NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 90
• Document Creation Date: December 20, 2016
• Document Release Date: March 1, 2004
• Sequence Number: 2
• Content Type: OPEN

pproved For Release 2006/10k.
1968
?
CON
this legislation. has assembled and Accordingly, the Committee rose, an
preseritecruhassailable facts and reasons the Speaker having resumed the chair,
for its enactment. He has given the Mr. O'NEILL, Chairman of the Committee
Matter of civil defense in this thernrio- of the Whole House on the State of the
nuclear 'a'ge a new promise of success. Union, reported that that Committee
His work as be& as tireless. He h been having had under consideration the bill,
unyielding both to frustrations and to H.R. 8200, to further amend the Federal
Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended, to
provide for shelter in Federal structures,
to authorize payment toward the con-
struction or modification of approved
public shelter space, and for other pur-
poses, pursuant to House Resolution 512,
he reported the bill back to the House
with sundry amendments adopted by the
Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER. Under the rule, the
previous question is ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any
amendment? If not, the Chair will put
them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER. The question is on
the engrossment and third reading of the
bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed
and read a third time, and was read the
third time.
Mr. FOREMAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer
a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER. Is the gentleman op-
posed to the bill?
Mr. FOREMAN. I am, Mr. Speaker,
in its present form.
The SPEAKER. The Clerk will report
the motion to recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
- ' 'CLAtt? COVRTY SOIL AND
WATER CONSERVATION DIS-
TRICT-25 YEARS OF PROGRESS
(Mr. PRICE asked and was given per-
mission to address the House for 1
minute and to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PRICE. Mr. Speaker, farmers,
conservation leaders, and numerous co-
operating organizations can be justly
proud of the conservation achievements
In the St. Clair County Soil and Water
Conservation District. This district,
organized 25 years ago, has made out-
standing progress in the field of soil
and water conservation and is a unique
example of successful Federal-State-
local cooperation. The conservation pro-
gram in St. Clair County has provided a
means of insuring local direction and
leadership in pursuing conservation
practices that have been responsive to
the needs and desires of our own com-
munities.
Since the district was organized a
quarter century ago more than 1,000
cooperators have been approved for par-
ticipation in the program. Currently
there are about 861 active cooperators.
During this 25-year period 887 basic
conservation plans have been prepared
for operation of the farms of the local
district of which 688 are currently ac--
tive. The achievements in connection
with 20 or more major conservation
practices pursued to implement these
basic plans on the farms of the district
have been most impressive.
Among the leading projects pursued
In St. Clair County, the Hog River-Pig
Creek watershed project is of particular
significance during the past year. This
project, cosponsored by the local conser-
The SPEAKER. Without objection, vation district, the city of Maseoutah,
the previous question is ordered. and the Mascoutah Surface Water Pro-
There was no objection. tection District, is intended to solve prob-
The SPEAKER. The question is on lems of floodwater and drainage damage
the motion to recommit. to more than 2,000 acres of cropland, 65
The question was taken, and on a divi- acres of grassland, and 818 acres of ur-
sion (demanded by Mr. FOREMAN) there ban and miscellaneous land. The cost
were?ayes 67, noes 172. of conservation work required on these
Mr. FOREMAN. Mr. Speaker, I de- lands is estimated at about $582,000?
mand the yeas and nays. $369,000 Federal and $213,000 non-Fed-
The yeas and nays were refused. eral. The project scheduled for corn-
The SPEAKER. The question is on pletion in fiscal year 1964, was about
the passage of the bill, half completed during 1962. Reports In-
The question was taken; and the dicate that the partially completed work
Speaker announced that the ayes ap-
has been effective in dealing with the
peared to have it. water problem in the area and that there
Mr. GROSS. Mr. Speaker, I demand is reason to believe that the completed
the yeas and nays.
project will give the protection desired.
,
The yeas and nays were refused. It is encouraging to observe the con-
So the bill was passed. tinued interest in farm conservation
planning in the St. Clair County district.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the It appears that it is becoming more and
table. more difficult to work out plans with
farm owners and-tenants because of the
GENERAL LEAVE TO EXTEND changing character of agriculture in the
REMARKS area. Recent census data indicate that
St. Clair County has changed from a
Mr. HEBERT. Mr. Speaker, I ask predominantly dairy-wheat type of
unanimous consent that all Members farming to a corn-soybean-hog produc-
may have 5 legislative days in which to ing area. This change in land use has
extend their remarks in the RECORD on necessitated an increase in terracing,
the bill just passed. grass waterways and structures to try to
The SPEAKER. Is there objection to
the request of the gentleman from Loui-
siana?
There was no objection.
opposition. He is a great public servant.
M. Chairman," the arguments which
have been made 'here leave no doubt of
the complete interdependency of the
military and the Civil defense in building
realistic, effective protective readiness
for this Nation.
The Congress of the United States and
the Federal Government have dragged
their feet too long in establishing a
Meaningful program to develop
_
ade-
quate fallout shelter space for our Nation.
? This is not the time for vacillation or
timidity, for second-guessing or the-nur-
turing of moral qualms. Mr. Chairman,
now is the time -to fish or cut bait.
This is not a 'handout. By no stretch
Of the imagination can it be construed
as one. It is an austere program over
which, the Congress has abundant con-
trol. It Is prOduct of the disciplined
plannihg'of the Defense Department and
the wise 'congreSsional overseers of the
Committee on Armed Services. Since
this program ha i been brought into the
Department of Defense, fallout shelter
space has been located for over 100 mil-
lion Americans.
Today, one of the gravest perils to the
United States?and to all nations?is the
possibility of nuclear warfare. Hope-
fully, this possibility is remote.
But may 'I rernind you that so long as
the destiny of the world is-controlled by
men, the danger of war will remain with
US. ?
We cannot look at this fact and then
bacic away frond it, saying that there is
nOthing we can'do, especially when ex-
pert testimony has demonstrated that
fallout shelters `do offer a prime means
Of survival for the Nation.
This hill is suPported by a great cross
? section of thinking Americans?business-
? men, 8cientists, our senior military offi-
cers, and the clergy. It is not defeatist.
The thinking behind it does not accept
the inevitability df war. On' the con-
trary, building fallout shelters will but-
tress our poweriul weapons systems. A
nation not in danger of being brought
to jts knees through annihilation of its
pe6ple I's, by this fact alone, a more pow-
erful adversary, a Colossus which the
hostile world could never topple.
Mr. Chairman, the people of our coun-
try are looking to us for leadership. We
have procrastinated too long.
We cannot a,,vOid this responsibility.
We must pass H.R. 8200.
The CHATR1VIAN. The Chair recog-
nizes the gentleman from Louisiana [Mr.
? Htazirri to close the debate.
Ur, HEI3ERt. Mr. Chairman, there is
,
nothing, that can be added to What has
eire0y_been, said. I am sure the points
have been well- presented and the ques-
tion is understood.
T4refore, Mr. Chairman, I move that
the committee do now rise.
The I-1Am AN. Under the rule, the
Comini tee rises.
Mr. FOREMAN moves to recommit the bill
(Ha. 8200) to the Committee on Armed
Services with instructions to report it back
forthwith with the following amendment:
On page 4, line 3, Shelter Financing, strike
out all of section 207 down through page 8,
line 3. ?
handle this more intensive cropping. In-
centive payments made under provisions
of the agricultural conservation program
have speeded up application of soil and
pproved For Release 2006/10/17 : 01A-RDP65B0038
01-00200002-8-
Approved For Rele-ase 2006/10/17: C1A-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16392 ' CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE September 17
phere of such heavy emotional odds It is very easy for nations to forego things
against them, stemming from the strong which they have never had and have no
feeling our people, or any humane peo- possibility of obtaining.
pie, have to take risks for even a small The proponents also state that rejecting
step toward Peace, the treaty would put us in a bad light in
world opinion. For what it is worth, this is
I have written a letter to my people probably true?though not nearly so bad a
who have been writing to me on this un- light as if the world were eventually lost for
portant subject. I seek to meet the basic lack of U.S. strength.
question, not beg it. Is the proposed If we now reject the treaty, we unques-
nuclear test ban treaty really a small tionably shall be accused of being war-
step toward peace? Or is it really a step mongers. This is a dreadful position for
away from peace? A step back toward President Itennedy to have placed us in, in
the first place. Yet, we are there.
ignorance, fear, and irrationality? I Air Force General LeMay, for example,
believe a calm examination of the treaty states that he would oppose the treaty if
in full context of the state of world's we were not already committed to it by our
scientific knowledge reveals that it is a President,
step backward, from peace. It is a step These, then, are the most substantive
away from honest search for the truth, arguments made for the treaty. No propo-
eeeo""'
/NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY A step toward peace only conies from a nent has yet said that it will add strength
step toward justice, as best we can de- to America.
It has only been a question of how much'
fine (Mr. CURTIS asked and was given per-
ne it. And progress toward a better
it wilt subtract, and whether the political
misSion to extend his remarks in the body understanding of justice comes only from considerations of the subtraction of strength
of the }twos') and to include extraneoussearch for truth. will outweigh the very real disadvantages of
matter.) I am setting out this letter for what- this toss of present and future deterrent
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. Speaker, under the ever value it may be in furthering de- power.
Constitution, the U.S. Senate has the re- bate on this matter. I am also setting Against the treaty is, first, the fact that
sponsibility for ratification of treaties, out a very fine editorial appearing in the the Russians undoubtedly will cheat on this
treaty, as they have in everything else
This, of course, does not ban comment Friday, September 13, 1963, St. Louis throughout the entire history of the Bol-
and discussion on the question of ratifi-Globe-Democrat entitled "If I Were a shevik regime. No one seriously believes
cation of a particular treaty by the gen- Senator." As one can see from reading that they will, this once, keep faith.
eral public or by the House of Represent- the editorial it follows a different theme This pact allows the Russians to progress
atives. Indeed, there is an obligation on from that of my letter, the secondary in those areas where we lead?and restrains
the part of the public and Members of theme which accepts the premise, but us in fields where they lead, because we have
the House of Representatives to speak then asks is it worth the risk. It is always kept the sancity of treaties.
Further, there is the deep-seated convic-
out on the subject if it is of sufficient im- cogently put. It too moves the debate. tion?despite disclaimers?that there are
porta.nce and one feels that a contribu- forward,
more to these negotiations than meet the
tion can be made in moving the debateeye.
Is it indeed too much to ask the Presi-
forward. dent and those who follow his philos- The continuing suspicion of a deal in-
Certainly the proposed nuclear test ophy on this important matter to abide volving a nonaggression pact and recogni-
ban treaty being considered by the Sen- by the rules of fair debate? Debate the tion of the satellites of Eastern Europe, and
ate has become the symbol of an irapor- basic question. Do not beg it. especially East Germany, which would-cut the
.tant and very basic issue to our people, a nir I WERE A SENATOR heart out of the pledges we have made from
the very beginning of World War II or the
step toward world peace. If the proposed The conscience of the Nation is on the self-determination of people, and for liberty
treaty itself' does not warrant this syrn- ioo U.S. Senators as they prepare to take and freedom of the captive nations, persist
bol, it is yery important that our people the most fateful vote of this decade on the despite disclaimers,
nuclear test ban treaty.
understand that the symbol itself, a step Of equal importance is the great suspicion
toward peace, is not being rejected, but Each Senator must look deep into his own that this treaty may be not so much the
heart and mind in determining his vote.
rather something falsely marketed under first step toward peace, but the first step
Each thoughtful citizen must decide what
that fine label is being rejected, toward disarmament as planned by the
he would do "If I were Senator," and should misty-eyed dreamers and unrealists of the
President Kennedy has asked for communicate these views to his Senator. Kennedy palace guard, who are convinced
forthright debate on the issue, a ratifica- Supporters of the treaty include former that the future of the United_States lies not
tion of the treaty, but at the very samePresidents Eisenhower and in strength?as the lessons of history have
time he asked for forthright debate he John MeCone of the Trumn, Director Central Intelligence taught us?but in getting away from deter-
and those who decided, in camera, to Agency, some members of the Joint Chiefs rent strength, which they term provocative,
of Staff?with reservations?and a number down to a level of assumed weakness with
support ratification fouled up the rules of
of leading Senators, though chiefly those the Russians.
fair debate by begging the basic question, generally associated with Kennedy adminis- This effort to buy peace by trying to ap-
The question is: Is ratification of this
tration policies.
pease the unappeasable, and satiate the in-
treaty a step toward world peace, how- Opponents include Dr. Edward Teller? satiable, has failed every time we have ever
ever small? Let us discuss the question, our most knowledgeable scientist in this tried it?starting with Teheran and Yalta up
The arguments of those opposing rati- field and one whose previous predictions to the very present moment,
fication of the treaty which have been have unfailingly been correct?a number of The Kennedy administration is trying to
military leaders now retired and not under sell the treaty on the basis that its weak-
reported to the people, subtly though
unintenionally, help to further conceal Athiethumb of the President, including Adm. flosses are compensated by the political ga,ins
the fact that the basic question has not m chairman
rerei gn Burke and Adm. Lewis Strauss, for- made. We could agree if any political gains?
been' debated. n of the Atomic Energy Corn- other than ephemeral world opinion, for
mission, and General Power of the Strategic which the Russians themselves have never
These arguments have as their basic Air Command, and the two most knowledge- striven?were apparent.
theme that ratification of, this treaty is of
G
,
able Senators in this field, Senator Russell For example, if?as a collateral of this
r-ja
g and Senator Stennis of Missis- treaty?the Russians would honor their
dangerous to our national defense. .s7,?,?7-
Hence there is the overtone of accent --- pledge- to withdraw their weapons, techni-
- -- The chief argument for the treaty is that cians and armed forces from Cuba,. or tear
ance of the administration's unsupported
it will be a first step toward reduction of down the Berlin Wall, or cease their provoca-
contention that the treaty is a step to-
ward peace. nuclear tensions. We concur in this only tions in Southeast Asia or their subversion of
to a 'superficial extent.
. , peaceful governments throughout the world, "
I certainly believe that the secondary The treaty itself is a triumph of Madison then we could easily understand that the
question of whether we should take the Avenue techniques, whereby dozens of na- risks involved in this treaty would be Carrie
risk to ow national defense of a small tions?including many whose main offensive pensated by the real gains toward eventual
step toward world peace needs serious potential Is throwing coconuts at each world peace and disarmament in good faith,
other--have agreed not to build nuclear consonant with security.
debate once the premise that it is a step
. toward peace were established; and I til Cmem leers of the nuclear group?France this conclusion.
commend those who manfully are trying aweapons, whereas the two actual, or poten- Not a single shred of evidence points to
to conduct such a debate in the atmos- ' conmmiont
e
nmenutuist China?have made no such On balance, we think the treaty is dan-
geroUs for the United States, in that the loss
water Conservation practices. Many
farmers have been encouraged to move
ahead of their program by these pay-
ments. This program, in cooperation
with the technical assistance provided
by the Soil Conservation Service, has
done an outstanding job in the area.
Achievements of the conservation pro-
gram in the St. Clair County Soil and
Water Conservation District confirm
once more that the soil conservation dis-
trict program is a great success. It is a
fulfillment of the belief and hopes of
those who 25 years ago saw in soil con-
servation districts a great new oppor-
tunity for democratic action in the best
traditions of our democracy.
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
proved For-Re1e4te 2006/10/17 : CIA-RDP65B00
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE 16393
of strezgth is very real?and the gains, out-
side the will-o'-the-wisp of world opinion,
_ _
are undiscerna'ble.
trery least, the treaty raises a rea-
sonable doubt, on the basis of learned testi-
mony, as to its value. Reasonable doubts of
this sort should be resolved in favor of
Strength and safety for America, not possibly
reckless gambling with our future.
'World opinion is the most overrated com-
Modity today. We have spent over $100 bil-
lions essentially to build a favorable climate
of world opinion for us?and we are univer-
sally mistrusted, our motives scorned.
World opinion follows the strong and the
corredt?not the weak and vacillating.
Every lesson of history has taught us that
only the strong remain free. Yet, this treaty
panders to weakness and abjures strength.
It breeds suspicion of the future, not con-
fidence.
It leads us down the road to accommoda-
tion, with its dangerous pitfalls of being
caught unprepared and unwary, without any
compensating advantages to the United
States and to those?whatever they may say
today?who have o*ed, and will continue to
owe, their survival to one factor, and one
factor alone, the ability of the United States
to deter aggression.
For all these reasons--acknowledging the
good intentions of those who think other-
wise?we lute' the Renate to reject the treaty
until such time aa Russian commitments to
peace are inore meaningful and more real-
istic, in the light of past performances and
future hopes. '
Drank OcipsTrruxur: Thank you for your
communications 'regarding the niklear test
ban treaty among the United States, the
Soviet:Union, and Great Britain. This pro-
posal provides: "Each of the parties to this
treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent,
and nbt to carry' out any nuclear weapon
test explosion, or any other nuclear explo-
sion, at any place under its jurisdiction or
control in 'the atmosphere, beyond its limits,
including outer space; or underwater; in-
cluding teiritorial- waters or high seas; or
in any other environment if such explosion
causes radioactive debris to be present,, out-
side the territorial -limits of the state under
Whose jurisdiction or control such explosion
is conducted."
because .0f the number of letters which I
have received on the subject of this treaty,
and, because of the: importance of this issue,
I am resorting to a mimeographed reply to
your communications. I hope that you will
excuse this, but since it is my desire to fully
answer all the questions asked of me on this
subject, this type of response is the best way
to say more to more people.
Let, me -Say at the outset of this discus-
sion that the impaot of my opinion upon the
final outcome of the treaty is greatly limited
due to the fact that its ratification rests
'solely with the Senate. This; however, in no
Way leesenS my concern over this issue, nor
does it reduce my determination to do all
I can to -influence my' colleagues in the
Senate. 'r '
Turning to the nuclear test ban treaty it-
self, I believe that it is important- to con-
skier this issue in its proper perspective.
Nuclear power call be good or bid, 'depend-
ing on how it is used. Not only does it pose
a threat of , mass._ annihilation, but also it
, holds:the promise for further peaceful tech-
nological development. By channeling the
power of nuclear expthsives into civilian and
industrial:areas, it could be used for the cre-
ation of harbors and sealevel canals at much
less epens. PPor example, if a second
Panama canal Were built by a nuclear ex-
plosion rather than by conventional meth-
ods of' earth moving, it has been estimated
that SOMoShiiii like $8 billion could be saved.
Also it has a bearing on space, 'underwater,
and other propulsion. It has a bearing on
,
medical and botanical advanceme
nts We The test ban will not interfere with Rus-
cannot get around the fact that space util- sian progress. It may endanger the NATO
Ization requires maximum energy releases alliance."
and nuclear explosions are the method Experience should teach us that the Corn-
through which maximum energy releases munists will enter no agreement which does
can be produced?and produced most cheap- not give them a net advantage in their un-
ly. Further, plowshare explosions which can remitting campaign to destroy the non-
be so useful on earth, if we can learn to make Communist world.
them clean, may be required for the building These reasons, therefore, are the basis of
of stations on the moon. Is it not self- my stand against the proposed nuclear test
evident that to establish anything like a ban. treaty. With further development we
useful environinent on the moon a great deal would be able to produce clean, nuclear pro-
of earth moving will be necessary? Hence, puLsive and explosive power which would en-
we would have to transport vast amounts of able us to employ this newly discovered
energy into space, which would be impossi- power for the peaceful advancement of man-
ble unless we can package the energy into kind. It also would enable us to make a her-
minimum weights. Again, the nuclear ex- rible weapon much less horrible. Instead of
killing millions upon millions of innocent by-
plosive provides the solution.
All of this speculation is dependent on the standers, the nuclear weapons without dele-
continuance of our nuclear testing. We terious fallout could be confined to a-much
have already produced the raw explosion, smaller area and affect fewer people. Scien-
the uncontrolled explosion, the explosion tine advancement cannot be made in the
dangerous to mankind. Now, we must learn academic laboratories alone. There is only
to refine and control this phenomena which one way to snatch bits of truth from the dark
can be so wonderful, if only we will let it and boundless abyss of the unknown and
be. Only by further developing our knowl- that is by patient, intelligent trial and error-
edge of nuclear explosives will we be able to testing, checking, and then testing again and
produce a so-called clean explosion?that again and again. The treaty, far from mak-
is, a nuclear explosion which does not pro-
duce deleterious fallout. The test ban
treaty threatens to end our partial improve-
ments and achievements toward this end.
As Dr. John Wheeler said: "It will prevent
us from developing a technology of pure
hydrogen devices free of fission fallout."
We must let the scientists continue their
experimentation, not only in the laboratory
but also in the field of nuclear testing. The
bask threat to mankind is nuclear war with
dirty bombs not nuclear testing. The real
threat, nuclear annihilation, comes from the
potential fallout of all the dirty bombs that
Russia and the United States now possess
in their stockpiles. These stockpiles will not
be dissipated by a lopsided, cheatprone, il-
lusory nuclear test ban treaty. Indeed, a
test ban of this sort would prevent us from
developing the more efficient weapon which
would not cause damage to the innocent by-
stander. The loopholes only would increase
the threat to America and her free world
allies.
While this is my main reason for reject-
ing the present treaty, it is supplemented by
several other concrete arguments. Nuclear
weaponry is a new science which needs
further refinement. Although war, if it
should ever come, can never be made hu-
mane, it can be made less inhumane if nu-
clear testing is allowed to proceed so that
nuclear weapons which might be used will
affect only the intended target, not innocent
civilians or the personnel using the weapon.
This is particularly true in the case of the
defensive nuclear weapons, those designed
to shoot down the enemy's nuclear missiles.
We certainly want no fallout from our anti-
missile missiles which perforce will operate
close to our own lands and so hurt the very
people they seek to protect. In addition we
have to consider whether Russia can be
trusted to live up to any treaty let alone a
nuclear test ban treaty which involves the
very survival of nations.' It must be pointed
out that the United States has gradually re-
duced its demands for on-site inspections
from 20 to 8-10 to eind now the present POLICE DESERVE COMMENDATION
treaty requires no control posts, no on-site (Mr ASHBROOK asked and was given
inspection, with no international body doing
the checking, In Other words, we are con-
permission to address the House for 1
sidering entering into an agreement with the minute and to revise and extend his
Soviet Union which seems to have no ade-
remarks.)
quate policing or controls. Dr. Edward Mr. ASHBROOK. Mr. Speaker, I
Teller's words must be considered, even would like to take this time to offer my
thniigh -we -my CM tip going against his personal commendation to the Capitol
advice. He says of this proposed treaty that Hill and Metropolitan police who
"such a ban would be virtually unpoliced.
It would endanger our security and would were present last week at the hearings of
help the Soviet Union in its plan to conquer the House Committee on Un-American
the world. The test ban would prevent Activities and preserved order. They
vital improvements of our atomic explosives, showed great restraint in the face of
ing the world safer by attempting to put a
cap on the status of human knowledge ac-
tually is preventing the world from gaining
the knowledge necessary to use nuclear power
safely. If we are to forgo the benefits of ad-
vancing scientific knowledge in this import-
ant area on the assumption that this will les-
sen the chance of a nuclear war with the ter-
rible dirty bombs the Soviet and we presently
possess by a test ban agreement. I would rec-
ommend strongly that it be only with greater
controls and inspection systems which will
prevent our nuclear advantages from being
lost, thus becoming "second best." We have
before us now an unpoliced and inadequate
treaty which works to the benefit of the
Soviet Union and threatens our security. It
is a drastic, unimaginative, somewhat cow-
ardly step backward in mankind's search for
truth and, yes, peace, instead of an important
first step forward.
Finally, as to peace itself. Peace only
comes through working in the hearts of men
not with the great forces of the inanimate
world. Whether men kill each other with
spears, arrows, bullets, TNT, Torpex, or nu-
clear bombs it is death and destruction to
those who die. Real peace can only come
through pursuit of justice and justice can
only be found through an unsullied search
for truth. If we would write peace treaties,
write treaties around new and advanced prin-
ciples of justice, not banning forces that in
themselves are neither good nor bad. Fire is
bad if it burns a home and destroys people.
It is good if it cooks food and keeps us warm.
Explosive forces are bad if they are used to
kill and maim people but good if use to propel
ships and planes to bring people closer. Let's
don't attack search for truth in the guise of
seeking peace, let's attack the real villian, in-
humanity, and if this battle is won, peace
will be the prize.
With best wishes.
Sincerely,
THOMAS B. CURTIS.
Approved For Release 2006/10 17 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
- 4
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16394 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- HOUSE
contemptuous, offensive conduct and de-
serve our sincere thanks. They were
attacked, cursed and abused in every
manner but in the face of this they were
calm, deliberate, and decisive.
By no stretch of the imagination could
the unkempt, beatnik type youth who
rioted in the caucus room of the Cannon
House Office Building be called typical
college youth. To use contemporary
terminology, the best thing that could be
said about them was that they were "off-
beat." A number of the youth were
ordered expelled from the hearings by
our chairman, the gentleman from
Louisiana [Mr. WILLIS]. In defiance of
these orders arid the uniformed symbol
of law and order, the policemen who were
present, many resisted with verbal abuse
and physical assault. I doubt that many
red-blooded Americans would have used
the same restraint exercised by these fine
police officers under the same circum-
stances. The patriotism of these so-
called students is best exemplified by
their applause when a Communist propa-
ganda film showed an American plane
being shot down over South Vietnam.
During the rioting, the off-beat sympath-
izers shouted "What's wrong with com-
munism?" and "there's more freedom in
Cuba than Louisiana."
Dispassionately and Objectively, the
policemen dispersed the rioting, ejected
the hecklers and restored order. This is
the American way of doing things and
the charges that we will undoubtedly
read in the Communist Daily Worker
and other far left publications of "police
brutality," Fascist tactics" and so forth
will have absolutely no basis in fact.
In its usual manner the Washington
Post tinted their account of the melee
to give the benefit of the denbt to the
unruly students. The subheadings read
"Student, Police Clash at Hill Quiz" and
"Youths Dragged from Hearing on Cu-
ban Tour." Their slanted version cer-
tainly did an injustice to the policemen
on duty that day.
It is no secret that one of the strate-
gems of the Communists in the country
is to discredit the FBI, interaW security
laws, and the police whenever it can be
done. Unfortunately, they are joined
by a great number of civil liberpes groups
who are silent when. gallant .police of-
ficers are shot in the line of duty, such
as Sgt. Peter Vote and Gary Tedesco, at
Lodi, N.J., on August 27, 1963, but cry
"police brutality" if the policemen use
necessary ;mans to defend themselves.
For example, on August 29,,New York
City Police Lt. Thomas Quinn,a 53-year-
old veteran and father of two children,
led a police raid into a room in the Man-
hattan Hotel in New York City on a tip
that Frank Falco, 25, a major suspect
In the slaying of Sergeant Vote and pa-
trolman Tedesco 2 days before, was
hiding out in the hotel. Falco was also
wanted for the murder last month of
Robert Munos, 19, whose body was found
In the East River and Falco's criminal
record showed convictions for third de-
gree robbery and arrests for felonious as-
sault and simple assault. As the story is
_reported, Lieutenant Quinn, with gun in
hand, awakened the sleeping Falco who
fought the police. Falco was shot to
death in the ensuing struggle.
The New York Civil Liberties Union
called Falco's death?
An example of police employing standards
not unlike a Ku Klux Klan lynching party
when they get their hands on a so-called cop
killer.
As the reputable newsletter Counter-
attack puts it?
The police are citizens of the United States
too and have rights the same as anyone of
us. They are paid to keep law and order and
to protect our society from lawbreakers but
that does not presuppose that they therefore
give up all their rights to protect themselves
too.
I for one am glad that the over-
whelming majority of police officers in
this country act in the same responsible
manner as did the Capitol Hill Police and
the Metropolitan Police in maintaining
law and order at the September 12 and
13 hearings. Too few of us take the
time to commend them for their fine
work. Of course, it can be said that it
is their job and they should do no less
but we should also realize that the vexing
nature of their work calls for more than
ordinary conduct in the face of taunts,
jeers, profanity, and assault.
THE VICIOUS KILLING OF FOUR
LITTLE GIRLS IN BIRMINGHAM,
ALA.
(Mr. ROOSEVELT was granted per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in the RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. ROOSEVELT. Mr. Speaker, I
rise to express the shock I felt, which I
know is shared by all Americans, at the
vicious killing of four little girls in
Birmingham, Ala. It is imperative that
the perpetrators of this outrage be
brought to justice with all possible speed.
In addition, as the President reiterated
so eloquently yesterday, it is necessary
that steps be taken to assure racial jus-
tice throughout the country, so that
tragedies like that in Birmingham will
never again occur. This must be done if
Inflamed emotions are to subside and a
terrible bloodletting is to be avoided. In
addition, the public officials of the city
of Birmingham, the State of Alabama,
and all other areas where heinous acts
of intimidation are commonplace, must
tell the extremists of their constituencies
in no uncertain terms that acts of vio-
lence and terror will be dealt with with
the greatest possible firmness. The re-
sponsibility of certain of these officials
for an inflamed situation which en-
courages the actions of depraved fanatics
cannot be overlooked.
I hope that this tragedy will serve to
remind Alabamans and all Americans
of the need for the proposed civil rights
legislation, so that equal rights for all
Americans will become a reality, and
the violence and despair engendered by
the present situation will pass away
forever.
THE VICIOUS KILLING OF FOUR
LITTLE GIRLS IN BIRMINGHAM,
ALA.
(Mr. LINDSAY was granted permis-
sion to extend his remarks at this point
Septonber 17
in the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. LINDSAY. Mr. Speaker, the
bombing that took place in Birmingham
last Sunday wantonly and brutally kill-
ing four children, ought to shake the
conscience of America to its "root pins."
If it has been unclear to some that
the country must take hold of this un-
solved problem and resolve it according
to basic principles stated in the Declara-
tion of Independence and in the Consti-
tution of the United States, it should be
clear enough now. There is nothing that
we legislators in Washington can say or
do that will bring these little children
back or that will wash away the stain
of blood. But we as legislators can do
our appointed task with fresh determi-
nation and conviction.
That task is to draft a proper civil
rights bill that is nationwide in scope
and that calls upon all Americans,
through our constituted Federal Gov-
ernment, to respect the equal protec-
tion of the laws and the full mandate
of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendipents
to the Constitution. I call upon the
Congress to act on legislation and to stop
fiddling while the country burns.
I call upon the U.S. Debartme:nt of
Justice to multiply its efforts 100-
fold to uncover the facts surround-
ing this crime and to bring to justice
the persons who committed it. But no
FBI technique is needed to tell us that
this crime weighs heavily on the con-
science of every American and that the
tears shed by the fathers and mothers,
brothers and sisters of these little chil-
dren are shed for all of us.
Mr. Speaker, we have done little
enough in this Congress; let us at :least,
in this area of primary importance, ac-
complish what we have set out to do.
We live under a body of laws, and we are
governed by these laws and not by men.
The law must be adjusted to put an end
to daily humiliation and to guarantee
equal opportunity for our citizens in all
facets of American life. If we fail in
this we fail altogether.
CASTRO AND COMMUNISM IN CUBA
(Mr. PEPPER was granted permission
to extend his remarks at this point in
the RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Speaker, we are all
agreed that the screws must be tightened
on Castro and communism in Cuba if
we are to rid this Nation and this hemis-
phere of the curse and threat of com-
munism so close to our shores.
You will recall that on Thursday last
I advised the House of the resolutions
adopted by the 45th Annual National
Convention of the American Legion
meeting in Miami Beach, Fla. proposing
that our Government take stronger ac-
tion than we are now taking toward
strangling Castro and communism in
Cuba. One of the actions which the
American Legion convention recom-
mended and which I was privileged to
suggest to the foreign relations com:mit-
tee of the American Legion was that we
tighten the restraints on shipping now
serving Castro and Cuba and bar U.S.
Ports to ships and ship captains who
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
.0 et
have trangpor e pagsengers, &rte.; Or' -Industriat loan o $2,215,00 toward
both, to 'or hetviOefi Cuban ports and to building a motel in Carolina, Puerto
Ships OrSh-iP PiOprietors who or which Rico. This continued the disregard of
? have-draifted all Ship to serve Ohba. I the expressed intent of Congress that
gave Iffiffie 'Oh Thuraday last that I has been evidenced many times by that
?WOUW, introduce on Monday legislation administration prior to this.
to acc-OniplWi'tliese receinthendations of This loan, representing 40 percent of
the AirieriCanle"gion. the project cost, is to the Howard John-
` On 'aeChtirit of the death of our dis- son Motor Lodge, Inc., an organization
tinguiShed colleague, M. Leon C4avin of which is building motels and restaurants
PennSYlVania, I Was not able to introduce all over the country without any Govern-
-the bill to effecttiate such end yesterday. ment assistance. To the best of my
1 do so today arid-commend this proposal knowledge, it has had no credit prob-
for 'the thoughtful considetation of the lems and has shown no signs of bash-
President/ the gectetary a State, and fulness in establishing itself in any spot
the dtingresi arid the country. My bill where the tourist dollar beckons. This
which I have offered today provides as is a classic example of the Area Rede-
- follows,: ' ' ` - velopment Administration's willingness
U ' Be enacted by the Senate a,ia House to ignore the expressed intent of Con-
of ?. . . . _
Representatives of the United States of gress regarding the operation of the de-
krizerica in Con gfess assembled, That (a) it pressed areas program.
shall be unlawful for all vessels owned by any The Senate Banking and Currency
individual, Cotiapny, corporation, or other Committee in its report on the proposed
association '(Ameficah or foreign) owning new ARA authorization bill, S. 1163, is-
MI" 'vessel used for the transportation of sued a warning to the Area Redevelop-
persons or property to or from, or between
points 'within, Cuba (other than United ment Administration to go slow on loans
States 'installations in Cuba), during any to motels, hotels and similar tourist f a-
period when Cuba Is Communiat-dominated, cilities. The House Banking and Cur-
to eater any port of the United States at rency Committee, when it considered S.
any time;_ (b) it Shall be unlawful for an 1163, was emphatic in its majority re-
yessei Which has been used for the transpor- port when it stated that "considerable
teflon el persons'or property to or from, or
doubt,, had been raised about motel proj-
between,points Within, Cuba (other than
'United .'-iates installations in Cuba), during ects and the House committee by its ac-
any period when -Cuba is Communist-domi- tion cut off all future loans to hotels,
rated, to enter any port of the United States motels and nursing homes.
at any time. Any vessel which enters a port ' Why should the American taxpayers
gl t11.9 Vnited States in violation of this sub- subsidize Howard Johnson's at a low 4-
option shall be simject to a penalty of not percent interest rate in an island econ-
raore-than $100,060, which penalty shall be a omy featured already by tax concessions
lien upon 'the veslel and such vessel may be to lure business? If Puerto Rico quali-
libel6d therefor in any district court of the
fies for area redevelopment aid, there
Vatted t fates within the jurisdiction of
which the vessel may be found, can be no objection to a sound program
(c) For the plirposes of subsections (a) that will provide the maximum number
and (b) of this section, Cuba shall be of jobs. There must certainly be far
? deemed to be Communist-dominated from more worthy projects for Puerto Rico.
