the Executive Branch that he was 
pretty darned hawkish, you see.
    Well, I think it might be, I certainly would subscribe to 
what Neil Sheehan wrote in the New York Times the other day 
after this last trip of mine, not a dove but no longer a hawk.
    When these fellows come down like the JCS they can't cross 
a ``t'' or dot an ``i'' that isn't approved by higher 
authority.
    So it seems to me if we had a subcommittee operating on the 
theory of getting the facts from less important people, and you 
come in and run the committee any time you want to handle it 
and call the people in here, I think to call in some of these 
ambassadors from outside this country and if necessary put them 
under oath.

                       TESTIMONY FROM JOURNALISTS

    The Chairman. Let me ask you--I am glad to have this angle. 
The other angle that bothers me--I would like to have 
newspapermen. We went over this in the Dominican thing.
    Does the committee feel that this is unfeasible?
    Some of these people have more experience.
    Senator Symington. I don't know, but I know one thing. You 
have the right as chairman of this committee to ask anybody in 
this government because we put the money up.
    Senator Pell. I think you have the right to ask foreigners, 
too.
    The Chairman. We have never done it. These are the 
precedents which this committee has had long before I came 
here. It seems to me that we ought to have a little greater 
freedom to ask anybody who appeals to us.
    Senator Symington. I couldn't agree with you more.
    The Chairman. These have been traditions, and I thought it 
ought to be the decision of the committee.
    Do you think we ought to contemplate, I will certainly 
submit any of these changes to the committee, but shall we 
investigate it, for purposes of discussion?
    Senator Morse. I think so because we are entitled to give 
the American people the facts they are entitled to receive from 
any source.

                   JEOPARDIZING SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS

    Senator Hickenlooper. This is the old story with this 
committee and other committees to try to get in subordinate 
officials to try to get them to testify when their own necks 
are out eight feet. If they offend their superiors, they will 
get their heads chopped off and you just put them there and put 
them under the guillotine.
    Look at [Otto] Otepka, sitting there in the State 
Department being there for two years because he told the truth 
to the [Thomas] Dodd committee and they just, they have got him 
sitting over there, nothing to do and they are trying to get 
rid of him, but they don't have a case against him.
    You have got----
    Senator Symington. In 1948, I bucked the Secretary of 
Defense as Secretary of the Air Force. In 1949, Mr. Truman had 
a meeting in the cabinet room and he said, ``I want everybody 
here to support this budget whether they like it or not and if 
they don't want to support it I want them to say so now.''
    A lot of people in the room, but he looked at me the whole 
time he was saying it, and I said, ``I just want to ask you one 
question and then I will make up my mind. Are you asking me to 
go up on the Hill and perjure myself?''
    And he looked at me for about 15 seconds and he said, 
``Will you give me your word of honor you didn't instigate the 
question?''
    And I said, ``I will,'' and he said, ``Go up there and tell 
them what you believe.''
    If you get these fellows and put them under oath and put 
them--it is pretty tough if anybody above them, and we will 
know about it soon enough if they are castigated for perjuring 
themselves before this committee in order to follow a party 
line.
    Senator Hickenlooper. Stu, nobody knows better than you do 
it doesn't happen the next week after they do it. It happens 
two years later when they find themselves going down the hall 
and pretty soon the door opens and they fall off and you can't 
go back and prove it.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Gore. That has been a helpful session.
    [Discussion off the record.]

                         PROSPECTIVE WITNESSES

    The Chairman. I am going to ask Mr. Marcy to try to contact 
these people along these lines, if you have any suggestion 
about it. Some of them I mentioned, if this meets with your 
approval, the Communist world in '67, some hearing on this 
subject. I would like to have men like George Kennan and 
Schulman who are the recognized authorities on that subject.
    Does that suit you?
    Senator Gore. Yes.
    The Chairman. And Asia, the Pacific.
    Senator Gore. We not only need to examine ourselves in this 
world, but we need to examine our adversaries in this world.
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Gore. In order to determine our place.
    The Chairman. And our relations to them, what they are like 
and our relations.
    Senator Gore. What are our dangers, prospects and 
limitations.
    The Chairman. For example, this subject has been suggested, 
Asia, the Pacific, and the United States, that type of thing 
may have a man like Reischauer, he is the best type of man I 
can think of to best describe what is presently the situation 
in Japan, the Far East. He is a long time scholar of China. If 
anybody could interpret that situation, it seems to me he would 
be as good as anybody.
    But that is the type of hearing.
    This is strictly educational, not intended to attack 
anybody at all, simply the information of what it is like out 
there, what these people think and what our relations to them 
ought to be.
    Does that make sense to you?
    Senator Gore. Yes.

