COMPELLING ARGUMENTS FOR THE ABM

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100064-4
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 2
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 12, 2006
• Sequence Number: 64
• Publication Date: August 28, 1967
• Content Type: OPEN

August 28, 19~pproved For&% R%SSIO . L RECORD-HOUSE PR000300100064-4 1111365
cient management have enabled Memo-
rial to lower the administration's share of
total costs from 14 to 10 percent in the
past 7 years.
To deploy the latest weapons of tech-
nology against inflation, Memorial Hos-
ptial of Long Beach this year purchased
a recently developed Control Data Corp.
computer system with several firsts for
American hospitals. With wages and
salaries accounting for approximately
70 percent of hospital costs and Increased
demands for hospital services requiring
more and more manpower, Memorial
looks to the computer to free personnel
from routine paperwork and to help
meet the demands of a larger hospital
without corresponding increases in the
number of employees. Not only will the
computer system help hold down costs, it
also will be used to speed hospital ad-
missions, reduce waiting time of patients
for test results, provide substantial sav-
ings in time for physicians and aid in
medical research.
In yet another frontal attack on costs,
Memorial has been a pace setter in using
larger nursing units with central nurs-
ing core stations. The hospital achieved
a lump sum savings of $160,000 on space
and equipment in this manner and an-
nual savings in clerical costs is running
$75,000 and in the time of nursing and
other professional personnel, $50,000.
Memorial's nursing units of 100-plus
beds off central nursing core stations is
credited with assuring optimal care for
patients and making better use of scarce
registered nurses. In addition, it saves
time for physicians visiting their pa-
tients in the hospital or checking with
nurses.
Another savings of $50,000 per year is
being made as Memorial handles its own
workmen's compensation insurance pro-
grain on a self insurance basis.
Memorial, one of the innovators among
American hospitals in utilizing life in-
come and annuity programs so success-
fully employed by colleges over the years,
has raised more than $1.5 million in con=
tributions since 1960 to pay for needed
equipment and facilities. This reduces
the necessity of raising patient charges
to pay for these needs.
A 25-percent reduction in charges for
advanced care patients was among the
savings effected when Memorial last
year built a special new unit to speed
the recovery of those not acutely ill so
that they can return to normal activi-
ties with a shorter period of hospitaliza-
tion. The 86-bed unit also freed that
many acute care beds in the main hospi-
tal. This was not false economy: even
though the accommodations in the new
unit are like those in a fine hotel-car-
pets, cultured marble sinks, bright decor,
landscaped courtyard with heated walks,
tiled private showers, lounge with color
TV, in-room coffee-the hospital is able
to change 25-percent less because the
patients are encouraged to be self-suffi-
cient which speeds their rehabilitation.
Shorter stays in the hospital both save
money for patients and free beds for peo- -
ple who require acute care. The phy-
sicians on the Memorial Hospital medi-
cal staff have been concerned that pa-
tients who no longer need hospitalization
are discharged. And the committee of
physicians that reviews bed utilization
in the hospital has been effective In dis-
couraging needless short-term stays for
diagnostic purposes.
The costs of providing services at Me-
morial Hospital of Long Beach, as a di-
rect result of such efforts and programs
as I have described, run 15 to 20 percent
lower than the norm for the Long Beach-
Los Angeles metropolitan area. Much of
these savings help the hospital buy the
newest medical equipment and provide
for new facilities to meet public demand.
The savings also pay the costs of an ex-
tensive medical education program-
more than $600,000 per year.
The savings and contributions have
gone into $5 million worth of capital ex-
penditures over the past 7 years. And
just to provide for new and expanded
services, not including pay raises, the
hospital has had to increase its payroll
by $2.5 million and its supply orders by
$1 million since 1960.
During the same period, wages and
salaries, particularly for nursing person-
nel, have increased drastically. The
range for nurses 7 years ago was $330
to $390. Today it is $570 to $693.
Costs of supplies, equipment, and con-
struction have also climbed and placed
increasing pressure on hospitals.
Memorial and other hospitals are hav-
ing to replace equipment which becomes
obsolete before it has a chance to wear
out. Memorial and other hospitals have
to rebuild facilities to comply with safe-
ty standards and because they are old.
One of the greatest sources of pres-
sure on hospital costs these days is the
need to expand and meet increased pub-
lic demand for hospitalization. It is not
just normal population increases but also
increased usage of hospitals by the pub-
lic generally and sharply rising usage of
hospitals by medicare and other Govern-
ment aid recipients.