? the effeCtive date ofthis Act until the date If not,
this could be a deliberate attempt
Of publication in the Federal Register of a to get rid of present appropriated funds
prociathatiomi Issued by the President of the
Valted,States stating that Cuba is not Corn-
so that the agency can cry about its
? niunist-dominated. need.
SEC. 2. It shall be unlawful for any indi- Only a short time ago ARA provided
vidual who acts ?or has acted as master of an industrial loan for an expanded clay
any vessel described in the first section of plant totaling $670,000 in Rio Piedras,
this Act to act as master of any vessel en- P.R. The agency estimated that 2,051
tering? a port of "the United States. Who- indirect and direct jobs would be pro-
ever 'vtolates this section shall be fined not moted. This is at a rate of $802 per job
metethan $10 000, or imprisoned not more
tha41 1. yar-...15, ai. -?- in terms of the Federal contribution,
Sic. '3,.. Ilie foregoing provisions of this since the ARA loan amounts to 40.7 per-
Act shall take effect as of the thirtieth day cent of total cost. Yet this new motel
? following the date of enactment of this project would create only 300 jobs at a
Act. - rate of $16,021 per job in terms of the
Federal contribution.
(Lir, LINDSAY (at the request of Mr.
BarTiN) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
REcortn and to include extraneous mat-
ter.) ?
ElVtr. LINDSAY'S remarks Will appear
hereafter in the Appendix.]
This is not onlY ridiculous economics,
it flies in the face of clear congressional
directive. In the Senate report the com-
mittee specifically states that motel loans
should not exceed the cost per job of
other types of projects assisted. This
ARA loan multiplies the cost 20 times
the cost of other Ribs in Puerto Rico.
The Senate committee al-SO stated that a
_
?
JORNSON ON EiELIEF--_-
.? A: i1811D AGAIN
( :VT12Di4 4A.I.I" (at tiie'reCTuest of Mr.
Afai.,14,i) was gzanted permission to ex-
tend his reinayks at this point in the
to Include extraneous mat-
. M..r4rVOIDNAL. M
ter
".' Sje?er, the
Area-,1*-cleVeloZ-ment Aldininigtreition on
?.-Septernber 15, 1963, announced a new
higher Federal cost ratio WOurd only be
justified in a case where tourism had not
previously been important to the area.
Who can maintain that tourism has not
been important to Puerto Rico?
This action on the part of the Area
Redevelopment Administration betrays
the position Of the Kennedy administra-
? tion. It indicates that the provision
ariking out hotels and motels in the new
House version of the Senate bill, which
16395
\tits -6a 'in 8:'S soft' to critics and to
avoid the civil rights question on public
accommodations, is dead. The adminis-
tration obviously expects it to be dropped
in any conference between the House and
the Senate.
In fact, if you take the majority re-
port's interpretation of the motel
amendment, even passage of this pro-
vision would be meaningless. According
to the majority report, :he amendment
"does not, of course, apply retroactively,
to interfere with the completion of any
such facility for which the ARA has al-
ready received an application." In other
words, as long as an application is in,
regardless of approval, the ARA is free
to work its will. In light of this in-
excusable "tourist" motel project in
Puerto Rico, the next 2 years will be no
vacation for the American taxpayer.
WE SHOULD SHARE NUCLEAR ARMS4-7
WITH OUR ALLIES
(Mr. FINDLEY (at the request of
Mr. BATTIN) was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, if I were
a Member of the Senate, I would oppose
the test ban treaty in its present form.
My negative attitude is shared by many
of my colleagues in the House. Some of
them are speaking up, but others, for a
variety of reasons, tell me they feel they
should be silent at this time.
In fact, based on my survey, I predict
the treaty would be rejected if ratifica-
tion were up to the House instead of the
Senate.
For several reasons, I consider it to be
against the interests of the United States.
No. 1. A total ban on atmospheric test-
ing is not necessary in order to safeguard
public health.
Normal decay of radioactive fallout in
the atmosphere is sufficient to permit
adequate testing?for both military and
peaceful purposes?by the world's lead-
ing powers.
No. 2. The treaty will impede develop-
ment and application of nuclear power
for peaceful purposes.
Peaceful uses have been almost com-
pletely neglected in the test ban debate.
The potential for good is impressive. Up
to now, we have had but a glimpse of the
wonderful ways in which nuclear power
can benefit mankind in a nonmilitary
way.
For example, .1.uclear explosive can be
useful in excavation, propulsion, space
? and weather activities, in medical and
botanical advancement.
In a sense we are today at the primi-
tive level in nuclear development. We
have produced raw or "dirty" explosions.
Vast research, experimentation and test-
ing are needed to refine this power.
? The treaty would retard this refine-
ment, if not prevent it altogether. It
would block many peaceful uses.
No. 3. 'The treaty is a military disad-
vantage to the United States. Expert
opinion on this point differs, but enough
of our top military leaders have spoken
out to give us cause for grave concern
over the military implications. Why
Noprove,d For Release 2006/10/1
5
?0'001,0_ 20 8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16396 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? HOUSE
take a chance? Certainly, there has
been no showing that the test ban treaty
will improve our military position.
If I could believe it is a step, however
small, way from nuclear catastrophe,
would certainly support it in every way
possible. Dr. Edward Teller, father of
the H-bomb, has expressed eloquently
my own concern. He feels as I do that
it may actually move us closer to war.
It will weaken our military position and
tend to invite Soviet aggression.
No treaty is worth any more than the
character of the signatories. The Soviet
Union without warning broke the long-
standing moratorium on atmospheric
testing less than 2 years ago and conduct-
ed a series of high-yield explosions. This
Is but one in an almost endless series of
broken agreements by the Russians.
A recent study, by Dr. F. G. Lessner of
Stanford University, shows that the So-
viets habitually violate treaties that have
strategic importance. We will certainly
live up to our end of the test ban, but
there is little confidence on the part of
anyone that the Russians will do like-
wise.
Suppose, under treaty limitations, we
build what we believe to be a workable
antimissile missile. How can we be sure
it will work if we are barred from at-
mospheric testing? We would be fore-
doomed to rely on an untested weapon
that might prove to be a complete fizzle,
Certainly reservations to the treaty
which would improve our military posi-
tion are wise and proper.
TO illustrate, SeriaLOT GOLDWATER pro-
poses that the treaty's effective date be
delayed until all Soviet military power is
removed from Cuba, and the removal
confirmed by onsite inspection. This is
not a novel or new proposal. The Presi-
dent himself announced he would insist
on these very conditions last October be-
fore he lifted the blockade. Ridding
Cuba of Soviet power would help to coun-
terbalance some of the test ban's mili-
tary disadvantage. It would not make
the treaty acceptable, but it could cer-
tainly improve our position.
No. 4. The treaty tends to weaken the
NATO allianee.
It attempts to freeze the status quo in
nuclear arms development, and is di-
rected against so-called proliferation of
nuclear power. The emphasis is on bi-
lateral deals between Moscow and Wash-
ington. In ratifying the pact, we bargain
with Moscow to keep our own allies dis-
armed from the nuclear standpoint.
NATO is a defensive alliance, depend-
ent in great measure on U.S. nuclear
power. By agreeing to curb our nuclear
activities, we are at the same time agree-
ing to curb NATO's defensive position.
We do so without offering any alternate
plan to strengthen NATO.
The treaty is essentially an arms-con-
trol deal with Soviet Russia, a Commu-
nist power that is notable for breaking
treaties.
Instead of an arms control deal with
an untrustworthy dictatorship, I propose
arms sharing with nations we can trust.
Instead of weakening the defensive
armor of freedom, we should strengthen
it by sharing it with our friends.
The test ban treaty, our talk of dis-
armament, our pullout of missiles from
Turkey and Italy, and our lack of follow-
through in dealing with Soviet military
power in Cuba have caused wide concern
among our allies.
Who can blame them for wondering
If we would really defend their cities with
nuclear weapons if Khrushchev pushes
the attack button?
We can dispel that doubt, and at the
same time strengthen NATO, by giving
them the know-how and the weapons
they need and deserve.
FREEMAN'S PARTIAL END OF DIS-
CRIMINATION APPRECIATED
(Mr. FINDLEY (at the request of Mr.
lasrrm) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
REcORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. FINDLEY. Mr. Speaker, I have
thanked Agriculture Secretary Freeman
for partially ending export subsidy rate
discrimination against soft wheat varie-
ties.
I protested September 6 against a 14-
cent per bushel advantage accorded hard
wheat in USDA export subsidies. Since
then the disparity has been reduced by
6 cents.
In my letter to Freeman I said:
As of this moment, you have washed away
nearly half of the subsidy discrimination
against growers of soft wheat. By the time
this letter reaches you I hope the rest of it
will be gone.
On behalf of the soft wheat growers in
Illinois and elsewhere, I wish to express my
appreciation ? for this prompt?although
partial?response to my request.
As you close the export subsidy gap, I
hope you will also end the discrimination
against soft wheat in Public Law 480 agree-
ments. Illinois wheat farmers deserve the -
same treatment as wheat farmers elsewhere.
176TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE SIGN-
ING OF THE CONSTITUTION
(Mr BOB WILSON (at the request of
Mr. BATTII0 was granted permission to
extend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous
matter.)
Mr. BOB WILSON. Mr. Speaker, to-
day marks the 176th anniversary of the
signing of the Constitution and the start
of Constitution Week, pursuant to a res-
olution passed by the Congress.
I feel that this week should be observed
with special significance this year. All
Americans should take a few moments
to read the Constitution, a divinely in-
spired document that spells out the finer
motivations and aspirations of man-
kind.
Unfortunately, our Constitution is
under attack. We have in the executive
branch of our Government many leaders
who have publicly downgraded this noble
document and relegated it to the ash
heap of history. Men May come and
go, but principles do not change.
The inspiring phrases of the Constitu-
tion and the deep basic principles they
espouse will survive the New Frontier
and the Kennedys. All Americans have
September 17
a vital stake in seeing to it that no group
of self-centered men, no group of mis-
guided zealots can alter or erase the
guidelines that our wise Founding
Fathers set up for our Government.
Our Republic is still the most noble
experiment in decency in history. We
can only retrogress by attempting to
change the precepts that created this
Government.
WHILE THE FDA TWIDDLES
(Mr. KEITH (at the request of Mr.
Barren) was granted permission to ex-
tend his remarks at this point in the
RECORD and to include extraneous mat-
ter.)
Mr. KEITH. Mr. Speaker, currently
under consideration by Congress are sev-
eral important proposals to strengthen
the American fishing industry and pro-
tect traditional American fisheries from
foreign exploitation. Similarly, and for
many years, Congress has seen untold
millions of dollars appropriated to help
feed the starving and malnourished in
the developing nations of the world.
I request permission to include in these
proceedings the text of an editorial that
bears eloquently on both of these prob-
lems. It is titled, "FDA Bottleneck," and
has pointed reference to the continuing
struggle some of us are having in getting
this Federal agency to update its think-
ing with respect to a remarkable new
food?fish flour, or as it has become
known, "fish protein concentrate." Pub-
lished by the Standard-Times of New
Bedford, Mass., it was prompted by news
last week that our good friends in Scot-
land are now ready to mass-produce a
high-protein fish concentrate for export
to the developing countries.
This news will be hailed by health ex-
perts and will be welcomed, I am sure, by
the millions of people in the world today
who still suffer from inadequate supplies
of protein?nutritionist Nevin Scrim-
shaw, writing for the- current issue of
Scientific American, estimates that
nearly half the world's population "is
Underfed or otherwise malnourished."
Yet, and without detracting from the
significance of the news from Glasgow, I
feel almost impelled to say "I told you
so" to the Food and Drug ,Administra-
tion, and with a touch of bitterness.
Frustration and delay have been our
only rewards in dealings with this
agency. Despite the overwhelming
weight of scientific evidence to the con-
trary?and logic?Mr. Larrick and his
staff have consistently stuck to their
arbitrary ruling that fish protein concen-
trate would be "esthetically" objection-
able to the American people, and that be-
cause the process uses whole fish, the food
should be considered "adulterated" under
the law. This ruling and the agency's
subsequent opposition to a bill I filed in
the last session to overcame it, have
stymied American production of a prod-
uct that could go far toward solving the
world's age-old problems of malnutri-
tion. At the same time, it would give
the beleaguered American fisherman an
exciting new market for the abundant
supplies of so-called trash fish off our
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
2006/10/17? CIA=RDP6513a0383R000100 000027
- ? .
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD?SENATE
? Krasnodar Is at Mankato's latitude, as I
said, but Krasnodar is in the far south
Of the Soviet' Union. Most of the Soviets'
farixiland is farther north, and a`1,-ot of it is
much !Other nOrth. Moscow is about 400
Mileis north of Winnipeg. So you Can readily
realize what this means in shortened grow-
ing seasens in Much of the Soviet Union.
We visited a research institute at Krasno-
dar that has done a great deal of work with
hybrid corn?and here again the American
influence was pronbunced. For areas with a
short 'growing season, the scientists at Kras-
nodar 'recommend a hybrid variety developed
right here in Minnesota. When the season is
longer, they recce:amend Wisconsin and Illi-
nois varieties. Ifybrids are now used on
about 70, pereent of Soviet corn acreage, and
within a very few years we were told they
will be used almost exclusively.
- At the /Crag:oder Institute, the 'out-
standing achievement is a new beardless
wheat?one of the parents of which was an
American variety'. This new wheat which is
the only one used throughout a large region
in :Russia and which has spread to Hungary.
Bulgaria, and Rumania, is claimed to have
increased yield S 35 percent.
The rgention of midwest-corn varieties in
Russia leads me naturally into my second
point?about the benefits to be derived from
continued and expanded scientific, technical,
cultural; and people-to-people contacts with
other countries?including countries with a
political system much different from ours.
We ought not to be fearful of the inter-
change Of ideas. Agriculture is a peaceable
pursuit. It is an open window between
East and West. Its scientific innovations are
published in agricultural journals for all the
world to see and to read. We discovered
again and' again that the Des Moines news-
papers are well known in the Soviet Union
because they proposed the idea of exchanges
between the two countries some years ago.
? Keeping diplernatic and personal lines
open between countries is an important way
to avoid serious- clashes. Witness the new
"hot-line" between Washington and Moscow;
this is regarded es a major step, arid rightly
so, in preventing accidental or thoughtless
ethentures that could wipe out most of
civilization. I said before that aviculture
is a peaceable pursuit. So 'why -can we not
have an augmented peace line?an expanded
line of agricultural exchanges?between our
two countries? -What better Way to' make
sure that no one ever has to make a call
on the "hot" line,
`The'people of the Soviet Union?even Nix.
Tnirushchev?agree with Us that American
agriculture 16 the best in the world. It fol-
lows, therefore, that perhaps Russian agri-
cultural scientists and practitioners have
, more to learn from us than we from them.
For that reason, We might selfishly say:
"Let's go -slow On exchanges." But that
would be a grave mistake, not only because
our agricultural knowledge is given wide
publicity and is translated and studied by
the Russians but also because shutting off
agricultural exCliange weelld close down
lines of international communication over
which, flows the broad good will that accom-
panies personal contact. Of course, we can
never for an instant let down our own se-
curity guard. We must never delude our
selves, into thinking that the Communists
- have ah?,aildoned their, goal of world con-
quest--that would be a negation of Marxism,
On WW1 their' Whole philosophic' structure
?
is built.
Both countries benefit from, such ex -
changes. Cross-fertilization of our own ideas
and techniques is important to the United
States, just as is cross-fertilization of some
of our plants and trees.
,
_Leningrad we visited the All Union
Institute of Plant Industry, which maintains
plant exchanges with 80 countries. Scien-
tists are sent out all over the 'World to col-
lect plants and view the work in agricultural
schools and institutions.
Years ago the exchange program between
the United States and that institute was
allowed to lapse, but In 1959 this exchange
was reestablished. Since that time, we have
received 2,300 lots in exchange for about the
same number sent over there from this
country.
We are interested in sending explorers to
to the Soviet Union to search among wild
plants, and we recently concluded an agree-
ment to permit two American scientists to
do this. They are now in Moscow and soon
will be in the Uzbek Republic. This can
benefit us, since many of our wheat, fruit,
and vegetable species originated in that part
of the world. By exploring among wild spe-
cies, we can perhaps find strains that resist
diseases and insects?and which have other
desirable characteristics. We can also search
for insect predators and parasites that might
be used here to combat our insect pests.
?
Our explorers have been doing this in other
countries and we are interested in doing
this kind of work within the great land mass
that is the Soviet Union. We discussed the
possibility of further arrangements of this
kind with the Soviets at several levels and
found a great deal of interest. I brought it
up, then, with Premier Khrushchev, and he
replied that plant exploration is important,
and that he is in favor of such exchanges.
One of the plant characteristics that we
can use in our breeding program was pres-
ent in some low-growing apples and cherries
that we saw in Moscow. These little trees?
which came from Siberia?are no more than
18 inches off the ground and spread out like
a creeping plant. We understood that when
winter comes, the snow covers up the whole
tree, and it can, therefore, survive?despite
the bitter Siberian winters. It gets cold in
Minnesota, too, as I recall.
We are interested in learning more about
their beardless wheat; and about hard spring
wheat we saw at Orenburg that was reported
to test at an unusually high protein con-
tent. In Bulgaria, we saw a beautiful hybrid
tomato which our scientists said was one of
the best in,the world; Bulgaria exports 250,-
000 tons of this hybrid annually. At a gen-
eral agricultural collective in Yugoslavia, we
were shown alfalfa and corn pellets that had
been developed on the farm. We saw some
interesting vitamin pellets developed on a
first-rate hog farm in the U.S.S.R.
What I'm saying is that both nations?all
of our nations?can benefit from the kind of
scientific exchange we are trying to enlarge.
The third point I want to make?and it is
an encouraging one?is that even under
a Communist system that has survived for a
generation and a half, as it has in Russia, a
feeling of individualism continues to be a
part of the human spirit.
The success of the small private plot is an
example. In the Soviet Union a collective
farmer may cultivate a little more than 2
acres, and a worker on a state farm about a
third of an acre for himself.
Although private farm plots are not offi-
cially encouraged and do not benefit from
the Government's extension service, these
mien private enterprises are very productive
and make up a significant part of agricul-
tural production in the U.S.S.R. because they
give individual farmers a chance to exercise
their own initiative.
I want to mention one other item on the
durability of the human spirit. tthe first
collective farmv visited in Poland had over
the mantlepiece not the inevitable picture
of Lenin which we saw everywhere in the
U.S.S.R. but, instead, a crucifix.
In the Soviet Union it is possible, though
not always easy, to attend church services.
In Minsk, for example, Mrs. Freeman asked
the Agriculture Minister at our first briefing
session about attending church the follow-
ing day, which was Sunday. The Agriculture
16241
Minister said he was a Communist and did
riot go to church, and in fact he didn't even
know where there was a church, but that he
would find out and see that it was arranged.
So she and I went to a service at a Russian
Orthodox Church. We had been told ahead
of time that we might expect to see only
peasant women of advanced years there. We
were pleasantly surprised. There were a
number of middle-aged men and women,
and some young people, too.
The members of our traveling party had
many, many visits with everyday citizens
in the countries we visited?people on the
farms, in factories, in the streets. Whenever
possible, I would say a few words to farm-
hands, to staff people, or just to curious on-
lookers, along these lines: "I bring you greet-
ings from President Kennedy and the Ameri-
can people and expressions of friendship and
a desire for peace in the world."
And in each case, the people, many of
whom had never seen an American, respond-
ed with warm applause and crowded around
happily to shake hands.
I must admit that I had not anticipated
such a completely friendly response as we
received from the Russian people, particu-
larly in view of all the anti-American propa-
ganda calling us imperialist warmongers,
that they have heard over the years. We
discovered an immense reserve of friendship
for the United States among the people
themselves. Their talk was always about
peace, and they responded spontaneously
to the message that President Kennedy and
the American people want peace. It is hard
for me to communicate the intensity of their
feeling about peace.
Then we visited cities that had been de-
stroyed?leveled to the ground?in World
War II. In those cities, and in that country
where 20 million people lost their lives in
the war, the memory of total destruction of
life and property is still very real. Kiev, for
example, on the Dnieper River, has been
mostly rebuilt since 1946. Minsk, a city of
600,000, was a battlefield in World War II,
and is still being rebuilt.
We were in Russia at the time the nuclear
test ban treaty was initiated. When the
news came, I was having a rather technical
discussion with the Ukranian Minister of
Agriculture in Kiev. The session immedi-
ately dissolved into a big round of speeches
of friendship. Other members of our party
were on a state farm. Applause and shouts
of approval greeted the announcement there.
To' summarize our agricultural observa-
tions, let me point out again that the spe-
cialists in our party did not completely agree.
But it was unanimous that there has been
progress in Soviet agriculture. The extent
of this progress, and the amount of future
progress to be expected, are more difficult
to assess.
It is clear that Soviet science and research
have improved, and some of it is good in-
deed.
It is clear that the Soviets are communi-
cating know-how to farmers and local man-
agers better and more effectively than was
the case 5 to 10 years ago.
And it is clear that total production has
risen considerably. They have the ability to
feed their people, although with a very lim-
ited diet.
As you might expect, the Soviets are the
most successful in producing those crops
where production can be routinized and
standardized. That is, grain and the row
crops?sugerbeets, cotton, and sunflowers.
- the more diversified kinds of farming?
such as livestock, dairying, fruit and vege-
tables?they are lagging far behind. Part
of the reason is that this kind of farming
calls for so many day-to-day and week-to-
week decisions on the spot that a remote
decisionmaking process'breaks down under
its own bureaucratic weight.
Another reason for the Soviet lag is a poor
marketing system. This is a big deficit in
Approved F
elease 2006/10/17 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
? 16242
' Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Soviet agriculture. If you can't market and
transport and preserve milk and meat and
vegetables?you can't produce them success-
fully on a large scale. There is a big short-
age of marketing, distribution, storing, and
processing facilities.
As for the future, it seems certain that
the Soviets will begin to put more of their
capital resources into agriculture. So?
while I don't believe that with their system
they will ever catch up with us in pro-
ductivity per man-hour?their total produc-
tion will continue to increase.
The single greatest impression from my
visit to the Soviet Union is that we need
to increase our person-to-person contacts
with the Russian people?consistent, of
course, with security principles and remem-
bering always that the Communists still are
striving to dominate the world. Agricul-
ture offers perhaps our best and most peace-
ful opportunity to do this.
But the people of the Soviet Union?as
contrasted with their leaders?don't neces-
sarily share the desire to dominate the world
and to "bury" the United Statee, as Mr.
Khruslachev has expressed it They want
peace. They feel a friendliness for Ameri-
cans.
Agriculture offers perhaps the best oppor-
tunity to meet these people on common
terms. The exchange of information on
agriculture can be a process of mutual im-
provement. Every American citizen who
goes to the Soviet Union learns something.
Russians are strongly impressed by our in-
stitutions and our way of life, whenever they
have the opportunity to experience them.
I strongly suspect, in the light of Mr.
Khrushchev's recent emphasis upon eco-
nomic targets?his references to "economic
war" and his statement to me that he means
to take over our agricultural priority by
1970?that he now seeks to transform the
cold wax into an economic war. This may
account for his desire for military peace?
for relief from the economic burdens of
building weapons for a nuclear war which
might destroy communism as well as all the
Communists.
If Khru.shchev wishes an economic war,
we are willing and able to take tap that chal-
lenge. And this is my fourth point?in
such a contest, agriculture will play an im-
portant role. American agricultural pro-
ductivity today has proved its superiority
over any Communist system ever devised.
I am certain that this will become more
and more apparent to people everywhere?
even to those behind the Iron Curtain?as
they have more and more opportunity to
learn about our achievements. In a con-
test involving either ideology or economics,
we can 'whip the Communists hands down.
And in such a contest you, the farmers of
Minnesota and the United States, will lead
the way.
A NEW AMERICAN LEGION COM-
MANDER?DANIEL FOLEY OF MIN-
NESOTA
Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, on
Thursday, September 12, a singular
honor was given to the State of Minne-
sota by the election by the American
Legion of Daniel F. Foley, of Wabasha.
Minn., as national commander of this
great organization of veterans.
As a long-term friend and admirer of
Dan Foley, it gives me great pleasure to
congratulate the American Legion on
its choice of leadership for the coming
12 months. Mr. Foley's election com-
memorates the first time that a Minne-
sotan has commanded the American
Legion, the world's largest veterans' or-
ganization. Dan Foley combines the
qualities of quiet courage, intelligence,
and a balanced and reasonable attitude
toward controversy. He is a careful and
considerate man, whose deep commit-
ment to the public welfare, as well as
to the welfare of veterans and their fam-
ilies, will certainly mean that the Ameri-
can Legion during the coming year will
be wisely and judiciously led.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that an editorial from the Minneap-
olis Star of September 13, 1963, entitled
"Commander Foley," and the article
from the Minneapolis Morning Tribune
of September 13, 1963, entitled "Foley
Elected U.S. Legion Commander," be
printed at the conclusion of my remarks.
There being no objection, the editorial
and article were ordered to be printed in
the RECORD, 8,,s follows:
[From the Minneapolis (Minn.) Star, Sept.
13, 1963]
COMMANDER FoLET
The American Legion has recognized the
fine leadership qualities of a solid Wabasha,
Minn., citizen in electing Daniel F. Foley its
national commander. He comes of a family
long prominent in State and national public
affairs and he has devoted most of the years
since World War II to Legion responsibilities.
The Legion's fareung welfare activities
sometimes are obscured by controversy over
sonic aspects of its Americanism program.
But there is no objection to such fine proj-
ects as Boys State, junior baseball, high
school oratorical contests, school patrols, get-
out-the-vote and go-to-church campaigns
and all the other similar efforts of the
Legion.
The Legion's child welfare proposals have
led to much of the State and Federal legisla-
tion in that field. The Legion pioneered the
veterans rehabilitation program after World
War I. With its women's auxiliary it has
been an outstanding force for the better-
ment of America.
Commander Foley seems the right man to
carry forward such endeavors and he brings
to his high once diplomacy as well as ad-
ministrative ability.
[From the Minneapolis (Milan.) Morning
Tribune, Sept. 13, [963]
FIRST MINNESOTAN TO WIN--FOLEY ELECTED
U.S. LEGION COMMANDER
(By Mercer Cross)
MIAMI BEACH, FLA?Minnesota's Dan Foley
thundered to a 3-to--i victory Thursday to
become the top man in the American Legion.
The Wabasha lawyer is the first Minneso-
tan to command the world's largest veterans
organization.
In the State-by-State balloting on the
final clay of the Legion's national conven-
tion, Foley collected 2,251 of the potential
2,974 delegate votes.
His opponent, Joe L. Matthews, Fort
Worth, Tex., had 709. It was his second
defeat in 2 years.
Matthews attributed his loss to alleged
calling in of Legionnaires who would sup-
port Foley as the supposed choice of Legion
"king-makers."
"Poppycock," said outgoing Commander
James E. Powers of Georgia.
"We knew we were fighting a stacked
deck," said Matthews. He wouldn't say
whether he would make a third try next
year.
Foley, in his acceptance speech from the
platform of Miami Beach's immense Con-
vention Hall, made this pledge:
"Though the forces of atheistic commu-
nism may beat with all their fury on the
breasts of liberty, this Nation shall endure
strong in justice.
September 17
"This Nation shall prosper, rich in com-
passion.
"This Nation shall stand down through
the corridors of time, secure in freedom."
"Time and again," said Foley, "history has
shown that the course of extremism, either
to the right or to the left, is the course of
failure."
"The American Legion," he said, "is the
greatest stabilizing factor in America today."
Powers placed the red cap of the national
commander on Foley's head and pinned the
commander's medal on his navy blue jacket.
Minnesota Gov. Karl F. Rolvaag mounted
the platform with Foley and told the con-
vention: "I trust this is as great a day for
the American Legion as it is for the State
of Minnesota."
Adolph Bremer, city news editor of the
Winona (Minn.) Daily News, made Foley's
nominating speech.
"Here is a Legionnaire with rare courage,"
he said of the 41-year-old former commander
of the Legion's Minnesota department.
"Here is a man of action."
As soon as Bremer had finished, the 9th
district Legion band from Crookston, Minn.,
struck up the "Minnesota Rouser."
Hundreds of Legionnaires, led by 323-pound
John (Butch) McDonald of Foley's Wabasha
Post 50, paraded around the hall with
placards.
Leading the cheers was a convention within
the convention?Foley's relatives.
His cheering section consisted of his wife.
Ellen; their five sons, ages 8 to 16; his four
brothers, and two of his four sisters.
Matthews' demonstration was consider-
ably more noisy and spectacular as his fol-
lowers paraded to Texas songs and chanted,
"Go with Joe."
But the votes meant more than the cheers.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
further morning business? If not, morn-
ing business is closed.
/THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATI27
The Senate resumed the consideration
of Executive M (88th Cong., 1st sess.),
the treaty banning nuclear weapon tests
In the atmosphere, in outer space, and
underwater.
Mr. ERVIN. Mr. President, after
much deliberation upon its provisions
and implications, I have decided to vote
to approve the test ban treaty. This
is the most difficult decision I have had
to make since coming to the Senate 9
years ago.
Candor compels the confession that I
shall cast my vote for approval without
great enthusiasm. The test ban treaty
does not outlaw all testing of nuclear
weapons, It carefully preserves 1:he
right to test underground.
While compliance with the test ban
treaty will lessen the overmagnifled
danger of nuclear fallout, it seems ob-
vious that the United States should not
have negotiated with Russia any test
ban treaty other than one which pro-
hibits all testing of nuclear weapons and
establishes, within the borders of Rus-
sia, a system of inspection sufficient to
detect any clandestine testing. Such a
treaty would not have subjected the
United States to disproportionate mili-
tary disadvantages. Besides, it would
have virtually assured the discovery of
any attempt to test in secret.
Until the negotiators of the test ban
treaty went to Moscow, the United
States had consistently and wisely taken
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16244 d6kditSSI AL REtORD ? StNATE September 17
admitted that he endorsed the treaty wl-io opposed-it -were parrots. rn my
fore hearings Were started in his corn- judgm
ent every Senator who supports
rnittee, arid that was all that my con- the test ban treaty recognizes the total
stituent had charged. and complete patriotism of every other
RECORD of treaty. I am happy to say that insofar
CivoaEssiona.
The of the a
e following is taken from page Senator, even though he may oppose the
16
Monday, SepteMber 16: as the knowledge of the Senator from
/qr. fiosoaremi. Then let me say that to- Florida is concerned, I do not know of
day / receivecr from a lawyer a letter in any Senator who in any way questions
which he asks whether It is the normal the patriotism or the purity of the mo-
procedure for the chairman of the Foreign tives of the able Senator from Virginia,
ne19.tions Committee to announce his sup- the Senator from South Carolina, or any
port of the treaty before he heard one word
other Senator who conscientiously and
from ahyone about it?while he was in
sincerely opposes this particular treaty.
Mr. Poi?siucHt. I will say that is a lie. We do not happen to agree with them,
Ntr. ROBERTSON. Then I will write him that but we recognize their patriotism.
the Senator says it is a lIe. With respect to the particular article
Mr. PULER/GT:III. The Senator can tell him
it is a lie. The record shows what happened.
Before then, fliad seen this treaty. It was
brought before our committee before it was
even initialed. The Senator from Virginia
says he has 'received a letter In'which it is
said that I announced my approval of the
treaty before / End seen it; but such a state-
ment is nonsense.
Mr, It?BnEars6k. I will write to him that
that is what-the Senator from Arkansas says.
Mr. PULBRIGHt. 'The record shows what I
said. Such a etatement is not true. Not
only did I see it, but a majority of the mem-
bers of the committee saw the treaty before
it was initialed. We were consulted at con-
sideralale 'length about it.
Mr. President, I now come to the es-
sential part of that comment which my
former friend. Bob Albright, deliberately
ignored:? -
Ur. ROBERTSON. I did not say-the Senator
from Arkansas 'did net see the treaty. The
letter states that the Senator 'announced his
support of it before he started the hearings.
Is that true or not?
? Mr. ?E'T.ILBRIGHT. That is true. This is a
?
good treaty. -
Mr. R013ERTSON. Then the one who wrote
the letter did not lie, did he?
Futartrorr. But the statement to
which the Senator referred was that t had
approved the treaty before I had even seen
It.
Mr, RomorsoN. The statement was that
the Senator from Arkansas announced his
support of the treaty before he heard any
"testimony On it.
Mr, VC-Lamour. Oh, no; I had heard a great
deal ,bout the treaty. I hearer from the
Searetary of State; and we read the treaty,
a,bd discussed It at length.
? Kr. ROBERTSON. I am not referring to state-
? ments from the State Department; I mean times it is very easy for people in the
the testimony of witnesses before the corn-
naittee. The Senator from Arkansas an- visitors' galleries, as well as for those
nounc?ed himself as favoring the treaty be- in the Senate Press Gallery, to miss a
fore he opened' the committee's Hearings, did point or to miss a word or a line, and
he hot? come to an erroneous conclusion.
I- am satisfied that is What happened
Mr. Founticirr. That is quite correct.
