CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE

December 15, 1969

Page 39153

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that, at the conclusion of the closed session, the transcript of the remarks of each Senator who participated in the proceedings be delivered to the Chief of Official Reporters; that the Senator shall have the right to revise his own remarks; that such Senator shall deliver his revised remarks to the Chief Reporter, who shall then deliver the transcript to the distinguished Senator from Louisiana (Mr. ELLENDER), as acting chairman of the Subcommittee on Defense Appropriations; that the expurgated version of these proceedings be prepared under the direction of the Senator from Louisiana, and that there be deleted from the transcript anything which might be classified; that such record of proceedings be made public by being printed in the permanent CONGRESSIONAL RECORD of the date on which they occurred; and that the Chief Reporter turn the shorthand notes of the Official Reporters over to the Secretary of the Senate to be kept in secret and not to be disclosed without leave of the Senate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, in addition to the persons authorized to be in the Chamber, I ask unanimous consent that the counsel to the Committee on Appropriations, Mr. William Woodruff, and the staff consultant to the Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr. Walter Pincus, be permitted to be present.

Mr. TOWER. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, it would be proper to inquire as to the security clearance of the two staff members.

Mr. MANSFIELD. They have been cleared.

Mr. TOWER. They have been cleared?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, without question.

Mr. ELLENDER. Without question.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.

Mr. ELLENDER. Mr. President, it is my understanding that one of the purposes of this closed session is for me to provide answers to the questions that were propounded by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas (Mr. FULBRIGHT) in his letter to the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. I am prepared to proceed with this information. I ask the indulgence of Senators to listen to the questions and the answers as I shall read them.

Question No. 1: What treaties. agreements, or declarations provide the basis for our defense commitment and military assistance to the Royal Lao Government?

The answer is unclassified. It reads as follows:

The basic US policy towards Laos is that of support for its independence and neutrality. We have no written or oral defense commitment to Laos.

In 1962, the US and other parties to the Declaration of Neutrality of Laos, agreed to respect and observe the neutrality of Laos. Under Article IV, the parties undertake in the event of a violation or a threat of violation of Lao sovereignty, independence, neutrality or territorial integrity, to consult jointly with the RLG and among themselves "in order to consider means which might prove to be necessary to ensure the observance of these principles." Past Royal Lao Government efforts to obtain consultation among all the parties have been unsuccessful.

After North Vietnam failed to respect the Geneva Agreements, by not withdrawing about 6,000 of their troops after signing the Geneva Agreements in 1962, the RLG in September 1962 requested the US to provide supplies and repair parts for US furnished equipment, training ammunition, and consumable supplies for national defense of Laos. This assistance is permitted under Article VI of the Protocol of the Declaration of Neutrality which states: "The introduction into Laos of armaments, munitions and war material generally, except such quantities of conventional armament as the RLG may consider necessary for national defense of Laos, is prohibited."

In 1964, when NVN significantly increased its military support of the Pathet Lao and use of Lao territory to infiltrate men and material into South Vietnam, the RLG requested additional US assistance against this threat to its neutrality and territory. The RLG was fully within its rights to do so. In response to this request and to assist Laos in meeting this increased threat to its national defense created by communist aggression, we increased assistance to Laos. This increase in assistance was in a spirit of a response proportionate to the threat.

In sum, we complied with the Geneva Agreements. The North Vietnamese violated these agreements by (1) attacks against the Royal Lao Government (2) use of Lao territory to carry out aggression in South Vietnam. Our assistance to Laos has been limited and in response to North Vietnamese violation of the Agreements.

This assistance has been to preserve the independence of Laos, under the general precepts of international law which allow a nation to seek assistance in its own self-defense. This is classified: [Deleted.]

Mr. GRIFFIN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief interruption?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. GRIFFIN. In response to several inquiries from Members, I wish to ask the Chair to state what the pending business is. The pending amendment has not been printed and is not available on the desk of each Senator. Therefore I think it would be helpful if the pending amendment could be read again.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will read the pending amendment.

The legislative clerk read as follows: On page 46, between lines 8 and 9, insert a new section as follows:

"Sec. 643. None of the funds appropriated by this Act shall be used for the support of local forces in Laos or Thailand except to provide supplies, materiel, equipment, and facilities, including maintenance thereof, or to provide training for such local forces."

Mr. GRIFFIN. I thank the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment has been offered by the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. COOPER) and the Senator from Montana (Mr. MANSFIELD).

Mr. ELLENDER. I shall reread the classified portion of the answer to question No. 1 [deleted].

Question No. 2:

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Will the Senator yield for clarification, before he goes to the next question?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Do I correctly understand from the Senator's statement that no treaty of any kind has been entered into and that no agreement of any kind has been submitted to the Senate authorizing these activities in Laos?

Mr. ELLENDER. I am just reading from the statement.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Is that not clear? There is no treaty. Do they contend there is any agreement or treaty?

Mr. ELLENDER. It is in accord with the Geneva agreement.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. ELLENDER. I yield.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Under the protocol of the Southeast Asian Treaty, Laos, Cambodia, and South Vietnam were brought under its umbrella. The proviso was that we would come to their assistance if they were attacked by Communist forces from outside. But it also said that any such move would be subject to due constitutional process.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. Did not Laos itself remove itself from under that umbrella?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I do not believe so. I think Cambodia did but not Laos.

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I think Laos did. They were trying after 1962 to establish a neutrality; so it would not be brought into this.

Mr. MANSFIELD. The Senator may be right.

Mr. ELLENDER. If the Senator has evidence to that effect, let him present it.

Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. FULBRIGHT. I yield. I was just trying to clarify the situation.