(UNTITLED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 54
• Document Creation Date: December 15, 2016
• Document Release Date: February 12, 2004
• Sequence Number: 8
• Publication Date: January 1, 1963
• Content Type: OPEN

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -SENATE
the, legitimate exempt and bona fide private
operations, not' to' direct Its main efforts
under the`forfeltu~re provision as it relates
to safety violations against those who in
the norm Course-of their activities are in
silbstant1 I compliance with the law or whose
violation ii of an unintended and -minor na-
ture. Thq language relating to safety viola-
tions is viewed as a necessary tool` for the
Com~xiisiQn's use in its war on illegal and
unlawful operations.
the OQ 1miss on in its own; testimony on
a number ,of occasions has brought out the
good safety compliance record of those car-
riers who.operate within the law. In the
normal CIse of their activities and rela-
bons Wif[1 these carriers the Commission
already has sufficlent authority to bring
about compliance with the safety regulations.
Safety regulation compliance has been a
problem with respect to those who do not
otherwise pgmply with the law, and it is with
a view to these operators that the language
relating to the failure or refusal to comply
With the rules promulgated by 'the Com-
missionpursuant to section 204(a) (1), (2),
elusively in forwarding of used household
goods also function as forwarders of such
shipments. Some carriers have initiated
container service as an adjunct
to their carrier operations. Because the de-
velopment of new techniques is changing the
complexion of the household goods moving
and forwarding industry, it is believed that
the scheme of regulation to be imposed, par-
ticularly as regards entry into business,
should not impede its natural growth and
development. Witnesses representing all
factions agreed that regulation of this activ-
ity should take account of the special na-
ture of household goods forwarding and
should be sufffciently flexible in respect of
entry controls to assure that existing com-
petitive relationships will not be disturbed.
Section 4(b) of the bill would amend sec-
tion 406(g) of the Interstate Commerce Act
to direct the Commission in prescribing reg-
ulations and practices of household goods
forwarders to consider the similarities of
service provided by Inotor`carrlers of house=
hold goods. This direction recognizes the
(3), and (3a) is included in this section. In close relationship between these two activi-
addition, your committee believes that the ties.
forfeiture provisions relating to continuing Section 4(c) of the bill would amend sec
violations should not apply except In those tion 410 of the act to provide for the issuance
cases where adequate notice has been given of a permit to operate as a freight forwarder
after the initial' offense is discovered. of used household goods to any person found
p `SECTION 4 by the Commission to be fit, willing, and able
SeCtipn 4 of the 7ii11 would ,remove the ex- p openly to perform the service proposed.
emption of "used household goods'} from the Permits are to be of 1-year duration and
provisions of section 402(b) of the Tnterstate renewable' annually. Both original and re-
newal applications must be accompanied by
Commerce, Act. n consequence of the re-
moval of this exe}nption, the provisions of a fee of $50. Neither a "grandfather" clause
part IV of the Interstate Commerce' Act be, nor a finding of public need is deemed neces-
cofne applicable to freight forwarders of used sary for the effective regulation of this activ-
household goods,'except as otherwise pro- ity. Indeed, more stringent entry control
vlded by section 4 of the bill. would tend only to prefer those who have
The transportation by motor` vehicle of used initiated token operations. Many persons
YIOUSeho14 goods in interstate commerce has have operated as freight forwarders of used
been- re ulated since 1935. When the Freight household goods only sporadically, but un-
'QrwareT llct was passed in 194' the pre- less they are allowed to qualify for a permit
ponderance of household goods shipments upon a showing of fitness, they will lose
Xi1OF2C1,by,motor common carrier: The vol business to competitors and be unable to
e"--
goods forwardin - at that serve their customers as they have in the
gii? A. g g past. Such a loss or redistribution of busi-
Qf s t
islat was ojincensequential to warrant leg- ness is not intended.
-islati0u. n z'eeent years the development
of contaerizatj.op and its application to Section 4(d) of the bill would amend sec-
the transportation of used household goods tion 410(c) of the act to enable a motor com-
has had a vast impact upon both the manner mon carrier of household goods to qualify
of shipment and competitive relationships as a freight forwarder of used household
Within the industry. Today, a substantial goods. Since many such carriers are now
volume of Yiousellold goods shipments are functioning as forwarders, this provision is
handles 'lyv forwarders in so-called door-to- required to enable them to perform the same
door container service. Instead of loading service they have in the past.
andividua, articles-,of furniture into a ipotor- Section 4(e) of the bill would amend see-
tion 410(e) of the act to make the provi-
sions of that section' inapplicable to freight
to oversea gtion (or to a port in the case of an of an forwarders of used household goods. In
Oversee si)Ipment where the goods are packed
Into a s a van for water transportation) order to afford forwarders of used house-
housghol , goods`tpipments moving by this hold goods the flexibility which their oper-
mode are,packed or consolidated in a con- ations require, permits to be issued should
tamer in p hom9, forwarded'by rail, motor, contain no territorial restrictions. This
or water carrier destination, then un- provision is intended to effectuate this ob-
packed from the same container at destina- jective.
Section 4(f) of the bill would amend sec-
tion 44 411(c) of the Interstate Commerce Act
to the point-where the preponderance of
overseas shipments of used household goods to enable a motor common carrier or a di-
are handled I,n this }nanner. Witnesses who rector, officer, employee, or agent of such
supported this bill indicated that the co, carrier to control, acquire control, or hold
twiner in ,de Will be used with increasing stock in a freight forwarder of used house-
hold goods. Again
this provision is needed
,
frequency for purely domestic shipments as
well, to protect the position of carriers or carrier
With t4 e advent of contslperizaiQn, there personnel who have acquired a stock interest
in a freight forwarder of used household
indu
f fr
i
ht'f
d a
t
d
h
g
n
s
ry o
e
or-
as
eveope
wider o hseci ousehold 'goods who Ape- goods.
Section 4(g) of the bill would amend see-
ce
i}_ s #t and ~vho ble t been up- tion 417(b) of the act to accomplish the
cessfa ful In divertin consider derable traffic from
same objectives as those outlined in the dis-
certificatd d c h
car riers of cussioh of section 2 relating -to the amend-
forw
s.househ5ld goods. Such forwarders employ . ment of section 222(b) of the act.
the services. of T gulated rail, motor, and E.
water carviers and compete with motor com- SECTION s
rnon carriers of h9 }seould goods with respect Sections recommended in the President's
to rates,,p, _eerv, e. Regulation of this ac- transpor`tatron message, would authorize the
tiv~,ty is, I'li6refore, needed In the'public in- Interstate Commerce Commission to make
terest. agreements wltri States to cooperate in the
4 4/ 3 ~ ~- P65B00383R0OO400210bO8-2
pproved For Releaee OO
16451
enforcement of the' economic or safety laws
and regulations of the various States or of
the Federal Government with respect to
highway transportation. Of this provision
the message stated:
"This law would be consistent with col-
lateral efforts to develop and adopt uniform
State registration laws for motor carriers
operating within States but handling inter-
state commerce. The purpose of both of
these efforts is to help eliminate unlawful
trucking operations which abound because
of diverse, ambiguous laws and practical
limitations in enforcement.'
Mr. SMATHERS. Mr. President, I
fully appreciate and recognize that the
Commerce Committee has had a busy
session. I hope, however, that it will
have a chance to give this important
measure expeditious and favorable con-
sideration.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will
be received and appropriately referred.
The bill (S. 2152) to amend the In-
terstate Commerce Act, as amended, so
as to strengthen and improve the Na-
tional Transportation System, and for
other purposes, was received, read twice
by its title, and referred to the Commit-
tee on Commerce.
TAXATION OF SMALL MUTUAL AND
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES ON
BOND DISCOUNT
Mr. LONG of Louisiana, Mr. Presi-
dent, I introduce, for appropriate refer-
ence, a bill to amend the Internal Reve-
nue Code of 1954 to permit small mutual
insurance companies and life insurance
companies to be taxed on bond discount
like other taxpayers. I ask unanimous
consent that an explanation of the bill,
prepared by me, be printed in the RECORD.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill will
be received and appropriately referred;
and, -without objection, the explanation
will be printed in the RECORD.
The bill (S. 2154) to amend the Inter-
nal Revenue Code of 1954 to permit small
mutual insurance companies and life in-
surance companies to be taxed on bond
discount like other taxpayers, introduced
by Mr. LONG of Louisiana, was received,
read twice by its title, and referred to
the Committee on Finance.
The explanation presented by Mr.
LONG of Louisiana is as follows:
EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENT PROVIDING CAP-
ITAL GAINS TREATMENT ON MARKET PROFITS
REALIZED BY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES
AND SMALL MUTUAL FIRE AND CASUALTY IN-
SURANCE COMPANIES FROM THE PURCHASE
OF BONDS AT LESS THAN PAR VALUE
Under present law, life insurance compa-
nies, and small mutual fire and casualty in-
surance companies are the only taxpayers
denied capital gains treatment on market
profits realized from bonds purchased at
less than par value. This results because
these taxpayers are required to accrue an-
nually a pro-rata part of the difference be-
tween the par or face value of the bond and
its lower purchase price. All other taxpay-
ers report bond discount as capital gains
when the bond is sold or redeemed. Until
last year, medium, and large mutual fire
and casualty insurance companies were also
required to accrue bond discount, but this
was changed, by the Revenue Act of 1962.
On March 15 of this year, I introduced S.
1104 which eliminated the requirement for
accruing discount on tax-exempt bonds only.
S. 1104 was restricted to discount on mu-
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R00010021OQ08-2
 16452
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : ?IA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September
nicipal bonds so as to eliminate the neces-
sity of litigating the question of whether
amounts of accrued discount on`L~ ax-exempt
bonds were to be treated as tax-exempt in-
terest or fully taxable interest. "T'his is an
issue recently raised, by an Internal Revenue
ruling (Rev. Ruling 60-210), and should
be resolved by legislation and not left for
the courts to decide.
The litigation of this recently created is-
sue would be expensive both tp taxpayers
and to the Government and involves only
years after 1960veven though the statute re-
quiring accrual of discount has been in ex-
istence since 1942. Prior to 1961,nutual fire
and casualty insurance compan1 s and life
insurance companies consistently and uni-
formly treated the accrued discount on mu-
nicipal bonds as tax-exempt interest.
S. 1104, by allowing capital gains treat-
ment on municipal bond discount, would
avoid this litigation by giving life insur-
ance companies and small mutual fire and
casualty insurance companies the same re-
lief from Revenue Ruling 60-210 that was
accorded to medium and large mutual fire
and casualty insurance companies last year
by the Revenue Act of 1962. Thus, all tax-
payers to which Revenue Ruling 60-210 ap-
plied would be treated alike. 11
Since the introduction of S. 104, I have
had inquiries suggesting that I.-expand my
proposal to also eliminate the requirement
of accruing market discount on taxable
bonds, It was pointed out to me that the
be proposed by me, to, resolution of
ratification of the treaty banning nu-
clear weapon tests in the atmosphere, in
outer space, and underwater, and ask
that it be printed. ` The reservation
tnould assure that this Nation, under the
treaty, would be permitted the use of
.Atomic weapons in the event of warfare.
. The VICE PRESIDENT. The ro erva-
tion will be received, printed, and will
he on the table, as requested by the Sen-
ator from Louisiana.
Mr. MILLER. Mr. President, with re-
-spect to the pending resolution of ratifi-
cation, I send to the d0 k an amendment
and also a reservation,,and ask that they
be printed, and also that they be printed
in the RECORD.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
amendment and reservation will be re-
-ceived, printed, and will lie on the table,
and, without objection,. will be printed in
The amendment an' reservation are
as follows: -
AMENDMNT
At the end of the resolution of ratification
add the following new paragraph:
"Following ratification of the treaty by the
Praesidium of the Suprerne Soviet, the See-
retary of the Senate is hereby instructed to
retur:a this Resolution to the President of
original purpose of the provision requiring the United States for appropriate action."
t
life insurance companies to accrue discoun
on bonds at the time it was first enacted in
the Revenue Act of 1942 was tp provide a
means of taxing this type of capital gains
since life Insurance- companies were not
taxed on capital gains at that time.
This purpose is recognized in The Confer-
ence Committee Report of the Revenue Act
of 1942 (77th Cong., 2d sess., H. Rept. 2586)
where at page 53 the elimination'by the Sen-
ate of the House provisions including capi-
tal gains and losses from incortie and de-
luotions and the Senate addition of the
provisions relating to amortization of bond
premium and discount provisions were ex-
plained as follows: "Amendment No. 206.
* * * Capital gains are excluded In the tax
base, and amortization of bond premiums
and accrual of bond discount j provided
for."
Since the Life Insurance Company In-
come Tax Act of 1959, however,,, life insur-
ance companies have been subjected to tax
on their capital gains. Therefore, the origi-
nal reason for requiring the accrual of dis-
count on all bonds by life insurance com-
panies no longer exists.
This bill, by eliminating the required ac-
crual of market discount for all. bonds, will
correct ji matter which was overlooked when
the Life Insurance Company Income Tax
Act of 1959 was enacted. Also, liy providing
similar treatment for small mutual fire and
casualty insurance companies, it will correct
an oversight in the Revenue Act of 1962 when
the required accrual of bond discount was
eliminated for medium and large mutual
fire and casualty insurance companies but
not for the smaller companies.
The bill applies to tax years beginning
after December 31, 1962, the same effective
date as is applied to medium, and large
mutual fire and casualty insurance com-
panies by the Revenue Act of 1962.
I am informed that the annl)al revenue
loss caused by the enactment of this bill will
be less than $1 million, after taking into ac-
count the capital gains taxes that are ulti-
mately due.
RESERVA'i' ON
Before the period at the end of the reso-
lution of ratification inset a comma and the
following: "subject to the reservation, which
Is hereby made a part aid condition of the
resolution of ratification, that the instru-
ment of ratification of ? the treaty by the
United States shall not lie deposited as pro-
vided by paragraph 3 of article III thereof
until the Union of Soviet Socialist Repub-
lics has paid all of its delinquent assessments
to the United Nations".
NOTICE OF MOTION TO SUSPEND
THE RULE-AME1 DMENT OF DE-
PARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO-
PRLATION BILL, 1964
Mr. LAUSCHE submitted the following
notice in writing:
In accordance with rule XL of the Stand-
ing Rules of the Senate, I hereby give notice
In writing that it is my intention to move to
suspend paragraph 4 of role XVI-for the pur-
pose of proposing to the bill (H.R. 6754)
making appropriations for the Department of
Agriculture and related agencies for the fis-
cal year ending June 30,1964, and for other
purposes, the following amendment; namely:
On page 38, between lines 5 and 6, :insert
a new section as follows:
"Sac. 608. (a) The second sentence of sec-
tion 4 of the Rural Electrification Act of
1936, as amended (7 U.S.C. 904), is amended
by striking out "and shall bear Interest at
the rate of 2 per centum Per annum; Interest
rates on the unmatured and unpaid balance
-nf any loans made pursuant to this section
prior to the effective data of this amendment
shall be adjusted to 2 per centum per annum,
and the maturity date of any such loans
may be readjusted to occur at a date not be-
yond thirty-five years from the date of such.
loan:", and inserting in lieu thereof the
following: "and shall bear interest at a rate
equal. to the average rate of interest payable
by the United States of ~merica on its mar-
NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY-RES-, ketable obligations, having maturities of ten
ERVATIONS AND AMENDMENT or more years, issued during the last pre-
ceding fiscal year in which any such obliga-
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- ,tions were Issued and; adjusted to the
dent, I submit a reservation, intended to nearest one-eighth of o.te per centum:
"(b) The third sentence of section 5 of
the Rural Electrification Act of 1933, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 905), is amended by strik-
ing out "and shall be at a rate of interest
of 2 per centum per annum; interest rates
on the unrnatured and unpaid balance of any
loans made pursuant to this section prior to
the effective date of this amendment shall be
adjusted to 2 per centum per annum", and
inserting in lieu thereof "and shall bear in-
terest at a rate equal to the average rate of
interest payable by the United States oi'
America on its marketable obligations,
having maturities of ten or more years, is-
sued during the last preceding fiscal year in
which any such obligations were issued and
adjusted to the nearest one-eighth of one
per centum.".
"(c) The amendments made by tEiis see -
tion shall be effective with respect to all
loans made on and after the date of e'aact-
ment of this Act."
Mr. LAUSCHE also submitted art
amendment, intended to be proposed by
him, to House bill 6754, making appro-
priations for the Department of Agri-
culture and related agencies for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1964, and for other
purposes, which was ordered to lie on
the table and to be printed.
(For text of amendment referred to,
see the foregoing notice.)
ADDITIONAL COSPONSORS OF BILLS
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I ask:
unanimous consent that at the next
printing of the bill (S. 108) making
Columbus Day a legal holiday, the name
of Mr. WILLIAMS of New Jersey be in-
eluded as a cosponsor.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BOGGS. Mr. President, I also
ask unanimous consent that at the next
printing of the bill (S. 2115) to improve
the balance-of-payments position of the
United States by permitting the use of
reserved foreign currencies in lieu of dol-
lars for current expenditures, the name
of Mr. DoMlxicx be included as a, co-
sponsor.
The VICE PRESIDENT. Without ob-
jection, it is so ordered.
AID TO VIETNAM-ADDITIONAL
COSPONSORS OF RESOLUTION
Mr. CHURCH. Mr. President, last
Thursday I submitted a resolution (S.
Res. 196) which provides that unless the
Government of South Vietnam abandons
policies of repression against its own
people and makes a deterillined and ef-
fective effort to regain their support,
military, and economic assistance to that
Government should not be continued. :f
left the resolution on the table for a
week until noon, Thursday, September
19, so that other Senators could join in
cosponsorship. The latest Senators ask-
ing to cosponsor the resolution are the
senior Senator from New Mexico [Mr.
ANDERSON], the junior Senator from
Maryland [Mr. BREWSTER], the junior
Senator from New Hampshire [Mr.
MCINTYRE], and the junior Senator from
-Tennessee [Mr. WALTERS].
I ask unanimous consent for their
names to be added. This brings to 30
the number of Senators now sponsoring
the resolution.
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : PIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved for Release, 2004/03/1A G1A-RDP65B00383RO0Q1.002-10008-2
. '.. CONGRESSIONAL tEcORP - SENATE 16487
disciplines applicable to human relations. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there whether we have a test ban treaty or
The importance of the spiritual values has further morning business? If not, not.
too often been forgotten, and too much re
Iiance has been placed on pu re ly ' material morning business is closed. The critics and opponents of the treaty
progress. The Ufffted nations Charter rep- THE NUCLEAR TEST who want to continue atmospheric test-
resents a great ' effort to redress this im-
balance. BAN TREATY ing have no scientific breakthrough in
I THE
i mind that would reestablish any degree
Senate, resumed the considera- of military supremacy for the United
"Since the Second: World war three polit-
teal imperatives have emerged with 1rrrsist- tion of Executive M (88thCong., 1st sess., States comparable to our breakthrough
able Rxce.a are s ping the course of his- the treaty banning nuclear weapon tests in nuclear weapons. What they are
Cory' in this 2d fiat of the 26th century. In the atmosphere, in outer space, and talking about are the refinements of nu-
They are: The outlawing of war as a means underwater. clear weaponry that carry with them an
of settling international disputes, the aboli- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The ever-widening range of accompanying
Lion of the -Aependence of certain peoples on
others, and international cooperation with question is on agreeing"to the resolution defense systems.
a view to igiprovng the levels of living of of ratification. Take the antimissile missile, about
the developing peoples. Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, it is which so much has been said in this de-
"x vq WORK TO no rather surprising tome that the debate bate. Of course, the scientists who have
"The United Nations has made. incontest- and discussion of this-treaty have gone the responsibility of developing this
able progress in prosecuting these ends; but to far afield from the subject it treats. Weapon do not regard atmospheric test-
the work, v{hich remains for it to do is of Its.oentra1 purpose. was, and still is to ing as necessary to its development. But
much greater dimensions. curb pollution of the earth's atmosphere there are opponents of the treaty who do.
"In, the broad, historic process ' which Is with radiation. Yet the effort to do so Even from them, I have heard nothing in
moving toward the attainment of the ideals has brought on a debate that seems to the debate or the testimony which would
of the ctafter, each General Assembly has question the value of the treaty not be- indicate that an installed antimissile
marked a swpi le 1 o ehope that this
18th sessioiawiil be z}? excause of what it does but because of what missile, with a civilian defense shelter
"The importance which the United Nations it does not do. Program which will be the next adjunct
has acquired compels it to adapt its methods I 'suppose that my own criticisms and we will be asked to finance, perfected
of, work to the increasing demands it is called doubts about the value of the treaty also through continued atmospheric testing
upon to satisfy. The efficiency of the or- go to what it does not do. I very much by all nations, would furnish the Ameri-
ganization will depend to a great extent on regret that there is not more to the can people with a greater degree of
the efilciency of its methods of work. We treaty; that it does not ban all nuclear safety than we now have.
effe t all co. peiate'fn making it a ready and I shall announce my complete opposi-
ffctive in#rument responding to the needs testing; that it does not put any real
of the moment ant prepared to face those curb on the armament race; that it does tion, when it reaches the floor of the
of the future. not call for disarmament of the kind Senate, to what I consider to be the
"Despite all the divergent views, conflicting that would permit substantial cuts in our deception and fraud being practiced on
Interests aii4 passions which must naliurally defense budget. the American people by the passage in
find expression in an international parlia- the House of Representatives yesterday
went, we also share ideals and aspirations it is a step so small it may never be
of a so-called fallout shelter program.
which c_Qnstitute azj invaluable comm,Qn de-, noticed in the history of the world, if it How deceptive can we be? How can we
nominator permitting us to smooth out our' is not followed up with more steps in the justify on moral grounds leading the
differences rnd helping us to achieve accept- same direction. .. American people to believe that a shel-
able solutiol~s ?T4at is the .basis for my reservations. ter program will be an effective protec-
"vRrrvs,ro~vszsTzrwr The objections that have been voiced by tionfor them in case of a nuclear war?
"Many a diilicuity can be overcome If we others, however, indicate a fear that it Mr. President, many scientists and
put aside the often artificially created fears may be followed by additional steps. military propagandists are deceiving the
and `prejudices which distort reality and Yet out of all the military and scien- American people on this point, and I will
hamper understanding. Moreover, a sound tific testimony I have not heard the case not vote for a single dollar of appropria-
tnterp oseeon of tth principles of `tfie charter made that the overall advantage in con- tions for any so-called fallout shelter
presuppposes that they are to be applied im-
partially. The principles and precepts of the tinued and unlimited testing by all na- program, because it is a delusion and an
charter are the sarigg for all; we should not tions-in other words the advantage of illusion, it is a shockingingly deceptive
exempt some from what we demand of others, rejecting the treaty-would lie with the device on the part of some propagandists
nor excuse In somx:e, what in others we con- United States, who seek to continue a military buildup
dema, $uch i consistencies weaken the Let us not forget that defeat of the
trust that is bound to bring mankind to
moral f 4xce"o# t o SSembiy and breed mss- treaty and continued atmospheric test- destruction.
t t aa skepticism. trig by the United States, as advocated by What will the historians write, 100
" dence that thedebates,
have eyery aonli
which will take place during this session and some opponents of the treaty, would also years from today, if there is then any
in which sp many eminent states from all mean continued atmospheric testing by society, about the immorality of our gen-
over the world v~,'ill ,participate, will proceed the Soviet Union and the progressive and eration, the immorality of the Amer-
in an atmosphere of understanding, harmony, rising number of nuclear tests of other scans the Russians, the British, the
and mutzai respect and will increase the types of weapons by other countries. Frenc~i, and all the other leading nations
trust placed by the peoples of the world in of the world? Never before has such a
the United la~},tions;, and that, while they ob- The development of nuclear weapons,
viously cannot solve all the serious problems together with their systems of delivery, chapter of immorality been written by
facing the world today, they will at least has brought the American people ever man. The armaments race is a sinful
help to clear the ground for the solution of nearer to total destruction, not safety. and immoral thing; and it should be
those problems. Thisisso because we are unable to limit ended.
"The ;united Nations is, in a sense, a mir- them to the United. States. During that There are some interesting 'conceal-
ror Which the world, and the spirit brief period at the close of World War II, ments of the great damage already done
in which ptir debates are conducted is bound when the United States and Britain by fallout. Despite the propagandists
to spread beyond these wails to all the na- alone had the nuclear capacity, we might who are seeking to deceive the American
tfor of the glabe_ have known that moment of complete people into the opinion that we can con-
" Qartupajely, this session opens in an aus-
pgi~cious atmosphere' International Pension supremacy in the world that few nations tinue atmospheric tests and not do ir-
lias beers r duce4 by the welcome signature ever enjoy. But our supremacy was only reparable damage to generations of un-
of, the l pscavi ea, y, and in all parts of the momentary; it, proved to be an incentive born children. Last summer the dairy-
world men' fears axe replaced by hope. for others to. acquire the same weapons. men in Minnesota had to keep their
I be c divine providence to enlighten Today we hear it said in France that no herds in the barns 24 hours a day-day
our, shin send .to unify our efforts so that, nation that lacks nuclear weapons can and night. They did not publicize that
thus ins lred lusandion united, gpnawe inter tangsk to of a be a first-class nation or exert influence fact, because they thought publicity
rne1ny ' conc pea ce among nations and pro- or leadership in the world. France is might have an adverse effect on the milk
matntg nations
afntn
the progress and well-being of all busily acting on that premise, as is China, industry; but the fallout in that part of
mankind." " and I expect other nations to follow suit , the United States was so dangerous that,
Approved `Ft* Release "2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R0.00100210008-2
 16488
Approved
Mr. President, in responding to the
remarks of the Senator from Arkansas, I
should like the REcoari to show my very
great admiration for his leadership in
the handling of the treaty and in this
historic debate in the Senate. In his
work as chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, of which I have the
honor to be a member, he has made a
magnificent record of statesmanship.
I have a commitment to go to the west
coast, and therefore I shall have to leave
immediately after completing my speech;
but 1 wish to take this moment to express
my compliments to the Senator from
Arkansas.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I thank the Sena-
tor from Oregon. Certainly he has done
his part in connection'with the treaty.
Mr. MORSE. Mr. President, too
many of those who are trying to be
more military than the military think
of national defense 'only in terms of
weapons. Yet defense really means the
protection of the lives and property of
American citizens. Armies, nuclear
weapons, and missiles may or may not
contribute to that protection. I sup-
pose that is a concept that few Amer-
icans care to consider. It is contrary
to the military dogmas of our day to
mention the fact that the use of these
pieces of hardware will also mean the
failure of our defense system to defend
the United States. 'Using them will
mean the destruction of the lives, prop-
erty, and freedom of trillions upon mil-
lions of Americans, and probably the
permanent destruction or at least cur-
tailment of what we all like to call the
American way of life.
Well then, it may be said that the
important thing is not having an anti-
missile-missile for thg sake of using it,
but only for the sake of having it. The
nation that first deve'ops and installs a
-reasonable anti-missile-missile is said to
gain a politicaj, advantage that will en-
courage it to undertake aggression it
could not otherwise risk. That seems to
mean that the existence of a military
weapon is valuable primarily for its po-
litical effect. But tlen we are agreed
that these weapons, and the desirability
of testing, them, are political more than
military questions.
Much the same is true of the 100-
megaton bomb. I heard many doubts
expressed during the hearings about
whether it was wise to ban atmospheric
testing after the Russians had tested
bombs in this magnitude. Yet I never
heard anyone who raised this point state
that the United States should test bombs
in this range. I do ndt know to this day
whether that is thee conclusion to be
For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2c
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September
from the; standpoint of health, it was
not safe, even to turn the dairy herds
out of the barns. It is about time for
us to get to the American people the
facts about fallout, even though they
might have a bad effect on the dairy
industry.
Mr. President, I offer no apology for
basing my support of the treaty 100 per-
cent on moral grounds. I pray. to God
that the treaty may be the first step
which will help bring mankind to its
senses before it is too late, and will lead
to an ending of the sinful nuclear arma-
ments race.
As a member of the Committee on For-
eign Relations, I have studied long and
hard the testimony submitted in con-
nection with the treaty by scientists,
militarists, and civilian political spokes-
men. Over the past several years, I have
interested myself in the entire matter
of nuclear armaments, and from time to
time have spoken-to the boredom of
many Senators, I am sure-ever since
the sinful nature of this race became
crystal clear to me and ever since I be-
came convinced of the inevitable destruc-
tion of a large part of civilization if we
do not live up to our military responsibil-
ities and start doing the things neces-
sary to be done in order to bring to an
end the immoral, nuclear armaments
race.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
the Senator from Oregon yield?
Mr. MORSE. I am-glad to yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. The Senator from
Oregon has made a very good point in
regard to deception of the American peo-
ple. He will recall the testimony of Dr.
York-who, I believe is generally recog-
nized as one of the great authorities in
the field of the long-range aspects of the
antiballistic-missile system, and who
states that, in his opinion, there is no
question that offense would always be
much easier to develop and would always
overcome any antiballistic-missile system
one could have.
Mr. MORSE. I do not believe there is
any doubt about that.
Mr. F ULBRIGHT. In other words, it
Is a deception to pretend that we can de-
velop a system which will protect us from
all these missiles.
Mr. MORSE. I believe that point
needs to be emphasized again and again.
But if the nuclear armaments race is
continued, it can result in the develop-
ment of hideous destructive devices for
killing.
Mr. FULaBRIGHT. Yes.
Mr. MORSE. That is the test.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I wish to add that
what the Senator from Oregon has said
about this race is quite appropriate; and
some way must be found to bring it under
control, for it is getting completely out of
hand. Certain groups are now develop-
ing vested interests in these operations-
as was evident in Miami, the other day,
through the demonstration by the Air
Force Association. It is now clear that
unless we act reasonably soon to bring
this race under control, a strong political
movement which would be very difficult
to control may develop.
Mr. MORSE. I completely agree.
The testimony was, ample in showing
that our nuclear program did not con-
template going into that range of weap-
ons. We could have developed it in that
direction, but we chose not to. There
was no evidence that We would go in this
direction in the absence of a test treaty,
and I heard no critical of the treaty sug-
gest that we do so.
The value of advances in weaponry
achieved by wide open testing by our-
selves and all interested nations can only
18
be judged in terms of what other coun-
tries are likely to do and in terms of the
impact of this level of military spending
upon our own economy.
This, of course, is why we have civilian
control over the military-and I pray
that we keep it.
Yet I am very much disturbed about
a dangerous type of military buildup in
the United States. I refer to the buildup
of what I consider dangerous influence
of the military on American public
policy. There have been implications of
it in the present debate, for in the debate
there have been Senators who seem to
be of the opinion that the judgments of
the military should be substituted for
those of American civilian officials in the
determination of American public policy.
As a constitutionalist, I say from the
floor of the Senate today to the American
people, "Keep yourselves on guard
againts the power of this military.
Keep yourselves on guard against the
growing and dangerous power of Ameri-
can military minds over public policy, for
it is important in a democracy to keep
the military always in its place; and its
place is subordinate to our civilian
leaders. Its place is to carry out policy
determined by our civilian leaders, and
not determined by military minds."
If the time'ever comes when American
foreign policy is determined by American
military authorities, we are on our way
to inevitable war. I speak weighing
fully the meaning and implication of
every word that I utter. If we permit
the American military to determine
American foreign policy, or have the
determining voice in American foreign
policy, we are on our way to an inevitable
war and the destruction of our country,
for all of history points out that unless
we keep military forces in control, they
will lead us to a manifestation of their
art, which is the art of war.
I congratulate the President of the
United States, the Secretary of Defense,
Mr. McNamara, and the Secretary of
State, Mr. Rusk, for their repetitive ac-
tion during this administration to make
perfectly clear to the military in the
Pentagon that the Commander in Chief
is still the President of the United States
under our Constitution.
There is more implication in what I
have uttered in connection with the
treaty than the words at first analysis
may seem to indicate.
As I have said, this is why we have
civilian control over the military. It. is
why the power to declare war resides in
Congress, and why the limitations on
funds for the military establishment
were written into the Constitution.
In today's world, arms and weapons
alone are not a source of security or pro-
tection. If they are used, the nation in-
volved in, the exchange will have failed
to achieve the primary purpose of de-
fense, in the sense of protecting its peo-
ple. The existence, the handling, and
the nature of the military establishment
and its component parts are hence vital
political questions, as well as military
ones.
The importance of having an antimis-
sile is not in using it, but in its effect
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For Release"0.04/03/1 :CIA-RDP65B00383RQQ0100210008--
1,263,- CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
Or will At merely encourage them tc, im- how political and economic conditions
prove their own Weapons systems in an can overwhelm military objectives to
effort to overcome our advantage?- We know that the same thing can happen
already know, that the development of. in the United States.
nuclear, ;we pons, by the United States. So it is that the hazards of radiation
did not repel other from acquiring them, must.also enter into these political de-
due elth to heir,.gost or to their horror. cisions.. We have already assured the
They are the status symbol of a first class death,.Qf an, unknown number of people,
power. 'Mlle missi, delivery system will and-assured the defkormity of many more
undoubtedly be the next. by the testing we have done to acquire
I do not.. 4ean 1Q deny, or to belittle our present nuclear arsenal. Every fur-
in, any way the importance of military ther improvement in that arsenal that is
defense against Communist aggression, tested, and every new weapon that is
the country has voted more funds for the
military end of defense of the free world
than I have in the-last 19 years.
Time and, time ,again I have .voted
more fundsfor th ?defense of. our coun-
try than all, the Presidents under whom
I have served hay requested. I have
voted for more f>;nds than., President
Roosevelt, Iecomu ended; more_ funds
than President Tillman recomlxteed;
more funds . than, president Eisenhower
reQomineridp'd,{ and already in one
_case
in Connection wit,,4 sea power, I have
voted for more _ funds than President
Kennedy recommended. ,
Each of us has to come to our conclu-
sion of how. much is enough, and I am
rapidly coming to the conclusion .that
the increased sums we are spending for
further'
weapons development are add-
ifg little .to,,our total security.
I recognize the importance of keeping
this country so strong that Russia will
understand. 24,hourg.of the day and night
that she, h#s everything to lose and
nothing to gain by nuclear war. The sad
fact is that it is trlw of us, too, and it is
true of every nation which. might involve
itself in nuclear,war, and it is also 11 sadly true of all, peaceful nations that
do not want to be ipvolved.in a nuclear
war. They cannot escape its conse-
quences, Certainly military weaknesses
and capabilities are, themselves a large
political factor..
But it also seems to me to be more true
than at any time in ..our history that the
defense of the United. States-meaning
the protection of lives, property, and po-
litical and,, ~conomie systems-depends
upon econonic,arfc(,lolitical factors
Not the. lea~5t of them is the impact of a
military system like the one we have-upon
our economy. Guns versus butter. Up
to some point, there is a case to .be made
that like public works, or like leafraking,
Government, pending for armaments in-
jects a stimulus into our economy. We
are bearing the argument being made
?_Ai- f
no-
e
f
at the expense-of an-untold number of
unborn children. Even assuming that
not one of these weapons is ever fired in
anger, its very testing will bring pain and
death.
Some of these victims will be Ameri-
.cans, The longer the nuclear arms race
continues and..the more nations that get
into the race, the more American chil-
dren will die from it. So will Russian
children, and so will children in countries
that never spend a penny on a weapon
of their own.
If Senators say that the radiation
from testing is not bad enough to worry
about, then I say, "You only mean you
are not worrying about it today." Some-
one will have to worry about it tomorrow.
But by then it may be too late to do
anything about.it.
That is why I think it is unfortunate
that the debate over this treaty has got-
ten so far. -away from the small and
limited objective of the treaty. When
I hear Cuba, and Berlin, and the anti-
missile missile dragged into this debate,
I know that they are being dragged in
by men who do not want the issue of
the need to test versus the radiation
hazard from testing to stand alone to
be voted up or down. They are not
satisfied to let-this treaty stand or fall
on its merits. Every issue we have had
with communism everywhere in the
world for the. past _ 50 years is being
brought in, in the effort to tip the scales
against the treaty.
Not only is the past being made an
issue, but so are future possibilities of
amendments. Article II, section 2 of
the treaty states:
Any amendment to this Treaty must be
approved by a majority of the votes of all
the Parties to the Treaty, including the
votes of all of the original Parties. The
amendment shall enter into force for all
Parties upon the deposit of instruments of
ratification by a majority of all the Parties,
including the instruments of ratification of
all of the Original Parties.
p
g, or
oreign aid-over Note the language, Mr. President,
half of which is rain tions-is a boQn,_to "upon the deposit of instruments of rati-
our economy. If foreign aid is_a good fication." That is the language of the
thing because it puts men to work and treaty. Under the Constitution of the
keeps factories running, I shudder to United States, it is impossible for us to
think what arguments will be made deposit such an Instrument until the
against any reductlQns in our. own De- Senate has given its advice and consent
fense Establishment, should they become to that ratification. We know that a
possible. treaty is not effective insofar as we are
But at some paint, military spending concerned unless and until it has been
becomes more of.,adrag than a.stimulus, ratified by the Senate. If Senators do
and this, too, is a political decision,. Cer- not understand that, I do not know how
tainly if the economic underpinnings of it can be made any more clear by adding
our Defense Establishment ever gave such an understanding to the treaty. It
way, the free world Would, collapse with- Is the Constitution of the United States
out a shot ever being fired against it. We that governs our -ratification procedure,
16489
and the treaty declares that amend
ments to it must be ratified by all the
original parties.
The alarms raised about possible
amendments being achieved by executive
action are all of the "what if" variety.
It is pretty hard to see how or why the
President of the United States would
violate the Constitution by depositing an
instrument of ratification of an amend-
ment to this treaty when ti had not in
fact been ratified by the Senate. If he
should, then he would be subject to both
the legal action authorized by the Con-
stitution and to the political action that
his opponents would certainly undertake.
But suppose that in fear that the
President might illegally announce the
ratification of a future amendment, the
Senate rejects the treaty. What is to
stop any President from suspending tests
in the prohibited atmosphere, anyway?
As Chief Executive, he does not need rat-
ification of this treaty by the Senate in
order to make U.S. policy conform to
the terms of the treaty.
Or suppose we add to the treaty the
language that has been suggested, to the
effect that all future amendments must
be ratified by the U.S. Senate in order
to make them legal from the American
standpoint?
If a future President were inclined to
violate the Constitution in order to ac-
cept an amendment to the treaty, he
could also Ignore the language added by
the Senate and simply make American
policy conform to the amendment.
If ever I listened to an example of
surplusage, the proposal to add some-
where in the treaty a definition that
ratification means approved by two-
thirds of the Senate is it. That is what
ratification means, anyway, under the
Constitution. I do not know why the
fear argument is being used. I am at a
loss to understand this "windmilling" in
the Senate, without the windmill even
being connected to a servicable pump.
This is diversion. This is confusion.
This is "scarecrowism." It has no
relevancy to the Constitution of the
United States and the treatymaking
powers and procedures set forth in the
organic law involved.
I wish to make clear to my leadership
that I am not interested in placating
anyone by agreeing that unessential
language be added to this treaty or to its
resolution of acceptance. The resolu-
tion should be voted up or down without
the change of a comma. I believe the
leadership of the Senate has a -duty to
put it to a vote without the change of a
comma, and to let the American people
judge that vote.
If a future President were inclined to
violate the Constitution in order to ac-
cept an amendment to the treaty, he
could also Ignore the language added by
the Senate and ' make American policy
conform to- the amendment. Or he
might even devise a way of depositing
the instrument of ratification without
submitting the amendment to the Sen-
ate. If we are contemplating a possible
President who would violate the Con-
stitution, I assume such a person would
also be able to get around a mere Sen-
ate amendment.
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
16490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
if any President should ever try to further steps to guard against surprise it is a very small and limited objec-
follow such a course of action in viola- attack without signing a formal treaty tiivpeven any us in the treaty. { here
tion of the oath he took when sworn in on this point. is not
curbing radioactive that ive pollution.
on Inauguration Day, I would hope that If any agreement along those lines succeed
nolgradi a, France and
there would be a sufficient number in proves possible, it certainly should take The ot v China, major o probably pollute the -'world
the Congress who would vote to impeach the form of a treaty. C will pr pro testing, and these events
him. That is the safeguard the Ameri- But even if we fail to reach further with i a, both mst United hand
can people have written into the Con- agreements with the Soviet Union, I be- could could lead back into the Uit d States te business. and
stitution. He would be subject to im- lieve the pending treaty is sound and ad- any Russia the signatories test simplwit Or
peachment. vantageous to the United States. The- draw w or ucould si they treaty
I am at a loss to understand this ver- Secretary of Defense has testified that for reasons unilaterally a its own, ieaty
balistic gymnastic program contemplated it is advantageous to us even on mili- for signatories own, immediately mmed from any
by the Senate on this subject matter in tary grounds, in that confining weapons ofur eall a further the
commitment to it.
recent days. It has no relevancy to the tests to underground would slow down limited
Constitution and the safeguards written the Soviet Union as it seeks to close the When overwhelming frail and linvited
into the Constitution in connection with gap with us in warheads of lower ranges, treaty one treat nuclear against stacks this
stockpiles oes now in existence,
ratification of treaties, and the great whi'.le the United States has little in- wide nuclear in itself the treaty is
check the American people have under terest in the gap in the higher yield it evident r srain of sand fn he ocean of
the Constitution, which retains for Con- ranges, where the Russians apparently scarcely de gstruction.
gress the right to impeach a President hold the lead. potential destruction.
