worth the expenditure of so many lives and so much of our resources that might have been more humanly and more fruitfully expended elsewhere at home and abroad.

He goes on by saying that:

Whatever one says about the silent majority, I take it as a fact of life that most young people-those who bear the actual burden of being wounded and dying do not see America's brightest future identified with this military adventure. One great need of this Nation today is for unity of purpose, clear priority of values, lofty vision regarding where we might go together. Vietnam runs counter to all of these present desires. It has divided the Nation-those favoring the Vietnam war being mainly those who have had and will have no part in the suffering and the dying-an easy option. It has drained our young life, in death and mutilation; it has wasted resources desperately needed in our Nation and around the world for much more serious problems ***

I would like to ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Yes, without objection.

(The statement follows:)

REMARKS OF THE REV. THEODORE M. HESBURGH, C.S.C., PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME, SPEAKING AT A STUDENT-SPONSORED RALLY HELD MAY 4, 1970, TO DISCUSS U.S. ACTIONS IN CAMBODIA

There has probably been no moment in modern history when our country has been more divided regarding its priorities and policy than at present. The reason for our assembly today is the most recent of a long and lugubrious series of decisions regarding the involvement of our country in Vietnam. I am reasonably sure that I speak for most of you in judging that our original involvement there was a mistake. Now more than 40,000 ended American lives later, and after 250,000 wounded Americans, and about 120 billion dollars of expenditure on death and destruction, most of us are willing to concede that what we have won, if anything of real substance, is not worth the expenditure of so many lives and so much of our resources that might have been more humanly and more fruitfully expended elsewhere at home and abroad. It is easy to judge the past, through Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon. Curiously, it was our Army-General President Eisenhower who refused initially to get involved. Since then, we have under three subsequent Presidents edged into the quicksand and consistently sunk deeper.

I cheered when President Johnson declared an end to the bombing and opened up the Paris talks. I cheered again when President Nixon announced the withdrawal of our soldiers. I had hoped that the time schedule would be quicker, but at least this was a beginning and I took it that we were committed, as a Nation, to end this fruitless war.

Then came last week's decision to take yet another step into the quicksand. I have carefully read and re-read the President's statement and recognize both his sincerity and his courage in deciding as he did. I do not agree with him, although he knows more about all this than I do and he has the responsibility of decision. Let me tell you why I do not agree.

Whatever one says about the silent majority, I take it as a fact of life that most young people-those who bear the actual burden of being wounded and of dying do not see America's brightest future identified with this military adventure. One great need of this nation today is for unity of purpose, clear priority of values, lofty vision regarding where we might go together. Vietnam runs counter to all of these present desires. It has divided the nation-those favoring the Vietnam war being mainly those who have had and will have no part in the suffering and the dying-an easy option. It has drained our young life, in death and mutilation; it has wasted resources desperately needed in our nation and around the world for much more serious problems; it has cast us as a nation in the character of a pariah, supported in our aims by almost no one of importance in the world's opinion. We have paid for mercenaries, but they merit no other title.

I cringe to seem to malign our dead-may God rest them and console their families. At least their full sacrifice of life has demonstrated to us that never again must we engage in such a senseless endeavor. If only this has resulted, we

all may thank them for their enormous contribution to our education as a nation and to the saving of many thousands of future lives.

Regarding our war prisoners, we can only commit ourselves, at whatever cost, to their safe return. We owe them nothing less than our complete dedication to their return as long-suffering and long-forgotten heroes.

What do we do now? I suspect that most of you, like myself, have already indulged yourselves in revulsion and anger at the announcement that we are now widening, rather than narrowing, the war, even while recognizing that the North Vietnamese widened it first. I have tried to understand the recurrent military logic that the war must be widened to be narrowed, but, with all the good will in the world, I fail to follow a logic that has grown more barren, more illogical, more contradictory, and more self-defeating in promising victory through defeat. In fact, the very terms victory and defeat have become a triumph of unreason. Military logic reached its high point when we were told of Vietnamese villages and villagers: We had to destroy them to free them.

As one lone American citizen speaking only for himself, I would rather be honest in admitting that this whole endeavor has been a nightmare and a traversty of what we stand for as a nation (My lai, for example, was the nadir) —–— however innocently and naively it was conceived as it began. There comes a time in life when moral righteousness is more important than empty victory. Evil may be, and often is, completely victorious, but does one stand tall in such a victory?

All of us want to be loyal and patriotic-but we also want to be morally clean in the process. No one of us enjoys being ambiguously or doubtfully moral and right and just, however powerful we may be as a nation. Our real power and strength bear on spiritual values, justice, and honor. If our national conscience bothers us, we must stop, look, and ponder our future.