If Mr. R913,ert Albright wishes to retain in the case Of Bob Alliright, who is a
my previous high opinion of his ethical most respected newspaperman.
standards, he will publish in the Wash- I am satisfied, once the RECORD is
Mg Post ternorrow an a.Vology for read?I know everyone has great respect
writing a piece that hit me below the for the able Senator from Virginia?that
belt and explain that he did not under- this matter will be corrected.
.stand exactly what was involVed. If he I read the story this morning. I
flees not do so, the conclusion will be thought about it. I have served 16 years
ines4pahle that he deliberately sought in the House and in the Senate. Never
.
, to, sear me in the article publish! urIng JA:iy_service in this body have I
t9flaY? hear Z an7Y7-e-riat?and-that-is true even
_ ,,
tIr. $MAIERS. Mr. President will ? of the House?say what was printed in
the $enator yield? the newspaper this morning.
Mr, ROBEPTSON. f yield. Mr. ROBERTSON. Of course not. I
. Mr, -SIVIA' VERS, Pint, the Senator would be against the rifles of the Senate.
made reference to the statement that In the old days one would have beenn-
sogie:olthose who supported the test ban volved in a duel. Somebody would ave
treaty grudgingly admitted-that those been killed .
di ,.f ,anyone ....could shoot i. r _
to which the Senator has referred, which
appeared in the Washington Post this
morning, I also know Bob Albright. He
does not necessarily need any defense
from me. I have a high respect for him,
although he does not write anything par-
ticularly friendly to me. I do not be-
lieve he usually writes much which is
very friendly to any Senator from the
South. It is not that he has any personal
vindictiveness or feelings about us.
One of the problems is that those in
the press gallery have a hard time hear-
ing all that happens on the floor. I
know friends who have sat in the family
gallery have said, "We cannot follow
what is said."
The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. FUL-
BRIGHT] sometimes does not talk very
loud. The Senator from Virginia is al-
ways well heard. He has a strong voice;
He articulates well. There are some
Senators who do not talk with the
strength of voice of the Senator from
Virginia, so that the people in the gal-
leries can hear.
I recall that several years ago a motion
was made that what we needed to get, if
we wished to do the job we ought to do,
so that the people who come to the gal-
leries could hear?and certainly so that
those in the press galleries could hear?
was some kind of a microphone system.
I know that in most legislative bodies
throughout the world there is a system
whereby one can get 'a little extra power
If he needs it when he talks.
In these rapidly developing colloquies
which go on between Sanators, some-
Mr. SlVtAtItER-S. That is correct. I
agree with the Senator with respect to
the fact that it was a little shocking.
On the other hand, I think once the
able Mr. Bob Albright understands what
did transpire, it will be corrected. I
think we must make allowances for the
fact that some of those who are now in
the gallery cannot hear exactly what I
am saying, yet they must make a report
of it. They have to report in time to
meet a deadline. They do not have time
to look at the RECORD. They have to
write their stories based on what they
heat'.
I am sure the able Senator from Vir-
ginia will be as charitable with respect
to Mr. Bob Albright as he customarily is
with respect to his other good friends. I
think this difficulty can be solved easily?
and it will be.
In connection with the possible chang-
ing of the rules of the Senate, perhaps
some of them should be ?changed, but I
think one of the first things we should
do is to work out a system whereby Sen-
ators can be heard without having to
shriek. The distinguished Senator now
occupying the chair, [Mr. WALTERS]
presiding over the Senate at this time, is
a very able Senator who has developed
unfortunately, over the years, something
wrong with his vocal cords. It is quite
difficult at times for him to be heard.
The able Senator has a great mind and
a great heart, and he should be heard.
I am certain that when he speaks in his
home State of Tennessee he has a micro-
phone.
When a Senator makes an address to
a group or organization outside of the
Senate, there he will find a microphone
so that he can be heard by all in the
audience. But he cannot find one in
the Senate Chamber today where such
an audio system is certainly needed. If
we had such a system each Senator could
hear each other and could also be heard
in the upper reaches of the galleries.
The press and the public are entitled to
hear what is said on the Senate floor. It
seems a little ridiculous that unless a
Senator shrieks and wears himself out
he cannot be heard.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I have
noticed that the able Senator from Ten-
nessee [Mr. WALTERS] gets his points
over, just the same. ?
Mr. SMATHERS. The able Senator
from Tennessee has never missed getting
his point over very well.
I appreciate what the Senator from
Virginia has had to say. I make the
point that I am certain it will be solved
to his satisfaction. I hope that out of
this we may develop some improvement
with respect to making it possible for
Senators to be heard.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I
greatly appreciate the kind words of my
distinguished friend the Senator from
Florida, who is our acting majority lead-
er. It may be that some of us who are
getting criticism of the kind we have
never known before are becoming a little
tender.
I have held public office continuously
for 46 years. ? Never in that period of
time have I received the type of criticism
I have been getting about the test ban
treaty.
?
? Approi7e:6ForRelease 2006/10117:; CI:A=RDP65B00383R0001002 0002-8'
***
1963
' Approved For Release 2006/10/17: C1A-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENATE
the adamant and implacable position
that our country would not agree to any
test ban which did not provide for ade-
quate inspection.
The test ban treaty constitutes a com-
plete surrender, upon the inspection is-
sue, by our negotiators to Russia. I find
scant comfort in the suggestion that we
may he able to develop improved meth-
ods of detection which will minimize the
need for inspection within the borders of
Russia. This is true because I cannot
indulge in even an uneasy hope that the
total surrender upon the inspection issue
has not implanted in the Russian mind
the abiding conviction that negotiators
from our State Department do not
possess sufficient fortitude- and stamina
to withstand for long any demand which
Russia may make in any negotiations on
any subject.
Since being assigned to the Senate
Armed Services Committee about Jan-
uary 1955, I have given much considera-
tion to the things affecting our military
posture and that of Russia. As a con-
sequence, I am satisfied that the pro-
posed test ban treaty imposes upon the
United States disproportionate military
disadvantages. As a matter of fact, vir-
tually every military man and nuclear
scientist who has testified before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee or
the Preparedness Subcommittee of the
Senate Armed Services Committee ad-
mits this to be true. For reasons of na-
tional security, I refrain from detailing
these military disadvantages.
I would vote without hesitation to re-
ject the proposed test ban treaty because
of these military disadvantages if the
Joint Chiefs of Staff and others possess-
ing expertness in military and nuclear
matters had not given the Senate and
the Nation positive assurances that the
United States can overcome these mili-
tary disadvantages by extraordinary
measures, and if the President had not
given the Senate and the Nation positive
assurances that the executive branch
of the Government will pursue with un-
relenting energy such extraordinary
measures.
Despite these assurances, I would vote
without hesitation to reject the proposed
test ban treaty if my judgment permitted
me to base my decision solely upon mili-
tary considerations. The tragic truth
is that this particular test ban agreement
should never have been negotiated.
Even with the extraordinary measures
suggested by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
and promised by the President, the
treaty will not enhance in any degree
the capacity of the United States to de-
fend itself and the free world against
a potential enemy which is preoccupied
with troubling the peace of mankind and
is threatening to bury us.
Unhappily, however, we are not con-
fronted with the comparatively simple
question of whether the test ban treaty
should have been negotiated.
It has been negotiated, and it has been
submitted to the Senate for approval or
rejection. Moreover, it has been ac-
claimed and adopted by most of the na-
tions of this earth, in the uncertain hope
that it presages a more peaceful exist-
ence for all mankind.
When a Senator votes on the question
.of approving the test ban treaty, he will
not be making an easy choice between
what is good and what is bad, or be-
tween what is wise and what is foolish.
He will be making a choice between some-
what undesirable alternatives. If he
votes in favor of approval, he will vote
for approval of an agreement which im-
poses upon his country military disad-
vantages. If he votes in favor of rejec-
tion, he will vote to cast cold water upon
the hopes of mankind.
I entertain misgivings, based on mili-
tary considerations, concerning the wis-
dom of ratification of the test ban treaty.
Nevertheless, I shall vote for approval
of the treaty, because I think it the lesser
of the two undesirable choices available
to us. This is true because I am con-
vinced that the political and psycholog-
ical impact upon the other nations of
the earth of rejection of the treaty by
the United States would irretrievably
damage, if not absolutely destroy, any
opportunity for the United States to
furnish to the free world any effective
leadership during the foreseeable future.
We must not permit the making of this
treaty to blind us to the realities of our
precarious world, or to lull us into a
false sense of security. Eternal vigilance
is still the price of liberty.
The men of the Kremlin have not
changed their hearts or their purpose.
They and their puppet governments still
hold in captivity behind the Iron Curtain
.hundreds of thousands of Bulgarians,
Czechs, East Germans, Hungarians, Lat-
vians, Lithuanians, Poles, and Ruma-
nians. The men of the Kremlin still
maintain armed forces in Cuba?only 99
miles from our shores, in violation of the
letter and spirit of the Monroe Doctrine.
They still hold fast to their dream of
world conquest.
Let us remember the solemn warning
given us by the late Elmer Davis:
Atomic warfare is bad enough; biological
warfare would be worse; but there is some-
thing that is worse than either. It is sub-
jection to an alien oppressor,
If Americans are to preserve their lib-
erty and that of the free world, they must
keep their hearts in courage and pa-
tience, and lift up their hands- in
strength. There is no other way.
THE ALBRIGHT ARTICLE ON THE TEST BAN
TREATY?PERSONAL STATEMENT
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, I
regret that Mr. Robert Albright is not
present in the Press Gallery. I shall re-
fer to him in my statement. I shall send
him a copy of it. I do not know whether
he will get it. If he does not get it, I
hope someone will bring it to his
attention.
Mr. President, judging by public state-
ments which they have issued, my pres-
ent guess is that proponents for the test
ban treaty outnumber the opponents at
least 5 to 1. Ali of us who have spoken
against ratification have made it crystal
clear that we are dealing with a vital
military problem which must be handled
free from partisan politics, and that we
do not challenge the sincerity, of any
Member of the Senate who does not
share the conclusions we draw from mili-
16243
tary testimony that the military disad-
vantages outweigh the so-called political
advantages.
It is, therefore, very surprising to me
that proponents of the treaty very
grudgingly admit the sincerity of the
opponents and that members of the
fourth estate even will attempt to smear
Members of the Senate who express op-
position to the treaty. In the Wash-
ington Post of today, we see two illus-
trations of that unfortunate fact.
One columnist charges that all of the
members, except one, of the Stennis
Preparedness Investigation Subcommit-
tee who brought in an adverse report
have a self-interest in opposing the
treaty because they are reserve officers
who get paid when on active duty and
are fearful that if the treaty be ratified,
defense appropriations will be cut. The
answer to that absurd charge will come
immediately after we have voted on the
test ban treaty. Today, the Senate Ap-
propriations Committee will mark up the
biggest peacetime defense budget in our
history and that, a measure providing
for increased defense spending, will be
passed by the same Senators who so en-
thusiastically supported the test ban
treaty.
The second illustration occurred :in a
story written for the Washington Post
by Its top Senate reporter, Mr. Robert
Albright. In our younger days, Bob Al-
bright and I were good friends, but I
regret to say that throughout my service
in the Senate, which now goes into the
17th year, he either has never written,
or the Washington Post never has pub-
lished, one commendatory , sentence of
anything I have ever done in the Senate.
But, with all due deference to the left-
wing articles that Bob Albright has writ-
ten for a leftwing paper, he never has,
during my service in the Congress, been
unfair to me. His report on the Senate
debate of yesterday on the test ban
treaty is published in the leading column
of the front page of the Post today. I
was greatly surprised that Albright had
seen fit to include in that report the fol-
lowing statement concerning me:
But when ROBERTSON suggested that Ben-
ate Foreign Relations Chairman J. WILLIAM
PITLBRIGHT, Democrat of Arkansas, had en-
dorsed the treaty before hearing any testi-
mony on it, FULBRIGHT shot back: "That is a
lie."
Considering, as I say, that Bob Al-
bright never has in the past deliberately
misrepresented anything I have said in
the Senate, I shall proceed today on the
assumption that he either did not hear
what actually occurred in the exchange
between Senator FuLasionr and me on
yesterday, or else he misunderstood what
he said. I shall read from the CONGRES-
SIONAL RECORD the official report, which
is a correct report of what actually was
said to show: First, that I did not sug-
gest, as the Albright story implies, that
Senator PULBRIGHT had endorsed the
treaty before hearing any testimony;
second, that Senator PULBRIGHT did not
call me a liar, as the story would imply,
and incidentally I do not think that has
ever happened in the Senate since duel-
ing was abolished; and third, the RECORD
clearly shows that Senator PC/BRIGHT
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17 : CIA-IDP6EOcKa
- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 7-- SENATE
. -
I hope that I misjudged some of my
distinguished colleagues when I said that
they grudgingly admitted the sincerity
of those of us who were on the minority
side, on the unpopular side. I do not
know with certainty the exact 'value of
the Gallup poll, but it claims that the
country is 4 to 1 in favor of the treaty.
should say that the Senate is about
5 to 1 in favor of the treaty.
I am glad to have the assurance that
no Senator who is for the treaty either
criticizes or challenges the sincerity or
patriotism of those of us who have drawn
the conclusion that the military disad-
vantages outweigh the so-called political
advantages.
As to our friend Albright, I gave him
the charitable interpretation. There are
some able reporters in the Press Gallery
at the present time. Most of them have
served throughout my term of service in
the Senate. Not one of them has ever,
- Misquoted me.
I agree that it is not easy for them
always to hear. I frankly admit that
normally I am calm, but if anybody
moves in on me, in a hostile way, I go
into a defensive position very fast.
Sometimes whep. I do that I speak a
little rapidly, and perhaps the news re-
porters cannot hear everything I say.
So X say about my friend Albright that
I will assume he did not correctly hear
the colloquy; or perhaps he was not pres-
ent and got a report from somebody
else. But if that be true, he will have
an opportunity, in the Washington Post
tomorrow, to correct what on its face is
a slander and a smear on me. That is
all X have to say about it. I will be as
charitable to him as the Senator from
Florida in the statement that he did
not mean to cici me this injustice and
that he is going to correct it. We will
?
Walt to see.
Mr. JA.VITS and Mr. THURMOND
addressed the Chair.
Mr. ROPERTSON. Mr. President, I
yield first to the Senator from New York,
Who has been on his feet for some time.
Mr. JAVITS. I merely wished to say
to the Senator that I submittedaresolu-
ton to substitute a microphone system
for these rather useless?at least to-
day?sort of inkwell arrangements on
the desks. An investigation was made.
That is entirely practical and feasible.
When I served on the Committee on
Rules and Administration I could not
get the resolution passed. But I am
encouraged by what the Senator has
said. I most respectfully invite Sena-
tors, if they are interested, to join with
Me; and I will resubmit the resolution.
I think it is extremely necessary.
- Mr. ROBERTSON, I say to my
friend trorn New York that ope of the
most gratifying experiences I had dur-
ing the 14 years I served in the House
Was the ability to go to the well, where
a Microphone was provided, so that
everybody could hear. It was not neces-
sary to shout, and those in the gallery
could
As the Senator from Florida has
pointed out, in the Senate Chamber if a
Senator does not have a "foghorn voice"
No. 1.47--3
even those who sit in the front of the
press gallery cannot always hear, and
those who sit in the visitors' galleries be-
hind the Senator cannot hear a thing.
They are always very patient. They do
not stamp their feet or say, "Sit down."
They are very patient. They cannot
hear what is going on, though they come
to hear.
If it will do no violence to the tradi-
tions of what is supposed to be the great-
est deliberative body in the woiicl for us
to install modern equipment, we can do
so. This Chamber is quite different from
the old Supreme Court chamber. At
the time that was used there were only
25 States, and 50 Senators. It was a
smaller room, about one-third the size
of this. It had a _little gallery, about
one-fifth the size of the gallery here.
When Daniel Webster spoke, not only
could he be heard throughout the Senate,
but also the reporters could hear him so
well that he was heard around the world,
like the shot fired at Concord.
I should be glad to support a resolu-
tion to install loud speakers, so that each
Senator, who is required under the rules
to stay at his desk, if anybody objects to
his moving?I roam around sometimes,
but that is what the rules require?could
have some means of being heard.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. president, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. ROBERTSON. I yield.
Mr. SMATHERS. I recall when the
able Senator from New York submitted
his resolution. At that time I thought I
should join him. Because of this un-
fortunate episode this morning, perhaps
some good will develop. If the Senator
will resubmit his resolution, I am sure
that I and other Senators will be glad to
loin with him. As the Senator from
Virginia so ably says, years ago there was
a smaller body, a smaller Chamber, and
a smaller press corps, and it was easy for
Senators to be heard.
But today a Senator must shout in
order to make himself heard. I have
many constituents who come into the
galleries and say, "Well, we sat there for
20 minutes. Not only were few Senators
there"?which they complain about, and
we have to explain that they are in com-
mittees, and so forth?"but those who ?
were there mumbled." I say, "They did
not mumble. It is 40 or 50 feet away.
You cannot hear up there." They come
here and they are quite disappointed
that they could not hear.
I think the time has come?it is long
overdue?when we ought to have the
means of being heard in the Senate. I
would certainly support the resolution.
Mr. ROBERTSON. I agree, because I
would not want a reporter to publish
something that was not true because he
did not hear what I said. Incidentally,
I see a distinguished reporter from the
Washington Star in the gallery, who
wrote a little piece about what I said yes-
terday, but he did not understand I had
made an accusation against the Senator
from Arkansas [Mr. FULBRIGHT) and that
the Senator eh the Am. had called me a
liar. Maybe the other man did not hear.
The PRESI.DWG OFFICER. The time
of the Senator has expired.
16245
Mr. THURMONI1 Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I ask
unanimous consent that the Senator may
have 3 additional minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without
objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. THURMOND. I commend the
Senator from Virginia for the address he
made about the test ban treaty. I want
to say that maybe the poll published in
the Washington Post or some other poll
shows that people favor the treaty by a
vote of 4 to 1, or whatever it is. That is
not in accord With the mail I receive. I
get about 1,000 letters a day, half from
within South Carolina and half from
without. I have checked with my ad-
ministrative assistant on this. The mail
is 30 to 1 against the treaty. I do not
know that this is an index of the senti-
ment of the people throughout the Na-
tion, but certainly the people that have
written to me, from within South Caro-
lina and without South Carolina, are op-
posed to this treaty in the ratio of 30 to 1.
I say to the distinguished Senator from
Virginia that the fight he is making on
this treaty is a commendable one and
characteristic of his courage and fore-
sight.
Mr. ROBERTSON. I thank the Sen-
ator. I realize that, whether it is 4 to 1
or 6 to 1, we are on the unpopular side,
but we are stating how we conscien-
tiously feel.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in
view of the fact that Senators cannot
be heard from back here, I wonder if
the Senator from Virginia would mind if
I used his desk? If not, I ask unanimous
consent that when I speak this morning,
I may speak from the seat of the Senator
from Virginia.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President,
that desk was first designated by a for-
mer President, the Honorable Harry
Truman. The Senator from South Car-
olina is welcome to it.
Mr. 'THURMOND. I believe I will stay
where I am. [Laughter.]
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I
think that is a good illustration of what
we are talking about. Nobody heard
what went on. The people in the gal-
leries are laughing. I see some very fine
reporters in the galleries. Perhaps they
could not hear, and they might write
about what went on.
The Senator from South Carolina
asked the Senator from Virginia if he
could use his desk this morning, because
he wanted to get out from under the gal-
leries, where he could be heard. People
cannot even hear the Senator from
South Carolina from where he is. So he
wanted to use the seat of the Senator
from Virginia. Under the rules of the
Senate, a Senator is supposed to talk
from his Senate seat. So the Senator
from South Carolina asked unanimous
consent to use the seat of the Senator
from Virginia. The Senator from Vir-
ginia said he would be delighted to let
the Senator from South Carolina use his
desk; that the desk had been used by for-
mer President Harry Truman, in my
judgment, one of the finest Presidents,
Approved For Release 2006/10/17 : Clio-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16246
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
Whereupon the Senator from South Car-
olina said, "In that case, I do not believe
I will use the desk."
Mr. HART. Mr. President, I would
like to make a comment on that.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I have
the floor. I yield.
Mr. HART. What has been suggested
should be done, if only to obviate the ne-
cessity of repeating. There are times
when it is difficult enough to hear what
is said the first time. It is much worse
if it must be repeated. If microphones
will do what we desire, I am for it.
Mr. JAVITS. Mr. President, I had no
Intention of addressing myself to that
subject this morning, but I will resubmit
the resolution, and certainly will invite
the Senator from Florida and other Sen-
ators to join with me in this effort to
Improve the archaic procedures of this
great body.
Mr. SMATHERS subsequently said:
Mr. President, so long as the able Sena-
tor from Virginia [Mr. ROBERTSON] is
present and the Senator from Pennsyl-
vania [Mr. CLARK] is also present, I
should like to make further reference to
the matter discussed earlier by the able
Senator from Virginia, which resulted in
the idea that we probably needed some
type of acoustical improvement, in order
to be heard. The point was made?and
I think wisely made?that in every one
of the committee rooms which have re-
cently been built?which are half the size
of this room, with galleries half the size
of these?microphones are provided; but
in this Chamber, which was changed
from the original Senate Chamber, as
was so well pointed out by the Senator
from Virginia, it takes a man with a real
foghorn voice and the constitution of a
bull in order to be heard around the gal-
leries and up in the Press Gallery.
It seems to me, as Senators have sug-
gested, that the time has come to do
something about it. I know the Senator
from Pennsylvania [Mr. CLARK] is
greatly interested in changing the rules
and in making other improvements in the
Senate. I have commended him for it.
It seems to me this is something that
would be in sympathy with his views.
Mr. CLARK. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
?Mr. SMATRERS. I am happy to
yield to the Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr.. CLARK. I am very glad the
Senator from Florida called my atten-
tion to this matter. Goodness knows,
I am not an expert in the Senate rules.
I may make a great deal of noise about
It, but I am not an expert. However, I
am happy to join the Senator from
Florida in suggesting this badly neeeded
reform. We can all remember that a
former Senator from Wisconsin, Senator
Wiley, urged this reform on us for many
long years. I thought he was right then.
I think the Senator is right now.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield? -
Mr. SMATHERS. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Missouri.
Mr. SYMINGTON. I also should like
to join the distinguished Senator from
Florida on this particular point. Cer-
tain Senators were very difficult to hear.
I remember specifically Senator Millikin,
from Colorado, who was impossible to
hear, not only in the galleries, but even
when one was sitting almost next to him.
He was one of the most brilliant minds
ever to serve in the Senate. Other
Senators have very low voices.
I hope this suggestion will be given
serious consideration.
Mr. SMATHERS. I thank the able
Senator from Missouri.
I point out that earlier in the day the
junior Senator from Oregon [Mrs. NEU-
BERGER] said that, sitting in the back row,
in the corner, unless one gets up and goes
to the well, he or she cannot hear what
is happening sometimes between the ma-
jority leader and the minority leader.
It all comes back to the fact that some-
times ?lumbers of the press who sit up in
the galleries cannot hear us when we
turn our backs or turn this way or that,
and mistakes are possible in their re-
porting because they did not hear.
Mr. ROBERTSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. SMATHERS. I yield to the Sen-
ator from Virginia.
Mr. ROBERTSON. I appreciated the
comments of the Senator earlier in the
day, and I mention the fact that I am
now in the Chamber again. In the
meantime I have been attending a meet-
ing of the Appropriations Committee,
where it is planned to bring to the Sen-
ate, as soon as the vote on the test-ban
treaty is over, a defense appropriation
bill in the magnitude of $47 billion-plus,
which is exclusive of foreign aid for mili-
tary assistance and exclusive of military
construction, which, when added to-
gether, will exceed $50 billion. During
the period in question I was absent from
the Chamber. I am present whenever
possible, but occasionally we must at-
tend committee meetings.
YOU CAN'T WIN
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. In connection
with the limited test ban treaty debate?
and I expect to participate in that de-
bate later today or tomorrow?from time
to time we hear very peculiar statements.
A short time ago, a MeMber of the House
of Representatives, Representative Hos-
ma, a Republican Representative from
California, blatantly denounced the lim-
ited test ban treaty saying, "There must
be some side agreements with Russia."
He made that statement in spite of the
fact that the treaty is drawn in under-
standable language and is simply and
directly written.
He demanded to know all about the
arranged "sellout," as he called it, on the
part of our President.
The following day, this same Member
of the other body said he accepted Presi-
dent Kennedy's denial at his news con-
ference regarding any side agreement,
or any secret interpretation of the terms
of the test ban treaty. Following that,
this same Representative said:
I therefore withdraw my charge. How-
ever, I must reiterate that the failure to have
made such an agreement, secret or otherwise,
is both reckless and improvident.
I think I should leave that Representa-
tive and his two statements and give to
them now the charity of my silence.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate is in executive session. The
September 17 ?
question is on agreeing to the resolution
of ratification of the treaty.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I
understand that the Senator from South
Carolina [Mr. THURMOND] is ready to
make a speech on the pending business.
I should like to have the Chair recog-
nize him at this time. After he has ob-
tained recognition, I shall ask him to
yield to me.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Chair recognizes the Senator from South
Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the dis-
tinguished Senator from Florida. I am
pleased to yield to him.
Mr. SMATHERS. Do I correctly un-
derstand that the Senator from South
Carolina desires a quorum call?
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator is
correct.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I
suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OeviCER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll,
and the following Senators answered to
their names:
Anderson
Boggs
Cannon
Church
Clark
Curtis
Ervin
Bartke
Hill
[No. 161 Ex.]
Jordan, Idaho
Keating-
McGovern
McIntyre
Miller
Morse
Morton
Nelson
Randolph
Scott
Simpson
Smothers
Thurmond
Walters
Williams, N.J.
Williams, Del.
Yarboro ugh
Young, Ohio
Mr. HUMPHREY. I announce that
the Senator from Alaska [Mr. BARTLETT],
the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BREW-
STER], the Senator from North Dakota
[Mr. Buinnexl, the Senator from Con-
necticut [Mr. Done], the Senator from
Mississippi [Mr. EASTLAND], the Senator
from Oklahoma [Mr. EDMONDSON], the
Senator from Alaska [Mr. Ciameiwe],
the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr.
KENNEDY], the Senator from Missouri
[Mr. Lorin], the Senator from Washing-
ton [Mr. Maaerosoer], the Senator :from
Oklahoma [Mr. MONRONEY], the Senator
from Utah [Mr. Moss], the Senator
from Maine [Mr. Moslem], and the Sen-
ator from Connecticut [Mr. .Rreicorr I
are absent on official business.
I further announce that the Senator
from California [Mr. ENGLE] is absent
because of illness, and the Senator from
Wyoming [Mr. MeGEE] is necessarily
absent.
Mr. KUCHEL. I announce that the
Senator from Colorado [Mr. ALLOT?]
and the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
PEARSON] are absent on official business
to attend a meeting of the interparlia-
mentary Union.
The Senator from Utah [Mr. BEN-
NETT], the Senator from Kansas [Mr.
CARLSON], the Senator from New Jersey
[Mr. CASE], the Senator from Kentucky
[Mr. COOPER], the Senator from Colorado
[Mr. Doiennex] , the Senator from Ne-
braska [Mr. HRUSKA], the Senator from
New Mexico [Mr. MECHEM], and the
Senator from Texas [Mr. TOWER] are
necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. A quo-
rum is not present.
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I
move that the Sergeant at Arms be di-
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
For Release 2006/10/17: CIA
,
C6NOR.EsssroNAL ItECoilt? ?
rented to request the attendance of ab-
sent Senators. - -
The PRE;SIDING 0.rviCER. The
question'iS'on the 'Motion Of "the Senator
from Tiorida.
The Motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING Ge_LPICER.The
Sergeant at Aims 'will execute the "order
of the Senate. -
After a? little delay Mr. AIKEN, Mr.
BAyx, MI.. BEALL, Mr. fIBLE, Mr. BYRD of
Virginia, Mr. 13yini of West Virginia, Mr.
COTTON, Mr. DIRKSEN, Mr. DOUGLAS, Mr.
ELLENDER, Mr. Form, Mr. PULBRIGHT, Mr.
GOLDWATER/ ? Mr - GORE/ ? 'Mr HART, Mr.
HAYDEN, Mr. HICKENLOOPER, Mr, HOL-
LAND, Mr. HUMPHREY, Mr. INOUYE, Mr.
JACKSOisT, Ir. JAVITS, Mr. JOHNSTON, Mr.
JORDAN Of North Carolina, Mr. KUCHEL,
Mr. LAUSCHE, Mr. LONG, of Louisiana, Mr.
MANsFIELD, Mr. MCCARTHY, Mr. MCCLEL-
LAN, Mr. MCNAMARA, Mr. METCALF, Mr.
MUNDT, Mrs. NEusEGGER, Mr.
ASTORE,
Mr. PELT., Mr. PROUTY, Mr. PROXMIRI, Mr.
ROBERTSON', Mr. RUSSELL, Mr. -SALTON-
STALL, Mrs. SMITH, Mr. SpAiliosAx; Mr.
STENNIS, Mr. SYMINGTON, Mr. TALMADGE,
and Mr. `YouNG of North Dakota entered
the Chamber and answered to their
names.
The PRtSIDING OFFICER. A quo-
rum. is present.
,_
The Senator from Florida is recog-
nized.
Mr. MOTHERS. Mr. President, I
sbould like to say, in the absence of the
able Senator from' South Carolina, who
asked that there he a "live" quorum call
89 that Senators would have the benefit
of his views on he test ban treaty, that
he has momentarily stepped out Of the
Chamber. I am sure he will soon return.
Mr. 71111.7R1VIOND. Mr. President, the
treaty which the Senate is now consider-
ing constitutes major risks and jeopar-
dies to the capability of the United states
to deter a nuclear war in the future.
These risks and jeopaxdies are the,
In nature, for our deterrent to nuclear
War is Military. Our deterrent has been
'and is the overwhelmingly superior stra-
tegic power embodied in our nuclear
forces. It is our abilitz to deter nuclear
war which is risked by this treaty.
The risk takes the form of military dis-
advantages, which result from the fact
that in SiglaillCallt and crucial areas of
nuclear technology, the Soviets have a
lead on the United States as a result of
their nuclear testing in 1961 and .1962.
These military disadvantages are sum-
marized by the Preparedness Subcom-
mittee as follows:
First. The United States probably will
be unable to duplicate Soviet achieve-
ments in very high yield weapon tech-
nology.
" Second. The United States will be un-
able to acquire necessary data on the
effects 9f very high yield atmospheric
explosions.
Third. The United States will be un-
able to acquire data on high altitude
nuelear,weapon.s ettects.
F,ourth..The United States will be un-
able to determine with confidence the
performance and reliability of any ABM
feryStern deveiope without benefit of at-
mospheric operational system tests.
Fifth. The' 'United States will be un-
able to verify the ability of its hardened
underground second-strike missile sys-
tems to survive close-in high-yield nu-
clear explosions.
Sixth. The 'Mated 'States Wilrbe
mi-
able to verify the abilltY. Of its missile
reentry bodies under defensive nuclear
attack to survive and to penetrate to the
target without the 'opportunity to test
*nose cone and warhead designs in a nu-
clear environment under dynamic re-
entry conditions.
Seventh. The treaty will provide the
Soviet Union an opportunity to equal
U.S. accomplishments in submegaton
weapon technology.
Eighth. The treaty will deny to the
United States a valuable source of in-
formation on Soviet nuclear weapons
capabilities.
These disadvantages are both serious
and formidable. At the very least, they
will seriously impair, if not completely
nullify, our ability to maintain the over-
whelming superiority in strategic power
absolutely essential to the prevention of
nuclear war.
Proponents of ratification of the treaty
seek to mitigate the findings of the Pre-
paredness Subcommittee by pointing out
that the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified
that they support ratification of the
treaty. This mitigates not at all against
the fact of the disadvantages, for not
only are the conclusions of the Prepared-
ness Subcommittee not in conflict as to
the facts with the testimony of the Joint
Chiefs, but in most particulars, the
Chiefs' testimony supported these Con-
clusions. The Joint Chiefs of Staff
specifically recognized that the treaty re-
sulted in military risks, but then pro-
fessed to weigh them against nonmilitary
considerations.
This was explicitly set out in the final
paragraph of the presentation of the
views of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by Gen-
eral Taylor, who concluded his presenta-
tion as follows:
Having weighed all of these factors, it is
the juilgment of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
that, if adequate safeguards are established,
the risks inherent in this treaty can be ac-
cepted in order to seek the important gains
which may be achieved through a stabiliza-
tion of international relations and a move
toward a peaceful environment in which to
seek resolution of our differences.
It is unfortunate that the testimony
of the witnesses before the Preparedness
Subcommittee could not be printed in
time to be before this body during con-
sideration of the treaty, but the declas-
sification procedure is immensely time
consuming, and essential from a security
standpoint. But no security implications
can arise from the quotation of the fol-
lowing excerpts from General LeMay's
testimony. General LeMay stated:
But the net result is that there are mili-
tary and technical disadvantages to the
treaty. All of the Joint Chiefs agreed on
this point.
However, there are political advantages
that may accrue from the treaty. This is a
de/XI?that,/ iot.09491--Or Myself an expert
in, and I have depended to a large extent on
the advice of Others.
16247
General-LeMay stated that he and the
other Chiefs had been briefed on the
political, or nonmilitary considerations,
by both Secretary of State Dean Rusk
and Under Secretary Harriman.
General LeMay was interrogated fur-
ther with regard to this matter by Sena-
tor BYRD of West Virginia, who posed the
following question:
You have indicated, General LeMay, that
the Joint Chiefs Of Staff were not to confine
their judgment in connection with the treaty
before us on the basis of purely military
considerations, but that political considera-
tions were also be to thought about.
Is this normal, General LeMay, or has it
been the practice in the past for the Joint
Chiefs of Staff to attempt to assess political
considerations in reaching their judgments?
General LeMay responded:
It certainly has been true since President
Kennedy came into office, because this is one
of the first things that they told the Joint
Chiefs they expected them to do. They ex-
pected them to put the political factors in at
their level.