I. welcome the opportunity to vote
takes his oath processes I quote the testimony of the Secretary for it, and I hope it will be ratified by
who upon him m when he he constitutional
binding g upon
ofDefense on this paint. He said: an overwhelming majority.
of ohink the negotiators The risks under the beaty are either small In my opinion, we have nothing to
I thi esi himself, the treaty' or under our control, and the values of the ' lose from it and we may gain ma-
ins the President himself, are to be cam- treaty are substantial even if we consider measurably. That is an opportunity
mended for the language which clearly only the military area. that we do not often have presented
future I emphasize the word "only." these days and I cannot conceive of the
aendments. To objratificationect of that any the treaty y
dmend
does not spell out the constitutional That is the conclusion of the Secre- American people, through their tienate,
process by which the United States rati- tary of Defense. In his opinion, the turning their backs upon it.
fies a treaty is a pretty flimsy ground for treaty is advantageous to the United Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President, will
opposition to the treaty itself. We have States in terms of its, impact in the mili- the Senator MORSE.
yield to the Senator
over 600 treaties in effect, ratified by an tary area alone. from Aequal number of acceptance resolutions, The Joint Chiefs of Staff were more FU Arkansas. sas T. I wish vmuch
none of which have language of this kind conservative. They said that: Mr. FU R deep a wish very er to the
in them. While there are military disadvantages to to
I invite Senators to show me, during the treaty, they are not so serious as to ren- Senator from Oregon for an incisive and
the debate on the treaty, in over 600 der it unacceptable. informative speech. This is not the first
treaties which have been ratified by this The most serious reservation they had time he has made such a speech. We
have become so accustomed to very pene-
body, language such as is here proposed, was, in fact, a political one. It was that crating analyses by the Senator from
does a relaxation in tensions might result Oregon that sometimes we let them pass
If th add it resolution this one, in the preamble
the else 600 , that from the treaty that would mean a let- without comment, but he has made a
tshe cast t a reflection n on on anywhere
this a t down. in military preparedness. That very fine speech.
went before? was the chief concern expressed by the There are a couple of points 1 wish to
It is now proposed to put into the pre- Joint Chiefs; yet it is not even a military emphasize. On one of them I wish to ask
amble of the pending acceptance res- one. a question.
o l the language in question. This I
know that witnesses can be held up On page 9 of his statement he states:
would not affect the treaty itself, and as examples of patriotic, dedicated men Or any of the signatories could simply
would avoid the embarrassing
all assing the other predir who have devoted their lives to the mill- withdraw or unilaterally abrogate the treaty
'went of going back to hsignets with a restatement of our own tars service or to the scientific research for reasons oi its own, immediately freeing
Constitution. But it is, in my opinion, that goes into military weaponry, and allthe otne tign signatories from any further
unnecessary and undesirable to put it in it can be said that this one and that one understand.
the preamble of the resolution, either, opposes the treaty. I think that all the I am not quite sure I un
Does the Senator mean the three original
for all the same reasons. witnesses who appeared at the hearings
I hope we have not reached the point start even in their patriotism and in parties, or all the signatories?
where we will go through waste motion their dedication to the service of their Mr. MORSE. I mean that if any party
on the floor of the Senate, and add sur- country. violates the treaty, any other party to the
plusage to the preamble of a treaty res- I am only concerned with the facts treaty that wants to engage in nuclear
olution, merely to placate someone. and opinions they presented, and I find testing and consider the treaty dead is
This treaty should stand on its own the tremendous preponderance of fact not bound by it.
feet. It should not be modified one iota. and of expert opinion in support of the Mr. FULBRIGHT. Let us suppose the
We know what our Constitution says treaty. Indeed, this is true in the mils- country of Burma decides to wiithdraw,
and means about ratification of treaties. terry and scientific fields as well as the under article IV, as distinct from violat-
We know how much a President can do political field, despite all the concentra- ing the treaty. Does the Senator believe
with or without a treaty in fixing the tion upon issues of the antimissile mis- we are relieved of any obligations under
policy of the United States in nuclear sile and the high yield nuclear bombs. their ate without . going althrough--
weapons. It adds nothing to spell out So I shall vote for this treaty with only Mr. FOLSE.IGHT. I wanted to be
our ratification process, and I am sure the reservation that it does not go far
that doing so will not even gain the sup- enough. I would like to see it include sure-
port No. If Russia or Great
port of any Senator who makes this point more far-reaching and significant meas-Mr. against its ratification. They will still ures. But I shall vote for it if for no Britain or the United States violated, the
vote against it. other reason than that it tries to reduce treaty, the other parties would be free at
This brings me to the question of what, the pollution of the atmosphere, and once to follow whatever their national in-
If anything, will come after it. that is an objective the United States teresb, dictated.
I hope something will come after it. has pursued under administrations of Mr. FULBRIGHT. There is angither
What does come may not come in the both parties. It is the objective of the question which has intrigued me, and
form of a treaty. Just as we could sus- resolution introduced in this body by which I had not thought of. At page 8
pend further underground testing with- the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. of his text the Senator refers to the
out a treaty or an amendment to the Donn], of which I was pleased to be one rents euphoria the t whic some of the the mio-
current one, so could we probably take of the cosponsors.
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 63 'Approved For Release 2004/03%1 T 'tIA=RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
CONGR F.c.c rnXT A T
Oil-4 t11 Z 16491
tart' opponents, rely so heavily. As I read the testimony before those sessions Whether this is true or not, I would not
see it, that is essentially a political ques- of the committees which I was unable to
t ion; is that not true? attend; to study a volume of materials- say. In any case, it is the quality and
Mr. MORSE. Of course it is. They both top secret and unclassified-bearin not the quantity of the testimony, it is
are, ot~t,d jhpir field in that respect. g the quality and not the number of wit-Oil vaGaspects of the treaty; an Mr. E1ILBRIGHT. How the Joint read most of the rather sizable corre nesses that matters.
Chiefs of .Staff or any other military spondence I have received on the ques-
men are (Q]npetent to judge the euphoria tion of ratification. THE MOLDING OF PUBLIC OPINION
Which might overtake Congress or the I I regret to point out that calculated
otee
country is not quite a reasonable inter- knowledge have also called
experience as a member efforts have been made b the some
e a e
ount ion, it seems to me. I do not of the active Air Force Reserve, with over favoring ratification of the treaty to r
csubscribe, to, that theory. rati tificially
cat mold public opinion in favv or of
sc j to that Neither do I. 26 years' serice, including the faculty ratification. These efforts have a
Mr. F[JI 1;2,IGHT. I am of the Army Command and General Staff ently succeeded, for I note fromthe e
and Senator has Poi HT out thatl thist is China-Bur aeIven Thea erslof Opethe Harris Survey front y poll which appeared be
essentially a political matter. I thank tions during of a local newspaper on
Senator EPo very finer. t 10 ng World War II, and some M4 to onday the the public is supposed to years' Reserve training at Strategic deep 1 for the treaty. One wondersh how
w
r. MORSE. I thank the Senator Air Command Headquarters before my hw the isurv nfo m d those and, particularly were ques ,
Mfor his, comment. I close by extending election to the Senate in 1960.
to my President my closet' yoxtendi a When the future security of the United how well sly wee were. those the who question were quere
to for_sidengreat t sthta hearty con a has States Wand, in turn, u the free world, stated really
You fa. If the question were
displayed by his leadership t he has at stake, one does not lightly t' turn assuming tat i favor te test treaty,
lion with, yhe treaty. I con con sec- aside an thseur ho f r co not y?"ethat affect
tonerwit .I~arriman for the very able any argument of relevant tgood est fao y br be ecurityn ou cothe q ~e that woere
work he did. as our head negotiator in well-meanin y stated?"Do you If the question were
Moscow in. connection with the treaty. for or against ratification. le Emot nl Dere favor g that it could ad-
When it was signed, I said it was a great arguments by sincere persons do with the affect the security for mankind, for it offers mankind attention and deserve consideratio
lt ter?",aect the security of our coun-
ay fo ortunity, to chan
e it
try that would b
g
n , a
e another.
s course and though they naturally tend to hinder
to march -toward a new horizon of per.. rather than to help in arriving at a sound s the r causes of enat a poll are
manent peace, posed to cause a Senator to vote for a
for a
It is up to the people of the world to deRega elate of which way a Member of treaty which he conscientiously believes
- the Senate votes, none of us will know to be contrary to the interests of his
dli their rl governments rtime n whether n of they a system will for hold world to
determine ine governments for the estab- for a Senate time s, whether of
not our vote ountry, I think renders a disservice
was long wh have done not our best to the p unfortunate that a tionthe United States.
manent peace, for there wbe no of per- w correct. If homework, h ve do not let side In this connection, I believe it is most
time. I aeaeofor ed t will be be in done other our issues such as bassador Harriman who gave with
. our time, or most of mankind will be thinking, if we vote souncconsciences- sr re s act Harriman his instructions with
respect to the treaty negotiations failed
and I am sure all of us will do so-then to see to it that the treaty provide that
until the parties to the negotiation-the
I ask uOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President t, Whether we will hit is ave thmade e correct ht dec swlll
Bead to n
the a moue con en that I from m hsome sleepless hours a the years United States, Great Britain, and the would Iowa [Mr., MILLER], with the under- ahead. Soviet Union-had all ratified the treaty,
standing that I do not lose my right to TWO THINGS CERTAIN no other the treaty. As be result this
the fling, join in the treaty. As a result of this failure, most of The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there when it comes things dedication I am to a just First, that world have, i the otherno ds ib ra-
pbTcion? The PRESIDING Or hears none, and when
peace, to an end to to arms rand world have, the little treaty-and d uppose
it jt ordered tiont of the the ll also rI suppose
Mr. so
is
Mr. President, I thank pact n disarmament
ant with that effective i- tofht these s them will also numbered Many among and
all the Senator R. Ohio. I suggest the kind can enjocmore of the good m thin - e nations are numbered absence of a quorum. the neutral nations, some denlittle nature of
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The policy of freedom over communism, all Communist mperialism and some of
clerk will call the roll. Members of the Senate-wheher the
condemn
The Chief Clerk proceeded to call the vote for or against ratification-are on testing were huite ready to
roll. Y the United States when it resumed
Mr. MILLER. I ask unanimous con- common ground. It would be dishonest and strangely in the silent at on condemnation 1962
sent that the order for the unanimous
call thand at unfair
because for anyone a Senator to votes say or
ratifica- imply Soviet st Russia's breacli the of
set tat p Y 1961 following years tf moratorium
rescinded. s PRESIDING OFFICER. tion of the treaty, he believes in peace at de 19ful flowing n. of secret and
objection, Thit is so ordered. Without any price. And it would be equally un- nations may think tio they avet everything
these
MILLER. orMr. dered.
President, m de- fair and dishonest for anyone to say or to gain from thtreaty and nothingto
Mr. cvotes lose, when they itron M whether to vote ids t, my de- against lrat that bec u the treaty, is in
ratification of the proposed limited nu- favor of nuclear war and nuclear fallout. the capability of the Urealize that nited States h to
clear test ban treaty is the most difficult future security and freedom depends on
one I h b faced since t had the honor The second thing of which I am sure deter Communist a
of becoming a Member I the he Saar is that this is not a clear-cut decision we is now bei
ate. Having been a Member for less that about s to make. nyone who thinks The nt hat inasmuch now being given the
than 3 aving I have felt mber f when ratification decision for
yheard ears, the have felt
obvious, or ratification that or the against evi- other n that as all of these
comment reassured from ranee it overwhelming one way or the United other nations have tithed the greof t
it
I than 3 some have the most senior Members of the United States harmful the the prestige the
some Senatq. other, either has proceeded from false rit. If the prestige of the atify if the Senate refused to
In arriving at my decision, i have done hPremises omework. or Practically all the evidence ratify this treaty -if it threatens he se-
my best to sit in on the various hearings States has fallen so low that failure to
which best to were conducted by the has bee opinion evidence rather curity of the United Std will
oreign coRelations nducted the Joint CCom- ommittee factual than greama causr
been
won o Foreign Atomic Energy, in such terms as "may" and irreparable damage to our
and the Com- "might," "could or should," I " know y~. that or reputation men ter has a eace-lousa s of our
foour
mittee on Armed Services, meeting joint- "probably," and the the like.' or after thousands
ly, and the hearings of the Preparedness some have made the suggestion
and ousands women have given their tgiven theeir lives
Subcommittee of the Armed Services there is more evidence on the side of of this country have paid out over $100
Committee, meeting in closed session; to ratification than on the side against It. billion in foreign aid to the less fortu-
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA4RDP651300383R000100210008-2
16492 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
pate members of the world community,
after the United States has poured mil-
lions of dollars into the United Nations
to keep it alive while the Soviet Union
has amassed a delinquency of almost $54
million of the total outstanding delin-
quencies of $102 million, then I would
say that our friendship with the other
nations of the world hangs by a very
slender thread. And if the U.S. Senate
is supposed to ratify a treaty mainly be-
cause it is suggested that to do otherwise
would adversely affect world opinion,
then the constitutional power to advise
and consent has been reduced to an
empty gesture. And, I might add, if
such a consideration is supposed to tip
the scales of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in
their recommendation regarding a
treaty, they have been wrongfully placed
in a position unbecoming the top mili-
tary leaders and advisers of this country.
MY DECISION
Some of my brothers have said that
the question to be answered is this: "Is
this treaty in the national Interest?"
But no one really knows whether it is.
No one really knows whether or not it is
a first step in the right direction. No
one really knows whether it is a shaft of
light in the darkness or whether we just
think we see one. The question to me is
more properly this: "Will the failure to
ratify this treaty be more harmful to the
national interest than will its ratifica-
tion?" I have concluded that it will, and
I shall therefore vote for ratification. I
might add that I may support one or
more reservations which may be offered
to, the resolution of ratification; but
their adoption or refection will not affect
My decision to vote for ratification.
My reasons for my decision are briefly
these, and I shall have more to say about
them later:
First. I am persuaded that the risks
relative to our military power now and
in the future are acceptable when coll-
sidered in light of the safeguards pre-
scribed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff
which the President of the United States
has committed himself and his adminis-
tration to follow, accompanied by the
clean withdrawal provisions set forth in
the treaty.
Second. Failure to ratify the treaty is
more likely to lead to more nuclear test-
ing in the atmosphere and more nuclear
fallout than will ratification; although
it is highly unlikely that in either event
will either the United States or the
Soviet Union permit themselves or other
nations to contaminate the atmosphere
beyond scientifically established limits
of safety.
'T'hird. Failure to ratify the treaty is
more ,likely to lead to proliferation of
nuclear weapons to other nations than.
'sill ratification.
Fourth. Due to faulty negotiation of
the treaty in not requiring ratification
first by the United States, Great Britain,
and the Soviet Union before permitting
other nations to join, we have been
placed in a position as a result of which
failure to ratify would cause consider-
able embarrassment to the President of
the United States before the rest of the
world, thus adversely affecting our
leadership of the free-world.
Fifth. Within reasonable limitations,
we have a moral obligation to keep trying
for better relations with the Soviet
Union in our efforts to secure a just and
lasting world peace.
There are some disadvantages under
the treaty, aside from the military risks
which I have termed "acceptable" under
the safeguards prescribed by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff. They are serious and
harmful, or at least potentially harmful,
to our national interest. But I have
concluded that they, are outweighed by
the above five considerations. I shall
discuss them in fuller detail later, but
briefly they are:
Fi:rst. Under the safeguards prescribed
by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, which have
really become a part of the treaty so far
as we are concerned, the arms race will
be stepped up and so will our costs of
national defense-at least insofar as they
relate to nuclear testing and weaponry.
Second. Peaceful uses of nuclear ex-
plosions will be impeded.
Third. There is danger that the Amer-
ican people will become so hypnotized
over the thought that the Communist
leaders in the Kremlin sincerely want
peace-as. we interpret that word-that
they will let down their guard.
Fourth. In the face of the Soviet
Union's attempt to, install nuclear mis-
siles in Cuba, the' Gromyko lie to the
President of the United States, Premier
lthrushchev's failure to carry out his
commitment for onsite inspection In
Cuba under United Nations auspices and
his further failure to carry out his com-
mitment to withdraw all Soviet troops
from Cuba, the brazen attempt by the
Soviet Union to bankrupt the United Na-
tions, continued Soviet-sponsored sub-
versive activities In Latin America, the
Middle East, and Africa, and not one
significant deed whatsoever to relieve in-
ternational tensions or to indicate any
change in a policy of lying, cheating,
subversion, and aggression-all occurring
after our previous offers to negotiate a
treaty similar to this one, our negotia-
tion and ratification of this treaty now,
represents a policy of accommodation
rather than a policy of firmness towards
communism.
MIIITARY RISKS
It would be well to remember that the
Joint Chiefs of ;Staff clearly recognized
certain military disadvantages under the
treaty. These include the permanizing
of the Soviet lead in so-called high-yield
nuclear weapons, the Soviet lead in in-
formation about high-yield weapons
effects, Including radiation and blackout
effects on communications and missile
control systems, the opportunity for the
Soviets to catch up to our lead in tactical
nuclear weapon technology, and the
deprivation of our opportunity to prove
the effectiveness of an anti-missile de-
fense system which we may develop.
With a view to bringing these disadvant-
ages to a level of acceptability, they pre-
scribed four safeguards as conditions
unequivocally necessary to their very
cautious approval of the treaty. These
conditions are absolute, and they are to
continue inde$ntiely into the future un-
til such time, at least, as a comprehensive
nuclear test ban treaty, covering under-
September 1p
ground testing, with completely adequate
inspection and control provisions, may be
negotiated. The safeguards are as fol-
lows:
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 maintenance of modern
nuclear laboratory facilities and pro-
grams in theoretical and exploratory
nuclear technology which will attract,
retain 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 facili-
ties 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 cap-
ability, within feasible and practical
limits, to monitor the terms of the treaty,
to detect violations, and to maintain our
knowledge of Sino-Soviet nuclear ac-
tivity, capabilities, and achievements.
In his letter, dated September 10, 1963,
to Senators MANSFIELD and DIak;SEN, the
President of the United States committed
himself and his administration to the
"unqualified" and "unequivocal." fulfill-
ment of these safeguards. T'here is
some question about whether these safe-
guards can, indeed, be met, for one must
recall the President's speech of March
2, 1962, announcing resumption of nu-
clear testing, when he said:
We must test in the atmosphere to permit
the development of those more advanced
concepts and more effective, efficient weap-
ons which, in the light of Soviet tests, are
deemed essential to our security. Nuclear
weapon technology is still a constantly
changing field. If our weapons are to be
more secure, more flexible in their use and
more selective in their impact-i.f we are to
be alert to new breakthroughs, to experiment
with new designs-if we are to maintain
our scientific momentum and leadership-
then our weapons progress must not be
limited to theory or to the confines of labor-
atories and eaves.
This point was raised at the Presi-
dent's news conference on September 13,
1963; and he was asked what had hap-
pened since March 2, 1962, to change
his mind about this. His response was,
I believe that what I was talking about;
then was a comprehensive test ban treaty,
But he was not. He was talking about
the massive Soviet tests in the atmos-
phere, following their breach of the
moratorium, and he was justifying our
resumption of testing in the atmosphere.
Note the statement, "We must test in
the atmosphere" which I Just quoted.
And this statement was preceded earlier
by the following statement:
The fact of the matter is that we cannot
make similar strides Ito those of the Soviets]
without testing in the atrnosplzere as well as
underground. For in many areas of nuclear
weapons research we have reached the point
where our progress is stifled without experi-
ments in every environment.
Approved For Release 2004/03/1 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 t JfJIUV U fur rCCJedbe LVU4JVJ/ ii 1.oF -rCur0 7DUUJOJJWuu iuuc ruuu~-c
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 16493
So the President has not yet answered treaty from other knowledgeable people speech in June at American University,
the very timely question put to him by is also opinion. In my Judgment, it is of said:
a member of the press; and until he just as high quality as the opinion evi- >: now declare that the United States does
does, I am sure, many will wonder how dence on the other side-possibly even not propose to conduct nuclear tests in the
well the safeguards of the Joint Chiefs superior to it. However, I am persuaded atmosphere so long as other states do not
will be mpt, Only time will tell; and, in that fulfillment of the safeguards pre- do so. We will not be the first to resume.
any event, the withdrawal provision of scribed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, ould
the treaty ultimately provides an "out." coupled with the treaty's withdrawal wasleu I~'cleatedewith ith the thatthis Join t t Chiefs
commitment
I think it appropriate to point out that provision, keeps these military disadvan- Staff, , w egress is
valuable testimony was provided against tages and risks at an acceptable level. , but, any which event, it continue
the treaty by some of our oustanding Let me. say a word about the treaty's our present policy which would continue
military leaders, such as Gen
if the treaty is not ratified S
Thomas withdrawal
ro
i
i
,
p
v
s
o proponents
on Article IVf th
. oe. Power, commander.of the Strategic Air treaty provides that each party shall in of the treaty can hardly argue that if the
treaty Uni
Command; Gen. Bernard Schriever, exercising its national sovereignty have is
going is to cause c ratified the cleard States
commander of the Air Force Systems the right to withdraw from the treaty Is is tt that t more nuclear fbeloue
Command; Adm. Arthur W. Radford, if it decides that extraordinary events, ' It is true that the Soviets might be the
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of related to the subject matter of this first to resume, but they will resume with
Staff; Gen. Nathan Twining, former treaty, have jeopardized the supreme in- think without a theeir r y, adv vat and if they
Chairman of theJpint Chiefs of Staff; terests of its country. It will not be easy think it to t hantage toe this
do so.
and Admiral Straus,former Chairman for the United States to exercise this The Secretary of State has made this
of the Atomic Energy Commission. They prerogative. People who have been abundantly clear. errned far as they a are ee and
wore reinforced by such outstanding and seized with the debilitating disease of Red China are conce, they ar any-
thoroughly knowledgeable scientists as euphoria will talk about world opinion, ing nothing to do with the treaty ny-
Dr,.J'ohn S., oster,Director of-the Law- It will take a courageous President and how, so their eventual testing in the
fence Rac iatiori Laboratory, Livermore, a courageous Congress to do what must a*rtiosphere will very likely occur any-
,CtAiif. ; and Dr. Edward Teller, whose be done. how. If it does, it would be highly un-
wisdom aFld courage to stand practically NUCLEAR FALLOUT likely that they would cause any more
alone gained for. him the name "father To put this point in
fallout than did our tests in 1962, with
perspective, one
of the H-bomb, The noted aeronauti- should recall the words of the President inorespe a would
ct to which the President dearly be no cal consultant, Alexander P. deSeversky, at the time he directed the resumption Prospect of other nations engaging ganger. at-
h
also testified. in opposition to the treaty. of testing in the atmosphere in 1962. mosphstin n the orese in -
I may, add that _ most of Dr. Teller's He said : able tune is tic testing in the foresee fu-
splendid testrimoriv and powerful logic It has been estimated, in fact, that the ture is small, and to a degree greater
were eoziflne'd to the h eld of nuclear sci- exposure due to radioactivity from these that than it our
is our m
1962 inute. I would , it must
once and nuclear weaponry, in which he tests will be less than one-fiftieth of the .Nevertheless, it must
has no pegr--and net, as some treaty difference which can be experienced, due to be concluded that ratification of the
proponent erroneously say, to the field variations in natural radioactivity, simply treaty will have a tendency to prevent
of tnen ? l neo erroneously In this the eld by living in different locations in this coun- fallout more than failure to ratify. And
of n, I believe the potic , Ins this the able try. This will obviously be well within the this being so, I am persuaded that an
tiot by guides for general population health and area of .mutuality between the United
Chairman of the Preparedness Subcom- safety, as set by the Federal Radiation Coun- States and the_Soylet Union exists. Let
inittee was extremely well taken:, cii.
" it be made clear, however, that the
If the proponents of the treaty would political Dr. Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman of United States need be no more concerned
count Dr. Teller's testimony In the the Atomic Energy about the problem of fallout than the So-
field, why should not the testimony of the falssion, stated
Joint Chiefs of Staff in the political field be that he did not rate the the fallout problem viet Union.
discounted, too? as, great as some of the other reasons A comparison might be made to the
Mr. SIMPON. Mr. President, will for the test ban. He stated that he situation of water pollution of a river
the Senatorfrom Iowa yield? knew of no particular case of leukemia between two States. The water, as most
the MILLER. or bone cancer or things of that kind or drinking water is, may be polluted to a
Mr. SIM pNI Will glad the to Seyield. nator mutation which could be scientifically degree far below a point endangering the
from Iowa advise , Will whether he wen t r attributed to worldwide fallout, and men- public in each State. Nevertheless, there
me ad- tioned only "one or two freak cases of would be a mutual interest on the part of
dress imsself to the shalprose ?r local fallout." He acknowledged that the people of these States to undertake
shMtly. ER. y th
genetists that their best estima e most skilled scientific evidence of not to pollute the river further, particu-
Mr. SIMPSON. I thank the Senator. of the numbers of cases of leukemia and t the orly of ramifntific icat on of wa with pollution respect
water pollution
Mr. MILLER, Mr. President, we bone cancer caused by natural radia- w clearly established.
should add to the conclusions. I have al- tion-not by man-made radiation or fall- was not clearly established. Mr. ready listed the conclusions and major out-is, in the case of leukemia, from the q the question THURNfOND. , will the Sen, on
findings of the Preparedness Subcommit- zero to 84,000 cases and, in the case of of fallout, will the Senator
tee ; yield? from zero
cases; 1. From the evidence we are compelled to a detha the zero means they still can- Mr. MILLER. I am more than happy
conclude that serious-perhaps even formid- not trace. even one case. With reference to yield to the Senator from South Caro-
able-military and technical disadvantages to such reputed hot spots as Utah, he in- lina.
THURMOND.
to the United States will flow from the rati- dicated that he would not use the word brou our. ght
out t out some v The Senator has
information
fication of the treaty. At the very least it "danger" to describe the amount of con- at lack of danger efrom fallout
will prevent the United States from provid- indicaten
il our vent t forget with the from quad- centration of radioactivity. I wonder if I overlooked his statement,
ity of weapons of which our science and Nevertheless, in view of t4he present or whether he brought out the testimony
technology is capable. state of our scientific knowledge on fall- of Dr. Foster. I do not recall that he
2. Any military and technical advantages out, I do not believe anyone would ques- did.
which we will derive from the treaty do not, tion the desirability of minimizing it or Mr. MILLER. No. The Senator from
in our judgment, counterbalance or out- eliminating it entirely. Dr. Teller em- Iowa did not allude to the testimony of
weigh the military and technical disadvan- phasized that we should try to limit Dr. Foster. If the Senator from South
tages. The Soviets will not be similarly in- radioactivity in the air-preferably by Carolina deems it material, I should be
hibited wea where win those adeemreas ofn u learin erponry an international agreement which could more than happy to have him point it
now to be drawn This is powerful evidence, Mr. Presi- for military and peaceful applications. ouMr. THURMOND, I call attention to
dent, and it has not been refuted. It Failure to ratify this particular treaty, the testimony of Dr. Foster, which ap-
could not be refuted, because it repre- of course, does not mean that our air is pears on pages 632 and 633 of the hear-
sents opinion evidence, and the evidence going to be polluted by nuclear fallout.- ings before the Committee on Foreign
in opposition to it and in favor of the The President, in his commencement Relations. At that point I propounded
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00'383R000100210008-2
16494
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
some questions to Dr. Foster on that
subject:
RADIATION FROM NATURAL BACaGROUND
senator THURMOND. 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 correct.
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. FosrER. Well, sir, there you are ahead
of tue. I do not know that because-
Senator THURMOND. 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 radia-
tion as he would get from fallout.
Dr. POSTER. I am familiar with the argu-
ments, sir. I do not know that a wrist-
watch-
Senator THURMOND. Does that sound rea-
sonable? In other words, do those state-
ments sound reasonable to you?
Dr. FosTER. It is true that natural back-
ground is large compared with the additional
activity, radioactivity, associated with fall-
out from all past tests.
-Senator THURMOND. 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 im-
perceptible, and is of little consequence?
Dr. Fos'r a. 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
End resulting Injury to the future genera-
tion. Is it possible for this fallout to bring
kbout sterility and various other reactions?
I just want to ask you whether you feel
that there Is danger to people's health from
belittle fallout radiation resulting from the
tests We have conducted?
Br. FosTea. No, sir.
Senator'THUassoND. Your answer is "No"?
Dr. FosTEn. My answer is "No."
Senator THURMOND. Thank you.
I call that to the distinguished Sen-
ator's attention because it is on a subject
on which he has elaborated and brought
but valuable information. I observe
these words in the report of the Foreign
Relations Committee:
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 the radioactive fallout pro-
duced to data has remained well below a
level at which It might be deemed hazardous.
There has been much talk about fear
of fallout. I felt that the public ought
to know the facts about it. I commend
the Senator for bringing out the infor-
mation he has given the Senate. I add
the additional information.
I wish the public to know that the
danger of fallout is so minimal and insig-
nificant, as stated by Dr. Foster, as to
be little detrimental from the standpoint
of health, so as to fade into insignificance
when compared with the great purpose
of keeping this country prepared.
As the Senator knows, since he is a
distinguished officer in the Air Force Re-
serve, the only language the Communists
understand is power. It will be power
which will preserve and protect this
country. In my judgment, we must
continue the tests.
I believe the tenor of the Senator's
speech is that many questions are still
unanswered. I believe the Senator is
not satisfied with everything. I can
readily understand why. he is not, be-
cause we know the Communists are
ahead of us in high-yield weapons, and
we know they are ahead of us in the
development of an anti-ballistic-missile
system. We know we cannot catch up
with them or become superior to -them
in these fields unless we test in the atmos-
phere. That is the only way we can
ever definitely know, because no weapon
can be used with assurance by anyone
until it has been tested in the environ-
merit in which it must function.
We can test underground. We can
make gains with underground testing.
We can possibly make some accomplish-
ments underground: But we shall never
be able to be assured that a weapon will
function properly and do what we expect
it to do until it is tested in the environ-
ment in which it must function.
I am sure the Senator agrees with
that,
Mr. MILLER. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from South Carolina
for his comments. In the light of past
scientific evidence, which is available, I
find it inconceivable that the President
of the United States would have directed
the resumption of nuclear testing in the
atmosphere in 1962 without being able
to conclude that the fallout resulting
from the tests would be far below the
danger point, as he pointed out in the
statement which I have quoted from his
speech.
Mr. THURMOND. The distinguished
Senator quoted from the President's
statement. Was that the statement of
March 2, 1962?
Mr. MILLER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. THURMOND. That statement
indicated that there was little, if any,
danger from fallout. That was the ef-
fect of the statement, as I construed
it. Is that the ' manner in which the
Senator construed it?
Mr. MILLER. That is correct. It
amounted to about one-fiftieth of the
difference in radiation we might expect
from moving around from one part of
the country to another.
I cannot conceive of any President de-
luding the people by making a state-
ment like that if he had scientific knowl-
edge that danger would be involved.
This does not mean, of course, that
as time goes on there may not be an
accumulation of radioactive fallout re-
sulting from continued testing. It does
not mean that there may not be some
pockets of fallout--some "local nuclear
fallout," in the term used by Dr. Sea-
?borg-which may have serious effects.
This is recognized. I pointed it out.
It is well to put the argument of the
proponents of the treaty into proper
perspective. I granted it a plus in my
analysis of the treaty; I find other points
in favor of the treaty of much greater
persuasion.
Mr. THURMOND. As the debate has
proceeded I have been impressed by the
fact that some who originally stressed
the fallout question as the big danger
or the- "big bear," so to speak, are now
beginning to see that this factor prac-
tically fades into insignificance.
Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator
from South Carolina.
Mr. HOLLAND. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. MILLER. I yield.
Mr. HOLLAND. I know the Senator
from South Carolina has correctly quoted
a portion of the report of the able Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations ending with
the conclusion:
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 the radioactive fallout pro-
duced to date has remained well below a
level at which it might be deemed hazardous.
I also know that we do not expect
through the action contemplated to di-
minish the radiation already in the at-
mosphere. I know that many people are
greatly concerned about increasing the
amount of radiation. I am glad the dis-
tinguished Senator from Iowa has re-
ferred already to what might occur from
increased testing, which has caused deep
concern.
I should like to read some further lan-
guage from the report of the Foreign Re-
lations Committee which immediately
follows the quotation read into the
RECORD by the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina.
But it is also clear, as the Chief of the
Division of Radiological Health of the U.S.
Public Health Service said in June of this
year: "Fundamental is the hypothesis that
any amount of radiation exposure involves
some risk in exposed population groups."
Geneticists have shown greater and more
specific concern.
It is feared that continued, or stepped up,
atmospheric nuclear testing would increase
the damage, genetic and Otherwise induced
by increased exposure by population groups
to radiation. The treaty, in halting the re-
lease into the atmosphere of radioactive fall-
out, offers a distinct benefit.
The Senator from Florida knows
something of the wrestling of conscience
and mind through which the Senator
from Iowa has gone. The Senator from
Florida has shared that wrestling. As
a matter of fact, he has had the pleas-
ure of conferring with the Senator from
Iowa, He knows that both of us have
been trying to find what course offers
the greatest advantage to our country
in this situation.
It seems to me that the fact that the
Russians exploded 71 of these bombs in
the late 1961 and early 1962 period, and
that many of those bombs were much
greater in size than anything we had
ever exploded in the atmosphere, and
that those bombs were known to be
dirty-that is, to carry a very much
greater menace from the standpoint of
Approved For Release 2004/03/111: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved for Release 2004/03/'F1 :rCIA-RQP65 0383RQ001002100G8=2
i
1s eng s0, am persuaded that
cates rather. conclusively that we can- in fact exist or do not exist. I want to an area of mutuality between the United
talk about that a lot more, because talking
not, in considering this matter, regard about the effects of various doses of radia- States and the Soviet Union exists.
our oW% preferred "moderation, in test- tion leads us immediately into an interest- Again, let it be made clear that the
ing as.te sole amount of testing which ing field of research which should be im- United States need be no more con-
would ez}SUe halt wqre not called. portant for all of us. Elie plain fact is that cerned about proliferation of nuclaa.r
tau.vacw,vei uuu4 t,1144 wouignave peen servatiion, or Irom stiatiistics, orrrom any the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
the, case if they had been Olean-indi- valid theory whether the claimed damages And th' b
I
X 963 CONQKESSIONAL i,E.CORD - SENATE
not the SSena or from Iowa believe that We have heard that fallout produces a E PR sIDENT
no are Confronted With this reality that terrific genetic burden. To begin with, Due to what I would charitably term
radiation from fallout is only 1 percent of "faulty" negotiation, the U.S. Senate has
the Russians,dp,haveth the sag e filling the radiation which we are getting anyway. been placed in a position of being pres-
ness to test in great amounts,J.a the at- Fallout is not dangerous. But the fallout sured to vote for the treaty to save the
mosphere, or to test with other than scare is. Many people know that a medical President of the United States from the
clean 'bombs in the atmosphere that we X-ray gives you 100 times as great a dose embarrassment he would suffer in the
recognize and insist upon in the testing as fallout will give you in your whole life- eyes of the world should the treaty be
conducted by our own country? time. How many people have been scared
Mr, MILLER. In answer to the ques- away from X-rays? How many people have rejected. Regardless of party, no one
tion by the distinguished Senator from gone with their ailments unrecognized and should wish to see this happen. He is
1~ lorida, let me say that his very untreated, only because there has been this the leader of the free world. His pres-
y persua- needless and exaggerated fallout scare? I tige-at least in international affairs-
sive statement earlier in the debate last don't know. I don't know whether anybody falls naturally upon our country; just
week on this , very point is. one of the .has been, killed. by fallout, but I am sure as his loss of prestige would also fall
points which Convinced me on this very that many have been killed by the fallout upon our country. Unless security risks
subject. The -,Senator from, Florida scare. are unacceptable, we should not permit
pointed out the possible mutuality of in- In the hearings Dr. Foster testified this to happen.
terest between the Soviet Union and the that a man living in the mountains of Nevertheless, I think it would be remiss
United' S could exist ,on this Colorado would normally receive more if I did not point out that this unfortu-
point. He did it so persuasively that I radiation than he would from fallout- nate situation is largely of the President's
put it in my address. I wanted to observe showing the greatly erroneous opinion own making. Although article II, sec-
that this was ,not my original thinking, that has been circulated about fallout, tion 2, of the Constitution of the United
1 derived this beneficial approach to the which has produced a great scare on the States provides that the President shall
problem from the Senator from Florida. part of some people. have the power to make treaties, it
I. thoroughly agree with the observa- Naturally, we are all concerned about clearly provides that this shall be "by
tion, However, I think I should empha- fallout and, everything that affects the and with the advice and consent of the
size that the mere failure to. ratify the health of our people; but there is no Senate." Although there was some in-
treaty would not necessarily lead to more evidence to support the judgment that formal discussion with some of the mem-
testing in the atmosphere, because, as I some have claimed in the fallout field, bers of the Senate Foreign Relations
pointed out, the policy of the President of as shown by what Dr. Teller said, and Committee about the proposed treaty,
the United I. States, as announced at as shown by what Dr. Seaborg said in the committee's report does not indicate
'American University early in June, is response to a question from the Sena- that a consensus of the members was
still the policy of our country, namely, tor from Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL], which obtained. There is no indication that
that we are not going to be the first to I believe the distinguished Senator from our representatives in the negotiations
resume-esting. j f the Soviet Union de- Iowa brought out in his address, made any effort at all to persuade Pre-
cides to, test in the atmosphere, it will do Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator mier Khrushchev to live up to his
whet~ler there is a treaty or not. But from South Carolina. I am not denying promise of removing Soviet troops from
there Is. a mutuality of interest which the sincerity or conscientiousness of Cuba or to follow through on his agree-
Can exist;in.this area, and I think it is a those who have indulged in a great deal ment to permit on-site inspection of
`plus in favor of ratification, of pessimistic talk about fallout. Some Cuba under United Nations auspices-as
Mr. HOLLAND. I agree completely of our own colleagues in the Senate have a prelude to signing of the treaty. And
with the statement of the distinguished made extensive statements along these yet, when the Senator from Arizona
Senator, I think there is a reasonable lines. I am not denying their sincerity, [Mr. GOLDWATER] offers a reservation to
prospect that the Russians will have but I believe they are overemphasizing condition the effective date of the treaty
somewhat,theoame regard for- their chit something without any scientific data to on the withdrawal of Soviet troops from
dren of this, generation and children yet support such an argument at this time. Cuba, he is met with the argument that
to be born that wp have for children. In PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS this should have been taken care of dur-
this one field, and, perhaps in others, Under the treaty, there is nothing to
ing at a mu ing the negotiations.
there is some real opportunity erdoess prevent any of the parties from assist- Furthermore, at the preliminary sign-
-notexist exist in many mutuality of of interest
other nterest st fields. that that That doe is ing any other nation, in underground ing of the treaty in Moscow, there were
one of thg cozi}pelling arguments which testing. If, for example, the Soviet widespread reports about Mr. Khru-
has persuaded mg to feel that our Na Union and Red China should settle their shchev's expectation that the next step
tion caln, with safety and in good con- apparent differences, the Soviet Union would be a nonaggression pact between
science, ratify.the treaty. bould not only assist Red China in un- NATO- and the Warsaw Pact countries;
I thank the distinguished Senator from derground testing but transfer nuclear but as far as withdrawal of Soviet troops
Iowa for yielding to me. weapons to Red China. The mere trans- from Cuba and on-site inspection in
Mr, MILL I E I R. I thank the Senator for fer of nuclear weapons which, of course, Cuba, both previously promised by Pre-
his comments, would supposedly never be used except in mier Khrushchev, our representatives
Mr. meats OND, Mr. President, will self-defense, is not prohibited by the stood mute.
the Senator yield? treaty. Moreover, since neither France If the failure to negotiate a provision
Mr. the S MILLER. I yield. nor Red China will have anything to do requiring ratification of the United
Mr. tUORMO&D, Naturally, we all with the treaty and are clearly pointed States, Great Britain, and the Soviet
have concern about fallout, We wish to to developing their own nuclear capa- Union first before permitting other na-
no undue bic in this connection. I bility, it is obvious that the treaty will tions to join was due to oversight,' it
should ake ake n like, however, to quote at this time not prevent the proliferation of nuclear might well have been avoided if more
t
a 'very e, statement by Dr. weapons, effort to obtain the advice of the Senate
Teller. This is jvhat he skid: Nevertheless, by preventing testing in had been sought. Not having sought it,
This argument, while it sounds silple and the atmosphere and thus forcing nu- matters are not made any easier now by
plausible, is wrong. Fallout has so small clear development through more expen- suggestions of , some administration
an effect that nobody ever has observed it. live underground testing in other coun- spokesmen that "with all the other na-
An41 nobody knows either from direct ob- tries, the treaty will tend to "retard" tions having joined in, signing the agree-
pheric,,tests !Ust referred,to-by me, does doses of radiation. EMBARRASSMENT TO TII
Approved For Release 2004/03/1.1 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 16496
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
ment," the Senate must ratify the treaty tiator; and that being the case, if the
or the United States will suffer a loss of President is to be embarrassed, let him
face. The unfortunate failure to seek be embarrassed.
more advice of the Senate is thus com- I do not believe a Senator should act
pounded by reducing the Senate's con- that way. As I say, It is a difficult
sent to one of bailing out the executive matter to view objectively. We have a
branch of the Government from an em- bad situation, and I believe that, absent
barrassing situation. This is not the undue risks, we should do something
only argument In favor of ratification about it.
of the treaty, of course, but I do not I recognize that the able Senator from
believe the foundation should ever have South Carolina, differs with me with
beenlaid for it. Now that the situation respect to the acceptability or nonac-
is as it is, itbecomes an important con- ceptability of the military risks. How-
sideration which is most difficult to view ever, if one can conscientiously arrive
objectively. at a conclusion that our military secu-
In the negotiation of any future rity is not to be unduly risked, the bail-
treaties or amendments to this particu- ing out of the President from an em-
lar treaty, I trust that this situation will barrassing situation is something which,
never be repeated. regardless of party, we ought to attempt
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will to do.
the Senator yield? Mr. THURMOND. Is it not a fact
Mr. MILLER. I yield. that some of the very countries to which
Mr. THURMOND. The point has been we have granted foreign aid, either
raised about the impression over the through grants or loans, or in some
world, and the loss of face that we would other way, have severely criticized some
suffer in other nations of the world. of our actions?
