the full House will have an opportunity to express itself on these issues of crucial importance to our country and our constitutional form of government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Anderson, for an extremely well reasoned statement, and for giving us the benefit of your thinking and injecting several ideas that the White House may not as yet have under consideration in this very crucial area.

We have several questions I would like to ask you to respond to, but I know you are in a hurry, so I will refrain from asking them at

this time.

Mr. Whalley?

Mr. WHALLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Congressman Anderson, I want to compliment you on the time and energy that you must have put into this very meaningful and complete statement. I have looked for some things I thought perhaps might have been missed, but you seem to have thought of almost everything. I, like the chairman, think you have done a tremendous job.

I want to compliment the chairman, also, for having these meetings, because I am sure that we are going to get some ideas that none of us have thought about before, and I hope we are going to be able to prepare something that will really help us to get out of Vietnam as most of us want to do.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. du Pont?

Mr. DU PONT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I hate to be the only one to ask a question, but on the other hand, you have done such a fine job as usual in presenting your testimony that I am tempted to ask just one or two.

First, let me heartily concur in two comments you have made.

First of all, that congressional involvement in the field of execution of foreign policy is very important, and long neglected.

Secondly, that with the repeal of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, a congressional statement of policy in this area is appropriate and also of critical importance.

One of the phrases in the Nedzi-Whalen amendment that disturbs me greatly was a phrase that you have also used in section 3 of your resolution, and I wonder if it would be acceptable to you if we simply struck it. That is in the fourth line thereof, when it says, "B. Arrange asylum or other means of protection for the South Vietnamese."

In Nedzi-Whalen I took that to mean fortified hamlets, increasing U.S. participation in certain areas of the war. I agree very much in providing asylum, but I am a little mystified as to what "other means" might be meant, and also a little nervous that it might indicate some room for expansion of the war.

Mr. ANDERSON. I think it is important in the legislative history of this resolution to make it quite clear what the author intended-Icertainly didn't intend by that expression or by those words to carry with it any interpretation that we are advocating a policy of fortified hamlets or of I forget the term used long ago-coastal readouts or something of that kind, involving the military protection in South Vietnam of those who might be out of favor with whatever government was in power.

I think what we had in mind was that either that asylum be provided by the United States or that some arrangements be made perhaps for their transportation to a third country where they could live in safety and without fear of reprisal. But I am grateful to the gentleman for allowing me this opportunity to clarify the language and to assure him and the committee that I would not wish to have that interpreted as meaning that other means of protection implies military involvement in any way in South Vietnam by the United States.

Mr. DU PONT. Thank you. I think that clarification does help considerably.

My second and final question, Mr. Anderson: The preceding witness, Congressman Leggett, said he believed one of the chief problems with our negotiations in Paris was that the U.S. delegation was not free to discuss setting of a fixed withdrawal date. As I read section 2 of your resolution, that problem would be removed and this would explicitly permit our negotiators to go to work with the North Vietnamese to determine a date acceptable to both parties.

Mr. ANDERSON. Absolutely. When we make it a clear declaration of national policy, and as one of our objectives to promote negotiations toward that end, toward the end of fixing a date certain, then I think we make it unmistakably clear to everyone, the world and everyone within and without our Government, that we are willing to do just that, subject only to the condition that I have mentioned, that concurrently agreement be reached for the safe release of our own POW's. Mr. DU PONT. Mr. Anderson. I again would like to compliment you on doing your homework and on a fine presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.

Our next witness is Congressman Claude Pepper, Democrat of

Florida.

Mr. Pepper has made a distinguished record in the Senate, and since coming to the House of Representatives has become a valuable member of the Committee on Rules, and perhaps more important, has done important pioneering work as chairman of the Committee on Crime. Mr. Pepper is an extremely valuable Member of this House, and while as a very young Member of the U.S. Senate participated in some of the most historic decisions that this country ever made during the administrations of President Roosevelt.

It is a pleasure to warmly welcome you here this afternoon.

STATEMENT OF HON. CLAUDE PEPPER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you very much for your kind introduction, especially for the privilege of being here before your distinguished committee this after

noon.

You have a very important responsibility to the Congress and to the country in the consideration of the many measures which will come before you here. I have two resolutions which I would like briefly to discuss. One is House Concurrent Resolution 307, which I introduced May 17 of this year which provides that:

Resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring, that the President shall remove all military forces of the U.S. from Indochina by December 31, 1971, and shall not deploy any U.S. armed forces whatsoever in Indochina after December 31, 1971 without the prior approval of the Congress.

This afternoon, I am reintroducing that resolution with an amendment which is a part of the amendment that I introduced in the House the other day, and which received, I believe it was, 147 votes, that would provide, at the end of the language I just read, that this resolution shall have no force or effect if North Vietnam and other adversary forces in Indochina holding American prisoners of war or Americans designated as missing in action, but held as prisoners of war, shall not have completed the release and repatriation of all such prisoners and missing in action by a date 60 days prior to December 31, 1971.

That, of course, is the resolution many of us believe should have approval by the Congress, bringing about on the part of the Congress, if possible, a complete removal of the Armed Forces of the United States from Indochina by the end of this year.

Now I will offer my other resolution and I would like briefly to discuss the matter.

I am also introducing in the House this afternoon a resolution which is the exact resolution adopted in the Senate the day before yesterday, offered by Senator Mansfield and other Senators which in substance provides that the United States should terminate at the earliest practical date all military operations of the United States in Indochina and to provide for the prompt and orderly withdrawal of all U.S. military forces not later than 9 months after the date of adoption of this resolution, subject to the release of all American prisoners of war held by the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such government.