It is ironic that Memorial and other
efficient and economic hospitals are hard-
est hit by the medicare formula which
instead of fostering efficiency and econ-
omy tend to reward those facilities that
operate Less economically and have rela-
tively higher costs. Medicare's reimburse-
ment formula, providing what medicare
considers the costs of hospitals plus 2
percent-often less than actual costs-
does not provide for keeping up with
technological advances, providing new
and additional services as they are de-
veloped, replacing inadequate facilities
or establishing new ones. As a result, if
the formula is not revised to the realistic
and accepted basis of paying billed
charges, medicare threatens to contribute
heavily to inflation in the costs of hos-
pitalization and possibly to the deteriora-
tion of the quality of care given the pub-
lic.
Another governmental contribution to
rising costs at hospitals is the paperwork
necessitated by medicare's complex and
detailed rules. Memorial Hospital of Long
Beach informs me that the average medi-
care bill takes 21/2 times more work and
time to process than that of the average
insurance-covered patient and since
medicare went into effect they have had
to add five extra employees to the billing
department alone.
Yet, despite these pressures, Memorial
continues to do an excellent job of hold-
ing the line against inflation.
I credit the board of directors for sound
policy decisions leading to lowered costs.
The business and medical leaders who
serve on this board have given ample
testimony through their actions to the
progress that can only be made under
local control.
I credit the physicians of the Long
Beach community who have given the
hospital's cost savings efforts their sup-
port and cooperation and who have done
so much to make Memorial one of the
finest community medical centers in the
country.
I credit the forward-looking and able
management of the hospital for the im-
plementation of programs to keep costs
down while improving quality of care.
I credit the employees of Memorial
Hospital who have been on the firing line
in helping bring these goals to fruition.
And I hold the efforts of these men and
women up as a model of the best being
accomplished by our hospitals and as a
prototype of what we should look for in
the hospitals of today and tomorrow.
I think that Mr. Harry C. Hachmeister,
the chairman of the board of directors
of Memorial Hospital of Long Beach,
spoke for all hospitals when he recently
said:
The chief responsibility of this hospital's
board of directors is to assure the best quality
of hospital care to the citizens of the area
and to keep fully abreast of developments in
medical science while -conserving every pos-
sible penny. J I , ,
COMPELLING ARGUMENTS FOR
THE ABM
(Mr. HOSMER (at the request of Mr.
GROSS) was granted permission to extend
his remarks at this point in the RECORD
and to include extraneous matter.)
Mr. HOSMER. Mr. Speaker, with pre-
cise and powerful logic the American
Security Council's Washington Report
for August 21 raises new and restates
familiar arguments in favor of. deploying
a U.S. antiballistic missile defense. The
report, written by the highly respected
strategy analyst, Dr. James D. Atkinson,
follows:
COUNTER-DETERRENCE AND THE ABM
(By Dr. James D. Atkinson)
That trenchant observer of the American
scene, Will Rogers, once observed that in the
field of disarmament Americans had a ten-
dency to scrap battleships while their op-
ponents tore up blueprints. Something of
this American tendency of an almost ex-
tremist goodwill is in evidence today with
reference to the question of anti-ballistic
missile defense. We talk and talk in the hope
that we can persuade the Soviet Union to
dismantle its present anti-ballistic missile
system and to refrain from going ahead with
further missile defenses. The Soviets stall
in the negotiations while continuing to build
and deploy their ABMs.
SOVIET CAPABILITIES AND INTENTIONS
The recent study prepared by a special sub-
committee of the National Strategy Com-
mittee of the American Security Council
entitled The Changing Strategic Military Bal-
ance: U.S.A. vs. U.S.S.R. has stated that "the
preponderance of evidence points to the con-
clusion that the Soviet Union is succeeding
in its massive drive toward strategic military
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100064-4
 H 11366
Approved For CONGRESSIONAL RE ORD 70 HOUSE 0003001000 #st 28, 1967
superiority . . . (and that) the year 1967
falls in a crossover period with the U.S.S.R.
estimates ranging between 113,000 and 37,000
(deliverable) megatons, to equal or exceed
the U.S. estimated range of between 8,000 and
29,000 (deliverable) megatons." This study,
with its graphic documentation of the So-
viet thrust for military-technological superi-
ority, has received, and continues to receive,
widespread attention from leading editors
and authorities in both the daily and the
periodical press. The New York Times, for
example,. in a front page story on July 12,
1967, stated that ". . . the Defense Depart-
ment did not directly contradict the study's
findings, but argued that deliverable mega-
tonnage was not an accurate indicator of
'true military capability'."