Does not the Senator feel that sometimes Mr. MILLER. Indeed it is. It is also
we go too far in taking action in this true that I have been making the point
country, because we feel we might not for some time that most of the nations
make the best impression on other coun- which have joined on the treaty are
t t th
bh
plus interest. Yet some of those corm-
tries are willing to jump down our
throats at the least provocation.
It seems to me that the most im-
portant thing we could do for the free
world, and even for other countries,
would be to keep so strong that we would
not be attacked, because the United
States is the only nation that stands be-
tween communism and the free world.
We should remain so powerful that there
will not be a temptation to attack the
United States. By doing so, we stand
our best chance, I believe the Senator
from Iowa will agree, to avoid a war--an
allout nuclear war-in which there would
really be radioactive fallout in addition
to the destruction of millions of lives.
Mr. MILLER. The Senator from South
Carolina is correct. As I stated earlier,
some of the nations which have joined in
the treaty would be the first to suffer if
the United. States were unable to main-
tain its deterrent posture with respect to
Communist aggression.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able
Senator from Iowa.
Mr. MILLER. I thank the Senator
from South Carolina.
A MORAL OBLIGATION TO KEEP TRYING
tries of the world? delinquent in their o
ga Ions o Mr. President, I come now to my :final.
Should we not do what is right for our United Nations. reason for rching my decision, that is,
people? Is not our first obligation to our The United Nations is now in debt to r moral reaching obligation to keep trying.
people and to our country? Should we the extent of about $1.11`1 million. It is the
not do that, instead of always wondering faced with bankruptcy. More than 2 Once the hurdle of acceptability of
what impression we will make on Com- years ago I pointed out that the day military risks is cleared, the one really
munist nations and so-called neutralist was coining when this would become the compelling reason to vote for ratification
nations, a great many of which are pro- toughest problem before th3 United Na- was advanced by the Secretary of State
Red, to say the least? tions, That is what it was called last when he said:
Mr. MILLER. I have had the uneasy fall. The United Nations still has not We should never reach the point of giving
feeling for a number of years, increas- solved the problem, and it will not solve u etrving to work out better relations with
ingly so In recent years, that there has it unless a majority of the members of
been a tendency to talk too much about the United Nations face their obligation I recognize the feeling of frustration
world opinion when a subject relates to of paying up what they owe to the U.N. when people write to me and say:
the security of the United States. The Soviet Union, owing $54 million, is Senator, after all the United States has
The Senator from Iowa felt very much the worst deadbeat of them all. done to try to develop better relations with
reassured when the President of the Nations which are not willing to pay the Soviet Union, and after all the soviet
United States, on March 2, 1962, an- their obligations, some of them trifling, Union has done to undercut us with their
nounced the resumption of testing in- the have received foreign aid from the lies, their cheating, their subversion, their
atmosphere. This was not an easy deci- United States to the extent of millions aggression, their creation of international
sion to reach. The Senator from South of dollars in excess of what they owe tensions, why should we do anything more?
Carolina will recall that immediately the United Nations, and I am sure they Let them make the first step now-and we
would be the first to say what a terrible mean a first step in deeds, not just words on
there were outcries from some of the thing it was for the President to nego- a piece of paper.
so-called neutral nations, about the U.S. That is difficult to answer. Indeed,
resumption of atmospheric testing, al- tiate this treaty and then not follow
though they were very quiet about the through and deliver on it. they may have the answer, because their
Soviet breach of the moratorium in 1961. This is unfortunate, but it is a fact approach-to demand some meaningful
Mr. THURMOND. They had practi- of life. We should try to encourage first step on the part of the Soviets
cally nothing to say. more nations, particularly those which first-may well be the surest way to
Mr. MILLER. That is correct. I am have been the recipients of our people's achieving better relations with them. In
quite sure that some people in this coun- tax money, to take a more realistic view any event, the only answer that can
try brought heavy pressure to bear upon of these activities and conduct them- properly be given to the argument of the
the President of the United States to selves as friends in deeds rather than Secretary of State is one of timing--pos-
cause him not to resume testing. Fortu- as friends in words. But the situation sibly requiring some meaningful first step
nately, wiser counsel prevailed; and I am being as it is, I would feel bad if any by the Soviets to indicate a measureable
quite sure that he was persuaded that we President were to suffer great embar- change in policy. Inasmuch as the pre-
had to resume testing to preserve our na- rassment. -I am persuaded that that is amble to the treaty recites that the three
tional security. what would happen under the situation major parties, including the Soviet
'There still seems to be too much atten- that; now exists. Union, proclaim as their principal aim an
tion being paid to world opinion. The Mr. THURMOND. I feel that the able agreement on general and complete dis-
fact that some of the proponents of the Senator from Iowa would have more re- armament under strict international
treaty have emphasized this so much, spect for some of those countries if they control "in accordance with the objec-
after the faulty negotiation of the treaty, did not call upon us for aid and would tives of the United Nations," it would
makes it extremely difficult for the Sena- pay their dues to the'-United Nations, seem that a reasonable first step for
tor from Iowa to view this point objec- In the past, the United States has the Soviets to take to reassure us of their
tively. granted aid to 104 of the 112 nations. change in policy would be to pay up their
If we were not concerned about the Even now, for fiscal year 1964, we have some $54: million in delinquencies to the
seriousness of this problem, It would be requests to grant aid to 100 of the 112 United Nations.
easy to be tempted to say that the Presi- countries. Since World War IF, the it would be tragically unfair for any-
dent's negotiator in Moscow made a United States has granted aid to other one-outside the Senate or in the Sen-
blunder, that he was careless as a nego- countries to the extent of $121 billion ate-to condemn a Member of the Sen-
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Or rcelease LUU41Ual I I : lo11A-MLJr0Z)6uus0sl`000II I VOL I uuuo-c
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
ate for insisting on some meaningful,
first step by the Soviets as a condition
precedent to the treaty's effectiveness,
just because that Senator felt that some-
thing more was required to evidence good
faith than,chamnagne and caviar parties,
smiles, and bear hugs in Moscow.
It can be, answered that- the mutuality
of benefits with respect to nuclear fall-
out and proliferation of nuclear weap-
ons does not necesiar"ly require such a
meaningful "first step to evidence good
faith on the part of .the Soviets. We
stand to benefit, anyhow. It is a fair
answer, particularly when coupled with
the point of saving ,the Presider t, of the
United States from embarrassment. Ac-
cordingly, While. I might be inclined to
support. a reservation providing_ for a
reasonable,. condition precedent to_ .the
treaty's effctiveness, the failure of such
a reservation's adoption would not cause
me to vote, against ratification of, the
treaty itself.
DISADVANTAGES UNDER IIIE TREATY-A STEPUP
IN THE ARMS RACE AND IN COSTS OF NATIONAL
It is erroneous to think of the treaty
standing by itself. It must be thought
of as coupled with the absolute adher-
ence to the safeguards prescribed by the
Joint Chiefs, of Staff. These will mean
an expanded program of expensive un-
dergroundtesting which will more than
offset the costs of testing in the atmos-
phere, in outer space, and underwater,
which will be, prohibited. Not being
able to obtain more high-yield weap-
ons effects information will require addi-
tional `.`hardening" of our missile sites
to provide for a margin of safety and
greater deployment of even more mis-
sues to insii,.re an adequate second, strike
force against a possible "blackout" and
other effects of which we do not possess
.adequate knowledge. We will continue
to try to develop an effective antimissile
defense system, and not to_ expect the
Soviets to do so would be foolish indeed.
Moreover, the Soviets can be expected to
step up their underground testing in an
effort to catchup to us in the tactical
nuclear weapons field. As Walter Lipp=
mann wrote in the August 22 issue of the
Washington Post, of course the race of
armaments will continue under the
treaty. The well-known physicist, Dr.
Leo Szilard, testified that if the United
States proceeds with an extensive pro-
gram of underground bomb testing, then,
rather than furthering the cause of
peace, the test ban agreement would be
likely to do just the opposite.
But the United States will proceed with
an extensive program of underground
nuclear testing, because this is one of the
safeguards proposed by the Joint Chiefs
of Staff; and the President has unequivo-
cally committed his administration to
doing so.
There is a great deal of merit in what
Dr. Szilard says, and one would be in-
vulnerable to fair criticism for voting
against ratification for this reason.
In any event, a realistic appraisal of
the situation makes it clear that a vote
for ratification of the treaty, coupled as
It is with the safeguards of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, is, not a vote for a step
down in the nuclear arms race but for a
step up In the nuclear arms race and in
the costs of national defense. Put there
are two answers to this disadvantage un-
der the treaty: First, the costs of defense
to the Soviets will. increase, too, so that
there is some mutuality of disadvantage;
and, ? second, this mutual disadvantage
may pave the way for Soviet agreement
on a comprehensive test ban treaty with
fully adequate inspection and controls..
PEACEFUL USES OF NUCLEAR EXPLOSIONS WILL BE
IMPEDED
Our plowshare program holds a great
potential for the benefit of mankind.
Through the use of nuclear explosives
which produce little radioactivity and,by
placing them underground so that nearly
all of the radioactivity is trapped, proj-
ects could be undertaken at a fraction of
the cost required by conventional meth-
ods. We have been assured that under
the treaty we can continue experiments,
and, to the extent that detectable
amounts of nuclear fallout do not go be-
yond our own territorial limits, applica-
tion of these experiments to mining, re-
covery of oil and gas, water development,
and the construction of harbors can be
made. However, construction of a sec-
ond Panama Canal and other applica-
tions which would entail detectable
amounts of fallout beyond our own terri-
torial limits cannot be undertaken.
It is unfortunate that the treaty was
not negotiated in such a manner as to
permit peaceful uses of nuclear explo-
sions-at least to be conducted under an
inspection system, involving the three
negotiating countries, to permit verifi-
cation that, indeed, the. application of
nuclear explosions is for peaceful pur-
poses. It is to be hoped that an amend-
ment along this line will be negotiated
later.
THE DANGER OF EUPHORIA
No matter how powerful our military
capability may be, it will be meaningless
as a deterrent if our national will to re-
sist aggression through the use of this
capability is weakened. We are prone
to think of the decay of a nation's moral
fiber in terms of vice and corruption;
but just as deadly to the moral fiber of
our people would be a condition of
euphoria-a false sense of well-being
with respect to Communists, in general,
and the Soviet Union, in particular.
Nothing would better serve the purposes
of the leaders in the Kremlin than to
have a substantial number of our well-
meaning citizens succumb to the smiles
and soothing peace talk of Soviet psy-
chological warfare, and become so hyp-
notized over the thought that the Com-
munist leaders "sincerely" want peace-
"peace" as they interpret that word, not
as we interpret it; that is to say, the
Communists regard ."peace" as a con-
dition under which Communist aggres-
sion can be continued without undue in-
terference-that they will eventually fall
into a state of mind which can best be
described as "peace at any price" or
"better Red than dead."
It is highly significant that the Secre-
tary of State, the Secretary of Defense,
and the Joint Chiefs of Staff emphasized
the danger of euphoria, and one member
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff expressed the
opinion that under the treaty our na-
tional will probably will deteriorate.
16497.
. There are two answers to this prob-
lem: First, it should be. no more of a
problem for the people of the United
States than for the people of the
Soviet Union. Second, the problem
actually exists, whether the treaty
is ratified or_. not; and although the
problem may be accentuated . if the
treaty.,is ratified, it will be much more of
a problem with respect to "follow-on"
amendments. to_ the . treaty or other
treaties and relationships with the Soviet
Union. We might as well face up to the
problem now; and it could be that the
treaty, if it serves no other purpose, will
serve our national interest by once again
focusing public attention on the nature
of communism and Soviet imperialism.
I believe that administration. spokes-
men who favor the treaty should be com-
mended for making it clear that the
treaty is, at most, only a very small first
step toward improved relations with the
Soviet Union, and that it is nothing to
become wildly excited about. It stands
as more of a symbol of hope for im-
proved relations. Everyone agrees with
its purpose to lay a foundation for im-
proved relations; but there are honest
differences of opinion over whether these
will actually result from the treaty. Ab-
sent a concrete example of a change in
Soviet intentions, the evidence is over-
whelming that communism is not chang-
ing and that the Communist leaders in
the Kremlin are not throwing off the
shackles of their Communist ideology.
It would be well never to forget a few
hard facts- about communism:
First. Communists deny the existence
of God, so that their "moral" code is not
the same as ours. Unlike us, they believe
that might makes right and that the end
justifies the means.
Second. Communists-whether they
live in the Soviet Union, in Red China,
in the United States, or anywhere else-
are dedicated to achieving one world of
communism. Lying, cheating, subver-
sion, and war are perfectly proper means
to this end. It was a perfectly proper
Communist tactic for Mr. Gromyko to
lie to the President of the United States
last October, when Mr. Gromyko de-
clared that only "defensive" weapons
were being supplied to Cuba.
Third. If and when a nuclear war were
decided upon as a proper means to "bury"
the United States, the leaders in the
Kremlin would not hesitate to engage in
a "preemptive"-first strike-war. So-
viet military doctrine expresses no
scruples over a first strike, if it would be
decisive. Our Government recognizes
this; and that is why we have a program
for "hardening" our missile sites. But
the following quotations from "Soviet
Military Strategy," by V, D. Sokolovskii,
marshal of the Soviet Union-translated
by Rand Corp. and published by Pren-
tice-Hall, Inc., 1963-ought to be re-
membered:
Military strategy directs primary atten-
tion to the study of how a future war may
break out and to a detailed study of the
particular features of strategic deployment
of the Armed Forces, methods of delivering
the first blow and conducting initial opera-
tions, and strategic utilization of the differ-
ent 'branches of the Armed Forces (p. 91).
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For'Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
CONGRESSI`ONAI. RECORD"--- SENATE September 18
n
t obsolete weapons, face of the brazen attempt by the Soviet
odern warfare, military strategy has not take into accou
As the strategy of missile and nuclear aborts, misses, and .ontargeted targets. Union to bankrupt the United Nations by
s Is in depth (p, 93). Administration spok smen who favor the running up a delinquency amounting to
In a missile war, the main war aims and treaty have made it dlear that we cannot $54 million-over half of the combined
missions will be accomplished by strategic safely diminish our nuclear capability delinquencies before the U.N., and in the
missile forces, which will deliver massive relative to that of the Soviet' Union. face of continued Soviet-sponsored sub-
will .protect the strikes. * * * The National PVO Nevertheless, the theory of overkill versive activities in Latin America, the
the country from enemy y nuclear
attacks. * * * The probability of such wars has merit, if placed in proper perspective. Middle East, 'and Africa-then some
cannot be completely excluded at the present The danger is that its apparent logic meaningful first step must be made by
time (p. 95). refight be used to J tify unilateral dis- the Soviet Union to indicate peaceful
The fourth point to remember about armament or the ratification of a com- intentions.
communism is that the Red Chinese prehensive test ban treaty without ade- That first step could be the removal
openly state that war is inevitable as a quate inspection and controls. The of Soviet troops from Cuba, onsite in-
means of achieving one world of com- American people can now sleep soundly spection of Cuba, payment of its del'in-
munism over the capitalistic nations. at night, secure in the realization that quencies "before the United Nations,
They openly do so. The Soviets openly our military power deters the Soviet Un- adoption of an "open skies" policy such
speak of "peaceful coexistence, ' while ion from attack. It has always been as that requested by former President
secretly preparing for war. "Masters of this way, and the so-called missile gap Eisenhower, public renunciation of lies
deceit" is what J. Edgar Hoover calls the of the 1960 campaign has long since been and villification relating to the inten-
Canmunists. proved to have been nonexistent. The tions of the United States which have
Small wonder, Mr. President (Mr. real concern, however, is, Will we main- been deliberately fed to the people of
NELSON in the chair), that administra- tain our deterrent power in the future? the Soviet Union, who yearn for peace,
tion spokesmen for the treaty have Years are required to design, develop, by the Communist leaders in the Krem-
warned that the Soviets can be expected and produce weapons systems. It would ' lin, or something similar. If it be said
to abrogate the treaty whenever they be foolish and tragic, if not fatal, to let that the Soviet Union would never agree
conclude that it is in their interest to euphoria in the form of a misapplied to taking such a first step as a condition
do so-just as they did in the case of overkill theory or any other form to precedent to ratification of the treaty,
their breach of the moratorium in 1961, persuade the people and the Congress to there are two answers: First, no one but
after years of secret preparation for the engage in unwise and premature cuts the leaders in the Kremlin know whether
premeditated breach. And the chairman in our national defense budget, or to re- the Soviet Union would take such a first
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff testified that sist the defense budget increases which step. Under the circumstances of this
"I believe we can anticipate clandestine will arise in the nuclear weapons and treaty, with the pressures of "worlld opin-
testing on the part of the Soviets." Al- technology area by firm adherence to the ion" upon them, it could well be that the
though we may hope that the Soviets will safeguards prescribed by the Joint Chiefs Soviet Union would pay up its obliga-
change their ways and will adhere to of Staff, tions before the United Nations if this
the letter and the spirit'of the treaty, it Finally, let us not be deluded by the were a condition precedent. Second, the
would be foolish for our people to let argument that a continuation of the failure to take such a first step would be
euphoria blind them to the realities of arms race, which ratification of this highly indicative of the surface nature
communism and to the long Soviet rec- treaty will promote, will lead to greater of the protestations of "good faith" by
ord of broken treaties and agreements, international tensions. It is the inter- the Soviet Union,
such as those with Finland, Estonia, national tensions, caused by the aggres- Instead, we are being urged to follow
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary, live policies of Communist imperialism, a policy of accommodation. This policy
Rumania, and Czechoslovakia, to name which has brought on the arms race. seems to be to merely react to Commu-
only a few. THE POLICY OF CCOMMODATION nist aggression, to do nothing which
Another manifestation of euphoria Serious as the other disadvantages un- might rock the boat," so to speak, to
would be the assumption that with nu- der the treaty are, to me the most seri- bend over backward to not cause Pre-
clear parity will come an end to the our one is that ratification of this treaty, mier Khrushchev to lose his temper and
danger of nuclear war. Such an as- in. the absence of even one first step by pound the table with his shoe. It finds
sufCnption overlooks the fact that so- the Soviet Union indicating a change in expression in references to the "brink"
called parity would be destroyed by a Policy, means following a policy of ac- of nuclear war during the Cuban con-
first strike of the Soviets or by Soviet Conimodation in dealing with commu- frontation, although let me say, Mr.
development of an effective antimissile nism. For over 25 years I have been President, we were not on any "brink"
system, It fails to recognize that, in studying the Communist ideology, and at all. We were ready to go, that is true.
reckoning with a first strike, the United I have had the benefit of instruction, ad- But we were not even close to a nuclear
States must have far more nuclear weap- vice; and writings from people who have war because Premier Khrushchev was
ons than the Soviets in order to retain devoted their lives in this field. Not the not close to committing suicide.
parity after a first strike. Those who least of these is Robert Strausz-Hupe, A line seems to be drawn between tak-
use the overkill argument, in an effort director of the Foreign Policy Research ing action-such as the blockade of
to Persuade us to reduce our nuclear ca- Institute of the University of Pennsyl- Cuba--when there is imminent danger
pability, appear to take a conservative vania, who testified that while he favors to our Nation; and inaction evidenced
position in estimating that only 10 per- a comprehensive test ban treaty, he is by lifting the Cuban blockade following
cent of our bomber fleet and only 25 opposed to ratification of this treaty. I the removal of Soviet missiles-when no
percent of our Polaris and Minuteman recognize that there are some differences imminent danger faces our Nation, al-
missiles would hit their targets, and that of opinion among the experts, but the though our national honor has been
such a force would be more than 200 great weight of opinion is that the best ground under foot by emasculation of
times enough to destroy the Soviet if not the only way' to deal with commu- the Monroe Doctrine. I could cite other
Union. Surely they do not believe that nis:m is through a policy of firmness, examples, such as our tolerance of the
the Soviet Union would engage in a first And a policy of firmness demands that Berlin wall, our failure to follow up on
strike on the basis of such an estimate. before undertaking a solemn treaty obli- Premier Khrushchev's promise to have
Rather, it would be more realistic to as- gation with the Soviet Union, in the face onsite inspection in Cuba and to with-
sump that the Soviets would not make of its attempt to install nuclear missiles draw Soviet troops from Cuba, and the
a first strike until they believed they in Cuba last fall,' in the face of the apparent failure to even mention these
could prevent almost all, if not all, of Oromyko lie to the President of the points when Premier Khrushchev stated
our bombers and missiles' from getting United States, in the face of Premier that he expected to negotiate a nonag-
off the ground or reaching their targets. Khrushchev's failure to carry out his gression pact between NATO and the
'Iihe overkill adherents also overlook commitment for on-site Inspection in Warsaw Pact countries as the next step
the fact that strategic weapons would Cuba under United Nations auspices, in following the treaty.
not be employed in a tactical war and the face of Premie$ Khruschev's further I do not say that the policy of accom-
that tactical weapons might well not be failure to carry out his commitment to modation is intended to reflect a "no
employed in a strategic war; and they do withdraw Soviet troops from Cuba, in the win" ;policy on the part of those who
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
1,
 'advocate it, because the advocates are sidium does not ratify the treaty? The
among the first to proclaim our hope chairman of the Senate Foreign Reia-
that freedom will come to those who are tions Committee has said that he does
now dominated by ideologies which re- not believe there is the slightest doubt
ject individual freedom and the self- that the Praesidium will ratify the
determination of nations. But because treaty. He further said that, as far as
the policy of accommodation results in he was concerned, if the Praesidium
munists, because it results in the side of
freedom,being on the defensive against
the aggressive moves of Communist sub-
version and imperialism, it tends to
weaken our willingness and desire to win.
the cold war. It-tends to erode away
the morale of the, dedicated men and
women in our Armed Forces, the people
' in the captive nations, and the refugees
who seek to reestablish freedom in their
native countries, It places an almost
unbearable burden of understanding on
those in the front..Une of the cold war-
the men and their families affected by
SAC alert, by maneuvers of our Polaris
submarines, by our operations in South
Vietnam to name only a few; and the
Cuban patriots who seek. to overthrow
the bearded Moscow puppet in their
homeland.
The point is, Mr. President, that the
"accommodation" policy has not worked.
And the reason it has not worked is that
Communists look upon such sufferance
as a sign of weakness, which invites fur-
ther subversion and aggression, rather
.than a sign of the hand of friendship to
be grasped.
I could be wrong when I say that a
policy of firmness is the one to follow,
rather than a policy of accommodation,
and I hope I am. I do know that when
we have followed a policy of firmness-
as we did in Berlin and as we .did during
the briefly imposed Cuban blockade-it
has worked.,. But if a majority of my
colleagues in the Senate feel that we
should follow a policy of accommodation
and ratify the treaty without a meaning-
ful first step by the Soviet Union first,
then I will go along-with this clear
understanding:. I want to see a meaning-
ful first step by the Soviet Union, clearly
demonstrating a change in policy, before
ratifying any amendments to this treaty
or any other treaties with the Soviet
Union affecting the security of our coun-
try. In this connection, let me caution
that I do not consider. a proposed ex-
change of observers of ground forces,
which is being mentioned, or a proposed
proclamation of an end to class warfare
in the Soviet Union, which will probably
be made later on, as a "meaningful first
step." I have already indicated exam-
ples of what I mean by this, and I speak
of a unilateral step by the Soviet Union
of that character.
CONC1 USION
In conclusion, Mr. President, I would
make two points: First, the Praesidium
of the Supreme Soviet has not, as yet,
ratified this, treaty, . On September 9,
the State Department advised that the
treaty has been unanimously endorsed
by the Joint Foreign Affairs Committee
of the Supreme Soviet, the Council of the
Union, and the Council of Nationalities,
and was then before the Praesidium of
the Supreme Soviet, which has the power
to, ratify. This naturally raises the
question of what will happen if the Prae.-
Approved For a 2004/03/11 :CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210b08-2
CO RESSIONAL RECORD - SFNATF
next spring, the treaty would be "off."
I recognize that the treaty will probably
be ratified by the Praesidium, but we do
not know this for certain. And if it
should not do so sooner than next spring,
I agree that the treaty should be "off,"
but I am not so sure that it will be "off."
Once the treaty has been ratified by the
U.S. Senate and the document of ratifi-
cation deposited with the Soviet Union,
it would seem to be "on" unless the Presi-
dent recalled it. I think it would be
helpful to make sure that the State De-
partment not deposit the ratified treaty
with the Soivet Union until the Praesid-
ium has ratified the treaty and it is on
its way over here for deposit with us.
Remember, that under Soviet law a
treaty' ratified by the Praesidium does
not become effective -until it has been.
deposited.
The second point is that I have de-
tected a certain amount of cynicism over
what will happen if this treaty is not
ratified by the U.S. Senate. We have
been told that ratification of this treaty
is far better than to have an unlimited
arms race extending without relief into
the future. The inference, of course, is
that if the treaty is not ratified we will,
therefore, have an unlimited arms race
extending without relief into the future
rather than cgntinue to work for a com-
prehensive test ban treaty. And the fur-
ther inference is that any Senator who
dares vote against ratification must be
in favor of an unlimited arms race ex-
tending without relief into the future.
The logic of such an argument com-
pletely escapes me. If I were to vote
against ratification, I would deeply re-
sent it. And inasmuch as I intend to
vote for ratification, I am in an even bet-
ter position to say that I deeply resent
the implication it casts upon those of
my colleagues who, with.just as much
dedication as any of use possesses to
peace, to an pnd in the arms race, and
to more of the better things in life for
our people which genuine disarmament
can bring, cannot conscientiously sup-
port ratification.
Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President,
will the Senator yield?
Mr. MILLER. I yield.
Mr. THURMOND.. A portion of the
preamble to the treaty reads:
Proclaiming as their principal aim the
speediest possible achlevemept of an agree-
ment on general and complete disarma-
ment-
And so forth. Of course, the Senator
is familiar with that portion of the
preamble. ?
Secretary Rusk has said that the test
ban treaty is only the first step down
this road. He made that statement be-
fore the Senate -committee March 11,
1963.
I believe the President of the United
States said that this is the first step.
Does the Senator.from,lowa, feel that
this is the first step
program?
16499
Mr. MILLER. No. I do not believe
this is the first step in a disarmament
program. I have tried my best to make
it clear that the result of this treaty,
coupled with the safeguards of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, will be a step-up in the
arms race rather than a stepdown.
I fear that most of the proponents of
the. treaty have not done their home-
work. They are trying to persuade Sen-
ators to vote for the treaty on the basis
of the argument that it will be a step-
down in the arms race. When the
budget costs roll around to the Senate
next year and the year after and the
year after that, because the administra-
tion will then be trying to carry out the
safeguards of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
those proponents should not come to tell
me that they are sorry, that they were
wrong. They have had ample time to
do their homework on this point.
I have concluded that this will not be
a first step toward disarmament. At
least, that will not be the first result.
I recognize that it may have a ten-
dency, because of the increased costs of
national defense both for the Soviet
Union and the United States-because
of these mutual disadvantages-to bring
the two parties together in an effort to
arrive at a comprehensive test ban
treaty which will prohibit underground
testing under adequate safeguards of
inspection and controls. That could be
a first step toward disarmament.
In other words, the treaty could pro-
vide a basis for a first step; but to say
that the result of the treaty will be a
first step toward disarmament, when the
result is going to be an increase in the
armaments race, is something I cannot
quite reconcile.
Mr. THURMOND. Is it the feeling
of the Senator from Iowa that this would
not be a first step? Is that what the
Senator has expressed? I believe it is
the position of the Senator that it would
not be a first step in disarmament.
Mr. MILLER. No.
Mr. THURMOND.
ator from Iowa want
step.
Or does the Sell-
this to be a first
Mr. MILLER. I would like to have
the treaty -become a meaningful first
step toward relative, genuine, effective,
safeguarded disarmament between the
United States and the Soviet Union, be-
cause I am well persuaded that until the
day comes when we can spend more of
our national resources on the better
things of life for our people rather than
for instruments of destruction, we shall
not be able to provide the opportunities
which I am sure our Maker intended for
our people.
But that does not appear to be very
near. I do not think we ought to try to
aggravate the situation. I can under-
stand Senators voting against ratifica-
tion, on the ground that. the treaty,
might step up the arms race. I think
that is a disadvantage, but I think it is
outweighed by the other points I made
for ratification.
Mr. THURMOND. So the Senator is
not in accord, then, with the interpreta-
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383RO00100210008-2
16500 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
tion placed upon the treaty by the Presi- disarmament, as he stated before the about disarmament. He made the
dent' and the Secretary of State that it Senate committee on March 11, 1963? statement:
is a first step?- Mr. MILLER. As I said, I do not want Disarmament primarily means disman-
Mr. MILLER. That is a first step to- to get into an argument over the mean- tling the gigantic war machines of the highly
ward disarmament? Ing of words. I do not recall whether developed countries, * ? * General disarma-
Mr. THURMOND. Yes. the Secretary of State testified that this ment does not mean disarming the peoples
Mr. MILLER.. We must not get into treaty's immediate result would be it step trgry, i for
would deprive the imperialists of
an argument over the meaning of words, down in the arms race-- the means to ha:a progress and crush the
but the senator from Iowa cannot see, Mr. THURMOND. No; a first step to- struggle for independence.
if nothing more is done, that a year from ward disarmament, I said. So it is clear f ram that statement how
now we shall be any nearer disarma- Mr. MILLER. But there are some Mr. Khrulear construes ment mo-
ment. The Senator from Iowa believes persons who say the treaty would step Mr.
we shall be further away, because the down the arms race; and that, therefore, should like to quote from General
arms race will have been stepped up just it is a step toward disarmament. They I s
m I know the Sholds
could much more. The only way one have arrived at that conclusion consci- Power, and esteem. Senator a said:
could justify the argument that this entiously, although, as I have said, I do in high regard,
oi He s
could be-the use of the word "is" is not think they have done their home- In whhomdn my person
desireste peace an all d sensible people
from
gratuitous-a first step is on the basis work. If one reaches the conclusion in nhis w wad bue there are two different
that it could result in better relations that the treaty will be a step down in theories of how to get there. One theory is
between the United States and the So- that arms race, he may believe that it through military superiority and through
viet Union and, on that basis, perhaps a will be a step toward disarmament. But deterrents, whic his the philosophy of the
meaningful agreement regarding de if one reaches the conclusion, as I have, strategy we have used. There is another one
facto disarmament could be arrived at. that it will be a step-up in the arms race, through disarmament. I personally think
Mr. THURMOND. Does the Senator I do not see how he could say it is a step the two theories are diametrically op-
feel the time has now come when the toward disarmament unless he thinks it posed-
Communist leaders are evolving into will provide for better relations between Says General Power-
peaceful people, that. we can trust them, the two nations that will result in :reach- I do not see how you can arm and dis-
and that relations will be improved be- ing other meaningful agreements pro- arm at the same time. I have studied pre-
cause of the treaty? viding for a step toward disarmament. vious disarmament measures, and in my
Mr. MILLER. No; the Senator from Mr. THURMOND.- In view of the pre- opinion disarmament is a proven concept
Iowa does not believe so. To be fair, I amble to the treaty, which states it is a to get you into it war. I think history will
believe that some of the administration's step toward general and complete dis- prove that the surest way to cause a war,
armament, and in view of the statement nuclear war of any war, is to disarm.
spokesmen, such as the Secretary of
State, have indicated that they do not of the Secretary of State to that effect Does not the Senator feel that what
believe that they are changing now, in March 1963, and in view of the Presi- has kept us out of a nuclear war, and
dent's statement that it is a first step, what has been the greatest deterrent to
eitThere is a hope. One never knows Is there much doubt in the Senator's war with the Communists, since World
when the people under the domination mind as to how the executive branch War II ended, has been our tremendous
of the Communists will start to cast off construes it? striking power, our nuclear weapons, and
the shackles of communism. We hope I am not asking the Senator's con- the great strength and power of this
and pray that there will come a time struction, but is there much question in Nation?
when they will. Who knows when that the Senator's mind as to how the execu- Mr. MILLER. There are some who
time will be? A majority of my brothers tive branch construes the treaty? It is may argue against it, but the Senator
here seem to think this is the time; that that branch that will be charged with from South Carolina knows very well that
we do not have to have a meaningful the enforcement of it. I believe deeply that most knowledgeable
first step by the Soviets; that this is the Mr. MILLER. Let me say to the dis- people who have done their homework
time for caviar and parties and bear tinguished Senator from South Carolina must admit that to be true. The con-
hugs, which all of us saw on TV and that I am looking at the treaty now. cern that is often expressed by some
heard about on the radio, as taking The preamble states: against disarmament is that they tend
place in Moscow; and that this is sup- Proclaiming as their principal aim the to think in terms of disarmament in a
posed to be the crystallization of the speediest possible achievement of an agree- sort of vacuimi. I do not regard it in
change In Soviet intentions. meet on general and complete disarmament that light. To me, the only kind of dis-
The Senator from Iowa does not be- under strict international control in accord- armament that the United States could
lieve so. The Senator from Iowa hopes ance with the objectives of the United Na- conscientiously engage in vis-a-vis the
and prays that it is. With all the red- tions which would put an end to the arma- Soviets would be one of relative disarma-
testing he ince;z to meet, so that there would be a relative
and I have set forth in my argument, tc and eliminate
the e production and ea all kinds nd;s of
and with the first hurdle being gotten wantons, including testing nuclear weapons. amount of power In our favor as between
over, if the military, risks involved are Seeking to achieve the discontinuance of the two countries.
acceptable, in light of the assurances of all test explosions of nuclear weapons for all That is a very difficult problem, as the
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and with the time, determined to continue negotiations Senator knows, to work out, but I do not
withdrawal provision, I will go along. to this end, and desiring to put an. end to believe it should deter us from attempt-
But let no one come to me a year from the contamination of man's environment by ing to make some strides in that direc-
now, or 2 years from now, and say, "We radioactive substances, tion. I am persuaded that until the time
have an amendment to the treaty. It Have agreed as follows- comes when we can spend our money on
would provide for better relations be- I cannot see that the preamble states the better things of life for our people
tween the United States and the Soviet that we are now undertaking to disarm. instgad of on armaments, we shall not
Union. There are some security over- It merely states that we are aiming for have the kind of life that was intended
tones in it, but we want you to vote for an agreement on general and complete for us by our Maker. Nevertheless, in the
this amendment." Let no one do that disarmament, and trying to achieve dis- meantime I believe we had better keep
unless I have seen a meaningful first continuance of all test explosions of nu- our powder dry. There is too much em-
step in the meantime, because the policy clear weapons for all time. It is an ob- phasis being given to the argument that
of accommodation has not worked. I jective, but the preamble does not state the. arms race causes world tensions. It
am willing to go along this once, but if that the treaty is going to be a step in Is not the arms race that causes tensions.
it does not work, I say let us "get on the that direction. I do not believe the pre- It is the aggressive nature of commu-
ball" and follow the policy that has arable of the treaty could be said to nism.
worked, which is a policy of firmness stand for the proposition that the treaty The President of the United States
toward communism. is going to step down the arms race. has said that if Mr. Khrushchev would
Mr. THURMOND. The Senator Mr. THURMOND. I remind the Sen- cease aggression, we would be in a much
knows, does he not, that Secretary Rusk ator what Mr. Khrushchev said in East more positive situation. What he was
is construing this as a first step toward Germany on January 16 of this year politely nudging Mr. Khrushchev on was
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008'2
16502 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
the arms race being stepped down, it will
be stepped up. We shall have to do more
hardening of missile sites to provide
margins of safety, in view of what the
Senator from South Carolina has said.
We shall have to spread our missiles out
still more and have more of them, be-
cause we are uncertain of Soviet devel-
opments. Mr. THURMOND. How will we know
how much to harden our missile sites if
we cannot test in the atmosphere?
Mr. MILLER. We do not know how
much to harden them; all we can do is
to guess. The Senator from South Caro-
lina knows that we have always done
that in our military activities. In addi-
tion, we shall have to disperse our mis-
siles more, so that we shall have the
capability to retaliate if there are some
weapons effects instruments that the So-
viets might release, which might, over
a large area, paralyze our missile control
system.
Mr. THURMOND. Under the treaty,
is-It riot true that the United States will
be unable to verify the ability of its mis-
sile reentry bodies under defensive nu-
clear attack to survive and to penetrate
to the target without the opportunity to
test nosecone and warhead designs in a
nuclear environment under dynamic re-
entry conditions?
Mr. MILLER. This is true; but again,
I think it could be said, with validity,
that the Soviets probably do not have an
adequate amount of information on that
point either.
Mr. THURMOND. Notwithstanding
the tests which the Soviets conducted in
1961 and 1962?
Mr. MILLER. According to my best
information, that is something that is
highly technical and difficult to evaluate.
More than one series of. tests would be
required to develop a creditable reentry
vehicle, if indeed problems are develop-
ing.
Mr. THURMOND. Is it not true that
the treaty will provide the Soviet Union
an opportunity to equal U.S. accomplish-
ments in submegaton weapon technol-
. Mr. MILLER. Yes, indeed. However,
I wish to be fair in`my statement. The
Secretary of Defense and, as I recall,
other administration spokesmen who
favor the ratification of the treaty, indi-
cated that this could be done. They did
not try to dodge the question. Their
answer' was that it would take a long
time and would entail a large amount of
additional expense to the Soviet Union to
step up its underground testing sufficient-
ly to hope, after several years, to catch
up in that area.
Mr. THURMOND. Is it not true that
the treaty would deny to the United
States a valuable source of information
on Soviet nuclear weapons capabilities?
Mr. MILLER. I do not know. I
should say that even without the treaty,
we face about the same problem, so far
as our intelligence regarding Soviet
nuclear weapons 'capabilities is con-
cerned. I believe we have some good in-
telligence on this subject. We do not
have as ,much as we would like to have.
Whether we have the treaty or do not
have it, I do not believe there will be
a great amount of difference in our in-
telligence on this point. Perhaps I do
not understand the thrust of the ques-
tion asked by the Senator from South
Carolina. I want to be responsive; but
if I correctly interpret his question, I
have given the best answer I can.
Mr. THURMOND. Based upon the
testimony of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
other military people, and scientists, it
is clear that the United States is ahead
of the Soviets in low-yield weapons. I
believe the Senator from Iowa will agree
to that.
Mr. MILLER. That is correct.
Mr. THURMOND. It is further clear
that under the treaty the Soviets could
test underground and overcome their
deficiency in that respect.
Mr. MILLER. That is correct. But
I wish to repeat, to be fair, that the
proponents of the treaty recognize this-
although they have a semirebuttal to it,
in pointing out that it will entail a great
amount of additional cost to the Soviets,
and that it can be achieved only over
a long period of time.
Mr. THURMOND. The testimony be-
fore the Preparedness Investigating Sub-
committee also clearly shows that the
Soviets are ahead of us in high-yield
weapons and in the development and
deployment of an anti-ballistic-missile
system. Is it not true that we would
have to test in the atmosphere, in order
properly to overcome that deficiency?
Mr. MILLER. Not quite, because it
should be remembered that even granted
that they are ahead of us in the develop-
ment of an antimissile system-although
I am not sure they are-I recognize that
they may well have installed some kind
of antimissile system, and I also recog-
nize that they will not be content to stop
there, either, but will get the best one
they can, and will do so sooner than
we do, if possible. Nevertheless, I am
satisfied that in the foreseeable future,
the penetration capabilities of our nu-
clear retaliatory force will be quite suf-
ficient to destroy Khrushchev and the
Soviet Union, in the event they attempt
to make the first strike.
Mr. THURMOND. I invite the atten-
tion of the Senator-if he has not had
an opportunity to read it-to the testi-
mony in the Preparedness Investigating
Subcommittee of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, who definitely, explicitly, and pre-
cisely said the Soviets do have a lead on
us in the antiballistic missile system
field.
Mr. MILLER. Yes. But the Senator
knows that the problem is, How much?
No one knows how much their lead really
Mr. THURMOND. To the extent that
they have one developed and deployed
whereas we have none deployed, and it
is a matter of fact that it would take us
4 years to deploy an ABM system. Also
the Soviets has made more sophisti-
cated tests than we have.
Mr. MILLER. That is correct; and I
think there should be no disagreement
on that point.
Mr. THURMOND. Except for the fact
that our intelligence shows that the
Soviet system is capable of knocking
down medium-range ' missiles, which
travel up to approximately 1,200 miles;
and intermediate-range missiles, which
travel up to about 2,500 miles; and,
under certain favorable conditions, inter-
continental ballistic missiles, which trav-
el from 5,000 to 7,000 miles. Our intelli-
gence may be wrong; but that is what
our own intelligence shows.
Mr. MILLER. Assuming that to be
correct, I suggest to the distinguished
Senator from South Carolina that the
Soviets would live a long, long, long way
to go before they could develop and set
up a comparable defense system around
all the major cities in the Soviet Union.
So I believe they have a long way to go
in making that development.
Nevertheless, this does not mean that
we should not concern ourselves with the
development of an effective antimissile
system sooner than the Soviets develop
one. But this system will extend far be-
yound the confines of one localized area,
which is where I understand the Soviet
system now is. It will have to be nation-
wide, and that will take a long time. I
hope we do not have to develop it to that
point; but I believe'we would be foolish,
indeed, if we proceeded on the assump-
tion that the Soviets would not try to
succeed before we do.