The House of Representatives hereby urges and requests the President to implement the above expressed policy by initiating immediately the following action:

One, establishing a final date for the withdrawal from Indochina of all military forces of the United States, contingent upon the release of all American prisoners of war held by the Government of North Vietnam and forces allied with such government. Such date to be no later than 9 months after the date of the adoption of this resolution. Two, negotiate with the Government of North Vietnam for an im mediate cease-fire by all parties to the hostilities in Indochina.

Three, negotiate with the Government of North Vietnam for an agreement which would provide for a series of phased and rapid with drawals of U.S. military forces from Indochina in exchange for cor responding series of phased releases of American prisoners of war and for the release of any remaining American prisoners of war concur. rently with the withdrawal of all remaining military forces of the United States by not later than the date established by the President pursuant to paragraph 1 hereof, or by such earlier date as may be agreed upon by the negotiating party.

Now, the only variation, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, between that resolution, which on the advice of the legislative counsel of the House I made a "sense of the House" resolution, and the Mansfield amendment, is that in the beginning of the Senate amendment to the draft bill, which is pending over there now, it says

section 302-it is title 5. Termination of hostilities in Indochina, section 302. It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States to terminate.

I suppose that the Senate adopted that language-57 to 42, I believe it was with the assumption since that was an amendment to a pending bill, that the House would perhaps adopt the same language, and then the bill would go to the President for signature or for allowing it to become law without his signature, so that in that sense in the same measure there would be concurrent action of the two Houses of the Congress.

We read in the press that the House members of the Armed Services Committee, at least the chairman, whom we all esteem very highly, indicated that he didn't look with too much favor upon the adoption of that amendment in conference between the House and the Senate. The White House, I saw in the paper, stated that that action was not binding upon the President nor on the policy of the country, because it was just the opinion of 57 Senators and not the opinion of the Congress of the United States, not the enactment of the Congress of the United States.

I don't know what will happen to that amendment when it gets into conference. It is not quite as strong as I would like it to be, but I have offered the counterpart of it here as a sense of the House resolution, because if the House did adopt it, with all the language being the same except the first two or three lines, why, that would constitute an expression of sentiment of exactly the same words as to what should be the foreign policy of the United States, by both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and whether it was in the same bill or not it would seem to me not particularly relevant insofar as it reflected what was the sentiment of the Congress of the United States as expressed by both Houses.

Mr. Chairman, Saturday of last week I attended the Florida Bar Association convention in Miami. There was a debate among four very able representatives of the two points of view on the question: Is the war in Vietnam legal?

On the affirmative side, we had the distinguished Solicitor General of the United States, the Honorable Erwin Griswold, one of the ablest lawyers in the Nation; and associated with him was Senator Edward Gurney of Florida.

Opposed were two very able lawyers: the attorney general of Massachusetts; and a professor, former partner of mine, Mr. Neil Rutledge, professor at the law school at Duke University.

One of the very strong arguments made by the distinguished Solicitor General as to the legality of the war, is the same point that I made in reading from some cases on the floor of the House the other day when I offered my amendment to the effect that the Congress has been cooperating with the Executive in the support of, and in the conduct of, this war.

As the court cases said, it is a joint enterprise between the Congress and the Executive because Congress has provided the material and the men and the money, so if the Congress is not to be regarded as a partner to this conflict, why then, we are going to have to disassociate ourselves in some way.

This sense-of-the-Congress resolution of mine, the second one, the same one as the Mansfield resolution, is not absolutely by congressional act cutting off money, cutting off men, or cutting off materials. It is expressing the sense of the House of Representatives along with the sense of the Senate expressed in the Mansfield amendment, and that does constitute an expression of the Congress that the Executive should terminate this war upon the conditions set forth in my resolution.

Mr. Chairman, for all of the reasons that we all know that lead so many of us to feel we must terminate this war, with safety on the part of our prisoners assured, at the soonest possible time, I would be very grateful for the consideration of this resolution by your distinguished committee.

Thank you very much.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much.

I wish we didn't have a bell ringing, but we do. I would like to draw upon the benefit of your experience from the very dark days when you were a Member of the Senate, a time when our country was going through such difficult times, when people had no food, no jobs, no money, and it was a time of no hope. Unfortunately, sometimes these days it seems a time of no hope. I hope we can have you back.

Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, having served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for 12 years, I know many of the problems your distinguished committee has. Thank you very much.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Thank you.

The subcommittee stands recessed for 10 minutes. (A short recess was taken.)

Mr. GALLAGHER. The subcommittee will come to order.

Our next witness is Congresswoman Bella Abzug, Democrat, of New York.

Mrs. Abzug certainly needs no introduction to any group concerned with the war in Indochina. Her energy, intelligence, and voice have been constant in criticism of America's role in that tragic part of the world.

Mrs. Abzug, we welcome you here this afternoon.

STATEMENT OF HON. BELLA S. ABZUG, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mrs. ABZUG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

I want to thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. Whatever your individual views on the war in Indochina, I think we can all agree-particularly in view of the disclosures in the Pentagon papers that these hearings come late on the scene of history.

The interest of the American people and the interest of truth would best have been served if the House Foreign Affairs Committee, acting on its constitutional authority, had held a continuous series of public hearings on the war, beginning in the early 1960's. I don't want to appear ungrateful, gentlemen, but these hearings are finally taking place in the session that I have joined the Congress; we have waited both in and out of Congress for many years.

Mr. GALLAGHER. There are two interpretations. One, that you joined the Congress; two, that I finally became chairman of this subcommittee. [Laughter.]