Слике страница
PDF
ePub

A reading of a portion of the abundant history of that scheming era, emphasizes the tragic lack of communication between the self-important powers of the world, and their headlong refusal to weigh the possibility that the opposition had any measure of reason on its side. One of the recent great books on the period was last year's Pultizer Prize winning volume, "The Guns of August" by Barbara Tuchman. She traces with vivid accuracy the senseless sequence of events that led to conflict in August 1914.

The world today is not without parallels with that time. The hope is that men now in power are familiar with those events and that they realize the danger of respecting neither the pledge nor the threat of their opponents.

This Nation is fortunate to have such men as President Kennedy, Secretary of State Rusk, Under Secretary Harriman, and Senator Fulbright, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, in positions of leadership. With steady perception, they have assessed the reliability and the intransigency of our cold war opponents. The result is a consistency of policy which, despite a great variety of minor irritations and bloody aggravations by the Russians, Chinese and other Communists, has kept us on a steady path.

Critics of the administration have taken every opportunity to question this course. They cast doubts upon the nuclear test ban treaty, they question willingness to sell some of our surplus wheat to Russia and its satellites. In the light of constant criticism, often carping, the speech in Maine is worthy of more than passing notice.

We quote some further passages which contain the essence of our foreign policy, believing that every American could benefit by giving them calm and objective consideration:

"A year ago it would have been easy to assume that all-out war was inevitable, that any agreement with the Soviets was impossible, and that an unlimited arms race was unavoidable. Today it is equally easy for some to assure that the cold war is over. * * * "The fact of the matter is, of course, that neither view is correct. We have, it is true, made some progress on a long journey.

We have concluded with the Soviets a few limited, enforcible agreements or arrangements of mutual benefit to both sides and to the world.

"But a change in atmosphere and emphasis is not a reversal of purpose. Mr. Khrushchev himself has said that there can

be no coexistence in the field of ideology. In addition, there are still major areas of tension and conflict, from Berlin to Cuba to southeast Asia. The United States and the Soviet Union still have wholly different concepts of the world, its freedom, its future.

"While the road to that peace is long and hard, and full of traps and pitfalls, there is no reason not to take each step that we can safely take. It is in our own self-interest to ban nuclear testing in the atmosphere so that all of our citizens can breathe more easily. It is in our national self-interest to sell wheat in storage to feed Russians and Eastern Europeans who are willing to divert large portions of their limited foreign exchange reserves away from the implements

of war. *

"Even if these steps should be undone * ** there would still be no reason to regret, the fact that this Nation has made every reasonable effort to improve relations.

"For without our making such an effort,

we could not maintain the leadership and respect of the free world *** we could not convince our adversaries that war was not in their interest. * *

"Let us exhaust every avenue for peace. Let us make clear our willingness to talk, if talk will help, and our readiness to fight if fight we must.

"Let us resolve to be the masters, not the victims, of our history, controlling our own destiny without giving way to blind suspicions and emotions. Let us distinguish between our hopes and our illusions.

"Let us recognize both the gains we have made down the road to peace and the great distance yet to be covered."

RESOLUTION CALLING FOR WORLD CONFERENCE ON OCEANOGRAPHY Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend my remarks.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from to the request of the gentleman from California?

There was no objection.

Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, I am today introducing a House joint resolution calling for a world conference on oceanography to be convened in the United States in 1965.

The resolution reads:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Director of the National Science Foundation, Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, Secretary of Health, Ed

ucation, and Welfare, Director of the Bureau of the Budget, Director of the Office of Science and Technology, and representatives from the other interested Federal agencies, is authorized and directed to take all necessary steps to convene in the United States in 1965 a world conference for the purpose of exchanging with other nations scientific and technical information relating to oceanography.

as

Webster defines "oceanography" as "geography that deals with the ocean and its phenomena." The oceans of the world are phenomenal. They cover three-fourths of the earth's surface. They are in reality vast moving rivers. They contain untold mineral riches, yield tons of foodstuffs, and are the major future source of water supply for a future source of water supply for a thirsty world.

Man has sailed the seas, reaped its seafood, to some extent plumbed its depths, yet only in relatively recent years has a concentrated effort been made to unravel its mysteries, to utilize its vast potential.

I

The United States has been a latecomer to the field of oceanography. am proud to say that we are making strides in this vital field. The House has assumed responsibility in assisting our scientists in this area. On August 5, 1963, the House passed H.R. 6997, providing for a comprehensive, long-range, and coordinated national oceanography program.