They told us this verbally many times.
Actually, I think we have a note in writing
on the subject, the Joint Chiefs.
Quite obviously, therefore, the testi-
mony of the Joint Chiefs does not conflict
with the findings of the Preparedness
Subcommittee. The Joint Chiefs were
instructed to consider the political con-
siderations, which they were given by Mr.
Rusk and Mr. Harriman, and this is the
basis for their support of the ratification
of the treaty. General LeMay not only
stated that he had to rely on the advice
of others on the political factors, because
he did not consider himself an expert in
the field, but he also stated in his testi-
mony that he had less confidence than
others that these political considerations
could be realized.
As the Senator from Mississippi [Mr.
STENNIS] has pointed out, the Joint
Ohiefs could hardly be classified as "sup-
porters" of the treaty, but that a more
accurate assessment of their position is
that they "go along with" the treaty,
or perhaps even more precisely, they "go
along with" the White House.
The Chiefs of Staff may not have been
threatened outright, and most probably
were not; but the Chiefs live in an en-
vironment which daily demonstrates the
rule of rigid compliance with decisions
from above, and more and more of the
details are being decided from above.
Therefore, there is hardly a need for
the Chiefs to have a picture drawn for
them on each specific issue on which
they are expected to conform to the
policy decision.
It is significant to note that immedi-
ately after the treaty was initialed, the
Chiefs were called to the White House
individually one day, and then were re-
called as a group the next day, ostensibly
for consultation.
All in all, there is no reason to even
suspect that there was any arm twisting
of the Chiefs of Staff over the treaty.
There was no need for it. Many lessons
in the foolhardiness of disagreeing with
policy decisions had been taught quite
recently, with graphic and dramatic ex-
amples that could hardly fail to impress
Approved For-Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP66B00383R000100100002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16248 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and all other
officers.
Both Adm. George Anderson and Gen.
Curtis LeMay disagreed with the official
position of the administration on the
TFX award, which shows that the Joint
Chiefs can disagree without literally
facing a firing squad. No one, of course,
would be so suspicious as to find any
causal relation between the disagree-
ment by these two Chiefs of Service with
the official position and the subsequent
decision by the White House which ma-
terially shortened their active military
careers.
Although there was surely no physical
arm twisting practiced on the Joint
Chiefs, and they themselves denied that
there was, it is not beyond imagination
to suppose that they learned from the
administration that opposition was
hopeless, for ratification was assured, re-
gardless of their position.
The Joint Chiefs are not expert in
political matters, by their own ready ad-
mission. It is possible that they made
an unduly modest judgment as to the
weight that their opinions carry in the
Congress; especially if they assume that
their influence with one civilian group
Is about the same as with any other civil-
ian group; and, therefore, that they
would have about the same influence
with Congress that they have with the
civilian echelon above them in the De-
partment of Defense.
Under such circumstances, they could
well have reasoned that since ratifica-
tion was inevitable, they would go along,
while being as candid as consistently pos-
sible about the military disadvantages
and covering their conclusions by refer-
ence to the "political considerations"
which were given them by Mr. Rusk
and Mr. Harriman. In this way, they
may have reasoned, they might be able
to salvage something in the form of safe-
guards, since they were going to have to
live with the treaty, regardless of their
position. At least with the safeguards,
they secured promises to the Congress,
and hopefully, Congress would take a
continuing interest in insuring that the
safeguards were kept.
While such reasoning would obviously
be based on the false premise that Sen-
ate approval of ratification was a fore-
gone conclusion from the time the treaty
was initialed, once the premise was ac-
cepted, the logic of securing all that was
possible under the circumstances?
in this case, the four so-called safe-
guards?would seem reasonable.
Of course, all of this reconstruction of
the possible reasoning of the Chiefs of
Staff is purely conjectural. Had such
been the rationale of the positions of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, however, it might
be hard to convince them now that it
was erroneous.
At this point, it does seem from all
appearances that Senate approval of the
treaty is inevitable. Speeches are even
made which resemble the position of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff?admitting and
warning of all or many of the obvious
risks and disadvantages of the treaty,
and then announcing support of rati-
fication.
In fact, if the chiefs had merely con-
cluded that to oppose ratification of the
treaty would be to incur the unmitigated
wrath of their civilian superiors, they
could hardly be convinced now that their
conclusion was inaccurate. the Air
Force Association passed a resolution in
opposition to the treaty, based on rea-
soning not unlike that of Gen. Thomas
Power, Commander of Strategic Air
Forces. In retaliation, Air Force Secre-
tary Zuckert canceled his scheduled ap-
pearance before the Air Force Associa-
tion, at the reception, and with wrath
and fury characterized the association's
position with such adjectives as "immod-
erate," "alarmist," "irrationalism," and
in "disregard of the best interest of the
United States."
If such unbridled and unrestrained in-
temperance is the reaction to a private
association, taking a position contrary to
that of the administration, what would
have been the reaction if the Joint Chiefs
of Staff had opposed the administration?
All of this does not paint a very bright
picture of the future military career of
the able and candid General Power.
While I am not a gambler, I have had
occasion to wonder what are the odds
one could get against General Power ever
being Air Force Chief of Staff under this
administration, or does infinity reach
that high?
The Joint Chiefs of Staff, professing
not to be experts on nonmilitary or po-
litical matters, could not be expected to
defend and explain the so-called "politi-
cal" considerations on which they hung
their decisions to go along with the
treaty. It is, nevertheless, interesting to
note the political aspects mentioned in
General Taylor's presentation of the
Chiefs' formal position. He stated that:
The risks inherent in this treaty can be
accepted in order to seek the important gains
which may be achieved through a stabiliza-
tion of international relations and a move
toward a peaceful environment in which to
seek resolution of our differences.
This conclusion is qualified and re-
qualified. Twice it is repeated that the
purpose is not to get, but in the words of
the presentation, "to seek." The elusive
and undefined "gains" which General
Taylor says we will "seek," "may" be
achieved, not "will" be achieved.
The conditions for whatever is to fol-
low is the only thing which the Chiefs
assert as positive. This is twofold, one
being "a stabilization of international
relations" and the other "a peaceful en-
vironment." Both of these bear closer
examination.
The clear implication of General Tay-
lor's statement is that this treaty will
contribute to what he calls "a stabiliza-
tion of international relations" and "a
peaceful environment."
In specific terms, however, no witness
before any committee was able to back
up these generalities, which are no more
than a dream of "pie in the sky."
Will this treaty get the Russians troops
out of Cuba?
Will this treaty rid Cuba of the des-
pottism of Communist domination?
Will this treaty stop the sabotage in
Venezuela?
Will this treaty eliminate the Commu-
nist subversion and 'espionage in Peru
and Ecuador?
September 17
Will this treaty stop Communist agi-
tation in Africa?
Will this treaty free any of the peo-
ple enslaved in eastern European coun-
tries? How many?
Will this treaty tear down the Berlin
wall, so that more people may express
their antagonism to Communist despot-
ism with their feet?
Will this treaty cause the Soviets to
abandon their espionage rings in any
free world nation?
Will this treaty end the constant ir-
ritations on the Korean truce line, or
prevent future killings of American
troops on that line?
Will this treaty prevent the shelling ?
of Quemoy and Matsu in the future?
Will this treaty cause the Communists
to cease their attacks on non-Commu-
nists in Laos, or mitigate their efforts
to take over the country?
Will this treaty cause the North Viet-
namese and Chinese to cease trying to
take over Vietnam?
Mr. President, these are matters which
would be the specifics of a process of
stabilization of international relations.
The treaty will not mitigate these mat-
ters, and in fact, it may result, in the
tempo of these agitations being in-
creased.
Not one witness who testified in the
hearings would say that this treaty
would affect the Communist goal of
world domination, nor slacken their ef-
forts to achieve that goal. It is precisely
this goal, and the myriad methods 'em-
ployed by the Communists to implement
it, that insures that international rela-
tions will remain unstable so long as any
free nation resists Communist aggres-
sion. There can be no peaceful environ-
ment in the presence of Communist ag-
gression, suppression, and duplicity.
General Taylor, along with other wit-
nesses, stated his concern that the treaty
might induce in the free world what he
calls "euphoria." Nothing could come
nearer inducing a rosy glow of self-satis-
faction and unconcern into the Ameri?
can public than the repeated assertion
that this treaty will "stabilize interna-
tional relations" and create "a peaceful
environment." If a state of induced
apathy can possibly be imposed on the
American people, the propaganda bar-
rage aimed at the American public, in an
attempt to convince them that this
treaty means "peace" and "relaxed ten-
sions," will accomplish it.
The situation on this treaty calls to
my 'mind a poem of Rudyyard Kipling
entitled, "The Truce of the Bear." It
was written shortly after the Crimean
war, in which the British had fought the
Russians. Kipling, England's foremost
poet of statemanship, found it necessary
to warn the British of the danger of
treachery during a truce with the Rus-
sians. The poem is quite apropos the
situation in which we now find ourselves.
The last two stanzas read:
When he stands up as pleading, in wavering,
man-brute guise,?
When he veils the hate and cunning of his
little, swinish eyes;
When he shows as seeking quarter, with
paws like hands in prayer,
That is the time of peril?the time of the
Truce of the Bear!
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
App.roved For Release 2006/10/17 : CIA-RDP65B00383R0001002000
-
CONQBESSIONAL RECORD --- SENATE
.1963
Eyeless, noseless, and lipless, asking a dole
at the door,
Matun, the old blind beggar, he tells it o'er
and o'er;
Pumblini and feeling the rifles, warming his
hands at the dame,
Rearing our careless white men talk of the
? Morrow's game:
Over ancl over the story, ending as he
began:?
There is no truce with Adam-zad, the Bear
? that looks like a Man!
We are now considering ratification of
the Truce of the pear. Yet even those
who profess to fear euphoria, as they call
it, join in the propaganda chorus to lull
the American people to sleep with a
Sedative of "stabilized international
relations" and "peaceful environments."
We have only their own expressed con-
cern with euphoria as evidence that they
are not the worse victims of their own
propaganda, and the most vulnerable to
"The Truce of the sear."
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, will the
Senator from South Carolina yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOR-
DAN Of Idaho in the chair). Does the
? Senator from South Carolina yield to the
Senator ,from Nebraska?
Mr. THURMOND. I am pleased to
yield.
Mr. CURTIS. I commend the distin-
guished Senator from South Carolina,
not only for his speech today, but also
for the material he has placed en public
record throughout this debate.
The treaty was presented in such a
manner that its ratification seemed to be
a foregone conclusion. Nevertheless, his-
tory is being written in the Senate, and
the Senator from. South Carolina is
bringing to light some very important
truths that will make the record ?Abun-
dantly clear, and also should help Sena-
? tors to arriVe at their own conclusions.
During the course of the hearings, I
asked the secretary of State whether the
treaty had strengthened Khrushchev
among his own people. There was a bit
Of a pause, and I did not get a direct an-
swer. Finally he said, "The treaty is
popular all over." I regard his answer as
-gUite significant. In every community
in the United States the attitude toward
Ithrushchev and communisn. has soft-
ened. Every Senator knows that. At the
same time, proponents of the treaty free-
ly admit that they do not trust the Rus-
sians. No one claims that the great
Communist design has changed; yet we
proceed with the treaty. I, for one, am
very grateful to the Senator from South
Carolina for his important contributions.
Mr. TIMR1VIOND. Mr. President, I
deeply appreciate the kind remarks the
able and distinguished Senator from
Nebraska has made. During the com-
mittee consideration of the nuclear-test-
ban treaty, he made important contri-
butions. He has propounded penetra-
ting questions, and has been most help-
in bringing out facts with. which
the Amerieku people and the Senate
shonld be iNcluainted.
_
To bear out the , statement the Sen-
ator from Nebraska has just made, I
should Ulm to refer to an Associated
Press article from oscow, on August 26,
in which it was stated:
The Soviet union told Red China the
limited nuclear test ban was a positive gain
for communism because it would perpetuate
the liquidation of the one-time American
nuclear monopoly, and freeze each side's nu-
clear power.
It further stated:
The statement, in reply to the August 15
attack on Soviet policy by Peking, said that
for years it would have been against So-
viet interests to have a test ban unless the
United States agreed to destroy all its nu-
clear weapons.
In an Associated Press article from
Tokyo it was stated:
The Soviet Union told Communist China
today there was no need for it to try to manu-
facture an atom bomb because if attacked it
could count on Russian nuclear might under
the friendship and mutual assistance treaty.
In a Japanese-language broadcast, Moscow
Radio reiterated that, despite Chinese-So-
viet differences, the treaty with China re-
mains in effect. A Moscow commentator
asked:
"Why does China feel it must have an
atom bomb? Is it for her defense? In this
connection we would like to remind China
of two things.
"One is that there is a treaty of friend-
ship and mutual assistance between the So-
viet Union and China, and even now it con-
tinues in effect.
"The second is that the Soviet Union has
repeatedly pointed out that it considers an
attack on the Peoples' Republic of China to
be an attack on the Soviet Union itself.
Therefore, if the Peoples' Republic of China
is subject to an attack, the entire might of
the Soviet Union, will fall upon the aggres-
sor. What greater security can China ask?"
?
I believe these dispatches make clear
the fact that there is no significant or en-
couraging aspect of the rift between Rus-
sia and China. They also bear out the
fine remarks of the able Senator from
Nebraska, whom I commend once more
for the excellent service he is rendering
our Nation in connection with this im-
portant subject.
Mr. President, General LeMay was
more specific on one particular nonmili-
tary consideration, and it has more sub-
stance than any other I have heard men-
tioned, although it is not persuasive to
me.
In answer to a question, General
LeMay stated:
The United States, ever since the war, has
been trying to make progress in control of
nuclear weapons, in fact in disarmament af-
fairs in general, and both the Democratic
and Republioan administrations since the
war have tried to do these things.
I would think it would probably be a set-
back in many ways if the treaty were not
ratified now. Whether this would be disas-
trous or not to our further efforts, I am not
so sure.
But it certainly is a factor and one that we
did take into consideration.
From this statement, it seems apparent
that the timing was in no small part a
significant part of the political consider-
ations which weighed in the conclusion
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
With General LeMay., there is reason
to believe that it may have been decisive.
I asked General LeMay whether he would
recommend that the treaty be signed if
It were being considered in the proposal
stage. His answer was that he did not
tannk he would; IURZlicl a/gni,. fig.
16249
In connection with General LeMay's
answer to my question, when he stated
before the Preparedness Subcommittee,
and again before the Foreign Relations
Committee, that he did not think under
those circumstances he would recom-
mend signing the treaty, it has been
pointed out in debate that General
LeMay, subsequent to the open hearings,
in an executive session of the Foreign
Relations Committee, attempted to qual-
ify his earlier answer.
It is also true that some time after
he testified, a written proposed modifica-
tion of General LeMay's answer was sub-
mitted to the Preparedness Subcommit-
tee. After giving the same answer be-
fore two committees on different days, a
change was submitted. If accepted, an
evasive answer would have appeared in
the printed record of the hearings. The
Preparedness Subcommittee rejected the
proposed change.
For the information of those who do
not yet know, if any there are, I point
out that the Department of Defense re-
views carefully all the transcripts of
hearings. The screening is done by De-
partment of Defense censors. They
screen not only for security?and in this
instance they were not screening for
security, for that is a process now in
progress?but also for compliance with
the policy of the administration. The
corrections or changes which are sub-
mitted by an officer, of his own testi-
mony, must be cleared for policy con-
formity by the Department of Defense,
just as the prepared statements of all
personnel for congressional committees
must be cleared and censored, even if to
be given in executive session.
It is hard for the Department of De-
fense to control responses of witnesses
which are given to committees on the
spot in answer to specific questions. But
any changes or submissions for the rec-
ord are subject to censorship. If a wit-
ness wants to get himself off the hook,
especially when he is told to do so, he
can always submit a correction of his
testimony to conform it to policy. The
committee does not have to accept it, but
as long as the witness tried he gets Off
the hook, or at least, mitigates the breach
of policy.
This is all really too disgusting to dis-
cuss, but that is the way Mr. McNamara's
empire is run. The question was raised
on the floor last Friday, and the facts
should be set straight.
My own sympathy is with the wit-
nesses. We cannot blame them. A com-
mittee of the Senate has said in strong
words that testimony for congressional
committees, particularly in executive
session, should not be censored for policy
by the administration, but it continues
nevertheless. If the Congress will not
or cannot enforce against executive de-
partments its own rights to hear frank
and uncensored opinions from witnesses
in the executive branch, how can we ex-
pect witnesses to stand up and take
chances with their own careers and
jobs?
If the Congress hears a lot of "me too"
testimony when it calls executive de-
partment WitnysseS,F polite evasiveness
Approved For Release 2006/10!17.
16250
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8 ?
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 17
In some cases, then Congress has only such as "peace" and "relaxed tensions,"
itself to blame, because nothing has been but no specifics.
done to stop the censorship. In fact it In its report, the Foreign Relations
Is worse than ever. All we can hear Committee makes illusive references to
from the executive department is "one some nonmilitary considerations. The
voice." We are fortunate to have three report does not attempt to spell out or
official Witnesses on the treaty who broke number any specific political advantages
the monotony?General Power, General that now from this treaty. There is no
Schriever, and Dr. John Foster. We attempt to state that there is one, two,
should be thankful for them, for they or three political advantages in the opin-
have taken the chances and risks which ion of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Congress should long ago have elimi- Nonmilitary aspects of the treaty are
netted. It is worthy of note that not one discussed in several different type con-
of these three witnesses had a prepared texts in the report. Some of these as-
statement to be censored by the Depart- pects are included under a discussion of
ment of Defense. They did not have a possible Soviet motivations. Some are
statement conformed to official policy included in the concluding corhments of
with which they had to stay consistent, the committee. One is included under
To get back to General LeMay's point the title "Other Considerations." None
that now that the treaty had been of these has been made any more spe-
signed, damage would be done to our dis- cific or finite by the debate of the pro-
armament program if it were not rati- ponents.
fled, let me say that this would probably The Foreign Relations Committee
be an advantage, in my opinion, judg- makes the general claim that:
Ing from what I know of our disarma-
ment proposals.
It is not armaments that cause wars.
The cause of war is political friction,
usually brought on by the greed of ag-
gressors. Armaments are material?
inert, lifeless tools?and can do nothing
by themselves. It is men who start wars,
and they do so because of their depraved
motivations, the Most prominent of
which is lust for power. Armaments
can be used for good or for evil, depend-
ing on the morality of the men who con-
trol the armaments. The United States
has had a superiority in armaments for
two decades, at least. Who is prepared
to say that these armaments have not
been used as a force for good, keeping
evil in check? If we had not had these
massive armaments, we would have
either had a war or would now be living
under Communist dictatorship.
Wars will not cease if arms are de-
stroyed. In the first place, evil men
will not disarm themselves, for their evil
motivations of power lust can only be
gained by force. Evil men will always
find tools with which to try to oppress
others, and they will succeed in oppress- treaty to mean that it would disarm
-Ing the weak. those who are seeking to stop revolu-
. For those, however, who still fear the
tions
but would not handicap those who
temper of opinion of other nations and "'-
are starting Communist revolutions
of people of other nations, should this throughout the world?
treaty be rejected, Dr. Edward Teller
Mr. THURMOND. That is exactly
gave the only answer:
correct. I am convinced that what Mr.
If you reject this treaty, this will be a
small mistake; if you ratify this treaty, I Khrushchev and the Communists are
think you will have committed an enormous- trying to do is to get us to take this first
ly bigger mistake * * * You will have given step?and the President has called it a
away the future safety of this country. first step. In the words of the preamble,
Mr. President, the Foreign Relations the treaty itself provides:
Proclaiming as their principal aim the
Committee, in its report ori the treaty,
states that the main thrust On the treaty speediest possible achievement of an agree-
ment on general and complett disarma-
IS political, and that excessive reliance on meat---
the military considerations might under-
mine the national security of the United And so forth. This is the first step
States. If that be the case, why has the to a disarmament program.
thrust of the arguments of the pro- That is exactly what Mr. Khrushchev
ponents of the treaty been concentrated wants. He wants us to disarm. But you
on the negative side?that is, on trying wait to see if the Communists disarm.
to mitigate against the military disad- They are cunning. They are deceptive
vantages? Their word cannot be relied upon.
? We have had over a week of debate on I hold in my hand a list of agreements
the treaty. We still have not heard what This pamphlet was issued by the Defense
are the political advantages of the treaty. Department on November 5, 1962, after
have heard erieralizations the recent Communist act of perfidy in
The committee believes that the treaty
reflects an identity of interest in the specific
area of containing the arms competition.
As I have already pointed out, dis-
armament will not eliminate the cause
of war for it is men and not armaments
that start wars. It should also be noted
that the Communists have no intention
of disarming themselves. The Commu-
nist approach to disarmament was ex-
pressed by Mr. Khrushchev on January
16, 1963, in a speech in East Germany
in these words:
Disarmament primarily means dismantling
the gigantic war machines of the highly
developed countries. General disarmament
does not mean disarming the peoples fight-
ing for national liberation. On the con-
trary, it would deprive the Imperialists of
the means to halt progress and crush the
struggle for independence.
Mr. TALMADGE. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMC)ND. I am pleased to
yield to the able Senator from Georgia.
Mr. TALMADGE. Is it the Judgment
of the distinguished Senator from South
Carolina that Khrushchev construes the
Cuba. Evidently at that time the De-
fense Department did not know that the
administration would come forward with
this treaty, or probably the administra-
tion would not have allowed the Depart-
ment to issue it. The phamphlet sets
out on one side of each page the agree-
ments and on the other side the results.
The pamphlet is entitled "Soviet Treaty
Violations." It is filled with violations
of agreements made by these deceptive,
cunning Commimists.
I also hold in my hand a pamphlet is-
sued by the Internal Security Subcom-
mittee of the Committee on the Judiciary
of the Senate, entitled "Soviet Political
Agreements and Results." In this pam-
phlet there are listed the agreements into
which the Communists have entered and
the sad results. I wish every Senator
would read these two pamphlets before
voting on this treaty.
I understand that the Internal Secu-
rity Subcommittee has now issued an-
other pamphlet as a supplement. It
will be of great interest to the Senate.
Mr. President, how can we rely on the
Communists to keep an agreement, in
view of their past performance?
The American Bar Association made
a study and reached the conclusion that
the Communists have broken 50 of the
52 major agreements into which they
have entered since World War IL
I am convinced that this treaty is a
trap, that this is the first step to try to
persuade this country to disarm. If we
disarm, God knows, we are gone.
The only language the Communists
understand is power. So long as we
have had power?and we have had a
superiority of military power since World.
War II?we have avoided a war.
If we enter into this treaty, we will
freeze the gains the Communists now
have in high-yield weapons and. in the
development of an antiballistic missile
system. Where will we then be, con-
sidering the great knowledge the Com-
munists have gained from their recent
tests, in 1961 and 1962?
Again I say to the able and distin-
guished Senator from Georgia [Mr. TAL-
MADGE], that in my opinion we cannot
place any trust in the Communists.
Their purpose in this treaty is to freeze
the knowledge they have gained, in order
to gain time to manufacture the weapons
with which to try to destroy us or to
blackmail us into surrender. Why
should they want to enter into a treaty
for any purpose other than one which
would help them? Why don't the propo-
nents of this treaty look at the seamy
side of Soviet motives rather than just
what appears to them to be or a rose
color.
The able Senator from Georgia was a
distinguished and capable lawyer and
the able Governor of a great State. He
served as a distinguished officer in the
Navy in 'World War II. He knows the
treachery of the Communists; and he
. knows that no trust can be placed in
them.
. Mr. TALMADGE. I thank my distin-
guished friend. I congratulate him for
his magnificent contribution to this
debate.
We ave ear vagueg
Approved For Release 2006/1.0/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
1963
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I ean pleased to
yield to the able Senator from I4ouisiana..
Mr, LONG of Louisiana. Does the
Senator recognize that under section 2
of Article I of the treaty the statement
Is made:
Each of the Parties to this Treaty under-
takes furthermore to refrain from causing,
encouraging, or in any way participating in,
the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test
explosion, or?
I now emphasize the next four words:
any other nuclear explosion.
I repeat:
any other nuclear explosion, anywhere which
wotild take place in any of the environments
described?
Whial refers to in the atmosphere,
underwater, or in space?%
or have the effect referred to, in parargaph 1
of this Article.
? The clear language of this particular
seCtion would prohibit this Nation from
using nuclear weapons to fulfill its treaty
obligations in Horea, in Vietnam, or in
Formosa, in the event the Communists
decided to move. It is very clear, under
the language of the treaty, that we would
be precluded from using weapons in such
a fashion.
? Someone sent an opinion from the
. State Department saying, "That is not
what it means; it does not mean that.
We would have the right to use them."
In the committee report the committee
says:
We do not mean that. We clearly mean
by this language that this Nation would re-
serve the right to use such weapons to fulfill
? our defense commitments.
The Senator well knows thatin law, as
? in a treaty, the clear language of the
law or the clear language of a contract
speaks out over and above some legis-
lative history. The leading case on that
had to do with the Mann Act, as the
Senator will recall. The Mann Act was
passed to prevent transportation of
-prostitutes across State boundaries.
Some young boy from the District of
Columbia went with a young girl to
Baltimore. He was indicted under the
act. All the legislative history showed
that that was not the kind of thing the
act was intended to outlaw, but the man
still had to go to jail, because the court
Said the law was clear and that the court
would not look to legislative intent when
the law was clear in itself.
The Senator well recalls that, I am
sure. The Senator, as a lawyer, knows
that any one of the nearly 100 signa-
tories to the treaty would take this coun-
try before the World Court, of which
the United States is a member. The
Interpretation of a treaty is clearly a
matter, within the jurisdiction of the
, World Court This country could be
taken before the World Court, and the
World Court would tell us, in my judg-
Ment, that the treaty means exactly
what it 'says. We would be said to have
made a treaty clearly contrary to what
President Eisenhower said we should do,
and clearly contrary to what the Presi-
dent himself says we are doing by this
treaty.
Approved For Release 2006/10/17 : CIA-R DP5BO0383R0O0100200002-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
That in itself is reason enough to
reject the treaty.
Mr. THURMOND. The able Senator
from Louisiana is eminently correct. The
treaty itself is clear, as the Senator from
Louisiana said it is. The wording is
crystal clear.
The treaty itself is clear. It outlaws
"any nuclear weapons test explosion, or
any other nuclear explosion" except
underground when the nuclear ex-
plokions do not send radioactive debris
outside one's borders. The President,
moreover, in transmitting the treaty to
the Senate, said that "this treaty is the
whole agreement?the treaty speaks for
itself."
The State Department contends that
"any other nuclear explosion" does not
mean any detonation on behalf of an
ally attacked or in our own self-defense.
This interpretation goes against the
clear wording of the agreement. There
is nothing in international law to sup-
port a contention that the rule of con-
struction of a treaty is any different in
this respect than the rule of construction
of a statute or any legal document;
namely, if a document is clear on its face,
recourse may not be had to any other
source.
The State Department justifies its in-
terpretation by consulting the minutes
of discussions during the negotiations to
justify its position. But then it does not
make these available in their entirety to
the Senate. It also comes up with the
conclusion that detonations for peaceful
purposes, such as canal building, are
proscribed.
The Senator is absolutely Correct. If
some nation took this treaty to the World
Court, I agree with the able Senator
that the World Court could well say that
this wording, this verbiage, was clear and
the Court would have to construe the in-
tent from language of the treaty.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, if the Senator will yield further,
whoever this lawyer was?in my opinion,
he was instructed to write an opinion
saying this, which is clearly contrary to
the language of the treaty?relied upon
the preamble to put a construction on the
language of the treaty different from
what the treaty provides. I say that if
one compares that language with the
preamble, it does not support the con-
tention. For example, the preamble uses
the words:
Seeking to achieve the discontinuance of
all test explosions of nuclear weapons for al/
tune, determined to continue negotiations to
this end, and?
I emphasize this?
desiring to put an end to the contamination
of man's environment by radioactive sub-
stances.
The treaty then proceeds to provide
that we will proceed, first, to stop test-
ing, and then to stop other explosions,
under the treaty.
The preamble actually follows the
clause. It says:
(1) You will not conduct the test
explosions; and (2) you will not conduct
any explosions.
So it is now very clear that any court
composed of lawyers, rather than poli-
ticians, would have to rule that the
16251
treaty forbids all explosions, even those
for our own self-defense. Under the
terms of this treaty, it would be illegal
for this Nation or any of our allies to
use an atomic explosion for an antibal-
listic missile to stop a missile aimed at
one of our cities, vhich could destroy 5
or 6 million people in a single blast. It
would be against the treaty to use an
atomic explosion to defend ourselves.
We would have to violate the treaty in
order to fire a shot in self-defense.
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator from
South Carolina is in accord with Che con-
struction placed on this matter by the
able Senator from Louisiana. The treaty
Is as clear as crystal. Article 1, section
2 reads al follows:
Each of the Parties to this Treaty under-
takes furthermore to refrain from causing,
encouraging, or in any way participating in,
the carrying out of any nuclear weapon test
explosion, or any other nuclear explosion,
anywhere which would take place in any of
the environments described, or have the ef-
fect referred to, in paragraph 1 of this Article.
There are no exceptions. How could
the World Court find exceptions or place
a strained meaning on the construction?
It would be forced, if its members fol-
lowed their oath of office, to construe it
according to the language in the treaty.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi-
dent, will the Senator yield further?
Mr. THURMOND. I yield.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. As the Sena-
tor well knows, based on this Nation's
agreement to be a party to the World
Court, and based on the agreement which
this Nation made when we became a part
of the United Nations, it is not what we
say in a committee report that this treaty
means; it is what the World Court says
about this treaty that will determine it.
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator again
is correct. Under article 36, the World
Court has a right to construe treaties.
That is one of its responsibilities. Under
article 36, section 2, paragraph (a) , in-
terpretation of a treaty is that Court's
responsibility.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Senator
knows that the same persons who would
ratify this treaty are also among those
who would have us submit to the com-
plete, unfettered jurisdiction Of the
World Court. As things stand now, un-
der the Connally reservation, this Nation
reserves to itself the right to determine
whether a matter is an international
matter or whether it is a purely domestic
matter. But the Senator well knows that
the question of interpretation of the
treaty is clearly an international affair,
and we would stultify ourselves if we
tried to pretend it was anything but that.
Mr. THURMOND. There is no ques-
tion about that. The able Senator from
Louisiana, who is an astute lawyer, has
construed this question properly, in my
judgment. I commend him. He was an
able officer in World War II, in the
Navy. He is a great patriot. He has
given this matter much consideration,
and his opinion is well worth serious con-
sideration by the Senate.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The Sen-
ator knows that former President Eisen-
hower, who did not negotiate the treaty,
made the statement that we should not
ratify the treaty unless we made it clear
Approved For Release 2006/10/17 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16252 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
that we reserved the right to use these
weapons to fulfill our treaty commit-
ments and to defend ourselves. If we
are to leave that matter to the World
Court and rely upon the World Court?
which has three Communist judges sit-
ting on it?to say that the treaty does
not mean what it says, we have made a -
bad mistake. As the Senator knows,
any time Russia decides to attack this
country, she is going to attack us, treaty
or no treaty. So far as defending our-
selves is concerned, for the most part,
this Nation abides by treaties.
Can the Senator tell me how many
treaties this Nation has violated?
Mr. THURMOND. Our country keeps
its treaties. We keep our word.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. That was
my impression. The Senator may re-
call that before World War II this Na-
tion entered a disarmament treaty.
The Japanese burned up a great many
blueprints, and we burned up many
ships to fulfill our part of the disarma-
ment treaty. That proved to be a bad
mistake. We could have used those
ships at the time when we were taken
by surprise. This Nation kept its agree-
ment even when it proved to be a very
bad bargain.
The Senator knows that this treaty
could work out to be a Communist trap,
and prevent us from doing the things
necessary in our defense and the defense
Of our allies, whereas the Soviets could
break the treaty whenever it suited their
purpose.
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator from
South Carolina is in thorough accord
With the Senator from Louisiana. The
Senator from Louisiana had much ex-
perience in World War II in the Navy.
A few days ago he discussed, very intel-
ligently, our sad experience with tor-
pedo duds in the Pacific in World War
II because we did not test them in ad-
vance, just as we will not be able to
test our vital nuclear weapons in their
environment if this treaty is ratified.
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I believe the
record is clear on that portion. I may
discuss it later.
I thank the Senator for yielding.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, in
view of Mr. Khrushchey's definition of
disarmament, I would sincerely hope
that the Foreign Relations Committee is
incorrIct in its assessment that the
treaty reflects an identity of interest in
limiting the arms rate or achieving dis-
armament, for that would mean that Mr.
Khrushchev's definition of disarmament
reflected the official policy of the United
States.
In support of its contention that the
treaty reflects an "identity of interest in
a specific area of containing the arms
competition," the Foreign Relations
Committee advanced two hypotheses.
The committee states:
First, the treaty will inhibit the prolifer-
ation of nuclear weapons, thus reducing the
danger of accidental or catalytic nuclear war,
as well as nuclear war by design.
As the Senator from Washington [Mr.
JACKSON] pointed out last week, the role
of the treaty in inhibiting proliferation
has been generally overestimated. We
have little to fear from most of the
nations, other than the Soviet Union,
which signed the treaty, even if they
obtained a limited capability with such
weapons. In point of fact, very few of
them have the capability of achieving
any significant nuclear capability; and
if they did manage the development of a
warhead itself, they would still be faced
with the problem of a delivery system
which, for most of them, would be impos-
sible.
The major concern to the United
States of proliferation is centered in one
nation?Communist China. No one has
contended that Communist China will
sign the treaty, and the only disagree-
ment about the Chinese nuclear program
lies in the estimates of when they will
actually begin detonating nuclear de-
vices. The Chinese Communists unfor-
tunately do have an aggressive intent,
as they have repeatedly demonstrated,
and any significant nuclear capability by
China does increase the defense problems
of the United States and the free world.