           CHANGING AMERICAN ATTITUDES TOWARD FOREIGN POLICY

    The Chairman. And on down, the changing American attitudes 
towards foreign policy. I mean what is going to here, our 
attitude, what we are afflicted with, what limitations and so 
on, and the nature of U.S. commitments.
    We talked about this last year. It seems to me we ought to 
clarify this matter.
    I get so fed up with being told we are committed to 
something all the time, which I don't think is so. What makes 
the commitment is having the President say we are committed, 
and I don't think that is what I mean by commitment. I think 
the commitment is something that is taken by the Congress and 
the Executive, not just a unilateral action.
    Senator Gore. SEATO committed us to confer.
    The Chairman. I think they absolutely misrepresent what 
SEATO is. He repeated it again. Of course that is what Rusk has 
been saying over the past couple of years. He didn't say it in 
the beginning, but he is saying it now.
    When you read what Dulles said SEATO meant it isn't what 
they now say it means.
    Senator Gore. It isn't what Rusk said at the beginning.
    The Chairman. Well, if I understand it, that is the way we 
will proceed. Who can we get on some of these? I would like to 
have James Gavin again on that----
    Senator Pell. Matthew Ridgway maybe.
    The Chairman. And Ridgway. Who we can get.
    Senator Pell. I think Ridgway is more coherent in his 
arguments.

                         SCHOLARS AND GENERALS

    The Chairman. Gavin we had, and I thought he did a very 
good job. It is perfectly all right to have them both. The 
reason I do is we naturally have to have so many scholars 
because they are available and I would like to use whatever 
generals we can to offset the attitude we are stacking these 
hearings and not having generals.
    Whatever generals that are called at all reasonably I would 
like to have them not because I have such respect personally, 
they are wiser than others, but to offset the emotional 
prejudice in some quarters against the scholars.
    Does that make sense to you?
    Senator Pell. Perfectly.
    The Chairman. The same with this fellow Griffith. He is a 
scholar. He was as good as you can find among the generals, and 
lived in China and he has a reasonable attitude. It offsets the 
criticism they offered toward people like Fairbank and Bartlett 
and others.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ John K. Fairbank, Professor of Asian History at Harvard, and 
Ruhl J. Bartlett, Professor of Diplomatic History at The Fletcher 
School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Marcy. Do you want to mention----
    The Chairman. Did either one of you see Alf Landon's speech 
that he made in Kansas three months ago?
    Well, it is a remarkable speech. I couldn't believe it, and 
I am all for having him. I never dreamed of having a fellow 
like that but he made a speech I think you would thoroughly 
approve of, and I think it would be very good politically to 
have him sandwiched in among these scholars. The speech is 
available if either one of you have time to read it. I am sure 
you would approve it, and coming from that quarter it 
absolutely knocked me out of my chair.
    It is amazing, he is quite a fellow, at least from this 
speech.