Mr. THURMOND. I thank the able
Senator. In view of his excellent mili-
tary background and knowledge, and his
stated lack of trust of the Communists,
and also in view of the disadvantages of
the treaty, as he has expressed them in
his address today, and also throughout
the debate on the treaty, I am still at a
loss to understand how the able Senator
has reached the conclusion to support the
treaty.
Mr. MILLER. I thank the distin-
guished Senator from South Carolina.
He well knows my great respect and af-
fection for him and also my great respect
for his military knowledge, which is un-
excelled by that of any other Member of
the Senate.
I may say that the last paragraph of
my speech was included because I am
cognizant of the position of the Senator
from South Carolina and of other dedi-
cated Senators. who, in their conscience,
feel that they cannot favor approval of
the treaty.
These matters should be viewed in the
proper perspective. Some persons no
doubt will say the Senator from South
Carolina, the Senator from Georgia [Mr.
RUSSELL], and the Senator from Wyo-
ming [Mr. SIMPsoNl, and other Sena-
tors who cannot in good conscience vote
for approval of the treaty, therefore are
in favor of an unlimited nuclear arms
race far into the future, and so forth. I
believe it best to lay that misunderstand-
ing to rest, once and for all; and I have
done my best to do so.
Mr. YOUNG of North Dakota. Mr.
President, I will vote for approval of the
nuclear test ban treaty. This is one of
the most difficult decisions I have ever
had to make, dealing-as it does-with
our future security. As is the case with
most issues of great importance, not all
the merit is on one side.
While the danger of fallout from nu-
clear testing may be overestimated, the
great majority of people throughout the
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 1963
Approved Fof Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R0001002,10008-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-- SENATE
to get -off the Communist ideology and
get on to something more peaceful. I
do not expect to see him do, so for. some
time. It may be that he will, but I want
to see something more concrete first. I
am not at all impressed by fine words.
I am not impressed by Moscow cham-
pagne and caviar parties and smiles and
bear hugs.
We must have some concrete evidence
first before we take another first step,
if it be a first step.
Mr. THURMOND. I am sure the Sen-
ator is familiar with the report of the
Preparedness Subcommittee.
Mr. MILLER. Yes.
Mr. THURMOND. Under the treaty,
is it not true that the United States prob
ably will be unable to duplicate Soviet
achievements in very high yield weapon
technology?
Mr. MILLER. I believe the Senator is
reading from the conclusions of the Pre
paredi:iess Subcommittee. I have al-
ready quoted from the major findings
in my main speech.
I recognize the probable validity of
these conclusions, although I point out
that perhaps even the formidable state
meat that was put into the conclusions
was worded in the terminolpgy of "may-
be" or "perhaps." That is the difficulty
with all the evidence that we have on the
treaty. It is opinion evidence or practi-
Gaily all of it is. Very little of it is fac-
tual evidence. Therefore, it is necessary
to weigh possibilities and, probabilities
and "maybe's," "might's," "could's," and
"should's" to arrive at a conclusion.
This makes the task extremely difficult.
Honest people can differ on the degree of
emphasis they will give.
What I have been mainly trying to do
has been to put some of the arguments in
their proper perspective. Both for and
against the treaty. In my mail I have
received cliches on both sides of the
iss e. I am not denying the sincerity
with which they were offered.
However, they are not persuasive, and
I believe they ought to be reduced to
size, so that when Senators vote they will
vote on the basis of reason and logic and
sound judgment, instead of on the basis
of cliches and arguments that should
have no relevancy in the Senate.
Mr. THURMOND. Because of the
Senator's military experience, I am sure
he realizes the value of the Preparedness
Subcommittee's report. I wish to point
up certain things in it in a few more
questions. Under this treaty, is it,not
true that the United States will be un-
able to acquire necessary data on the
effects of very high yield atmospheric
explosions?
Mr. MILLER. That question can be
answered only in terms of possibility or
probability. What are "necessary
data"? It is difficult to determine
whether they are necessary or unneces-
sary. Some people think they are abso-
lutely necessary. Others seem to, think
we can get along without them, and that
If we find as tulle goes on we cannot get
along without them, we can withdraw
from the treaty.
I do not expect the relative power be-
tween the Soviet Union and the United
States to blow up. overnight. It will be
some time before the Soviets catch up to
the point of offsetting our deterrent abil-
ity. That will occur over a period of
several years. In that time, we can de-
tect changes sufficient to enable us to
reach a determination as to whether we
.should withdraw from the treaty.
In the face of world opinion, such with-
drawal would not be easy. It would be
necessary for the President and the
Members of the Senate to be courageous
about it. However,] do not believe I
can answer the question of the Senator
from South Carolina any better than I
have answered it. It is hard to say
whether it is necessary. I agree that we
will not be able to obtain certain infor-
mation on weapons effects which the
Soviets have obtained. The President
of the United States said as much in
March of 1962. He said that they had
obtained weapons ,effects information
that would probably take them 2 or 3
years to analyze, and that we do not have
it. I am, satisfied that as a result of our
rather limited testing in 1962, we have
less comparable information to analyze.
Mr. THURMOND. Under this treaty,
is it not true that the United States will
be unable to acquire data on high alti-
tude nuclear weapons effects?
Mr. MILLER. Neither side can do so
under the treaty. The point I wish to
make-and I thought I had agreed with
the Senator on it-is that the Soviets, by
virtue of their massive tests in 19(31, have
acquired certain data which we probably
have not acquired as a result of our
rather limited test series of 1962.
Mr. THURMOND. If the treaty, is
adopted, we will not be able to acquire
the information. Isthat correct?
Mr. MILLER. That is correct.
Mr. THURMOND. Under the treaty,
is it not true that the United States will
be unable to determine with confidence
the performance and reliability of any
ABM system developed without benefit
of atmospheric operational system tests?
Mr. MILLER. The testimony on this
point, as the Senator knows, was divided.
I am inclined to think that Dr. Teller's
testimony on this point was more per-
suasive than the testimony on the other
side. In any event, it was of equal qual-
ity. The proponents of the treaty say
we do not need to test. Dr. Teller and
others say we need to test. It is a dif-
ficult question for anyone to evaluate
and upon which to come to a conclusion.
I go one step further, if the Senator
from South Carolina wishes to know how
I reconciled my position on the treaty
with that problem. There are two ways.
First, the withdrawal provisions of the
treaty. I am satisfied that the Soviet
Union will not for a long time develop an
antimissile system which will effectively
take care of our weapons. They will be
working for one, probably, and they may
develop one. But I am satisfied we will
get information in the meantime which
will indicate to us whether we need to
test our system. Under the withdrawal
provisions of the treaty, we shall be able
to do so.
Mr. THURMOND. Speaking of Dr.
Teller, I should like to quote a statement
he made in January of this year:
A test ban treaty with the Soviet Union
would prevent vital improvements of our
atomic explosives, as _ well as foreclose the
development of antimissile systems like the
Nike-Zeus and the Nike-X. It would not
keep the Russians from cheating. Such a
treaty, in sutra, would endanger our security
and help the Soviet Union in its plan to can-
quer the world.
Mr. MILLER. I remember that Dr.
Teller testified. in similar vein during the
hearings on the treaty. As I said in my
speech, Dr. Teller's knowledgeable testi-
mony and his powerful logic is certainly
of as high quality as any of ' the testi-
mony'on the other side.
But the problem is: What if the So-
viets are able to test, as I)r. Teller says
they are, without detection? Will the
results of those tests be significant?
That is the magic word. Dr. Teller says
they will be significant. Secretary Mc-
Namara says they will not be significant.
So we are confronted with the problem
whether there will be significant develop-
ments resulting from the Soviets' clan-
destine tests, assuming they propose to
do so.
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff said that we will make that assump-
tion. This is a difficult problem.
I still say that if we adhere to the safe-
guards prescribed by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, we will be able to detect, through
our intelligence, whether there have been
sufficient developments so that we shall
be sufficiently forewarned and be able to
withdraw from the treaty.
Mr. THURMOND. Does the Senator
from Iowa consider that the tests the
Soviets made in 1961 and 1962 were sig-
nificant?
Mr. MILLER. I believe they were
highly significant. This is one of the
main reasons why the argument that is
now advanced by the proponents of the
treaty, who signed the treaty, was offered
to the Soviets in 1958 and by President
Kennedy in 1.961; therefore, we must fol-
low through with it now. But they com-
pletely ignore the change in factual cir-
cumstances since the previous offers of
the treaty, riot the least of which was
the massive series of Soviet tests in 1961,
which had highly significant results.
The big question is whether the results
they obtained compared with the results
that they previously obtained, plus the
results we obtained in our limited series
in 1962, have created a significant im-
balance which could lead to a significant
imbalance in technology vis-a-vis the two
nations.
I am persuaded that they do not; but
if they do, 'wa will have available the
withdrawal provisions of the treaty.
Mr. THURMOND. The able Senator
from Iowa be'.ng an Air Force Reserve
officer, I am sure he will be familiar
with the next question:
Under the treaty, is it not true that
the United States will be unable to verify
the ability of its hardened underground
second-strike missile systems to survive
close-in high-yield nuclear explosions?
. Mr. MILLER. That is true; but some-
thing must be added in answer to the
question. It can be doubted whether the
Soviets know the answer. Furthermore,
prudence would dictate that margins of
safety, certainly within reason, be pro-
vided in the hardening of our missile
sites. I have said that this will be an-
other result of the treaty. Instead of
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved Fof Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
world fear that unlimited testing could
seriously affect the health of this gen-
eration and future generations. Thus
far nuclear testing has been limited to
that by the United States, Russia, Eng-
land, and France. In a matter of a few
short years other nations will be in a
position to, test nuclear weapons, thus
greatly increasing the danger of *nuclear
fallout, in the ,absence of a nuclear test
ban agreement.
Another serious question involved is
that of easing the cold war tensions with
Communist. Russia. It is impossible for
the United States to avoid having to deal
with Communist Russia in Berlin and in
countless other areas throughout the
world. There is some advantage to a
better relationship, if this can be ac-
complished without endangering our na-
tional security. The provisions of the
test ban treaty itself leave ample room
for any of the signators to withdraw-
perhaps too much to be effective. Limit-
ing nuclear testing is the goal sought by
most people throughout the world, and
earnestly advocated by both President
Eisenhower and President Kennedy.
I am well aware that the Soviet Union
has violated most of its treaties and
agreements with us and other nations.
This one may be, too; but nothing will be
lost if we continue, and even accelerate,
our vast program of research and de-
velopment of nuclear weapons, and con-
tinue to prepare for future tests, which
could be resumed immediately follow-
.ing, any violation by Russia. We have
this assurance through a letter by Presi-
dent Kennedy to the Si@hate.' Equally
important, there is a sizable increase in
the appropriations for this purpose in
both the House and the Senate versions
of the appropriations bill`s.
I would never vote for approval of the
treaty if I had the slightest doubt that
our research and development in all
phases of nuclear power would not only
be continued, but also would be ex-
panded and vigorously pursued. A
strong national defense is still, and al-
ways will be, our greatest assurance of
peace and security.
The United States now is capable of
destroying every military installation and
every important city in Russia at least
25 times over. We could literally cover
Russia in a sea of flames.
The most important defense weapon
of the future is the Nike-X, an antimis-
sile missile on which we are spending
hundreds of millions of dollars, each
year, in research and development. If
this can be perfected-and that is pos-
sible within a comparatively short time-
this, together with our other defense
weapons, could give us a high degree of
protection against any nuclear attack,
whether by plane, missile, or submarine.
One of the most important questions
involved in approving the treaty is
whether nuclear testing would be neces-
sary in the perfection of this antimissile
missile. On this question, again there
is some disagreement among our top mil-
itary authorities. Gen. Curtis LeMay,
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, reluc-
tantly approved the nuclear test ban
treaty, because he felt it would be de-
No. 148-lo
si.rable to test the Nike-X missiles with
nuclear warheads attached, before they
were deployed. He felt the same way
with respect to the Minuteman, Titan,
and Atlas missiles, which already are de-
ployed, but never have been tested with
nuclear warheads. attached. Since our
military authorities believe it is not
necessary to test these missiles with nu-
clear warheads attached, it is question-
able whether the Nike-X would be tested
with its nuclear. warhead; even if there
were no test ban treaty. We have many
thousands of nuclear warheads already
perfected and ready to be attached to
the Nike-X or any other weapon.
After long and careful study of all the
testimony on both sides of the issue, I
have come to the conclusion that more
is to be gained by approving the test ban
treaty than by disapproving, it. I do
not subscribe to the position-taken by
a few of our military leaders, and some
others-that nuclear war is inevitable.
If this were the case, there would be little
hope for the future.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. Presi-
dent-The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr,
KENNEDY - in the chair). The Senator
from Ohio [Mr. YOUNG] is recognized.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. For several
weeks, members of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, members of the Com-
mittee on Armed Services, and the Sen-
ate Members of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy have examined inten-
sively the proposed limited nuclear test
ban treaty.
As a member of the Committee on
Armed Services, I desire to thank the
distinguished Senator from Arkansas
[Mr. FULBRIGHT], the chairman of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, for in-
viting all members of the Committee on
Armed Services to participate in the
hearings of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee on the limited test ban treaty.
I am grateful to the chairman of that
great. committee, not only for inviting
me to attend those sessions, but also for
calling on me to ask questions of all
witnesses.
Mr. President, it happens that I first
read this treaty approximately 4 days
before it was even initialed.. I have at-
tended the committee meetings and I
have studied the treaty; and I now be-
lieve that the Senate has intensively
examined it.
In my judgment, every conceivable .
implication of the treaty, every word,
every comma, and every period, has been
minutely examined. More thorough
consideration has never been given to
any matter which has come before the
Senate.
As the distinguished majority leader
has said, in the last analysis the ques-
tion which confronts us is simply
whether the proposed treaty does, on
balance, serve the interests of the people
of the United States?
Some.Senators have engaged in a great
deal. of discussion and there have been
many expressions of doubt regarding the
reliability of the safeguards in the treaty.
Those who oppose the treaty exaggerate
the risk of cheating. They minimize
the risk of continuing the arms race.
The treaty contains the specific reserva-
tion that our Nation may scrap the
agreement if that is deemed. necessary
by our President for our national
security. Furthermore if the Soviet
Union were to violate any provisions of
the treaty, it would be voided imme-
diately, In addition, each nation may
continue underground tests so long as
radioactive debris is not deposited out-
side its territorial limits. Of course, we
shall not rely solely upon Soviet good
faith. We shall rely on our far-flung
detection network which instantly warns
of atmospheric tests or underwater tests
anywhere in the world.
Mr. President, the treaty gives us the
right to resume testing in the atmos-
phere, under water, or in outer space
whenever we feel that our national
security requires it. Three Presidents of
the United States-Presidents Truman,
Eisenhower, and Kennedy-have striven
patiently to achieve an effective nuclear
test, ban treaty, and they have endorsed
the one before us, The Chairman and
the other members of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff have endorsed- it, By far the ma-
jority of the scientists and the nuclear
physicists who testified before the For-
eign Relations Committee strongly en-
dorsed the treaty. Every possible safe-
guard and precaution to protect our vital
national interests have been taken in
the drafting of this historic document.
Of course, there are. risks in this as in
any venture in foreign relations. Com-
monsense will balance them against the
risks of continued massive testing with
all that it implies for the poisoning of
the atmosphere and the aggravation of
an arms race that would end only in
disaster. There are also risks in failing
to venture; risks in standing still in a
world of change and challenge which
does not remain stationary for this or
any other nation.
This treaty is an objective which two
administrations, representing both po-
litical parties, have patiently sought in
spite of repeated discouragements, and
notwithstanding opposition and criti-
cism at home. It was a prime element
in the foreign policy of the Eisenhower
administration. When President Ken-
nedy assumed office _ he could, had he
chosen have ignored the efforts of the
previous administration. However, he
pursued this policy as it is in the best
of interests of all Americans, regardless
of their political affiliation. It will not
usher in the millennium. It will not end
the cold war. It will not totally disarm
the Soviet Union. It will not end the
threat of Communist aggression. It will
not bring about at once total and com=
plete disarmament. It will be a step to-
ward ending one area of armament com-
petition. It may pave the way for prog-
ress in other areas.
Should we reject this treaty, the risks
of paralyzed uncertainty and the result-
ing petrified foreign policy may be far
greater than those, if any, which might
result from ratification.
Mr. President, the Communist mas-
ters of Red China have denounced. this
treaty. In this they are in complete
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
16504
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE September 18
Events may disappoint the hopes and
expectations of those who have proposed
this treaty. It does not, by itself, and
for all time, automatically preclude the
resumption of atmospheric testing, but
it may well result in that most desirable
end. And if it does, its adoption may
spare unnumbered thousands of our own
countrymen and millions, around the
world the pain and sorrow of terrible,
wasting lifelong injury. And it may lift
from mankind the dread menace and
dire threat of damage to the genetic in-
tegrity of the human family that would
cast its dark shadow forward through
the generations down to children born
a thousand years from now.
Opponents of ratification have had
much to say regarding Dr. Edward Teller
and his testimony. He is one of a very
few leading scientists who oppose this
limited test ban treaty. Therefore, re-
garding Dr. Teller let us consider the
record.
The burden of Dr. Teller's advice now
is that to give up atmospheric testing
would grant the Soviets a dangerous ad-
vantage in developing a missile defense.
This view is not supported by the Joint
Chiefs of Staff or by other scientists of
equal or greater competence. It should
be measured against previous alarms
raised by Dr. Teller when a test ban was
under discussion.
In 1957, when the Eisenhower admin-
istration was considering a moratorium,
Dr. Teller was the leader of a scientific
group which strenuously opposed any
such policy on the ground that it would
dangerously interfere with our develop-
ment of a 100 percent clean bomb.
According to a news article in the
Washington Post, there is good reason
to believe that the bomb Teller was talk-
ing about had been developed and indeed
even secretly tested before 1957. Ap-
parently no one wanted it then and ap-
parently no one wants it now.
In 1959, when the United States and
Russia had temporarily suspended test-
ing not by treaty but simply under an
unwritten agreement and begun nego-
tiations for a formal ban, Dr. Teller ad-
vanced a different reason for his opposi-
tion. Then he argued that tests were
absolutely necessary in order to develop
peaceful uses of nuclear energy, such as
Project Plowshare-atomic explosions to
deepen a harbor or to build a canal.
In 1961, he produced still another rea-
son. 'ibis time, a test ban would dan-
gerously interfere with our development
of a neutron bomb, the absolute weapon
that would kill people but do no damage
to property.
Little is heard these days about the
neutron bomb, about the clean bomb,
about the need for large atmospheric ex-
plosions for peaceful purposes. New it
is the antiballistic missile which Dr.
Teller dangles before. the Senate. But
irr view of the record, how much con-
fidence can be placed in his advice?
The question is a" l the more pertinent
in view of the fact that in 1960 when Dr.
Teller was arguing that the United
States should break the moratorium then
`in force by resuming underground test-
Ing, he actually advocated almost ex-
actly what the Kennedy administration
is advocating now. "All developments
of nuclear explosives which are really
necessary," he then wrote, "can be car-
ried out by methods which will not con-
tribute to the contamination of the air.
We can cont4nue the development of
nuclear weapons without causing any
further contact of human beings with
radioactivity."
That is exactly what the administra-
tion now proposes. Furthermore, as
President Kennedy emphasized at a re-
cent news conference, he proposes to
keep our nuclear laboratories function-
ing at full strength, to prepare standby
facilities for the.immediate resumption
of atmospheric tests in case the treaty
is violated, and to improve detection
methods so that any violation will cer-
tainly be found out. Dr. Teller's argu-
ment that the treaty will tragically
weaken the Nation simply does not stand
up. On the other hand, the failure to
ratify, with all that this would imply for
acceleration of the arms race, would be
a real tragedy for the world at large.
I am not one of the younger Members
of the Senate of the United States. I
am one of the older Members who sit in
this small rectangular chamber which
is truly the hall of the States.
I feel I speak for the fathers and
mothers of this country who fear that
the milk their children drink will be more
and more contaminated and poisoned if
the atmosphere is permitted to be pol-
luted by nuclear explosions of 4, 6,
8 or 20 nuclear powers, as our Presi-
dent said t11'ere would be in 1975
unless some treaty such as this is rati-
fied. I know this treaty is not merely
good for those fathers and mothers and
for their childil`'en. I know this is good
for my four young granddaughters, who
will with others of similar ages be the
trustees and ?uardians of this Nation in
a comparatively few years. I want them
to live in a country which is secure and
powerful as is our country at this time-
also in a clear atomsphere of peace, in-
stead of in a grim period of cold war
and international anarchy. This limited
test ban treaty is a small step in the
long journey :for the peace of the world.
In that hour of decision when we are
asked to support our President and ad-
vise and consent to the ratification of
this nuclear test ban treaty, I will sup-
port our President. Every vote cast
against ratification will have the same
power and weight as every two votes
cast in favor of ratification. I hope and
I believe that the Senate will ratify this
treaty by an overwhelming margin and
that we shall vote down overwhelmingly
every amendment and reservation.
We, have heard of some reservations
which will be offered. We have seen the
letter written. by our President to the
majority leader and minority leader of
the Senate, setting forth eight specific
assurances. We have seen the report of
the Committee on Foreign Relations.
We know there is no necessity whatso-
ever for any reservations or understand-
ings. We know that if a so-called res-
ervation were offered and adopted, it
would kill the treaty, since it would then
agreement with members of the radical
right-wing fringe in our own country
who claim that coexistence; is impossi-
ble. Coexistence is defined as existing
together. Do those who oppose the lim-
ited test ban treaty, claiming there can-
not be coexistence with the Soviet
Union, believe the Russians will just
cease to exist? The alternative to co-
existence is coannihilation. Together
we have power to destroy millions of
Americans and Europeans. In 10 years,
if China with 700 million population be-
comes a nuclear power, then what? Ob-
viously, we should take this short step
toward peace by ratifying the limited
nuclear test ban treaty.
The test ban is an acknowledgement
and a reflection of the nuclear stalemate
that exists. The Soviets have bigger
H-bombs than we do; we have far more
warheads, a greater variety and superior
delivery weapons. Neither side has true
superiority as each possesses the power
to destroy the other if it is willing to be
destroyed itself.
Armaments races ultimately led to
World Wars I and II. Let us hope this
treaty signals the beginning of the end of
today's armaments race. There would
be no victor in a nuclear war.
Questions were asked of the preceding
speaker whether the treaty might not
mark the end of today's armaments race.
I hope that ratification of the treaty will
have that end result.
Mr. President, if not for ourselves,
then for our children and our children's
children and for all generations to come,
we owe a duty to take this first small,
cautious, well-protected step toward
peace and toward ending continued pol-
lution of the atmosphere. Some scien-
tists claim that the genetic damage al-
ready done has been very substantial.
We cannot afford to gamble with the
health and lives of unborn children.
Debate over the test ban treaty has
been so crowded with examination of its
purely military consequences that the
virtue of eliminating radioactive fallout
,sometimes seems almost to be lost sight
of in the overall discussion.
The genetic damage that will result
from tests already conducted by any
standard of measurement are terrible
and horrifying. This damage might be
multiplied were indiscriminate tests by
many nations to take place in the fu-
ture. The consequences of testing
alone, to say nothing of the risk of war
itself, might possibly work an alteration
upon the environment of this planet
that would cause dreadful injury to the
health of all mankind.
The weight of the world's scientific
opinion is that radioactive fallout from
testing has increased-and future test-
ing would further increase-the hazards
due to natural radiation;, that any in-
crease is likely to cause some additional
genetic damage.
The test ban treaty committing others
to refrain from testing, greatly dimin-
ishes this hazard. The suspension of
atmospheric testing, in these altered cir-
cumstances, becomes an armative gain
of, the most enormous consequences to
the human race.
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 CONGRESSIONAL,RECQRJ ,- SENATE
be necessary to submit the treaty to com-
plete renegotiation.
I pray that nothing like this will hap-
pen. I feel certain it will not. If our
Commander-in-Chief, our President, is
to be struck down by a vote rejecting this
treaty I want no accusing finger to be
pointed to me that mine was the as-
sassin's blow.
The ' treaty may not. work. In .that
event . o% political, military and scien-
tific leaders have assured us that our
national security will not have been jeop-
ardized. However, we must allow our-
selves the luxury of a faint glimmer of
hope. This treaty is just that.
Mr. President, the junior Senator from
Ohio will vote t o ratify 'this treaty. I
believe it to be .a.step, however small, in
the director of preserving a world fit for
our children to live in and a step forward
In the history of human civilization.
`Several Senators addressed the Chair,
'Mr, YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
I shall yield first, to the distinguished
Senator from Alaska [Mr. GRUESIING].
Before doing so, in view of the colloquy
which occurred immediately before I
obtained the floor, and the reference
that was made to Or, Edward Teller, let
inc say that for most of my adult life I
have been a trial ,lawyer. When I rep-
resented a losing side, and had one'posi-
tive witness, though his testimony may
be rebuted by all the opposing witnesses,
I likedto emphasize his testimony. 'This
appears to be the case with opponents of
the treaty -and their star witness, Dr.
Teller.
In reading the hearings before the
Committee. on Roreign Relations, I dis-
covered that the distinguished senior
Senator from Idaho [Mr. CHURCH] oblit-
erated, the validity and force of, Dr.
Teller's testimony, in the questios he
asked him, by using certain quotations
from the writings of Dr. Teller himself.
The Senator asked Dr. Teller:
I have before me'some quotations from
Write] gs that you have published in that
duterval between .the Eisenhower adminis-
tration and the present time-that are per-
tinent to the inquiry today-the statements
which you have made. I would like to iden-
tify them for you and read them to you. I
have four and since they are all related in a
sense, let me read the four and then you can
make such -comment as you care to make
about them. -
The first is an excerpt from an articles of
yours entitled "The Issues of Peace," which
was published in the Bulletin of Atomic
Scientists in June of 1960, and appears on
page 203, in which you say, and I quote:
"I say that we can stop nuclear testing in
the atmosphere. We may do this unilater-
ally. We can then challenge the Russians
to follow suit even if they won't sign a
treaty."
That ends the quote.
The second quote is from an article of
yours which appeared in the Washington
Evening Star in Augustof 1960 from which I
quote as follows:
"We should renounce- nuclear weapons
tests in the atmosphere. We should chal-
lenge the Russians to do likewise and we
should use our influence In the United Na-
-tlons.,ta, prevent atmospheric weapons tests
by all nations."
That,entls the quote.
Irpm toe same article there is a second
quote as follows:
"All developments of nuclear explosives
which are really necessary can be carried out
by methods which will not contribute to the
contemination of the air. We can continue
the development of nuclear weapons without
causing any further contact of human beings
with radioactivity."
In other words, underground testing.
Then the Senator from Idaho pro-
pounded the final question to the wit-
ness, reading an extract from the
"Legacy of Hiroshima, Dr. Teller's
book, published in 1962:
Is an effective test ban possible? In the
atmosphere and beneath the surface of the
ocean, yes. In these areas the biosphere,
the sphere of living beings, violations of
-a test ban could be detected.
'Those four quotations from Dr. Tel-
ler's writing were used _ in questioning
the witness. The Senator from Idaho
had asked him how he ? could reconcile
those statements with his present at-
titude. The witness said:
The simple answer to your question is
don't reconcile them. They are contrad ic-
tory.
He went on to say this:
Now, after having eliminated a small part
of the contradiction, I want simply and
completely to say that the biggest part of
the contradiction _remains and is to be, ex-
plained by the fact that I have changed my
mind.
I ask those who will quote this same
doctor in support of their position
against this limited nuclear test ban
treaty. Is it not just as likely that a
year from now, or two years from now,
he may again say, "I have changed my
mind" and he may say it rather sheep-
ishly?
It is my belief and my fervent hope
that more than 80 Senators will vote to
ratify the limited nuclear test ban
treaty and take this important first step
forward toward peace.
Mr. GRUENING. Mr. President, will
.the Senator yield?
Mr. YOUNG of . Ohio. I yield to the
Senator from Alaska.
Mr. GRUENING. I congratulate my
able and distinguished colleague, the
junior Senator from Ohio, on the con-
structive, well-reasoned, and farsighted
presentation of his views on the test
ban treaty. I am confident that he rep-
resents the views of the overwhelming
majority of the American people. The
test ban treaty is one of the great
achievements of our time, whatever may
be the ultimate result.
As the junior Senator from Ohio has
so well pointed out, if we merely suc-
ceed for a time in stopping the poisonous
fallout, which may destroy the health
and happiness of countless people for
generations to come, we shall have
achieved a success; but I am confident,
as he is, that this is an important step
forward. I think the Senator has con-
tributed greatly to the discussion, and
I congratulate and commend him for
it.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I thank the
Senator from Alaska.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I raise
the point of order that the Senate is not
in order.
'The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
Senate will be in order. The Senator
X50
1. W
from Ohio [Mr. Yours] has the floor
and can yield only for a question.
Mr.' YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to yield to the
junior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr.
PELL].
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I have
no objection to Senators asking ques-
tions of a, , speaker,_ but I do object to
the irregular practice of passing out time
by Members of the Senate. I also ob-
ject to the practice of requesting and
o'btaining time 3 or 4 days in advance
in the case of a Senator who wishes to
leave the Senate and not be in the Cham-
ber, thus being able to go off somewhere
else. I believe-the time has come when
we should observe the regular order in
the Senate. There is no question that
the practice . of passing out time days
in advance -for speakers on the floor is
contributing to the breakdown of the
legislative processes of the Congress.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. Mr. President,
yihv e then floor, and 'I am prepared to
the floor. I' ask"unanimous con-
sent that the statement made by the
distinguished Senator from Vermont be
placed in the RECORD after my state-
ment.
The PRESIDING- OFFICER. With-
out objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. YOUNG of Ohio. I yield the floor.
Mr. AIKEN. I realize that practically
everything that can be said on the treaty
has been said.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
ORDER LIMITING DEBATE
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
behalf of the distinguished minority
leader and myself I send to the desk a
unanimous-consent request and ask for
its immediate consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The
unanimous-consent request will be read
for the information of the Senate.
The unanimous-consent request was
read, as follows:'
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT
Ordered, That, effective on Monday, Sep-
tember 23, 1963, at the conclusion of routine
morning business, during the further con-
sideration of the treaty on nuclear test ban
(Ex. M, 88th Cong., 1st sess.), debate on any
amendment or preamble to the resolution of
ratification, motion, or appeal, except a mo-
tion to lay on the table, shall be limited to
1 hour, to be equally divided and controlled
by the mover of any such a proposal or mo-
tion and the majority leader: Provided, That
in the event the majority leader is in favor
of any such a proposition, the time in oppo-
sition thereto shall be controlled by the mi-
nority leader or some Senator designated by
him: Provided further, That no amendment
that is not germane to the provisions of the
said resolution shall be received. All reser-
vations or understandings already printed
shall be deemed germane.
Ordered further, That on the question of
the final agreement to the resolution of rati-
fication debate shall be limited to 6 hours,
to be equally divided and controlled, respec-
-tively, by the majority and minority leaders
or someone designated by them: Provided,
That the said leaders, or either of them, may,
from the time under their control on the
adoption of the resolution, allot additional
time to any Senator during the consideration
of any of the above proposals: Provided fur-
ther, That a final vote on the adoption of
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 'CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2.
 16506
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383RU00100210008-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
the resolution of ratification shall be taken Senate met on Tuesday, it would be for On September 11, the minority leadex'.
at 10 a.m. Tuesday, September 24, 1963. the purpose of voting on the treaty. the distinguished Senator from Illinois
Ordered further, That the Senate shall con- ii[r. GORE. Then all Senators maybe [Mr. DIRKSEN], made a remarkable
veneat 10 a.m. on September 23, 1963, and on notice that there may be yea-and-nay speech in this Chamber. In his speech,
9:30 a.m. on September 24, 1963. votes on amendments, reservations, and the Senator from Illinois read a clear-
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there interpretations? cut statement ;from President Kennedy
objection?
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I must
object. I should like to ask the majority
leader if there is any binding under-
standing as to when the time for debate
on the treaty shall be used.
Mr. MANSFIELD. As I understand
the unanimous-consent request, that
would be in the discretion of the ma-
jority and minority leaders. I assure the
Senator from Nebraska that, so far as we
are concerned-I believe I speak for the
minority leader also-we will do the best
we can, within reasonable limits, to bring
the reservations and understandings to
a vote as soon as possible, so as to reserve
the time on the treaty for later in the
day.
Mr. CURTIS. Is there any under-
standing as to the order in which the
reservations will be called up?
Mr. MANSFIELD. It is my under-
standing that the Senator from Arizona
[Mr. GOLDWATER], if he has not done so
already, will submit his reservation today
and speak on it tomorrow or Friday, and
that it is his intention to call it up the
first thing on Monday morning next.
Mr. CURTIS. May I inquire whether
I correctly understand that the unani-
mous-consent request is that the yea-
and-nay vote on the treaty itself will be
at 10 a.th. on Tuesday next?
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct.
The purpose of convening at 9:30 a.m.
on Tuesday is to give every Senator an
opportunity to be present. The vote will
occur one-half hour after the Senate
convenes.
Mr. CURTIS. I must object.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
suggest that the time for the vote on the
treaty on Tuesday be changed from 10
a.m. to 11 a.m., and that the time of
convening on Tuesday morning be 10:30
instead of 9:30.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there
objection to the agreement, as modified?
Mr. PASTORE. Mr. President, the
Senator'has reference to the final vote
on the resolution of ratification. Is that
correct?
Mr..MANSFIELD. That is correct.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, I reserve
my right to object only to Inquire about
the votes on the other motions and reser-
vaions and amendments. Is it expected
that there will be yea-and-nay votes on
Monday, or would it be possible to com-
plete the debate on the reservations and
to have the yea-and-nay votes come on
Tuesday?
Mr, MANSFIELD. In response to the
question raised by the distinguished
senior Senator from Tennessee, I should
like to say that arriving at this unani-
mous-consent request has taken a great
deal of time. It has taken a great deal
of time to negotiate. It is anticipated
that' the debate on the treaty would be
cleared by Monday night; and that the
votes would be taken on the reservations,
understandings, and so forth, if re-
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct. which should have reassured all but
Mr. PASTORE. Not amendments. those who are determined not to be
Mr. MANSFIELD. Reservations. reassured.
Mr. PASTORE. Reservations, under- The Senator from Illinois then an-
standings, or preambles. nounced his unequivocal support for the
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there test ban treaty without reservations. It
obj ection? was an intelligent speech for it reflected
Mr. DIRKSEN. Mr. President, :first of the fact that its author had studied
all, I believe it should be made clear without stint all the arguments and facts
that on a reservation 1 hour of debate which have been presented for and
will be allowed, a half hour on each side. against this treaty.
Is that correct? It was a fair and honorable speech,
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The for the Senator from Illinois did not
Senator is correct. hesitate to give the opponents of the
Mr. DIRKSEN. In the discussions on treaty the benefit of every doubt which
the proposed unanimous-consent agree- they may hold in arriving at their own
ment it was fully understood that no decision.
intervening business of any kind what- It was a c*arageous speech, for the
soever would be brought up, including minority leader must surely have known
any calendar business, until the treaty that it would bring down on his head the
had been disposed of. Is that correct? curse of the emotionally militant ele-
Mr. MANSFIELD. That is correct. If ment of our society.
on Monday additional time is needed on During the course of his speech, Sen-
the treaty, we shall be happy to do our ator DIRKSEN made reference to the large
best to comply with such requests. amount of mail he has received on this
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there issue. My own mail on the test ban
objection? The Chair hears none, and treaty has been quite heavy though not
the agreement as modified is entered. recordbreaking in volume. It has been
Mr. PASTORE. I congratulate the recordbreaking in one respect, how-
majority and minority leaders. ever: At-no time in my recollection has
The unanimous-consent request, as the mail on any issue before Congress
subsequently reduced to writing, is as contained so many threats and vitupera-
follows: - tions as that of the last few weeks.
UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT I want to make clear that most of the
Ordered, That, effective on Monday, Sep- opposition to the treaty comes from
tember 23, 1963, at the conclusion of routine conscientious people. These people
morning business, during the further con- really believe that the risk involved in
sideration of the treaty on the nuclear test the treaty does outweigh. any possible
ban (Ex. M, 88th Conga, 1st sess.), debate on benefits.. Others have been the victims
any amendment or preamble to the resolu- of plausible sounding propaganda.
tion of ratification, motion, or appeal, ex- The country is being flooded by cir-
cept a motion to lay on the table, shall be culars purportedly issued by organiza-
limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided and
controlled by the mover of any such a pro- Lions with highly respectable sounding
posal or motion and the majority leader: names, but which are unknown to official
Provided, That in the event the majority Government agencies. These circulars
leader is in favor of any such a proposition, contain inflammatory statements in-
the time in opposition thereto shall be con- tended to make the reader hate the word
trolled by the minority leader or some Sen- "peace" and all those who dare to advo-
ator designated by him: Provided further, cate it. They even go so far as to imply
That no amendment that is not germane to that the Senator from Illinois is opposed
the provisions of the said resolution shall the treaty and that those who do not
be received. All reservations or understand-
ings already printed shall be deemed ger- help him kill it are either blind or
mane. disloyal.
Ordered further, That on the question of To date, I have received many com-
the final agreement to the resolution of rati- munications for and against the treaty.
fication, debate shall be limited to 6 hours, Counting those from California and
to be equally divided and controlled:, respec- Texas, which appear to be largely or -
tively, by the majority and minority leaders ganizational mail, I would say that 60
or someone designated by them: Provided, percent of them are in opposition to the
That the said leaders, or either of them, may, treaty. The mail from New England
from the time under their control on the will run 80 percent or better in favor
adoption of the resolution, allot additional
time to any Senator during the consideration of the treaty.
of any of the above proposals: Provided fur- Before this treaty is voted on, I expect I
th.er, That a final vote on adoption of the will have received many more 'protests
resolution of ratification shall be taken at against it-at least one outfit is advis-
11 a.m. Tuesday, September 24, 1962,. ing its members and sympathizers to
Ordered further, That the Senate shall smother me with protests.
convene at 10 a.m. on September 23, 1963, These protests might seem quite for-
and 10:30 a.m. on September 24, 1963. midable indeed were it not for the fact
Mr. AIKEN. Mr. President, I realize that 190 million people in America have
that not much more can be said either not protested the test ban. treaty in spite
for or against the approval of the par- of the propaganda to which they are
tial test ban treaty. However. there are subjected.
them out -of the way, so that when the to comment briefly at this time. confidence enough in Congress to leave
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 ?W650 ROCrol 210008-2
Approved Far ONGR1 SS ONAL1 RE& -00
the decision to us, I shall believe that
most of them are not opposed to the
very small step toward peace which this
treaty represents.
In advocating the approval of the
treaty, the minority leader was repre-'
genting the : official position of the Re-
publican Party and I believe also the
opinion of the overwhelming majority
of the American public.
The Republican: platform of 1960
stated:
We are similarly ready to negotiate and
to institute realistic methods and safeguards
for disarmament, and for the suspension of
nuclear tests. We'advocate an early agree-
ment by all nations to forego nuclear' tests
in the atmosphere, and the suspension of
other tests as verification techniques permit.
We support the President in any decision he
may make to reevaluate the question of re-
sumption of underground nuclear explosions
testing, if the Geneva Conference fails to
produce a satisfactory agreement. We have
deep concern about the mounting nuclear
arms race,. This concern leads us to seek
disarmament and nuclear agreements. And
an equalconcern to protect all peoples from
nuclear danger, leads us to insist that such
agreements have adequate safeguards.-
That statement was not merely a cam-
paign promise. It was a serious effort to
put the party on record as urging a world
without war.
It was intended to tell the world that
the Republican Party is not the party of
fear. It was intended to express the
hope of the party that there need be no
Moro Hiroshimas with their ghastly toll
of horror and death.
I do believe, Mr. President, that fear is
at the bottom of most of the opposition
to the treaty-not alone the fear of los-
ing one's life through enemy instruments
of destruction, but the fear that from
this very, small first step there may
emerge a changing pattern in the world,
a pattern from which may be molded a
world of universal law rather than uni-
versal war and preparation for such war.
If we should find ourselves in a posi-
tion of not having to be constantly pre-
paring for war, it would indeed change
the pattern of our national economy. A
substantial. part of our gross national
product is generated directly and indi-
rectly from arms' production and pre-
parationfor possible war. This business
has always been profitable, in many
countries.
I can well understand the fears of
management, investors, and employees
that their business, their incomes, and
their jobs might be curtailed if the seed
planted by the treaty should grow to
greater proportions.
However, I feel that this fear which is
,reflected in some of the letters I receive
is unwarranted. as far as the test ban
treaty is concerned.
Secretary McNamara has already an-
nounced his intentions to ask for more
honey for next year rather than less.
There is, not the slightest possibility that
16507
years. The danger to our political sys only Red China, France, Albania, and
tem today is probably greater from Cuba in our opposition.
monetary disaster or internal disturb- Mr. President, with due regard for the
ances or a continued deterioration of sincerity of those who will vote against
governmental processes than it is from the partial test ban treaty and with full
an enemy attack from the outside. recognition of the fact that there are
The question is frequently asked about risks, particularly the risk of "euphoria,"
the relative strength of the United States as well as advantages involved, I will say
and Russia in the various phases of nu- that since the treaty was submitted to
clear weaponry both offensive and defen- committees of Congress on July 23 and
sive. No one, not even Mr. Khrushchev 24, no evidence has been presented to
or our own Joint Chiefs of Staff, can an-
swer that question accurately without a
detailed examination of data furnished
by the other side, a situation which is not
likely to happen.
We do know, however, that neither
Russian or the United States has or is
likely to develop airtight defense against
delivery of bombs of 1 to 50 megatons or
even more.
We do know the probable effect of
bombs of various strength exploding at
different altitudes.
We do know that a 10-megaton bomb
would destroy virtually all buildings
within a distance of 8 miles from the
point of explosion.