The treaty does not inhibit development
of nuclear weapons by Communist
China. The major problem of prolifer-
ation, therefore, and the only one of
major consequence, will remain unaf-
fected by this treaty.
The second hypothesis of the Foreign
Relations Committee in support of the
"identity of interest" contention is that
the treaty has already deepened and
complicated the divisions within the
Communist orbit. The Foreign Rela-
tions Committee makes it clear that it is
referring to the so-called Sino-Soviet
rift. Incidentally, this is not the only
place in the report where the Sino-Soviet
differences are discussed. The Foreign
Relations report also sees the Sino-Soviet
schism as one of the possible motivations
of the Soviet Union in signing the treaty.
The implications behind the discus-
sions of the so-called Sino-Soviet schism
lead one to believe that Khrushchev is
actually afraid of the expansionist poli-
cies of Communist China. Obviously, it
is conjectural at this point as to what is
the real nature of the differences between
China and the Soviet Union, for in point
of fact, the only intelligence we have on
this matter is what the Soviets and the
Chinese themselves tell us. Judging from
experience, this is a very poor basis for
realistic estimates.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. THURMOND. I am happy toevield
to the able Senator from Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. Does the Senator from
South Carolina believe that the Sino-
Soviet rift is as patent and sure as it has
been represented to be?
Mr. THURMOND. I do not believe
that the so-called rift between Soviet
Russia and China is as it has been pur-
ported to be or as it has been reflected
in the report of the Committee on For-
eign Relations. The major difference
between Russia and China is how they
will go about burying us. Russia says,
"Let us take more time. Let us do it
through infiltration and subversion and
nibble away on one country after an-
other. Let us build up a powerful de-
fense system and intimidate and coerce
other countries, so that they will be
September 17
afraid not to come behind the Iron Cur-
tain."
That was the case with Czechoslovak-
ia, Mr. Khrushchev has been quoted
time and again as boasting that he will
overtake the United States in superiority
of strength and that in effect America
will undo itself, as we will help in doing
if we ratify this treaty.
The Chinese want to do it more hastily
and in a more revolutionary manner.
The Chinese and the Russians have the
same goal. It is a matter of how to at-
tain this goal, whether it will be the So-
viet way or the Chinese way. As I stat-
ed earlier today, when I read the As-
sociated Press articles from Moscow and
Tokyo, they do not seem to be far apart
on the essential elements of mutual de-
fense and their aim to take over the
world.
Mr. SIMPSON. That is the point I
wished to bring out. Is it not correct
to say that upon an overture from the
Soviet Union, the Chinese people would
immediately effect a reconciliation with
the Soviet Union, and that the rift is
less real than seems to be indicated?
Mr. THURMOND. There is no ques-
tion that if a showdown should come be-
tween the United States and Russia,
China would be on the side of the So-
viet Union. The Senator from South
Carolina propounded this very question
to the members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff during the hearings before the
Senate Preparedness Subcommittee. He
asked, if the United States had a show-
down with Russia on which side would
China be. All of them said that China
would be on the side of the Soviets.
Then the Senator from South Caro-
lina asked the question, If the United
States had a showdown with China on
which side would Russia be? All of' the
men said that in their opinion Russia
would be on the side of China.
If they are going to be together, what
difference does it make if there is a rift
on the question of how to "bury us." The
only question is where they will be in
case of a showdown. In the opinion of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, they will not
be on the side of the United States, and
they will be together if a showdown
comes. The rift will then fade away like
cigarette smoke.
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator
from South Carolina. In view of the
fact that he is such a great Army officer
and high in the echelons of the Depart-
ment, I am sure that people of America
will listen to him, though the Senate is
not listening to him.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able
Senator from Wyoming. I commend
him for the great attention he has given
to the discussion. Several days ago he
delivered a masterly address. He is a
great American and a great patriot, of
whom the people of his State call be
proud.
At page 361 of the hearings of the
Foreign Relations Committee the Sena-
tor from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] pro-
pounded a question to General LeMay,
which I believe is pertinent today, as
follows:
Senator Amaav. I say nobody can guaran-
tee that any future officia.ls of government
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
1968 coNpussioNAL RECORD SENATE
_ will carry out their duties as they are ex-
pected to or not, but it is safe to say any
official who failed to Carry out the responsi-
bilities in this respect would also un-
doubtedly be very lax in other respects as
well,
- -:,Sa.wo-s(Atirr RELATIONS
Just one other qUestion. This Slim:Soviet
split Must have very significant strategic'
implications
?or instance, suppose China launches a
ore aggrbssive attack on India. I know
there is a ,question? in the minds of a good
many people what Russia would do. Do
you think the split between Russia and the
Q4iinese is a real split?
General 'LEMsr. ,,I think they probably
have some ,differengps of opinion. Rut I be-
lieve that they are mostly on how to ad-
vance world communism, and it is my opin-
,121:1 if, there was any real trouble in the
World we, would fing that very quickly Rus-
Sia and China would get back together again.
They do have a mutual defense pact, and I
Ocitt4ii17 think it would be invoked and
operating efficiently, if it was necessary.
I believe that answer is oi this point,
arid furthersuh',...tantiates the position of
the able Senator from Wyoming. Fur-
ther, at page 362 of the hearings, the
Senator from Kansas [Mr. Cinusow]
asked k question of General LeMay, as
follows:
TREATT'S,EFF.ECT OlY SINO-SOVIET RE44TIONS
SenatOr giAlli.SON. General LeMay, as I have
listened to you and the testimony this morn-
lag of the Joint Chiefs I gather that from
the political standpoint you are recommend-
ing that this treaty be ratified on the basis
that there would be some restraint on the
further proliferation of nuclear weapons and
that it would reduce world tension. If. I re-
meinber correctly. I think General Taylor
added azioeier item: Re thought it import-
ant that tile treaty would further accentu-
ate the split between, Red China ,and the
Soviet Union.
./".* you agree with that?
General. I.,,EMAT. Well, probably not to the
Mile extent that General Taylor does. I
think there. is a. possibility that it may, but
I clont.think it is a very great possibility.
In other words, i don't see that we are
going to be able to split Red China and Rus-
sia. We ri-47 cause trouble between the two,
but not to the extent that when the chips
are down they won't get back together again.
Senator CARLSON, Do I understand from
, that statement you have a feeling this treaty
WOuld have no effect One way or the other
as far as? driving a wedge between the Red
Chinese and the Soviet Union?,
' general Liallay. No, I think it may cause
further trouble between them but not to the
extent that they are going to break off
completely.
(At this point Mrs. NEUBERGER took the
chair as)rpsidifig Officer.)
Ti-WRMONI:). That further sub-
stantiates the position of the _able Sen-
ator from, Wyoming [Mr. SrisrpsoN].
The Soviet Union and China share the
Communist' goal of world domination.
Perhaps if and when they accomplish
this overrisling obsession, they would in
time fight each other for possession of
the spoils.- In the meantime, it is hard
to take Much solace in the fact that there
Is an inner dispute between them as to
What Is the best method to eliminate
either us or Qur freedom, or both.
?
t land as long as the apparent
erenwin approach to aggression per-
tists between the Soviet Union and
,No 147-4
16253
China, we will have to face the dangers must be answered along with many
others.
In many respects, the nonmilitary as-
pects of this treaty referred to in the
Foreign Relations Committee report are
contradictory.
For instance, the committee alleges
that the primary purpose of the treaty is
"to inhibit the arms race." Yet the tes-
timony of the Secretary of Defense in
support of the treaty follows the princi-
pal thrust that we can determine all the
information necessary to support an all-
out increase in otir armaments by under-
ground testing and by reliance on knowl-
edge we already have. Obviously, the
Soviets can follow the same course, and
the only hitch is that the Soviets have'
more knowledge already than do we in
certain critical areas, and possibly have
more knowledge in, a number of crucial
areas.
Madam President, I wish to read from
page 637 of the hearings of the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations on the nuclear
test ban treaty to show what Dr. John
Foster, head of the Livermore Labora-
tory, had to say on the question of un-
derground testing as a substitute for
testing in the natural environment. The
questioning is by Senator BYRD of West
Virginia.
UNDERGROUND TEST/NG NO SUBSTITUTE FOR
ATMOSPHERIC TESTING
of both strategies. For all we know,
however, the apparent schism between
the Soviets and China could be a varia-
? tion of the old tactic of the garrot and
? the -stick. Instead of alterriatilig, they
may now Just be using both at the mine
time.
Some have intimated, of course, that
the Soviets are DOW mellowing or evolv-
ing, and that we now have less to fear
from this center of communism. The
? implication is that Communist China
now constitutes the principal threat from
the Communists.
If anyone really is convinced that Red
China is now the main sour Ve ef danger
to the free world, rather than the Soviet
Union, he should come right out and
say so. Beyond the question of whether
it is the Soviets or the Chinese who have
the nastier intentions toward us, it would
be interesting to hear who has the bigger
stick. Of the two criminals, the Soviets
clearly have the more polished grammar,
and may hurl the more so subtly phrased
insults at the United States, but it is
quite clear that they both mean to do
us in, and the more dangerous is the
one with the largest capability to try it.
The Soviets still have, and for the fore-
seeable future will have, the bigger stick.
The Foreign Relations Committee
seems to find some comfort in the fact,
that although acquisition by the Chinese
Reds of nuclear weapons?which the
treaty will not inhibit?will make the
? Chinese stick look a lot bigger to China's
neighbors, that Red China's failure to
sign the treaty will make the Chinese_ap-
pearance more offensive to the sensi-
bilities of its neighbors. Should we really
conclude, as the committee suggests, that
these developments will "encourage
greater resistance to Communist expan-
sionist policies" from southeast Asian na-
tions? ?
The question is, Which will impress the
little neighbors of Red China more?
Fear of the bigger and atomic powered
? stick, or increased dislike at another
display of Red China's belligerence?
The discussion of the so-called Sino-
Soviet schism raises another question by
Its implications. Are we to believe that
Khrushchev is really afraid of Red
China?
Where did Red China get its jet fight-
ers, and where do the spare parts and
ammunition come from?
Where did Red China get the SA-2
antiaircraft Missiles with which to shoot
down a U-2 plane flown by Nationalist
Chinese?,
Where did Red China get its tanks,
and where must the spare parts come
from?
Where does Red China get its military
transport, and from where do the spare
parts come to keep it running?
If Khrushchev is really afraid of Red
China, does anyone believe that he could
not cause the complete collapse of the
Red Chinese rulers by cutting of all the
supply lines to Red China from the So-
viet Union?
Before we_ be any, hopes on ad-
vantages to ourselves on the apparent
Soviet-Chinese schism, these questions
Dr. Foster, I asked you earlier, if by using
the information that we already have, and
by conducting aggressively underground
tests under the conditions of the treaty, we
could acquire information which would
satisfy our fears with regard to weapons
effects upon sites and systems, and you in-
dicated, I believe, that we could not.
Would your answer still be the same if I
had framed my question differently to the
extent that I had included the safeguards
the Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended?
Dr. FOSTER. Yes, it would have been the
same. It is simply that the question of how
hard anything is to electromagnetic phe-
nomena, be it antiballistic missile defense
or hardness of silos, has to do with matters
that, in my opinion, are not sufficiently well
understood to ,be able to say with full con-
fidence that they will function as designed
in a nuclear environment and this nuclear
environment cannot be created by under-
ground experiments.
Senator BYRD of West Virginia. And so
safeguards are no?
Dr. FOSTER. Correct.
Senator BYRD of West Virginia. We are
taking a great chance with the security of
this country if we approve E. treaty which
prohibits our further testing in the atmos-
phere, and, consequently, learning by such
testing important facts dealing with effects
upon sites and systems?
Dr. FOSTER. You are taking a risk, and you
cannot calculate it.
Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Regardless
of these safeguards?
Dr. FOSTER. Regardless of these safeguards.
Senator BYRD of West Virginia. Even
though they are implemented to the fullest?
Dr. FOSTER. That is correct.
Madam President, in attempting to
assess the Soviets' motivations in signing
this test ban treaty, the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee speculates that it may
have been for the purpose of permitting
"some diversion of resources away from
nuclear weapons development and to-
ward the cp wner goods area."
Apbroved For Release 2006/10/17 : CIA-RDP65B00383R00010Q2000
2-8
16254
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00583R000100200Cr02-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 17
Of course, this is pure speculation, for
even if the Soviets were able to convert
some resources, there is no assurance
that the savings would go into consumer
goods rather than Cuba-type ventures,
or their agitation and subversion opera-
tions in Latin America, Africa, and
southeast Asia.
But the very allegation, that the treaty
will result in a diversion of resources
from weapons development, is contra-
dicted by the claim that it will be much
more expensive for the Soviets to move
their testing program underground in
an effort to catch up with their assumed
lead in low-yield weapons technology.
General Taylor, in support of the treaty
testified:
If. the Soviets are to catch up with the
United States in the low-yield field, partic-
ularly in numbers, they will be subjected
to a major additional expenditure of national
resources which are already under heavy
strain.
Of course, there is no objection or
particular offensiveness in advancing
abstract theories, providing, of course,
that they are understood clearly as
hypotheses. The remoteness of many of
the speculations as to the nonmilitary
aspects is emphasized by the fact that
they are contradictory to other such
speculations, and contradictory to some
of the arguments advanced for the pur-
pose of mitigating against the obvious
military disadvantages of the treaty.
Some years ago, efforts to obtain a
cessation to atmospheric testing were
based primarily on the need for elimi-
nating the hazards of radioactive fall-
out. There is little question but that the
magnitude of the hazard from radio-
active fallout, as a result of nuclear test-
ing, has been grossly exaggerated.
Where conditions permit, all possible
steps should, of course, be taken to elim-
inate even the most remote hazard.
The risk of danger from radioactive
fallout as a result of nuclear testing,
however, pales in significance by com-
parison to the risk to our security, our
military preparedness, and our ability to
deter nuclear war which flows from the
treaty.
The Foreign Relations Committee
pointed out in its report that:
It is generally agreed that radiation from
fallout amounts to considerably less in terms
of human exposure than normal background
radiation. Moreover, informed opinion ap-
pears to be that radioactive fallout produced
to date has remained well below a level to
which it might be deemed hazardous.
President Kennedy, himself, stated on
March 2, 1962, in his announcement that
the United States would resume atmos-
pheric testing, that:
It has been estimated, in fact, that the
exposure due to radioactivity from these
tests' will be less than one-fiftieth of the
difference which can be experienced due to
variations in natural radioactivity simply by
living in different locations in the country.
This will obviously be well within the guides
for general population health and safety as
set by the Federal Radiation Council; and
considerably less than the one-tenth of 1
percent of the exposure set for adults who
work with industrial radioactivity.
The Federal Radiation Council esti-
mates that man's natural environment
will give him a 70-year dose of radia-
tion 17 to 35 times greater than the one
he will receive from fallout from all tests
conducted through 1961.
The Senator from Connecticut, who
formerly was Secretary of Health, Edu-
cation, and Welfare, pointed out, on
September 9, 1963, that:
We must face the /act that the land on
which we live and work, the air we breathe,
the water we drink and use in industry,
agriculture, and recreation have been altered
over the past half-century by a manmade
fallout far more abundant and potentially
more dangerous than the contamination of
nuclear weapons testing.
Madam President, as appears on page
214 of the nuclear-test-ban treaty hear-
ings before the Senate Committee on
Foreign Relations, an exchange on this '
subject occurred between the able Sena-
tor from Georgia [Mr. Russzu] and Dr.
Seaborg, Chairman of the Atomic Energy
Commission, as follows:
Senator RUSSELL. Dr. Seaborg, I read in the
paper, I believe the day before yesterday,
that there is twice as much radiation in milk
today as there was 3 years ago.
Is that approximately right?
Dr. SEABORG. That would depend on the
section of the country that was being re-
ferred to. I would like to say that there
are probably sections of the country where
there is twice as much strontium 90 in the
milk now as there was 3 years ago, yes, sir,
Senator.
Senator RUSSELL. Has that yet reached a
point where it is sufficient to endanger the
human family?
Dr. SEAHORD. No, sir.
Senator RUSSELL. It is a long way from it?
Dr. BEARDED. It is a considerable distance
from it, yes, sir.
Senator RUSSELL. I TO.U.St express my sur-
prise that you did not refer to any advan-
tages to be gained from lessened fallout.
Some of our practicing politicians have been
predicating their vote on this treaty on
what they call very cynically and irrever-
ently ''the mother vote," because the treaty
would lessen the dangers of increasing the
fallout.
But I commend you for being frank and
honest with the committee and not bring-
ing in an objection that is captious and not
genuine.
As appears on page 632 of the hear-
ings of the Committee on Foreign Re-
lations, I had an exchange on this sub-
ject with Dr. Foster, as follows:
Senator Termudoam. .Dr. Foster, on the
question of the fallout to which Senator
BYRD referred to a few moments ago, that
seems to be the question that is disturbing
a great many people today who tend to
favor the treaty where otherwise they might
be against it.
On this question, if I recall correctly, last
week or the week before some scientists
made the statement that one would get
more radiation from living in the mountains
of Colorado than from fallout.
Dr. FOSTER. That is correct, sir.
Senator THURMOND. That is (=rect.
I believe it is also true that one living in
a brick house would get 20 times more radia-
tion than he would get from fallout.
Dr. FosrEa. Well, sir, there you are ahead of
me. I do not know that because-
Senator THoemcave. Mr. Earl Voss, I be-
lieve, brought that out in his book "Nuclear
Ambush."
Dr. FOSTER, Yes.
Senator THURMOND. And one wearing a
. wristwatch with a luminous dial, as I have
on here, would get 10 times as much radiation
as he would get from fallout.
Dr. FOSTER. I am familiar with the argu-
ments, sir. I do not know that a wrist-
watch-
Senator necnolown. Does that sound rea-
sonable? in other words, do those statements
sound reasonable to you?
Dr. Fosrica. It is true that natural back-
ground Is large compared with the additional
activity, radioactivity, associated with fallout
from all past tests.
Senator Teturtmown. Isn't it a matter of fact
that the fallout mentioned by some of those
who favor this treaty, the propaganda that
is being disseminated and the bugaboo that
is being raised, that the fallout is imper-
ceptible, and is of little consequence?
Dr. Fosmit. I think, sir, that the problem
or the question of fallout is of insignificance,
of little significance, compared to the major
issue with which the development of war-
heads is attempting to deal.
Senator THURMOND. What people want to
know is this: We have been reading about
fallout, fallout in milk, and fallout In food
and resulting injury to the future genera-
tion. Is it possible for this fallout to bring
about sterility and various other reactions?
I just want to ask you whether you feel
that there is danger to people's health from
the little fallout radiation resulting from the
tests we have conducted?
Dr. Pomo.. No, sir.
Senator Tertatseopre. Your answer is "No"?
Dr. Forma. My answer is no.
Senator THURMOND. Thank you.
Madam President, much of the exag-
gerated fear of fallout has been caused
by the normal human fear of the un-
known and of things that cannot be
understood, and also by very poor public
relations treatment by the U.S. Govern-
ment. For instance, the American
public has never been effectively told of
the radiation hazards which have been
eliminated as a result of the better un-
derstanding of radiation that we have
obtained from testing nuclear devices.
Far greater radiation hazards, in the
form of excessive medical X-rays, re-
peated and excessive dental X-rays, and
even toy and shoe store X-rays, which
formerly existed, have been eliminated
than have those created by radioactive
fallout from testing.
Should nuclear testing in the atmos-
phere be continued, the advent of clean
nuclear devices would probably result in
even less radioactive fallout per test than
has been the case with former tests.
Unfortunately, from the military stand-
point, but encouragingly from the stand-
point of lessening the hazards of radio-
active fallout, even the Soviets have
demonstrated a capability of utilizing
remarkably clean nuclear warheads. In
June of this year, the United States de-
tected what were presumed to be nuclear
tests in the Soviet Union, but there was
no radiation debris which came out of
the Soviet Union from which to prove
that the signals received were, in fact,
caused by nuclear detonations.
Under these circumstances, and with-
out in any way mitigating the desirabil-
ity of eliminating all radioactive fallout
from nuclear testing, the degree of
hazards from radioactive fallout as a re-
sult of atmospheric testing is not of suf-
ficient magnitude to make it a major
Consideration in weighing the merits and
demerits of the treaty.
Madam President, if there are signif-
icant nonmilitary or political advantages
to ratification of this treaty, then they
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For kolease 2006/10/17-
,
(1963
coN?
dittssiots
should be enumerated and spelled Out.
'The specifics should be given of each
such political aspect so that it may be
objectively weighed in the balance. This
is no time to delude ourselves or the
American people with idealistic state-
ments and hypotheses which becloud the
hazards to which this treaty subjects our
very existence.
We have experienced the penalties of
, indulging in the "Truce of the Bear" be-
fore. One such instance was at Yalta.
There, too, we professed to find an "iden-
tity of interests" with the U.S.S.R. We
would do well to recall the assessment of
our position at Yalta by the none-other
than Mr. Averell Harriman himself, who
on., April 6, 1945, as U.S. Ambassador in
Moscow, cabled the U.S. Government as
follows:
It maybe difficult for us to believe, but it
still may be true that Stalin and Molotov
Considered at Italta that by our willingness
to accept a general wording of the declare-
?...--tion on the Red Army for security behind its
lines, and of the predominant interest of
Russia in Poland as a friendly neighbor and
? as a corridor to Germany, we underStood and
were ready to accept Soviet policies already
known to US.
It was Mr. Harriman's conclusion that
? the continued "generous and considerate
attitude" -adopted by the united States
was regarded in Russia only as a sign
of weakness. We need to keep in mind
, Mr. Harrinian's own words:
_
Our experience has incontrovertibly proved
that it is not possible to bank general good-
will in Moscow.
We entered another "Truee of the
Bear" in 1958. That "Truce of the Bear"
- took the form of a moratorium 'on at-
=spheric testing. Once again, we suf-
fered the consequence of Soviet duplicity
and our own idealism.
It is not enough to soberly express our
concern with "euphoria," as it is called.
As a result of the treaty?despite the
expressed cautions?our guard is already
being let down mentally, if not yet physi-
cally. Many illustrations could be given.
For instance, an article appeared in the
Washington Post of September -14 en-
titled "Bill Would Ease Arms-Cut Pain."
The first three paragraphs of this news
article state:
A pioneering blueprint designed to soften
the economic impact of a cut in arms spend-
ing was unveiled yesterday by Senator GEORGE
MCGOVERN, Democrat, of South Dakota.
McGovrarr showed reporters the draft of a
bill he plans to introduce after the Senate
votes on the test ban treaty. It would create
- Federal P0acilinerY? to take some of the pain
out of converting swords into ploughshares.
'The Senator's rnOve comes against a back-
ground of growing. congresisonal interest in
the problems flowing from a future reduc-
tion in military Outlays. Senator JOSEPH
CLARK, Democrat, of Pennsylvania, heads a
manpower subcommittee that will conduct
hearings in November on the employment
aspect
e. ? -
1Vladarn President, it is hard not to
Conclude that the most significant politi-
cal eiTect of this treaty, despite all the
pronounced intentions to keep our coun-
try prepared, is what the witnesses have
called "euphoria," which, when trans-
kited Rractisal effect, means dimin-
ed mlljtary- preparedness and less ca-
pability to deter a nuclear 'war.
t-CO
This political &sped- of the proPosed
treaty has long been recognized, even
before the treaty was considered seri-
ously by the Soviets. In 1959, to a confi-
dant, Secretary of State John Foster
Dulles is reported to have stated:
Since a (test ban) treaty is what the Rus-
sians want, it wouldn't be difficult to come
up with one which would look good on the
surface. We could include in it all the fuzzy
language of diplomacy?and believe me, I
know some of the phrases?and present it to
the world as a great achievement for peace.
All of this would result in a relaxation of
world tensions, generate a feeling of inter-
national good will, and probably elect a Re-
publican President in 1960. ?
But we're not going to do it. If we signed
such a pact with the Soviets, there would
develop a tremendous pressure to cut back
on our defenses, reduce the size of our Armed
Forces, and curtail our armaments. And
we'd have only the word of the Russians that
they were doing the same. Our NATO,
SEATO, and other alliances would be endan-
gered, perhaps to the point of deterioration.
As a result, within a few years, we could be
as a sitting duck for the Communists to pick
off whenever they felt the time was ripe.
This analysis is just as accurate today,
if not more so, than in 1959.
- Even were there no military disad-
vantages to the treaty, the nonmilitary
-considerations, on balance, weigh against
the ratification of the treaty.
It is the military consequences which
are determinative, however.
Political considerations have not and
will not stay the hand of the aggressor
bent on world domination. Until now,
we have maintained such an overwhelm-
ing superiority in nuclear power that the
alternative of nuclear war has been fore-
closed to Khrushchev as a means of ex-
tending his dictatorial control.
We have followed a policy of deter-
rence of nuclear war. To make this
policy work, it has been necessary for
the United States to maintain not just
a lead in quality and quantity of nu-
clear weapons, but to maintain an over-
whelming superiority. The wide margin
of superiority is necessary because' we
have made it clear that we will let the
enemy have the advantage of the first
blow. Our deterrent force is, in fact,
therefore, composed only of that portion
of our strike force which the Soviets be-
lieve could survive the hardest first blow
that the Soviets could throw at us.
During the period since September
1961, the Soviets have managed, through
a determined and comprehensive test-
ing program, to achieve a lead in tech-
nology in certain critical fields of nu-
clear weaponry, and possibly to achieve
a lead in certain other crucial areas. It
is possible that they drew abreast of the
United States in still other areas of nu-
clear technology. From this knowledge,
It is possible that the Soviets now have
the know-how, which if -converted to
weal3ons,.yould give them the capability
to cripple our second strike forces with
a first blow to the extent that Mr.
Khrushchey might judge any possible
retaliatory blow by the United States to
constitute an acceptable risk.
The Soviets did not gain this advan-
tage in techriorogy-because of any inher-
ent superb:SKr'. '1)itring the moratorium,
while we neither' tested nor prepared for
testing, the SAets made intenSive prep-
arations and, as a result, were able to
mount two comprehensive, complex, and
full-scale atmospheric test series involv-
ing more than 100 tests. By comparison,
our one-test series was hastily prepared
after the moratorium was broken and
was, therefore, only partially successful.
While the Soviets concentrated their
tests on a search for technology which
would directly affect their ability to knock
out the U.S. forces in a first strike and
defend against what survived, the U.S.
tests were diversified by a number of oth-
er factors. We limited the size of our
tests in terms of yield. The VELA series,
designed at improving our detection,
identification, and analysis capability,
constituted a substantial part of our
testing. Some of our tests were on Proj-
ect Plowshare, to experiment with peace-
ful uses.
To Maintain our position of clear su-
periority, it is incumbent on the United
States to do more testing than the Sovi-
ets, for we must have additional knowl-
edge for the design of weapons capable of
surviving a nuclear attack. The Soviets,
who do not intend to allow anyone else
to start the war, do not have this addi-
tional requirement, for they intend to
launch their attack first, and they know
first. the United States will not attack
We can, through atmospheric testing,
if we have the will, overcome any Soviet
lead in technology. We can proof test
our weapons systems on an operational
basis, so that we can insure their surviv-
ability. We can find out from our own
atmospheric testing just how much the
Soviets do know. We have t'he capabil-
ity of maintaining, or regaining, our
superiority in technology in all fields of
nuclear weaponry and weapons effects if
the treaty is not ratified.
If this treaty is ratified, momentous
risks to our capability to deter nuclear
war will result. We cannot assess the
degree of risks with any confidence on
the basis of information we now have.
It is unthinkable for the United States
to play blindman's bluff with nuclear
war, and that is precisely the effect of
this treaty.
For the sake of the United States and
all mankind, the treaty should be re-
jected.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
only a few minutes ago I was handed a
telegram sent to me by one of the most
respected Members of Congress I have
ever known. I served with him in the
House of Representatives and I got to
know him intimately and well. He is a
man of great integrity, great understand-
ing and great knowledge. I refer to our
old colleague, former Representative
Carl Durham, of North Carolina, whose
career in the House of Representatives
was both long and distinguished.
? The telegram reads as follows:
Hon. MIKE MANSFIELD,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR MIKE: As one who has closely fol-
lowed and strongly supported our nuclear
weapons program from its inception and as
twice past chairman of the Joint Committee
on Atomic Energy I believe it is in the best
interests of the United States that the treaty
Approved For Release
B00383R0001002
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16256 CONGRESSIONAL
now before the Senate be ratified as drawn
without amendment and without reserva-
tion. Information developed by the Joint
Committee over the years reflects that future
uncontrolled atmospheric testing could con-
stitute a danger to humanity. This treaty
represents a beginning toward control of
this potential danger. In my opinion the
United States possesses the finest nuclear
weapons laboratories in the world. If we
keep them and our testing capability in full
readiness and continue a vigorous under-
ground testing program we will in my opin-
ion more than adequately protect our secu-
rity.
CARL T. DTJRHAM.
Madam President, I suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD Madam President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD Madam President,
I ask unanimous consent that there be a
printing of the resolution of ratification,
for use by the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I suggest the ab-
sence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call
the roll.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Madam President,
I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING_ OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam President,
the Foreign Relations Committee, under
the able leadership of the Senator from
Arkansas [Mr. Fueseimir], has kept it-
self informed of the test ban proposals
which were the antecedents of the one
before us today.
This committee, in its recent exhaus-
tive hearings, has heard the testimony
of some 44 witnesses, witnesses from in-
side and outside the Government, wit-
nesses for and against ratification, wit-
nesses appearing in open and executive
session.
The record produced is impressive, and
the report, taking into account both mili-
tary security and foreign policy consid-
erations, is a persuasive one. I congrat-
ulate the chairman.
Likewise, I express appreciation and
admiration for the work done by the
Preparedness Investigating Subconunit-
tee of the Armed Services Committee un-
der the able chairmanship of the Senator
from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS].
This subcommittee has compiled, I be-
lieve, the most complete and probing
record ever made on the vital subject
of the military and technological impli-
cations of nuclear test ban treaties.
Senator STENNIS had the foresight last
fall, over a year ago, when the prospects
for agreement of any kind with the So-
viets were dim indeed, to begin these
searching hearings, in order to obtain
facts and opinions from the relevant
Government departments and agencies,
from military officials and from scien-
RECORD ? SENATE
tists. This record of the Preparedness
Subcommittee will be of inestimable fu-
ture value to the Congress and the coun-
try.
I have the privilege of sitting on both
of these committees; and therefore the
opportunity, in both open and closed
sessions, to hear and question witnesses
in great detail as to the military security
aspects of the problem; and also to look
at the military aspects in the context of
international affairs and foreign policy.
For many years I have been studying
the activities of the United States in the
area of arms control and disarmament,
including test ban proposals. In 1955 I
was appointed to the then Joint Subcom-
mittee on Disarmament, when it was first
formed.
It is my judgment that the action tak-
en by the Senate on this treaty could
well be its most important action during
our time. Unless there can be some un-
derstanding among the growing number
of nations that will have the weapon, a
nuclear holocaust is only a question of
time.
Before deciding that it would be better
to take that risk than any risk inherent
in the test ban treaty, let us consider the
following:
It is estimated that a groundburst of
one of the largest weapons would totally
destroy, incinerate, everything within a
radius of 7 miles, and create blast effects
that would cause severe damage out to 23
miles. The thermal effects from an air
burst below 50,000 feet would cause first
degree burns on exposed skin out to 100
miles?or beyond Wilmington, Del., if the
bomb were dropped at Washington?sec-
ond-degree burns out to 70 miles. Under
these considerations, although we must
always remain stronger than any pos-
sible adversary, the basis of deterrence,
it is hard to see how there could be any
victor as the word has been used in the
past.
As was stated in the concluding state-
ment of the report of the Preparedness
Subcommittee, the question is "one of
weighing relative risks."
I have weighed the relative.risks.
First I weighed the purely military
risks, which were the focus of the Pre-
paredness Investigating Subcommittee.
The question in this connection is
whether the restraints imposed by the
treaty, as compared with a condition of
unlimited testing, disadvantage the
United States militarily more than they
do the Soviet Union.
It is clear?and all witnesses have so
testified?that this test ban treaty will
inhibit certain aspects of U.S. weapons
development and weapons effects knowl-
edge.
This is a disadvantage and is not a
point in dispute. But we must weigh
such disadvantages to the United States
against comparable, if not similar, disad-
vantages to the Soviet Union.
For example, the Soviet Union, like
ourselves, will be prevented from further
exploration of blackout phenomena,
from gaining all knowledge one would
like to have about the destructive effects
of large weapons on hardened sites, from
conducting complete systems tests clear
through to nuclear explosions, and so on.
September 17
It would appear that, from the mili-
tary point of view, the limited test ban
treaty is probably somewhat more dis-
advantageous to the United States than
to the Soviet Union. It is possible that
this is wrong, however; in fact it is pos-
sible that the treaty will disadvantage
the Soviets militarily more than our-
selves. The latter is the judgment of
the Secretary of Defense.
The subcommittee report did not at-
tempt to compare the military disadvan-
tages it discussed with the military dis-
advantages of unrestricted testing by all
countries who may acquire the capability
to test. I think this latter point should
be taken into account along with the
other important points the subcommit-
tee report does present.
In any case, I do not believe that the
evidence supports the conclusion that
the treaty is sure to result in significant
military or technical disadvantages to
the United States.
There were major differences of opin-
ion among the experts, no doubt be-
cause of the newness of the nuclear art,
and partially, I am sure, because the
subject is so highly classified.
Some of the able, experienced, and
completely honorable scientists who
testified against the treaty made mis-
takes in fact, apparently because in the
reasonably recent past they had not
been cleared for all classified informa-
tion. Specifically, apprehensions in the
ABM field were not borne out, at least
to me, in the highly classified intelli-
gence briefings we received.
From a military standpoint, I believe
the thrust of the disadvantage to the
United States in future weapons devel-
opment was overemphasized by some
witnesses; and the comparable disad-
vantage to the Soviets underempha-
sized.
Mr. GORE. Madam President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to the able Senator from Tennessee.