For all of you who are young, this pause comes with special poignancy. No one of you wants to be a coward, a traitor, or an ungenerous American. But if I read your conscience aright, neither do any of you want to be a partner to what you honestly conceive to be evil, unjust, or just plain wrong or idiotic.

What do you do? I have no inflammatory rhetorie to offer you. I must tell you honestly that violence here at home is the worst possible reaction to the violence you abhor in Southeast Asia. I must tell you that if the world is to be better than it presently is, you must prepare yourselves, intellectually, morally, and spiritually, to help make it better. Striking classes as some universities are doing, in the sense of cutting off your education, is the worst thing you could do at this time, since your education and your growth in competence are what the world needs most, if the leadership of the future is going to be better than the leadership of the past and present. Good leaders were never born of self-indulgence, or self-pity either.

This may seem rather undramatic advice to a generation that seeks instant answers to horribly complicated situations. As one of your elders, may I suggest that together we state our uncompromising revulsion to the course of this war and all current wars. May we commit ourselves with all the energy, talent, and dedication at our command to the cause of peace, with the hope and conviction that, as a nation, we stand ready to undertake whatever sacrifice and whatever creative initiative that peace requires of us right now.

If you want to put this conviction into words, may I suggest the following statement that I would be proud to sign with you and transmit to our President:

DECLARATION

As Americans, proud of our national traditions and committed to the best ideals of our country, we declare that we see these traditions and ideals best realized by not continuing our military operations in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos.

1. We favor the withdrawal of our military forces at the earliest moment and the designation by the Congress of an ultimate date for complete withdrawal.

2. We favor the most serious efforts to repatriate our American prisoners of war at whatever cost. The nation should recognize its deep debt to them and their families for their continued suffering.

3. We favor the use of our persons and our financial resources to rebuild a new and hopeful society in Vietnam and all of Indo-China that has known nothing but wars for so many years.

4. We suggest that the people of this whole area must ultimately make their own effort to achieve the kind of society that they want; that whatever the good will of our past and future efforts, it is the Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians themselves who will create the conditions for peace and a better society, something that no force of arms or military imperialism from North or South, East or West, has yet created.

5. Most fundamentally, may we state our deep convictions that our national priorities today are not military, but human. Our nation is unnecessarily and bitterly divided on issues at home and abroad. If the war abroad can be quickly and effectively defused, then we can be united at home in our dedication to justice, to equality of opportunity, and to renewing the quality of American lifea task that will require our best personal efforts and even more of our financial resources than those squandered by us in recent years on a largely frustrating and fruitless venture.

6. Lastly, we realize that the above points would sound like empty rhetoric if we did not stand ready-as we do-to commit our persons, our talents, our honor, and our futures to help work for a better America and a better world in a peaceful and non-violent manner.

Mr. WOLFF. I would like to go on and ask the gentleman a question. In his remarks he stated that the President in effect was winding down. the war. We have suffered fewer deaths since the President has engaged in his policy and yet the number of deaths since the new administration has come in has been increasing totally on all sides rather than being reduced.

We find ourselves no longer in Vietnam, we find ourselves in an Indochina war. We now have Laos, Cambodia. No less an authority than Mr. Rogers said that the incursion into Cambodia has given new influence to Communist China. Now are we fighting for what we sought, to win the people away from the influence of the Communists. or are we pushing them further into their hands?

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, of course the gentleman certainly is entitled to his judgment as much as I to mine, but my judgment is that the Communists were unchallenged in Cambodia and the supply lines that run through Laos have never been challenged and we have accomplished some things militarily. I feel there are some in Vietnam and Cambodia that feel we have accomplished something for them in our hit-and-run enterprise into Cambodia.

The only reason there was not a wider war in Indochina, we had not done anything on the other side. The Communists had been there all the while and virtually taken over a good part of Cambodia and repeatedly made incursions into Laos so that certain clear military objectives which enhance the Vietnamization program and the withdrawal of our forces were achieved. These things in my judgment

Mr. WOLFF. On that score is it true or is it not true that a greater portion of both Cambodia and Laos are today in the hands of the enemy than they were before the war?

Mr. BUCHANAN. Well, the Laos thing though has gone back and forth for years. I would only say that the Cambodians have shown a will to resist and at least the Communists who are unchallenged in Cambodia have now been challenged and it is much less clear that they can maintain a much more challenged route into Cambodia in the future. Our aim, as has been repeatedly stated, was primarily the enhancement of the Vietnamization and phased withdrawal program in Vietnam in our Cambodian and Laosian ventures. It seems to me that purpose has been served.

The gentleman mentioned casualties. I would like to point out that our American fatalities have dropped dramatically as has our troop

strength and as our combat role shrinks this trend will increase and fewer and fewer American lives will be lost in the months ahead. I am just certain that will be the case.