We do know that the same explosion
would reduce to cinders every human be-
ing exposed within this area irrespective
of race, creed, color, or station in life.
We do know that a 10-megaton bomb
would start fires for a distance of 30
miles from the seat of the explosion.
We do know that a nuclear bomb ex-
plosion would burn the retinas of every
living being who happened to witness the
explosion from distances of up to 500
miles depending on the altitude of the
explosion, thus causing total or partial
blindness.
We do know that the explosion of a
10-megaton bomb would cause first-de-
gree burns on any unprotected person
within a distance of 35 miles, and second
degree burns to a distance of 25 miles.
We do know that the fallout from the
explosion of a 20-megaton bomb would
drift downwind for a distance of over
300 miles, sentencing all people in its
path to incurable misery for such life
as might remain to them.
We do know-everyone of us within
his own heart-that unless the nations
now possessing the nuclear bomb make a
determined and sincere effort to prevent
its use, the time will come-and it may
come quickly-when this weapon will be
tested on human targets.
This limited test ban treaty In Itself
does not and will not prevent the use of
nuclear weapons by one nation upon an-
nd
d to
It i
not i
t
th
n
e
s
e
er.
o.
It will, however, serve as a faint ray of I am greatly indebted to him for what
hope to the world that the nations now he has done to make the work of the
possessing the bomb are well aware of its committee move along in a reasonably
power to destroy the progress which efficient way. His assistance has been of
mankind has made over tens of centuries vital importance in connection with
and that those nations will try to prevent bringing the treaty before the Senate.
I appreciate very much the great im-
a holocaust on earth.
Approval of the treaty will mean that portance of the service. of the Senator
a dozen other nations that have the from Vermont, both in connection with
means and the know-how to make nu- '-this treaty and in connection with all
clear bombs will not attempt to do so. the other important business of the Sen-
foreseeahle future. Costs of the Defense Not all the nations on earth will sign ate. I appreciate particularly his most
"valuable service in connection with the
Department have increased $8 billion in this treaty. A half dozen will refuse.
:the last, 2. years and we will be very lucky The vote of the Senate will tell the treaty; and I am sure the country will,
if this sharp increase does not continue. world whether the United States stands too.
We have been living on borrowed with most of the nations of the earth Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator
money .'arid borrowed time for many or whether we stand in company with from Arkansas. Let me say that if any
Approved For Release 2004103111 CIARDP65B00383R00G??100210008-2
appropriations for defense purposes will
be materially reduced by Congress in the
convince me that the advantages do not
far outweigh the risks.
Therefore, Mr. President, I trust that
we may have a nearly unanimous vote
of the Senate in favor of this first short
hopeful step on a long, long journey to
peace.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. AIKEN. I am glad to yield.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
commend most highly the sound, solid,
and statesmanlike speech just delivered
by the distinguished senior Senator from
Vermont, the ranking Republican Mem-
ber of the Senate. He is not noted for
sensationalism. He is sober and hard-
working. He attended the meetings of
the three committees during the course
of their consideration of the treaty. He
always renders a distinct service to the
Senate, to" his State, and to the Nation.
I express to him my personal thanks
for the fine speech he has made, and
acknowledge that it is another of the
many important contributions the dis-
tinguished Senator has made during his
22 years of service in the' Senate. I
commend him.
Mr. AIKEN. I thank the Senator from
Montana. I know of no one whose ap-
proval I would rather have.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. Mr. President,
will the Senator from Vermont yield?
Mr. AIKEN. I am glad to yield.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. I should like to
associate myself with the statement of
the Senator from Montana. During the
committee's consideration of the treaty,
the Senator from Vermont rendered
most valuable service-as he always
does. Not only did he make the motion
that the treaty be reported from the
committee to the Senate, but-in addi-
tion, and in particular-he also made
the motion that it be reported without
reservation. in my opinion, that en-
abled the committee to avoid a great
deal of struggle, difficulty, and delay in
dealing with possible reservations.
Therefore, as chairman of the Foreign
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B0'0383R000100210008-2
16508 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -- SENATE September 18
guilt Is connected with the activities he
has described, I plead guilty. However,
I m'ilst confess that my principal interest
was to have the treaty reported from the
cocninittee and before the Senate, so
the.Senate could take action on it, and
then could proceed to the transaction
of its other business. That may have
beefl a selfish motive; but, at the same
time, I thoroughly believe in the state
ment I have made, and also in the ad-
visability of obtaining overwhelming ap-
proval by the Senate of the test ban
treaty at as early a date as possible.
Mr. FULBRIGHT. It is most fortu-
nate that the Senator's personal wishes
and interests happen to coincide with
the {rational interest. I know of no hap-
pier 'Comb ination.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, will the
Senator from Vermont yield!
Mr. AIKEN. I yield.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. President, Icon-
sider it a great privilege to have. heard
the speech of the Senator from Vermont.
I know that all of us are naturally con-
cerned about our positiorf in regard to
the treaty. It gives me-and I know. it
gives the Senate-greater confidence
and assurance to know that the Senator
from Vermont, the ranking- Republican
member of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, and a man of sound and practical
judgment, has decided to support it.
Of course, the unknown always gives
cause for concern;' but the ri&tlk of nuclear
war is known, and I believe it also gives
the leaders of the Soviet Union cause for
concern.
14r. AIKEN. Yes. I feel that the
Senator from Kentucky is=-as usual-
corrbct in his analysis of the situation.
It is fear that prompts the opposition
to the treaty; but I have no doubt that
the same fear or apprehension is held by
people in other countries-probably in-
cluding the Soviet Union itself. I feel
that we always live in the shadow of
fear of some -kind. However, the fear of
a nuclear war seems to transcend most
of the other fears . that have been
dreamed up over the centuries and dur-
ing many generations. It is in the hope
of taking a very small, first step toward
allaying this fear and toward making
it more bearable that we are supporting
this partial test ban treaty.
Mr. COOPER. I hope-and I am sure
the Senator from Vermont does, too--
that not only will it be a first step, but
it will also lead ultimately to a com-
pletely enforcible ban on all nuclear
testing, including testing under ground,
and it also ultimately will bring to an
end' the nuclear arms race.
14r. AIKEN. I share the hope of the
Seri .tor from Kentucky that this is only
a first step; but I fear that future steps
probably will be equally as difficult, if
not more so, and that they may be longer
in coming to realization. .
However, if we once give up hope and
give up the effort to achieve a world
without war-particularly, a world with-
out nuclear war-we have a right to be
very discouraged.
I do not believe the world has given
up hope. Of course, as I have said, every
Senator's office has received probably
from 2,000 to 10,000 communications on
the subject of the test ban treaty. Pos-
sibly the majority have been received
from the two States in which apparently
the opposition is well organized.
However, I believe we find a hopeful
sign in the fact that more than 190 mil-
lion of the American people have not
written to Senators about the treaty, and
are willing to leave the decision to the
Senate.
Mr. PELL. Mr. President, the Senate
is now concluding a thorough, exhaustive
debate on the ratification of the partial
nuclear test ban treaty.
In the back of many of our minds is
the thought that if we do not do some-
thing to prevent our present interna-
tional atomic "dansemacabre" upon the
precipice of nuclear coannihilation, one
of the dancers will make the inevitable
slight misstep and fall into the crater's
abyss, and that one will not be immo-
lated alone.
It has been brought out that the So-
viet Union could conceivably cheat and
engage in small covert tests. Then, too,
we have examined the record of the So-
viets with regard to the scrupulousness
with which they have honored past ob-
ligations, and we have found them
lacking.
As opposed to these risks, however, we
are presented with mounting evidence of
the apparent adequacy of our present de-
fense posture.
Secretary McNamara has stated une-
quivocally that we now have the capac-
ity to absorb a full-scale nuclear attack
by the Soviet Union and still destroy
them in retaliation. They, too, presum-
ably have a similar capacity.
To put the matter in different terms,
the estimated total explosive power of
the combined nuclear stockpile now held
by the United States and the Soviet Un-
ion adds up to approximately 50, bil
lion tons of TNT, which is enough to put
a 10-ton bomb over the head of each hu-
man being in the world.
We have now the actual numerical
edge in tests in that the total number of
announced nuclear tests conducted by
the West has been 315, while those con-
ducted by the Soviet Union have been
estimated at 126. Here we find the West
with a numerical. superiority over the So-
viet Union in testing experience. Of
these totals, the West conducted 213
which emitted radiation into the atmos-
phere and the Soviet Union 125, accord-
ing to Western estimates.
The continuous injection into the at-
mosphere of the poisonous strontium 90,
resulting from atomic tests, has already
gone higher than we as parents, and as
progenitors of yet unborn generations,
can permit.
The political platforms of both the
Democratic and the Republican parties
have called for the ending of atmospher-
ic nuclear testing along the lines of the
treaty we presently have under consid-
eration. Specifically, the 1960 Demo-
cratic platform supports "means for
ending nuclear tests under workable
safeguards." And the 1960 Republican
platform reads "we advocate an early
agreement by all nations to forgo nuclear
tests in the atmosphere."
The treaty upon which we are now be-
ing asked to give our advice and con-
sent does just what both our parties'
platforms seek. In fact, not to approve
it would be a breach of faith with our
people.
In this regard, and transcending na-
tional politics, was the eloquent plea, to
consent to the resolution of ratification
of the minority leader, Senator DIRKSEN,
who placed his honor, his principles, and
his belief above limitations of partisan
consideration or the possible results of
mailbag pressures.
There is little doubt in my mind as
to the overall advantage to the United
States and to mankind-for we cannot
truthfully separate ourselves from man-
kind-of ratifying the treaty. In the
course of the debate, I have sought eon-
tinously to understand the arguments of
the opponents of the treaty. I do under-
stand and realize these arguments are
presented in good faith and. are based on
points of valid criticism. Yet, I continue
to believe that the benefits of ratifica-
tion far outweigh rejection and I look
forward gladly and proudly to voting for
the treaty's rat: fication.
Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, in ris-
ing to speak on. whether or not the Sen-
ate should advise and consent to this
treaty, I speak for no one but myself. I
realize that I must search my mind and
heart and assume the responsibility.
The future of the United States of
America and the hope of establishing
a just and lasting peace have been my
guidelines.
In my opinion, every Member of, the
U.S. Senate is acting with integrity and
with the highest sense of patriotism. I
disagree violently with some of their
positions, including utterances that have
been made concerning further steps to
be taken. But, my challenge goes to
their strategy and to the wisdom of their
proposals for dealing with the Commu-
nists and not to their motives. All I ask
of those in the Senate and throughout
the land who disagree with me is to
grant to me the same recognition of
honesty of purpose.
I yield to no American in my dread
of war and my desire for a just and last-
ing peace. I served in Congress through
two wars, when the draft calls were
heavy and the casualty notices were
numerous.
.All of us have seen the relentless
march of corrununism. All of us have
witnessed the expansion of atheistic,
imperialistic, cruel and destructive com-
munism, the takeover of millions of
square miles of the earth's surface and
the bonding of millions of helpless peo-
ple into slavery. I, too, have observed
these things and I want to act in the best
interests of my country above all else.
The Constitutionof the United States
imposes upon this Senate the power and
responsibility to assist in making treat-
ies. Our powers and responsibilities are
not limited to ratifying the act of the
Chief Executive nor can we discharge
those responsibilities by merely respond-
ing to world propaganda forces.
..In debating this treaty there are many
points to consider. There are a few very
fundamental questions that must be
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 1963
Approved For Release 2004/03/11: CIA=RD965B00383R000100210008-2
-asked. Will this treaty bring a just and
enduring peace to our country and to the
rest of the world? Will it lessen the
strength of the United States as a force
for maintaining the peace? '2'o repeat,
will it aid or hinder this Nation's leader-
ship in the free world's defense? Can we
serve the interests of our country by
embracing Russia in a solemn treaty?
Will thQ Pommunists honor the treaty?
Are they gther overriding considerations
such as the danger of radioactive fallout
so paramount as to persuade us to accept
a treaty if otherwise it is not in the inter-
est of the United States? ,
_I, too, have attended the committee
hearings, both open and executive. I,
too, have read secret testimony taken
in committees when I was not present.
I, too, have sought the wisest counsel
that I can find.
First, let us consider what it is that
maintains the , peace, We have seen
country after country go under the heel
of the communist tyrants. There is a
long list of them. I call attention to the
cruelty, the murder, and the treachery
of the Communist attack upon Hungary
only a few years ago. We have witnessed
-helpless people succumb to the might of
the atheistic Communists. I call atten-
tion to the establishment of a Communist
beachhead in the Western Hemisphere in
Cuba. We have read about the ill-fated
Bay of Pigs invasion that failed, not be-
cause it lacked in, hope or good inten-
tions, but because it lacked the necessary
military strength to make it succeed.
Following World War II the leaders of
our Government did collaborate with
Communist Russia, An example of faith
in the Communists was expressed in an
interview published in Life magazine in
1943 by our Ambassador to Moscow, Mr.
Joseph E. Davies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the interview be printed in the
RECORD at the conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without.
objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. CURTIS. I_will not take, time, now
to discuss. the utterances of a log list
of well-jntentionell but mistaken people
who, following World War II, clamored
for us to share our atomic weapons with
the Communists. Those utterances were
made and everyone knows it.
It remaij-fed for Winston Churchill to
come to _ the, United Mates and make a
.speech at a little college in Missouri. _ I
believe it was Westminster College. It
was there that he shocked some of the
complacent people of America by using
the term "Iron Curtain." He warned the
West what the Communists were doing
behind the Iron Curtain. Winston
Churchill said the only thing that stood
in the way of the Communists making
all `out war against our country and his
country was the possession of the atomic
bomb by the United States.
When. are we going to realize it will
require the regeneration of the hearts
of men in every country of the world to
bring a just and lasting p
, eace? I, too,
pray and hope for that time to come,
but iii the meantime I am convinced we
mt(st have a. strong national defense.
Until that great day comes when the
ballistic missile systems. [Deleted.] That
is one.
At the same time we have been switching
the emphasis from the manned bomber to
the ballistic missile, so more and more of
your deterrent posture is going to depend on
this weapon system.
For example, in 1959 we fad better than
2,000 bombers in the Strategic Air Com-
mand, and 10 years later, in 1968, we will
have some 700. We will in the meantime
have added better than [deleted] ballistic
missiles.
Now to fill that void we have introduced
the ballistic missiles. This missile has never
been operationally tested all the way through
from stockpile to detonation, and we have
never tested such things as the vulner-
ability [deleted] due to shock wave propa-
gation, due to blackout, there are many voids
in our knowledge as to the operational cap-
abilities and vulnerabilities of this weapon
system.
Ia particular the RV [deleted] thermal
effects, blast effects-cannot really be tested
from my point of view as an operator until
you test it in the nuclear environment, and
as I am responsible for writing the war plans
of the free world, I have to deal with facts.
I have to deal with proven data, and if
.too much of the data is extrapolated or theo-
Tetic,_ I do not have ahigh confidence
factor that I have a sound plan. We are
dealing with the security of the United
States, and if facts can be obtained, I want
to have them.
-Senator STENNIS. You enumerated several
points, areas in which testing was incom-
plete. Perhaps you would want to develop
each of these points a little further. You
say you have to extrapolate too much, and
they hand you information that you are not
certain of as to Its completeness. What
fields are they now? Go over it again, if
you will.
General POWER. In all fields. We have
never completely tested any of the nuclear
weapons in SAC's arsenal.
$en tor. STENNIS. I want it spelled out in
detail, because there have been general as-
surances here that everything has been done
that could be done.
General POWER. Let's take the bombs first.
Senator STENNIS. Yes.
General POWER. I have some [deleted] dif-
ferent types of nuclear weapons in the Stra-
tegic Air Command arsenal. None of them
have been tested operationally from stock-
pile to detonation. I think this is a mis-
take. I think they should be tested.
The only way you can prove a weapon sys-
tem is to take it out of the stockpile in a
random pattern and let the tactical unit
take it out and detonate it. If you haven't
done this, there 1s always a chance that
something has happened that we won't dis-
coveruntil too late. [Deleted.] The point
I am making is that, unless you test the very
thing that is in your arsenal you are never
certain, and the stakes are so high I feel we
must be certain.
I would like to operationally test all my
weapons. This means the missiles should be
fired, and these reentry vehicles detonated in
space to make sure that the warhead will go
off and to test our operational factors.
Senator STENNIS..I think It, is, highly im-
portant that you enumerate the .problems.
You started with the nuclear weapons. Just
go right on down the line and detail what
has not been done and how the ban on nu-
clear testing would cut it off, and the extent
to which it would hamper you.
General POWER. We have not tested any of
the operational warheads in our inventory.
That includes the missiles and the bombs.
Senator STENNIS. Let me interpose there.
The test ban would not change our policy on
that, because we are not doing it anyway.
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 -CtA'-RDP65BO0383RO00100210008-2
spirit of the Prince of Peace shall rule
in the hearts of men all over the earth
we must have police forces to protect us
from the criminals. We must have a
national defense capable of resisting any
attack on our country or we shall be
in the gravest danger.
Peace is maintained by being strong.
A couple of weeks ago I appeared on a
television program. A distinguished
newscaster presided. He, with good in-
tentions, stated "a fallacy. He said that
in the past the peace had been kept
through a balance of 'power. The fact
is that the peace has been kept through
an imbalance of power. Our military
superiority has prevented the Commu-
nists from attacking us.
I wish that every Senator had read
the testimony of Gen. Thomas S. Power
before the classified portions were de-
leted. He is commander in chief of
our Strategic Air Command and- Direc-
tor of the Joint Strategic Target Plan-
ning Staff.
If war were to start tomorrow, upon
the shoulders of General Power would
fall a greater responsibility to protect
our cities and towns our men, women
and our children, and' our factories, than
would fall upon anyone else.
In presenting General Power, the
Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STENNIS]
said:
General Power commands and controls the
most powerful strategic striking force which
has ever been assembled In the history of
the world. The long-range missiles and
manned bombers of SAC, in combination
with our Polaris submarines, represent the
very heart of our retaliatory force and of
our deterrent of a catastrophic nuclear war.
In the past, testing has played a vital
role in the devrl.opment of the nuclear weap-
on systems which are the basis of the su-
periority of our strategic forces. It is essen-
tial to our national security that this superi-
ority be maintained in the future. Thus
the crucial question with which we are con-
fronted is the Impact which the proposed
limitation on nuclear testing will have on
the integrity and survivability of our stra-
tegic retaliatory forces.
As the operational commander of these
forces, General Power is in a 'unique'posi-
tion`to assist us in reaching correct conclu-
sions on a number of troublesome questions
which have arisen during the course of this
inquiry.
Here are some of 'the things General
Power said:
I don't think, it is in the best interests of
the United States. That is the basic rea-
son.
Senator STENNIS. That is a mighty good
reason, and if you will just give us the de-
tails of that now, we will be glad to give
you such time as you wish.
General POWER. I feel that we have, mili-
tary superiority now, and I feel very strongly
that this has resulted in. a world that has
been free from nuclear warfare. I have
a lower confidence factor that we can and
will maintain that military superiority
under the test ban treaty than I have under
a condition in which we do not have a test
ban treaty.
Senator STENNIS. Would you give more of
the details of the reasons why it would affect
us adversely.
General PowER. Well, you mentioned in
your opening statement one of the very im-
portant reasons. There are voids in our
knowledge about the vulnerability of our
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
16510 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
G al POWER. I would urge that they do
ft.have repeatedly requested that they
do 11:
Senator STENNIS. And you think that our
inforihatlon in that field is Incomplete un-
der 15i"esent conditions?
Gerneral POWER. That is correc ,
senator STENNIS. And if we go into the
test an agreement,, we would h? precluded
from even changing our minds;
Ge eral PowER.. That Is the very funda-
mental first step. Now there are great voids
in our knowledge on such things as [de-
leted) shock wave propagation, blackout,
communications, and command and control
that, in my opinion, can be obtained only
through atmospheric testing.
In the field of high-yield weaponry, I feel
that the Soviet Union now has, a technical
lead as a result of their tests In 1961 and
1962. They have a lead in their weight-to-
yield ratio in the big bomb categories, and
I feel that we should overcome that lead.
You Can only do this through testing in the
atnosphere in my opinion.
Some of this can be obtained in under-
ground testing, but I don't think you can
fully get the answers unless you explode a
weapon of this size, and I am talking about
yfelda above [deleted] megatons.
Now is the field of clean weapons, it is
of tremendous importance to everybody in
this world that we get these -weapons as
clean as we can so we don't hav the fallout
effect which tends to prohibit their use.
Thera,, if you do have to use them, they will
not cause unnecessary or Indiscriminate kill-
ing. -I think that, with testing in the at-
mosphere, you could arrive at a'clean weap-
on faster than you can in underground test-
ing.
We know that the Soviet Union now leads
us iii, the field of weight-to-yield ratio and
in the cleanliness of these high--yield weap-
ons. There is evidence that they have ad-
vanadd very far along the spectrum of the
state'-of the art. [Deleted.]
My instinct tells me that it Is to their
advantage to have this test ban treaty now.
[Deleted.] I just feel we have obtained our
position in this world today, our military
superiority, through our weaponry, through
our scientists, and through testing.
We coud not be in the position of talking
with, confidence that we could prevent a
thermonuclear war unless we were strong,
and we basically got our strength through
these,weapons and through testing. I just
feet at the surest way to prevent war-
and that is my goal, and I feel very strongly
about it-is to have overwhelming strength
so that it is ridiculous for anybody to even
think of attacking the United States. That
is wZ t it has been in the past and that is
what it is today.
It as unpleasant features, yes, but the
surest way in my opinion of preventing a
thermonuclear war is to have overwhelming
strer th, and I think this is one area in
which we can beat anyone.
I think our science, our economy, and
everything else can help us win this race.
We have won it in the past, and I think
we can continue to win it. But It takes
the Will to do It. That is an off-the-cuff
sumniatipa about, how I feel about it.
I am seriously concerned about losing our
military superiority, because I think that
this superiority has resulted in a peaceful
world as far as nuclear war is concerned,
and I can't think of anything more impor-
tant ,than to keep the world safe from a
nucl r war
I ink 1i we get into one, there will be
no winners, only losers, and I think man-
kind will have reached its highest plateau
of stupidity if it tries to reach its aims and
goals or settle its differences with nuclear
weapons.
However, I think that our formula to pre-
vent `this has been a successful one to date,
and. It is a real simple formula. We have
had overwhelming military superiority to the
point where it Is ridiculous for Mr.: hru-
shchev to even seriously contemplate at-
tacking this country. Now I maintain that
it Is possible to hold this type of lead, and
that is what I recommend.
Senator JAcsoN. In other words, you feel
that peace depends not on the maintenance
of a balance of,power, but a maintenance of
an imbalance of power in favor of the West.
General PowER. That is correct.
Senator JACKSON. Over the Soviets.
General POWER. Words mean nothing.
Our record speaks for itself. The world
knows we are not going touse these weapons
to bully' people, to accomplish any of our
external goals, or to take over any territory.
They are in mature, moral hands. I think
we should maintain this type of superiority
in those mature, moral hands.
Mr. President, the testimony of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff condemns this
treaty. They. state absolutely it has
military disadvantages. I recommend
that Senators read their entire testi-
mony. We must heed the enumeration
of the military disadvantages to this
country as stated by the Chiefs of Staff.
I asked the Chiefs of Staff, If this treaty
went into effect, would it lessen the cost
of our defense? The reply was that it
would increase the cost of our derense.
One of the greatest patriots I know,
a soldier, a man who has given much of
his lifetime In defense of this country
and in defense of liberty, is a distin-
guished native of my State, Gen. Alfred
C. Wedemeyer. Before asking to have
printed in the body of the REcoe.n his
letter to me, I want to read a few sig-
nificant portions. Speaking of the mili-
tary, he says:
We have fought and won two wars at
great sacrifice in lives and treasure, In each
case we have lost the peace, primarily be-
cause our political leaders and their repre-
sentatives were naive, trusting, and inept.
The Versailles Treaty, Yalta, Teheran , Pots-
dam, Korea and Cuba were the products of
political minds, not military.
I commend to the Senate General
Wedemeyer's letter, and I ask unani-
mous consent that it appear at this point
in my remarks.
There being no objection, the letter
-was ordered to be printed in the Rs:CORD,
as follows:
BOYDS, MD.,
September 17, 1963.
Hon. CARL T. CURTIS,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, D.C.:
I gladly comply with your request for
views concerning the test ban treaty now
under consideration in the U.S. Senate. As
you know, I have spent most of my mature
life In the military service, striving to im-
prove knowledge and to acquire experience
in connection with the security of our coun-
try, both military and economic. One of
your colleagues across the aisle a few months
back expressed the opinion that military
leaders do not have the capability nor the
responsibility of considering economic and
political factors.
We have fought and won two wars at
great sacrifice in lives and treasure. In each
case we have lost the ace, primari:ly be-
cause our political leaders and their repre-
sentatives were naive, trusting, and inept.
The Versailles Treaty, Yalta, Teheran, Pots-
dam Korea and Cuba were the products of
political minds, not military.
I read in today's paper that the same Sen-
ator mentioned above now suggests that we
"emulate the seagull and devise suitable
forms of ceremonial combat in which no one
is hurt." If the Members of Congress take
seriously such an ill-advised suggestion by
the chairman of the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, the much discussed test ban treaty
should be referred to the American people
in a national referendum. It is my con-
sidered judgment that this treaty presents
the gravest problem that has confronted our
Nation in many years. If Congress were to
be influenced in this vital matter by Senator
FULDRIGHT's levity-the seagulls may not be
hurt but millions of Americans would be at
the mercy of Khrushchev and his henchmen
In the Kremlin.
While commanding troops in combat, I
frequently visited the wounded. They would
often ask me, "Why are we here in this far-
away place? Wh ,t are we fighting for?" I
explained that we were fighting to protect
our rich heritage of freedom and to make
available to less fortunate peoples similar
opportunities for individual freedom and the
dignity of man.. My point is simply this.
CARL. If U.S. Senators taunt military lead-
ers and make light of a terrible threat to
the security of the United States, what is
there left to defend?
Every sensible person would be happy to
support a disarnu,ment program. However
before this could be done safely, of course,
we must eliminate the reason for the exist-
ence of armies, r_avies, and air forces. In
American communities where people speak
the same language and have the same cus-
toms we must maintain restraining forces
to protect those who would obey laws against
those who would violate them. In this test
ban situation we are not dealing with people
who speak our language, literally or figura-
tively. The leadership of the Soviet Union
has arrogantly boasted since the Communist
revolution more than 40 years ago that they
will communize the world. Their program
is being carried oat by a disciplined, highly
trained membership fanatically dedicated to
victory. If they are unsuccessful in condi-
tioning peoples' minds to accept step-by-step
surrender through the employment of prop-
aganda, economic pressures, and Machiavel-
lian maneuvers, then they invariably resort
to violent and diabolical means.
The President has described the test ban
treaty as a first; step toward disarmament.
This has great appeal to the American peo-
ple. However, in the present international
environment we must retain overwhelming
military strength and realistic safeguards.
The cost in materials and dollars of such a
program would be high, but we would be
providing realistic protection for our most
precious commoc.ity-American lives and
freedoms. A considerable amount of money
could be found in the foreign aid program
which presently is directly or Indirectly
strengthening the sinews of our enemy.
The Soviet Union and her satellites con-
tinue ruthless aggressions and disregard of
treaties and obligations. They will only
honor agreements when advantage accrues
to them. President Franklin Roosevelt may
have had some excuse for his naivete in
dealing with this international conspiracy
but since his time, through the valiant ef-
forts of civic-minded patriots and Members
of Congress, the complete record of Commu-
nist perfidy has been made readily available
to political and military leaders and to the
American body politic. Recently the Presi-
dent with commendable fervor explained to
the Nation that Mr. Gromyko, the Soviet
Foreign Minister, had lied to him about the
presence of Soviet missiles in Cuba. This is
the same Gromyko who recently initiated
the test ban treaty which the President is
now urging you and your fellow Congress-
men to ratify in good faith.
I do not agree with Secretary of Defense
McNamara or the Joint Chiefs of Staff if
they accept parity with the Soviet Union in
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For Release 2004/0311,t-,4 {A.RDR6 0038 8000106110008-2
i
heed to what Senator RUSSELL has to say ssi e ense. These
about this treatry. gress shall provide for the common de- claims may be empty boasts, but for us
fence, to disregard them may be a deadly peril.
Senator' RUSSELL is not a maverick. We face many problems in our defense, The recent book by the Russian, Marshal
He loves his political party as I love but I do not happen to hold to the belief Sokolovsky, entitled "Military Strategy,"
mine. He feels an attachment to the in- that certain things are impossible in the leaves no doubt about Russian determi-
dividuals,in his State whose political be- field of science and invention, natioli-on missile defense.
liefs agree with, hi just as I, feel an at- The President has stated that missile It is to be noted that Secretary Mc-
chment, t0 the people who adhere to defense is beyond our reach. A few days Namara did not say that our missile de-
tile same, political principles as I do and later Secretary McNamara, using a more lenses will be actually deployed. He
who work n,nselfishly time, after -time to positive approach, explained that even mentioned no date; he made no com-
elect me to this office. It was not easy without the experiments prohibited by mitment. Will lack of atmospheric ex-
for Senator RussEL . to oppose his admin- the test ban treaty we will be able to perminentation induce enough doubts in
istration. He spoke from deep conic- gain the information needed to plan our our minds to tip the scales away from
Lion from the heart and from a desire to missile defer ethesiF ~~;stag safety?? The, Russjanslay try to build
o
V a y new surround- they have missiles, intercontinental mis- complete its destruction. Experience in
ings and when any one of them quickly siles, aimed at us? Does the Congress all these matters is badly needed.
and glibly says "Yes" to every query pro- have. a responsibility to strive for the The Russians have performed many
flounced to him concerning a matter surest defense against a missile attack? more atmospheric tests in the missile age
proposed, by his superior it causes me to I hope that I am not termed obsolete than has the United States. The Soviets
wonder. I could not do it. I do not when I quote from the Constitution of have claimed that they have solved the
think anyone else could. I want to give the United States It says that the Con- problem of m
0 d f
.
s ac
that they are compatible.
taro a working superiority in this field. If May I also pay tribute to the Honor- The President did not say that a par-
the comparative strengths are
balance, delicate
balance, the leaders of the h;remlin would able JOHN STENNIS, of Mississippi, the tial defense against missiles is impos-
be ed,tQ to risk. war. Chairman of the Preparedness Investi-_ sible,, We,shoulld interpret his statement
i urge you in behalf of the people of the gating Subcommittee of the Armed Serv- as the reasonable- assertion that corn-
State of, Nebraska which, you so ably repre- ices Committee, and all the other mem plete defense against a Russian missile
sent, In behalf of all our countrymen, and bers who joined with him in their schol- attack is not likely to succeed.
in fact, in behalf of mankind to vote against any report. These men are experts in In fact, missile defense is an extra-
the test ban treat in its present form. I matters of defense. They are not seek- ordinarily difficult task. Missiles move
strongly urge the Introduction of an iron- ing partisan advantage. They do not with speeds exceeding that of sound, or
clad reservstlqa inspection llic System. will, provide a tool-
proof want the United States to adopt the of the fastest plane or bullet. Several
inspection Without such
reservation, it is my judgment that the test wrong course. They are not warmongers. missiles may arrive in a single salvo.
ban treaty, if approved, would unacceptably I would like to list the disadvantages of They may be accompanied by dozens of
jeopardize not only the military security of this treaty enumerated in the report of decoys. We must discriminate between
the United States bit also of the tea world, Senator STENNIS-.,_and his committee. the real missiles and the decoys, and
A. C. WzomuEYEg. They are as follows: .,then destroy all of the "hot" missiles.
Mr. CURTIS. Ur, President, I read in . First. The United States probably will All of this must be done before the mis-
the newspapers that the Secretary of 'be unable to duplicate Soviet achieve- siles reach a distance within a few miles
Air was scheduiesl to attend, a reception ments in very high yield weapon tech- of their target. A completely satisfac-
of, the Air Force Association,, a group nology. tory solution is unlikely indeed.
dedicated-, tq improving our Air-Force, Second. The United States will be un- Secretary McNamara pointed out -on
and maintaining it at its very best, noable to acquire necessary data on the ef- the other hand that many of the vital
for aggression but for peace. The Sec- fects of very high yield atmospheric problems of missile defense can be solved
retary of Air canceled his appearance. explosions. without atmospheric testing. We will be
Why? - Because they had the audacity Third. The United States will be un- able to develop the radar needed to ob-
as free Americans to express ai}, opinion able to acquire data on high altitude nu- serve the incoming objects. We can
on a matter pending before the Senate clear weapons effects. study the fine points which may permit
of the Tjnited States, What kind, of no- Fourth. The United States will be un- us to distinguish a bomb from a decoy.
tice is that to others who might have able to determine with confidence the We may use underground tests to de-
an honest disagreement? What kind of performance and reliability- of any ABM velop the best anti-missile explosive.
notice is that to other organizations that system developed without benefit of at- But. there are some things we caflnot
might want to assemble and discuss a mospheric operational system tests. do. We cannot, test our defense setup
vital public question? What kind of no- Fifth. The United States will be un- against a simulated attack. We cannot
tice is that to Members of the Senate able to verify the ability of its hard-, build up the body of experience needed in
who might disagree with the wisdom of ened underground second-strike missile- practical matters of some complexity.
this treaty? systems to survive close-in high yield would we dare to build our Navy without
Speaking of the defense strength of nuclear explosions. having ever launched a steamship?
this country as a means of preserving Sixth. The United States will be un- Would we have confidence in our fighter
the peace, I want to pay my respects to able to verify the ability of its missile planes if experience with them. were
the Honorable RICHARD RUSSELL, the dis- reentry bodies under defensive nuclear restricted to tests in a wind tunnel?
tinguished and experienced Senator attack, to survive and to, penetrate to the Specifically we should know 'in what
from the State of Georgia. He is the target without the, opportunity to test way our own defensive explosions inter-
Chairman of the Armed Forces Commit- nose cone and warhead designs in a nu- fere with each other and with the ob-
.tee. Does -not his. 30 \ years of experi- clear environment under dynamic re- servation of other missiles in the same
ence on that committee~ and on a prede- entry conditions. salvo. We are hunting a pack of wolves
cessor defense cgmtmittde qualify him to Seventh. The treaty will provide the and all the wolves must be destroyed.
express all opinion? hoes not wisdom Soviet Union an Opportunity to equal We are using ammunition, the flash of
compel us to, pay heed to what he says? U.S. accomplishments in submegaton which may blind the hunter.
Since *,.A. ussEi?Lhas served on Abe de- weapon technology. We cannot make a direct hit on each
Tense committees,,, 40 Secretaries of De- Eighth. The treaty will deny to the incoming missile. We must use nuclear
fense and of the separate branches of the United States .a valuable source of infor- explosives as a defense against nuclear
service have collie and gone. There mation on Soviet nuclear weapons ca- warheads. Such nuclear explosives can
have been 25 Secretaries come and go pabilities. kill from a distance. But what distance?
since he has been chairman of the com- Does anyone doubt the great and grow- Do we need to vaporize the incoming ob-
mittee. Ing strength of the Soviet Union? It is ject, or will lesser damage suffice? If the
Many fine men are called to. serve as not limited to a manned air force and surface of a missile is damaged, its fast
Secretary of Defense. They come from submarines. Does anyone doubt that passage through the atmosphere may
+11
private life int +
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE, 16511.
,the development of nuclear weapons, It Is serve this country. I, for one, am not ments contradictory? We must assume
my belief that we must generate and main-
going to brush his statement
id
ApprovectF* Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RD.P65B00383R000100210008.2
 16512
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
up their defenses and may well- succeed, Is it our duty to allay their fears with environmental hazard. Benzpyrene, for in--
while we may never give missile defense promises? Or do we have a duty to do stance, was discovered in the early 1930's to
a fulltrial. our very best to ascertain- the truth of be a powerful cancer-producing agent in
It may well be that a massive Russian these fears? Mich has been said about mice. Combustion of petroleum by autos
yields more than enough benzpyrene to pro-
attack will penetrate any defense we can the fear of injury to human beings from duce a cancer hazard. In. large American
install. But we may parry any small radioactivity that occurs in fallout from cities, there is so much benzpyrene in the
attack that the Chinese can mount dur- a nuclear explosion in the atmosphere. air that it settles on windowsills in measur-
ing the 20th century. We are worried Good people have been concerned about able quantities. But there has been no
about proliferation. We can and we it. Designing people have used it as a scientific investigation of the hazard of
should defend ourselves against its con- propaganda weapon. Fear of radioac- benzpyrene at low doses.
sequences. Missile defense may turn out tivity has been preached to the masses "I presume that we want to save thou-
sands of lives in this country every year
to be the correct move with which to in the far corners of the earth. and we could just abolish the manufacture of
counter Chinese nuclear power. Many have spoken and written about automobiles and go back to riding horses,"
The announcement of the test ban was it, and I have done my best to read the senator BOVRKE HIonENLOOPER, of Iowa rug-
followed by the President's pessimistic testimony and secure the opinions of the gested facetiously in one committee hearing
evaluation of our missile defense. We best authorities, While there is dis_ on fallout. "It seems to have struck a bal-
must hope that these two facts are not agreement on the subject as to the degree ance in the minds of people that transports-
related. If our interest in test cessation of this danger, there is nothing in the tion is important and we keep making auto-
diverts our effort from missile defense, hearings to give us-sufficient reason tothousamobiles, people keep getting killed by the
nds on the highway every' year. We
then the test ban will not have served advise and consent to a treaty on this are all sad about that
our security. basis. On the east coast, the annual radiation
We must bend oui" efforts toward an After I had read the material of one from natural sources is about 0.1 roentgen
early and successful plan for missile de- of the top scientists in the United States, per year, while Denver and other large Colo-
fense. The ban will certainly impede our I sought a conference with him. We radan cities get about twice that amount
effort and this fact alone is a-strong argu- talked and we exchanged some corre- from natural background sources. Denver
ment against the ban. The Russians spondence. I asked him to find for me is expanding despite this health hazard. And
New York reports
may well be ahead of us in missile de- an accurate statement on this radioac- a higher rate of leukemia
than Colorado, presumably from causes other
fense. If so, we shall have a difficult tivity problem written in layman's lan- than radiation.
time catching up with them. This is an guage which I would understand, which In southern Illinois, where the drinking
even more telling argument against the at the same time was scientifically ac- water contains unusual amounts of radium,
test ban treaty. . curate. He refefred me to the book en- persons store about 10 times as much radium
Our emotions have been aroused by titled "Nuclear Ambush," by Earl H. in their bones as those living in Chicago. s those who run away from the facts and Voss, a careful writer and a distinguished bone-cancer rates so$far detected. ce in the
talk about Hiroshima or Nagasaki, and Washington newspaperman. The book People living in Albuquerque, N. Mex., an-
then say that I am for something that was published in 1962. This scientist nually absorb much more radiation In their
everyone condemns. Let us face the directed my attention to certain pages mile-high homes than do people in Wash-
facts. The defense against a nuclear of Mr. Voss' book. I want to read what ington, D.C. The excess is greater than that
missile attack is dependent upon testing he has to say: received by Wast..ington residents from all
in the atmosphere, and we are proceed- This excursion into the basic science of bomb-test fallout to date. Yet most of the
ing to tie our hands in that field. I ask, radiation has shown that the hazard of nu- citizens" of Albuquerque continue to reside
clear test fallout is triflng-3 to 5 percent- there.
who is it that is concerned about the compared to background radiation hazards If the incidence of lung cancer from ciga-
terror of a nuclear attack? rettes is assumed to be linear, that is, de-the The missile-atomic age has moved our distorted world the accepts
thinking without
has become can be How pending on the size of dose, as leukemia is
country into the front line of a possible made clear by comparing fallout with other assumed to be linearly proportional to fall-
A hazards, using some popular statistical tech- out, one scientist has calculated that two
war. e treaty that weakens our missile cigarettes per year can produce as much lung
ni ues.
fila r def nses,our our c citieties, sity and d our our Over the past 20 years, in the 'United q cancer as fallout can produce leukemia.
military defenses, Using the same statistical technique, pol-
homes, and a , there have been six fatal accidents button of the city air
an can be regarded as a
and a small number of injuries to :atomic
I call attention to the words of one of energy workers from ionizing radiation. For comparable hazard. A few hours spent in
the country's most distinguished citizens mos7, of these 20 years automobile accidents the city by country folks would. produce lung
the same extent as fallout produces
on the necessity of military strength as have been causing more than 30,000 deaths lecancer to ukemia.
an instrument of preventing war and per year. But each of the 4 radiation ac- It would be rash to claim that small radia-
o the peace. I want to quote to cide ats that caused 6 deaths among atomic tion doses have no effect on humans in in-
you workers has received worldwide pub- and leukemia. But it
you u what Aden. Lewis Strauss had to say itchy; the fact that over 100 nuclear-energy creasing bone cancer
aboutthit. He said' workers have been killed in automobile acci- would seem reasonable to conclude that if
May I be so -bold, in conclusion, as to call dents alone during the same period has gone there is any increase in the incidence of
to mind a fact repeatedly experienced and unnoticed. these diseases because of fallout, it is so
then forgotten through the generations. Be- Smokestacks belch millions of tons of acid, slight as to be unnoticeable when compared
cause civilized man abhors war, he Is at- silicone, beryllium, lead, and arsenic-all with other suspected causes of bone cancer
tracted by any apparently reasonable pro- widely suspected to be cancer agents--while and leukemia.
posal that is labeled "peace." scientists are sifting the air for faint traces The directly proportional or linear theory
Too often, however, and too late, a pact of radioactive fallout, can be applied to other harmful phenomena
hailed by a hopeful majority as signaling Living in a brick house gives a person 20 in modern societ: .