This measure is as important to the field of oceanography as is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to ordinate the marine activities of many the exploration of space. It will coFederal agencies into a program with direction and purpose. It will utilize to

the fullest the technical knowledge, skills, and equipment of these various agencies.

The resolution I have introduced today would be another step in this program of tapping the resources of the sea.

It would enable us to bring together the top scientists of the world to exchange information, to map joint projects and in general to bring the world up to date on the progress man has made in exploring the sea and extracting from it some of the riches it contains.

How important is oceanography? It is paramount to our defenses. The military has concluded that the undetectable approaches to our shores which lie under water constitute one of our greatest perils of enemy surprise attack. fense of our Nation is involved, to an important extent, with our capability to reply in kind through underwater systems.

The de

Of nondefense interest-there are vast amounts of foodstuffs, minerals, and energy sources beneath the sea. The predominant nations of the future will be those which best solve the problems of utilizing these natural resources which have accumulated through the centuries. Many of them are renewable through the prodigious reproductive capabilities of sea species and the rich environment of the saline seas.

Mr. Speaker, my resolution would furraphy through world cooperation. ther America's programs of oceanog

I note with interest that Jules Verne's "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" is enjoying a revival on the country's movie screens. What was fantasy and science fiction before the turn of the century today is approaching reality. His nuclear powerplant is a fact. Underwater exploration is being developed with incredible ingenuity. Already plans are afoot for an undersea living experiment in Chesapeake Bay next year. New oneman submarines are making undersea exploration more effective.

The field of oceanography is a multiple science. It must now include the marine aspects of many sciences. Meteorology and oceanography are now interwoven. Biology, physics, chemistry, and fluid mechanics, geophysics, mechanics and electronics contribute design for necessary tools, gear, and equipment while the marine sciences must provide new concepts of surface ships and submersible vehicles, with new powerplants and adaptability.

New agreements in conservation of food fishes must be reached if future generations are to have an adequate supply of the bounteous harvest of the seas. Many neglected species of fish, or marine plants must be made useful. Ways must be found to extract the millions of tons of minerals washed from the land through eons into solution in the seas.

The rewards will be great. Men will live beneath the sea. Fish "farms" will be established with scientific methods of rearing, feeding and harvesting of valulands above the surface and "cities" beable food fishes employed. Artificial isneath will be used as bases for discovery, aids for navigation, defense outposts

and centers for refining and processing nual homecoming dinner was held at the minerals and seafood.

Life magazine has summarized the importance of oceanography thusly:

Even as the United States thrusts into space it does so from a continent that is in fact a large island enveloped by massive oceans. Whoever knows most about those oceans holds the advantage in the struggle for command of the seas, holds the lead in reaching for the fabulous unknown resources of the ocean floor.

It is obvious that the Federal Government must play a major role of coordination in oceanography. The job is too complicated for coastal States to perform by themselves. Many Federal agencies are already involved. These include the research and development facilities of the U.S. Navy, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Department of Commerce, the National Science Foundation, the Smithsonian Institution, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Department of the Interior, the Coast Guard, and the Office of Science and Technology. In addition there are many private organizations, State wildlife and fisheries groups, foundations and industries that will play important roles in our massive assault on the mysteries of the underwater world.

I am proud that my own hometown of San Diego, Calif., has become this country's most important center of oceanography. The Scripps Institute of Oceanography has been in the forefront of this science. Its revolutionary ship Flipfloating instrument platform-has contributed much to advance underwater exploration. The institute has an aggressive program of oceanographic work covering many fields.

Recently the Mission Bay Research Foundation was established in San Diego with private capital as a nonprofit corporation. It will engage in a sizable fish tagging project this year and has other wildlife projects in the planning stages.

We have acted in the House to bring U.S. oceanographic programs under a coordinated program. The success of our efforts can be further assured by acting to bring to the United States a worldwide conference of oceanographic knowledge in 1965. My resolution would authorize preparations for this event. am hopeful that Congress will give it speedy approval.

I

I

SPEAKER MCCORMACK AWARDED JAMES CARDINAL GIBBONS MEDAL BY CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY ALUMNI

Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks at this point.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Massachusetts?

There was no objection.

Mr. BOLAND. Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to call to the attention of the Members of the House that another great honor has been bestowed on our beloved and distinguished Speaker, the Honorable JOHN W. MCCORMACK; namely, the Cardinal Gibbons Medal. The Catholic University of America's an

Shoreham Hotel Saturday night, November 2, during which the Cardinal Gibbons Medal was presented to Speaker MCCORMACK for "distinguished and meritorious service either to the United States of America, the Catholic Church, or the Catholic University of America."