Mr. GORE. I concur in what the able
Senator has said. I wonder if he would
express his view, in discussing the possi-
ble disadvantages, comparable or simi-
lar, to be experienced both by the United
States and the Soviet Union, as to the
possible restraint upon other nations
which might aspire and who may now
have the industrial capability of be-
coming nuclear powers.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam President,
the able senior Senator from Tennessee,
who is extraordinarily well versed on this
subject, especially because of his long ex-
perience in the House, and in the Senate,
as a member of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, has put his finger on one
of the most important aspects of this
treaty.
To date, I understand some 91 coun-
tries have signed the treaty. Many of
those countries could not, in the con-
ceivable future, have atomic weapons;
but many of them could develop a nu-
clear weapon, and some of them are al-
ready close to it. The fact that those
countries have signed this agreement,
preventing their testing in the atmos-
phere?unless they desire to cheat, in
which case, as I shall discuss later, I be-
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200d02-8
(1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE 16257
lieve they will be promptly caught?is
-indeed the _most significant characteris-
tic of the entire problem.
Have I answered the question of the
Senator?
Mr. GORE. Yes. I thank the Sen-
ator from Missouri. Is not our security
primarily involved in the avoidance of
nuclear war? And if by means of the
treaty there is discouragement and re-
straint?perhaps effective discourage-
ment ,and restraint?from the prolifera-
tion of nuclear power, would that not
diminish the possibility of an outbreak of
nuclear war?
Mr. SYMINGTON. Madam President,
? I can see no alternative to the logic of
the position taken by the distinguished
Senator from Tennessee. In our life-
time, we have known men who wanted
to conquer the world, and who, before
? they died, were considered insane. Cer-
tainly that was true of Hitler as well as
others. That being true, it is obvious
that with a proliferation of nuclear
weapons, there would be more of a
chance of such a person having the op-
portunity to start a nuclear war. In that
event, as presented a few minutes ago,
there wonld be little likelihood of a vic-
tor in the sense of the word as we have
used it in the past.
Mr. GORE. So in weighing the ad-
vantages and disadvantages from a
purely military standpoint, if we were
privileged so to consider the treaty, one
Must realistically take into account the
advantages and disadvantages of not
Merely the United States vis-a-vis the
Soviet Union, but the whole cosmic prob-
lem of a global nuclear conflict?
Mr. SYlVIINGTON. The Senator from
Tennessee is correct and I appreciate
his typically constructive contribution.
In any case, I believe that under this
treaty any significant cheating on the
part of the Soviets could be discovered
promptly; and this Government has
pledged that we will remain ready to
thereupon resume atmospheric tests im-
mediately.
As I see it, there are four areas which
could be considered in coming to a judg-
ment as to the likely net effect of the
treaty; first, the significance of the big
bomb; second, the question of smaller
nuclear weapons; third, the antiballistic
missile; and fourth, the question of sur-
vivability of our deterrent force.
The first two of these areas do not
cause me much apprehension. The
United States, including the Joint Chiefs
of Staff, has seen operating need for 100-
megaton weapons. The Joint Chiefs of
Staff place no emphasis on having yields
in excess of those which can be achieved
Under the treaty.
Even Dr, Teller stated that desire for
very high yield weapons did not figure
significantly in his opposition to the
treaty. Smaller yield warheads?still
over 100 times as large as the Hiroshima
bomb?are better for carrying out our
Wat plans. -
Oecoiid, the fact the Soviets can im-
prove their lower yield weapons by un-
derground testing does not appear to be
an argument against the treaty, because
they can improve those weapons faster
and cheaper without the treaty.
So, as I say, the weapons develop-
ment points do not cause me any great
concern.
The other two points appear to me
more important.
Two facts come through crystal clear
in all testimony with respect to the anti-
ballistic missile. First, it is extremely
unlikely that an antiballistic missile de-
fense can be developed which can be
counted on to save a nation from lethal
harm. Even ABM optimists claim only
that such a system would reduce some-
what the damage. Second, the technical
problems which face us in our attempt
to develop an antiballastic missile sys-
tem are heavily concentrated in the non-
nuclear areas?in areas unaffected by
the treaty, such as reaction speed, mis-
sile performance, traffic handling ca-
pacity, and capacity for decoy discrimi-
nation.
At the most, therefore, the treaty will
raise the cost of any ABM the United
States decided to deploy, because un-
certainties about blackout will have to
be built around by the addition of
radars.
I regret this affect of the treaty on us.
But the evidence before both committees
is that the Soviets have not yet solved
their antiballistic missile problems;
therefore, the treaty, if it inhibits our
ABM development, will likewise inhibit
theirs.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Madam President,
will the Senator from Missouri yield?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I am glad to yield
to the able Senator from Arkansas.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I am much inter-
ested in the statement being made by
the Senator from Missouri. I know he
attended the hearings assiduously and
followed them with deep interest.
On the antiballistic missile problem, I
thought we received persuasive testi-
mony from Dr. York to the effect that
without any inhibition on the develop-
ment of entiballistic missile systems, it
was his opinion that the offense, the
penetrability, could always stay ahead of
the threat to create an antiballistic mis-
sile system. He used the analogy of the
race between the hare and the turtle. If
only the hare did not go to sleep?the
hare being the United States?there was
no question in his mind that we could
always keep ahead of the defense by the
development of operations of such things
as the Senator has mentioned; for in-
stance, decoys. Does the Senator sub-
scribe to that viewpoint?
Mr. SYMINGTON. I do. The best
illustration I could give is what occurred
during the Battle of Britain and shortly
thereafter, in England. I was in London
the night of the most devastating Nazi
raid on that city. It was a Saturday
night. The next Monday, at work in the
Air Ministry, I was amazed to find every-
one apparently happy, whistling in' the
corridors. ,
I asked, "How can this be?" because
most of the mess of Saturday night that
had been cleaned up, although it had
been widespread early Sunday morning.
The reply was the experts had calcu-
lated that more than 5 percent of the
bombers that came over London had
been destroyed; and they had extrap-
olated that if the British had destroyed
more than 5 percent, the Germans would
not be able to afford that kind of attri-
tion by future raids. This was proved by
the fact this raid was the last organized
air raid on England. There were one or
two plane sorties; but it was estimated
that on that evening some 300 bombers
had been over London. It was the last
organized raid on England until the V-1's
and V-2 rockets came along some time
later. '?
On the other hand, as the Senator
from Arkansas realizes, when we have
weapons like Polaris submarines, in
which every one of the 16 weapons in
that submarine has many times the
power of the Hiroshima bomb. Even if
It had, been possible to get 95 percent of
the bombers on that evening, instead of
5 percent, had these modern nuclear
weapons been available, it would have
been absolutely certain?
Mr. FULBRIGHT. They would have
been out of business.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The enemy would
have been destroyed. London for sure.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. There is quite a
difference in the character of the
weapons.
Mr. SYMINGTON. The Senator's
point is well taken.
Perhaps my greatest concern has to do
with the effect of the treaty on the sur-
vivability of the U.S. deterrent force.
The treaty will prevent atmospheric tests
designed to test the vulnerability of our
missile sites and control centers.
? Present knowledge is based on extra-
polation of small tests. Under the treaty,
our further knowledge will have to be
based on underground tests, where only
some of the effects can be measured;
presumably tests of less than a megaton.
I would -much prefer that we learn
more, that we reduce the uncertainties
regarding our missile-site vulnerabilities.
But the evidence is that the Soviets know
no more than we do about such vulnera-
bilities. The evidence is that they have
not conducted any large-yield tests of
this kind.
This is a very important point. Upon
first receiving this information, I investi-
gated further, and am satisfied to make
this statement to the Senate.
While I regret, therefore, that the
United States did not, before now, find
the answer to more of the gnawing vul-
nerability questions, I am convinced that
the Soviets, limited as they are by the
terms of this treaty, will not be able to
change the elemental facts of the stra-
tegic nuclear power balance.
We should remember that the United
States has, and will continue to have,
enormous strategic nuclear power. This
treaty will not affect to an appreciable
extent our capability to destroy the So-
viet Union if a retaliatory strike is re-
quired. I say that because I am con-
vinced that under the terms of this
treaty we could detect promptly any sig-
nificant cheating. That was the aspect
I wanted to study most carefully. If my
conclusion in this regard had been dif-
ferent I would not support the treaty.
When the inquiry is broadened beyond
military concerns to include all relevant
factors?as it was before the Foreign
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8 :
16258 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
Relations Committee, and as it is here
before the Senate?the problem becomes
more complex, but the possible advan-
tages of the treaty become more clear.
The vital importance of this broaden-
ing into the field of international rela-
tions in this nuclear space age was clearly
recognized by the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
when they said:
It is the judgment of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff that, if adequate safeguards are estab-
lished, the risks inherent in this treaty can
be accepted in order to seek the important
gains which may be achieved through a
stabilization of international relations and
a move toward a peaceful environment in
which to seek resolution of our differences.
The four "safeguards" stipulated by
the Joint Chiefs were:
First. The conduct of comprehensive,
aggressive and continuing underground
nuclear test programs designed to add to
our knowledge and improve our weapons
in all areas of significance to our mili-
tary posture for the future.
Second. The maintenahce of modern
nuclear laboratory facilities and pro-
grams in theoretical and exploratory nu-
clear technology which will attract, re-
tain, and insure the continued applica-
tion of our human scientific resources to
these programs, on which continued
Progress in nuclear technology depends.
Third. The maintenance of the facil-
ities and resources necessary to institute
promptly nuclear tests in the atmos-
phere, should they be deemed essential
to our national security, or should the
treaty or any of its terms be abrogated
by the Soviet Union.
Fourth. The improvement of our ca-
pability, within feasible and practical
limits, to monitor the terms of the treaty,
to detect violations, and to maintain our
knowledge of Sino-Soviet nuclear activ-
ity, capabilities and achievements.
Madam President, the President, the
Secretary of State, and the Secretary of
Defense have all emphasized that these
four stipulations are accepted whole-
heartedly and will become part of the
policy and programs of the Government.
My own conclusion is quite similar to
that of the Chiefs. I was worried, as
were they, about the possibility that a
successful conclusion of the treaty might
cause the United States to relax its guard,
and therefore not be ready to respond
promptly to any violation or surprise
abrogation of the treaty by others. But
after studying the matter, I am satisfied
that the safeguards they suggested, and
which the executive branch has pledged
to implement promptly, will afford ade-
quate protection against that risk.
As we consider the treaty in its inter-
national relationships during this nu-
clear space age, we realize that:
It is important to slow down the pro-
liferation of nuclear weapon capabilities
in other nations. We know the world
will become an exceedingly risky place
for all human life if the present trend is
not stopped.
It is important to avoid destabilizing
shifts in military power. The United
States?as, unanimously agreed by the
witnesses we heard?now holds a com-
manding lead in nuclear weapons sys-
tems over its potential enemies, and it is
possible that unsettling challenges to this
lead can be avoided more easily under a
condition in which the nuclear race is
dampened all around.
It is important to stop polluting the
atmosphere with radioactive debris. Al-
though the amount of debris from rea-
sonable atmospheric testing programs
would not be great, fallout?resisted by,
and frightening to, the world?would
spread throughout the atmosphere.
It is important that the United States
lead, not follow, the world in the direc-
tion toward which the limited treaty
Points. As presented in my additional
views that are included with the report
of the Preparedness Investigating Sub-
committee:
I am worried about the treaty; but more
worried about the possibility of an all-out
nuclear exchange some day in the future?
particularly if there is a proliferation of nu-
clear weapons among more countries.
I said further that:
This treaty, a very small step, nevertheless
could be the first step toward bringing nu-
clear weapons under some form of satisfac-
tory control, which action should promote
the possibility of just peace under law.
In closing, Madam President, I do not
imply, in supporting the treaty, that the
struggle with the Soviet Union will stop
with ratification of the treaty, or even
that the struggle will change in any ma-
jor way. On the contrary, the cold war
will go on.
I believe the Senate of the United
States should advise and consent to rati-
fication of the treaty; but I also believe
that the Senate, together with the other
arms of the U.S. Government, should
gird for the contest in the new situation.
We must do our part, not only to insure
that the four safeguards listed by the
Joint Chiefs of Staff are effectively im-
plemented, but also to maintain the vigi-
lance and strength of the Nation while
the small first step which the treaty rep-
resents finds its way into the complex of
conditions from which the future will be
made.
Our children and their children would
not excuse us if we took this small step
blindly, under any delusion that it was
more than it really is. We must be ever
alert; otherwise, we could deliver them
and the free world into slavery.
Equally important, however, could our
children and our grandchildren forgive
us if we lacked the courage and wisdom,
at so little risk, to take this small step
toward the most desired of all goals?
With our eyes open, therefore, let us
give weight to the fact that this treaty
might point the way toward bringing nu-
clear weapons under some form of satis-
factory control, and thereby furnish
hope that a just and lasting peace will
move out of the shadows into more of
the light.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Missouri yield?
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Mc -
INTYRE in the chair). Does the Senator
from Missouri yield to the Senator from
Arkansas?
Mr. SYMINGTON. :[ am glad to yield
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I congratulate the
Senator from Missouri for his very fine
statement, which has come from one who
has served the Federal Government not
only as Secretary of the Air Force, but
September 17.
also in many other important capacities,
as well as in his present capacity as a.
Senator.
I believe his statement in support of
the treaty is most very reassuring, not
only to the Senate, but also to the coun-
try as a whole. He has rendered a most
valuable service by his excellent and clear
statement of his position and of the rea-
sons for it; and I thank him very much.
Mr. SYMINGTON. Mr. President,
I thank the distinguished Senator from
Arkansas. It is a great privilege to work
with him on the Committee on Foreign
Relations of which he is chairman.
It is true that the treaty does affect
very specifically the military problems
incident to the security of the United
States. It also affects economic prolblems
and the international problems incident
to all our various relationships with other
countries.
As I have mentioned before, only a
few years ago a trip around the world
took many months; later, many weeks.
Today, however, due to the telescoping
of space and time?many men and one
woman have gone around the world
many times in a single day. In a world
of that character, it is important for us to
realize that, regardless of our Military
position?and the basis of all our state-
ments is the fact that the United States
must remain stronger militarily than any
other country?even in a cold war, as
well as in peace, military policy should
be an arm of our 6Verall foreign policy.
Mr. THURMOND subsequently said:
Mr. President, when I addressed the Sen-
ate, I went beyond the lunch hour, and
while I was at lunch the distinguished
Senator from Missouri [Mr. SYMINGTON]
made an address on the nuclear test ban
treaty. I have prepared a number of
questions I intended to ask the distin-
guished Senator from Missouri, but
which I did not have the opportunity to
ask.
I ask unanimous consent that these
questions may be placed in the RECORD
at this point, together with the "Meet the
Press" program of April 28, 1963, when
the Senator from Missouri was the guest.
At a later date, before the treaty de-
bate has been concluded, I would like
to have the opportunity to debate these
questions with the distinguished Senator
from Missouri.
There being no objection, the material
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
QUESTIONS FOR SENATOR SYMINGTON
1. The Senator is in a unique position,
since he is a member of both the Foreign
Relations Committee and the Preparedness
Subcommittee, and signed the reports of
both committees. I believe the Senator from
Missouri has attested that the factual data
in the Preparedness Subcommittee's report
is accurate. Is that correct?
2. Does the Senator subscribe to the opin-
ion of the Foreign Relations Committee,
stated in its report, that, and I quote: "But
exclusive, or excessive, reliance on military
considerations could undermine national se-
curity by encouraging comparable military
efforts by others, thereby strengthening the
destabilizing forces adrift in the world, pos-
sibly creating new ones."
3. I notice that the Senator states that
"unless there can be some understanding
among the growing number of nations that
will have the weapon, a nuclear holocaust is
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17 :,CIA-ROP65B00383R0001002000
-
196S CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
16259
only a question of time." Does the Senator have a distinct lead Over the United States nomena varies substantially according to the
' mean to Miply that armaments, rather than in this area, and that we do not now have time when the nuclear explosion takes
human weaknessas, cause wars? . the necessary information from which to as- place?
4. The United_States baa Maintained a sess the military potential of the 100-megaton 21. Is it not true that the United States
level of arnaaments over regent years un- bomb when used against us? has generally tested for weapons effects in
equaled in all history. Would the Senator 13. Would the Senator not agree, that re- the atmosphere only at periods when such
not agree that these armaments have been gardless of whether the United States would effects were at a minimum, while the Soviets
the very factor that has prevented nuclear decide, after acquisition of sufficient infor- have tested for the maximum of such effects?
war? 'nation on which to make a realistic evalua- 22. Is it not also true that the Soviet
5. Would the Senator not agree that the tion, to build a 100-megaton bomb for its tests of very high yield weapons over the
only way in which one can be sure of pre- own arsenal or not, that it is a major fits- Soviet Union demonstrated a very long range
venting nuclear war, so long as the COM- advantage for the enemy to have a major effectiveness of some electromagnetic pile-
amnia& maintain their goal of world domi- weapon of which he knows the military po- nomena against communications circuits?
nation, is to keep an overwhelming superi- tential, and for the United States to know 23. Is it not true that although the time
ority in strategic military power? the existence of the weapon, but to be pur- of explosion of the nuclear warhead sub-
6. The Senator, from Misouri has cor- chided. fromascertaining with some degree stantially affects the level of electromagnetic
rectly pointed out that the military disad- of certainty its military potential? phenomena, even in the same medium where
vantages of the treaty to the Soviet Union 14. The Senator is quite pessimistic about the warhead is detonated, that we have at-
must also be considered, along with the the ability of either the United States or the tempted to test the effects of this phenomena
military disadvantages to the United states. Soviet Union to develop an effective ABM only underground, not even in the medium
Would not the Senator from Missouri agree system. According to the information we Where the weapon would presumably be
that in assessing the relative military dis- now have, the Soviets have deployed an ABM detonated, with a very small yield explosion
, advantages of the treaty, that the starting system in one location to which we attribute and attempted to extrapolate the results?
point, in terms Of technology, of both the significant effectiveness in defending against 24. Would the Senator not agree that the
United States and he Soviet Union, is largely IRBM's, including the Polaris, which inci- Soviets have demonstrated a capability for
determinative of the degree of disadvantage dentally are not missiles which can be producing the maximum level and residual-
from prohibition of testing in a particular salvoed, but we attribute very little effective- ity of exotic radiation effects with a very
environment? ness to this system against ICBM's. In view high yield warhead, and that, if their tests
7. The Senator has pointed out that the of the fat that it is possible that the vul- were properly instrumented, they had the
Soviets will be unable to test for blackout nerabilities of our missiles in silos could opportunity to learn much about the effects
phenomena after the treaty goes into effect, possibly be exploited by some weapons of these phenomena?
just as will the United States. Isn't it a, effects of which we are not now fully knowl- 25. Would the Senator not agree that in
fact, however, that the Soviets specifically edgeable, to say the least, would the Senator these exotic radiation effects of nuclear ex-
tested for blackout phenomena, and par- net agree that under some circumstances plosions could possibly and even probably
ticularly as it applies to ABM systems, in the the present Soviet technological capabilities lie vulnerabilities to our missile sites and
1961-62 test series, but that the United in the ABM field are of large significance? the communications and control circuits, as
States has made no comparable test? 15. As the Senator correctly stated, the well to our early warning systems?
8. Another factor which bears heavily on Soviets could not, if they abide by the treaty, 26. Would not the Senator agree, as is
the relative military disadvantages of the obtain any more information from ABM stated in the Preparedness Subcommittee's
treaty, as I am sure the Benet= will agree, testing than could the United States while report, that the Soviets now enjoy a lead in
LS the different strategies of the United States the treaty was in effect. Is it not true, how- knowledge of high yield weapons effects?
and the Soviets, Since the United States ever, that the Soviets have already performed 27. Would not the Senator agree that the
must rely on second strike capabilities, it tests dictated by ABM considerations ape- knowledge of weapons effects, particularly
must test to determine every possible vul- cifloally on the blackout problem, to which the exotic radiation effects, and knowledge
nerability in its weapons systems, for to leave the United States has made nothing of the vulnerabilities of our missile silos and
one that is unknown could spell disaster in comparable? communications and control circuits are so
the event ,,of any enemy first strike. Since 16. The Senator stated that "Specifically, closely related that they are for all practical
the Soviets rely on the strategy of a first, or apprehensions in the ABM field were not purposes inseparable?
preemptive strike, they do not have to test borne out, at least to me, in the highly elassl- 28. The Senator from Missouri has quoted
for the purpose of insuring the invulnerabiI- fled intelligence briefings we received." Is it the concluding paragraph of the presenta-
ity of their own weapons systems, but can not true that the briefings to which the Sen- tion of Gen. Maxwell Taylor for the Joint
concentrate on ferreting out one or two vul- at,or refers included a specific description of Chiefs of Staff which states:
nerabilities of our weapons systems and the Soviets ABM tests, to which we have per- "It is the judgment of the Joint Chiefs
proper weapons design to exploit our weap- formed nothing comparable? of Staff that, if adequate safeguards are
one systems vulnerabilities that they have 17. Is it not true that the highly complex established, the risks inherent in this treaty
found Does this factor not require, in ABM tests performed by the Soviets could can be accepted in order to seek the impor-
effect, far more comprehensive nuclear test- have, and probably did ?Rrovide valuable in- tant gains which may be achieved through
ing for weapons effects and proof tests by the formation on the ability of an ABM system to a stabilization in international relations and
United States to maintain its second strike operate in a nuclear environment, including a move toward a peaceful environment in
force than is necessary for the Soviets to radar and communications blackout, and which to seek resolution of our differences."
advance their first strike force? that we do not know the precise results,- or Does the Senator believe, as is implied by
9. The Senator states that he Joint Chiefs the thrust of the knowledge that the Soviets the statement he quoted, that the treaty will
of Staff havaseen no need for a 100-megaton gained thereby? lead to a "stabilization of international rela-
bonlb. Is the Senator not aware that the - 18. Will the Senator from Missouri. tell us tions"?
Joint Chiefs of Staff have, in fact, recom- whether the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when their 29. Does the Senator believe, as this same
Mended that we go ahead with the develop- made their assessment of the treaty, had all quotation implies, that the treaty is a move
ment of the big bomb?
.... of the details of the Soviet ABM tests in their toward a "peaceful environment"?
10. Isn't it also 9,a.ot that General Lelgay possession, or whether certain significant 30. Does the Senator believe that this
recommended the development of a big bomb facts about the tests had never been die- treaty will cause the Berlin wall to be torn
as early as 1954, but that he was refused? closed to them? down, so that this unstabilizing factor on
11. Isn't it a fact, that one Of the reasons 19. In discussing the question of vulnera- international relations will disappear?
that the recommendation of the military for bilities of our missile sites, the Senator 31. Does the Senator believe that this
development of a big bomb has never been points out that the Soviets will not be able treaty will improve the situation in Vietnam
approved lies in the fact that the defense to make teats to determine vulnerabilities caused by Communist aggression',
policy of the Nation is based on a shift in any more than will the United States under 32. Does the Senator believe that this
reliance from manned aircraft, which could the treaty. Once again, we resist go back treaty will eliminate the Communist regime
deliver a very high yield weapon, to ballistic and examine the point from which each side in Cuba, or reduce the all-out efforts of the
Missiles, in which we do not now have aLat
in America?
starts if we are to reach an objective Communists to subvert
capability of delivering the necessary weight evaluation. The U.S. reliance on a second 33. In what way, if any, will this treaty
to achieve the very high yield? lead to the stabilization of international re-
strike strategy, together with the Soviet re-
12. The Preparedness Subcommittee report,
fiance on a first strike strategy, makes it lations and a peaceful environment?
in,11118/1 Me Senator from Missouri attests incumbent on the United States to have a 34. Would not the Senator agree that the
4 to, _hq.,,ftcpuracy of the facts reports as a broader spectrum of knowledge on the principal power from whose acquisition of
fact that, and I quote: "The United States vulnerabilities of missile sites than the So- nuclear weapons the greatest danger of nu-
Will be unable to acquire necessary data on vista. Is it not a fact that the ,Soviets have clear war arises is Communist China?
the effects of very high yield atmospheric demonstrated in their tests that they know 35. This treaty will not prevent the de-
explosions. Without such knowledge it is more about exotic radiation effects than does velopment of nuclear weapons by Red China,
Unlikely that a realistic assessment can be the United States? will it?
Made of thennlitary value of such wea.pons." 20. Is it not true that the magnitude and 36. Is it the understanding of the Senator
Would the SenatOr, lipt agree that the Soviets residuality of some eleiproin netio pie- !rpm MissOlirl 499, O IVOIMOIly of official
Approved For Release 2006/10/17 Cl4-RDP65-1300883R00010020 02-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16260 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 17 ,
witnesses that the United States will with-
draw from the treaty if Red China tests
nuclear weapons in one of the three environ-
ments in which testing is banned by the
treaty, although Red China will not be a
party to the treaty?
MEET THE PRESS?ANLERICA'S PRESS CONFER-
ENCE OF THE AIR, SUNDAY, APRII, 28, 1963
Produced by Lawrence E. Spivak.
Guest, Senator STUART SYMINGTON, Demo-
crat of Missouri.
Panel: Marquis Childs, St. Louis Post Dis-
patch; Peter Lisagor, Chicago Daily News;
Robert McCormick, NBC News; and Warren
Rogers, Hearst Newspapers.
Moderator: Lawrence E. Spivak.
Mr. SPIVAX. This is Lawrence Spivak, in-
viting you to Meet the Press. Our guest
on Meet the Press is Senator SMART SYM-
INGTON, Democrat of Missouri. He is the
only Senator who is a member of the two
committees directly Involved in the cold
war: Foreign Relations and Armed Services.
Be is also a member of the Senate Space
Committee. Senator SYMINGTON was the
first Secretary of the Air Force. He was a
candidate for the Presidential nomination
In 1960.
We will start the questions with Mx.
Marquis Childs.
Mx. Csrn es. Senator, as you know when
Averell Harriman met with IChrushchev,
shortly after the meeting, Khrushchev issued
a statement saying that he believed in an
independent and neutral Laos, but he ap-
parently gave no assurances at all that he
-would do anything to stop the Communist
takeover of that country.
What I want to ask you is whether you
don't feel the time has come for this country
to take some pretty active steps to check that
takeover, including perhaps sending troops,
American troops into Laos?
Senator SYMINGTON. Mr. Childs, based on
my having been in that part of the world,
I'd be very skeptical about any military ac-
tion in Laos. I think it would be much
better if we are going to have military action
that we would consider what is necessary in
South. Vietnam. As you know most of this
trouble is coming from North Vietnam, from
Hanoi, specifically. We've got a good many
billion dollars now invested in the defense
of those three little countries that formed
part of Indo China. My own feeling would
be that we will have to face up sooner or
later to what we want to do with respect to
what is coming out of Hanoi.
Mr. CHILDS. We are already in South Viet-
nam. There are more than 12,000 American
troops there. Laos is at stake apparently.
Do you think the .war can be successfully
prosecuted in South Vietnam if Laos goes
entirely Communist?
Senator SYMINGTON. Let me put it to you
this way: I think we could be sticcessful in
South Vietnam militarily regardless of what
the Chinese Communists or the North Viet-
namese did. I would have my doubts about
what we could do in Laos if the Chinese
Communists and the North Vietnamese were
determined about Laos. It is a very difficult
country to have any military action in. As
you know, it has no seacoast; it has very
few roads. I was surprised to hear only this
week that Souvanna Phouma has been sym-
pathetic to and agreed to have his half
brother, Souphanouvong, let the Chinese
Communists build roads down from North
Vietnam into Laos because that of course
would help any aggression on the part of the
North Vietnamese and the Chinese Com-
munists.
Mr. Csimes. If I understand you properly,
Senator, you are then in effect prepared to
see that country go to the Communists?
Senator Sysenecrort. I wouldn't be pre-
pared to see it, but I think that the place
to stop It is in Hanoi and not in Laos, and
I think you would do it from Hanoi?or to
Hanoi from South Vietnam.
Mr. CHILDS. How do you mean, what would
we do about Hanoi, would we move in and
take over Hanoi?
Senator SviserricroN. I think that we ought
to notify the North Vietnamese that we are
tired of their infiltrating into South Viet-
nam from Cambodia, as well as from Laos
and that we are tired of their infiltrating into
South Vietnam itself. As you know, they
are doing that, even south of Saigon, and
that if they didn't cut It out, we would
destroy their marshaling yards in Hanoi.
I don't think we can continue to put
billions and billions of dollars into this part
of southeast Asia and at the same time con-
sistently be on the defensive politically as
well as militarily. I don't think it will work
out.
Mr. Cremes. What you are saying then is,
we would bomb Hanoi?
Senator SYMINGTON. We would either
bomb it or we would go into Hanoi. I think
that is the only way that you are ever going
to satisfy the situation in what was formerly
Indo China. Either that or get out.
Mr. Camns. This would mean a much
larger number of American troops out there,
would it not?
Senator SYMINGTON. Oh, not necessarily,
if you did it from South Vietnam, because
you have 600 miles of coastline with respect
to South Vietnam, so you would utilize your
naval forces in a way that would be totally
Impossible in Laos.
Mr. Cnims. Senator, you have been talk-
ing about what we should do in Laos and
South Vietnam. These are roughly 8,000 or
9,000 miles away. What do you thing about
Cuba, which is 90 miles away? Are there
moves we can make there? Obviously, we
are not?at least as far as anyone knows;
you may know by your position on the com-
mittees?making any very positive moves to
remove that Communist dictatorship from
Havana.
Senator SYMINGTON. Of course 'Cuba is 90
miles away and is therefore a much serious
matter. I don't at this time see anything
more than we are doing that we could do.
Everybody talks about Cuba. It is a little
bit like Mark Twain and the weather. No-
body seems to have come up with anything
practical in the way of a suggestion as to
what to do. All of the prominent critics
that I know say we should not invade, which
I agree with.
On the other hand, I would hope we could
do our best to interest the Organization of
American States, and that we would be sym-
pathetic to any Cuban movement with re-
spect to eliminating the Castro regime, be-
cause I am one who does not think that as
of today Cuba is a military menace in any
serious form to this country, but I do think,
Mr. Childs, that it is going to be used as a
place to develop a great deal of subversion
all through Central and South America.
As a matter of fact we know that it is
going on now.
Mr. LISAGOR. Senator, to get back to Laos
for :ust one moment, the suggestion has
been made that perhaps we could agree to
a partition of that country since the pro-
Communist Pathet Lao holds the nothern
part of it Ave and the part the free world
is interested in is the southern part, the
Mekong River part, whereas you know the
rightists have about 60,000 troops and it
wouldn't be too hard for the West to help
them there.
What do you think about the proposition
of partitioning it as Vietnam is now parti-
tioned?
Senator Sihenverost. I don't think it would
last, Mr. Lisagor. I don't think that the peo-
ple of Peiping or the people of North Vietnam
are interested in any agreements with respect
to that country. We have noticed over the
years that the totalitarians from the Kaiser
In the First World War and Hitler In the
Second are not interested in agreements if
It bothers them in their desires for conquest
and I believe the Communists are determined
to pick up Laos as soon as they can. When
I was out there a year ago last fall, with Gen.
Maxwell Taylor and Secretary ,Walt Ros-
tow, my feelings were Just what they are
today, and I think that it is fair to say that
they would agree that I prophesied what has
happened would happen at that time, which
is about 16 months ago.
Mr. LISAGOR. But a line has been drawn,
Senator, in South Vietnam and in Korea.
Both are partitioned. You don't believe it
will work at all in Laos because they want
to take Laos? Is that your Judgment?
Senator SYMINGTON. It is not working out
In South Vietnam, and as you know the Com-
munists are consistently violating the line
that has been drawn in Korea, and I think
it would be much harder to defend any line
that was drawn in Laos based on the terrain
and the nature of the people and so forth
than it would be in either South Vietnam
where again we are in a much better position
from the standpoint of our own forces, or
than it would be in Korea.
Mr. LISAGOR.. Senator, as we all know Fidel
Castro is in Moscow now and they are giving
him quite a reception. You would think that
he was a prodigal son returning home. I
wonder if you believe the reason the Soviets
are going all out for him is that they are try-
ing to rub our noses into it because they have
established a base in this hemisphere, and he
is the symbol of that base?
Senator Symmorme. That might be part of
it. It looked last?when Mikoyan was there?
as if Castro was upset about the fact they
took out their offensive missiles, but I would
say they are doing everything they could to
solidfy Cuba as a Communist base a few
miles off the American coast. I think that
is a wise remark you have made, and I be-
lieve they want to show the world that they
are right behind Castro all the way.
Mr. LISAGOR. Does this suggest to you,
Senator, as the President and other admin-
istration officials have indicated, that the
Soviets plan to get any of their troops out of
there any time soon?
Senator SYMINGTON. I think they have
taken some out. As to whether they have
taken their combat troops out or not, as you
know is an open question, but I think they
have still got a great many there and ap-
parently they intend to keep them there
unless we decide to do something a'bout it,
and then they have got another decision to
make.
Mr. Rooms. Senator, I would like to ques-
tion you about strategy, but first I would
like to follow up your comments. about
bombing, attacking, or invading Hanoi.
What do you suppose would be the reaction
on the Red Chinese side if we did something
like that?
Senator SYMINGTON. The Red Chinese
might be upset about it. They might. take
planes off from Hainan, which is the island
which they control fairly close to the north-
ern part of what was Indochina, but I must
say I don't think they want to tangle with
-the United States at this time in the air
or any other way. They are already tangling
on the ground, you might say, through the
North Vietnamese. My only point in bring-
ing that up is, that we put billions and bil-
lions of dollars Into these three little coun-
tries, just like we put billions and billions
of dollars into India and billions and billions
of dollars into Pakistan, and I just don't
think we can continue to put billions and
billions of dollars all over the world, shoring
up our defenses. I think at some time we
have to show that we are willing to take a
risk in order to avoid the type and character
of disintegration that is now going on in
Laos.