                    INVITE SUGGESTIONS FOR WITNESSES

    Senator Gore. Why don't you invite all members of the 
committee to suggest possible witnesses. We would not be 
obligated to invite all, but out of the suggestions might come 
a very helpful suggestion?
    The Chairman. I have no objection other than the personal 
relations. They have a feeling if they submit some, we have 19 
members and if you don't take them they will be offended.
    Senator Pell. I think you are right.
    The Chairman. If they put in a friend or a fellow----
    Senator Gore. I withdraw it.
    In other words, I am asked to submit a man and then you 
didn't invite him. I withdraw the suggestion.
    The Chairman. You can get into awful serious trouble.
    Last year the way we did it was this way, Albert, after 
thinking about it. The way that was done--I didn't know a lot 
of the people--I asked Carl and the fellow Robertson who is the 
China expert in the Library, Far East, and Barnett of Columbia 
who is a recognized authority. I didn't have anything really to 
do with it. I didn't know most of those people. They got 
together, surveyed the situation and tried to fit the man to 
the subject and that is the way they were selected until the 
very end when Bourke said to me, ``I think we ought to have 
somebody on our side,'' and I said, ``These aren't on my side, 
they are supposed to be the best there are.''
    Well, anyway, that is the way we got the other three. It 
didn't work too bad in this sense, Albert, because after we got 
through these, then Bourke, we satisfied--he submitted those 
three names and he was satisfied.
    If we started out, I imagine we would have had 15 names, 
Mundt's and various ones, all of them had submitted them and we 
hadn't got them, I am afraid they would be mad.
    But those three satisfied him.
    What we want is not quantity but quality if we can get it, 
the very best that we can get. I don't want to get just one 
point of view. I would like to get people who have had 
experiences who can give both points of view or whatever points 
of view there are.

                       A NEW POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE

    Senator Gore. Well, just as last year, as more or less of a 
tangential effect of our Vietnam hearing, the hearing created a 
new political atmosphere in which the administration had some 
maneuverability with respect to China, it seems to me if we 
could get the proper erudition on the subject many of the World 
War II dogmas could be examined and I have an idea many of them 
are not very valid any more.
    The Chairman. I agree with you, I am sure.
    Senator Gore. And yet we need the study ourselves, but 
perhaps even more importantly for the American people.
    The Chairman. That is right. That is what I meant. We ought 
to be the forum for, the sounding board for these scholars and 
thoughtful people who have no other way of reaching the 
American people. I mean these people we had, Fairbank, nobody 
ever heard of him. He could write a book or article or write a 
speech and he wouldn't get beyond the 200 people who read him 
but with this forum, in a way he reached millions of people, 
and that is what I think we can do. It is a question of getting 
people who really know this subject. I thought we did pretty 
well: we had darned good people.

                        BUSINESSMEN AS WITNESSES

    Senator Pell. In this connection, most of the witnesses we 
had were scholars. I was able to get a passport validated for 
an American businessman from Textron, a friend of mine, a 
businessman. If he succeeds in getting in, somebody who can 
speak firsthand as a man with considerable intellectual 
curiosity, a lawyer, and he believes in opening up contacts 
there, that would have even more of an impact.
    The Chairman. You remember this man Blackie who was head of 
Caterpillar? We had him on East-West Trade. He was smart and he 
made a good witness. That is a top businessman in this country.
    Senator Pell. Even better than a general.
    The Chairman. He is one of the most successful businessmen 
in the country with worldwide business and he made a good 
witness on East-West trade. That is a thing which I think could 
well be involved.

                      EDUCATING THE ADMINISTRATION

    Senator Gore. Not only do we educate the American people 
and ourselves but again referring, adverting to the China 
hearings, I think the Administration got a little light on it 
as much as we did.
    The Chairman. The Administration needs it as much as we do.
    Senator Gore. I believe they welcomed the effect and 
reacted to it.
    The Chairman. They do on China. They got miffed on Vietnam 
because they thought it challenged their policy.
    Senator Gore. I mean China.
    The Chairman. I think that is correct.

                            TRIP TO CAMBODIA

    Senator Pell. Speaking on firsthand knowledge, too, is 
there any more on the trip to Cambodia? I talked to Carl about 
it. I don't think there was. As I understand it, we are waiting 
now a little bit on our dignity. Shouldn't we reactivate it?
    Mr. Marcy. The latest on that was that the Cambodians 
advised that we not press it, not respond affirmatively to 
their invitation to come until Prince Sihanouk was back from 
some medical treatment in Paris.
    The Chairman. That is right.
    He went to France.
    Mr. Marcy. He is still in Paris. They expect him back some 
time in February.
    Senator Pell. Late January.
    Mr. Marcy. I am sure we really can't get a reply from them 
until he really does get back, but in late January or early 
February it would be appropriate either for us or for them, I 
think, to open the question again. We can do it simply by 
telephoning New York.
    Senator Pell. The reason I wanted to raise it is just 
simply to get three senators to make plans to go two or three 
weeks. The best time would be in January during a slack p