As the 15th recipient to be honored with the Cardinal Gibbons Medal, our respected Speaker joins other distinguished Americans who have received the medal, including President Kennedy; J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation; Gens. J. Lawton Collins and Alfred Gruenther; Bishop Fulton J. Sheen; Dr. Carlton Hayes and Dr. Karl Herzfeld. The medal, not necessarily an annual award, was established is 1947 to perpetuate the memory of the late James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore and Washington, and one of the founders of Catholic University, which is this year observing its diamond jubilee marking its 75th year of founding. Cardinal Gibbons was the first chancellor of Catholic University.

No man is more deserving of this high honor than the great statesman and outstanding Catholic layman presiding over this House, Speaker MCCORMACK. The Cardinal Gibbons Medal is now added to his long list of honorary degrees received from other great colleges and universities in the United States, one of which was an honorary degree in law from Catholic University in 1956; the papal honors he has had bestowed upon him, and the decorations he has received from several foreign governments. The Cardinal Gibbons Medal is made of gold, 11⁄2 inches in diameter, with a ribbon in Catholic University colors of gold and white. Bearing the seal of the university, combined with the papal insignia and profile of Cardinal Gibbons on one side, the inscription on the reverse side states:

Awarded to Speaker JOHN W. MCCORMACK for distinguished services by the Alumni Association of the Catholic University of America.

The medal was designed by Sister Mary Lurana, of the Sisters of the Blessed Sacrament, while working for Blessed Sacrament, while working for her master of arts degree at Catholic University. Among those present to see the Right Reverend Monsignor Joseph B. McAllister, vice rector of the Catholic University of America, present the Cardinal Gibbons Medal to Speaker MCCORMACK was his beloved wife, Mrs. Harriet McCormack. Monsignor McAllister presented the medal in the absence of the Right Reverend William J. McDonald, rector of Catholic University, who is in Rome attending the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

Mr. Speaker, under permission to extend my remarks, I include the address delivered by Monsignor McAllister, including a message from Rome by Monsignor McDonald; and the text of the response given by Speaker McCORMACK:

I think you will agree that it has been a busy weekend; but I must confess that for me personally, it has been a most enjoyable one and a source of deep satisfaction. To see so many of my former students and colleagues brings me back to the good old days, as we like to call them. This weekend was

a time for looking back, since it is the first homecoming weekend in the year of the university's diamond jubilee. The number of alumni who have returned for homecoming, the distinguished guests who are honoring us with their presence this evening-all this points to the fact that homecoming 1963 is a very special occasion.

Mr. Speaker, it is a great personal pleasure to welcome you to this jubilee gathering of Catholic University sons and daughters. Your presence here this evening and that of your charming wife enrich this occasion as your thoughtful words hearten us. The fact that in our audience are many members of the Federal Government and Congress of the United States, does honor to you, sir, as well as to the university.

Though the word is never a substitute for real presence, Monsignor McDonald, our beloved rector, when he was suddenly called to Rome and realized that his duties at the Ecumenical Council would not permit him to be with us this evening, charged me with the grave responsibility of representing him to you and conveying the following message:

"DEAR MONSIGNOR MCALLISTER: In all my years at the university, this is the first time I have not been present at the annual homecoming. I shall miss it greatly. Please convey to our alumni my deep and sincere regret that I cannot be with them, as well as my most cordial greetings and gratitude for their loyalty and continued support of alma mater.

"I had hoped to have the privilege of presenting the Cardinal Gibbons Medal to a distinguished statesman and good friend, the Honorable JOHN W. MCCORMACK, Speaker of the House, who has so well merited this high honor. My warmest congratulations to him and to Mrs. McCormack. To each of the re

cipients of the alumni awards go my personal felicitations as well as deepest appreciation to them for shedding such luster on the university by their achievements.

"I want to be associated with your commendation of the outgoing president, Dr. Frank McQuade, who has worked so hard and accomplished so much for our alumni association. While expressing indebtedness to him and to the other outgoing officers, I wish at the same time to congratulate the new president, Mr. Frank deBettencourt, and those who are to serve with him in executive positions. I know they will maintain the present high standards and exert every effort to promote the real aims and objectives of our alumni association.

"Dr. Bode, who has been such a tower of strength as director of alumni relations, and his efficient staff deserve a special vote of thanks.