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For PeleaSe 2006/10117 : CIA4RDP 5 038.3R0
1963CONGRESSIONAL RECORD? SENAtt '16261
.c . .. . ,. _ .
mr. ROGER'S. Then I take it -you are not Male and destroys a hardened base, from a - Mean by that that you think it is a mistake
afraid of any escalation of a war in that area perimeter standpoint, I think that is rather to phase out manned air power, as Mr. Mc-
into a conventional World war type of thing optimistic, frankly, and I wish we would put Namara evidently is planning to do and that
ls nuclear? more attention into conventional weapons we ought not to put quite so much money
and more attention into positive control into missiles? Is that what you were say-
through the control of men as against instxu- ing, Senator?
ments. Senator SYMINGTON. Oh, yes, I do feel that
Mr. ROGERS. Do you think 16 divisions is way, I think that the degree of emphasis
enough for the Army if it is to fulfill its that we put on the Polaris weapon, which is
conventional role? a geaocide weapon and not a part of the
Senator SYMINGTON. I think if we are go- theory of counter force, and building up the
ing to have 16 divisions, it is wise to have 16 Minuteman which, despite what people say,
good divisions, but I want to be honest with based on my analogy of going across to the
you, Mr. Rogers, I don't think that the people Urals and hitting a hardened site, in my
in Moscow or Peiping care too much whether opinion, is also a weapon of that character.
we have 14 divisions or 16 divisions or 18 In fact, we have no airplanes?for the first
divisions, time in our history we have no weapons sys-
Mr. McCoraarcx. Senator, I believe the full tems in development at all that have to do
Armed Services Committee has recently with men, until you get to a program which
studied the whole test ban question again, also apparently may be in trouble, the Dyne-
Khrushchev, of course, as we all know, has Soar, and I don't think that is right. I
offered two or three on-site inspections a think we Might to maintain a positive con-
year, and we have cut our demands down to trol of weaponry and not be in a position of
seven a year. If it Is not classified, is there all or nothing. And actually?I believe Mr.
any indication that we would accept even Rogers mentioned the budget?if you are
fewer than seven a yeas? going to a theory of overkill and abandoning
Senator SYMINGTON. It was classified, but the theory of counter force, then I think you
I think all this information should be given could save a great deal of money in the
the American people, and therefore it has budget as it is today.
been declassified. Dr. Brown, who is the Mr. CHILDS. Senator, I would like '
head engineer and scientist in the Pentagon ify two points. First, about Laos.
building, has stated that he thinks six would derstand you correctly you said yvaa
be satisfactory. That is one less, and that dieted a year ago what has been happaina
has been declassified, now, is that correct?
In addition to that, as you probably know, Senator SvianmaoN. That is right.
not only have all the Chiefs of Staff of the Mr. CHILDS. Therefore you must feel that
services, but also all the service secretaries it was a great mistake for the Kennedy Ad-
have said before the Armed Services Corn- ministration to try to reach an accord on a
mittee in recent weeks that they felt that neutral Laos?
testing in the atmosphere was essential to Senator SYMINGTON. No, I never think it
the security of the United States, is a mistake to do your best to work out an
Mr. MCCORMICK. Is testing in the atmos- arrangement where everybody signs some
phere essential to the development of an paper and then comes home and says "Peace
anti-missile missile? in our time," but I have just never been one
Senator SYMINGTON. We haven't gotten who believes, based on the activities of the
Into the testing field in the Armed Services Communists in places like Korea and based
Committee the way we are going to, because on this terrific misrepresentation that they
the Senate Military Preparedness Subcom- gave President Kennedy with respect to of-
mittee under the chairmanship of Senator fenslve missiles in Cuba, that .it was going
STENNIS is about ready to undergo extensive to work. I am all for negotiation at any
hearings in this field. But the military time, any place, on any subject, but I don't
people and the service Secretaries believe think that you are going to lick this prob-
that it is essential to have atmospheric test- lem by signing treaties with these people be-
hind the Russians at this time in that field? ing in order to develop adequate defense cause it has been my experience, and based
Senator SYMINGTON. I am not confident of from the standpoint of anti-intercontinental on history, that they never keep a treaty if
that at all, no. And I don't think anybody ballistic missiles. they don't think it is to their interests.
Can Say with certainty what their position is Mr. McCoanarax. That brings up another Mr. LISAGOR. Governor Rockefeller of New
a as against ours.
. _ question then: Do you think Congress would York, and former Vice President Nixon and
a,
, For example, as you know, they've got some go along with ratifying our current test ban other critics of the administration's policy
very fine airplanes flying. They probably offer, to say nothing of reducing the number toward Europe have suggested that we ought
have the finest supersonic bomber in the of on-site inspections? to help the Europeans directly to build their
World flying today. And yet you have heard Senator Synanmaoar. It is head to say what own nuclear force, sell them the warheads
a lot of talk in the past about their leap- the Congress would or wouldn't do. My per- and the know-how and the weapons that
? frogging the supersonic bomber to get into sonal opinion at this time is that it would they need. What do you think of that argu-
Missiles. I have to confidence in any par- not, because there are a good many very meat?
denier poSition, because in a closed society fine scientists who believe that the Russians Senator SYMINGTON. Of course if you did
it is very, 'very difficult to know what they are well ahead of us now in three important
. that, Mr. Lisagor, you would have to chance
have. - - fields?certainly two of three. They feel?
. the McMahon Act. You could not do it un-
Mr. ROGERS. DO you think that our defense we know they are ahead of us in yield and der the present law? .
budget is in line with our Strategy? What therefore in all probability in yield to weight.
I am thinking of is, are we spending too much They have done some very sophisticated test- Mr. LISAGOR. That was going to be my next
an Missiles and not enough on conaentipnal ing in the atmosphere in 1961 and 1962 to question.
Warfare. For instance, are 16 divisions the point where these scientists believe that - Senator SYMINGTON. Yes. Actually we have
eriongh? - - they are ahead of us in the anti-intercon- helped the British. We have been in sort of
. ...,
Senator SYMINGTON. I think that is a very tinental ballistic missile field. And they may a partnership with the British for a good
- . .. , .
good question. My criticism, if I have any, well be ahead of us in the penetration de- many years in the nuclear field, and I am
Of the present operation is that we are put- velopment as a result of the extensive work somewhat disturbed and distressed at the
ting too Much attention or giving too much that we know that they have done on nose volubility, you might say, of Mr. Harold Wil-
, attention to computers. The greatest corn- cones. They broke their word to us after son's desire to give up any nuclear position,
puter in the world is the mind of a man, and the 34-month moratorium by starting out because we have today as head of the Joint
it seems to me that the new people are con- a series of tests which they must have been Chiefs of Staff, Chairman of Joint Chiefs, a
' ataritly degenerading the position of men preparing for many, many months before very fine and able soldier and citizen, but he
?art-Oitilding up -the position of machinery. they actually did it in the fall of 1961. And wrote a book In which he said there were
Ita you have as much trouble finding out so the way things are going now, it looks two places we would certainly use nuclear
. What is of is not in Cuba, 90 miles away, then as if they are in pretty good shape from the weapons in case this country was attacked or
? the fat'- that we are now Moving toward a standpoint of their nuclear position as in case we were sure it was going to be at-
position Where a inan in Omaha, Nebr., will against ours. tacked. And then, he said there is a third
press' abiitton and something takes off from Mr. SPIVAK. Senator, a moment ago in possible case where we might use them and
Wyoming, gees across the Atlantic, goes answer to Mr. Rogers you said something that would be an allout attack against
aerossattirope, goes into Russia, behind the about computers. Do I understand you to Europe.
a'a ,' : ? aa aaa'. ,aaa-
SPDAtOi SYMINGTON. No, I wouldn't be
afraid of that at all.
M.T.13.0GERS. YOU ibi/lk we could do it and
get away with it?' '
Senator Symnsaroar. I certainly do, and I
furl not at all apprehensive about how the
Russians would feel about us doing it down
there as against how they would feel, for
exaMple, if we did it around Berlin.
Mr, Roaarts. Senator, on the question of
atrategY, a eauple of-years ago YOLI arid some
others were complaining about a missile
gap, and how the only thing we hear about
a Missile gap is that the Russians have one
and they have it bad. Secretary McNamara
says we Could absorb two strikes and have
enough to obliterate Soviet society.
What has happened to bring about this
remarkable change?
Senator SYMINGTON. First, let me make
this point with you: If we know and knew
and still know really as little about what
actually is in Cuba, then I will leave it to
you to decide how much we really know
about what actually is in Russia. Now that
is the first point. The next 'point is that
the same man, a fine man, the head of the
111 n A enc between Febru-
ary 1959 and August 1, reduced the
,estimate of the Central Intelligence Agency
as to how many missiles were on launching
pads in Russia by 96.5 percent. His own
figures in both cases.
I am not at all sure that he was right in
February 1959. I am not at all sure that he
was right in August 1961, and I am not at
all sure baSed on ma, experience as a member
of the Preparedness Subcommittee that is
Woking at the Cuban situation, that we know
what is in Russia today, The only thing
that I am sure Of, based on the many years
that I have spent in this field, is that the
one thing we know 'that the Soviet Commu-
Mats, the Chinese Communists and, to the
best of my knowledge, all other Communists
reSpect is strength on the part of those whom
they would like to conquer.
Mr. Roams. Are you confident now there is
no missile gap that we don't have any lag be-
Approved For Release 2006/1
17 : CIA-RDP65B ROO 1Q0200002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: C1A-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16262 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE September 17
Now under those circumstances I think it
is very clear why some people would want to
develop their own nuclear force. As to
whether we should help them, I would ques-
tion that, although I think that proliferation
especially with regard to other countries as
well as France, is only a matter of time.
Mr. LISAGOIC. What do you think about the
act, Senator? Is it possible at all to amend
that act today in any way?
Senator SirmrivcTox. Yea, it would be pos-
sible if it was in the interest of the United
States, but I think you would have to con-
vince the Senate and the Rouse that it would
be in the interest of the United States to do
it.
Mr. SPIVAK. Gentlemen, we have only 2
minutes.
Mr. ROGEns. Senator, before the editors re-
cently, Mr. McNamara said that the Peiatagon
was in chaos when he took over. When you
were Secretary of the Air Force, was the
Pentagon in chaos?
Senator SYMINGTON. It was, a chaotic con-
dition spending $13 billion, if it wasn't in
\ chaos, and now they are spending $52 bil-
lion. t must say this: I wouldn't want to
Neve the wrong impression about Affr. Mc-
mars and his work. I thins we need
ol very badly, especially because
,t of weaponry, I am glad that he is
/ think he is doing a good job in
?v.the decisions. I don't ?happen to
agree'tr.r- couple,, them, but that is the
way our system works. We set ,the law in
1958 where be has direction, authority, and
control, and in my opinion he is at least as
good a Secretary of Defense as we have ever
had.
Mr. MaCoaxocx. Senator, in connection
with the investigation of foreign lobbyists,
you have already caught one apparently, one
John O'Donnell. What comes next in that
investigation?
Senator Symnsferox. I think you would
have to ask Chairmaaa 17IILBRIGHT about that.
We have a lot of hearings in executive ses-
sion and some of it has been no more pleas-
ant than the O'Donnell episode.
Mr. SPIVAK. Senator why do the Chiefs of
Staff and the chiefs of service want to test
in the atmosphere at this time? I thought
we had given up all question, even, of test-
ing in the atmosphere. Can you tell us?
Senator SYMINGTON. I think in the short
period of time you say we have left the best
way to answer that is we believe in some
fields the Russians are already ahead be-
cause they are testing in the atmosphere,
and we think we might lose our country
if they get well ahead of us in this field.
Mr. SPIVAK. Senator, can you tell us, is
that the anti-missile-rnissile field?
Senator SYMINGTON. That is one of the
three I mentioned.
Mr. SPIVAK, Mr. Childs, a very short one.
Mr. Cantos. What about this crash pro-
gram to the moon, $20 or $30 billion, do you
think we should go forward with that?
Senator SYMINGTON. That is a difficult
question, I think we might go forward a
little more slowly, but I do feel again that
those who control space in the years to come
wiU control the world, just as those who
control the air today control the world.
Mr. SPIVAK. I am sorry to interrupt, gentle-
men, but our time is up. Thank you, Sen-
ator Symington, for being with us.
CANADIAN WHEAT AGREEMENT
WITH THE SOVIET UNION
As in legislative session,
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, news headlines this morning
state "Russia Signs Agreement To BUY
Canada Grain Worth Half Billion." This
will bring total Canadian grain sales to
Russia and other Communist countries
to more than $1 billion, most of it sales
of wheat and wheat flour. This comes at
a time when the United States has on
hand more than $4 billion worth of
wheat?over half of which is in the hands
Of the Federal Government.
These huge sales of farm commodities
by our allies, together with huge sales of
industrial goods, completely Minify our
own program of withholding or restrict-
ing sales to Communist countries. This
development makes our whole foreign
policy look rather silly. It indicates an
almost complete breakdown of coopera-
tion between the United States and our
allies for our major objectives through-
out the world.
The time to take a new look at our
foreign policy is long overdue. Certainly
It would not be too difficult to figure out
One that would be a bit more effective
and realistic.
The economic position of the United
States, as it relates particularly to the
balance of payments with the rest of the
world and our gold supplies, has been
deteriorating year by year. During the
last quarter, we lost more gold than dur-
ing any other quarterly period in our
history. If our present policy con-
tinues?that of vast foreign-aid gifts
and other expenditures throughout the
world, and with our huge military instal-
lations, with their costly drain on U.S.
dollars, coupled with our present foreign-
trade policy?we may find ourselves in a
most serious economic situation.
These huge wheat sales by Canada
will tax their railroads and other trans-
portation facilities to the limit. It will
mean their flour milling industry will
have to operate at full papacity for the
next 12 months to meet their orders.
Agriculture and associated industries
will be booming in Canada while here in
the United States we will continue to
spend billions on reducing food produc-
tion, land retirement programs and the
like.
While Canadian farmers will be urged
to produce more to meet their foreign
commitments, farmers in the United
States will be asked to retire more land
from production. It is being urged that
some of this fertile land be used to pro-
vide golf courses, ski jumps, and other
recreational facilities of all kinds. The
great contrast between the situation in
Canada and the United States will be
difficult, if not impossible, for the aver-
age American to understand and par-
ticularly farmers.
By our foreign sales policies?which
apparently none of our allies are coop-
erating on?we are withholding our
greatest weapon to gain friends through-
out the world, that of making our huge
food surpluses available to starving peo-
ple.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. The Senator from North
Dakota has given the Congress and the
country something to think about.
About a year ago, when Canada an-
nounced a plan to sell wheat to Red
China. I expected to be deluged with pro-
tests from this side of the border. Up to
this time I have not received a single
protest against Canada selling wheat to
Red China. Now Canada is disposing of
nearly two-thirds of her entire crop of
wheat this year to Red China and to
Russia. We shall probably receive some
complaints that Russia is reselling some
of the wheat to Cuba.
First, I think we must stop and con-
sider whether a strong solvent Canada?
and Canada will have a favorable bal-
ance of trade because of the sale of the
wheat?contributes more to our hemis-
pheric defense than a bankrupt Canada
would do.
As to the sale of wheat to other coun-
tries--particularly Russia's sale to
Coba?first, I should like to say that I do
not recall any instance in history in
which any people have been starved into
democracy. They have been starved into
totalitarianism, but not into democracy.
I am not sure we are in a position to
criticize Canada's sale to Russia and
Russia's sale to Cuba, because we have
a substantial export business in wheat.
Last year we exported about 700 million
bushels. The quantity will be about the
same this year. We will pick up the
driblets, the smaller orders that Canada
will be unable to fill. We sell largely to
Western Europe. For some time Western
Europe has been milling that wheat and
selling it to Russia or any other coun-
try?including East Germany and prob-
ably Cuba?that is able to pay for it.
We might be in the position of the pot
that called the kettle black, with the
exception that Canada gets the money
for her wheat because Russia can pay in
gold, if necessary, whereas we sell It to
Western Europe at reduced prices and
Western Europe gets the cream, We
should take another very close look at
the situation which the Senator from
North Dakota has pointed out and de-
cide whether we are as smart with our
foreign trade as we have thought we
were.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. First,
I thank my friend the Senator from
Vermont. I now yield to the Senator
from Arkansas.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. My State is not a
wheat-producing State. I do not fol-
low wheat as I do the fortunes of cotton
and soybeans. But I was very glad that
a Senator from one of the great wheat-
producing States pointed out the prob-
lem. Perhaps the question is premature,
but for my personal information, I should
like to ask the Senator a question. I
have been very curious about not only
the attitude of the experts, but also the
attitude of the representatives of the
wheat-growing areas. I wonder if the
Senator feels that perhaps we should ne-
gotiate with the Russians for the sale
of wheat.
When I read the newspaper report, the
thought naturally came to my mind that
the order is a very large one. We are in
such desperate straits in reference to
our balance of payments that I thought
that if there were no real good reason
not to do so, it would be a great boon
to our economy if we could sell some of
our wheat to them. I understand that
we now have approximately 30 million
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
1963 CONGIIESSIONAL_RXCQZA 7SNATE
tons of wheat in storage. Is that approx-
imately correct?
Mr. ALIEN. Approximately.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. We
have a carryover of about 1,200 million
bushels as of July 1 and we will have a
crop of about 1,100 million bushels in
addition.
In answer to the Senator's question,
I believe it wetild be desirable if we
would not provide the Communists with
all the food and industrial goods they
seek. But if our allies are going to sell
to them, ft does not make sense for us
to sit back and bankrupt ourselves
through not selling.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That thought is
exactly what occurred to me. The Sena-
tor from Vermont [Mr. AIKEN] has al-
ready pointed out that the Russians
might come to us and seek to buy. We
turn them down. They then go to West
Germany and buy.
In Sunday's newspaper there was a
story about Rumania, I believe. Ru-
mania sought to buy some kind of textile
or synthetic fibers plant. We turned
them down. They went to Germany or
some other country and bought it. Now
, we read that they are going to Canada
for wheat, As the Senator from Ver-
mont has already stated, in effect we
have been giving away a great deal of
wheat under Public Law 480 while the
Canadians are selling it. It makes us
look a little silly to be doing that con-
I thank the Senators from the wheat
States who have brought the problem
to our attention. I would certainly be
ready to support them in their efforts
from what_ little I know about the sit-
uation.
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Our wheat undoubted-
ly has been going to the same places to
which we object that the Canadian wheat
Is going, to a considerable extent, but
we have been letting the middlemen, in
the nature of one of the countries of
Western Europe, skim off a good sized
profit in the process.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I understand that
Poland has received wheat from us under
Public Law 480.
Mr. AIKEN. Yes, but I believe the
wheat that we have sent to Poland has
been used in Poland. I do not believe it
has been resold.
.Mr. ruu3Rioar. I presume that it
was used there.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. There
may be some indirect benefits to the
United States. Probably we can take
over some of the wheat markets that
Canada would otherwise have supplied.
But those will be largely foreign cur-
rency markets. Canada has the dollar
markets.
Mr. MeGOVERN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. YOT.TNG of North Dakota. I yield.
Mr. McGOVERN. I endorse whole-
heartedly what the Senator from North
Dakota has said this afternoon as well
as the COrainents, in a similar vein, that
? wefe made by the assistant majority
leader, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr.
HUMPHREY] last evening. From every
standpoint it is in our interest?and it
makes good sense?to reconsider our pol-
icy with reference to the sales of wheat
and other agricultural commodities to
the Soviet Union. Certainly it is in our
economic interest to consider that pos-
sibility.
As the Senator has pointed out, sales
of wheat will be made in any event by
our allies. We are the greatest wheat-
producing country on the face of the
earth. We desperately need to broaden
our markets, and this is an opportunity
to do so. It is in our political interest?
in the interest of the ideological strug-
gle that we are carrying on in the
world?because it is an ideal opportu-
nity for us to demonstrate the superior-
ity of our economic system.
The one great failure in the Commu-
nist world that stands out above every-
thing else is their failure in the field of
agriculture. There is not a single Com-
munist state anywhere in the world that
has solved the problem of food produc-
tion. This is a perfect opportunity for
us to demonstrate to people all over the
world that we not only have the capacity
to produce more food than we can con-
sume at home, but also that we are will-
ing to follow an enlightened policy to
make use of it.
Finally, it is certainly in our moral in-
terest to take the action proposed. The
Bible tells us that if our enemies hunger
to feed them. It does not say that we
cannot take money when they are able
to pay for it.
Here is a country?it may be an en-
emy, a rival?that is not only in need of
food but is also willing to pay hard cash
for the things we have to produce. Dur-
ing the 18 months time that I had the
privilege of directing the food for peace
program there was no single subject up-
on which we had the volume of mail
that we reecived on the question of
whether we ought to make surplus food
available to people behind the Iron Cur-
tain.
That mail was overwhelmingly in sup-
port of exactly the course the Senator
is suggesting today. I wholeheartedly
endorse the statement he has made.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, I especially appreciate that
statement, coming from the Senator
from South Dakota. He has had more
experience than any other Senator in
dealing with the food program, as the
Administrator of the food for peace pro-
gram.
Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I can
only add one thought to the discussion
which has been taking place. The sale
of wheat was in part a sale to Cub
was done through the subterfuge of sell-
ing to the Soviet Union, for the Soviet
Union to turn the wheat over to Cuba.
It strikes me that when the policy of
our Government is to try to bring eco-
nomic pressure to bear upon Cuba, to
seek to help bring about a more demo-
cratic system and the removal of Rus-
sian weapons and troops from that be-
leaguered land, we have a right to ex-
pect greater cooperation from our allies
than we have had in many respects, and
specifically with respect to the sale of
16263
wheat to Cuba. It shocks me that our
friendly neighbor to the north should be
prepared to enter into a transaction of
this kind at this moment.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. RUSSELL obtained the floor.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Georgia yield to me,
briefly?
Mr. RCSSELL. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. MUNDT. I thank the Senator
from Georgia.
RISE IN IMPORTS OF BEEF AND
PRODUCTS
As in legislative session,
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, in recent
weeks we have been reading in the news-
papers about the sharp rise in imports
of beef and beef products in competition
with our own production. According to
available figures this has had a seriously
adverse effect on the prices which Ameri-
can producers receive in the market
place.
In a recent issue of "Washington
Farmletter," by Wayne Darrow, it was
pointed out that in 1962 the United
States took 79 percent of Australia's beef
and veal exports, and more than 90 per-
cent of New Zealand's boneless beef ex-
ports in the past 3 years. Wayne Dar-
row's letter points out that the
Department of Agriculture concludes
that the United States is the most liberal
major nation in the world in agricul-
tural trade, and is only mildly protec-
tionist. The United States exercises im-
port controls only on wheat, sugar,
peanuts, cotton, and dairy products. All
other products may come in unlimited
quantities subject only to health, sanita-
tion, and quarantine safety require-
ments, and to payment when specified
on fixed tariffs. This country is the
world's largest farm exporter and the
second largest farm importer?being ex-
ceeded by only the United Kingdom.
While I firmly believe that through
expanding our markets around the world
we can relieve our agriculture surplus,
I just as firmly believe that we should
not permit imports into this country
which depress prices of our own products
and depress the agriculture economy.
There is good reason to believe that
our entire farm program in America is
imported from abroad. I think it is time
that Government officials paid some at-
tention to this fact.
For many weeks now many organiza-
tions throughout the Nation have been
contacting me urging a halt to the im-
port of beef and beef products. I have
urged the Secretary of Agriculture, the
State Department, and other adminis-
tration officials to take necessary steps
to protect our great beef industry. To-
day.I received in my office a resolution
adopted by the South Dakota Beef Coun-
cil supporting the steps which I have
been advocating. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the letter be printed in the
RECORD at this point so that all those
in the administration dealing with this
beef import problem can share with me
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP651300383R000100200002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
16264 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE September 17
the thinking of the South Dakota mem- Mr. RUSSELL Mr. President, I do
bers of the beef council. not desire to get into an extraneous de-
There being no objection, the letter bate, but I remember that during the
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, New Deal many cattle Were brought to
as follows: the Sonth from the dry areas of the
SOUTH DAKOTA BEEF' COUNCIL, West to save the cattle. I was a Mem-
Brookings, S. flak., September 11, 1963. ber of Congress at that time.
Senator EARL MUNDT, Mr. MUNDT. Let me add, in de-
Washington, D.C. fense of the cattlemen, that when it was
DEAR SENATOR MUNDT: At a meeting of the proposed, in furtherance of the desire
South Dakota Beef Council in Mobridge, that the Federal Government should get
S. Dak., September 7, the following resolu-
tion was passed: ? into all areas of American life, that price
"Whereas beef imports have risen to a supports be placed on livestock, the
point where we are now eating approximately cattlemen from all over the country came
io percent imported beef; and to the Capitol and said, "We will be able
"Whereas the American beef market price to look after our own problems." They
has suffered a decrease of approximately 30 have done that very successfully. Ob-
percent in the past year: we, therefore, viously, however, they cannot compete
"Move the South Dakota Beef Council go
on record opposing the importation of beef with beef that is allowed to flow into
and have it returned to the 1957 level." this country from all over the world. I
We trust you will give this resolution your am glad the majority leader had added
attention and if you can ever do anything his voice of considerable influence in this
about lowering beef imports, our South Da-
kota Begf Council, representing beef produc-
ers and feeders, will appreciate it.
Sincerely yours,
JOHN L. LEMEL,
Secretary.
Mr. MUNDT. I deeply appreciate the
courtesy of my friend from Georgia in
yielding to me.
Mr. MANSVIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Georgia yield to me?
Mr. RUSSELL. I yield to the major-
ity leader.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Apropos of what
has been stated by the distinguished
senior Senator from South Dakota, I
wish to express my full accord with the
views stated. When I was at home
during the latter part of August and the
first part of September I covered the
eastern and central portions of Mon-
tana. One of the "beefs"?and I use
that word literally?which was brought
to my attention was the fact- that the
cattlemen in the area were feeling
heavily the importation of feeder cattle
from Canada into our area, as well as
the increased importation of frozen beef
from New Zealand.
I have addressed a letter to the Secre-
tary of Agriculture suggesting that this
matter be investigated. I have asked
for detailed facts and figures. I have
also advanced the suggestion that there
be a moratorium on the importation of
feeder cattle during the marketing
period, so that the price will not be
depressed for our cattle producers and
they will be given some stability. I do
this in part not only because of the need,
but because of the fact that, by and
large, the cattlemen have gotten by on
their own and have not always come to
the Government looking for assistance, in
the form of subsidies or other methods
of assistance, to keep them going.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I yield
for a brief statement.
Mr, GORE. I think the distinguished
Senator from Montana said the cattle-
men did not often come for aid: As a
matter of fact, they never have.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I was allowing a
little margin. There are many things
that I do not know, and I thought there
might have been some assistance I did
not know about.
matter.
Mr. Bernard Baruch, representing the
United States. Licensing and full in-
spection were fundamental elements of
this plan. It was advanced at a time
when the United States had a virtual, if
not a literal, monopoly in nuclear weap-
ons.
I supported this original proposal be-
cause I believed that it included adee,uate
safeguards. But it was rejected by the
Soviet Government. Consistently since
1946, I have favored any proposed agree-
ment to reduce the threat of a nuclear
war that contained similar protection.
I have followed as test I could the long
series of negotiations with the Soviet
Union looking to a nuclear agreement.
There have been times when hopes have
been high. But in every case, the Rus-
sians have, in the last analysis, refused
any agreement of any kind that con-
tained a practical, foolproof method of
detection of treaty violations.
I have a simple but realistic standard
of measurement of the good faith of
those who talk about limitation of arms,
whether nuclear or conventional. If
any party is in good faith and intends to
.observe the letter and spirit of the agree-
ment, it will accept methods of inspec-
tion that are certain to detect violations
by any party to the agreement.
Time and, again, I have declared my
opposition to any program of disarma-
ment, prohibiting testing' of nuclear de-
vices, or their use as weapons, whether
partial or complete, that did not provide
for onsite inspections, adequate in num-
ber and in scope. To me it seems to be
the height of folly to adopt any other
policy.
The Soviet has consistently refused
any serious method of inspection. The
treaty now before the Senate does not
provide for any inspection whatever. I
know it is urged that inspection is not
essential for the purposes of the treaty
because there is no limitation on under-
ground testing, and we are told inspec-
tion is more important to detect viola-
tion of agreements not to test under-
ground than to detect violations in space,
the atmosphere, or under water.
Our methods of detecting violations
in the environments contained in the
treaty are undoubtedly better than the
seismic instruments to detect under-
ground atomic explosions, but I am con-
vinced that it is important to make sure
that testing in any environment is pre-
cluded if we are to limit ourselves as pro-
posed in this treaty.
Our ability to determine whether any
nuclear detonations have occurred is
considerable. Indeed, to a person un-
schooled in the sciences, it approaches
the miraculous. But this ability is not
complete. There are dangerous gaps.
The hearings we had on the treaty show
that there are serious deficiencies in de-
tection capability, and one of the safe-
guards sought by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff as a condition precedent to their
acceptance of this treaty was necessary
improvements of our methods of detec-
tion.
If Russia desires in good faith to bring
nuclear testing in all environments un-
der control, she would permit examina-
tion within her territorial limits of sus-
THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY
The Senate resumed the consideration
of Executive M (88th Congress, 1st ses-
sion) , the treaty banning nuclear weapon
tests in the atmosphere, in outer space,
and underwater.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I
shall decline to yield for any other ex-
traneous matters until I have concluded
my remarks.
Mr. President, since the first draft of
the pending treaty was presented to the
appropriate committees of the Senate by
the Secretary of State, L have earnestly
studied all facets of the proposal and its
probable and possible effect upon the
welfare, security, and happiness of the
people of the United States. With the
desire to take any step, however short,
In the direction of world peace and
understanding, I have tried earnestly
to bring myself to support the pending
treaty. It is a matter of profound regret
to me that I have reached the conclu-
sion that I cannot in good conscience
vote my consent to its ratification.
Viewed bl ht,
and assuming that the Soviet Govern-
ment will faithfully observe the terms of
the treaty, we are disadvantaged in the
matter of armaments.
Viewed in the light of the long record
of broken promises of the Soviets
through the years, a record marked by
intrigue, deception, and perfidy, the
signing of this treaty, under its limita-
tions, could plant the seed of our
destruction.
Every person who has any awareness
of the desolation brought by war and
the almost unbelievable destructive
power of nuclear weapons must desire
an arrangement between the non-Com-
munist community of nations and So-
viet Russia that would lessen tension,
decrease the possibility of war, and en-
able us to devote some of the massive
effort and expenditures now made for
defense to the abolition of poverty and
a better life for all.
I yield to no one in my desire for a
safe and truly effective treaty with So-
viet Russia that would permit this.
The first comprehensive plan for in-
ternational control of atomic energy was
made in the United Nations in 1946 by
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For Release 2(506/10/ 7 : IA-LRDP65B00383R0001002000
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ?SENATE
wheat to Cuba. It shocks me that our
friendly neighbor to the north should be
prepared to enter into a transaction of
this kind at this moment.
16263
tons of wheat in storage. Is that approx- HinvirsiaEY1 last evening. From every
imately correct? standpoint it is in our interest?and it
Mr. AIKEN. Approximately, makes good sense?to reconsider our poi-
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. We icy with reference to the sales of wheat
have a carryover of about 1,200 million and other agricultural commodities to
bushels as of July 1 and we will have a the Soviet Union. Certainly it is in our
crop of about 1,100 million bushels in economic interest to consider that pos-
addition. sibility.
In answer to the Senator's question, As the Senator has pointed out, sales
I believe it would be desirable if we of wheat will be made in any event by
would not provide the Communists with our allies. We are the greatest wheat-
all the food and industrial goods they producing country on the face of the
Seek. But if our allies are going to sell earth. We desperately need to broaden
to them, it does not make sense for us our markets, and this is an opportunity
to sit back and bankrupt ourselves to do so. It is in our political interest?
through not selling, in the interest of the ideological strug-
Mr. FULBRIGHT. That thought is gle that we are carrying on in the
exactly what occurred to me. The Sena- world?because it is an ideal opportu-
tor from Vermont [Mr. Ancsbi] has al- nity for us to demonstrate the superior-
ready pointed out that the Russians ity of our economic system.
might come to us and seek to buy. We The one great failure in the Commu-
turn them down. They then go to West nist world that stands out above every-
thing else is their failure in the field of
agriculture. There is not a single Com-
munist state anywhere in the world that
has solved the problem of food produc-
tion. This is a perfect opportunity for
us to demonstrate to people all over the
world that we not only have the capacity
to produce- more food than we can con-
sume at home, but also that we are will-
ing to follow an enlightened policy to
make use of it.
Finally, it is certainly in our moral in-
terest to take the action proposed. The
Bible tells us that if our enemies hunger
to feed them. It does not say that we
cannot take money when they are able
to pay for it.
Here is a country?it may be an en-
emy, a rival?that is not only in need of
food but is also willing to pay hard cash
for the things we have to produce. Dur-
ing the 18 months time that I had the
privilege of directing the food for peace
program there was no single subject up-
on which we had the volume of mail
that we received on the question of
whether we ought to make surplus food
available to people behind the Iron Cur-
tain.
That mail was overwhelmingly in sup-
port of exactly the course the Senator
Germany and buy.
In Sunday's newspaper there was a
story about Rumania, I believe. Ru-
mania sought to buy some kind of textile
or synthetic fibers plant. We turned
them down. They went to Germany or
some other country and bought it. Now
we read that they are going to Canada
for wheat. As the Senator from Ver-
mont has already stated, in effect we
have been giving away a great deal of
wheat under Public Law 480 while the
Canadians are selling it. It makes us
look a little silly to be doing that con-
tinually.
I thank the Senators from the wheat
States who have brought the problem
to our attention. I would certainly be
ready to support them in their efforts
from what little I know about the sit-
uation.
Mr. ArKEN. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield further?
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield.
Mr. AIKEN. Our wheat undoubted-
ly has been going to the same places to
which we object that the Canadian wheat
is going, to a considerable extent"; but
we have been letting the middlemen, in
the nature of one of the countries of
Western Europe, skim off a good sized
profit in the process. is suggesting today. I wholeheartedly
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I understand that endorse the statement he has made.