It has been argued in some quarters in the
West, however, that Soviet capabilities as
illustrated by the Soviet deployment of an
ABM system need not be a cause for alarm
since Soviet intentions are peaceful and the
Cold Wax is, in fact, over.
But are the Soviet leaders mellowing? Un-
fortunately, the most recent evidence would
appear to indicate that storm flags are flying
in the Kremlin.. Some storm signals are:
(1) The official pronouncement of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union issued
June 25, 1967, in a summary of 50 years of
Bolshevism. It stated that, "The domination
of imperialism on the world scene has ended"
because of the growth of Soviet military
power. The statement also singled out the
United States as the "main enemy" of the
national liberation warfare movement and
charged the state of Israel with aggression.
(2) Appointing (for the first time since
Beria's execution in. 1953) the Soviet secret
police chief a member of the ruling Polit-
buro. This is Yuri Andropov, whose promotion
was announced June 22, 1961. Since the KGB
(the Soviet secret police) have vast responsi-
bilities for waging unconventional warfare
around the world, it would appear that giving
Andropov such power indicates stepped-up
Cold War operations.
(3) Writing in the official Soviet Armed
Forces newspaper, Fred Star, on June 3, 1967,
Bulgarian Minister of Defense, General of the
Army Dobri Dzhurov said: "The Soviet Union
hat always been and will continue to be the
main political and material 'base of the world
revolutionary process." The general also went
on to say that "The Soviet Union constitutes
the main support of fighting Vietnam."
(4) Soviet escalation of the Vietnam war
is another example of the Soviet's true inten-
tions. Soviet shipping going into North Viet-
namese ports has shown a marked increase
this year over 1966. As of June 1967 the rate
was eighteen per month with an additional
2 to 5 Soviet Satellite ships per month. In-
dioative of this escalation is the Moscow
Radio broadcast of July 28 which stated that
Soviet ships "leave Odessa practically every
day with cargoes for Vietnam."
(5) The recent hard-line in the Soviet
press which continually attacks Israel,
"Zionism," and the United States. In report-
ing this trend from Moscow. the Washington
Post of August 8, 1967 stated that the press
campaign was one which "to some senior
diplomats here recall the worst days of the
Cold War."
These indicators of increasingly "stormy
cold war weather" indicate that Soviet strate-
gists understand quite well that revolution-
ary agitation and propaganda, "peace march-
ers" in London and New York, guerrillas in
Africa and Latin America are techniques of
conflict on a par with guided missiles and
nuclear submarines. But does it follow that
these same Soviet strategists are unaware of
the possibilities for nuclear blackmail of the
West in the event that they attain strategic
military-technological superiority? Indeed,
one may well ask whether the present U.S.
limitation on air strikes against military tar-
gets in North Viet Nam result from the steady
accretion of Soviet military-technological
power?
CHINESE COMMUNIST NUCLEAR WEAPONS
DEVELOPMENT
Even if it were possible to disregard the
evidence of the Soviet deployment of an ABM
system or systems and the counter-deterrence
which this poses to the announced US. pol-
icy of deterrence, it would be still more diffi-
cult to close our minds to the ominous devel-
opments in China.
The Chinese Communists exploded their
first H-bomb on June 17, 1967. It was appar-
ently a sophisticated implosion type in the
two-to-seven megaton range. The compli-
cated electronic triggering and measuring de-
vices that would appear to have been re-
quired, in this and other nuclear tests. would
be of great assistance to the Chinese in
this and other nuclear tests, would be of
great assistance to the Chinese in building an
intercontinental missile. Since the Chinese
progress in nuclear weapons development has
been faster and more effective than had been
anticipated by Western sources, it inay be
that they will also develop a nuclear ICBM
delivery capability sooner than the mid-
1970's, which is the time phase previously es-
timated by Western sources. Moreover, the
Chinese now possess the design capabil-
ity for a multi-megaton thermonuclear
weapon which can be delivered by aircraft.
The possibUtties of the Chinese Commu-
nists exercising nuclear blackmail against
Southeast Asian countries, Japan, or, indeed,
against the United States are underscored in
a report released August 3, 1967, by the joint
Congressional Committee on Atomic Energy.
The Committee said: "We believe that the
Chinese will continue to place a high priority
on thermonuclear weapons development.