"Finally, my deepest gratitude to the chairman of the homecoming, Mr. Ed McMahon, and to the committee who have cooperated in making the homecoming what I know will be a splendid success.

"May God bless you all.

"Monsignor MCDONALD." May I personally associate myself with these sentiments.

The rector would not want me to let you go home without some knowledge of our stewardship of your university during the past year. I cannot begin to mention the many facets in the past 12 months, but I should like to single out a few of the more outstanding, so that the picture of your alma mater in its 75th year may be brought up to date. The fall term 1963 saw the university's enrollment reach a record of over 5,600 students. Last spring, the university initiated its division of space sciences and brought to the campus some of the top scientists in this field from all over the world. We are, as you know, in the midst of a drive for a great new university theater. A modern addition to the theological college is now nearing completion. Faculty ranks have

reached a record high. Our married faculty has received a substantial increase in family allowance. All this, so that the university may continue to attract teachers of the highest caliber.

It is no wonder that the Catholic University of America is represented at the Second Vatican Council by more official theological experts than any other university in the United States. No wonder either that one of our fellow alumni-Mr. James Norris of the class of 1933-is the only official lay representative from the English-speaking world at the council.

I know, as all of you do, that the success of a university is not gaged alone on factors such as new buildings, laboratories, eminent faculty and such. I know, as you do, as important as these are, the only true measure of the excellence of a university is in the achievement of its alumni. I am proud of alma mater, because I am proud of you. Rt. Rev. JOSEPH B. MCALLISTER,

Vice Rector.

ADDRESS DELIVERED BY THE HONORABLE JOHN W. MCCORMACK, SPEAKER OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ON THE OCCASION OF HIS ACCEPTANCE OF THE 1963 CARDINAL GIBBONS MEDAL AWARDED TO HIM BY THE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION OF THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA AT THE SHOREHAM HOTEL, WASHINGTON, D.C., NOVEMBER 2, 1963

I am very conscious of the honor that has been bestowed upon me by the Alumni Association of the Catholic University of America in presenting the 1963 Cardinal Gibbons Medal to me. It is true that a man in public life can become the recipient sometimes of many honors, and equally true that these must naturally fall into some gradation of importance assigned by the individual himself. May I assure the members of the Catholic University Alumni Association that this present award, combining as it does the distinction of being honored by the National Pontifical University and the memory, still fresh and still impressive, of so great a Catholic churchman as James Cardinal Gibbons was, brings me a feeling of great humility and great appreciation.

The Cardinal Gibbons Medal, as the president of your association reminded you, should be awarded to a person who has made a contribution to the church, the Nation or the university. Any man in public life hopes to be able to make some contribution, however small it might be. It is never as great as a man would want it to be. But I am grateful to all of you for considering me for this award, and I am all the more closely touched by it because of the man whose name it bears.

The honor that comes to me through this award is all the more valued since it bears the name of one of the truly great Americans of our time. Less than a half century ago, we were living in the age of James Gibbons, and the impress of his life of deep faith, of his remarkable personality and farseeing leadership has left many a monument.

This great university, a landmark of Catholic education throughout the Nation, is to a considerable extent the legacy of his foresight. As the first chancellor of the Catholic University of America, he played a significant role in guiding its early years. In fact, what is there in the Catholic Church in this area-indeed in the entire Nationthat does not bear the mark of his genius? How much did the great papal encyclicals on labor owe to the cardinal's unfailing championship of the American workingman? How much does the splendid patriotism of American Catholics, tested in so many trials and conflicts, reflect the outspoken love of country that was a hallmark of the great cardinal?

And not only this, but James Cardinal Gibbons was a man far ahead of his times. He is perhaps the first great ecumenist in

the hierarchy of the American church. He possessed extraordinary courage the courage of action, and when advisable the courage of silence. Above all, what Cardinal Gibbons stood for was genuine and complete Catholicism in entire harmony with a genuine and complete Americanism. He would have been very much at home with Pope John, very much at home with Pope Paul. He saw his role as a national figure in the light of his own great charity for all races, for all nations, and for all religions. The ecumenical council meeting in Rome this very week would find in him a great spokesman for its pleas for an ecumenical spirit and for universal brotherhood. It is a special honor to receive this medal which bears his name.

The Catholic University of America is this year celebrating its diamond jubilee. The University of the American Bishops has a right to be proud of its contributions to the church and the Nation during the past 75 years. One of the very first of the universities organized by the Catholic Church and the only one in the Nation of pontifical status. It has blazed a bright trail through the educational history of the United States. Outstanding scholars have always found the university as a congenial home and the history of the church in America has been influenced greatly by the administrators, faculty, and alumni of this great institution.