"peace In our time" actually turns out to be times the radiation dose one gets from fall- One's life expectancy can be reduced. about
a first step on the path to disaster. out. But world attention has been concen- 9 years by smoking a pack of cigarettes a
In the past, It has been only our strength trated on limiting the strontium 90, not on day, according to one statistical calculation
which has kept the peace. For many years, finding a substitue for bricks. There is no based on tbg linear theory. This is equiva-
our strength will be our surest, perhaps our known case of moving from a brick house lent to shortening one's life by one.hour for
pn . assufance of peace. to a. frame house to avoid radioactivity. each cigarette smoked.
Luminous-dial wrist watches give off as A sedentary job instead of one involving
Many well intentioned and well in- much as 10 times the radiation dose that exercise reduces life expectancy by 5 years,
;formed people have fears about this fallout produces. compared to the 1 to 2 days life-shortening
treaty. When I use the term "fear," I Science suspects automobile exhausts, as due to worldwide fallout. Being 10 percent
use it in its connotation as relating to be- it suspects fallout, of producing cancer. But overweight costs one a year and a half. Liv-
ing prudent and not id any sense indicat- no one has suggested declaring a more- tag in the city instead of in the country re-
ing cowardice. Will anyone deny that trohnn on automobile transportation, or duces life expectancy by 5 years; eo does
such fear exists in the minds of many even making a multi-million-dollar investi_ remaining unmarried.
Senators? Millions of Americans fear gation of auto exhausts. The point here is that it can. be misleading
Principally because of the fallout problem, in the extreme to assume that one suddenly
this treaty. Many members of the science has been stimulated to learn much discovered factor, like fallout, is the sole
Armed Forces who were not called to more about radiation as a cause of cancer cause for some change picked at random
testify have privately expressed grave and. other health problems than it knows from a whole spectrum of causes and
fears about this treaty. about almost any other occupational or changes.
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 P-pproved For?48
Release.2004/Q P DP65B0038 0% 01 Qp48-2
GQNGRESSTQ. 4E. REWJW ? $EN 1 TE
Nor cAi it be considered completely valid
to conteaq,,that itll mutations are bast. Stu-
dents of. evolutlon_ say that it was genetic
mutation-thousands of years ago, when the
natural background level of radiation pre-
sumably was much higher than it is today-
which produced man in his present form. It
can only b_ said tl at.mutations are neither
all significant nor all bad.
As moreA?is learned about cancer, doubts
are incroaping that low doses of radiation
produce noticeable or significant effects.
Both cancer ?and lqukemia are soipetimes
produced by indirect methods not involving
a direct, hit by a radioactive particle or
ray on a human cell. Many have assumed
that radioactivity makes a direct hit on a
single cell and starts a chain reaction of
cancerous cells,. If two mutationg.,instead
of one were found to be required to produce
cancer, however, then instead of 100,00Q cases
of leukemia produced over the centuries by
fallout, there might be as few as 100 cases,
over millennia.
The theory that cancer is caused by a single
mutation that gives rise to a growing colony
of cancer cells was,,in vogue some years ago
.but is passing out of fashion. Scientists
advancing the proyortional theory in re-
lation to fallout have been "almost exclu
sively * * * quite unfamiliar" with recent
Add to these difficulties the imprecise
measurements of the fallout hazard, that are
possible with present techniques, and there
develops a wide 'range of uncertainty, mainly
on the side of doubt as to whether there is
any health hazard in test fallout at all. Fall-
out doses are so low that they cannot be
used on mice, As has been noted earlier,
millions or billions of mice would have to
be bred in laboratories before any genetic
effects would be. noticeable from ev n such
relatively high doses of radiation as 10 roent-
gens.
"Hot spots," or clusters of radioactivity
from tests could develop in populated areas,
i. but in experience since 1945, there is no re-
corded case of harm to human or animal
life.
Most scientists feel that while past testing
*s Aot resented a health hazard, big mega-
ton explosions o the order of magnitude
exploged by the Soviet Union in-'1961 and
1962 could eventually accumulate fallout
hazards of serious proportions. Heavy test-
ing in the atmosphere is not a realistic pros-
pect, even after the Soviet series of 1961 and
1962, however. The United. States has sig-
nified its intention of confining the great
proportion, if not all, of its future tests un-
derground, where there will be no radioactive
fallout hazard.
The greatest hazard might come from
newly emerging nuclear powers if they de-
veloped dirty weapons. Regulation of their
atmospheric testing could become an issue
in the next decades,
How did, the unrealistic fear of fallout get
such a grip on the world? A rather detailed
study of the test ban's history shows there
were many forces at work, some Informed
and some uninformed.
Whether the treaty is finalized or not
the United States will proceed to, do as
much testing as possible underground
and it may well be assumed that we will
make further advances in producing
clean bombs. However, a treaty that
will completely prohibit testing in the
atmosphere would seriously hinder our
national defense.' At the same time the in Rumania and Bulgaria. has not been done. Then we have had the
national
lessen the radioactive fail- I now go to Poland. In 1632, on July 25, peace treaties with Hungary again and
Oiit fro onzigners such as Red China, Red Russia signed an agreement that there Rumania .and Bulgaria, also violated.
would be no aggression of Red Russia on
whose oil is ,wz l be dirty bombs, nor Mr. President (Mr. MCGOVERN in the
will it lessen radioactive fallo. Poland and not by b on Red Russia.
qt ,Caused We all remember this is stab in the back on chair), the Senator from Ohio closed his
by treaty breakers. September 17, 1939, when Poland was fight- recitation of events by saying:
Mr. President, can we trust Red RuS- Ing Germany on the west and Red Russia Now, may I ask, Mr. Secretary, which is
sia? We here in ? exercising our treaty- attacked Poland on the east. the last agreement that Red Russia has
Approved'Fb- Release 2004/03/11 DiA-RDP85BOO, 383R0001002100,08-2
making power are not acting for our- i now go to the United states. in 1933
selves. We are acting for the United when Red Russia was begging the United
States of America, its people, its insti- States to establish trade relations with Rus-
tutions, its future. sia, just as Kadar is now doing, and Litvinov
Just who signed this treaty for the wrote a letter to our Government committing
himself that on Russian soil no agency would
Russians? It was the Soviet Foreign be permitted to exist contemplating intrud-
Minister, Mr. Gromyko. About 11 ing communism upon other nations of the
months ago, Mr. Groff iyko went to the world. In violation of that Litvinov letter
White House and. told the President undoubtedly about which you know, the
that the Russian Communists had no Comintern was in existence and they were
missiles in Cuba. The facts were the attempting to communize the world.
whole country was terrified to learn that No. 10, Finland: There was an agreement
en-
missiles were there pointed at a large that before Russia and Finland ever en-
gaged in war that the issue would be sub-
portion of the United States. mitted to arbitration, and that in no event
On October 22, 1962, the President, would resort be made to war until 3 months 11 in justified outrage, described the bare- after the report of the arbitrators. On No-
faced deceit to which he had been sub- vember 26, 1939, the Soviet Government at-
jected. Before the whole world the tacked Finland.
President branded Mr. Gromyko's state- -I-now come to Hungary of 1956.ry When
ment and Imre Nagy Would I be regarded as naive to in- was in charge, Red
Russia said, "We will l remove the Red Rus-
quire, when a spiritual regeneration and sian_ troops. Pravda will tell the story."
rebirth, took ' place in Andrei Gromyko,. The story was carried throughout the United
the Soviet Foreign Minister? Before States, but while we were relying upon that
we trust murderers, thieves, and liars in promise they were bringing in their tanks
our private dealings, we should inquire and their guns and their military men.
whether they have changed. Do we No. 12, German reunification; On July 23,
have any less responsibility in protect- 1955, the Foreign Ministers of the Govern-
ments of France, the United Kingdom, the
country? United States, and Red Russia stipulated,
Mich has been written and said about ?the, heads..9f government have agreed, that
the broken promises of the Russian settlement of the German question shall be
Communists. One of the most concise by means of a free election. That was re-
statements on this subject appears in pudiated and broken.
the hearings. The recitation was made We now come to China, No. 13. In the al-
by the distinguished Senator from Ohio, liance between the Republic of China and
[Mr. EI. I want to read it to the Union of Red Russia, they agreed to work
together in close and friendly collaboration
the Senate: after the. coratug of peace following World
I want to recite here Russia's conduct of War II, and to act. .according to the prin-
the past. I begin on February 2, 1920, when ' ciples of mutual respect for their cover-
it made separate peace treaties with Estonia, eignty. That treaty was broken.
.Latvia, and Lithuania, recognizing the inde- Then we come to the very significant Pots-
pendence and autonomy of these countries dam agreement on Germany. It was
and renouncing voluntarily and forever all promised that Germany would not be
rights of Russia over these people. On June scalped and denuded of all of its economy.
16, 1940, In the face of that treaty, Soviet The signatories to that promise kept it ex-
.troops occupied Estonia, Latvia, and Lithu- cept Red Russia, and it carried out everything
ania. . _it possibly could, causing us to pour huge
I go to Iran. There was a tripartite alli- sums of money into Germany to reestablish
ance on January 29, 1942, to which Red Rus- the economy. There were other commit-
sia was a signatory, and it promised to with- ments made in the Potsdam agreement that
draw its forces from Iranian territory. In were broken.
.1945 Red Russia equipped the rebels with I now come to the Kellogg-Briand Treaty,
Soviet arms and Red army uniforms. Iranian which is significant. The Kellogg-Briand
forces. were neutralized by Red army troops. Treaty outlawed war as an instrument of
In January of 1946 Iran appealed to the national policy. The Red army invaded
United Nations charging the Soviet Union Manchuria on October 12, 1929, 1 year after
with violating the agreement and interfer- it promised to outlaw war. Here we are
ing with its internal affairs, and nothing was sort of outlawing the nuclear tests. I won-
done about it._ der how long we can rely on that.
I now go to Yalta. We heard so much
about it. In the Yalta agreement Red Rus-
sia, the United States, and the United King-
dom agreed to assist liberated people to form
Yet, Mr. President, we hear Senators
beg Russia for a pact to outlaw war.
The Senator from Ohio also said:
interim government authorities broadly rep- Japanese war prisoners: It was agreed by
resentative of all democratic elements in the Red Russia that it would return those pris-
population and pledged to the earliest estab- oners. It still hasn't done it.
lishment through free elections, and I want Korea, item No. 17: It was agreed on De-
to repeat that, free elections, and the right of cember 27, 1945, there shall be set up a
'
self-determination, of governmen$s're"spore provisional'Torean democratic government.
sive to the will of the people. Now, the There shall be a joint commission to provide
violations: In Hungary, acting through the a four-power trusteeship of Korea for a
Hungarian Communist Party and its own period up to 5 years. From the very begin-
agencies and armed forces in Hungary, Red ning, the Russian representative refused to
Russia suppressed the will of the Hungarian collaborate and to act in pursuance to that
people by installing the minority Communist agreement.
dictatorship and denied Hungary funda- No. 18, the return of German prisoners of
,_.r
 16514
Approved
phere, but also to refrain from carrying
out any other nuclear explosion. Thus,
the treaty not only will put an end to
great portions of our peacetime use of
atomic energy, but it also raise a serious
question about the use of nuclear explo-
sions to preserve the peace. In case of
aggression or threatened aggression
against us or one of our allies, our hands
will be tied. The assumption that when
a state of war exists, we shall not be
bound by the treaty could result in a ne-
gation too late to prevent war.
An instance of the capability of supe-
rior weapons to preserve the peace, save
lives, and at the same time prevent the
extension of the subjugation of free peo-
ples, occurred in July 1958. It was then
that President Eisenhower ordered the
landing of troops in Lebanon. The land-
ing was made; there was no loss of life;
and the Russian Communists did not
dare interfere. The mission was accom-
plished because other branches of our
defense system were poised with our su-
perior weapons to strike whenever and
wherever necessary.
If we solemnly agreenot to carry out
any nuclear explosion, a mission similar
to the one to Lebanon could not be car-
ried out by us.
The strength of the aggressive power
of countries in which human life its not
valued lies in their millions and millions
of men. The strength of the defensive
power of countries such as ours, in which
human life is valued, lies in their superior
weapons.
It is commonly said the United States
can withdraw from this treaty any time
it wants to on 90 days' notice. The
treaty carries no such provision. The
treaty provides in article 4 that we have
the right to withdraw from the treaty if
we decide that extranordinary events,
related to the subject matter of the
-treaty, have jeopardized the supreme in-
terests of our country. These extraor-
dinary events must be related to the sub-
ject matter of this treaty. In other
words, they have to be related to nuclear
testing. Extraordinary events of aggres-
sion, or subversion, or a Communist
takeover of more countries in the West-
ern Hemisphere by conventional weapons
would not be related to nuclear explo-
sions. In that case we are still bound by
the treaty. It is not only the use of our
weapons that keeps the peace, but the
ability to use them-the readiness to use
them-and at this point we tie our hands.
The late John Foster Dulles, an able
and distinguished Secretary of State,
said before his death in 1959:
Since a treaty is what the Russians 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 ten-
sions, generate a feeling of international
goodwill, and. probably elect a Republican
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 endangered,
perhaps to the point of deterioration. As a
result, within a few years we could be a sit-
ting duck for the Communists to pick off
whenever they felt the time was ripe.
Is this treaty a part of the Commu-
nists' great design for world domina-
tion? Is it a propaganda weapon to
force the hand of the United States and
to cause our people and the Congress to
slumber? The Joint Chiefs of Staff cer-
tainly have warned against complacency.
Why was this treaty not allowed to be
completed pursuant to the constitutional
processes of the principal signers before
it was submitted to all the nations of the
world to sign? Something over 90 na-
tions have already signed. Was this pro-
cedure followed to pressure the United
States and the U.S. Senate into a diffi-
cult position to reject or amend the
treaty?
When we have a parade of nations
not possessing a popgun, an. air rifle, or
a cherry bomb, coming in and solemnly
agreeing that they will not set off a nu-
clear explosion. in the atmosphere, there
is something about such procedure that
is tainted with hypocrisy. It would
have been a simple matter to have a
treaty considered and finalized by the
principal parties, who are atomic powers,
and then after the entire t:reatymaking
process was completed permit other
countries to join in, but that was not
done.
We hear much talk about; world pub-
lic opinion. I have respect for world
public opinion, but I try to remember
that not everything appearing as world
public opinion i:; such. With a few dol-
lars a troublemaker can journey to the
capital city of a foreign country and
hire some kids to carry placards, parade
in front of the American Embassy and
shout falsehoods. Such an event then is
broadcast to the world through the news
media and we are supposed to interpret
it as world public opinion. It is propa-
ganda pure and simple. It is manufac-
tured. It is managed.
The treaty itself makes reference to
further steps. The proponents of this
treaty have said that it is only a, step.
There will be mare. What are these next
steps? Will one of the future steps be
to compel stalwart and honorable Uncle
Sam to march to Moscow and sign a non-
aggression pact" America is not an ag-
gressor nation. We have no aggressive
intentions. Our money and our might
have been spent unselfishly for other
countries. American boys have died not
alone for this Country but for the defense
of many countries. We were the, victor
in World War l: and World War II but
did we demand territory? Is there any-
one in the Chamber who feels that the
United States must renounce its past and
sign an agreement not to commit aggres-
sion?
What would. be the effect of the Rus-
sian Communists signing a nonaggres-
sion pact? They have signed many non-
aggression pacts before, all of which have
been broken. Unless they Change, their
signature on a nonaggression pact can
not be depended. upon. But, that is only
half of the s'ory. When great powers
enters into a nonaggression pact, it is
For Release 2004703/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
violated? I have in mind the Cuban com-
mitment that we would have the right to
inspect and ascertain whether the missiles
were removed. Am I correct in that or not?
Secretary RusH. That was a basis for the
exchange, basis of the exchange between the
President and $hrushchev during the week
beginning October 22.
Senator LAUSCHE. That promise was not
kept.
Secretary RUSK. That is correct, sir. As
you recall, Castro would not accede to that.
Senator LAUSCHE. Yes. The commitment
was made" that neutral nations would be
permitted to go in and see whether the mis-
siles were removed. That commitment was
not executed, is that correct?
Secretary Rvsx. That is correct, sir, but
there were certain alternative arrangements
that were made, as you remember.
Senator LAUSCHE. I have a letter here from
the State Department saying that we are
not bound by the promise not to invade or
any of the other promises that we made
because the commitment of Khrushchev was
not kept to allow us to inspect.
I agk you, in the face of this fragmentary
recitation of breaches of commitments, if
we are to Judge Red Russia in the future
by what it has done in the past, what can
Owe expect?
High officials have openly stated they
expect the Russians to cheat on this
treaty. There is no reason to doubt their
word. The distinguished Senator from
Minnesota [Mr. HUMPHREY] publicly
admitted that he. did not. support the
treaty on the basis that he trusted the
Russians. If that be the case, what safe-
guards do we have? .
Secretary Rusk stated in the hearings:
The original position of the Soviet Union
in these discussions was that a withdrawal
clause was not necessary, because a sovereign
state could, in any event, denounce a treaty.
:As- a matter of fact, that provision is
in their Constitution. The whole history
of Soviet actions proves that they claim
the right-which they have repeatedly
exercised-to junk a treaty, not on 90
days' notice, not on 1 'day's notice not
on 5. minutes' notice, but without 1 sec-
ond of notice;
Earlier in my remarks, I quoted the
Joint Chiefs of Staff as saying that if
this treaty were put into effect, our de-
fense would cost more. One of the rea-
sons is that it will cost more to test
underground and to establish all over
`the world stations to check on what nu-
clear developments take place in Com-
munist Russia. Many of those plans of
detection are still on paper. The money
has not been appropriated, and they are
years away.
The hope that the United States could
readily, and effectively resume atmos-
pheric testing, if the Communists vio-
lated the treaty, is not sustained by the
record. When the Communists broke
the testing moratorium in 1961, some
time passed before we could test. When
our tests were made, they were hurried
and unprepared for, and the knowledge
gained fell far short of that desired.
The treaty itself is replete with ambj-
guity, uncertainty, and undefined lan-
guage. Its preamble refers to additional
steps, but does not define them. The
treaty uses terms that never before have
been used in treaties. If we enter into
this treaty, we shall bind ourselves not
only to refrain from testing in the atmos-
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved For.Release 2004/03/11 CIA-I DP65B00383RO00 Q0210008-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -'SENATE
based on the premise that they may keep
the territory already taken. This would
wipe out all hope for the millions who
' today live under Communist slavery. It
would freeze and, make permanent the
status quo. One might say that such a
nonaggression pact would never be
drawn, _ t Say to him, suppose it is and
suppose it is presented to this country
under the same .conditions and,proced-
uresas this treaty is presented. Many
people, have argued that the. Senate
should advise and consent to this treaty
because refusing to do so now will create
an unfavorable image. Would not that
same problem exist if a nonaggression
pact should come before us?
Red China has not signed this treaty
and would not observe .it if she did. Yet
Red China may be the one aggressor na
tiori emerging as a nuclear power. ' We
are askedEto sign this treaty without any
provisions to inspect nuclear, develop-
ments in that vast interior of,Red.China.
.Many prudent individuals believe that
in case of war against the United. States,
,Communist Russia and Communist
China would join forces. Certainly we
should not risk die future of this coun-
try on the hypothesis that they, will not
stand together.,
In recent months Red China and Red
Russia have entered into certain treaties
and I want to call attention to them.
The newsletter of the United Nations
Association of the Republic of China,
published in Taiwan, June 1963, on page
15:
PEIPING AND MOSCOW, SIGN SCIENCE AND TECH-
NOLOGICAL CdOPERATION PLAN
The Chinese Communists, and. Soviet
Union have signed a plan for scientific and
technological cooperation for the last half of
1963 and the first half of 1964, Peiping radio
disclosed on June 21.
The Communist Chinese radio, mon1-
tored in Tokyo, has also reported the signing
of an executive plan for scientific coopera-
tion between Communist China glad Bul-
garia in 1963. Both were signed in Peiping.
The Sino-goviet agreement was signed fol-
lowing 8 days of talks "held in a friendly at-
mosphere. A communique issued on June
19 said "under this plan the (Communist)
Chinese and Soviet institutions concerned
will mutually play host to scientific, engi-
neering, and technical workers studying
scientific and technical achievements and
production experience in various branches of
the national economy and will supply each
other with scientific and technical data and
samples."
Mr. President, one of the greatest
statesmen of our time is that " distin-
guished Nebraskan, flon. Walter Judd,
former Representative and former
missionary to China. As a. student of
Communist strategy he has no peer. I
have heard him, liken the Communist
strategy to that of a football game.
When a football team acts like they are
going to carry the ball through the line,
look out-they are about to Tin the end,
or make a surprise forward pass. When
the football team gets poised for a line
drive the opposing team must beware of
a surprise punt. When the formation is
called for a kick, the opposing team, if
they want to win,, must be prepared for
a line drive. Representative Judd has
that,just as the football team uses,.
.-istrategy to advance the ball, the Com-
munists use strategy to advance com-
munism and, achieve their unchanged
goal of world domination.
We should not forget that they want
to bury us. . When they act like they
want peace, they prepare for war. When
,they pretend to be friendly they strike
with force. When the._vehicle of treaty
,making can be used to advance commu-
nism they will use it, The Russian Com-
munists neither enter into a treaty nor
observe a treaty when it is not to their
advantage to do so.
When the United States and the Rus-
sian Communists sit, down . at a peace
table they do not meet as. equals. The
Communists are aggressors. The Amer-
icans are not. Americans are, believers.
The Communists .are, atheists. ?The
Americans honor treaties and the Com-
munists break treaties.
There are other, inequalities. The
high-megaton nuclear explosions in the
atmosphere carried out by the Russians
following the, moratorium .may have
given them additional knowledge which
the United States ,does not have,,
The Apostle Paul in writing to the
Corinthians said:
Be ye not unequally yoked together with
unbelievers: for what fellowship hath right-
eousness with unrighteousness? And what
communion li"ath light with darkness?
Mr. President, I must be guideh by the
lamp of experience and I cannot turn my
back on history. Neither can I ignore
the. warnings that have come from the
Communists themselves.
I bold in my hand a little devotional
book written by Father, James Keller,
founder of the Christophers. It is en-
titled, "3 Minutes a Day." I want to read
about the Communist boast made some
20 years ago. In reading it I want to
point out that time is running against us:
"War is inevitable," were the strong words
used by Dimitri Manuilsky, when he ad-
dressed the students of the Lenin School of
Political Warfare in 1930.
His dire forecast continued:
"Today, of course, we are not strong enough
to attack. Our time will come in 20 or 30
years.
"In order to win we shall need the element
of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be
put to sleep, so we shall begin by launching
the most spectacular peace movement on
record.
"There will be electrifying overtures and
unheard of concessions. The capitalistic
countries-stupid and decadent-will rejoice
to cooperate in their own destruction. " They
will leap at another chance to be friends.
"As soon as their, guard is down, we shall
smash them with our clenched fists."
Mr. President, I shall vote against this
treaty.
THE SOVIETS AND THE POSTWAR-A FORMER
AMBASSADOR TO Moscow ANSWERS SDME
PERPLEXING PROBLEMS
(By Joseph E. Davies)
(The replies to these questions, submitted
by the editors do not reflect any current
official opinion of either the Soviet Union or
of the United States, so far as I know, Nor
are the answers intended to be dogmatic.
They are simply my own opinions, for such
value as they may have. They are based
upon published sources of information, and
upon facts within my own knowledge, and
represent my considered judgment.)
"1.. Can we-assume that the rulers of Rus-
sia are men of good will toward other nations
and that they desire a peaceful, stable
world?"
Yes. Their public statements of policy
and their deeds in the past decade both
establish that. Ambassador Litvinow, when
he was Foreign Minister, both within and
without the League of Nations, was the out-
standing advocate of collective action by the
nonaggressor nations, in order to insure "a
peaceful and stable world." War anywhere,
he constantly urged,'woi ld engulf all the
rest of us for "peace was indivisible." Abys-
sinia, Spain, China, the attitude of the So-
viets in agreeing to stand by Czechoslovakia
.with France against attack by Germany-all
attest to their sincerity as "men of good
will." It. is, also, to, their practical best
interests to have peace with, and in, the
world.
"2. Will Russia pursue a lone-wolf policy
after the war or will she seek to cooperate
with the other great powers in creating a
stable world?"
That will. depend upon what kind of world
they will then face, or upon what kind of a
world they think they are facing. If they
believe in, and trust the proposals of Great
Britain, China, and ourselves, and the United
Nations, they will, in my opinion, go as far
as any of these in a high-minded and al-
truistic effort to cooperate in creating a
stable and decent world.
,If, on the, other hand, they believe they
are not getting a square deal on a reciprocal
and high-minded basis, they will not hesi-
'tate to go it aldhe. They will not be "taken
for a ride" Nor will they be used to pull
anyone's chestnuts out of the fire. They will
do exactly what we would do, if In their
shoes.
"3. Will Russia seek to create some kind
of world federation, embodying some transfer
of sovereignty from the member states to the
central government? Or will she favor vol-
untary cooperation by the great powers to
maintain a stable world?"
The Soviets vigorously supported the
League of Nations and constantly advocated
a stronger and more effective League. They
are, however, essentially practical and real-
istic in the application of their ideals. First
things first is the motto of the Soviets.
They, I feel sure, would be willing to give up
so much of their sovereignty as would assure
a strong federation to outlaw war, aggres-
sion and conquest and to establish an in-
ternational police force to keep the peace for
the world community of nations. What
other and further relinquishments of sov-
ereignty they would agree to would depend
upon how practical and unselfish the pro-
posals were, and upon their confidence in
the good faith of the other large nations.
"4. Will Russia be willing to undertake
any international commitments which in-
volve revealing military information to other
nations?"
Yes, if it is upon a fair and reciprocal basis,
and for the honest purpose of protecting the
peace of the world community against gang-
sters, outlaws, or terrorists.
"5. Winston Churchill once described Rus-
sian foreign policy as 'a riddle wrapped in a
mystery inside an enigma.' Can you make
sense of it? What are its fundamental
aims?"
In my opinion, the best approach to the
solution of the riddle is to forget the epigram
and set to one side the idea of either an
enigma, or a mystery. The riddle, if riddle
there be, from my experience can be best
solved by the simple approach of assuming
that ,what they say, they mean; that they
are honest in their beliefs, speak the truth
and keep their promises. If one were to
assume, also, that they were strong, able,
courageous and willing to treat others hon-
estly, if they believe they are treated hon-
estly themselves, the riddle can be answered
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 CIA-RDP65B00383R0001002100082
 16516
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 1,8
As, a matter of fact, in my opinion the for- world revolution. It was one of the alleged
eign policy of the Soviet Government is quite betrayals of the revolution charged by the
clear. Its first concern is to insure the ter- Trotskyites.
ritorial security of the Soviet Union, They "8. If Russia has given up her ambition
built up a great military and industrial sys- to turn the world Communist, may she
tem for that purpose. The Soviet Govern- nevertheless still fear capitalistic encircle-
ment:le not a predatory power like Germany ment and attack?"
or Japan. It was only after Hitler came into That depends upon whether they think
power that the great industrial development that they have reason for such fear. Much
projected by Stalin was speeded up for war will therefore depend upon how the rest of
the Soviet policy is to develop the U.S.S.R.
internally. That can best be done in a peace-
ful world. The Soviet foreign policy-there-
fore has been consistently addressed to the
prevention of war. When they lost faith
in both the will and the capacity of the West-
ern democracies to Join them realistically to
stop Hitler, they still tried to maintain their
security and their peace by entering into a
nonaggression pact with Hitler in 1939.
That -was not a pact for a mutual offensive
against Germany's enemies. In that par-
ticular, it provided only that neither would
attack the other. They gained precious time
Which-they feverishly employed to protect
their security against the inevitable Nazi
attack.
After this war there will be still greater
need-for peace to promote their plans for the
internal development of their country.
There is no riddle or mystery if the state-
ments of the Soviet Government, or its lead-
ers, are read in the light of these policies.
They are straightforward and direct.
"8. Is there religious freedom in Russia?"
The Constitution of the Soviet Union (art.
124) -provides that, "Freedom of religious
worst p and freedom of antireligious propa-
ganda is recognized for citizens."
By=this same article the church is sepa-
rated from the state and the school "to in-
sure citizens freedom of conscience."
Axtdcle 135 of the Constitution provides
that religion shall be no bar to the right of
the citizen either to vote or hold office.
Prior to the enactment of article 135,
which is attributed directly by some to the
attitude. of the President in his recognition
of .able U.S.S.R, in 1933, several nations in-
eluding the United States were guaranteed
that, their citizens in the Soviet Union
should have: (1) full liberty of conscience
and religious worship, free from persecu-
,tios ; ($) the right to hold religious services
in churches or buildings selected for that
purpose, free from molestation; and (3)
the right to impart religious instruction to
their children. That, however, did not in-
clude the right to proselyte outside those
restrictions.
In-1937 there were about 100,000 ministers
of religion in the Soviet Union,- according to
the chairman of the Atheist League of the
U.S.S.R.
The Russian Orthodox Church of the
Soviet Union is militantly supporting the
Government in this war. The highest pre-
the world approaches the problem of Pee war
reconstruction, and the attitude of the other
nations toward the United Soviet Socialist
Republic. If there are evidences of "hostility
on the part of the outside world, they will
certainly detect it and protect themselves.
Before Russia entered the war, Russian dis-
trust of the western powers was very real.
On the morning following Hitler's night at-
tack, June 22, 1941, there were highly in-
formed persons in Moscow who believed that
Britain would launch a simultaneous naval
attack through the Baltic Sea in conjunction
with, and pursuant to, an agreement with
the Nazis. That fear was only relieved when
Prime Minister Churchill's broadcast came
over the air, pledging an-out aid to Russia.
The developments in the conduct of the
war, I believe, through contacts and better
understanding, have definitely contributed
to dissipating the classic fear of capitalistic
encirclement and attack.
"9. Even if Russia is not interested in pro-
moting world revolution for its own sake, will
she still use revolutionary activity as an
instrument of Russian nationalism? May
she for instance, promote Communist revo-
lutfons.in Europe? In Asia?"
This idea is again being vigorously and
assiduously preached by Goebbels and other
Nazi propagandists, both in and out of Ger-
many. The express oral assurance of Pre-
mier Stalin, the commitments contained
in the Joint Declaration by the United Na-
tions, and the treaty made with England have
defindely killed that Hitler bugaboo which
he has tried desperately, and without suc-
cess, to sell to Europe these many years,
The Soviet Union has an enviable record as a
nation for keeping its -obligations. Except
as an instrument of military necessity, the
Soviet Union will not promote dissension
in the internal affairs of other nations.
"10. What do you think is the -probable
extent of Russia's territorial demands.?"
It would be natural for them to demand
what any other people would, under similar
circumstances. First, they would naturally
want that back which had previously been
taken away from them by force after the last
war. After that, it would he natural for them
to require any such territory as that which
they considered to be vital to their security
in the event of possible future European
attack.
The probable extent of Russia's territorial
demands will therefore depend, in my opiin-
ion, upon what conditions are when peace
late, Acting Metropolitan Sergei of Moscow, comes and upon what kind of a world they
has -appealed for this tolerance of religious thir.Lk is going to come out of the peace.
people outside Russia and has urged that It should be remembered that the Baltic
such people be not misled'by "Fascist propa- States were all carved out of, and taken
Banda" or believe "their lies" as to persecu- away from Russia, after the last war. It is
tion of the church in recent years. A book also the fact that the very Germany, which
devoted to the Truth About Religion in they are now fighting, in 1917 and 1918 took
Russia was recently published in Moscow by away from Russia nearly all of the territory
the Orthodox heirarchy, addressed to provid- gained westward since the accession of Peter
Ing accurate information on religion in the the Great, including the Ukraine and. White
Soviet Union. Russia. It would be only natural that they
There is no question, however, that despite should want to get it back from a defeated
these constitutional guarantees there is much Germany. Five million Ukranians were ar-
hostility toward religion In the party mem- bitrarily converted into Polish citizens after
*
by the Soviet Government either in. the
treaty with Britain last June, or with the
covenants contained in the Joint Declaration
of the United Nations made in January 194:2,
in Washington. Ii, could be contended that
the acquisition of such territories did not
constitute aggression, but simply the restor-
ation to the Soviets of that which has been
taken from theme by force and the rectifying
of previous wrongs.
Further, if the Soviet Government believes
that it is confronted with the same type
of world which existed before this war, they
will undoubtedly require that which self-
preservation demanded in this war, namely,
a sufficient extension of territory on its west-
ern frontier to make itself secure against
possible European attack. That would mean
a part of Finland and, possibly, a part of
Poland up to the Curzon line. That, it will
be remembered, was the line determined by
the Curzon Commission under the Versailles
Treaty as the line of racial demarcation of
the Polish and Russian nationalities.
Last year, when the Soviet-British Treaty
was signed, providing for a mutual-assist-
ance pact in the event of an attack upon
either for a period of 20 years, both Britain
and the Soviet Union were satisfied to leave
the solution of controversial questions to be
settled after the fighting was over by the
application of certain broad equitable prin-
ciples. That was wise. It is no time to fight
among ourselves until Hitler and the Nazis
are thoroughly beaten.
At that time the question of the Polish
border was raised, according to the press.
It was reported that General Sikorski and
the Polish Government were agreeable to
that disposition of the problem in the in-
terest of unity in the war effort. After the
British-Soviet Treaty, which from press ac-
counts seemed to have been approved by
General Sikorski, great numbers of Polish
prisoners held by Russia were freed, and
some 100,000 Polish soldiers were released,
armed by Great Britain and the United
States, and organized as. a fighting force
against Hitler. They are now :in the Middle
East.
I am very sympathetic with the Polish
people, but it could scarcely be expected
that the Soviets would remain mute when
these controversial frontier matters were re-
cently brought up in London; particularly
in the face of what appeared to the Soviets
to an implied consent to the postponement
of the determination of the issue until after
victory. The Soviets, obviously, could not
permit these claims to be asserted without
contradiction, without themselves being es-
topped at some. 'uture time from asserting
their viewpoint, upon which naturally they
would wish to be heard. It is significant
that it is not the Soviets who are now press-
ing, so far as the United States is con-
cerned, for decls:.ons upon these controver-
sial matters. -
After victory has been won, conditions
may be entirely clifferent from those existing
now. Many things may happen in the in-
terim. The science of war is being com-
pletely revolutionized by airpower. Fron-
tiers such as rivers and mountains, provid-
ing bases for fortifications, have lost much
of their importance. The war has already
shown that thousands of paratroopers may
be transported to strike at vital centers in
the interior, by simply passing over the
frontier land fortifications. Boundaries may
not be of such vital importance in a recon-
structed and peaceful world.
bership. I was reliably informed when in the last war. Bessarabia, which was taken Moreover, the terms of the peace may, and
Moscow that the objections raised to the from Russia at about this time by Rumania, probably will, provide for mutual-defense
adoption of these constitutional provisions had been Russian for 100 years. The United agreements for collective security, which will
were overcome by Premier Stalin's personal States refused to recognize Bessarabia offi- reduce the necessity for military defenses
advocacy of their passage. cially as a part of Rumanian territory, It and armaments. It is unthinkable that such
" ,(. Is Russia determined to pursue the could be contended with much force that little, at least, would not be the result of
cause of world revolution?" Soviet claims to all of this territory would the war.
let my opinion, no. The Stalin 5-year po1- not be "territorial aggrandizement" and Under such conditions it is not beyond
icy clearly set aside the Trotsky idea of would not be inconsistent with pledges made possibility that the Soviets might consider,
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 19.63.
ApprovedFi# Release 2004/03/11: CIA-R?P6- B0.0383R000100210008=2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORIS -'SENATE
in the inter st of eaceful world, that the
matter of tie extenon of its frontiers was
not a matter of vial protection against a _F i possible recurrence of German attack.
Certainly, the comradeship and under-
standing developed' by mutual fighting
against Ilitler and aggression wIII? provide
solvents for these knotty questions.
"11. What does Russia regard as her proper
spheres of influence'"
That would, again depend upon the char-
acter of the world which the Soviet Govern-
ment would confront at the conclusion of the
war, If the; postwar world can be assured of
the enforcement of one principle, to wit:
that military power cannot be used by any
nation to enforce'~ts will (then theseques-
tions of vital intereat can be determined on
the basis of equity'-and decency. The So-
viets, I believe, would go as far as any
nation to.bxing that about.
To answe the question flatly, however,
there is no doubt th t there are certain mat-'
ters in which Russ has a vital interest.
There is the, matterwof access'to the,sQa and
warns-water ports. That, particularly, af-
fects the Pacific and the Mediterranean.
Russia, has always been concerned with the
ports of Port Arthur and Darien on the Pa-
cific side, of which she was deprived in 1905.
Again the use by her and other nations of
the highway which the Dardanelles affords
for, shipping and an outlet'from'theBlack
Sea, and through the Mediterranean to the
oceans, would naturally and rightly be`a
matter o concern. Also, realistically,- in a
hostile or n anarchic world, self-preserva-
tion migt demand the thrusting forth of
their defenses de against a possible repetition
of German attack through the territory of
snfaller states adjacent to Russia, which are
not strong enough themselves to prevent a
strong Germany, or other aggressor, from
ranking a highway of these smaller coun-
tries to attack the Soviet Union:. Tg Illus-
trate: The, great sea base of Kronstadt, and
the city of Leningrad, are only 25 `miles from
the Finnish border and within easy 'reach of
German long-range guns. The Soviet'Union
made a very strong effort to come to an
agreement with the Finnish Government,
whereby the Soviets could compensate them
for concessi ns of territories which were vital
to Soviet defense against German attack.
These the Finnish Government, in fear of
Germany, was unable to concede because, ob-
viously, they were' under the German gun,
and, unfortunately, still are.
Presumably, all of these vital interests and
others, such as fair access to raw materials,
the common use o the seas and the air as
highways for all of he nations in the world
comma}isty, and' similar matters, must ulti-
matel ` e adjusted`on a basis of reciprocity
and fair balancing of the interests of the
various states, if there is to be a stable'peace.
Their determination must be governed'under
rules of decency and equity as between neigh-
born wlih ,,desire peace for mutual advantage,
even though they be friendly economic com-
petitors. T believe' that the Soviet Union
would cooperate wholeheartedly bind-would
contribute ,positively to that end, once con-
vinced of the good faith and reliability of
her associates.
The attitude of theta Soviets, no less than
that of other nations, upon these vita"1 mat-
ters will therefore depend entirely upon the
kind of peace that is to be established to
secure a;decent, desirable, and stable world
"12. Will Russia e prepared to back lip
her denlan s with ems if we oppose them?"
If the,0oviets face an archaic world, where
not peace but war, confronts them, they can
d III- b ck up their 'security by force of
as ,ia the only alternative,. That, I
am sur$,tvould be far from their desire.
"18. It" other states go Communist and
voluil#a,rjly apply for admission to the
will Russia admit them? Can we
safely permit this?"
If states adjacent to the Soviet'ul'nioii
should voluntarilyapply for admission to
the U.S.S.R., I have no doubt that they
would be admitted. If that were done, both
countries being willing, it would be my opin-
ion that it was none of our business; nor
would our safety .be necessarily imperiled
thereby. If any such states were not con-
tiguous to the borders of the Soviet Union,
such application might possibly be embar-
rassing to the Soviets, but I doubt it. In
any event, in my opinion, they would resolve
such problems in a practical and realistic
way in cooperation with those nations that
were associated with them in the common
enterprise of keeping the peace of the world
community.
In this connection there has been much
agitation directed from Berlin to the pos-
sibility that the success of the Soviet armies
might result in communizing Europe. It is
the same' old red herring drawn across the
trail. Anyone who knows. Europe knows full
well, that neither the Scandinavian . coun-
tries.(Norway, Sweden, Finland) nor Poland
nor Rumania nor Hungary nor Greece nor
Czechoslovakia would ever voluntarily accept
communism or the Soviet system. And it
will be a long time before the Soviets will
ever call either Frenchmen or Germans Tova-
risch after this war.
"14. What will be Russia's. policy toward
the defeated nations?"
There is no doubt ,but that, , like the rest
of us, they would wish to see evenhanded
and exact justice done, under law and with-
out passion. This would require that those
in the defeated nations who were responsible
for crime would' be duly tried by a judicial
body and, if after due process, they were
found to be guilty, then punishment suitable
to the crime would be administered.
Undoubtedly the Soviets would also re-
quire that all necessary safeguards would be
established to prevent defeated nations from
again breaking the peace and indulging in
mass murder. Apart from these, the policy
of the Soviets would, I think, be dictated
solely by humanitarian considerations. Pre-
mier Stalin's published utterances abun-
dantly support that conclusion.
"15., What would be Russia's attitude to-
ward a European` federation (not including
herself and Great Britain) ?"
It would clearly depend upon the char-
acter of such federation. If it were to con-
tain the seed of either actual or potential
aggression, the Soviets would oppose it, just
as we all would. Assuming that it was part
of a general plan to secure world peace
through collective action, and that it was
so set up as to prevent domination by any
potentially strong aggressor unit in it, I do
not think that the Soviets would oppose it.
"16. On what basis can a stable settlement
in Asia be made between Russia and China?"
would impair the common defense against
Japan,' That is indicative of the kind of de-
cent cooperation which, in my opinion, can
be expectedfron} the Soviet Government in
the interests of a peaceful world.
"17. Does Russia fear an Anglo-American
entente with an anti-Russian basis?"
I do not know. It is, of course, possible, if
we should so conduct ourselves as to justify
that fear. It is of vital importance that this
should not happen. We should accept the
good faith of Britain and the Soviet Union,
just as they should accept the professions
which we make.
"18. What if the Russian economic system
proves to be more efficient than ours?"
I do not accept the premise that their
economic system will prove to be more effi-
cient than ours.