Poland has received wheat from us under Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
Public Law 480. President, I especially appreciate that
Mr. AIKEN. Yes, but I believe the statement, coming from the Senator
wheat that we have sent to Poland has from South Dakota. He has had more
been used in Poland. I do not believe it experience than any other Senator in
has been resold. dealingi with the food program, as the
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I presume that it Administrator of the food for peace pro-
was used there. gram.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. There Mr. KEATING. Mr. President, I can
may be some indirect benefits to the only add one thought to the discussion
United States. Probably we can take which has been taking place. The sale
over some of the wheat markets that of wheat was in part a sale toCuba. It
Canada would otherwise have supplied. was done through the subterfuge of sell-
But those will be largely foreign cur- ing to the Soviet Union, for the Soviet
rency Markets. Canada has the dollar Union to turn the wheat over to Cuba.
markets. It strikes me that when the policy of
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. President, will our Government is to try to bring eco-
the Senator yield? nomic pressure to bear upon Cuba, to
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. I yield. seek to help bring about a more demo-
Mr. McGOVERN. I endorse whole- cratic system and the removal of Rus-
heartedly what the Senator from North sian weapons and troops from that be-
Dakota has said this afternoon as well leaguered land, we have a right to ex-
as the comments, in a similar vein, that pect greater cooperation from our allies
were made by the assistant majority than we have had in many respects, and
leader, the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. specifically with respect to the sale of
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. RUSSELL obtained the floor.
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Georgia yield to me,
briefly?
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I yield
to the Senator from South Dakota.
Mr. MUNDT. I thank the Senator
from Georgia.
RISE IN IMPORTS OF BEEF AND
PRODUCTS
As in legislative session,
Mr. MUNDT. Mr. President, in recent
weeks we have been reading in the news-
papers about the sharp rise in imports
of beef and beef products in competition
with our own production. According to
available figures this has had a seriously
adverse effect on the prices which Ameri-
can producers receive in the market
place.
In a recent issue of "Washington
Farmletter," by Wayne Darrow, it was
pointed out that in 1962 the United
States took 79 percent of Australia's beef
and veal exports, and more than 90 per-
cent of New Zealand's boneless beef ex-
ports in the past 3 years. Wayne Dar-
row's letter points out that the
Department of Agriculture concludes
that the United States is the most liberal
major nation in the world in agricul-
tural trade, and is only mildly protec-
tionist. The United States exercises im-
port controls only on wheat, sugar,
peanuts, cotton, and dairy products. All
other products may come in unlimited
quantities subject only to health, sanita-
tion, and quarantine safety require-
ments, and to payment when specified
on fixed tariffs. This country is the
world's largest farm exporter and the
second largest farm importer?being ex-
ceeded by only the United Kingdom.
While I firmly believe that through
expanding our markets around the world
we can relieve our agriculture surplus,
I just as firmly believe that we should
not permit imports into this country
which depress prices of our own products
and depress the agriculture economy.
There is good reason to believe that
our entire farm program in America is
imported from abroad. I think it is time
that Government officials paid some at-
tention to this fact.
For many weeks now many organiza-
tions throughout the Nation have been
contacting me urging a halt to the im-
port of beef and beef products. I have
urged the Secretary of Agriculture, the
State Department, and other adminis-
tration officials to take necessary steps
to protect our great beef industry. To-
day I received in my office a resolution
adopted by the South Dakota Beef Coun-
cil supporting the steps which I have
been advocating. I ask unanimous con-
sent that the letter be printed in the
RECORD at this point so that all those
in the administration dealing with this
beef import problem can share with me
Approved For elease 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
.16264
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
the thinking of the South Dakota mem-
bers of the beef council.
There being no objection, the letter
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
SOUTH DAKOTA BEEF COUNCTL,
Brookings, S. Dak., September 11, 1963.
Senator EARL MUNDT,
Washington, D.C.
DEAR SENATOR MUNDT : At a meeting of the
South Dakota Beef Council in Mobridge,
S. Dak., September 7, the following resolu-
tion was passed:
"Whereas beef imports have risen to a
point where we are now eating approximately
10 percent imported beef; and
"Whereas the American beef market price
has suffered a decrease of approximately 30
percent in the past year: we, therefore,
"Move the South Dakota Beef Council go
on record opposing the importation of beef
and have it returned to the 1957 level."
We trust you will give this resolution your
attention and if you can ever do anything
about lowering beef imports, our South Da-
kota Beef Council, representing beef produc-
ers and feeders, will appreciate it.
Sincerely yours,
Joxx L. LErazi.,
Secretary.
Mr. MUNDT. I deeply appreciate the
courtesy of my friend from Georgia in
Yielding to me.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Georgia yield to me?
Mr. RUSSELL. I yield to the major-
ity leader.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Apropos of what
has been stated by the distinguished
senior Senator from South Dakota, I
wish to express my full accord with the
views stated. When I was at home
during the latter part of August and the
first part of September I covered the
eastern and central portions of Mon-
tana. One of the "beefs"?and I use
that word literally?which was brought
to my attention was the fact that the
cattlemen in the area were feeling
heavily the importation of feeder cattle
from Canada into our area, as well as
the increased importation of frozen beef
from New Zealand.
I have addressed a letter to the Secre-
tary of Agriculture suggesting that this
matter be investigated. I have asked
for detailed facts and figures. I have
also advanced the suggestion that there
be a moratorium on the importation of
feeder cattle during the marketing
period, so that the price will not be
depressed for our cattle producers and
they will be given some stability. I do
this in part not only because of the need,
but because of the fact that, by and
large, the cattlemen have gotten by on
their own and have not always come to
the Government looking for assistance, in
the form of subsidies or other methods
of assistance, to keep them going.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, will the
Senator yield?
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President. I yield
for a brief statement.
Mr. GORE. I think the distinguished
Senator from Montana said the cattle-
men did not often come for aid. As a
matter of fact, they never have.
Mr. MANSFIELD. I was allowing a
little margin. There are many things
that I do not know, and I thought there
might have been some assistance I did
not know about.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I do
not desire to get into an extraneous de-
bate, but I remember that during the
New Deal many cattle were brought to
the South from the dry areas of the
West to save the cattle. I was a Mem-
ber of Congress at that time.
Mr. MUNDT. Let me add, in de-
fense of the cattlemen, that when it was
proposed, in furtherance of the desire
that the Federal Government should get
into all areas of American life, that price
supports be placed on livestock, the
cattlemen from all over the country came
to the Capitol and said, "We will be able
to look after our own problems." They
have done that very successfully. Ob-
viously, however, they cannot compete
with beef that is allowed to flow into
this country from all over the world. I
am glad the majority leader had added
his voice of considerable influence in this
matter.
fi NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATq
The Senate resumed the consideration
of Executive M (88th Congress, 1st ses-
sion), the treaty banning nuclear weapon
tests in the atmosphere, in outer space,
and underwater.
Mr. RUSSELL. Mr. President, I
shall decline to yield for any other ex-
traneous matters until I have concluded
my remarks.
Mr. President, since the first draft of
the pending treaty was presented to the
appropriate committees of the Senate by
the Secretary of State, I have earnestly
studied all facets of the proposal and its
probable and possible effect upon the
welfare, security, and happiness of the
people of the United States. With the
desire to take any step, however short,
in the direction of world peace and
understanding, I have tried earnestly
to bring myself to support the pending
treaty. It is a matter of profound regret
to me that I have reached the conclu-
sion that I cannot in good conscience
vote my consent to its ratification.
Viewed in the most favorable light,
and assuming that the Soviet Govern-
ment will faithfully observe the terms of
the treaty, we are disadvantaged in the
matter of armaments.
Viewed in the light of the long record
of broken promises of the Soviets
through the years, a record marked by
intrigue, deception, and perfidy, the
signing of this treaty, under its limita-
tions, could plant the seed of our
destruction.
Every person who has any awareness
of the desolation brought by war and
the almost unbelievable dastructive
power of nuclear weapons must desire
an arrangement between the non-Com-
munist community of nations and So-
viet Russia that would lessen tension,
decrease the possibility of war, and en-
able us to devote some of the massive
effort and expenditures now made for
defense to the abolition of poverty and
a better life for all.
I yield to no one in my desire for a
safe and truly effective treaty with So-
viet Russia that would permit this.
The first comprehensive plan for in-
ternational control of atomic energy was
September 17
Mr. Bernard Baruch, representing; the
United States. Licensing and full in-
spection were fundamental elements of
this plan. It was advanced at a time
when the United States had a virtual, if
not a literal, monopoly in nuclear weap-
ons.
I supported this original proposal be-
cause I believed that it included adequate
safeguards. But it was rejected by the
Soviet Government. Consistently since
1946, I have favored any proposed agree-
ment to reduce the threat of a nuclear
war that contained similar protection.
I have followed as best I could the long
series of negotiations with the Soviet
Union looking to a nuclear agreement.
There have been times when hopes have
been high. But in every case, the Rus-
sians have, in the last analysis, refused
any agreefnent of any kind that con-
tained a practical, foolproof method of
detection of treaty violations.
I have a simple but realistic standard
of measurement of the good faith of
those who talk about limitation of arms,
whether nuclear or conventional. If
any Party is in good faith and intends to
observe the letter and spirit of the agree-
ment, it will accept methods of inspec-
tion that are certain to detect violations
by any party to the agreement.
Time and again, I have declared my
opposition to any program of disarma-
ment, prohibiting testing of nuclear de-
vices, or their use as weapons, whether
partial or complete, that did not provide
for onsite inspections, adequate in mun-
bee and in scope. To me it seems to be
the height of folly to adopt any other
policy.
The Soviet has consistently refused
any serious method of inspection. The
treaty now before the Senate does not
provide for any inspection whatever. I
know it is urged that inspection is not ?
essential for the purposes of the treaty
because there is no limitation on under-
ground testing, and we are told inspec-
tion is more important to detect viola-
tion of agreements not to test under-
ground than to detect violations in space,
the atmosphere, or under water.
Our methods of detecting violations
in the environments contained in the
treaty are undoubtedly better than the
seismic instruments to detect under-
ground atomic explosions, but I am con-
vinced that it is important to make sure
that testing in any environment is pre-
cluded if we are to limit ourselves as pro-
posed in this treaty.
Our ability to determine whether any
nuclear detonations have occurred is
considerable. Indeed, to a person un-
schooled in the sciences, it approaches
the miraculous. But this ability is not
complete. There are dangerous gaps.
The hearings we had on the treaty show
that there are serious deficiencies in de-
tection capability, and one of the safe-
guards sought by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff as a condition precedent to their
acceptance of this treaty was necessary
improvements of our methods of detec-
tion.
If Russia desires in good faith to bring
nuclear testing in all environments un-
der control, she would permit examine,-
made in the United Nations in 1946 by tion within her territorial limits of sus.
Approved For Release 2006/10 17 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
ved For Releate 2006/10/17 :
2963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE
- 4
picioua circumstances or inconclusive It is generally agreed that in the
eviden0e. Virthout such inspection, we atomic field the Soviets have superior
cannOt be surf, and even the strongest knowledge of high-yield tests which the
advocates of the treaty disclaim reliance treaty would prohibit us from acquiring.
on th&validity of the Russian pledge. We claim an advantage in the low-yield
? There is impressive evidence that this or tactical weapons that can be tested
? treaty gives Russia a military advantage. underground. The 'Soviet is therefore
As a result of intensive secret prepara- free to test in thearea where we have
tions for a comprehensive series of tests predominance, but we are prohibited
during the previous rnoratoriuin on test- from testing in the area where they have
tug, which the Soviets arranged, the superiority. r am not oblivious to the
Russians announced an end to the mora- consequences of the Senate's refusing
torium, on August 30, 1961, and on Sep- to consent to this treaty. I know that
tember 1 commenced a series of sub- such action would be compared to the
stantial and significant tests which con- Senate's refusal to ratify participation
tinued,through 1962.by the United States In the League of
It is, generally agreed by both scienti- Nations. 13 ut I am not one of those
tic and military witnesses that, in these who think that this action led inevitably
tests, the Russians gained knowledge and to World War TI, and I am quite sure
experience in nuclear weapons of high that a refusal to consent to the pending
yields?much higher than those of any treaty would not in itself be the cause
weapons we have ever tested. I am not of another war.
Impressed by efforts to depreciate the I point out, in connection with the
Value of this knowledge and experience attempt to draw an analogy with our
by claiming that yields of this magnitude refusal to enter the League of Nations,
are beyond the point of diminishing re- the fact that in 1928 we entered into the
turns, or more accurately, the point of Xellogg-Briand Treaty, signed by all the
diminishing devastation. These terror nations of the earth, forever renouncing
weapons would undoubtedly have a pro- war as an instrument of national pol-
found psychological effect, and we have icy, but that in a few years that treaty,
reason to believe they may impair the along with so many others of the past,
electronic and communications systems including, as I recall, the Holy Alliance
Upen which our retaliatory power de- after the Napoleonic Wars, in which the
pends.
Of great importance IS the knowledge
that the Russians may have gained of
the effects of nuclear explosions on our
Weapons systems, such as blackouts in-
capacitating our retaliatory missile sys-
tems or the aptiballistic missile system
we hope to perfect. They may have de-
veloped information that is crucial to
the suClces,sful development of the anti-
ballistic missile system on which we know
they are working.
Thapatter of blackouts and the im-
pairment of our system Poses a Problem
that baffles 91.1X finest scientists. It IS
classified information. I am sure most
Seriatoys are familiar with it. Some
striking illustrations have occurred in
the Course Of Qur own tests, It there-
fore concerns me that the treaty pro-
hibits our testing large-yield weapons
In the atmosphere to attempt to develop
the same experience the Russians have
in this environment, but that the Rus-
sians can continue to develop under-
ground in an attempt to overcome our
experience and assert their superiority
In thearea of small-yield tactical
It hits been urged that when the num-
ber of types of nuclear weapons are con-
sidered, we have a superiority of tech-
nique at this time, and that, the treaty
Would slow down the rate at Which the
Russians could otherwise catch up with
us. The Russians have many defects
in their code of conduct in international
relatiCiPs, but they surely are not negli-
gent when it comes to looking after their
o*nbilereats;'I believe they would never
et*rinto an arrangement as disadvan-
tageous to them as some of the sup-
porters of the treaty assert it to be.
?alley have delayed signing the treaty
Avor, a Period of time when it would
have been disadvantageous for them to
'do so,
-great powers of the earth agreed to out-
law war, was absolutely ineffective.
I also know that withholding of con-
sent would be said to be embarrassing to
the President in his conduct of foreign
relations, and that such action, atter
our representatives had signed the
treaty, would raise questions about who
speaks for the United States on such
subjects. I regret any action that might
embarrass the President of the United
States in the tremendous burdens that
he is bearing in this area. However, I
sin completely convinced that all the
governments represented in the United
Nations, especially those most directly
concerned, have full knowledge of our
system of government, and that they
know the Senate has a constitutional
role and responsibility in this area.
The constitutional role of the Senate
in connection with treaties would be viti-
ated if the Senate consented to treaties
Merely because refusal to do so might
create some temporary misunderstand-
ing abroad.
In opposing the treaty I assuredly do
not lay any claim to superior patriotism
or greater knowledge of what is best for
our country. Supporters of the treaty
include Senators whose ability and de-
votion to the national interest I have
long admired and officials in the execu-
tive branch whose competence and de-
votion to our country are beyond ques-
tion. However, in the last analysis, the
merits of the pending question cannot
be determined with mathematical preci-
sion; opinions and judgments are deeply
Involved, and each of us participating in
the ratification process has the duty to
record an independent judgment and
opinion.
In the field of weapons, one of my
doubts about the treaty is whether it
unwisely handicaps our attempts to de-
velop an effective antiballistic missile
16265
_
system. Related to this is the question
of whether it provides adequate protec-
tion against low-yield violations in? cer-
tain regions Of the atmosphere. The
Secretary of Defense testified that it is
most difficult for us to detect detonations
that occur from roughly 6 to 20 miles
above the surface of the earth; and it is
obviously more difficult to detect low-
yield explosions than high-yield ones.
The area from 6 to 20 miles above the
earth can be the critical range within
which antiballistic missiles would have to
neutralize the incoming intercontinental
ballistic missiles, and in the vast reaches
of the Soviet Union, Outer Mongolia, and
Communist China clandestine tests of
antiballistic missile warheads could well
be possible.
So far as,our own efforts are con-
cerned, I ail not reassured by the
thought that We can test warheads for
antiballistic missiles underground. It
seems highly desirable to test such war-
heads in the environment in which they
would be used if needed. Russia was not
willing to sign the treaty until it had
conducted actual tests in the atmosphere,
in the area in which the antiballistic
missile warheads would be used.
It is dismaying to me to reflect that
the United States is spending billions of
dollars on weapons systems that have,
to date, never been actually test fired
with nuclear warheads, and that the
approval of the treaty would prohibit us
from ever obtaining knowledge as to the
effectiveness of such weapons systems.
What a paradox. We will not buy a
simple rifle, or even the most primitive
weapon in our arsenal, a bayonet, unless
it has been subjected to exhaustive tests
under every conceivable condition. Here
we would accept, with childlike faith in
mathematical formulas and extrapola-
tion, the efficiency of the most intricate,
complicated, and costly weapon without
even one test under war conditions, and
we bind our hands by this treaty against
ever testing them under those conditions.
The second of my major doubts about
the desirability of ratification is my con-
viction that this is but the first step of
a series of disarmament measures, each
of which is apparently relatively innocu-
ous by itself, but actually to the advan-
tage of the Soviet Union, and cumulative-
ly resulting in an almost unilateral dis-
armament that could be ruinous.
It is my own belief that a comprehen-
sive test ban that prohibited under-
ground testing, but without adequate in-
spection rights, would have been entered
into, except for the fear that the U.S.
Senate would not consent to ratification.
Mr. President, in the course of my
service, I have seen a number of in-
stances in which the Congress has been
caught up in a chain of events from
which it was next to impossible to extri-
cate itself. This treaty provides in arti-
cle 2 for amendments when approved by
a majority of all of the parties thereto,
including the votes of each of the three
original parties.
Mr. president, any treaty involves the
surrender of a certain measure of our
national sovereignty. Our experience
shows that in treaties involving nearly
every nation of the earth, it is exceed-
Approved For Release 2006/10/17 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200S0,2-8
16266 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD ? SENATE
ingly difficult to regain any element of
sovereignty once it is placed in a common
pool to be controlled by a number of
states.
It has been alleged time and again on
the floor of the Senate that the treaty is
the first step toward total disarmament,
which is advocated by many Senators;
and that there will be no arms on earth
except those in the hands of troops
under the United Nations.
For my part, I am not now prepared,
in the present state of world affairs, to
subscribe to a course of action that
would leave the administration ofjustice
among the nations of the earth wholly
in the hands of the United Nations, and
would place the only effective armed
forces on earth under the command of
the commanding officer of the United
Nations.
Time and again our country has taken
action in various fields which imposed
limitations upon our ability. to change
our course. Indeed, ofttimes the initial
step has placed drastic limitations upon
our freedom of action in dealing with
subsequent proposals in the same area.
This is graphically illustrated today by
the situation in Vietnam. It is hard to
conceive of a more unhappy position than
that we occupy in that strife-torn coun-
try. In common parlance, we are over
a barrel. We have there an investment
running into the billions and' a current
cost of over a million dollars a day. We
have not been able to change the ter-
rible conditions which exist in that un-
happy land and the President said a few
days ago that we cannot get out. We
are captives of our own policies and
have foolishly locked the door and
thrown away the key.
Our vigorous support of the United
Nations has drastically limited our right
to define our own policy with respect to
conditions in many areas of the world.
Indeed, it would appear to the casual
observer-that we predicate our position
on issues arising on the several con-
tinents on the course advocated by cer-
tain countries or peoples inhabiting that
continent and without regard to basic
principles or of an overall international
pOlicy.
This has us supporting dictators in one
part of the world and denouncing them
in others. We undertake to condemn
aggression from without in some parts
of the world, but when India, by a naked
action of military aggression with over-
powering forces, conquered Portuguese
Goa we responded with a very light, al-
most pleasant and polite, tap of Mr. Neh-
ru's wrist.
In Africa, the strident voices of Ben
Bella and Nkrumah seem to move our
diplomats greatly. We therefore vigor-
ously support repression of liberty in
Algeria and Ghana in favor of dictator-
, ships of the worst sort, but follow Ben
Bella and Mammala in demanding that
Portugal get out of Africa?piously re-
citing our devetion to the right of self-
government as the excuse, when every-
one knows there is more freedom and
lelf-government in the Portuguese pm-
sessions than exists in a number of the
so-called emerging nations.
In the Organization of American
States, we are loath to even mention
the Monroe Doctrine for fear of offend-
ing the representatives and, people of
states that only exist because of the
Monroe Doctrine. Indeed, if we even
mention the Monroe Doctrine in. this
country we often do so in muted tones
as if afraid that we would be overheard.
The pending treaty, Mr. President, is
agreed by all to be the first in a series
of agreements looking to general and
completed disarmament, bothin the field
of nuclear and conventional weapons.
This involves surrender of sovereignty in
the vital area of military strength.
With general and complete disarma-
ment as our declared objective, it is pro-
posed that we take this first step in
abandoning the basic principle of in-
spection without which our interests
cannot be fully protected. We are sur-
rendering complete freedom of move-
ment with respect to vital interests in
arms and armaments. We are placing
some of our sovereignty, a great deal of
our world prestige, and the totality of
our image abroad into the hands of sonic
90 states, each of which has the right
to propose amendments to this treaty
looking to complete disarmament. Some
of these states have much to gain and
little to lose by a program of total dis-
armament. We in this country have
much to lose if we delude ourselves by
adopting a policy of unilateral disarma-
ment. As for myself, I am unwilling to
start out on this trek, Mr. President,
leaving behind the only assurance that
we could possibly have that we will not
be deceived or mousetrapped into uni-
lateral disarmament to such a degree
that we cannot defend ourselves.
Mr. President, this is where I enter-
tain fears for the effects of euphoria
upon our people. This is the area where
we are most likely to be lulled into trust-
ing the promises of those who would de-
stroy us rather than demanding onsite
inspection to assure good faith and per-
formance.
I am not a prophet or the son of a
prophet, but I predict that it will not be
long before amendments will be pro-
posed to prohibit underground testing
on terms that the Senate would not have
accepted had such terms been proposed
In the initial treaty that is before the
Senate today.
The Senate will then be presented with
the argument that the amendment has
the support of an overwhelming major-
ity of the signatory states and that it is
only a logical extension and Comple-
mentary action to what the Senate has
already approved. I submit that it will
be much more difficult to vote against
an amendment which has the overwhelm-
ing approval of the other signatories
than it will to reject this treaty and re-
sume negotiations for a comprehensive
test ban in all fields that .will in fact
assure that there is no surreptitious or
illegal testing.
September 17
Senators who support the treaty will
naturally defend themselves in their
home States against criticisms of their
action. Their action in constantly de-
fending their approval of the treaty and
in stressing their love of peace and their
desire to have the armaments race end-
ed will, of itself, lend persuasion to the
arguments in behalf of support for
amendments to the effect that we can-
not afford to stop now, for fear of toeing
world leadership and offending world
opinion or causing a breach of world
peace.
I have seen in many fields the opera-
tion of this form of political and mental
compulsion. Today, it is pronounced in
the consideration of what we call foreign
aid measures. For many years a major-
ity of the Members of Congress have de-
fended their position in support of for-
eign aid, and therefore each year
Congress continues to approve increas-
ing expenditures for this program., I am
convinced that if it were presented to us
de novo today, with the knowledge which
most Representatives and Senators now
have as to the operation of the program,
Congress would not approve expenditures
of anywhere near the magnitude of the
ones in this field we finally shall approve
this year. Very few Members of Con-
gress have found a way to "get off this
toboggan"; and I apprehend that a sim-
ilar situation will exist when amend-
ments disadvantageous to the United
States are proposed to the treaty, with
the support of a large number of other
signatory states.
What defense would we have to an
amendment to the treaty which would
prohibit underground testing without
any onsite inspection, if such an amend-
ment were proposed by a majority of
the signatories? It would be argued that
the amendment would prohibit the So-
viets from making underground tests,
and that, therefore, we would have ev-
erything to gain, and nothing to lose, by
agreeing to ban underground tests on the.
same terms as those by which the pend-
ing treaty bans testing in other environ-
ments.
This partial agreement, without pro-
vision for inspection of any kind within
the territory of suspected violators, will
make it extremely difficult to reject other
proposals in the field of testing; and it
can prove highly embarrassing if amend-
ments outlawing nuclear weapons, pro-
viding for the destruction of all Stock-
piles of them, and relying upon the word
of each signatory state to take action in
good faith, are proposed.
Mr. President, there have been indi-
cations that the next proposal in this
area will involve the stationing of ob-
servers at highway junctions and rail-
road marshaling points.. For other rea-
sons, I have supported proposals to
Increase our ability to respond to eon-.
ventional wars; but I have never done
so with mien hope that a war with the
Soviet Union would remain conventional.
In a day when the greatest threat to our
survival is from missiles with nuclear
warheads, I am unable to perceive the
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100200002-8
proved' F& Release 2006/
?
19 '63 ONSSIONALF SENA
usefulness of such a limited system of be accompanied by provision of the right
observation. of inspection.
But,
Mr President, if the Soviet Union Russia can withdraw from the treaty
would permit on its soil observers who or can violate it on a moment's notice,
would make Inspectionsin the marshal- on the basis of a decision by four or five
Ing yards' and the highway centers, it men. In the United States, under our
seems to me that the Soviets should? system, we could not extricate ourselves
logically?not refuse to liermit observers from the toils of the treaty without hav-
to come anYwhere near the Soviet nu- Ing long, protracted debate and many
clear test operations, to make inspec- explanations. _.
tions in that area. - Let us suppose that dispatches from
/ apprehend that if the Senate were Stockholm or from some other neutral
to give its advice and consent to ratifica- area were to state that there had been
tion of the treaty, such action would treaty violations somewhere in the vast
tend to cause the People of the United expanses of Russia or in adjacent lands.
States to adopt an unjustifiably opti- Those who head our Government un-
rnistic view of the status of our rela- doubtedly would meet and would debate
tionships with the Soviet Union and the any information of that sort which was
need for us to continue to maintain obtained by our intelligence service, and
powerful defense forces. would classify the information. If the
A common failing of the human family Russians then denied the charge, and at-
is a willingness to believe what one tributed it to the desire of "capitalistic
wishes to believe. A combination of provocateurs" to engender a nuclear war,
' dread of the consequences of an atomic our people and our Government would
War and an increasing trust in the be in a terrible dilemma?one which
pledges of the Soviet Union?as gen- could be avoided if we had maintained
erated in part by the action of Congress? our demand for inspection.
Can start us down the road to destruc- We would be reminded of the effect of
tion. precipitate action on our "word image"
Mr. President, I have been impressed that thousands are so dedicated to pre-
and touched by the arguments made serve. Other thousands would fear that
In the Senate about the horrors of what to challenge the Russians' word and
Occurred at Hiroshima and at Nagasaki. withdraw from the treaty would provoke
I have been impressed by the terrible a nuclear holocaust. Probably we would
pictures of the destruction resulting wind up by protesting the alleged atomic
from an atomic war. But I submit, Mr. explosion to the United Nations and by
President, that every one of those argu- falling further behind Russia in the de-
ments can apply to? our embarking upon velopment of nuclear weapons.
a uhilateral disarmament program, as Next year, and for many years to
well as they can to the support of this come, we shall need to maintain our
program. ' Armed Forces at high levels; the defense
All of these horrors are known to the
budget will still be necessarily large; and
the Armed Forces will still require service
American people. But if the leadership by our young men and women. We can-
Of this country is unwilling to demand not afford any inclination to relax and we
equality in a test ban treaty, and is un- should not deceive ourselves by believing
this treaty means we are more secure
willing to insist on it, will the American
that we can trust the Soviets.
There
be willing to take that risk?
There are so many ways in which or '
11 not a single witness before the
this treaty can be violated.
It is not improbable that the Soviets
might decide to conduct tests in violation
of the treaty within the vast areas of
. their lands or in Outer Mongolia or in
China._ If we were to detect what we
thought was an explosion there, and if
We were to call upon the Soviets for an
explanation, if they responded by saying
such explosions had occurred, but that
...- they had been carried out by the Red
Chinese, and if they claimed Mao Tse-
' tung was conducting the experiments
contrary to their wishes, what would the
United States do? In that event, it
Would. be difficult to bring about a de-
cision by our Government to abrogate the
treaty. However, I do not doubt for a
Morrient that the Communist leadership
Will pursue Stich a course whenever it
serves their purpose to do so.
Unfortunately, one of the prices we
pay for our great system, which includes
our guarantee of individual liberties, is
the factlhat our republican form of gov-
erment cannot ccanpete in speed or in
16247
years of Communist rule, have established
an undisputed reputation for breaking their
most solemn pledges.
The Soviet regime's consistent viewpoint
on the relative unimportance of promises is
not restricted to its dealings with other
countries, but extends with equal force to
its relationships with the Russian people
and the various minority groups which com-
prise the 'U.S.S.R.
Only 3 days after the November 7, 1917,
revolution placed it in power, the Commu-
nist regime abolished freedom of the press
as a privilege too dangerous to be entrusted
to the people. The people were promised,
however, that the decree would be rescinded
just "as soon as the new regime took root."
This 45-year-old promise notwithstanding,
the order still applies today.
Other instances in which the Soviet Re-
public has broken faith with its own people
are legion. The revolution of 1917 was car-
ried out in the name of democracy, and ever
since "democracy" has been one of the most
frequently used words in the Communist
lexicon. But while the Communists have
capitalized on the word, they have radically
altered its definition?from "government by
the people" to "government for the good of
the workers." Since the Communists keep
for themselves the right to determine what
is "good" for the workers, the Soviet defi-
nition of democracy in fact has become "gov-
ernment by Communists."
After 1917, the Russian people wanted not
only democracy but its specific institutions:
a constitution, a parliament, elections, a
secret ballot, trade unions, etc. They were
given all these things, but in name only.
The Soviet Constitution is an interesting
document to read. However, it is violated
or ignored by the regime as a matter of
course. The Soviet parliament meets regu-
larly, but it possesses neither power nor
function. Elections are held every 4 years,
but the single-slate ballot gives the voters
no choice. A secret ballot is provided, but
its purpose is to identify dissenters rather
than protect them. Trade unions flourish,
but only to make the worker more subser-
vient to his employer, the state.
?
committees who thought the Russians
would honor this treaty 1 minute longer
than the RUSSiall3 believed it would
serve their objectives. One has only to
review the record of agreements broken
by the Soviet Union to begin speculating
on the date that this one, with all the
amendments thereto, might be breached.
Unfortunately, we may be unable to
supply the date on which it is breached.
In this connection, I ask unanimous
consent to include in the RECORD at this
point an article published by the Depart-
ment of Defense, Office of Armed Forces
Information and Education, on Novem-
ber 5, 1962, entitled "Soviet Treaty
Violations," showing the results under
some of the agreements entered into by
the Soviet Communist regime.
There being no objection. the article
was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
as follows:
[ALERT No. 5?Soviet Treaty Violations, pub-
lished by Armed Forces Information and
Education, Department of Defense, Nov.
5, 19621
definite' action with a dictatorship. This SOVIET TREATY VIOLATIONS
is another reasen why any agreement of Officials of the Soviet Union, from the 1917
Ole natlire of the pending treaty should Bolshevik revolution onward through 45
A RECORD OF BROKEN PROMISES
That promises mean next to nothing to
the Communist official mind has been ad-
mitted by Soviet leaders:
V.1. Lenin?
"Promises are Nice pie crust, made to be
broken."
"It would be mad and criminal to tie one's
hand by entering into an agreement of any
permanence with anybody."
J. V. Stalin?
"Words have no relation to actions?other-
wise what kind of diplomacy is it?
"Words are one thing, actions another.
Good words are a mask for concealment of
bad deeds. Sincere diplomacy Is no more
possible than dry water or wooden iron."
Cl. E. Zinoviev (first head of the Commu-
nist International) ?
"We are willing to sign an unfavorable
peace?it would only mean that we should
put no trust whatever in the piece of paper
We should sign."
The Soviet Communist regime has entered
into hundreds of international agreements.
The following list shows how well the So-
viet leaders keep their promises when it no
longer appears to be in their interest to do
so.
Approved For-Release 2006/10/17 : CIA-RDP66B0
383R00010020000243 ,
Approved For Release 2006/10/17: C A-RDP65B00383R000100200002;5
16268 -
. CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,- SENATE . September 17
011,o m.04.,.,41.4.,Am000
:=10o.:?.' g 0. -.0E1.2 48 g 0 --.4ogi woe g 0,g.o.ct
.t.4 01.150,0,. ,23 0
E. g "IIIEV:1 tivsp,> -;Vt?,1t40,...2
DIA!!4
pit ..a,A.L.,4 eA0,12, 810 4Piet 24s-gg.g1 Elg:TiR-0,9, cV0'-??1 Au.-g,2
4 low 1171/ t?-.."3? ZEtaA e-4,pqrits' vga:42.0AlOg."41R .00.04
O 0 +.-1-, 7.1 , ?? Olt...4W a 0,P. ti g ta1 .-1,5:4,S),S.. 0 a, , -4,-, . 4 ,,-.1 -1
.c) ,_-. ,,,,-?,
g?00 .!..vaal 000.a am8figi. A.u'oba :4,42,.Ag5?.5?.?0
.g.g. v?, t
21 P1110-+'
w.. vg0 -.-2.g. g:Ott;'. 4 cijo 4.' olj7we, 1 VfiEg
'08 2...00:Lofwm? ?Ilt..-4s -.4E ?Igg ,440 g? g .1.,... 8.E? k r,,;!-'rg
-1f,
00 elit2t)..-'i?-?-" ?-'?--1-P. i
O e,-po sr - --0 -f. " - ''''' gM ci:44R:IliWW710nCn? Cii2OU'-'4
0 - ?? 44_ Es 0 -,_, ?-. ?, 0 ::,N .u.o
.., a=1 lf,..1 " g.P.,?4 r cilto 0,0 mv+0. goo.?ciii. 004
.ggcog, 44'
..9,
gr? a o'641q.t."049+0
0
a231a41,1111-420.Clicfg:+41;i0411);