The clarion call of this university, as indeed of all Catholic education has been the insistence of the preparation of the wellrounded man. The university has firmly rejected the idea of education which focuses on the technician as a human machine rather than as a human person, even as it has also rejected the notion that the liberal arts today can prosper in a heavily technical world by ignoring the great contemporary movements in science, much as an ostrich with its head firmly planted in the sand.

The Catholic University has given evidence of its forward thinking, and as well of its balanced judgment concerning the needs of education today. Your university was one of the very first to obtain a nuclear reactor, one of the pioneers in establishing a department of the space sciences, one of the most forward thinking of the engineering schools in the country. And, I know, the Catholic University stands ready even today to meet the challenging opportunity of a world in scientific transition.

On the other hand, the Catholic University has never lost sight of the humanistic and spiritual values that must go into the process of formation of the whole man. Alongside this new technological growth, the university has kept pace in the field of arts and letters. Your splendid plans for a new university theater, the thriving bureau of social research established a short time ago, the continuing excellence of the departments of humane studies which was crowned last June by the award of more Woodrow Wilson fellowships to your students than to any other university in the area; finally, the insistence on graduate studies where Catholic University makes its unequaled contribution to American higher educationall these are indications that you are still moving forward in both the scientific and the humanistic components of the well-balanced education.

And such forward progress is the hallmark of American education today. As this Nation makes incomparable strides forward in its scientific knowledge, as it reaches out literally to grasp the moon within the arms of its technical comprehension, it must move forward with equal steps toward a broadening and a deepening of its cultural and intellectual life. No one who faces the future can deny that scientific know-how and technical appreciation of new forces must be one of the keystones of national greatness. This Nation cannot afford to

slow down in its quest, already well begun, to master the forces of nature in a nuclear age.

On the other hand again, many of us, especially those of us who are responsible to a small or great degree, for the policy and the progress of this Nation, see that there is only disaster in closing our eyes to the arts as we concentrate on the sciences. This has been the lesson taught by the Catholic University, and by every institution of higher learning in the United States today.

When the House of Representatives passed its bill providing for assistance to institutions of higher learning, these thoughts were in our minds. They provided the motivation for the bill which would have given aid to all types of higher education, including the arts and the humanities, and not restricted to the scientific and technological. Senator RIBICOFF, of Connecticut, himself a former Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, in pleading for the House orientation of the education bill from the floor of the Senate last month, did not hesitate to prefer the broader purposes of the House bill, saying, "Higher education needs support in all fields. It simply cannot be argued that funds should be used to aid the teaching of physics, but not the teaching of foreign languages, to aid the teaching of biology but not the teaching of economics, to aid the teaching of botany but not the teaching of history" (CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, October 15, 1963, page 19483).

Educators throughout the country have seen the need of expanded support for education which would include as equal sisters, the fields of arts and humanities. Senator PROUTY, Of Vermont, in defending the House bill several weeks ago in the Senate called the attention of that body to the fact that he had received messages from hundreds of colleges and university presidents on this issue, 96 percent of them being in favor of unrestricted aid that could be applied to the arts and humane studies as well as to the strictly scientific. He went on to warn: "Downgrade the arts and humanities and you downgrade America. If we downgrade the arts and humanities, American education will be flying on one wing."

Monsignor McDonald, your own rector, made a plea of great importance at the Catholic University's June commencement, this year. He called for a national foundation based on the National Science Foundation, which would provide aid to outstanding young men and women who chose the arts and humanities as their field of graduate research; similar financial support as is today given to those who dedicate themselves to research in the sciences. I welcome the thoughtful suggestion of the rector of the Catholic University of America. It is a most constructive suggestion, worthy of every consideration.

The battle for the future will be, as has been said before, a battle for men's minds. To the nation with the greatest understanding of the truth-of the whole truth-of the truth in science and the truth in culture, to this nation belongs tomorrow. And today's struggle is to prepare the minds of our young men and women with a grasp of knowledge and understanding which is balanced enough to meet the challenges of an evolving science without losing its roots in a culture that still appreciates the value of the human person. I commend the Catholic University of America for its neverflagging dedication to this ideal. It captures my imagination, and I commend highly your right reverend rector for advancing these constructive proposals.

We are living in an important and trying period of the world's history. As you and I are present this evening, history is being made. Despite the cooing voice of peaceful coexistence, the forces of evil are bent on world domination.