From what I have seen of both systems, I
am firmly of the opinion that we need not
fear their competition. Our system of free
enterprise, under rules of fair competition
protected by government, contains springs of
initiative and enterprise that will, under fair
conditions, surpass anything that a bureauc-
racy, Under government administration, can
produce. A pure governmental socialism,
even with the great vigor and energy which
the Soviet leadership provides, cannot com-
petewith the efficiency of our type of private
enterprise. A completely socialistic state, in
my judgment, will inevitably, as human na-
ture presently is and will continue to be for
a long time, breed inefficiencies in contrast
to an industrial, economic, and social system
such as ours which, in addition to the joy
in the working, provides greater individual
reward for extra effort and exceptional abil-
ity, coupled with police protection against
unfair competition, monopolies, or other spe-
cial class privilege.
The fact that the Soviets have constantly
extended the system of individual profit in
order to make their industries more produc-
tive during recent years, in my opinion, sup-
ports that point of view.
"19. What can America do to assure Russia
of the security she needs and to assure mu-
tual cooperation between our two nations?"
The Soviet Government, so far as the fu-
ture is concerned, recognizes that any ar-
rangement with the United States, 'to be of
.any real value, must. be by treaty and that
that treaty must be confirmed by the Senate
of the United ?'tates. They know very well
what happened in the last war when the
Senate refused to ratify the League of Na
tions Treaty. That fact contains the answer
to the question.
The surest answer is to be found in a bet-
ter mutual understanding and confidence as
between our peoples.
"20. How would you deal with Russia?"
Exactly as I would want to be dealt with
if conditions were reversed. Their word I
would accept with the same confidence that
I would ask them to accept ours, until faith
had been broken. Just as I would insist that
their government would not interfere in our
internal affairs or in our governmental mat-
ters, so I would scrupulously stay out of
theirs. Their government is their business.
What they tell their people, or do not' tell
their people, is not our concern. They have
their own problems. They have handled
them in a manner which demonstrates their
effectiveness and also their purpose to serve
peace, order, and law in the world.
Generally speaking, we should deal with
the Soviet Union as she is entitled to be dealt
with. The U.S.S.R. is a great nation. It
covers one-sixth of the world's land surface
and has approximately one-tenth of the total
population of the world. The country is
blessed with enormous natural wealth-min-
Both Russia and China, in my opinion,
have leaderships which are sincere in their
desire to secure a peaceful world. Both of
these leaderships- are practical and wise.
Both recognize that there can be no peace if
force is to be used by either as an instrument
of national policy to enforce the will of either
over the other. Both, I believe, to secure a
peaceful world, will actively try to establish
an effective international police. That ac-
complished, there is within these two coun-
tries sufficient capacity for fairness and tol-
erance to settle all matters of difference if
any such exist, through reciprocal arrange-
ments'on a fair and equitable basis as be-
tween themselves; and if not, each, I am
sure, governed by a decent respect for the
opinion of mankind, would submit their dif-
ferences to other members of the community
of nations in order to preserve the peace-of
that community.
As far back as 10-38, I was reliably informed
in Moscow that the Soviet Union was most
helpful to the government of Generalissimo
Chiang Kai-shek, in that it exercised its in-
iluerice on'behalf-of`the' hinese Government
eral, agricultural, fisheries; forestry-and a
great, vigorous, strong people. The poten-
tialities of the Soviet Union are commensu-
rate with the eachievements which she has
Approved' ~'or Release>2004LQ j L#i -ICI B00383R~000TO02100 8-
2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
16518
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -? SENATE September 18
demonstrated. She is destined to be one of
the very great powers of the earth.
In. the interest or our country and the
world at large, she must be accorded the
recgInition and treatment that such a situ-
ation requires. Without Russia, our com-
mon victory would have been seriously jeop-
ardized. Without the cooperation of the
Soviet Union, there can be no permanent
and durable peace projected. Both of these
are Self-evident. If we cooperate with the
Soviet Union on a basis of fairness to her, to
ourselves, and to the rest of the world, the
Soviet -Union can be an inestimable power
and 'a great influence in the establishment
of permanent peace' and the elimination of
war, for the common benefit of all of us. To
think of the Soviet Union in any other way
and to deal with her in any other manner or
on any other plane is to expose the world
and ourselves to many avoidable dangers and
natastrophes.
This was in effect the policy I recom-
mended to my Government at the end of
2ny service as Ambassador to the Soviet
"
'union. To the Department of State I find
atj wrote the following:
"Such a ,policy does not involve approving
in any manner the ideological' concepts of
this, Goyert}ment. It does, however, recog-
.nlzC.the right of self-determination. It is
interpretative of the high-minded and
Christianlike declarations of the foreign
.policy of the United States as expressed by
the President of the United States and the
Secretary of State in connection with foreign
affairs. It is a good neighbor policy, and
lone -consistent with the best traditions of
our diplomatic history."
"2L Should we start negotiations with
Russia (and the other great powers) now to
"lay the basis for postwar cooperation?"
Yes, provided such negotiations were con-
fined..to matters upon which there is sub-
stantial agreement, the discussion of which
would not impair the unity necessary to win
the war,
If,` for instance, the" great powers could
atow negotiate a treaty ?providing for collec-
tive security, the outlawry of war as an in-
strument of aggression or conquest, and pro-
viding the means for enforcing order so that
the peace of the world community would
not be brdken, it would be highly desirable.
"Upon, such simple negotiations there could
be "little room for disagreement. It is ob-
viousl,y'in the interest of all and detrimental
to none
With that done, a long step forward would
be taken in the winning of the peace. Under
such a 'condition all other matters in differ-
ence would have to be settled by conference
and mutual concessions, fairly and equitably,
for force would be outlawed. Time would be
afforded for the settlement of the inevitable
graver problems of frontiers, access to raw
materials and other economic and political
problems.
Such a simple agreement would in itself
constitute a great contribution to civiliza-
tion, It might make haste more slowly, but
in illy opinion it would be more surely.
Tropical growth flowers rapidly, but it wilts
easilyr and is not hardy. Hardwood forests
are slow - in growth, but they withstand
storms and last long.
Mi. 'f'HURMOND. Mr. President, will ,
the Senator yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I yield to the Senator
from South Carolina.
Mr. THURMOND. I congratulate the
able and distinguished Senator from
Nebraska fora masterful presentation
today. Since I came to the Senate I
have not heard a finer address than the
one delivered by the able Senator from
Nebraska today. It is a masterpiece.
The Senator is a student of commu-
nism. He knows the dangers and evils
of communism. He knows that when Mr.
Khrushchev says, "I favor peace" what
he really means is the time after he has
conquered the world when there will no
longer be any conflict and therefore
peace under Communist rule. He knows
that the word "truth" to the Communist
means anything to promote the Commu-
nist cause. He is astute enough to un-
derstand that we cannot trust the Com-
munists except to do what they want to
do and what promotes their interests.
I commend the able Senator. He has
made a fine contribution to the debate.
I wish every Senator could have been
present to hear him speak today.
Again I congratulate the able Senator
from Nebraska.
1Vir. CURTIS. The distinguished Sen-
ator has been more than generous. I do
not deserve his praise.
I judge no other Senator, but ]: shall
have no part of the treaty. I respect the
motives of every Senator, but I cannot
turn my back on history or the pro-
nounced intentions of the Russian
Communists.
Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield?
Mr. CURTIS. I am glad to yield to my
distinguished friend the Senator from
Wyoming.
Mr. SIMPSON. I commend the Sena-
tor from Nebraska, and I associate my-
self with the remarks made by the dis-
tinguished Senator from South Carolina.
I have a great and abiding affection
forthe Senator from Nebraska, and a
high regard for his ability. His address
today, to which I have listened very at-
tentively, confirms more and more my
belief that I am entirely correct in my
opposition to the so-called test ban
treaty.
I also commend the Senator for his
statement about the first step. We have
heard much about the "first step"' pro-
cedure. I am reminded of what the d:is-
tingufshed Senator from Utah said in
the committee to which I belong. It was
said that when a person starts upon a
long journey he must always take a first
step. The distinguished Senator from
Utah said, "Yes, and if you take that
first step in the wrong direction you are
likely to meet with ruin."
The Senator's remarks today have
great probative force.
I also wish that all Senators could
have been present to hear the Senator's
remarks, because I am convinced that
perhaps many would be able to seethe
error of their ways and perhaps would
vote with us against the treaty, which
I think would do a disservice to Amer-
left.
Mr. CURTIS. I express my gratitude
for the kind words of the distinguished
Senator from Wyoming, with a feeling of
humility. I do not deserve'his tribute.
I am alarmed by all the discussion of
additional "steps." Is it expected we
shall proceed to completely disarm our
country? Will Uncle Sam be asked to
agree to reform and not commit aggres-
siori, and to close the door on the millions
of people who are now behind the Iron
Curtain?
I do not know what the next step will
be. I agree that the first step is the be-
ginning of a long journey, but I contend
that it is easier to take a step downhill
than a step uphill.
Mr. SIMPSON. The Senator from
Wyoming has observed that there have
been some rather intemperate remarks
made to the effect that any one who"
was opposed to the treaty was irrational
or that any 10-year-old should have the
sense to sign it. I merely observe that
the able chairman of a great committee,
the Senator from Georgia [Mr. Rus-
sELLI, certainly is not irrational. Cer-
tainly, Senators TiruRMOND, STENNIS,
ROBERTSON, RUSSELL, and other Senators
of that caliber are not irrational. I pro-
test that kind. of statement. I yield to
no one in this body in my belief in this
country and the patriotism I feel for it.
The Senator :from Nebraska has made
a distinct contribution, and it confirms
me in my belief that my standis correct.
Mr. CURTIS. I thank the Senator.
I take this poeition because I want to
prevent a nuclear war.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Mr. President, will
the Senator yield to me before he yields
the floor?
Mr. CURTIS. I yield-to the Senator
from Alabama.
Mr. SPARKMAN. I join Senators
who have complimented the Senator
from Nebraska. I think he knows I do
not agree with him in the conclusions
he has drawn,-out I think he has made
a fine and clear presentation of his view-
point. I wish to question him briefly
about one or two points. I have care-
fully followed the debate and the hear-
ings before the Foreign Relations Com-
mittee, both the open sessions and the
secret sessions. As I have previously
stated on the floor, that I do not believe
any member of the committee attended
the hearings more regularly than I did,
with the exception of the chairman of
the committee, who I believe attended
more regularly than any other member.
But the Senator from Nebraska has
placed a great deal of emphasis upon the
interim report made by the Prepared-
ness Investigating Subcommittee.
I read it wits. a great deal of interest.
I appreciate the amount of work that
went Into it. I am impressed by one
thing about the report, which was
brought out by the committee in the con-
cluding paragraph. I am sure the Sena-
tor from Nebraska is familiar with the
portion which reads:
Although we have concluded that there
will be a net mLitary disadvantage to us if
the treaty is rattled, we recognize the exist-
ence of other factors which, while not within
the scope of thie report, are pertinent to a
final judgment o:a the treaty. Among these
are matters related to international affairs,
foreign policy, and relations with other coun-
tries. When these are taken into considera-
tion the question becomes one of weighing
relative risks, and our hearings provide
ample evidence that the overall assessment
of the relative raerits and demerits of the
treaty is a complex and difficult matter on
which equally patriotic, informed, and dedi-
cated persons nary and do disagree. In the
final analysis, then, each individual must
reach his own judgment on the basis of per-
sonal philosophy, past experience, current
knowledge, and t:ae relative weight which he
assigns to the various factors involved.
Let me go one step further and note
that there are seven members of the sub-
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 Approved Fo'r Re'lease 2004/03111 CIA-RDP6 1&C30383RGe01OO21#I 6 2`
CONGRESSIONAL RGOR]~ STATE 16519
committee. Of the seven members, six Mr. SPARKMAN. So far as I know, That is a positive statement, to say the
have definitely taken a stand, three of no Senator has questioned it. All I am least.
them in favor of the treaty, and three. trying to say is that the subcommittee, in Mr. CURTIS. It is. I thank the dis-
opposed. So far as I know, the seventh its conclusion, said that there are other tinguished Senator. I hope that before
member has not given an expression on- factors which- are recognized but have the debate concludes some Senator will
It. But ft seems to me the cgzn nittee npt Considered .Each_Senator will have defend the treaty.,
itself was saying there is not aclear-cut to consider them. All the committee has Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, will
decision against In other words, the done is present the military picture. the Senator yield?
committ dxd npt.lllake a report against I do not wish to_engage in argument, Mr. CURTIS. I yield.
the treaty. Is said, in effect, "These are but I thought it was rather significant Mr. THURMOND. The point was
the military facts, and we have not gone to point out that fact. raised by the distinguished Senator from
into the other factors. Each individual ? Mr.. CURTIS. Those- conclusions have Alabama about the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Member ~ynust decide for himself,", Fol- npt,been challenged in any speech on the supporting the treaty. I wish to read
lowing that, at least three members spoke floor. the last part of their statement, given by
for the treaty, and three have spoken Mr. SPARKMAN. Also, I point out General Taylor. This is what he said:
against the treaty. So far as I know, that half of the members of the subcom- The risks inherent in this treaty can be
the seventh member has not yet given mittee have, expressed themselves on the accepted in order to seek the important
an expression. To me, that fact is quite treaty and have -spoken for it. They gains which may be achieved through a
significant. CRTIS, I, too, read that have not merely announced they were stabilization of international relations and
Mr. report for it; they-have made speeches on the a rove toward a peaceful environment in
which to seek resolution of our differences.
and the closing paragraph. All it means floor of the Senate in favor of the treaty
,
to me is that the pommtttee is. not in- Mr. CURTIS.., I think that is an
of any other pom- emphatic condemnation. of the treaty.
m e w e the It is not province e
empting to embrace Mr. SPARKI N. If the Senator will
In its report matters to be Covered- by yield to me for one-further point, I was
the bon m1ttee on Foreign Relations, interested in the Senator's reading from
and perhaps other committees. Father Keller's book,. Father Keller is
the very fact that the dedicated , chair- a great leader and a forceful speaker,
man of that subcommittee, and half of but I happened to think, while the
Its member who are dedicated, to the Senator was reading, about the motto of
defense of its country, cannot support the Christophers. Is it printed on the
the treaty, should weigh against It,. __ The inside page of the book? If not, I think
mere fact that ,half of its members, in- I can quote It. ffi eluding the chairman, have spoken out Mr. CURTIS. Perhaps the Senator
against the treaty should weigh against can. There is a research center from
the treaty. -Everyone knows that upon which a Senator can obtain all sorts of
the chairman falls ,the responsibility of information-
calling for hearings and assembling re- Mr. SPARKMAN. No; I have read
ports. The - report speaks for itself. many of Father Keller's little booklets:
The rll,ilitary conclusions in it have not Mr. CURTIS. What I read was not
been disputed by members of that com- Father Keller's, book.
mittee or, any other committee tn. the Mr. SPARKMAN. It was a quotation
Senate. Is that not, correct? used in the book. 1 -1 Mr. SI'.EiRKMAN. No; I do not agree Mr. CURTIS. I was referring to what
to that statement. I am not sure the was said by Dimitri Manuilsky; and "the
Senator means just .what I. understood boast about their political warfare in
him to me n, ., 1930, wherein he said:
Mr. C L'IS. The Joint Chiefs of The bourgeoisie will have to be put to
Staff say there are military disadvan- sleep, so we shall: begin by launching the
tages to the treaty. 1%, most spectacular peace movement on record.
Mr. SPAIKMAN, yes; but each There will be electrifying overtures and
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff rec- unheard-of concessions. The capitalistic
pm mended ratification of the treaty. countries-stupid and decadent-will rejoice
to cooperate in their own destruction. They
'M17, CUJRTIS. I.1;now that. . will leap at another chance to be friends.
Mr. SPARKMAN. Each one of them As soon as their guard is down, we shall
did so because they all took into con- smash them with our clenched fists
.
sideration the other factors which they Mr. SPARKMAN. I am familiar with Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I
said ought to be taken into considera- that quotation, ask unanimous consent to have printed
tion. Mr. CURTIS. It was a Russian who in the RECORD at this point the portion
Mr. CURTIS. If the Senator will read said that, of General LeMay's testimony to which
their entire testimony,- they admit that Mr. SPARKMAN. I knew that. I the Senator from Nebraska has referred.
the treat - said the quotation was contained in There being no objection, the excerpt
. Mr. SPARKMAN. I was present and Father Keller's book. was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
-heard it. I did not, have to read it. I Mr. CURTIS. Does that invalidate it? as follows:
sat in committee and heard it. I heard Mr. SPARKMAN. I thought it might General LeMay stated:
It in open session, and later I heard it in be interesting. "But the net result is that there are
secret sessioh military and technical disadvantages to the
seret CURTIS. Let the record speak Mr. CURTIS. Father Keller's book is treaty. An of the Joint Chiefs agreed on
for itself, a devotional book. I did not intend to this point.
eiiter Into a denominational discussion. "However, there are
Mr. SPARK MAN. Yes. The Supreme Court might enjoin us the treittre advantages
Mr. GUIi,TIS. I Challenge the Senator . I that may accrue fromthe aty. This is
to show me ,a speech made in this de- could have obtained the Dimitri Manu- a field that I don't consider myself an ex-
bate in which, point by point, a Senator ilsky quotation from another book, but pert in, and I have depended to a large
has undertaken Which, to disprove the Senator happened to have this one on my desk. extent on the advice of others."
has athe dt gs Mr. SPARKMAN. I thought the General LeMay stated that he and the
ennis subcommittee concerning motto of the Christophers, for whom other Chiefs had been briefed on the polio-
the treaty. Father Keller writes, should be placed in cal, or nonmilitary considerations, by both
. S KMAN. I am not tryin to Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Under-
t 0 that. g the RECORD: Secretary Harriman,
It is" better to light a candle than to curse General LeMay was interrogated further
Mr. CURTIS. It has not hnnn Anna +i.-
Approved For Release 2004/03/11':-CIA-RDP65W383R0;0,1110f; 21 3008-2;
a x
Those are the political questions on
which the Chiefs based their decision.
According to their own words, they are
willing to take the military risks in order
to achieve two political gains, namely, the
gain of stabilization of international re-
lations and the move toward a peaceful
environment.
I ask the distinguished Senator
whether he feels that the treaty will
bring about a stabilization of interna-
tional relations.
Mr. CURTIS. Definitely not. The
Chiefs of Staff warned against eupho-
ria-against complacency. I wish the
Senator would read into the RECORD at
this point his words of yesterday when
he quoted General LeMay as to what
his instructions were as to considering
factors other than the military merits.
Mr. THURMOND. The other point
that was mentioned in the statement of
General Taylor on behalf of the joint
Chiefs of Staff was:
A move toward a peaceful environment in
which to seek a resolution of our differences.
Does the Senator feel the treaty would
bring about a peaceful environment, or
may it not be a step toward disarma-
ment, which in the end could lead us into
war, instead of peace?
Mr. CURTIS. If I thought the treaty
was a move for peace, I would support it.
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
16520 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD,- SENATE September 18
of West Virginia, who posed the following risk our national survival and our inde- cea, marking a solution to the cold war.
question: pendence if we agree to abide by a treaty The vast ideological gulf separating East
"You have indicated, General LeMay,, that of this natures from West has not closed; the cold war
the Joint Chiefs of Staff were not to confine Mr. CURTIS. That is true. In the has not ended for all times; the world,
purely the military course of the hearings I asked the Secre- to quote the words of one of our heralded
their before us~on thisbasis connection
considerations, but that political considera- tary of State if the treaty had strength- predecessors, is not yet "safe for democ-
tions were also to be thought about. erred the hand of Khnishchev with his racy." But, we face the future with re-
"Is this normal, General LeMay, or has it own people. I did not get a direct reply. newed hope, knowing that peaceful
been the practice in the past for the Joint He said, "The treaty is popular all over." methods are pcssible to lessen tensions.
Chiefs of Staff to attempt to as?ess political The fact is that it has strengthened and to ameliorate conflicts without a
conslderatibnsin reaching their judgments?" the influence of Khrushchev in this coun- concomitant loss of status and/or
-General LeMay responded: it certainly has been true since Presi- try, back home in my State of Nebraska, strength vis-a-vis the Communist bloc
dent Kennedy came into office, because this and everywhere else. He has partly ac- nations.
is one of the first things that they told the coirnplished his mission of disarming the Many observers have noted since the
Joint Chiefs they expected them to do. They Amarican people. There is not one iota signing of the tast ban accord that it, in
expected them to put the political factors of evidence that the Communists have fact, accomplishes little which the volu.n-
in at their level. changed their goal or that Gromyko is tary moratorium did not--that is, we
"They told us this verbally many times. any more truthful now than when he was have signed an agreement banning
Actually, I think we have a note in writing the White House deceiving our Presi-
on the subject, the Joint Chiefs." space, atmospheric, and underwater
Quite obviously, therefore, the testimony dent a year ago. testing.
of the Joint Chiefs does not conflict with Mr. LONG of Louisiana. The treaty The most controversial aspect of the
the findings of the Preparedness Subcom- has been described as one of a number armaments race remains unchecked; no
mittee. The Joint Chiefs were instructed. of steps. It may well prove to be about regulation of underground nuclear test-
to consider the political considerations, the only step that will be necessary to ifs- ing has been attempted.
which they were given by Mr. Flusk and Mr. sure Soviet superiority. Is that correct?
Harriman, and this is the basis for their Nil.. CURTIS. It might be the one Despite the fact that complete and
support of the ratification of the treaty. step that we can refrain from taking. unanimous agreement has not been
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. Mr. Presi- The other steps will be harder to resist. reached on all facets of banning nuclear
dent, will the Senator yield?' Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I thank the testing, that we have reached an accord
Mr. CURTIS, I yield. Senator. on any portion of this whole, compli-
Mr. LONG of Louisiana. I agree with ORDER FOR ADJOURNMENT UNTIL 10 A.M. cated problem--a problem which poten-
the Senator that there is no reason to TOMORROW tially could spell doom for the human
believe that this Nation would be advan- Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I race--indicates progress. That we have
taged by trusting the Soviet Union and ask unanimous consent that when the not yet gone the whole way and com-
the leaders of that country to keep their pletely erased the threat of nuclear war
word. A great number of individuals Senate adjourns today, it adjourn to meet and weapons is not the primary issue.
and nations making that mistake found at 10 a.m. tomorrow. We are moving toward our goal of last-
that their decision led to their own ex- The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without ing peace and, simultaneously, protect-
tinction. objection, it is so ordered. ing our own self-interest.
Is it not true that the best-information ORDER OF BUSINESS The present treaty, despite its ob-
the Senator can find indicates that the Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, for vious limitation, is significant on several
treaty would be an advantage to the the information of the Senate, it is hoped counts. A step has been made toward
Soviet Union from a military point of that all senators who desire to speak on the gradual tapering off of the pace of
view, as compared with the Lfiiited States, the pending partial test ban treaty will the arms race. This is important.
even assuming that the Soviet Union come to the Chamber tomorrow and Fri- History shows that all arms races have
does abide by the treaty? - day, prepared to remain until late. If ended in war. If and when an agree-
Mr. CURTIS. That is the unques- there are no requests for speeches to be ment is made to ban nuclear testing un-
tioned testimony of every 'military au- made on Saturday, it is anticipated by derground, the nuclear arms race should
thority who appeared in, any of the hear- the leadership that there will be no come to a halt.
ngs. It is supported by the Senatorfrom Saturday session. There has been much speculation
Mississippi (Mr. S. TENNIS] In his report. Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. President, about the Soviet Union's motives in ne-
It Is supported by the Senator from the Senate has before it today a treaty ababoutith a nuclear ts bon treaty a Mississippi in his speech. It Is supported which may prove to be a small step to- this time, after 5 years of mocking alt
by the distinguished soldier, the Senator ward a world free from the scourge of - attempts to devise a osmula acceptable
from South Carolina (Mr. THURMOND]. war. If this treaty is not approved, it to both East; and West. Many people
It is supported by the Senator . from may be many years before the people of
the world will have another opportunity feel that we are witnessing a change in
Georgia [Mr. RUSSELL]. to begin this journey. In fact, though Soviet policy--peaceful coexistence with
I said earlier in my speech that 40 Sec- it is hard to face this reality, we may an accompanying lessening of tensions
retaries of Defense or of the separate now be considering the last opportunity is a sincere goal of the Khrushchev
branches of the service have come and government. Others see the Soviet will-
for civilization to start this journey.
gone 'since Senator RUSSELL served on Because the results of the Senate's ingness to conclude a treaty as an effort
o all to throw the West off balance. These
the Armed Services Committee or the decision may be so consequential to'
predecessor committee. mankind both living and yet to be born, critics argue that we will suffer from a
It is not a matter of my opinion. It is it is essential that the most careful false sense of security and as a result
.generally accepted and not disputed that thought be given to the promises and curtail our own nuclear exploration to
the military advantages are in favor of possible pitfalls of the treaty. the benefit Of the Communists. They
the Soviet Union. This I have done. Last Friday, I predict that Western military power will
Mr. ,LONG of Louisiana. The Senator spoke before the Third Baptist Church diminish in relation to that of the Com-
has spelled out the fact that as a part of Men's Study Group in St. Louis, Mo., on munists.
the Communist doctrine, from the Soviet the subject of the treaty and presented The Joint Chiefs of Staff and other
point of view, it is a laudable thing for m;r reasons for supporting ratification. military and scientific experts have ex-
them to deceive, defraud, and mislead I ask unanimous consent that my state- pressed assurances that militarily the
other nations, particularly the capitalist ment be printed in the RECORD at the treaty is sound. It does not, in their
nations of the world. Recognizing that conclusion of my remarks. considered opinions, put this country in
fact, and, in addition, the fact that they There being no objection, the state- a disadvantageous position. Further, the
are obtaining a military advantage from ment was ordered to be printed in the President has assured us that under-
the treaty itself, and thus will have the RECORD. ground testing will be vigorously and dili-
ability to consummate their perfidious (See exhibit 1.) gently carried forward and that we will
acts, I ask the Senator if that does not Mr. LONG of Missouri. Mr. Presi- maintain a position of readiness to re-
add up to the conclusion that we might dent, this treaty is not a coveted pana- sume testing in the other environments
Approved For-Release 2004/03/11: CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 z v~ , (UlN CGESSIONA L .R >-SA' .,
if- there is a violation of the. j r ty by against the treaty itself. I have arrived at
the Soviet Union. a conclusion on the miltTc, but it isnQt.my
Already more than 90 nations in the purpose to make any attempt at persuasion
international community have signed the here tonight. I have reached a judgment
treaty. An irresponsible rejection of the to support ratification, and I want you to
treaty would damage the ZJ,S,,, p~lSittOe know how I have arrived at that conclusion.
First, let me make it clear that while my
as a World leader dedicated to peace. support for ratification of the treaty is un-
Finally, and this in and of itself is qualified, it does. not. stem from any notion
sufficient Season for consenting to the that entering into the compact doesn't in-
treaty, with the cessation of atmospheric volve risk. There are risks-and it is im-
and space tests, radioactive fallout will portant that we recognize this reality. But
become ,less of aproblem. ,This is an what great achievement does not involve
chance and uncertainty?
especially important factor to. the citi -. Wasn't there great risk in the pioneering
zeris of Missgur ,for we have . Qne. f the of our beloved country, risks that had to be
highest Strontium 90 counts in the_coun- taken in order t9. forge this great Nation
try. Our health and that of our children from a vast and uncharted wilderness? Yet,
must be taken_lrito account when con- men did not turn their backs on the venture
idering this treaty. Most authorities because of them, and as a result America
ea,relationship exists between cer-
believ Haven't all great discoveries of man, in
tain types of Cancer and the Strilntium exploration, in science, in medicine required
90 count in the atmosphere. If ethis is assumption of risks-grave risks? But this
true, we cannot- justify-to ourselves or fact alone has not swayed man from the
future generations-our not adhering to course that has led to knowledge and un-
this agreement.. Moreover, the risk of derstanding of our environment, alleviation
radiation-induced mutations and genetic of suffering, cure of disease-and a greatly
deformities must be taken into account, advanced civilization.
Isn't our space program-exploring the
As I said earlier, this treaty does not unknown mysteries of the universe-de-
signal the termination of the cold war. mantling from our modern day pioneers
Commuxiist ideology and Western beliefs awesome risks and, dangers? But because
still are polar. An, ideological difference, men and women are willing to carry on this
however,. does not mean that one side work, knowing there are risks and coping
must destroy the other, We have man- with them intelligently, world security in-
aaged to find, one area of mutual agree- creases, and man is likely on the may lead of fantastic discoveries that may lead to
meat. Perhaps others exist, If so, we solutions of many age old problems.
may find them. Isn't there .a definite -element of risk in
All of our problems are not over, we every business venture-every investment-
cannot expect utopian conditions. How- every new business opening-every factory
ever, we cin'be,justly proud and happy expansion? But because men recognize
them, assume them and deal with them in
that a constructive attempt is being sound calculation our business and Indus-
made to deal with one of mankind's most trial economy thrives.
perplexing difficulties. Doesn't every family venture, whether it
It is for these reasons that I support is a home purchase, or selection of a college
the test ban treaty. In so doing, I am for a son or daughter involve risks? If
cognizant that .dangers and difficulties risk alone caused us o abandon family
aspirations, democracy y and self-determina-
are inherent in the situation: tion would have failed miserably long ago.
The treaty is a true test of our..Na- If we find that every phase of life has its
tion's courage. It would be far easier to dangers and its risks, and certainly they
adhere to the status quo and continue have, would it be reasonable to shun what
our daily lives with the false security could well be the first opportunity of man
offered by unlimited nuclear develop- ent peace, eo ace his greatest earthly goal, r of
meat. But, this was not the way of our because It involves a d a egreee e of
uncertainty?
forefathers and , it, is not the way of Since the dawn of human creation, man
Amerleal s today. We have the courage, has reached for this goal. Today we have
the will, and tthe means to seek a lasting a chance to take the first small step in that
and' responsible , peace. If this venture direction. Although it is only a first step-
toward the realization of . mankind's and only a small one, to be sure-if we let
fondest., dream fail, it must not be be- it pass us by, who can tell how many genera-
tions of the future may come and go before
cause we refused to give it a chance, there is another such opportunit
to mak
y
e
Let us take this, first small step with a breakthrough. In fact, considering to-
full realization of all it entails but let us day's capacity for destruction, man may
take it enthusastically. never again have such an opportunity. I
Ekxparr believe our duty to God and to our Chris-
TxE TEST BAN TUFATo Paocaa;ss og.llAOR,x,s? flan philosophy demands that we look at
this opportunity realistically, and make every
(A
ddre
b
n a
ss
y the Honorable EDWARD V. effort to see it bear the fruit of peace and
LoNCs, V.S, Senator from.Missouri, before security.
the Third Baptist., Church Men's Study Sometimes I get the feeling that perhaps
Group, St. Louis, o., Sept. 13, 1963) there has been so much talk about the many
Gentlemen, you have invited me to dis- risks involved in the treaty, that we can
cuss with you the question of the proposed tend to lose sight of the very real fact that
nuclear test ban treaty-the 1,500-word
document, signed August 5 by the United
States, the United Kingdom, and the Soviet
Union w of , is now, being debated in the
? ,, S', i)te,, , appreciate the opportunity
to explore the many faceted agreement with
you-men who I know full well share my
hope for a world at peace, not at war-a
world in, which man, as a creature in the
image and likeness, of God, lives in keeping
with all at is inherent in his nature, with
the freedom and dignity the Creator in-
1652,x,
(c) An increasing risk of radioactive con-
tamination of the atmosphere. I am con-
vinced that the treaty constitutes a small
beginning in reducing the first two of these
risks, and will dramatically reduce the third.
With the treaty, those risks are overcome,
but new ones take their place. They are:
(a) Secret testing by the Soviets; and
(b) Secret preparations to resume testing
by the Soviets, and their sudden, large-scale
treaty violations.
I am convinced that the treaty, and U.S.
policies developed under it, will reduce
these risks so that either course of action by
the Soviet Union will not be a threat to our
security.
In balance, the reasonable possibilities that
our acceptance of the treaty may usher in
a new era in which man is serving man in-
stead of trying to dominate and destroy him
are so great, that if we don't act with ad-
vised courage, our hesitance and failure could
be the greatest step away from peace that
man has ever taken.
An old Army axiom has it that a good
soldier never polishes the backs of his shoes
because no one will ever see him in retreat.
I pray God that it can never be said that
this country was seen in retreat from the
frontiers of peace.
What is this treaty? What does it do?
What does it not do?
The treaty, a simple and clearly written
document, prohibits nuclear testing in the
atmosphere, in space, and underwater.
Underground testing is permitted so long as
there is no radioactive fallout beyond the
boundaries of the testing country. Those
are the only things the treaty does.
It does not prohibit the production of nu-
clear weapons-nor the means of delivering
such weapons.
It does not restrict the use of nuclear weap-
ons in the event of war.
It does not require that the United States
give diplomatic or other official recognition
to any country not presently recognized.
It does not bind the United States to any
further agreements or negotiations regarding
further disarmament.
And the treaty does not commit the United
States to any negotiations or settlement of
political issues, despite the attempts of the
Soviet Union to tie the treaty to a nonaggres-
sion pact with the Warsaw treaty nations.
Going further into the advantages and dis-
advantages as I have listed them, let us con-
sider them one by one.
With reduction of the arms race, we will
be taking the first step toward eventual
arms control-a goal we have been seeking
ever since we first realized what a massive
destructive power we had in our hands when
we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and
Nagasaki-small and crude weapons in the
light of today's standards.
The allout, uncontrolled, increase, and
multiplication of destructive might has not
increased our national security. Since the
-dawn of the nuclear age in the closing days
of World War II, our adversaries have been
constantly close at our heels-each of us
forcing the other toward-even beyond-the
point where one's capability would so far out-
strip the other's that he would draw back
in horror. But instead we have both long since
reached the stage of development where fur-
our present situation-where there is no _ther increases in power of our weapons make
limitation on testing, itself involves a num- little, if any real contribution to our capa-
ber of very serious risks. It would be logical bility. By President Kennedy's own estimate,
to weigh these risks, and see how they strike both of us are fully capable of destroying
a balance, if in fact they do. upward of 300 million human beings in only
Without a test ban the risks are: 1 hour. Having reached the "point of dimin-
(a) A continued intensified and unre- ishing returns" in destructive power, the
stricted arms race between the United States United States has, in recent years, concen-
and the U.S.S.R. History has made it clear trated primarily on deliverability of weap-
that all arms races have led to war. ons, proceeding on the assumption-and I
(b) A continued and increasing risk of think a valid one-that accuracy and de-
further spread of nuclear weapons among the pendability at this point far outweigh sheer
Approved For Release-2004/03/11 :CIA-RDP'65R00383R000100210008.2
 16522
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE eptember 18
to have printed in the RECORD at this
point a statement prepared by him re-
lating to the proposed nuclear test ban
treaty.
There being no objection, the state-
ment was ordered to be printed in the
RECORD, as follows:
STATEMENT BY SENATOR MCGEE
The debate on ratification of the nuclear
test ban treaty ha3 caught the interest of the
Nation, and we are indeed in the spotlight
of public attention and concern. I have re-
ceived many, many letters from Wyoming
concerning various points in the treaty and
its effects upon this Nation if ratified. There-
fore, I thought it would be appropriate if
I approached this question in response to
those inquiries.
The first thing that must be understood
is that a Wyomiing approach to the problem
of the cessation of nuclear testing Is no
different from the approach of a resident of
any other of the 50 States. For Wyoming,
although it is far from either ocean and
unique in many aspects of her way of life,
is on the front lines in any potential nuclear
war. In our missile bases at Cheyenne, the
largest missile complex In the world, and our
oil industry centered about Casper, we have
completely suitable targets for nuclear deva-
station. And we neighbor a State in which
the levels of radioactive materials have
reached such quantities as to be of real con-
cern to public health officials, and, it goes
without saying, 1;o the mothers of growing
children. Our stakes in this matter are as
vital as those of any other American.
While Wyoming's interests in this treaty
are identical to the rest of the Nation's, I
think that it is proper and illuminating to
draw some parallels in the development of
Wyoming and the West and the tenor of
the reservations expressed against the test
ban treaty.
To agree to this treaty, according to its
critics, would be to take unjustified risks
with the future of the Nation because we
cannot be positively certain that the Soviet
Union will not at some future date break the
agreement. It is also said that this treaty,
once ratified, wi:.l immediately lull us into
a soporific attitude of national negligence
from which we shall awake to find ourselves
in chains. Thera critics say that as a pre-
clude to any treaty we should insist that
the Russians agree to dismantle the Iron
Curtain, and present us with ironclad evi-
dence of their sincerity in this matter and
their withdrawal from the cold war.
If the pioneers, who settled Wyoming had
Insisted upon equivalent guarantees before
they started on their -westward journey
none would have ever passed the Mississippi.
The thing that separated these pioneers
from the rest of the population is the very
fact that they were willing to take calculated
risks In order to create a better life for
themselves.
These resolute Americans had no illusions
about finding a:iy Garden of Eden in the
American West. They required no iron-
bound assurances that the Indian popula-
tion would immediately abandon all hostile
attitudes and they did not ask as a prere-
quisite to that journey that all questions
of land ownership and rights be settled in
their favor.
While our forefathers were perfectly will-
ing to accept this risk, I do not Imply that
they were unmindful of the dangers In-
volved or Ignored the risks of their journey
and new way Of life. Quite to the contrary,
they took every reasonable precaution to as-
sure success in their journey and in the
establishment of a new life in the new land.
These precautions took the form of well-de-
fended wagon t?ains, scouts, and lookouts,
and the maintenance of adequate supplies
and lines of communication.
More than 90 nations have now become sig-
natories to the treaty-binding themselves
to the compact that blocks the flow of nu-
clear weapons and information to them.
By limiting further spread of nuclear capa-
bility to presently nonnuclear countries, the
risk that a nuclear .weapon would be acci-
dentally detonated is significantly reduced,
in turn lessening the danger of a local con-
flict escalating from conventional to nuclear.
An escalated conflict would almost certainly
place the United States and the Soviet Union
in direct confrontation.
It is hopefully expected that within a
short time all the nations of the world, save
Communist China and France, will have
bound themselves to the agreement. World
opinion moves toward greater crystalization
against atmospheric contamination from
testing. That leaves underground testing
the only availabl% alternative-a far more
expensive and time-consuming process.
Some treaty opponents have all but dis-
counted the value of eliminating the con-
tinuing risks of rising pollution from test-
ing. Granted, to the best of our present
knowledge, the dangers from fallout are
slight. But even the slightest risk-when
it is, unnecessary, and avoidable, is a fool-
hardy undertaking. As the President said
in his July 26 nationwide speech "this is not
a natural health hazard-and it is not ' a
statistical issue," No one is able to-say now
what physical damage increasing fallout
levels might precipitate. No one is able to
say now what mutations might occur in
future generations-mutations brought
about by high fallout levels. But all agree
there is a risk-the only disagreement being
as tt how great it is.
I am sure that no one hails this treaty
as an absolute guarantee that all the in-
tended purposes will be faithfully fulfilled
by all the parties. Much debate has centered
around the record of the Soviet Union-one
that is strewn with broken agreements, vio-
lated treaties, and soon-forgotten "under-
standings." Those who argue that "Russia
can't be trusted" do so from valid ground.
We can't trust them to keep the agreement,
left solely to their own devices. But this
treaty is not based on trust; it is not based
on .Confidence; it is not based on any no-
tionthat there has been an overnight rever-
sal of Communist aims or methodology..
Iiistead,'we Will be constantly monitoring
the Soviet Union with instruments-for de-
tecting nuclear weapons tests which have
been developed over the past several years
to know what progress was made by the
Soviets. Listening devices; seismic instru-
ments to'detect earth tremors; detecting of
radio signals from the radiation that accom-
panits nuclear explosions-as Well as flights
and surveillance around the perimeters of
the Soviet Union to gather samples of dust
and clouds to be tested for radioactive de-
bris., The Joint Chiefs of Staff have urged-
and the administration has assured-that
our current detection system will be ex-
panded and improved, through satellitiesto
detect outer space tests and other means.
With a detection system such as this, any
While we can do little to inspect for and
detect such preparations, the President has
made it clear that our testing facilities Will,
be kept "at the ready"-fully capable of an
immediate resumption of presently treaty-
banned testing if that course of action would
be necessary to preserve our present definite
supe:riority. Also minimizing the risks in-
volved in sudden Soviet treaty abrogation
will be continuation of underground tesits,
which the scientific community agrees al-
most unanimously will maintain our present
lead in overall nuclear capability.
Balancing the risks, and approaching the
treaty with a realistic outlook as to ,the
the agreement Itself and the past perform-
ances of the Soviet Union our overall na-
tional security will increase. Already pos-
sessing a nuclear force described by Secretary
McNamara as "manifestly superior," a point
which has not been contradicted by any re-
sponsible or knowledgeable testimony or
evidence, the United States does nob; need
further atmospheric tests to:
(1) Insure that our weapons systems will
survive a Soviet attack and penetrate Soviet
defenses; or
(2) To develop and depoly an antimissile
defense.
Further-the United States long ago made
a firm decision not to pursue attempts to de-
velop an extremely high-yield weapon. We
have instead centered our program around
strengthening our defenses and increasing
the tactical effectiveness--the deliver-
abili.ty-of our nuclear striking power. Test-
ing in the atmosphere is not an essential
part of that program.
The treaty, I believe, represents an op-
portunity to take the first step in the di-
rection of peace. It is only the beginning
of a long, slow and precarious journey. But
the real task of reaching the ultimate goal
lies in the future. As I see it, the task is
threefold-and each step equally important
as the others.