With continued testing we believe they will
be able to develop a thermonuclear warhead
in the ICBM weight class with a yield in
the megaton range by about 1970. We believe
that the Chinese can have an ICBM system
ready for deployment in the early 1970's. On
the basis of cur present knowledge, we be-
lieve that the Chinese probably will achieve
an operational ICBM capability before 1972.
Conceivably, it could be ready as early as
1970-1971."
The Joint Committee then went on to
sound a warning about the direct threat to
U.S. national security posed by Chinese Com-
munist nuclear weapons developments by
pointing out that "Most significant for the
United States is the fact that a low Order
of magnitude attack could :possibly be
launched by the Chinese Communists
against the United States by the early 1970's.
At present we do not have an effective anti-
ballistic-missi:.e system which could repel
such a suicidal (for the Chinese) but never-
theless possible strike."
THE STABILIZING VALUE OF A U.S. ABM SYSTEM
In the final analysis, the value of a system
of deterrence is that which the enemy be-
lieves about it. If the Soviets believe that
the U.S. deterrent offensive force can be neu-
tralized by their ABM systems to a point at
which the Soviet war-making capability will
sustain only an acceptable level of damage
(and, of course, their acceptable level may he
much higher than ours), then they have
achieved a counter-deterrence posture which
may lead them to risk-at a given crisis in
international relations-a nuclear war.
Equally, if at some future point the Chi-
nese Communists should believe (in the ab-
sence of a U.S. ABM system) that there is
somewhat more of a "suicidal" element for
the United States than for them in a nu-
clear war, they might, in a given confronta-
tion, launch a surprise nuclear attack on
America.
The evidence of the post-World War II
period suggests that it has been the stabiliz-
ing factor of U.S. military-techlcolegirsl
power which has prevented a general war.
Today, under the impact of both the Soviet
and Chinese Communist military-technologi-
cal thrust, that stability appears to he
threatened. Would the production and de-
ployment of a U.S. ABM system-perhaps
even on a crash basis as a clear demonstra-
tion of credibility--have a definite stabilizing
value on world politics? That it might well do
so is indicated by the thoughtful and care-
fully measured words of the Senate Appropri-
ations Committee.: In. reporting on the De-
fense Department Appropriation Bill for fis-
cal 1968 (August 4, 1967), the Committee
said: ":It is the view of the Committee that
the deployment of the NIKE-X antiballistic
missile system should be initiated immedi-
ately, and the Committee urges the executive
branch of the Government to take action
accordingly."
DEVELOPING THE C. & O. CANAL
(Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland (at the
request of Mr. GROSS) was granted per-
mission to extend his remarks at this
point in tine RECORD and to include ex-
traneous matter.)
Mr. MATHIAS of Maryland. Mr.
Speaker, an increasing number of fam-
ilies and individuals are discovering the
attractions of the Chesapeake and Ohio
Canal. This historic waterway, which
stretches along the Potomac from
Georgetown to Cumberland, 185 miles
upstream, is not in entirely good repair,
but still offers unlimited opportunities
for hikers, bikers, riders, fishermen and
campers. A trip along the C. & O. Canal
is a journey through some of the most
striking scenery in 'Ihe East, and through
a very vital segment of American his-
tory.
One of the latest discoverers of the
canal is Mr. David Bird, who recently
cycled the entire length of the canal
from Cumberland to Washington. Mr.
Bird summarized his trip, and the many
and varied features of the canal, in an
interesting article in the travel section of
the New York Times on August 27.
The current pleasures of canal ex-
ploration, as outlined by Mr. Bird, can
only hint to us the joys which will be
available when the canal has been fully
developed and extensively restored. A
relatively small. investment, as recom-
mended in my bill (H.R. 7201), could
make the canal not only a tremendous
recreational asset in its own right, but
also the backbone of future development
and conservation of the Potomac River.
Restoration of the Paw Paw Tunnel has
shown us what can be done, and I deep-
ly regret that the Interior Department
has let another summer. slip away with-
out making a more extensive commit-
ment to canal development.
I include in the RECORD, for the infor-
mation of my colleagues, Mr. Bird's arti-
cle, and two discussions of the canal's
potential, an editorial from the Hagers-
town Morning Herald of July 8, and an
article by Mr. Nelson I. Willingham, Jr.,
from the Howard County Times of Au-
gust .f.
The material referred to follows:
[From the New York Times, Aug. 27, 19671
RETRACING THE TOWPATH ALONG THE OLD
C. &O.
(By David Bird)
CUMBERLAND, MD.--"It starts down there
someplace," the railroad crossing guard said
Approved For Release 2006/01/30 : CIA-RDP70B00338R000300100064-4