While we must be powerful militarily, we must also be strong spiritually; all persons everywhere who believe in God and His law. For deep faith is the affirmative strength

that could well be the difference between victory and defeat.

One of the great events of history is taking place now in Rome-instituted by Pope John and followed and emphasized in his own right by Pope Paul-the Ecumenical

Council.

This is not only a great event in the his

tory of the Catholic Church, and more broadly, of religion, but it is one of the historic events of mankind. For from it will flow great beneficial results.

It is evident to everyone that the Ecumenical Council is affirmative and positive. The growth of the ecumenical spirit throughout the world has already strongly evidenced itself. The religious understanding and spirit is stronger today than it has been for generations, and that understanding and spirit will grow stronger in generations that lie

ahead.

While military power is necessary as a deterrent to Communist aggression, the ecumenical spirit everywhere is necessary for a future world of peace. For in a sense, military strength is negative-responding to the law of self-preservation-to deter, and in case of attack and war, to win and survive. In the world of today it is absolutely necessary. And our country has great military strength and power. But it is the word of

God in the minds of men and women that is our real strength, our affirmative strength, animating their thoughts and actions, and looking forward with faith and confidence to a world of peace.

As we project our minds into the foreseeable future the results that will flow from the work of the Ecumenical Council, makes it one of the most notable events of world

history.

As Cardinal Cushing recently and so well said, "The present Ecumenical Council will accept the challenge of those who contend that we are on the threshold of an atheistic era."

It is in the spirit of James Cardinal Gibbons, who in America many years ago, preached and practiced the ecumenical spirit, that I accept this year's award of the

Cardinal Gibbons Medal.

THE UNITED STATES AND RECENT

EVENTS IN SOUTH VIETNAM The SPEAKER. Under previous order of the House, the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. ZABLOCKI] is recognized for 30 minutes.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. Mr. Speaker, it has been with deep concern and sorrow that I have viewed the events of the past few days in South Vietnam. I have been I have been concerned about the ruthless way in which the Diem government was deposed and grieved at the assassination of President Diem himself.

Just 4 weeks ago today seven other Members of this body and I sat in the President's palace in Saigon, exchanging views with President Diem.

At that time we advised Diem of the anxiety evident in the United States and elsewhere in the free world over the domestic political problems which had plagued his administration. We emphasized the fear that these difficulties might adversely affect the military campaign against the Vietcong if they continued.

[blocks in formation]

At that time President Diem promised that reforms would be made, that civil liberties would be restored to his people as soon as hostilities with the Vietcong had subsided. Of course, he had made such promises before and nothing had been done. I am satisfied, however, that Diem meant what he said. He impressed us as a dedicated nationalist, sincere, incorruptible, and determined to defeat the Communist Vietcong.

From our conversation, it was evident that President Diem and his brother, Nhu, were conscious of the possibility of a coup. There had been, it should be remembered, five previous unsuccessful attempts to oust the Diem regime. But Diem indicated no fear of his political opponents.

For whatever his adversaries might say about him, they cannot deny the honesty, the courage, or ability of Ngo Dinh Diem.

A fervent champion of Vietnamese nationalism, Diem returned in 1954 from 4 years of exile to lead the Government of South Vietnam, a country which at that time had no national feeling or identity.

Almost singlehandedly, with few resources at his command, Diem created a nation-state of Vietnam and solidified the rule of his government. To do this he was forced to crush the opposition of dissident sects, subdue pirate bands roving the delta and coastal regions, and began the campaign to recapture the countryside from the Communist guerrillas. At the same time he effectively accomplished the absorbing of hundreds of thousands of refugees from North Vietnam who had streamed into South Vietnam at the end of the Indo

china war.

It is safe to say that had there been no Diem in South Vietnam, the situation there would have been even more chaotic than it has been, and the Commution than they are today. nist Vietcong would be in a stronger posi

Yet we have heard from many individuals that the war against the Vietcong could not be won with Diem. Our study mission found that the war against the Vietcong was being won. The Vietnamese, we reported, are determined to maintain their independence and their forces have been fighting well.

However, it cannot be denied that the reputation as a national leader and hero which Diem earned by his early actions as Vietnam's President, in recent months, had fallen because of the repressive measures which had been taken against opponents of his regime. against opponents of his regime. His popularity, particularly in the large cities, had been dissipated in a series of government actions against the people attributed largely to his brother, Nhu and Mme. Nhu.

As a result of these actions U.S. economic and military assistance was curtailed.