First, we must maintain all necessary safe-
guards to keep the United States strong
in our defenses; to protect against the danger
of surprise abrogation; and to continue our
efforts against the spread of Communist
aggression. If we fail this, the treaty may
fulfill the worst fears of its opponents, and
instead of moving us toward peace, move
us toward war. I am convinced that this
Nation is committed to and determined to
carry out this first task.
Second, we must keep exploring for fur-
ther steps toward peace; toward further
agreements which can be adequately po-
liced; toward further measures which can
strengthen international law and interna-
tional security. If we fail this, the treaty
will lead only to an isolated signpost on a
dead end road. I am convinced that the
treaty will In no way alter the course of
U.S. policy of an unrelenting search for
permanent peace, but will in fact, bolster
our efforts in that direction.
Third, we must reorient our thinking.
While it will be necessary to `continue the
development of our nuclear strength, we
must bring to an end our concentrated pur-
cheating on the test ban would have only suit; of nuclear strength as an end in itself.
the most remote chance of going undetected. If -the allout, unlimited arms race of the
With a detection system such as this. the
United States has -concluded, according to
Secretary McNamara, that "the Soviet Union
could obtain no major results by testing in
the` atmosphere and deep space or under-
last decade is merely transformed into an
allout, underground arms race, then the
main thrust-the main promise-of the
treaty will be lost. We must learn to live
with the idea that mankind may at ]cast
,tection and identification."
In addition to the risk of Soviet testing
on the sly, there is also the recognized risk
that instead of attempting prohibited tests
clandestinely they would make preparations
for a rpassive test series, and then, in a sur-
riae rhove suddenl abr ate or nullif
p y
y
I., we persevere in these tasks with the
same Intensity that we used in bringing
about this treaty, we have every valid. reason
to hope that we have Indeed taken the first,
though admittedly small, step toward peace.
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, on
the treaty and resume testing. On the basis
of experience with the 19Ti8-6l moratorium behalf of the Senator from Wyoming
we must be prepared for this occurrence. [Mr. McGEE7, I ask unanimous consent
Approved For Release 2004/03111 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 x,Approved Fpi Release 2004/ 31:1 CIA-;RQQf 0383R00O10021 O008-2
1963 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE 16523
'
Above and beyond all
these, material Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I clear knowledge, in a state of steady im-
things, these pioneers had the essential in- have now arrived at a decision on the provement. And, further, I rely on the
gredient for success-faith in their own
ability proposed nuclear test ban treaty. In President's clear assurance that we will
that latie to meet
aheadeet. and They surmount kneewthaat t hostile ilen In n- doing so, I have carefully reviewed the instantly act to protect our security, if
knew ,that
or, the adversities of weather might hearings and committee reports on the and when the Soviet Union is detected
make life extremely difficult, but they be- test ban treaty. I have read and listened violating the treaty.
lievei that they could adjust to those dif- to the debate in the Senate Chamber. Most important of all, I will vote for
ficulties and conquer them. And I have had a chance to interrogate the treaty because of a point made by the
And so piust we have the determination to supporters of the treaty on the floor of brilliant opponent of the treaty, Dr. Ed-
accept the challenge of this treaty. Cer- the Senate on some of the military im- ward Teller, in his masterly attack on it.
tainly, there are risks involved and certainly
there Is required eternal vigilance. But plications of the treaty that troubled me Dr. Teller argued that this treaty fun-
these were normal conditions on the Ironxier the most. damentaly- serves not to stop the phy-
and they are, unfortunately, normal condi- The way, the treaty has been handled sical production of the arms race, or the
tions in the cold war, ' is a great credit to the U.S. Senate. I deployment of devastating nuclear weap-
As Others have said, this treaty is no giant say this as one whose duties did not ons. This treaty strikes at the crux-
stride toward peace. and tranquility. But it bring him into special responsibility with the fount of military power: the oppor-
Is a, small step in the right direction, an regard to the treaty. I do not serve on tunity to push back the frontiers of
opportunity to set a more favorable course any of the committees that have compe- knowledge about nuclear explosions in
toward the ultimate goals of peace and na-
tional ,security. I am convinced that we dare tence on any phase of this treaty. So I the atmosphere. This treaty will pre-
rnot.ignore this chance. We cannot leave can appraise with some perspective the vent us from discovering truth: the truth
for our descendants a ,legacy of doubt and manner in which this treaty has been about the prospects for nuclear weap-
obstinacy in response to opportunity. We handled. onry in the atmosphere.
cannot,forever refuse to face the challenge The Committee on Foreign Relations Mr. President, John Stuart Mill wrote means of a lamgng eanseto reach the ultimate goal has discharged its prime responsibility of the sacredness of truth in his essay
brilliantly. Statements made to the "On Liberty," the greatest political essay
I believe that this treaty offers a chance to
make a lasting peace-not in the treaty itself committee by the Nation's most compe- ever composed in the English language.
or in the events in the next b years, but pos- tent and responsible experts and the Few men in history have ever had a more
sibly in the next generation. And it is a committee's comprehensive interrogation complete reverence for truth than Mill;
chance that is consistent with the nmainte- of these experts represent a model of and yet, in this greatest defense in the
nance of our national security.'
searching scrutiny. Any Senator unin- English language of mankind's right to
The treaty would not substantially change formed on this treaty after these hear- seek the truth and to speak the truth,
our nuclear position vis-a-vis the Russians
for it would preserve a status quo that in ings can only be uninformed because he Mill recognized a fundamental reality
total finds Vs maintaining a superior posi- failed to read them. about the truth: that mankind in fact
tion. The unique participation in these often has turned away from knowledge
The treaty- would not bind our hands in hearings by members of the Atomic En- and truth. He did so in the execution
time of war or in case of a surprise violation ergy Committee and the Armed Services of Socrates and the crucifixion of Christ.
of the treaty by, the Soviets. in either case, Committee served the happy purpose of Repeatedly throughout history truth has
the treaty becomes an immediate dead letter, bringing the special knowledge of these been crushed and buried, to rise, if ever,
The treaty is not based on any unwar- members in the militar ages later.
ranted trust of the Soviet Union's good in- y and scientific
tentions nor, is it the first step in a national implications into focus on the treaty. But what this treaty begins to do in its
self-delusion that will reduce our desire to Unlike some able Members of this small, halting, limited way is not to force
protect our Nation and way of life. If we body, I believe that the Senate Prepared- the truth-speakers to their death, not to
are to commit suicide or sell the Nation down ness Subcommittee of the Armed Serv- suppress truth or to smother truth, but
the river, no-treaty can prevent it or cause it. ices Committee performed a very impres- to channel the brilliant and precious
If our national leaders and our Military Es- sive and useful service b holding and limited scientific knowledge that we
lessons of almost a score of cold war years, hearings on the treaty and issuing its have in this world a little-and only a
there is little hope for us now. own highly critical report on the treaty. little-away from the search after the
What the treaty is, then, is a chance, a Frankly, this report gave me a further truths about the more efficient destruc-
small chance; to improve the outlook for hu-. very important insight into the military tion of mankind and, I hope-by im-
man survival to wage the battle for human consequences of the treaty which i plication at least-toward the vast unex-
freedom and the democratic way of life on would have otherwise missed. plored areas of ignorance that engulf us.
dines less sanguinary than the nuclear battle-
Selo and to eliminate the Debate on the floor on this treaty has we live in an ocean of ignorance about
of nuclear fallout What we do uncharted unch here will be been the most enlightening and helpful our own world, and, of course, the uni-
weighed dangers weighed on the scales of history. I am con- that has been heard in this body in a verse. We live on a tiny island of knowl-
ftdent that we will not be found wanting. long time. Senators have, not merely edge. We can magnify our knowledge
Tiny as the immediate material impact of delivered "canned" speeches. For days a thousandfold-yes, a millionfold-and
this treaty will be at the outset, it is none- they have submitted to interrogation still our ignorance of God's plan is
theless bigger than all of us here-in fact that has emphasized and re-emphasized pathetically large.
bigger than life itself. It rides the wave of the critical problems involved in the What a travesty on man's wisdom that,
the history noof our t the inevitability oresus treaty. Some of the questioning has beset by this unending challenge to find
nothing i of change -
the kind been repetitive, but even that has been the truth, we impose immense taxes on
no man heieis s wise change and enough in to which foretell. But
But useful in hammering home the answers our people to focus the precious scientific
the conscience of that history hangs heavily to the most troublesome questions. energy and ability we do have to peer
over the heads of the Members or this. body Mr. President, I will vote for the treaty. into the one limited microscope of self-
at this moment. ,No:man here can pretend In doing so I recognize that we cannot, destruction to discover more and more
-to know what tomorrow holds. Nor can any and in this treaty do not, trust the So- and more and more about how we can
one of us, be so absurd as to assume an viet Union to keep its part of the bargain more efficiently wipe out mankind on
omniscience, denied. us by the Lord. Yet on faith.
there are those who want to be certain, who earth. One would think that this is the
want to be sure. Unfortunately, we can't I rely on the assurance of the most only kind of knowledge that remained
wait until-to-morrow-in order to make our competent military and scientific brains to challenge our abilities.
judgments in hindsight. Tomorrow has to in and out of our Government that we I hope and pray that this limitation on
be taken on faith today. can detect any Russian atmospheric nu- the channeling of our scientific energies
what the treaty does for us, then, is win clear tests that could give them a signifi- in the field of destruction will permit
a .chance-albeit a small chance-to bring cant advantage by violating the treaty. these magnificent scientific intellects to
peace to mankind, The price we have al-
I rely oh the
assu
ready
rance of the Presi- work in the positive areas of making it
paid for that chance through two
world was ought to haunt us every night. dent that we will take full advantage of possible to live longer and better and
What we with it on this occasion the fu-
our rights under the treaty to keep our happier and more constructive lives and
ture generations now looking over our shoul- nuclear defense, including our retalia- not to bring quicker and more devastat-
d.......
tor
A-4- ...,....a
derc alnna will stand l,. j
u
ent
t'
Approved For Release 2004/03111 CIA-RDP65BO0383RO00100210008=2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP`65B00383R000100210008-2
16524 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE September 18
No one can study the hearings and re- sharply -diminished-faith that the I am satisfied that the treaty does not
ports and debates on the treaty without Soviet Union will not blunder uninten- inhibit our use cf nuclear weapons in the
developing serious misgivings. The tionally into war. But when we multi- defense of our country.
treaty does indeed involve risks of sudden ply this knowledge by 10 or 20'nations I am satisfied that the treaty does not
massive Russian violation that might the chances of accident become, over prohibit cooperation with our allies in
give the Russians an advantage. I admit time, close to a sure thing. every way needed to improve their de-
that. Here is the risk this treaty would fense, including the realization of a
But the treaty also begins a small, help--a little-but help begin to prevent. multilateral nuclear force with our
gradual, limited move toward limiting For many more reasons far too num- NATO allie^.
the nuclear knowledge that will certainly crous to mention, including especially the I am satisfied that the treaty cannot
destroy civilization if limitations are not sure evil of increasing fallout in the be amended without ratification by the
somehow forged. atmosphere, I support the treaty. And United States, which would necessarily
Of course, it is a weakness of the treaty I. do so in the fervent hope that it will require submission of the amendment to
that Red China and France are outside be a beginning toward the aims control the Senate, for its advice and consent
its agreement. But the governments of which will take years of patient, pains- to such ratification.
these countries as their current leaders taking effort to achieve and which, in the I am satisfied on these points because,
pass from the scene will be increasingly long run, is essential to the survwal of as a result oi? the debate generated by
pressured to limit their testing and their civilization on this planet. the proposed reservations, I am satisfied
nuclear advances, if not to adhere to the Mr. MUSKIE. Mr. President, the tak- that the clear end the reasonable mean-
treaty. ing of the vote on the question of Senate ing of the provisions of the treaty itself
The treaty will slow down the prolifer- approval of the nuclear test ban treaty supports the conclusions I have stated.
ation of knowledge. 'A nation that does will be a momentous occasion in the his- Therefore, I see no need for reserva-
not test is far more loath to pass the torn of the United States. Although the tions.
knowledge that is power-and death and treaty is a limited one, with limited ob- I am satisfied, further, that in the
destruction-over to any other sovereign jectives, it has serious and far-reaching area in which the treaty permits an in-
entity. With that knowledge nuclear implications for the future of this Nation crease of knowledge, including under-se of
k power
score could be within the capability of the world.
because of its implications, it edge will be pu sued to asagre at an ex--
in view of the geometric is imperative that we cast with care our tent as is needed for the safety of the
a at i s worse, nations.
What
escalation of nuclear knowledge based on votes on the question of approval of the Uniind Statesision of whether resolution
testing in the past 15 years, a simi- treaty.
lar escalation in the next few years could l: have read the treaty, the President's of the Cuban problem should be attached
make nuclear power a possibility for any messages, the committee reports, and the as a condition of ratification, I am satis-
sovereign nation, including Luxembourg various published analyses. I have re- fled that the result of attaching such. a
and Gabon. It is the development of viewed the testimony and the debate. condition would be destruction of the
nuclear knowledge that could make it My objective has been to test the treaty treaty, but without solving the Cuban such
a
would simple with very little equipment o dl and against the criticisms by its opponents, analyze it in the light of the argu- be, In effe t, to support a Policy that we
simple processing tocape- develop and ments to by its supporters. - should do nothing to resolve any one of
weapons s of f immense se destructive ?My hope is on the side of a peaceful our differences with the Soviet Union,
bfix'' and uncontaminated world; my concern unless we can resolve all our differences
i is the vgtnt of this treaty that it is on the side of the security and safety at one and the same time. I do not be-ns, be very ei and is to from m steer of our country; my.mind is focused on lieve that we can achieve such an end,
maanki nkind''s s scientific genius awr the logic of the arguments of both sides unless and until we are ready to make
thI knowled
that th. e to the dispute over the question of rati- a beginning.
say that the proliferation of nuclear fication. If the treaty merits our support, it
destructive power, the ownership of the It is clear that this issue is not one- does so on its own, without additions or.
capacity to kill tens of millions of people sided. Some express unqualified sup- subtractions? without our making it more
by fifty or even a 'hundred countries, port; others urge unqualified opposition. than it is or less than it appears to be.
would almost certainly in time mean the Some would require resolution of the If it is to be nullified, that should be
cataclysm, Armageddon for mankind. Cuban problem as a condition precedent with one stroke, on the issue of ratifica-
Many of the countries of the world to approval. Still others, although they tion.
are and will be dictatorships, often mill- applaude the objectives of the treaty, Should we approve this treaty or
tary dictatorships. Continuance of the believe its purposes could have been should we withhold our consent? That
spreading of nuclear knowledge means stated more clearly, that its application is the central issue; that is the question
than any one of these dictators in a fit to our security and defense requirements we must decide.
of desperation or folly or stupidity or could have been expressed more pre- I would not for a moment detract from
masochism or megalomania could kick cisely, that the application to this treaty the complicated issues surrounding the
off world destruction. This is what pro- of the Senate's constitutional duty to treaty. I would not suggest that the de-
liferation of knowledge means. approve treaties is ambiguous. cision for any one of us is a simple one.
And even if we assume that we have The proposed reservations and the But, however complicated, however awe-
seen the end of acts of great evil by arguments of those who advance them some the decision, it is our duty to face
men. In power=and how naive an as- have served useful purposes. They have the problem and to make the choice.
sumption-we cannot ignore the mathe- served to highlight the pertinent ques- As I have thoroughly examined the
matical certainty that with scores of tions bearing upon our security and de- arguments of the opponents, I find they
nations handling these nuclear weapons `fense requirements which the treaty lead back to two fundamental assump-
someone, somewhere, sometime, will set raises. They have served to broaden our tions: First, that we cannot afford to
one off over another country where it understanding of the effect of the treaty give up testing.in the atmosphere, under
will cause death and destruction, and on our national interests. The discus- water, or in outer space; and second,
then the capacity, of mankind to pull signs they have generated have resulted that in any event, we cannot trust the
back will be terribly tested. in definition and clarification of the Russians, and. that any treaty with them
In spite of books and motion pictures terms of the treaty as they relate to is an invitation to delusion and disaster.
to the contrary, i have faith that our the points raised by the reservations. The first question involves ,% judgment
Air Force has put the human and me- I am satisfied, as a result, that ratiflca- on the relative strength of the Soviets
chanical safeguards into effect that will tiion of the treaty will not mean recogni- and ourselves in nuclear weaponry, the
prevent an Air Force accident. But no tion of East Germany or other treaty improvements in weaponry which we
man no man-can ever be a thousand signers whose governments are not al- might gain from further testing in the
percent sure in any and all circum- ready recognized by our Government. three environments proscribed by the
stances. I have equal faith in our Navy I am "satisfied that we can withdraw treaty, the gains the Soviets might
and Army. I have similiar if less faith from the treaty immediately, in the event achieve from similar testing, the risks
in the United Kingdom's protections of a treaty violation by the Soviets, with- of clandestine enfallouttests, resulting from the hazards fu of
against accident, and some-though out a 90-day delay.
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
 ? tier testing, the dangers inherQnt'in an much to gain from curtailing the spread
escalating nuclear-arms race involving of nuclear testing and weapons to other
more nations, and the international po- nations. We know independent nations
litical advantages to be gained or lost cannot be controlled completely, even by
by such a treaty. The balance of such their allies. Khrushchev has learned
risks, the President has argued, favors this, much to his anguish and distress
.
ratification of the treaty. The abolition of all nuclear weapons
After reviewing the information, pro- tests would, it seems to me, be in the So-
vided by the Foreign Relations Commit- viets' interests as well as ours. This, I
tee and the Preparedness Subcommit- think, has been the reason for the grop-
tee, together with other documents and 14g efforts of both countries on the test
testimony, I agree with. the President on ban treaty issue over several years.
this point. We cannot assure absolute The trouble with total prohibition,
security in this world; we can only ap- however, is the loophole the Russians
proach it. sought through the refusal to allow on-
Neither course open to us-ratification site inspections of underground tests.
or nonratification=-can guarantee peace, Such a loophole would be in their best
security, and survival. interests, but not in ours. It would not
Having satisfied myself on the first have given us a clear opportunity to
question, I faced the second: Can we protect our interests in the event of a
trust the Russians-to honor the treaty? violation. The present treaty, however,
There are disagreements as to the num- does give us the opportunity to protect
ber of treaties the Soviets have honored ourselves. It offers no opportunity for
and the number of those they have abro- significant clandestine tests. We do not
gated. But whatever the detailed figures, rely on expressions of good faith; we
? the fact which remains is that they have rely on the technological facts which
honored some treaties, and have broken make. the limited agreements possible;
more, we rely on the determination of this Na-
In evaluating the treaty, we should, tion to keep its guard up, without panic,
therefore, assume the possibility of its without the aggressive stance which
violation by the Soviet Union. stems from fear.
Are we, then, inviting ourselves Into Mr. President, I shall vote for this
another Munich, as some opponents have treaty. I do so without reservations.
charged,, if we approve this treaty? Are I .do so, not because I expect it to bring
.all the arguments about the text of the the millenium, but because I believe the
treaty and its relative values if it were treaty is what the President says it is:
observed ,meaningless, because we cannot a way to "get back out from the shadows
trust the Russia s to keep a bargain or to of war and seek out the way of peace."
bargain in good faith? If the answers To do otherwise, it seems to me, would
to these questions are "yes," if we must be to reject the possibility of a rational
accept the proposition that it never pays relationship between ourselves and the
to enter into an agreement with the So-. Soviet Union, and to accept the inevita-
viets, then we must adopt a pessimistic, bility of force as the only conceivable
not to say hopeless, outlook on the future arbiter of our differences.
of the world. Under such a view, we are Are we more fearful of negotiation
doomed to a life of suspicion, with accel- than we are of nuclear war?
erated weapons research and testing, - Are we less confident of our ability to
hair trigger preparedness, and the ever- wage peace than we are of our ability
r
p
esent danger of instant, universal an- to wage war?
nihilation. Which course holds the greater prom-
I view with horror such a prospect. ise for peace, security, and survival-to
But in good conscience I must face it, agree in the circumstances we are con-
and I have. Having faced it, having real- sidering, or to disagree with the Soviet
ized its possibility, having examined the Union under all conceivable circum-
logic which leads to the abyss, I return to stances?
the question: Can we at no time, under It seems to me that the alternatives,
no circumstances, reach an agreement however stated, are clear. All of us, I
with the Russians on any major issue? am sure, have weighed them carefully,
I think we can, if the agreement is in impressed by their grave implications. I
the self-interest of each of us, and if we choose the course offered by the treaty,
are In a position to protect our interests in the hope and belief that it holds the
if the agreement.is broken. greater promise for the future. of man-
I believe it would be in our interests kind,
and In the Interests of the Russians to When I have voted for this treaty, I
abolish all nuclear testing except that de- can say to my children, "I have tried to
signed for peaceful,and necessary pur- give you a world in which you will not
poses under international supervision. be poisoned by the silent, insidious
Each of us has much, to gain from the re- hazards of nuclear fallout"; I can say
which I believe lays the issue very
squarely before the Senate. The Sena-
tor has performed a magnificent service
in doing so.
Mr. MUSKIE. I am grateful to my
majority leader.
COMMITTEE MEETING DURING SEN-
ATE SESSIONS ON THURSDAY AND
FRIDAY
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I
have cleared the request I am about to
make with the distinguished minority
leader, the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DIRKS#N], and the distinguished Senator
from South Carolina [Mr. JOHNSTON].
I ask unanimous consent that the Sub-
committee on Manpower and Employ-
ment be authorized to meet on Thursday
and Friday mornings, to take testimony
on unemployment problems during the
sessions of the Senate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. With-
out objection, it Is so ordered.
MESSAGE FROM THE HOUSE
A message from the House of Repre-
sentatives, by Mr. Hackney, one of its
reading clerks, announced that the
House had passed the following bills, in
which it requested the concurrence of
the Senate:
H.R. 4505. An act to confer jurisdiction on
the Court of Claims to entertain, hear, and
determine a motion for a new trial on the
claim of Robert Alexander;
H.R. 8009. An act to amend title 38, United
States Code, to provide certain veterans with
urgently needed nursing home care and nurs-
ing care facilities while reducing the cost to
the United States of caring for such veter-
ans, and for other purposes;
H.R.8100. An act to amend the Railroad
Retirement Act of 1937, the Railroad Retire-
ment Tax Act, the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act, and the Temporary Extended
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Benefits
Act of 1961 to increase the creditable and
taxable compensation, and for other pur-
poses; and
H.R.8200. An act to further amend the
Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as
amended, to provide for shelter in Federal
structures, to authorize payment toward the
construction or modification of approved
public shelter space, and for other purposes.
ENROLLED BILL SIGNED
The message also announced that the
Speaker had affixed his signature to the
enrolled bill (S. 1952) to extend and
broaden the authority to insure mort-
gages under sections 809 and 810 of the
National Housing Act, and it was signed
by the President pro tempore.
auction of the hazards of radioactive to my constituents, "I have voted for HOUSE BILLS REFERRED
fallout. We?.live in the same world; we this treaty because it is a sensible step The following bills were severally read
breathe the same air; we are all human toward a rational world"; I can say to twice by their titles, and referred, as in-
beings. Each of us has much to gain the critics of this treaty, "I have faith dicated:
from Inhibiting of the arms race. The in the strength of America, in its Institu- H.R. 4505. An act to confer jurisdiction
search for security through better weap- tions, in its leadership, and in the wis- on the Court of Claims to entertain, hear,
ons, In this age, leads to greater tension, dom of acting with your eyes open and and determine a motion for a_ new trial on
not INS. .F,+ach step leads us closer to the your feet on the ground." the claim of Robert Alexander; to the Com-
point where we go beyond the.balance of Mr. /+'MANSFIELD. Mr. President, I mittee on the Judiciary.
H
R
8009
A
terror a
t t
t
d
.
.
.
n ac
n
o amend title 38, United
en
er an area where any step Comm,d the Senator from Maine for a
States Code, to provide certain veterans with
IS fatal, not to one, .but both; not to most moving speech, in which the Sena- urgently needed nursing home care and nurs-
. ..
Further each of us ha
f
some. but to all
h
s
or
.
as
Approved For Release 2004/011 GIA-RDP65E300383R000100210008=2
Approved For R2Iease 2004/03/11-: C1A-RDP65B003a3R000100210008-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE
 16526
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD SENATE September 18
to the United States of caring for such vet-
erans, and for other purposes; and
H.R.8106. An act to amend the Railroad-
Retirement Act of 1937, the Railroad Retire-
ment Tax Act, the Railroad Unemployment
Insurance Act, and the Temporary Extended
Railroad Unemployment Insurance Benefits
Act of 1961 to increase the creditable and
taxable compensation, and fqr other pur-
poses; to the Committee on Labor and Pub-
lic 'Welfare.
H .R. 8200. An act to further amend the
Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amend-
ed, to provide for shelter in Federal struc-
tures, to authorize payment toward the con-
struction or modification of approved public
shelter space, and for other purposes; to the
Committee on Armed Services.
THE NUCLEAR TEST BAN TREATY
The Senate resumed the consideration
of Executive M (88th Cong., 1st sess.),
the4reaty banning nuclear weapon tests
in the atmosphere, in outer space, and
underwater.
MODIFICATION OF 't7NANIMOUS AGREEMENT'
Mr. MANSFIELD. Mr. President,
again with the concurrence' of the dis-
tinguished minority leader, "the' Senator
from Illinois [Mr. DIRKSEN] and also the
distinguished Senator from Nebraska
[Mi. CunTIsI, f wish to propound a unan-
imous-consent request for a change-in
the unanimous-consent agreement al-
ready entered.
I.ask unanimous consent that on Tues-
day morning, instead of meeting at 10:30
a.fm and voting on the resolution of rati-
fication at 11 a.m., the Senate meet at
10 a.m., and 'vote on the resolution at
10:20.
'he PRESIDING OF'F'ICER. Is there
objection?
141r. GORE. Mr. President, reserving
the right to object-and I shall not bb-
j eet-I should like, first, to congratulate
the Senator, upon his facility in reach-
ing an agreement. However, if there is
to be a yea-and-nay vote on the Gold-
water reservation, I was hoping that the
vote could be postponed until Tuesday
morning also. Is that not possible?
Mr. MANSFIELD. 'I plead with the
Senator:
Mr. GORE. I withdraw the reserva-
tion of objection.
The PRESIDING OPFIC R. Is there
objection to the request of the Senator
from Montana? The Chair hears none;
and it Is so ordered.
Mr. GORE. Mr. President, during'the
c4larse of the debate yesterday with the
distinguished senior Senator from Geor-
gia [Mr. RUSSELL], I"made the f oilowiiag
statement which appears on page 16275
nt?tha fx.ECnunc
tim-Ily
The fact is that the Soviets have never control fiver an ugremiiens u, u ueLg ~u~ seems to me, Mr. President, that time
at any time agreed to accept"a single mean- nuclear test ban would be the national It
has come now e put an end once and time for
Union onsite inspection within the Soviet means of detection. all to nuclear tests, to draw a line through
Union. Not an international means, but a such tests. The moment for this is very,
There was some discussion about the national means. very appropriate. Left behind is a period
accuracy of my statement. I suggested Would the Russians decide whether an of utmost acuteness and tension in the
that I would search the records and, inspection was necessary? Under their Caribbean. Now we have united our hands
make a statement today with respect to insistence at the time the chairman to engage closely in other urgent interna-
it, wrote the letter, that would be for them tional matters and, in particular, in such a
problem which has been ripe for so long as
I have before me a copy of the letter to decide. It would be a matter of invi- cessation of nuclear tests.
which Chairman Khrushchev wrote to tation, not a mater of right by a party A certain ,relaxation of international ten-
President Kennedy on December 10, to the agreement, and not a matter of sion which has emerged now should, in my
1462, which I shall ask to have printed right by an international agency. view, facilitate this.
in the RECORD. I should like to read a We had not been able to reach any The Soviet Union does not need war. I
paragraph of the letter, and then I shall agreement whatsoever on the budget for think that war does not promise bright pros-
domment upon tkat paragraph: the inspection teams. We had been un- pects for the United States either. If in the
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
We took all this into account and, in order able to reach any agreement as to who
to overcome the deadlock and to arrive at would provide the money, as to who
last at a mutually acceptable agreement, we would pay the expenses, as to who would
would agree, in those cases when it would buy the equipment, and in what
be considered necessary, to two to three in-
spections a year on the territory of each of amounts; or who would have authority
the nuclear powers in the seismic areas where to employ mernbers of the inspection
some suspicious earth's tremors might cc- teams, to dispatch them, and to exer-
cur. It goes without saying that the basis cise administrative control.,
of control over an agreement on under- We had not been able to reach a spe-
ground nuclear test ban would be the na- ciflc agreement with the Soviets in any
tional means of detection in comhcnatiion respect whatsoever as to the right of
with automatic seismic stations. Onsite in- free access to an area where a suspicious
spections could be carried on with tlis pre-
cautions mentioned Ambaf event might occur. Indeed, as I shall
cautions
against pre-
any y misuse of control for pr purposes Dean point out, Chairman Khrushchev in his
r
of espionage. - letter excluded vast areas of the Soviet
Union. I advert again to his letter:
It was this letter which gave rise to In the seismic areas where some suspicious
the impression, widely held in the United earth tremors might occur.
States and throughout the world, that
Mr. Khrushchev had agreed to permit The United States had been insisting
two or three onsite inspections in the that an underground explosion could be
Soviet Union. If we examine the pa:ra- attained in nonseismic areas, as well as
graph carefully-as I propose to do--we in seismic areas.
find that again something appears in A careful reading of Chairman Khru-
form at first glance, but, when examined shchev's letter in the light of the posi-
carefully, is found to be without sub- tions which the Soviets were taking at
l l th t t1-
b
stance.
At the time Chairman Khrushchev
t been able: to
h
d
h
l
tt
w
no
a
er we
rote t
e
e
, reach an agreement with the Soviets as
to what kind of inspection, if any,
should be made. We had not been able
to reach any agreement with the Soviets
as to who should make the Inspection.
The Soviets were insisting upon national
inspection, upon self-inspection. We
had not been able to reach an agreement
with them about what kind of an inspec-
tion team would be used; about the
makeup of the inspection team-so many
seismologists, so inany chemists, so many
nuclear experts, so many Russians;, so
many Americans, so many international
representatives, and so on. We had not
been able, even, to reach an agreement
th'it the team would be allowed to have a
e reveas a
the conference ta
letter does not in fact represent an agree-
ment to accept a single meaningful on-
site inspection In the Soviet Union.
I am fully prepared to reassert the
statement I made yesterday, that the
Soviets have rot proposed, and did not
at any time propose, or agree to accept,
or permit, a single meaningful onsite
inspection in the Soviet Union.
This is not a major question in the
debate on the treaty. So far as I know,
it is not even at issue. Since it arose in
a colloquy between the distinguished and
able senior Senator from Georgia and
me, I agreed to search the annals of the
'rflany conferences and determine
whether the facts were as I believed them
to be and present the facts to the Sen-
ate in the in serest of accuracy of the
record-
Geiger counter or any other instruments. Before expressing some general views
it had never been made clear through
agreement as to the right of the United 'on the pending treaty, I ask unanimous
States or of an international agency to consent that Chairman Khrushchev's
make an inspection. The Soviets in- letter to President Kennedy of December
sisted inspection could be conducted on 19, 1962, President Kennedy's reply of
Soviet territory only upon the invitation December 28, 1962, and Khrushchev's
of the Soviets. letter of January 7, 1963, may be printed
I revert to the Chairman's letter: in the RECORD at this point.
We would agree, In those cases when it There being no objection, the letters
would be considered'. necessary, to two- to were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,
three inspections a year. as follows:
NOTE FROM KnSUsi'iC73EV To PRESIDENT KEN-
Who would decide when it was noes- NEDT--DECEMBER 19, 1962
sa,fy? The Russians were iris Sting that In our recent correspondence related to
they would decide When it was necessary; the events in the Caribbean area we have
,and that the inspection would be niade touched on the question of cessation of nit-
upon their invitation. clear weapon tests. Today I would like to
By whom? I refer again to the para- come back again to that problem and to set
graph in the letter : forth my views concerning possible ways of
ould be mu-
hi
h
i
c
w
on w
It goes without sa`Ving that the basis of its speediest solut
to both our sides.
 1 968 C6K6kESSIRNA.L RECORD.- SENATE 16527
past after every war America used to in- also, having taken, If necessary, precau-
creasg its economic potential andto accumu- tionary measures against use of such trips DECEMBER 28, 19o r
late more and more, wealth, now war with for reconnaissance. Thus our proposal on DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: D I was very glad to et-
the use of modern ,rocket-nuclear weapons automatic seismic stations includes elements ceive your letter of December 19, 1962, set-
will stride across _seas and, oceans within of international control. This is a major ting forth your views on nuclear tests.
minutes.. Thermonpciear catastrophe will act of good will on the part of the Soviet There appear to be no differences between
bring enormous losses and sufferings to the Union. your views and mine regarding the need for
American people as well as to other peoples I will tell you straightforwardly that be.. eliminating war in this nuclear age, Per-
on earth. To prevent this we must, on the fore making this proposal I have consulted haps only those who have the responsibility
basis of complete equality and with just re- thoroughly the specialists and after such for controlling these weapons fully realize
gard for each other's interests, develop be- consultation my colleagues in the Govern- the awful devastation their use would bring.
tween ourselves peaceful relations and solve ment and I came to a conclusion that so far Having these considerations in mind and
all issues through negotiations and mutual as the Soviet Union is concerned the above- with respect to the issue of a test ban, I
concessions, said considerations on the measures on our therefore sincerely hope that the suggestions
One of such questions with which the Part are well founded and, it seems to us, that you have made in your letter will prove
governments of our countries have been deal- they should not cause objections on the part to be helpful in starting us down the road
lug for many years is the question of con- of the American side. to an agreement. I am encouraged that you
cluding a treaty banning all tests of nuclear You, Mr. President, and your representa- are prepared to accept the principle of onsite
weapons. tlves point out that without at least a mini- inspections. These seem to me to be essen-
Both of us stand on the same position mum number of onsite inspections you will tial not just because of the concern of our
With regard to the fact that national means not manage to persuade the U.S. Senate to Congress but because they seem to us to go
of detection are sufficient to control banning ratify an agreement on the cessation of tests. to the heart of a reliable agreement ending
experimental nuclear explosions in outer This circumstance, as we understand, ties nuclear testing.
space, in the atmosphere, and underwater. You and does not allow you to sign a treaty If we are to have peace between systems
So far, however, we have not succeeded in which would enable all of us to abandon with far-reaching ideological differences, we
finding a mutually acceptable solution to for good the grounds where nuclear weapons must find ways for reducing or removing the
the problem of cessation of underground are tested. Well, if this is the only difficulty recurring waves of fear and suspicion which
tests. The main Obstacle to an agreement on the way to agreement, then for the noble feed on ignorance, misunderstanding or what
is the demand by the American side of inter- and humane goal of ceasing nuclear weapon appear to one side or the other as broken
national control and inspection on the terra- tests we are ready to meet you halfway in agreements. To me, the element of assur-
tories of nuclear powers over cessation of this question, once is vital to the broader development of
underground nuclear tests. I would like to We noted that on this October 30, in con- peaceful relationships.
believe that you yourself understand the versation with First Deputy Foreign Min- With respect to the question of onsite
tional means. are sufficient to control also York, your representative Ambassador Dean
this kind of tests and be sure that . agree- stated that, in the opinion of the U.S. Gov-
ment is observed by any side. But so far ernment, it would be sufficient to carry on
you do not want to recognize openly this 2-4 'onsite inspection each year on the ter-
dctue,l.state of things and to accept it as ritory 'of the Soviet Union. According to
a basis for, concluding without delay an Ambassador Dean's statement, the United
agreement on cessation of tests. States would also be prepared to work out
!Striving to find a mutually acceptable measures which would rule out any possi-
basis for agreement the . Soviet Union has bility of carrying on espionage under the
made lately an important step toward the cover of these inspection trips including such
West and agreed to installing automatic measures as the use of Soviet planes piloted
seismic stations. This idea, as is known, by Soviet crews for transportation of in-
was put forward not by us. It was intro- spectors to the sites, screening of windows
duced by British scientists during the recent in the planes, prohibition to carry photo-
meeting in London of the participants of cameras, and en forth.
Pugwash movement. Moreover, it is well We took all this into account and, in order
known to us that when this idea was pro- to overcome the deadlock and to arrive at
posed, it was not alien to your scientists last at a mutually acceptable agreement, we
who were in London at that time. would agree, in those cases when it would
We proposed to install such stations both be considered necessary, to 2-3 inspections a
near .the borders of nuclear powers and di- year on the territory of each of the nuclear
rectl
t
i
y on
he
r territories... We stated of our powers in the seismic areas where some sus-
agreement that three such stations be ,n_ picious earth's tremors might occur. It goes
earthquakes, There-are- three such zones in
the Soviet Union where these stations can
be installed: central Asian, Altaian and far
eastern.
In the Opinion of Soviet scientists the
most suitable places for locating automatic
Seismic stations in the Soviet Union are area
of the city of Kokchetav for central Asian
zone of the U.S.S.R., area of the city of
Bodalbo ,for Altaian zone and area of the.
city of Yakutsk for far eastern zone. How-
ever, should, as a result of exchange of
opinion between our representatives, other
places be suggested for locating automatic
seismic stations in these seismic zones, we
will be ready to discuss this question and
find mutually acceptable solution.
Beside the above said zones there are two
more seismic zones in the Soviet Union-
Caucasian and Carpathian. However these
coma accept any reasonable provision which
you had in mind to protect against your
concern that the onsite inspectors might
engage in "espionage" enroute to the area
of inspection. In a statement at the United
Nations, Ambassador Stevenson suggested
that the United States would accept any rea-
sonable security provision while the inspec-
tors were being taken to the site, so long
as they had reasonable provision for satisfy-
ing themselves that they were actually at the
intended location and had the freedom nec-
essary to inspect the limited designated area.
With respect to the number of onsite in-
spections there appears to have been some
misunderstanding. Your impression seems
to be that Ambassador Dean told Deputy
Minister Kuznetsov that the United States
might be prepared to accept an annual num-
ber of onsite inspections between 2 and 4.
Ambassador Dean advises me that the only
number which he mentioned in his discus-
sions with Deputy Minister Kuznetsov was
an agreement on underground nuclear test ?f the u suosd ate decrease in the request
ban would be the national means of detec- of the United States as we had previously
tion in combination with automatic seismic aen insisting upon a number between 12 20.
Union
the
hoped stations. Onsite inspections could be carried would match I had this motion motion that the Soviet o f
t part of the
on with the precautions mentioned by Am- United States an equivalent the
bassador Dean against any misuse of cntrol the figure of 2 or 3 onsite Inspec motion in
for purposes of espionage. had some time ago it it which
We believe that now the road to agree- allow. go indicated might
ment is straight and clear. Beginning from al.
given this matter d on-site in-
January 1 of the new year of 1963 the world spections aware has that
can be relieved of the roar of nuclear explo- culty a you cre that I diffi-
can although I am not sure tt I fully
sioris. The peoples are waiting for this, this understand why this should be so. To me,
is what the U.N. General Assembly has called an effective nuclear test ban treaty is of
for. With the elimination of the Cuban crisis such importance that I would not permit
we relieved mankind of the direct menace such international arrangements to become
of combat use of lethal nuclear weapons that mixed up with our or any other national
impended over the world. Can't we solve, desire to seek other types of information
a far simpler question-that of cessation of about the Soviet Union. I believe quite
experimental explosions of nuclear weapons sincerely that arrangements could be worked
in the peaceful conditions? I think that we out which would convince you and your col-
ca., and m??+ d
it v--- .,_- --_
o
ducting nuclear tests there is peoples or not only our countries But in this connection, your implication
ductided practically but of all other countries._ Having solved that on-site inspections should be limited to
Of. course,,delivery to and from interns- all alsorecondthis
ionsufori that-wet shall be seismic areas also gives us some difficulty.
tional center of appropriate sealed equip- able to facilitate working out an agreement It is true that i concern the ordinary course wg
e
anent .for its periodic replacement at auto- on disarmament and with even more con- Would have coseismic a reas. about weer taking in the un-
matic seismic stations in the U.S.S.R. could fidence proceed with solving other urgent identified seismievent coming from an area
well be made by Soviet personnel and on international problems, which we and you in which there are not usually earthquakes
Soviet planes. However if for such delivery unfortunately are not short of
sonnel'were needed we would agree to this DECEMBER 19, 1962.
No, 148-13
United States would feel that in such a cir-
cumstance the U.S.S.R. would be entitled to
.an on-site inspection of such an event occur-
Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008?2
 Approved For Release 2004/03/11 : CIA-RDP65B00383R000100210008-2
16528 Septemb`er 18
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SE* ATE
ment
ring in out area and. feels tn..t the United testa. We note your agree that instal- territories adjacent to the seismic zones in -cm
Pakistan
kaido,
ations
wil States should have the same rights within rove useful automatic ismic
nt of- of in- athe nd. Afghanistan, naturally with the con sent
its annual quota of inspections. u p P
Perhaps your tomment nt would be that a creasing the effectiveness of control over of respective governments.
seismic event in another area designated for cessation of underground nuclear explosions. The Soviet Government has named definite
inspection'mlght coincide with a highly sen- During the Geneva talks it was justly ob- areas for the location of automatic seismic
sitive defense installation: i recognize this served, also by your representatives, that in- stations on the territory of the U.S.S.R.
as a real problem but believe that some ar- stallation of such seismic stations would Moreover, Mr. President, taking into account
rangement can be worked out which would serve as good means of verifying the correct- your wishes we agree to relocate two stations
prevent this unlikely contingency from erect- ness of functioning of national smic eta- the n ore places. your We are sideentitled tot expect
ing Your Insuperable obstacle. tions. It is precisely by that also
Y.