Mr. WOLFF. Some of the atrocities have been committed by the North Vietnamese and Vietcong. And I would say as well that we have to consider the fact that while we are winding down the war we seem to be winding up the casualties on both sides.

Mr. BUCHANAN. One must keep in mind the estimated 3 million whom the Communists would liquidate, exterminate, if they succeed in taking over.

When we succeed, however, in our disengagement, as in my judgment we are succeeding, as we proceed with that disengagement, which in my judgment we clearly are, then it is my profound hope that the casualties can greatly decline all over.

Mr. WOLFF. Thank you.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Mr. du Pont.

Mr. DU PONT. Mr. Buchanan, before you get your briefcase put away, you must think my questions are going to be easy.

Mr. BUCHANAN. I know yours will be too difficult with all the papers in my possession.

Mr. DU PONT. I have one of the hard questions. You commented earlier in your testimony about getting aid to the people of various nations and once the war in South Vietnam is ended, or at least once the U.S. participation in it is ended, I for one favor continuing military and economic aid. In South Vietnam, Saigon and countries all over the world-Brazil and Greece just to name a few obvious ones-we have this terrible problem of aid that we have given not getting to the people. It seems to get blocked in various layers of officialdom, corruption, and heavens knows what.

Have you any comments or any suggestions as to how to deal with this problem? We should somehow be more responsive in getting our aid down to the people. That is a wonderful concept but in practical terms have you any suggestions?

Mr. BUCHANAN. It is very difficult to achieve. In any given country you have to deal with that country's government and it is almost unavoidable. The gentleman has laid his finger on a primary problem of foreign assistance which seems almest beyond solution. I would say, however, that the present government of the Republic of Vietnam is more responsive to the people as illustrated by the land reform and various other programs than any government that people has had for many years and hence there is some hope it will continue to be more so in the future.

There are forces for reform within the country, in the Congress of that country, for example. There are members very concerned about every kind of corruption and pressing for reforms and improvements and reactions which would make that government even more responsive to the people, and I think the corrective is there within the system. Mr. DU PONT. Well, keep thinking on that, Mr. Buchanan, because we need some help.

Thank you.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you, sir.

MTM. GALLAGHER. Thank you very much, Mr. Buchanan.

Mr. BUCHANAN. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. GALLAGHER. Our next witness is Congressman Howard W. Robison, Republican of New York. Congressman Robison has introduced House Joint Resolution 462 which calls for irreversible withdrawals until all American Armed Forces have left Indochina.

During his many years in the Congress, Mr. Robison has gained a reputation as one of our most thoughtful colleagues and I am sure the members of this subcommittee will learn a great deal from the testimony today.

We are pleased to welcome you.

STATEMENT OF HON. HOWARD W. ROBISON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. ROBISON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those extremely kind words.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, your action in holding public hearings this week on the question of U.S. involvement in Vietnam is most welcome, and I am exceedingly grateful for this opportunity.

I have served in the Congress for 14 years now. All of us, I am sure, take great pride in such service. It is a rare privilege we share: To be members of what is one of the greatest, if not the greatest, legislative bodies in the world. During my years here, I have sought to uphold that tradition; perhaps I have not done so with distinction, but my every word and action has been dictated with that thought in mind.

Thus, it is with a troubled heart that I confess my keen sense of disappointment-approaching now a sense of shame-that this great Congress has been unable, since our action so many light-years ago now on the ill-fated "Tonkin Gulf resolution." to express ourselves in any positive fashion on one of the most important issues of our time. the war in Vietnam.

I know the Constitution is, at best, fuzzy in defining our responsibilities in the field of foreign affairs. We cannot here settle that longstanding debate. Nevertheless, nearly every constitutional scholar has claimed that what was intended by the framers of that document-and that what has evolved over the years-is a sharing of responsibility.

It is time, way past time, we accepted our sharing of that responsibility; not by invading the clear prerogatives of the President as Commander in Chief; and not by attempting to dictate to him through in this instance mandated withdrawal deadlines or whatever in such a way as to tie the hand of the only person who, under present circumstances, can negotiate for us as satisfactorily as possible a conclusion of this war; but rather, instead, by searching among ourselves for a consensus-difficult and painstaking a task though that might be-as to what our national policy with respect to Vietnam, and former Indochina, ought to be in the months and years immediately ahead.

Perhaps such a consensus would have been impossible 2 or 3 years ago. At that time there were many who still believed that with a few more bombs, a few more troops, and a few more billions of dollars we could score a "victory"-a victory made, produced and directed in the United States. There are few such visions today, either in Congress or in the administration. What we all seek now is the most responsible way to end our involvement in this war. What the administration