We cautioned him that political unrest in the form of dissident groups, vo- In part, this withholding of assistance cal opponents at home and abroad, up- was justified. Particularly aid which risings by students, dissatisfaction among went to the regime's "special forces"

who misused U.S. assistance in their raids on Buddhist pagodas.

But there can be little doubt that this curtailment of aid also heartened Diem's opponents and helped trigger the coup. It was a signal to the military leaders of Vietnam that the United States would support the overthrow of the Diem regime.

Further, there will be some who will say that the United States openly encouraged the coup.

Whatever the case, Mr. Speaker, the military junta which now rules Vietnam has not shown itself to be any less ruthless or any less autocratic than the former regime. One of its first acts was the reprehensible slaying of President Diem.

For those of us reared in the JudeoChristian Christian tradition and schooled in Anglo-Saxon law, this act of assassination is repulsive. It is made even more horrible by the attempt to make the killing seem a suicide. Even in military action, killing those who surrender is

massacre.

The State Department has officially deplored the assassination of Diem while disclaiming any prior knowledge of the plot to overthrow him. Yet subsequently we have learned that members of the American press corps in Saigon were aware that a coup was imminent.

Can we believe then that the State Department did not know that a coup was likely? Were steps taken to warn President Diem of pending danger?

And what of the CIA? Did its agents in Vietnam know of the coup? Did, in fact, the CIA play a part in it? These questions remain to be answered.

But one thing is clear. If officials of the U.S. Government knew of the coup, and failed to exert every possible pressure to gain assurances of safe conduct out of the country for President Diem,

then the shadow of blame falls on our Nation. Mr. Speaker, only time will tell what really happened in Vietnam. I hope the authorities will soon advise the Congress and our Nation so that faith can be kept in our executive departments.

What has happened in Vietnam must cause troubled thoughts for the leaders of other nations allied with the United States in the fight against world Communist aggression, in southeast Asia, in Europe, and most particularly in Latin America.

Further, Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that before the United States recognizes the junta in Vietnam as being the legitimate government in that country, we should receive some definite commitments from its leaders. We have learned hard lessons in other parts of the world when a military junta supplanted civilian rule.

Some formula should be agreed upon to return control of Vietnam to civilian rule as soon as possible. Further, similar requirements such as we are awaiting in the Dominican Republic and Honduras are in order. Finally, we should insist on reforms such as requested of the prior regime in Vietnam.

Mr. Speaker, it is vital that we continue our efforts to defeat the Vietcong. We should continue to cooperate with

the ruling junta in Vietnam in pressing nounced their intentions to withdraw all the war against the Vietcong.

However, let us closely examine the request of the junta, as reported in the press, for double our present level of assistance-both economic and military.

According to some individuals Diem was the main stumbling block in the way of winning the war against the Vietcong. Diem is gone now, cruelly slain. Why then, now that the obstacle is gone, is substantially increased assistance necessary?

As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I want to serve notice now that Congress will be taking a close and careful look at any forthcoming requests for massive increased aid to Vietnam. Further, the occurrences in Vietnam and elsewhere indicate the reevaluation, reassessment, and redirection of present policies concerning assistance to foreign nations is necessary.

semblance of recognition, even practically all of the military missions from the Dominican Republic and from Honduras. Does not the gentleman feel that that position of the administration is slightly inconsistent?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I definitely agree that there is an inconsistency. that there is an inconsistency. In my opinion the same formula, similar requirements, as I said earlier, should be followed in both instances. I believe that agreements and commitments on the part of the military junta in Vietnam must be had now, before recognition, so that we may be more certain of the return of a civilian government to Vietnam.

I agree with the gentleman. Basically, there are no differences in the situation in Vietnam.

Mr. CRAMER. If the gentleman will yield further, the gentleman agrees that

the United States and the Dominican Republic?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I will say to the gentleman from Florida that I am unable to reply to the question which he is asking. I agree that the transitional governments in the Dominican Republic and Honduras should be given at least an opportunity to present their case. Yes, the issues are similar. That is why in the conclusion of my prepared statement I stated that there should be a reevaluation, reassessment, and a rededication of our military and economic assistance, not only in the case of Vietnam and the Dominican Republic, but in other areas.

Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman yield for one additional question?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. CRAMER. I know you are familiar with the fact that for some time I have been concerned over the fact that Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Speaker, will the the principle is the same, does he not? in Latin America the Communists are gentleman yield? Mr. ZABLOCKI. I agree. continuing to infiltrate and gain ever Mr. CRAMER. Will the gentleman stronger positions in many countries. In yield further? many of the Latin American countries our Alliance for Progress program and

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I am delighted to yield.

Mr. LAIRD. Mr. Speaker, I know of the long interest of the gentleman from

Wisconsin in the problems of Vietnam

and the conduct of the United States in its efforts to stop communism in that section of the world. I think that the report that the gentleman has made today is indeed a very fine report. I would like to ask him one question, and that is, Does not the gentleman believe that there were commitments made by the United States, to the military junta that took over in Vietnam prior to the time of the rioting and the takeover by the junta?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. The gentleman knows the answer to that question far better than I. As a member of the Committee on Appropriations, the gentleman is deeply interested in the defeat of the Communist menace throughout the world. He knows the answer.

Mr. LAIRD. I could not tell from the gentleman's remarks what he thought as chairman of the Investigating Committee of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. I was trying to get his best judgment.

Mr. ZABLOCKI. My best judgment, I might say to the gentleman, is that there must have been some encouragement.

Mr. LAIRD. I thank the gentleman. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I am glad to yield. Mr. CRAMER. Mr. Speaker, I was very much interested in the gentleman's observation with regard to military coups. The gentleman very rightly pointed out that the cases of Honduras and the Dominican Republic are situations of two military coups. I understand the gentleman's position is that there should be considerable reservation about recognition of this military junta in South Vietnam unless adequate assurances are given with regard to elections, and other matters which the gentleman mentioned. According to the press the State Department is ready, willing, and anxious to give immediate recognition to the junta there, in South Vietnam, but just the last weekend they an

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I would be glad to yield further to the gentleman from

Florida.

Mr. CRAMER. I understand that

foreign aid program efforts apparently

are not successfully directed toward preventing Communist growth and the tak

the Communists.

there are obviously communications go- ing over of some of these countries by
ing on at the present time between the
Vietnam junta and this Government re-
lating to what the junta's intentions are
in the future; is that not correct?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. That is correct.

Mr. CRAMER. I have been rather

disturbed by the fact, and I understand it is a fact, because I was informed by Dominican Republic, Ambassador Bonilla, just last week, that he cannot even get in to see anybody in the State Department to discuss pledges that the triumvirate ruling government in the Dominican Republic is willing to give to the United States relating to elections as soon as possible and relating to other assurances such as concerning the return to constitutional government in the Dominican Republic.

the ambassador to the OAS from the

I am sure the gentleman is fully aware that a few days after the military junta took over, the government was turned over to the civilian triumvirate which is now governing it and the country is not now governed by the military.

The gentleman is familiar with the fact that the military forces are no longer patrolling the streets, imposing martial law, and that there is a substantial degree of freedom even now in the Dominican Republic. Dominican Republic. Yet the U.S. Goyernment will not even talk to Mr. Bonilla in this country nor are they willing to send an official or unofficial emissary to discuss with the triumvirate in the Dominican Republic what their plans are or what assurances they are willing to give.

Does not the gentleman from Wisconsin feel that is totally inconsistent? How are we going to help settle the very serious, critical, and explosive situation in the Dominican Republic? We specifically made recommendations and did certain things in this other crisis in South Vietnam. Can the gentleman understand why our Government will not even set up communications between

Why is it that the United States takes the inconsistent position that the State Department, when it comes to Latin America and this hemisphere, cannot become involved in matters within the sov

ereignty of these other countries and we cannot impose our will upon these other

nations, when according to the answer

given by the gentleman in the well to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. LAIRD] just a moment ago, it appears we are imposing our will on South Vietnam? Of course, it is common knowledge that we did in Guatemala, in 1954, when there was a Communist government. That was a case in which we rendered assistance to oust the Communists.

It seems to me that we have either got to fish or cut bait. In one situation we intervene supposedly to strengthen our anti-Communist efforts but in in another situation where the Communist threaten we say that we have got to recognize their sovereignty and we can

not intervene.

If we are to be consistent, should not our basic policy be that we fight communism wherever it occurs, if it justifies interference in one case should not it justify the same thing in another?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. At the moment I cannot give to the gentleman an answer to his question. I submit the gentleman had better ask it of the proper authorities.

Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield further?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. I yield further to the gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GROSS. The gentleman headed a committee that returned only a few days ago from Vietnam.

Do I understand correctly that the gentleman in his committee talked to President Diem personally?

Mr. ZABLOCKI. We did.
Mr. GROSS. And his brother, Nhu?
Mr. ZABLOCKI. We did.

« ПретходнаНастави »